President Trump Reiterates His Demand for a Renegotiated Paris Agreement

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

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Mainstream Media demonstrating their lack of listening skills.

President Trump’s Paris U-turn: I’d love to rejoin climate change accord

By Piers Morgan For The Mail On Sunday

PUBLISHED: 10:31 AEDT, 28 January 2018 | UPDATED: 11:05 AEDT, 28 January 2018

President Trump caused outrage when he pulled America out of the Paris Accord on tackling climate change.

Last week, French President Emmanuel Macron said it was impossible for any country, including the US, to now try to renegotiate the terms.

But Trump told me he’d ‘love’ to go back in, if the deal can be renegotiated. ‘For you, is it about the science or about the money?’ I asked. ‘I think it’s about everything,’ Trump replied. ‘I’m a believer in clean air and clean water. The Paris Accord, for us, would have been a disaster.

‘Do you believe in climate change? Do you think it exists?’

‘There is a cooling and there’s a heating. I mean, look, it used to not be climate change, it used to be global warming. That wasn’t working too well because it was getting too cold all over the place.

‘The icecaps were going to melt, there were going to be gone by now, but now they’re setting records, OK? They’re at a record level. I’ll tell you what I believe in. I believe in clean air. I believe in crystal-clear, beautiful water. I believe in just having good cleanliness in all.

Read more:

How can Trump’s Paris renegotiation demand possibly be considered a “u-turn”? Trump has said since he announced the withdrawal from the Paris Agreement that he would consider re-entering the agreement on renegotiated terms.

Obviously it would be more satisfying for climate skeptics to see President Trump make a clean and final break with the Paris Agreement. However a re-entry on say the terms agreed by China and India (no action before 2030) would likely satisfy President Trump’s requirement, that international agreements do not put the USA at a competitive disadvantage.

189 thoughts on “President Trump Reiterates His Demand for a Renegotiated Paris Agreement

  1. Eric, you are right that this is not a U-turn. Re China and India, they are doing two things: 1 they are kicking the can down the road and utilizing the opportunity to get in some sound bite hits against the USA, and 2. they have no intention of ever doing anything that hurts their economy as both are low profit margin, but huge quantity, economies. Getting back into the Paris Agreement would give President Trump an opportunity to engineer a clean environment agreement, pass it by Congress, and let everyone else lose some talking points.

    • It always amazes me how many supposedly “smart” people cannot see what Trump is doing with these statements, even though it is so painfully obvious. First, remember that this Paris agreement is a complete fraud that in fact will do nothing, and that the only important part was where the US agreed to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to other countries to do whatever they want with.
      The one and only thing that matters in this agreement in any real world sense is that promise by the US to be a fountain of cash. Trump says he will never do this, and so he’s pulling out. He has said “Renegotiate” means that the US will not be handing out any more cash than anybody else does, but other than that he’ll agree to the rest.
      Trump can agree to ANYTHING – Trump can offer ANYTHING (except the money, which is what he will never offer) and he is guaranteed that the Euro’s and the rest of the world will shoot the proposal down – because just like Trump, they know that the only REAL part of this is the part about the money, and the rest is just a big, bad, PR joke. Trump is offereing them a deal they have to refuse – because to accept it would destroy all of their real world kleptocratic support.
      Trump is doing the same thing with the DACA negotiations – he offers the other side what they claim they want, because in fact they do NOT want that at all, they want things that will make them look bad if they admit them in public. The international Climatistas will never admit openly that this entire mess is all about extorting money from Uncle Sugar – and so now that Trump is offering them everything EXCEPT the money, they are turning him down, because that is the ONLY thing they really want, and they know it – just like Trump knows it.
      [Comment found and rescued. -mod]

    • ” when he pulled America out of the Paris Accord ”
      It’s not a U-turn because never actually DID ANYTHING to pull USA out, he only stated that he intended to. Not the same thing. So having misreported his previous position they can now state that his “new” position , which is just the same as his previous position, is a U-turn.

      That’s the way the lying FAKE NEWS media system works.

    • Paris with a re-entered Trump would not be Paris anymore for the hypocrite European climate-saviours, but Canossa.

    • It is not possible to re-negotiate Paris. The signatory nations would then open a veritable can of worms. Just imagine negotioations with Trump’s delegation who ask pertinent questions about the state of science behind Paris. It would be a huge advantage for sceptics. The whole charade of alarmism would risk being exposed.

    • BY 2030 China’s population will have stopped growing, so even by doing nothing after 2030, China’s CO2 emissions will stop increasing (and that’s all they’ve committed to do in deference to the gullible warming cause; to stop their emissions growing after 2030).
      In other words China has agreed to ‘do’ precisely three fifths of five eights of sweet FA and for that courageous promise, the gullible warming believers lead by Obummer have been queueing up to congratulate China for their environmental leadership.
      If this whole rock-show wasn’t such an appalling squander of OPM, it would make an excellent basis of a Monty-Python style slapstick comedy.

      • India’s population is almost equal to China’s now and in a few years will surpass China’s population. India may become a 2 billion person nation someday soon.
        In addition, India is a parliamentary democracy, their citizens enjoy freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of speech, etc. They can critisize their government without fear of being arrested, imprisoned and potentially executed.
        It makes me wonder why we do so much business with China, while India, an ally, is right next door.

      • China still has a very large population that still has a lot of ground to cover in terms of increased wealth and welfare. As these millions catch up with the urbanized rest, co2 emissions are very likely to go on rising.

      • China’s population may stop growing, but their economy won’t. China still has a lot of poor people who want a shot at a middle class lifestyle.

    • I think the majority of people have already seen sense, it just needs to filter down to the politicians at the bottom of the swamp!

    • @ Klem 4:13
      Beyond 20 years, population projections have issues, but:
      India to peak about 2050, at about 1.75 B, then decline.
      Nigeria is expected to become the 3rd largest just before 2050, and reach 1/2 B about 2065.
      Other serious issues, such as Russia’s declining population ought not be forgotten.

  2. Read between the lines. Nothing Trump said above indicates he buys the theory that human-emitted CO2 is driving any warming. Nothing. He evaded, he swerved, he ducked and dived. True Believers come right out and say it…’settled science’…’the debate is over’…’97%’…and so on.
    Trump doesn’t buy it even for one single second.

    • and iron man musk will incinerate global warming with his new solar powered flame thrower.
      One Per Child!

    • “Read between the lines.”?
      Maybe we can start with the lines themselves and see if we can figure out what he’s saying.
      The ice caps are at record levels?

      • He didn’t say high or low, did he? The guy is a master troll. Regardless, they were predicted to be gone by 2015 or thereabout, yet there they still are.
        Anyway, I hate the phrasing “Do you believe in [insert scientific hypothesis/theory here]?”, eg. “Do you believe in evolution?”; “Do you believe in climate change?” Do I “believe” in gravitational theory? No. I believe that gravitational theory is our best model of how gravity works, but I don’t believe in it like it was Santa Claus or The Easter Bunny. In the case of climate change, I don’t have to believe anything; the proof of it is everywhere to be seen on the Earth. Unlike the modifications done to Newtonian physics to account for velocities approaching the speed of light, we know — for sure, end of story — that the Earth’s climate changes over time. Nothing to believe there. Are humans causing/accelerating it with CO2 output? Well, there’s your need for believing right there, because there sure isn’t any evidence for it.

