Michael Bloomberg Pays USA's Paris Agreement Tithe

Michael Bloomberg
Michael Bloomberg. By Bloomberg Philanthropies – https://www.flickr.com/photos/bloombergphilanthropies/29828795984/, CC0, Link

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Michael Bloomberg has fulfilled an earlier promise by commiting to paying $4.5 million dollars to the United Nations, money which federal taxpayers would have paid had President Trump kept the USA in the Paris Agreement.

Bloomberg gives $4.5 million to help U.S. keep Paris climate accord commitment

APR 22, 2018 10:58 AM EDT FACE THE NATION

BY EMILY TILLETT / CBS NEWS

Former New York City Mayor and philanthropist Michael Bloomberg says he has a responsibility to help the environment as the Trump administration has backed down from its role in the Paris climate agreement. He said on “Face the Nation” he will write a check for $4.5 million this year to fund that mission.

“America made a commitment and as an American if the government’s not going to do it we all have responsibility. I’m able to do it. So, yes, I’m going to send them a check for the monies that America had promised to the organization as though they got it from the federal government,” said Bloomberg.

“It’s dangerous to keep doing what we’re doing,” he said.” If everybody would do the right thing, yes, it would be better. But if some people or some countries do the right thing we all benefit from that.”

Read more: https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/bloomberg-gives-4-5-million-to-help-u-s-keep-paris-climate-accord-commitment/

Bloomberg’s empty political gesture seems unlikely to win over many of the people who voted for President Trump. From what I have seen most Trump supporters are utterly fed up with pointlessly lavish handouts of US taxpayer’s money to foreigners, money which should be used to address pressing problems back home.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
188 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Chimp
April 22, 2018 8:00 pm

Bloomberg and Soros are such packed in cotton bubble dwellers that they are clueless to the fact that they are enemies of humanity.

Trevor
Reply to  Chimp
April 22, 2018 9:17 pm

No ! Far from clueless !
They know EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE DOING and WHY THEY ARE DOING IT !
They are positively evil people and they subscribe to “The Green Agenda”.
Just Google it and it will tell you ALL YOU NEED TO KNOW ABOUT THEM AND THEIR SCALEY MATES !

commieBob
Reply to  Trevor
April 22, 2018 11:56 pm

The NRA thinks Bloomberg et al are trying to take over the nation. link

Chimp
Reply to  Trevor
April 23, 2018 12:14 am

Trevor,
Agreed, but that doesn’t mean that the Bloombergians don’t think that they are superior beings saving the Earth from us clingers to guns, gold and the Constitution.

Stephen Richards
Reply to  Trevor
April 23, 2018 12:54 am

+10

Reply to  Trevor
April 23, 2018 4:16 am

The Paris Agreement is MEANINGLESS! Go to http://www.sg-climate.com and be educated on what the Paris Agreement
is all about- just a lot of good intentions. NOTHING IS BINDING!

Johnny Cuyana
Reply to  Trevor
April 23, 2018 4:22 am

Trevor … you are exactly correct! +10

Bryan A
Reply to  Trevor
April 23, 2018 5:41 am

Why in the world do people need assault rifles?

Reply to  Bryan A
April 23, 2018 12:59 pm

Bryan, read and try to understand the U.S. Constitution’s 2nd Amendment and the discussions surrounding its adoption. It’s all about one’s natural right to self-defense and, additionally, the need to protect our Constitutional rights from any form of usurpation. The writings of the Federalists and Anti-Federalists are instructive, if you truly want to know things beyond those provided by your current sensibilities and prejudices.
The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that I have an individual right to keep and bear arms. Additionally, that I also have a right to any weapon in common use. As AR15 variants are the most popular rifles in America, they seem to meet that “common use” requirement.
Also, wouldn’t you want to be armed at least as well as your attacker? Remember: “The police are only minutes away when seconds count.”
A prior Supreme Court ruling held that sawed-off shotguns could be regulated because they had no military value. The recent SCOTUS ruling said that only “dangerous” AND “unusual” weapons could be regulated. Military grade small arms are precisely those contemplated under the 2nd Amendment.
Did you not realize that one may acquire an automatic weapon by filling out the paperwork and paying a nominal Federal tax? Get a grip, man.
Be honest: Demand that your favorite Democrat Party hero run on a platform of repealing the 2nd Amendment!

