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.
…
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.
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.
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’.
Keep reading with those blinders on.
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.
Sheesh
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.
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.
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
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2018/01/27/ban-on-fracking-is-causing-californias-earthquakes/
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.
test
Did you pass? Did we pass?
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.
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.
SR
“….. ‘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.
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:
https://realclimatescience.com/2018/01/new-video-thirty-years-of-junk-climate-science/
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: https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&ved=0ahUKEwie1O2owv3YAhUEq1MKHVqaCdgQFggwMAE&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.ipcc.ch%2Fpdf%2Fassessment-report%2Far5%2Fwg1%2FWG1AR5_Chapter05_FINAL.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2p8QqPXQkAXlG71QdChXBs
… 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.
OR
Instrumental meat compared to “proxy mush”, as one of you implied, I believe.
Thanks again.
Exactly to the point.
No 4d chess required on fraud CO2 claims and cabal behind it well understood by the most average educated.
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:
https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/if-earth-has-warmed-and-cooled-throughout-history-what-makes-scientists-think-that-humans-are-causing-global-warming-now/
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.
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
https://princegeorge.ca/City%20Services/Pages/Environment/ClimateAction.aspx
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.
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.
MR. SALMI
I must be hungry because
when I see your name
I aways see “Salami”.
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!!!
OT, And so it starts
http://joannenova.com.au/2018/01/melbourne-42000-homes-in-dark-no-fans-left-at-kmart-power-outages-due-to-secret-air-conditioners/
Gees, you close down a power station capable of producing 1600MW, and then wonder why you run out of electricity.
DOH !!!
It has been extremely hot and humid all along the south and south east of Australia. But yeah, you’d think this would give them a clue, but no! Australia well on the way in the race to energy poverty.
Govn’t forces providers to dump reliable coal and gas, shutdown coal plants in favour of renewables, it fails to deliver and that’s the fault of the providers?
http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/no-relief-in-sight-for-victoria-as-hot-and-humid-summer-spell-continues/news-story/ca646f269fa5976a32f4a79d9597596c
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.
http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com
http://www.EL2017.Blogspot.com
http://www.ElectionCircus.Blogspot.com
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
misunderstanding
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 … ” ???
Richard,
I wish you all the best of luck in attempting to find a brain.
You badly need it.
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.
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.
Good analysis, John. I agree.
Dr. Jordan Peterson (University of Toronto clinical psychologist) is destroying the Left’s cherished social justice memes.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/01/putting-monsterpaint-onjordan-peterson/550859/
and links therein.
plus 100+
John,
“So first you verify; ”So this is your position”?”
=====
That is a ‘killer’ approach lead-in to destroy someone’s argument before you ever make a rebuttal to their position. For more years than I can remember I have lead off with “So you are saying …” and that cripples any argument they may have had because your force them to clarify their position which usually causes them great discomfort and confusion. Winning without an argument!
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.
Roger Knights:
Trump doesn’t know what a La Nina is now,
and will never know.
TDS Richard ? Why so glum ?
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!
Additionally;
https://www.heritage.org/environment/report/the-us-should-withdraw-the-united-nations-framework-convention-climate-change
Paris “renegotiation” is pandering to fraud and globalist collectivism. Their first act was support a soft coup coded as one word “Russia”.
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.
The leaders of the world met a real leader at Davos.
Mario Lento:
Please specify what nations a
re following Trump’s lead
on climate change?
I don’t know of any.
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.
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.
The poles MUST warm the most if
greenhouse gasses are the cause
of warming.
.
The North Pole warmed a lot
The South Pole did not.
The theory fails.
UAH NoPol this century…. Only the El Nino
Agreed… of course you are correct!
True.
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.
Paris Accords was not a treaty, of course
but that horse’s a-s-s Obama
gave away $1 billion.
China donated nothing.
India donated nothing.
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.
He’d be a fox among the pigeons
Pigeons can fly away,
and foxes can run in circles
chasing their tails !
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.
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.
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 .