      • He may have been right, if you include the growth in Antarctica ice to the loss in the Arctic. There has been a quick analysis before on these pages. I’m not the right one to re-perform it.

      • ‘He may have been right, if you include the growth in Antarctica ….’
        East Antarctica has been increasing mass balance since 1900, the end of the Little Ice Age in the Southern Hemisphere.
        Coincidence? I think not.

    • In fact, it sounded to me like Trump was ridiculing the idea. I got the feeling Trump must be reading WUWT because he repeated the same kind of talking points you would see here.

      • Do you think seriously, C. Paul Pierett?
        ristvan says it well:
        “He knows Macron and Merkel said no renegotiation. So his offer is just a chess gambit, knowing full well it won’t happen.”
        Trump is exposing their close minded attitude, while he defends Americas position from economic standpoint.
        I get the impression that you underestimate Trumps intelligence.

      • “David Dirkse January 28, 2018 at 12:20 pm
        Anybody that self proclaims themselves a “stable genius” is pretty dumb.”
        please explain the reasoning. i’m very interested in this phenomenon.
        once upon a time The Safe Subject was weather. now it’s very hard to find safe topics in a minefield of litmus tests and very hair triggers.
        i’m trying to understand the etiology of it. it seems to have evolved from sesame street children of disney parents. when it’s ‘normal’ to pretend things are not what they are and that wishes are considered goals and even accomplishments, it seems the consciousness loses it’s moorings and seeks to fasten on anything to relieve the fear of uncertainty – even simple aphorisms whose part in any chain of cause & effect is little more than a temporary tattoo.
        as there are effusively friendly drunks or hostile drunks, the Avenue Q cohort might be the other end of this spectrum?
        i do know what it takes for a liberal apostasy, so be assured that this is not a trick question to engage in an attempt to persuade anyone of anything. i don’t save souls…lol

      • thanks for the reply. it didn’t increase my understanding, but that’s on me…
        are you familiar with Poe’s Law, btw?

      • Poor David, still hasn’t caught on why Trump said that..
        Are you, perhaps, a journalist, David ? 😉

      • twice you’ve said “someone that self assesses themselves as a “genius” ”
        therefore may i conclude the deliberate use of 3rd grade grammar is intentional parody?
        .if this happens because english is a second language to you, please forgive – and ‘bravo!’

      • Leftists have a congenital need to believe that anyone who disagrees with them is stupid, and only smart people are on their side.
        It’s easier than dealing with all the failures of leftist policies/

    • CheshireRed
      and mentioned not one thing about the junk science
      nor did the EPA head Scott Pruitt.
      Either cowards or dummies
      — both of them

      • All he had to say was CO2 does not cause global warming, there has been massive model failure, but he didn’t and I blame his daughter.
        Where is your red team Donald?
        Its easy to lose faith in politicians, they never fail to disappoint.

    • Of course he is wrong about this:
      “‘The icecaps were going to melt, there were going to be gone by now, but now they’re setting records, OK? They’re at a record level.”
      The Arctic summer sea ice, yes, but nobody ever said that the ice caps, like Greenland the Antarctic would be gone by 2018. But who cares? He just confronts empty propaganda with the same low quality statements.

      • They did say that the Arctic ice cap would be gone by now.
        But who cares about accuracy when you have a fantasy to defend.

    • Trump does give a hoot about theory or truth. He will do the same as on immigration. It will be a complete surrender to climate warriors and painted as smart negotiation.
      Prepare to be stabbed in the back, if you can.

  3. Notice he made the extremely important point about “Global Warming” morphing in to Climate Change.
    Nobody can possibly refute “climate change”, because it is always doing so.
    But he made the distinction on what started the whole IPCC onslaught, ie CAGW.

    • Yes AC Osborn. The “belief” changed from something easy to refute (that the world will continue to warm) due to some imaginary tipping point to the climate changes (which is a strawman argument) since that is a fact, since climate changes.
      This then leads to the strawman conclusion that there are climate d-e-n-i-e-r-s!

  4. It is a president playing politics. I don’t believe the POTUS will do a thing to intentionally harm the US economy and any meaningful concession on the Paris Accord would do just that. What he says must always be taken in the context of what else he has said. And he could not have made it clearer that the economic growth, in part founded on the energy independence of the United States is priority 1 in his address.

      • Which countries have pledged the most?
        US (Obama) – $3bn / Japan – $1.5bn / UK – $1.2bn
        France – $1bn / Germany – $1bn
        As all contributions are voluntary, and the EU is getting all benefits from their leadership in renewables, it should be easy for M&M to satisfy financial needs of dictators and bureaucrats.

      • Quite right, they would never dare let that fox into the hen house. He could start asking difficult questions! He could rock the boat! He, after all, does not risk losing lots of money by not toeing the party line, quite the contrary.
        Trump could in fact unravel the whole Paris deal, simply be implying that those poor countries who are in there for the buks, could get a better deal by him. That can’t be allowed.

    • In Australia he’d be called a sh*t stirrer and in Canada a sh*t disturber… one who makes a statement that will get the desired reaction. The Democrats and the MSM keep falling for it… Trump must be getting bored, they’re all too easy.

  5. I would add that the POTUS in his invitation to the rest to come along and join the economic renewal based on capitalist principles, was not really an invitation. It was a warning. He was really saying, get your ducks and order and come along or suffer the consequences and be left behind. The more I hear this president the more it becomes obvious that his mastery at making deals has also made him a master of understanding how to use the iron fist of power encased in the velvet glove of diplomacy.

  6. the terms agreed by China and India, which in effect require them to do nothing after 2030 expect think about if they may do something .
    Frankly these two countries are simply not buying into AGW, accept as a means to extract guilt cash out the west or a means to drive their competitors out of business. That China as a become an ‘co’ of the greens is merely a reflection of their often water mellow nature.

    • The “Deal” agreed by China and India was to Double and Treble (respectively) their CO2 emissions between 2015 and 2030.
      That was part of the 46% INCREASE in CO2 emissions by 2030 that was agreed by the signatories to the Paris Climate Agreement.
      And yet the Propaganda that was fed out from Paris was that this was Reducing CO2 emissions to limit temperature rise. What All of those signatorieshave made clear is that they know very well that a 46% increase in man’s CO2 emissions will not alter the climate in any way at all; it’s all about reshaping (downsizing or removing) developed nations’ industries and transferring jobs, manufacturing and money to developing nations like India and China.
      Unreliable renewables are the key means of forcing that reshaping of industry through unaffordable energy costs (as well as its unreliability – see Southern Australia) regardless of the fact that it their own electorates that are paying the price through energy poverty and current and future job losses.