Bryan A
Reply to  Trevor
April 23, 2018 5:43 am

Because one day the government might be run by people like Bloomberg and Soros and you wouldn’t be able to depend on them to protect you!

Reply to  Bryan A
April 23, 2018 1:06 pm

I should have waited for this comment before responding to your prior comment, Bryan. Mea Culpa, Mea Culpa, Mea Maxima Culpa!

Bryan A
Reply to  Trevor
April 23, 2018 5:46 am

NOTE TO BLOOMBERG…
The $4.5m yet unpaid dollars isn’t from the USA, it’s from Bloomberg.
AND
America didn’t make a commitment, Obama did! That Treaty didn’t pass through Congress for the ratification OF THE PEOPLE.

MarkW
Reply to  Trevor
April 23, 2018 7:02 am

commieBob, looks like jta really knows how to lie with half truths in their headlines.

commieBob
Reply to  Trevor
April 23, 2018 9:22 am

MarkW April 23, 2018 at 7:02 am
commieBob, looks like jta really knows how to lie with half truths in their headlines.

The Jewish media in general seem to be in an uproar about LaPierre’s rant. Verrry interesting. That said, it looks like a rabbit hole and I have better things to do with my time. 🙂

Greg
Reply to  Trevor
April 23, 2018 2:59 pm

America made a commitment

NO, Obama made a commitment, and most deliberately circumvented Congress. So NO , America DID NOT make a commitment

IIRC it was for $1bn per year so Bloomer’s paltry $4.5 million is far from the mark.
If he wants to step up to the plate he needs find another $496.5 million for last year and another BILLION for this year …. and another BILLION for next year ….

Reply to  Trevor
April 23, 2018 6:17 pm

Bryan A April 23, 2018 at 5:41 am
Why in the world do people need assault rifles?
Troll much. Trying to change the topic of Bloomburg’s stupidity and progressive agenda.
No one in the US owns an assault rifle(The Nazi Sturmgewehr, or the M-15 and similar). A relatively few people own fully automatic weapons after paying hefty fees to BATF for the permits.

Reply to  Trevor
April 24, 2018 8:48 am

Is Bloomberg a private citizen attempting to conduct foreign policy? Maybe he should be prosecuted.

R. de Haan
Reply to  Trevor
April 24, 2018 3:58 pm

http://green-agenda.com They know exactly what they are doing.

kenji
Reply to  Chimp
April 22, 2018 10:33 pm

White guilt payment. The money would be far more useful if donated to needy people anywhere and everywhere on the planet … however … that would just encourage more breeding … which is anathema to Gaia. These Billionaires are mental patients. Ghouls with massive offshore bank accounts.

wws
Reply to  kenji
April 23, 2018 8:07 am

agreed – he could have done far more good with this money just buy getting it dollar bills and dropping it out of a helicopter over the poorer area of any major American city.
What he has done is literally worse than just throwing his money out a window.

Bryan A
Reply to  kenji
April 23, 2018 10:02 am

Not necessarily.
Give a poor man a dollar and he will eat a free meal.
Teach him how to print his own money and he will eat free for the rest of his life.

papiertigre
Reply to  kenji
April 23, 2018 12:22 pm

Not just that. Bloomberg is actively subverting the foreign policy of the United States.

The Logan Act (1 Stat. 613, 18 U.S.C. § 953, enacted January 30, 1799) is a United States federal law that criminalizes negotiation by unauthorized persons with foreign governments having a dispute with the United States. The intent behind the Act is to prevent unauthorized negotiations from undermining the government’s position.[2] The Act was passed following George Logan’s unauthorized negotiations with France in 1798, and was signed into law by President John Adams on January 30, 1799. The Act was last amended in 1994, changing the penalty for violation from “fined $5,000” to “fined under this title”; this appears to be the only amendment to the Act.[2] Violation of the Logan Act is a felony.
Only two people have ever been indicted on charges of violating the Act,[3] one in 1802 and the other in 1852.[4] Neither was convicted of violating the Act.[4]

Sure Bloomberg could afford the fine, but a felony conviction would remove that over priced worm from ever plaguing the country by running for political office again.
That’s worth the price of admission.