  7. 2030 that’s a lot of water under the bridge, and maybe a near double body count ! Lets hope that they do not breathe, a personnel “carry with you ” re-breathing system ?

  8. Mr. Trump is making sense: Focus on REAL pollution, NOT on increasing atmospheric CO2, which is entirely beneficial.
    Demonizing atmospheric CO2, the basis of life on Earth, is the obsession of scoundrels and imbeciles.
    I published this in 2002:
    “Instead of Kyoto, a new global anti-pollution initiative should be drafted by people who have a much better understanding of science, industry and the environment. It should focus, not on global warming and CO2, but on real atmospheric pollutants such as SO2, NOx and particulates as well as pollutants in the water and soil — and no country should be exempt.”
    Europeans are freezing from cold temperatures and the results of incompetent energy policies, since they have relied on intermittent wind power when they really needed fossil fuels or nuclear power to survive.
    Here is one of my newspaper articles from 2002. It is a much more accurate indicator of recent climatic events than the IPCC reports, and includes a prediction of global cooling.

    My predictions on energy are proving correct. If I were to make any changes, I would be more negative on wind power and corn ethanol than in this article – based on further research on the very low “Substitution Factor” of wind power, and the very low energy efficiency of corn ethanol. In general, I do not support energy technologies that require ongoing operating subsidies, that mask the fact that these technologies are wasteful and uneconomic.
    It is deeply regrettable that politicians worldwide have been so badly advised on this critical issue for the survival of our societies.
    Best regards, Allan
    Kyoto hot air can’t replace fossil fuels
    Allan M.R. MacRae
    Calgary Herald
    September 1, 2002
    The Kyoto Accord on climate change is probably the most poorly crafted piece of legislative incompetence in recent times.

    Instead of Kyoto, a new global anti-pollution initiative should be drafted by people who have a much better understanding of science, industry and the environment. It should focus, not on global warming and CO2, but on real atmospheric pollutants such as SO2, NOx and particulates as well as pollutants in the water and soil — and no country should be exempt.
    Then there might be a chance to actually improve the environment, rather than making it worse and wasting billions on the fatally flawed Kyoto Accord.

    • We don’t need a global agreement, accord, initiative, or whatever you want to call it on pollution, as polltion is the business of individual countries. And we know that it is wealth more than anything else that creates the ability to clean up one’s environment.

      • Allan replied:
        True Bruce, we don’t NEED anything. But now, countries like China are pollution havens, and this gives them an unfair advantage in industrial costs, and poses a greater health burden on their people.
        It is a matter of human rights, above all, that countries spend a certain amount of their money on control of REAL pollution (not CO2). A statement of BASIC international objectives would be helpful, without a system of penalties, and without the excessive creeping tighter-and-tighter guidelines that the radical leftists have imposed on the Western democracies in an attempt to stifle industry and society.
        After thirty years of carbon hysteria by scoundrels and imbeciles, we need to get back to basics – to what really matters – to control REAL pollution.
        Bruce wrote:
        2. And we know that it is wealth more than anything else that creates the ability to clean up one’s environment.
        Allan replied:
        True Bruce – see #1 above

      • “But now, countries like China are pollution havens,”
        They wouldn’t be, if we hadn’t shipped most of our manufacturing there because of the AGW nonsense. There’s no need for yet another bloody ‘international agreement’ that will be abused to trash the economies of the West, when we can just put tarrifs on imports from China until they stop polluting.
        “and this gives them an unfair advantage in industrial costs, and poses a greater health burden on their people. ”
        The health of their people is a matter for their people, not us. If they don’t care, why should we?

      • MarkG
        “The health of their people is a matter for their people, not us. If they don’t care, why should we?”
        China is looking for hand outs and concessions after generations of communistic failure. They chose what boat to row, and when it sank they expect the West to put on the development brakes to allow them to catch up.
        Actually, it’s worse. They don’t expect the West to let them catch up, it’s the bleeding heart liberal westerners who demand the poor subjegated Chinese be absolved of their appallingly human rights violations over generations by giving them hand outs.
        No wonder Trump says they are laughing at America, they can’t believe their luck!

      • The hollowing out of North American manufacturing happened because of excessive regulation here, and no regulation in China.
        China had no pollution controls and no workers rights or human rights.
        But now we have cheap energy and other cost advantages, like much lower shipping costs and other benefits of proximity to our market – so I suggest we can compete and rebuild manufacturing in North America.
        However, we have to get rid of the extreme leftists in government and the civil service, who excel in harming free enterprise and reducing the cost-competitiveness of our industries. These destructive parasites have cost us dearly, both in profits and jobs.

      • Lets not forget the damage unions have done to the nations competitiveness.
        Between unrealistic wage demands and asinine work rules, they had increased the cost of doing business in the US.

    • In order to do anything “globally,” or “nationally,” some people would have to be given power over other people… sort of the way it is now, don’t you think? The fact is that people having power over other people is the major reason for all the wars and state sponsored murder and torture that have accompanied it throughout history. There are NO “right people” to exercise this power.
      The desire/lust/compulsion to control the lives and property of others is the root of all evil. Doesn’t matter what the stated motives or incentives are… control of others is the core problem. Can’t solve real problems by promoting more of the same.

  9. If USA can renegotiate the same deal as China and India so should Australia and every other nation. The this climate change nonsense will be over.

  10. The Paris Agreement is built on the shifting sands of the SatanicCO2 Memes and the resulting Babel Tower will eventually collapse, with history picking over the rubble .
    Whatever your view on this President Trump is right to protect America from the ongoing consequences; as all leaders of countries should do for theirs.
    I only wish the UK Government would follow suit and show some pragmatic guts amid this chaos of energy provision.

  11. ‘For you, is it about the science or about the money?’ When was it ever about the Science and not the money?
    ‘Do you believe in climate change? Do you think it exists?’ It’s a question that betrays ignorance of the issue. But it comes fully loaded with all the baggage of the CAGW nonsense. So there is a temptation to reject it out of hand, and that’s when the bait is switched. Mr. Trump did well to dodge that bullet, but it’s always a bit cringey listening to two people discussing something neither have much clue about.

  12. This was never anything more than piggybacking off the US. A fair agreement means the leeches have to ante up and actually cut emissions. Never gonna happen.

    • “circles”; “circuitous”; “roundabout”; … how about cyclic?
      Like the Carbon Cycle of Life – the cycle that all life depends upon. Within the Carbon Cycle, there is only one singular throttle and that is CO2. Without CO2, there is no cycle of life.

    • cederhill,
      You are a hard person to please.
      Trump won an election which was rigged against him
      He has pulled the USA out of the shit in just one year.
      He is well on the way to making America great again.
      And all you want to do is take heed of what is dished up by the lame-brained, left-wing media.
      You are an A Grade dill.

  13. He’s just trying to give the D’s a bit of that “Hope” back that they miss from the previous guy. Think of Trump as Lucy, holding the ball for Charlie Brown to kick. They’ll keep coming back for that hopium stuff, every time. Endlessly entertaining.