Streetcred
Reply to  Chimp
April 23, 2018 12:56 am

If Bloomberg & Soros et al are so concerned, they can pay 100% of the largess themselves.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Streetcred
April 23, 2018 3:58 am

Absolutely. But no way they should get a nickel in tax write-offs for doing so!

Reply to  Chimp
April 23, 2018 7:42 am

Bloomberg is a living example of the old saying that “A fool and his money are soon parted”. Hopefully he will continue his foolish ways.

Larry
Reply to  Chimp
April 24, 2018 9:17 am

If you don’t live what you believe, chances are you really don’t believe it

Rubbish
April 22, 2018 8:01 pm

Sure, but bar it from being on our countries name !

mike
Reply to  Rubbish
April 23, 2018 2:28 am

Sounds like a violation of the Logan Act. A mayor trying to usurp the president’s foreign policy, and paying to a potentially or likely enemy or terroristic group.
Arrest Bloomie and others.

Guy
April 22, 2018 8:04 pm

I don’t expect for one minute he’ll be using his own money but that said it’s a cracking bit of virtue signalling, unlikely to be bettered for some time.

David Chappell
Reply to  Guy
April 22, 2018 10:36 pm

IF he actually writes the cheque and sends it…

Robert Beckman
Reply to  David Chappell
April 23, 2018 6:56 am

No, it’s even better virtue signaling if he doesn’t write it, and just gets credit for having done so. That’s how “signaling” modifies “virtue.”
😉

Reply to  Guy
April 23, 2018 7:43 am

He will probably deduct it on his taxes.

NW sage
Reply to  pyeatte
April 23, 2018 5:50 pm

Of course! It will be listed as a ‘business expense’!

John MacDonald
April 22, 2018 8:08 pm

I imagine we can count on one hand the number of true believers willing to back their commitment this much.

Tom Halla
April 22, 2018 8:09 pm

Bloomberg is reputed to be worth several billion dollars, so 4.5 million is not a major expense, and the dear boy probably tried to take a tax write off on the “donation”.

BobM
April 22, 2018 8:12 pm

“America made a commitment and as an American if the government’s not going to do it we all have responsibility. I’m able to do it. So, yes, I’m going to send them a check for the monies that America had promised to the organization as though they got it from the federal government,” said Bloomberg.
Nope. America made no such commitment. Obama made a “commitment” which included no legal standing from the “federal government”, which never approved either the Paris Accord or the expenditure.
If Bloomberg wants to send the UN $4.5M, that’s his right to spend his money. I’m happy it is not coming from taxpayer wallets, or, more accurately, being borrowed by Americans to send down a drain of worthless spending.
See? Our government isn’t as stupid as we take it to be, when idiots like Bloomberg will waste their own money instead.

Chris
Reply to  BobM
April 23, 2018 1:39 am

Our government is absolutely stupid. Congress and Trump just gave 1.9T to the rich and corporations over the next 10 years, with no impact on GDP growth. That’s industrial strength stupid.

Trevor
Reply to  Chris
April 23, 2018 2:38 am

Chris…………….THAT is MUCH BETTER than giving it to the corrupt and crooked UN and their IPCC !
.
Perhaps it WILL boost employment in the US ! Let’s hope so !

tailspintom
Reply to  Chris
April 23, 2018 4:55 am

Ah yes. I love the theory that, by not taking it, it is giving. Perhaps, if those who wish that governments would take more from its people were to actually pay up to that which they want others to pay, the government’s inability to have $3.5 trillion pay for its programs would be solved. If the likes of Bloomberg, Schultz, Buffet, and even you Chris, wish to pay higher tax, scratch out a check to the federal government.

Johnny Cuyana
Reply to  Chris
April 23, 2018 5:22 am

Chris, I take it, therefore, that by extension: the American people, WHO ELECT OUR GOVT, are “absolutely stupid” … as, apparently, we do not elect many candidates who offer alternative policy views.
Ultimately, in a free society — in which I believe we remain, somewhat — We The People are responsible for our national policies, and, more importantly, who we elect and how these representatives act to express said policies at home and abroad.
PS: I will agree with your sentiment; however, I would prefer to use the word “ignorant” rather than “stupid”; where many of us have forsaken our foundational American values and have surrendered voluntarily[!] our critical thinking skills — even, in many cases, those of our young citizens — to globalist-oriented brainwashing … which results in our overall ignorance.
IOW, in so many ways, many of us have voluntarily permitted ourselves to be duped … by clever and ambitious politicians. Such has been the history of humanity.