    • Love the “Lucy holding the ball” analogy. In my view Trump is positioning for the next election. He can say that he thought the Paris Accords were bad for the US because we were funding the project with no reasonable agreement from India or China to cut their CO2 – this was just a money grab. There are still a lot of people that buy into the CAGW meme. In the next election cycle Trump can claim that he would have joined the Paris agreement if it had been fair. That positions him as a realist in the eyes of the uninformed public. I believe he has no intention of renegotiating since the other signers have stated that the will not renegotiate – perfect.
      This is like the DACA ploy. The dems will never agree to building the wall, ending chain migration and ending the lottery. Now Trump can say that he offered a solution the DACA problem but the dems wouldn’t go along and refused to compromise. Brilliant.
      Let’s hope we get seven more years of Trump and eight years of Pence. I suspect by then the globe will have cooled sufficiently (unfortunately) to put all of the CAGW BS to rest.

  14. It’s nothing new – he’s said pretty much the same thing from the beginning. I wish he wouldn’t refer to it as a “deal” though. We have absolutely nothing to gain, and everything to lose by signing anything, regardless of the terms.

    • Interesting viewpoint. Contracts and treaty serve some useful purpose, I would think. Buying houses, no dropping nuclear weapons on each other. Sure, they are abused and misused, but I can’t say I believe there is no way they are useful to the US and people.

  15. If I were Donald I’d be laughing my head off at all the commentary
    We all have things we would love to do, IF…..
    The man is a class 1 troll. He’s using the ‘maybe/could/its possible that’ against the greens, poking fun at them and they dont even realise it.

    • Leo,
      Your use of “troll” seems a bit off.
      He stirs the hornet nest daily, or several times daily.
      And does it in the open. And I do find it entertaining.
      Maybe I just have the wrong idea of what a troll is.

      • There are trolls whose only purpose in life seems to be to stir controversy and to keep people upset.
        However I don’t believe that is The Donald’s purpose in these actions.
        He’s stirring up the activists and getting them to say stupid things in public. Things that he can use against them at a later time.

      • Good. Then he can try his best to get what he wants in the new negotiation. Right now, Macron is just paying for some scientists to move to France for five years (or something like that). He is relieving countries of their climate scientists and then supporting them. He may not be a financial genius.

      • Sheri @ 9:06
        Did he not also say France would kick in the USA’s share of the Green Fund that Barry O. had not already given?

  16. BTW, does anyone know if Bloomberg ever actually sent the $15 million he promised when Trump pulled us out of the Paris scam?

  17. Wait and see. having putAmerica first, I will give him the lead. Generally, accords are a threat to self government, .though.. And a treaty in service of an illusory promise of “crystal clear” water is not sufficient reason for any nation to submit to a UN style treaty.

  18. I have the odds that trump betrays on this issue at about 70%. Isn’t that basically what he’s saying admitting he will?

    • What has Trump done, not said, but done, that leads you to present such odds. You really need to work on cracking the Trump code. It can be done, but you’ll never do it just by analyzing what he says. And you’ll never do it listening to what the media is saying or not saying about him.

  19. Universities should initiate a Trump Studies Department.
    His action here is pure genius. None of the other signers (I use that term loosely) of the Paris Accord would ever renegotiate it. They love it too much – it’s a bad deal for the US. Trump knows this. So, he loses nothing by saying he’d be happy to return to the Paris Accord. It simply won’t happen. But, he gains a lot. He has forever framed the Paris Climate Accord as nothing other than a bad deal for the US. That’s the meme that will forever be attached to it. Not that it would save the planet. Not that it represented the coming together of nations to save the planet. No – it was nothing other than a deal (true) and a bad one at that for the US (also true).
    And the icing on the cake, while not openly stated, is that we all know who negotiated that bad deal: Barack Obama, and John Kerry. Brick by brick Trump is taking apart their legacy. Cool.

  20. I mean, look, it used to not be climate change, it used to be global warming. That wasn’t working too well because it was getting too cold all over the place.

    The UN-IPCC was set up in, what was it, 1988 I think? It’s always been called the ‘UN-IPCC’. Pretty sure the ‘CC’ bit never stood for ‘Global Warming’.

      • What do you think the ‘CC’ bit of ‘UN-IPCC’ originally stood for Tom? ‘Tis a mystery, to be sure.

      • DWR64,
        CC is Climate Change which covers everything, Global Warming does not.
        The IPCC makes clear they focus on Global WARMING as they publish warming scenarios to year 2100.
        You are being silly here playing your little word games.

      • You know very well that the original scare was Global Warming. When it was realized that it wasn’t working they changed the name to Climate Change. But go ahead and continue to ignore that as it may make you feel better.

    • How old are you DWR54? If you’ve been around as long as I have you’d remember that when this ball got rolling they called it global warming and nothing else. You can also look up when Social Security was initiated back in the 1930s and the public was informed their Social Security numbers would never be used for identification. Now, despite the fact that your SSN certainly gets used as identification it’s not called out as an ID number. Global Warming was not called out as Climate Change when the UNIPCC was formed.
      Try not to take things too literally in life. You’ll do better.

    • It’s the PHYSICS. You know, the thing believers love to shout when someone disagrees with them. The PHYSICS says “global warming”. Reradiation of energy by CO2. WARMING. You can try and dance around the whole thing, but if the IPCC is about climate, where are the articles on the effects of ocean currents, cloud cover, etc and about how cold it is in NA, Siberia, Europe, snow in the Sahara Desert, etc. Where is the discussion of all the changes in climate? There ARE NONE. It’s WARMING. It’s the PHYSICS. Or so the doctrine goes. Attempts to deny or rewrite the doctrine will be ignored as unscientific and political in nature.

    • And until the UN came along and gave it an official name, it was referred to atmospheric disturbance to be named later.

    • You are correct DWR54
      the CC in IPCC was “climate change”.
      But no one expected
      to have anything
      but global warming,
      so the more specific term
      “global warming” was used
      … until after the pause started,
      and the term “global warming”
      became a liability.
      Leftists spend a lot of time
      on naming things … I’m sure
      they would have preferred using
      the phrase “global warming”,
      but that left them open to
      criticism during the pause.

  21. Trump should claim that “The Wall” is a “Climate Mitigation” program. He should claim that rebuilding the inner cities is a climate mitigation program. He should claim that rebuilding our roads and bridges is a climate mitigation program. He should claim that school vouchers are a climate mitigation program. He should claim that he accepts the conclusion of 100% of the Consensus Scientists that Man is causing climate change. He should claim that the science is irrefutable and because it is irrefutable, and “settled” there is no longer a need to fund research in that area, and put 100% of the Consensus Scientists out of work, and rehire them to build the wall.

  22. Junk science can work both ways.
    Ban on Fracking is Causing Californias Earthquakes
    Keeping with the spirit of climate alarmist fake news, Ive decided to apply their best practices to the recent earthquakes in California. Best Practice #1: Start with a conclusion that supports your political agenda and work backward. I want to expose the Sophistry used by the Climate Alarmists. Best Practice #2: Identify a completely natural phenomenon, Continue reading

  23. I am too lazy to look up the original “rejection” speech, but I seem to recall that Trump actually said that if the deal was different, he would not be rejecting it. As in, from day one, he was open to renegotiation. If it was not in that speech, it was said within a few days.
    I am a bit agnostic about Trump. I do not care for him “as a person”, but I give credit when it is due and criticism when it is due. He was right to reject the Paris nonsense, and he is right to say that the U.S. should only reconsider if there is renegotiation.
    Despite what most of the world seems to believe, governments are not actually meant to make their citizens’ lives intolerable or act in a way that is not in the citizens’ best interest.

      • a longer comment, which I did not believe contained anything problematic, vanished without a trace. I was trying to figure out if it was a problem on my end.
        [Comment found and rescued. -mod]

      • That problem has been cropping up again.
        Your post will probably reappear in a day or two, long after people have stopped reading this article.

  24. I cannot believe Morgan is so stupid that he cannot recognize Trump’s message is a repeat. I can believe he sees this interview as an opportunity to use deception to badmouth Trump.

  25. “….. ‘Do you believe in climate change? Do you think it exists?’
    ‘There is a cooling and there’s a heating. I mean, look, it used to not be climate change, it used to be global warming. That wasn’t working too well because it was getting too cold all over the place. ….”
    That part of Trump’s statement says it all!
    Heads exploding worldwide !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    • Donald speaks the language of the common folk, a good communicator, but I still wish he would say CO2 doesn’t cause global warming.
      We need a debate to settle the science.

  26. I think that the Paris Agreement, given its fundamental purpose, does NOT have any room for Trump’s vision of “renegotiation”. It has little to do with clean air and clean water and REAL pollution.
    What is there to “renegotiate”? — its fundamental purpose ?! — I don’t think so. It’s a total waste of Trump’s time to entertain any such thoughts. It’s all about CO2, right ? — treated as a “pollutant” ?
    Again, even the basic definition of the most basic concept upon which it is built is FALSE. How do you “renegotiate” a falsehood? How do you renegotiate shit ? — it is what it is, and it is, … well, I won’t spell it out again, … &#it .
    Too harsh ?

    • Now slightly off topic, but I’m trying to find a place in the comments to ask, and an otherwise good place has not yet occurred, and so forgive me for distracting the discussion by asking here:
      I’ve recently focused on the fact that global warming alarmists focus on the RATE of today’s warming. They say, okay, it has been as warm or warmer in the past, but NOT as FAST as today’s warming. I’m trying to find the exact studies upon which these claims have been based. Where is it written that previous interglacials took 5000 years to warm only a few degrees? Where are the studies establishing that today’s RATE of warming is ACCELERATED?
      This seems to be a fundamental fall-back defense — a defense that could easily be called upon to justify the Paris Clim$#it Accord. Is this a solid defense?
      Thanks for references.

      • The rate stuff has a number of origins, all disproven. Marcott’’s academic misconduct paper in Science 2013. (Details in two guest posts at Climate Etc at the time). Manns now thoroughly discredited HockeynStick for AR3. The Arctic ice disappearing meme and the sea level rise acceleration meme, both factually false. I have read and critiqued over 500 ‘climate science papers for my last two eboks, and can find no credible ebidence in support of the unprecedented rate arguement. It is another warmunist myth. The truth is that paleoproxies do not have sufficient temporal resolution to say anything compated to the warming rate starting ~1975. That is partbof what exposed the Marcott misconduct.

      • There is no defense because what they predicted would happen has not happened and does not appear to be going to happen in the foreseeable future. It does not take any knowledge in any science to perceive those facts. Just a willingness to look back at what was said would occur and what we one sees now.
        Tony Heller just did a nice little Video highlighting some of the predictions made 30 years ago and how things stand today verses those predictions:

      • It’s basic, comparing apples to oranges is the argument Robert. No matter what the academics say about rate of change, it’s an uncertainty, and the utter lack of evidence does not support their alarmist concerns.
        Compared to instrumental data proxy data is mush. Proxy reconstructions for temps and CO2 levels simply lack the decadal resolution required for a valid comparison with the instrumental record.
        So they are forced to rely on a combination of their fervid imaginations and mathematical “certainty”. They are committed, after all It’s their livelihood we are talking about,
        On and on we go.

      • Thanks rivstan, RAH, and M.W.Plia for your seasoned input.
        Scouring the internet, trying to find a definitive origin for the “unprecedented-rate-of-warming” claim, I could NOT find one. Rather, I get the impression that reconstructions have enough uncertainty to discount such a claim. So, how has such a claim achieved the status of the go-to argument, along with the precautionary principle as last resorts ?
        Yesterday, I quickly read through this:
        … stuff that the IPCC put together, and even this does NOT lead me to find support for the claim.
        I seem to see the word, “model” a lot, associated with paleoclimate reconstructions. I seem to see lots of room for different interpretations, depending on whom you might ask.
        Instrumental apples compared to proxy oranges seems like an appropriate analogy.
        Instrumental meat compared to “proxy mush”, as one of you implied, I believe.
        Thanks again.

      • Just to clarify, cwon14, I was going SPECIFICALLY after the RATE claim.
        Some alarmists will readily agree that the EXTENT of warming is not unprecedented, but then they insist that it is the RATE of warming that is the crisis.
        That RATE claim needs a SPECIFIC scientific basis, in order to stand. I could not find even a potential candidate for such a basis. I was just wondering how this SPECIFIC rate claim evolved — what are the cited studies, sources, authorities who determined it ?
        My concern is: can I safely conclude that no such sources exist for this rate claim ?

      • Those that do try to justify this claim point to the ancient proxies.
        The problem is that most of those proxies can’t resolve anything less than century to millennial in scale.
        A 50 year period of warming just would not show up in the proxies.

      • Okay, I will get even more specific. The specific claim that I would be looking to challenge is the claim that previous ice ages have taken five thousand years to warm up a couple of degrees or so, but the most recent rate of warming is fifty times faster.
        So, I’m talking about claims regarding five thousand years, rather than claims regarding fifty years.

      • Well, I nailed down where an official statement of this claim by NASA appears:

        Based on a combination of paleoclimate data and models, scientists estimate that when ice ages have ended in the past, it has taken about 5,000 years for the planet to warm between 4 and 7 degrees Celsius. The warming of the past century—0.7 degrees Celsius—is roughly eight times faster than the ice-age-recovery warming on average.

        Well, I have seen claims of “fifty times faster” and even faster, … like people are exaggerating the hell out of one person’s already questionable projection. Notice the word, “estimate”, used in conjunction with the word, “models”. THAT raises some questions in my mind.