Reply to  Johnny Cuyana
April 23, 2018 12:28 pm

As usual, George Carlin said it all (paraphrasing): You know how dumb the average American is? Well, half of them are dumber than that.

Gums
Reply to  Chris
April 23, 2018 6:44 am

Thank you, Tail Spin.
The tax process is not a zero sum game except for those paying the tax.
And finally, how can the “models” used to guess at “x” $$$ less in government income be any better than the IPCC climate models?
Gums ponders…

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
April 23, 2018 7:04 am

I love the way socialists actually believe that everything belongs to the government.
Allowing people to keep some of their own money, because a gift.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
April 23, 2018 7:05 am

Gums, Chris is concerned that if the government has less money, that means he’ll be getting less from the government.

Reply to  Chris
April 23, 2018 7:46 am

That is where you are absolute wrong. The economy will boom as long as the democrats are kept at arms length away from it.

Chris
Reply to  Chris
April 23, 2018 9:00 am

Trevor, hope and $5 will get you a cup of coffee. Go ahead and live in hope land, I’ll pass. The non partisan CBO just released their 10 year estimate of the impact of the tax cut. Average GDP growth is expected to be 1.9%, same as it’s been the last several years. But the rich (who of course own a lot of shares in companies) will get a double benefit. A tax cut for them, and more dividends from their investments. The middle class and working poor? Not so much, a very slight reduction during the next few years, then their tax burden will become higher than what it is now. Shameful.
Johnny, yes, I agree that many voters are stupid, or at least don’t do their homework. Trump is a rich guy who campaigned on a tax cut and draining the swamp. But if you look at his track record as a businessman when it comes to the working class, it is abysmal. 1) shafting small contractors who worked on his casinos, offering them 70 cents on the dollar – see you in court if you want more. 2) hiring foreigners for Mar al Lago – even now – rather than paying a bit more and hiring Americans. 3) forcing out renters in his NYC buildings in the 80s by doing terrible maintenance and giving out veiled threats in order to empty the buildings so he could tear them down and build expensive condos. So why on earth would a rich guy who has behaved that way for 50 years do a 180 and look after the little guy? His support base got played, big time.
MarkW, nah, I’m busy with my job and paying lots of taxes. Unlike you, who is probably on the dole (including SS and Medicare, since outflows are > inflows), and apparently has time to make 100s of comments on WUWT on a weekly basis. Sad.

DonM
Reply to  Chris
April 23, 2018 10:09 am

Chris,
By your logic, the government gave me $70,000 last year, then they took $20,000 back.
Over the next 10 years they will give me a total of $500,000 if I continue to work two jobs and 60 hrs/week.
Given 380 million people in the USA, the fed government would be “giving” 380,000 people like me that same 1.9 Trillion over the next 10 years.
Does that make me part of the disgusting 10% ?

DonM
Reply to  Chris
April 23, 2018 10:13 am

Chris,
You also say that the middle class tax burden will be higher in the future. Why do you say that?
I understand why the poor tax burden might be higher … BECAUSE THEY PAY NONE NOW ….

Chris
Reply to  Chris
April 24, 2018 6:42 am
Chris
Reply to  Chris
April 24, 2018 6:43 am
DonM
Reply to  Chris
April 24, 2018 9:57 am

Chris,
Hopefully, one last time:
1) Less taxes paid by me does not mean that the government is giving me (or anyone else) money.
2) Less government money given to me (directly or indirectly) , does not mean more there is a greater tax burden on me (or anyone else).
Do you seriously believe items 1 & 2 above are wrong?
Do you truly believe that by me claiming a deduction this year, one that I missed last year, that the government is GIVING me more money this year.
Do you truly believe that, if the government offers me less services, my tax burden is greater?
If you hand me a dollar and I hand you back five dollars every day for a year, and then all of the sudden in the second year I only give you three dollars back (in return for the dollar you gave me) why the hell would someone feel cheated? Why wouldn’t someone just be grateful that they got the 5:1 NET the previous year? Ignorance or greed or some combination of both?
(pay attention to the word “NET”)

Chris
Reply to  Chris
April 25, 2018 3:03 am

DonM, I look at the net impact. I know folks on WUWT love to call scientific grants the dole, ripoffs of taxpayer money, etc – even though they are being paid for work, the same as a guy that writes software or does accounting. And a reduction in taxes or a tax credit is somehow completely different than the government sending you a payment.
In any case, the link I posted showed that the middle class and working poor will be paying MORE in taxes by 2027 than they would have if the so called tax cut would not have been put into law. That is a tax increase, there is no other way to refer to it.