      • Well, NASA seems to be using IPCC claims based on Chapter 6 of one of the assessment reports, which speaks generally about how paleoclimate reconstructions are arrived at through models, probably too complex to explain to an untrained reader like moi.
        It sounds similar to the same rigmarole spewed forth for models that supposedly forecast future climate. If the models cannot forecast future climate, then how can they backcast ancient climates with any greater reliability?
        Some of the general wording of the IPCC assessment report looks shady, as in BS for “we’re assuming certain fundamental truths that we really cannot prove, but take our expert words for it, okay”.
        Anyhow, all said and done, I am NOT convinced that there is a sound basis for the 5,000-year claim involving “accelerated RATE of warming”.
        Given my own still shaky feelings about ice core science in general, juxtaposed with what I just wrote, I am even less convinced of any real degree of confidence for this claim.
        I can move on now.

  27. Just for fun have a look at this link. I live in this town of 75,000 Prince George in central British Columbia in which winters can touch minus 40 but since that has been a rarity for a number of years that is proof of “climate change”. The climate scientists up the hill at the University of Northern BC have deemed it so.
    This is Prince George’s Climate Action mandate
    All their plans involve tax payer money. As has been said many times on this site, if the ideas are so great let the free market decide.
    The city at great taxpayer cost put in a community heating system for downtown. The system burns bio fuel,”wood” to get us off evil cheap C02 spitting natural gas. Well the only ones hooked up to this system are public taxpayer funded buildings, imagine that. The free market, nope, sticking with cheap natural gas.

    • Steps YOU can take to mitigate “climate change”:
      * Turn off the water heater completely
      * Stop taking showers, OR just go hop into a cold stream [brrrr!, refreshing!]
      * Stop eating meat
      * Find alternative means of transportation, like re-purposed card board boxes hooked up to your pet dog [adopt a working breed]
      * Forget about the comfort of modern home-heating furnaces — these are Satan’s toys — soldier up!, shiver off those extra pounds [burn extra calories to help out with the obesity epidemic — assuming you survive the trauma — if not, then you were meant to die anyway, and this is good natural population control]
      Oh, there are so many strategies, but I’ll stop here.

  28. President Trump says he believes in clean water and clean air. A good way to help those along is to have plenty of CO2 to help the plant life grow which can contribute to clean water and clean air.

  29. The question is …… can they wait 3 years with the hope that Trump will be replaced by a Paris Agreement supporter that will pay up and tank the US economy? After what has been invested and the successful propaganda deployed I say they can and will. To renegotiate now would open up too many questions about China’s lack of commitment and I believe that’s why Trump is bluffing. They can go on lying and shaming for 3 more years but not 7 more. Especially if the cooling trend continues. Meanwhile the US economy expands and the people love it. We failed to discredit the science so I believe this is the only option left open. Ignore the doomsayers and beat them with a successful economy.

    • Markl: “Ignore the doomsayers and beat them with a successful economy.”
      I agree with your assessment. And I also call the next election a Trump victory. The economy, and the Democrats failure to help do things their voters want… a job and tax relief… Their message is trickle up… which they got for 8 long years. Now we are seeing the effects of trickle down… and a race to the top. Trump… 4 more years!!!

  30. At the time I said and wrote
    that Trump had withdrawn
    from the Paris Accord
    without even hinting
    that junk science
    was the reason.
    I gave Trump one year
    before criticizing him.
    I like the reduction of
    Obama’s late in his term regulations
    that ignored the Congressional Review Act,
    … and the huge reduction in new regulations
    under Trump caused by his executive order
    demanding deletion of two old regulations
    for each new regulation.
    It has been downhill after the
    first six months of executive orders
    … and can you believe we are still
    in Afghanistan after 17 years =
    permanent war.
    Let the Taliban take control again
    and stop the poppy (opium) crop
    as they did the last time they
    were in control — now they use
    poppy production to get the money
    to fight the US puppet government
    in Kabul — and did anyone notice
    how a side effect of the war
    launched a new heroin crisis?
    I’m afraid the Democrats were right —
    Trump sounds like a stupid head
    off teleprompter, because
    Trump is a stupid head,
    and Republicans
    should be ashamed
    that they supported
    such a stupid candidate.
    He’s had a year
    to learn something / anything
    about real climate science
    vs. climate junk science,
    and he has learned nothing.
    I doubt if the man
    ever reads a book.
    I doubt if his wife
    sleeps in the same room
    with him too.
    His campaign was all for
    spending a lot more money
    and cutting taxes —
    but anyone who knows how to
    sell would have known
    Americans want
    more goobermint spending on them,
    and lower taxes too —
    — so Trump promised to give them
    what they want — even though what
    they want is bad economics
    (like a child who always wants candy).
    Trump seems to be folding
    like a cheap suitcase on DACA,
    and there will be no border wall
    completed in his four years,
    (when voters throw him out)
    or ever.
    I hope he doesn’t start a war.

    • I can’t believe someone would write what you have and think that their claim about giving him a chance was legit. Drone on. Meanwhile we’ll enjoy our lives and having a POTUS that actually seems to give a damn about them and the general welfare of the nation.

      • RAH
        Please have the courtesy of taking
        at least one sentence of what I wrote,
        and refuting it intelligently,
        instead of attacking me
        with generic character attacks
        such as “Drone on”
        — something that leftists are
        expert in — character attacks,
        that is.

    • If you dont fight a war correctly, it takes a long time to win. If you allow your enemies to have a safe haven to which they can run, then you will never defeat them.
      Trump is going to fight the war in Afghanistan differently than his predecessors, starting with aiming at the terrorist’s safe havens in Pakistan. Trump fought the Islamic Terror Army differently from Obama and has practically wiped out their Caliphate in his first year in Office. Let’s see if he can’t improve the job being done in Afghanistan.
      Trump is smarter than his oppostion. In both parties.
      Trump’s statements on climate change show me that he knows exactly what the situation is.
      Trump *writes* books. Bestsellers.
      Don’t know if Trump and his wife sleep in the same room. It’s irrelevant to me.
      Trump is giving his supporters what they want and he will be reelected in 2020 because of it.
      Trump isn’t folding on DACA. First of all, noone knows the exact number of Dreamers, so setting an arbitrarly figure is really meaningless since the new law will apply to whoever can claim to be a Dreamer, whether it’s 800,000 or 3,600,000. So numbers are a distraction.
      As for “Amensty”, some people are claiming Trump is giving amnesty, but he’s not, he is giving them a pathway to citizenship over a period of 12 years where the Dreamer has to stay out of trouble with the law, or he is out of here. And all the details have yet to be negotiatied.
      Trump has always said the Dreamers should be able to stay in the U.S. legally, so it doesn’t matter about the details, whether it is legal status or citizenship. I would be happy if they would put in a provision preventing the Dreamers’ illegal parents for being eligivle to vote, but the Dreamers should be eligible, since for all intents and purposes, they are Americans.
      Trump won’t be starting any war, it will be Kim Jung-un and his helpers China and Russia, who will be starting a war. Trump has warned Kim Jung-un about the results of his nuclear weapons activities, and Kim should heed that warning if he knows what is good for himself.