DonM
Reply to  Chris
April 26, 2018 5:20 pm

Nope, doesn’t say that.
Apparently you haven’t read your link.

mike
Reply to  BobM
April 23, 2018 2:41 am

There are parts of the UN that need to be labelled terrorist or enemy…
Also the Logan Act would still apply to “usurping” federal policy whether to allies or enemies.

Trebla
Reply to  mike
April 23, 2018 4:46 am

Trevor: Boost employment? Your unemployment rate is at an all time low at around 4%. You don’t need jobs, you need people to fill them.

OweninGA
Reply to  mike
April 23, 2018 5:52 am

Trebla,
You are looking at the fake politician-inspired unemployment number. The workforce participation rate should still grow by another 10 million people before I would grant your point.

Trevor
Reply to  mike
April 23, 2018 7:25 am

Trebla : You seem well informed ! Nationally ( Seasonally adjusted etc etc ) it’s about 4.1% in USA.
In Western Australia it is about 7%…..not good…..and no …….we DON’T NEED MORE IMMIGRANTS.
What we need are more jobs ( apprenticeships , trainee-ships ) for youths .(teenagers ).
I was actually referring to the USA , which I understand has high pockets of unemployment or
under-employment in some places…………….but you are right…………..you MAY need immigrants to meet
YOUR labour needs. Fortunate !

Cold in Wisconsin
Reply to  mike
April 23, 2018 10:40 pm

Trebla, the Unemployment rate counts only people who are actively looking for a job. The labor participation rate is at an all time low while unemployment is at historic lows. We would have enough workers if we did not pay people to stay out of the job market and accept available jobs. Of course I believe that employers will have to increase wages as well.

Sara
April 22, 2018 8:18 pm

$4.5 million, huh? I think I’ll send Mikey Bloomerberg a bill ‘for services rendered’, meaning having to see his face plastered in the media again. Begging letters can be fun. I will even enclose a self-addressed stamped envelope.
This guy has a problem: not getting enough attention. I’m sure there are people in NYC who could quickly and easily help him find a solution to his problem, and it might save him a little cash, too.

Richard M
April 22, 2018 8:19 pm

I thought our commitment was $3 billion every year. Where did this number come from?

Mike Slay
Reply to  Richard M
April 22, 2018 8:56 pm

Good question.

JerryC
Reply to  Richard M
April 22, 2018 9:06 pm

We never legally agreed to it. The commitment from President Obama held no legal standing because it was never approved by congress.

philincalifornia
Reply to  Richard M
April 22, 2018 9:23 pm

It’s the bill for the lobster and champagne.

old construction worker
Reply to  philincalifornia
April 23, 2018 4:05 am

LOL

Reply to  Richard M
April 22, 2018 9:46 pm

The commitment probably amounts to $4.5 million for every American – so he’s just doing his bit .
Unfortunately I’m about $4.49999 million short on change lying around .

philincalifornia
Reply to  Realismatwork
April 22, 2018 10:32 pm

Have you looked under the cushions on your sofa?
No, neither have I.

Edward B Hanley
April 22, 2018 8:35 pm

Bloomberg intends to violate the Logan Act. A felony. viz.,
Ҥ 953. Private correspondence with foreign governments.
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.”

Reply to  Edward B Hanley
April 22, 2018 8:49 pm

+10 …we can only hope.

Reply to  Edward B Hanley
April 22, 2018 10:43 pm

Ed, the rules are different for the likes of Bloomberg.

firetoice2014
Reply to  Edward B Hanley
April 23, 2018 5:21 am

The UN has not yet achieved its desired status as a global government. Therefore, the Logan Act probably does not apply in this case.

stinkerp
Reply to  firetoice2014
April 23, 2018 2:33 pm

It’s not a treaty with the U.N., it’s a treaty with numerous other nations, so it is a clear violation of the Logan Act.

firetoice2014
Reply to  stinkerp
April 28, 2018 5:19 am

It is not a treaty at all, otherwise it would have required Senate ratification.
Bloomberg would be sending the check to the UN, not to each of the Paris Accord signatories.