      • TA
        Obama did not offer
        a pathway to citizenship for DACAa.
        So why should Trump,
        and REWARD illegal immigrants
        for bringing in their children,
        which will result
        in MORE of that in the future,
        if the kids can become citizens.
        I’m assuming becoming a citizen
        makes one eligible for welfare
        and Social Security, Medicare, etc
        — I may be wrong about that
        In case you don’t watch the news,
        the terrorism in Afghanistan is increasing.
        No chance of Trump being re-elected
        unless someone worse than Hillary
        is dug up — and I can’t imagine worse.

      • You obviously miss or ignore the point of DACA. Trump has said it is a congressional matter to make it law not an executive order. DACA expires on March 5 and Trump has said after that if any dreamers get caught in the net of illegal immigrant sweeps tough luck. This is exactly how to put pressure on Congress to come up with a real law solution by then. You are simply a kool aid drinker.

      • I don’t know about the rest of it but Mr. Greene is right about Afghanistan. We can’t even keep Kabul safe, despite turning the place into an armed camp. Afghanistan may very well be hopeless.

      • I don’t think Trump is rewarding the Dreamers. Allowing the Dreamers to stay legally in the only country they have ever known is just common sense and the moral thing to do.
        I do think the parents of the Dreamers should not be rewarded for causing all this trouble. The Dreamer’s immediate family should be allowed to stay in the U.S. with their children but I would put restrictions on the parents to include not allowing them to vote.
        The Dreamers and their immediate families can stay and be made legal as long as they obey the rules, but the rest of the illegals need to go back to whereever they came from and apply for legal entry into the U.S.
        Trump’s “Wall” will prevent more Dreamers from accumulating in the future.
        The American people are overwhelmingly in support of stopping illegal immigration and cutting back on legal immigration.
        The U.S. had a 40-year moratorium on immigrants from about 1925 to 1965. I bet the snowflakes/Leftwing Loons didn’t know that! 🙂

      • To Tom in Florider:
        “You are simply a kool aid drinker.”
        Only stupid people, and leftists ,say that
        (I repeated myself).
        Where do you live in Florider?
        I’m coming to get you.
        And I’m going to huff and puff.
        Please have oxygen ready,
        as I have to control the huffing
        and puffing before the duel begins,
        No US president is going to deport DACAs
        unless they have a criminal record.
        Trump’s implied threat that he would
        do so if Congress failed to act,
        is an empty threat, and Democrats
        may not be too bright,
        but they know that.
        The right thing to do is no citizenship
        for every illegal immigrant,
        and their children,
        and no welfare,
        and no Social Security,
        and no Medicare,
        and no Medicaid.
        No rewards for breaking the law.
        And change %$#@& law that makes
        children of illegals US citizens
        automatically if they are born here!
        I’m tired of hearing about 11 million
        illegal aliens too — I’ve heard
        the same number for 30 years
        — I’d bet on 30 million.

    • Richard Greene. Your post left out a sarc/ tag. Or, I am in disbelief about your take on the situation. Trump is brilliant.
      No one will want more of the Obama regulations, and restrictions on energy. Trump’s delivered on his promises as best as one could hope for in such a short term. There’s more to come.
      And – if he gets DACA, which most people favor, he will put an end to the only remaining hope the Dem’s have. Trump will have stopped the bleeding of our sacred boarder, and deal with the children (now adults) who came over through no fault of their own.
      Isis, the Iran deal, along with no action on N Korea, are problems only a strong president can turn around. Trump is man to do it all.
      There, I fixed your post, or again, maybe you were joking… hard to tell.

      • Trump is not brilliant
        and will accomplish little because
        Republicans in the Senate
        will not end the crazy filibuster
        rule that could be ended
        at any time with
        a majority vote.
        I opposed Trump’s tax “reform”
        because our government was
        already spending $4 for every
        $3 of revenue — we were not
        over taxed — we were under taxed.
        Also, US corporate tax rates actually paid
        were already lower than almost every
        OECD developed nation, when you
        include value added taxes paid in
        ALL other developed nations, but
        not paid by corporations in the US.
        Average US corporate
        taxes paid were about 21%
        BEFORE the tax cuts,
        for profitable corporations,
        and as little as 13%
        including the use of tax havens
        to shift taxable income.
        I was not joking — I consider
        Trump the dumbest president
        in my lifetime (64 years)
        based on what he
        says without a script.
        If he starts a trade war
        with China, India etc.
        based on his complete
        of trade balances,
        our economy is doomed.
        The Trump tax cuts
        will provide a small
        temporary boost to the economy,
        as all small tax cuts do
        — they add up to under
        1.5% of GDP, smaller than
        Obama’s 1.5% of GDP tax cut,
        in early 2009, … and MUCH SMALLER
        than Reagan’s 3.8% of GDP tax cut,
        done when the economy needed help
        — not done at the top of a stock/bond bubble
        when corporations were already
        doing great, like Trump’s tax cut !
        What is Trump going to do
        when we are in a recession?
        Another tax cut?
        You call anyone smart
        who claimed in a 2012 Tweet that:
        “… the concept of climate change
        created by and for the Chinese … ” ???

      • toorightmate
        If you are going to insult me,
        the best way is to write
        something intelligent,
        that refutes something
        specific that I wrote.
        Your generic character attack,
        just like a leftist would do,
        is not impressive,
        and not even funny!
        So … Up your nose,
        with a rubber hose!

    • Why? I’m refuting basically everything you said. The doubt he sleeps with his wife kinda says it all really. It is unfounded and malicious.
      Then there is bashing on climate when the man has been up to his anus in alligators since before he was even sworn in. And obviously ignoring the fact that he has made major changes at the EPA.
      Then there’s the larger government. His two really big ticket items are defense and infrastructure. You do realize that the reason ISIS was suddenly on the run is in large part due to major changes in the ROE under this administration? You do realize that the military degraded under Obama? You do realize that with the nuclear threat growing a heavier investment in missle defense is going to be prudent on top of other requirements to bring the force up to snuff. And then there are the ever growing capabilities of the PRC to counter requiring we maintain a qualitative superiority because it will be impossible for the US to match quantity in some areas.
      BTW according to Melania Trump, her husband asked her if he should run. She told him yes, but warned him that “you know if you run you’ll win.”
      Now I’m on the road and need some sleep. Full day today.

  31. President trump has turned out to be an unexpected gift.
    Coming from real world finances and people management, he shows an amazing ability to destroy politicians and their memes.
    Seems our self selected and elected elites are way dumber that I suspected.
    Holding the bully pulpit of the presidency, this man is exposing the deceit,shallowness and idiocy of our PC “leaders.
    PC used to mean Politically Correct, however today it seems to be Publicly Corrupt.
    This last year has been a slaughter, the talking points from our orchestrated media keep getting blown apart by 140 character Tweets.
    When President Trump offers to “negotiate” the first thing he does is establish the position of his competition.
    Most working people know this, negotiation is impossible if you do not know what you and your business partners want.
    So first you verify;”So this is your position”?
    Seems our progressive comrades have never considered what their position really is, thus President Trump puts the question to them, they dissolve into howls of distress.
    And this is the first stage of negotiation.
    Mighty hard to make a deal with people so detached from normal human interaction.