April 22, 2018 8:35 pm

Bloomberg’s apparent lack of engineering/science skill has made him gullible to assertions by people who stand to benefit by continuing to misguide the public.
Delve deeper into the engineering/science with an understanding of thermalization and use of Quantum Mechanics (Hitran does the calculations) and discover why CO2 does not now, has never had and will never have a significant effect on climate. http://energyredirect3.blogspot.com

TA
April 22, 2018 8:36 pm

Bloomberg must feel so noble.

Joel O’Bryan
Reply to  TA
April 23, 2018 9:23 am

and Virtuous, bought with what for him is chump change.

TA
April 22, 2018 8:39 pm

From the article: “America made a commitment and as an American if the government’s not going to do it we all have responsibility. I’m able to do it. So, yes, I’m going to send them a check for the monies that America had promised to the organization as though they got it from the federal government,” said Bloomberg.”
To be accurate, substitute “Obama” for “America” in the above paragraph.
Obama is the one making all the promises, *not* America. I just hate it when socialist billionaires presume to speak for all of America.

Chris
Reply to  TA
April 23, 2018 1:42 am

You forgot to include Marxist, Communist, Agenda 21, virtue signaling and rent seeking in your post.

OweninGA
Reply to  Chris
April 23, 2018 5:56 am

And we forgot to include “useful idiot” in our responses.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
April 23, 2018 7:09 am

Chris, do you actually have a point somewhere under that verbal vomit you’ve been spewing?
Or are you still upset that people are permitted to disagree with you and your gods?

Chris
Reply to  Chris
April 23, 2018 9:08 am

MarkW, I’m not upset at all. I just call out rubbish posts when I see them, which is why I often comment on yours. Calling Bloomberg a socialist is just silly. He’s a hard core capitalist who built a great company from nothing. And he did not say he spoke for America, now did he? He said he was taking this action as an American – please point out where Bloomberg said he spoke for all Americans. You know, surprise us by posting a link for the first time ever.

Tom Halla
Reply to  Chris
April 23, 2018 9:43 am

Michael Bloomberg is a do-gooder authoritarian with contempt for the civil rights of other persons. A case can be made that he is not a Marxist, but not all anti-democratic(lower case democratic!) and anti-constitutional tendencies are Marxist.
Bloomberg notoriously put into place the so-called Big Gulp ban, accepting a dubious theory of obesity. Similarly, he is heavily into funding gun control and global warming advocacy, both causes what are even more political and questionable enough to make his obesity model look reasonable.
Bloomberg may be channeling William Jennings Bryan more than any European tyrant.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
April 23, 2018 9:53 am

Did I say that Bloomberg claimed to be speaking for all Americans?
As to my links, I post them when necessary.
Not surprised you need to lie about that as well.
It’s what you do best.

Chris
Reply to  Chris
April 23, 2018 11:22 pm

“Bloomberg notoriously put into place the so-called Big Gulp ban, accepting a dubious theory of obesity.”
It’s not dubious in the slightest. https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/sugary-drinks-fact-sheet/
Gun control is questionable? Only if you choose to ignore data and facts. https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2015.302749
Zero links to support your points, Tom. You can do better.

Reply to  Chris
April 24, 2018 12:21 am

The AJPH “study” is absolute garbage. Without controlling for confounding factors and, especially, for differing county-level data, the results are nonsense.
Read some of John Lott’s work to get a perspective on gun violence facts.

Chris
Reply to  Chris
April 23, 2018 11:39 pm

MarkW said: “Did I say that Bloomberg claimed to be speaking for all Americans?
As to my links, I post them when necessary.”
My comment about Bloomberg was aimed at TA, whose comment I initially replied to. You say you post your links “when necessary”. That’s a good one. I guess it’s necessary only once every thousand MarkW posts or so, because I have yet to see one. You make definitive comments all the time (for example, in the recent post about batteries) yet don’t back up your assertions with evidence. Normally I wouldn’t say anything, but I’ve seen you call out others for not providing links to support their assertions. Shouldn’t that apply both ways?