  32. You can’t renegotiate fraud, the clock and opportunity is limited. Hire the Lindzen wing of climate science at the executive level, withdraw from the entire UN Climate Framework and denounce junk science that masks global totalitarian inclinations.
    Greenshirts can’t be appeased only destroyed.

    • Trump may be waiting for a La Niña before appointing a red team to go after Clisci. Then he’d be able to say, “We are no warmer now than we were back in 1988” (or whatever). Perhaps by then other data points will also be favorable to our side too.

      • Sweet Ol Bob
        Not glum
        Just recognizing Trump
        for what he is — a master salesman
        who gives people what they want
        and few people want to hear
        the coming climate catastrophe
        is a fairy tale, so they won’t hear it
        from him

      • Richard Greene: “and few people want to hear
        the coming climate catastrophe is a fairy tale, so they won’t hear it from him”
        He does not need to go there, as he is more politically astute than you give him credit for. His decisions are a god send for us, and accomplish the same goal with alacrity. The rest of what you want is a distraction that won’t do any more than he is doing any way.

      • “Trump doesn’t know what a La Nina is now, and will never know.”
        Climate is one of the topics he probably does know a bit about, because he commented on it in a skeptical vein for years before this, AFAIK. Even if he doesn’t, he may be following the advice of Pruitt or others; or he may have figured it out himself, from hearing one of them say, “If only the temperature would drop for a year, would be in a stronger position.”

      • Mario Lento
        If Trump and Pruitt
        never address the
        junk climate science,
        then most people will go on
        believing CO2 will cause
        runaway global warming
        that will end all life on earth,
        and the science fraud will never end.
        Trump could be gone in four
        years — I think he will be — because
        Democrats in the Senate will
        block everything they can block, and
        Trump promised far to much
        to deliver in 8 years,
        much less in 4 years,
        when having fewer
        than 60 votes in
        the Senate

      • Richard Greene: What you think is not even remotely close to what’s happening. It’s not Trump’s job to educate everyone on highly contested subject. What’s important is the policies, which he has put in place. Trump will be president for 8 years. Those who disagree, generally are misinformed by the mainstream media. The accomplishments within 1 year are amazing, and they are in direct contradiction to what Dem’s and Mainstream predicted.
        What’s coming about with the fake Russia Investigations and FISA spying on Americans illegally will further his success!

  33. He correctly understands that one of primary unspoken purposes of the UNFCCC and its various agreements (Paris, Kyoto, etc) are to put the US, and the Western Industrialized countries in general, at a competitive disadvantage relative to China, Brazil, and Russia.
    So by demanding that the agreements not do that, takes away what the UNFCCC really wants, thus guaranteeing the socialist totalitarian-oriented COP process fails.

    • Agreed!!! And he is leading the world away. If they want to do well, they will follow Trump’s direction. That is what a leader does. At the Davos Economic forum, he was well received. He was brilliant.

        • Richard Greene: Did you watch the economic forum at Davos? If you did, you will see that Trump was leading… and they said as much.

      • Trump read a speech
        from a Teleprompter.
        so what?
        Obama could do that too
        — and much better
        ( not the content,
        just his delivery ).
        Either way,
        they are just words.
        Judge politicians by what gets done,
        not what they say.
        Most can read a glorious speech,
        written by someone else, pretty well.
        A Churchill who write good speeches himself,
        and delivered them well,
        is a once in a lifetime leader.

        • Richard: Evidently you did not watch the short event. If you watched the event (see link), you would see how well he was received and understand that he was considered as leading the world. Don’t take my word for it, and do not listen to his speech. Instead watch it to see his interaction before and after the speech –and learn. Every other link is from the media and attaches selective spin. This is the full video.
          The introduction starts at 7:10 in the full video. Listen carefully to what is said to and asked of Trump.

          Trump is obviously LEADING the world.

        • PS – the end of the speech (at 27:17), has questions and answers… so again, you can see the great respect, and how he is considered a leader.

  34. Can anyone actually say the amount of global warming when averaged out by energy levels as if the CO2 theory is right there has to be a significant average increase in the temperatures even if a few areas do not get any warmer? After all they still tell us it is trapped energy increasing the temperatures that triggers the change.
    One condition has to be that no changes to the historic data are allowed as the science was claimed to be beyond question years ago.

  35. Obviously it would be more satisfying for climate skeptics to see President Trump make a clean and final break with the Paris Agreement.

    But more important is that any “agreement” that has the effect of a treaty be approved by the Senate.
    On those grounds, the US never had a Paris “agreement” to begin with.

    • Paris was only fruit of the poison tree, the UN Climate Framework. Total Soviet level agenda junk science from inception.
      Renounce the Framework and premise behind it. No more agreements based on hyperbolic agenda pseudoscience. Freezing Paris simply isn’t enough.
      We’re just letting the monster incubate when the goal should be annihilating them which is their goal for a free world.

  36. I am thankful that President Trump is not a politician, he is a businessman who happens to be President. Politicians love the lapdog daisy chain groupthink on many things, without actually thinking about what they have joined us up for.

  37. A fair chunk of the MSM seem to take their lead from the climate scientists themselves: If the reported facts don’t match what is desired, modeled, or expected, then simply change what is reported and assume that it won’t matter and that nobody will care.
    For people who live in a modeled virtual reality I can see this has a certain logical appeal.

  38. Regardless of whether the US renegotiates its part in the Paris agreement, all the evidence shows no on is serious about doing anything about climate change in the first place. The fact that Paris is purely voluntary with no penalties for nations that can’t meet their targets is the first major indicator. The second is that the Green Climate Fund, which was set up to assist developing countries adopt Green technologies, can’t get any of its major contributors to live up to their pledges . When the Fund was established in 2015, these contributors committed to collect $10 billion for distribution within two years, but only $3.4 billion has been forthcoming. Even further away is the likelihood that $100 billion would be made available by 2020. So the US shouldn’t make any great effort rejoin this deal because if fighting climate change were so urgent, the countries still supposedly committed to it wouldn’t mind making up any revenue shortfalls, or would they?

    • The Paris Agreement was so bad that
      even American global warmunists
      (Hansen) said it was no good,
      because it was too weak (no penalties).
      So why even talk about re-negotiating
      something that was voluntary, and
      worthless, no matter what you believed
      about CO2?
      I don’t get it.

  39. Maybe that explains Al Gore loitering around last week . You know when he starts singing President Trump praise he has got to someone . A u turn on the Paris Pledge would be like President Trump telling coal miners he has decided to fire them like the Democrats .
    By making his decision President Trump has created an opening for less courage’s leaders to distance themselves from the world’s largest con-game . In doing so he has saved lives , reduced regulation and saved tax payer $Trillions in green guilt fraud .
    Stick to your guns Mr . Trump .

Comments are closed.