Chris
Reply to  Chris
April 24, 2018 6:56 am

Dave Fair – What a joke of a retort. Your go to source is a discredited economist. And you provide exactly zero links to peer reviewed papers by him. Nah, I’m not going to rummage around through the garbage dump of Lott’s work. If you’re too lazy to find and post links to his papers, that’s your problem, not mine. https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2018/02/13/why-new-york-times-publishing-discredited-gun-researcher-john-lott/219352

Tom Halla
Reply to  Chris
April 24, 2018 7:23 am

Chris, your citing Media Matters reveals quite a lot. It is exactly parallel to a rightie quoting Alex Jones.

Chris
Reply to  Chris
April 24, 2018 6:58 am

Dave Fair – even the conservative Cato Institute calls Lott’s work trash. He either lies or is incredibly lousy at research.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
April 24, 2018 7:39 am

If I posted that water was wet, Chris would whine that I failed to link to a site proving that.

Ben Gunn
April 22, 2018 8:42 pm

The 2020 Presidential campaign is now under way.

JerryC
Reply to  Ben Gunn
April 22, 2018 9:09 pm

If Bloomberg is their candidate, it will be an easy win for conservatives. Mainly because Bloombergs skeletons will come flying out of the closet.

Phil Rae
Reply to  Ben Gunn
April 22, 2018 10:05 pm

Ben Gunn
I think you nailed it! He is setting out his stall already!

April 22, 2018 8:54 pm

Is it cooler over here?

MarkW
Reply to  Max Photon
April 23, 2018 7:10 am

I’ve got a cooler in the closet.

April 22, 2018 8:55 pm

It’s very encouraging to see Michael Bloomberg wasting his (or other friend’s) money on an empty political gesture, which would otherwise have cost normal people in America $4 billion. Over the 4-year Trump Term, this could well cost them $22 billion if they continue the folly. Trump supporters will be encouraged to see that savings in government expenditure can be made with no loss of outcome. Lavish and pointless government handouts of US taxpayer’s money to foreign Quangos can now be ruthlessly pared back.

Chip
April 22, 2018 8:55 pm

With 14 homes around the world and a fleet of private jets, Mikey isn’t willing to make any sacrifices himself. That’s the job of the poor who are to be deprived of the cheap and plentiful energy that powers his own lifestyle and business.
Sure, he’s a fool when it comes to climate. But it’s the hypocrisy that makes him despicable.
When you think about it, he’s ending his life on a pathetic note, obsessed with signalling virtue on an issue that’s quickly becoming a farce.

Toby Nixon
April 22, 2018 8:58 pm

This is exactly how this kind of thing should work. Stop all foreign aid that is paid by tax dollars taken from current taxpayers by force or taken from future generations through borrowing, and let those individuals or organizations who care make voluntary contributions.

RicDre
Reply to  Toby Nixon
April 23, 2018 7:01 am

I agree, I have no problem with him spending private money on the “Paris Climate Agreement” because it means taxpayers won’t have to spend money on that farce.

DAV
April 22, 2018 9:12 pm

While he’s at it, he can pay my bills too.

April 22, 2018 9:12 pm

Well, perhaps if ALL the “true believers” with deep pockets paid for the “global warming” nonsense, the rest of us would not have to. Yeah, tax the ignorant “believers” who would impose this con upon the ordinary folks, get them to pay for it, it’s their hobby horse after all. Instead, it seems the likes of Gore are making money out of the con, but not contributing to the imposed costs.

April 22, 2018 9:40 pm

PT Barnum had something to say about this …

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  co2isnotevil
April 23, 2018 7:18 pm

If you’re referring to the “sucker” phrase, no he didn’t. Myth.

April 22, 2018 9:46 pm

4.5 million $?
That is not much. What is that for? Air tickets for the US attendees to the useless yearly conferences?

Klem
Reply to  Henryp
April 23, 2018 6:16 am

$4.5 million wouldn’t cover their dry cleaning expenses.

April 22, 2018 9:51 pm

Nice virtue signal. The big fat useless UN bureaucrats will appreciate it surely.

April 22, 2018 10:20 pm

Just to remind you about the essential part of the Paris climate agreement. Every year 100 BILLION dollars should be donated by industrial countries to be used for energy investments in developing countries. The tool in this operation is the Green Climate Fund. The pledged money from 2013 to day is totally 10.3 billion dollars. Three billions donated by president Obama (not his own money).
Bloomberg’s donatiaon will increase this sum just like this: 10,3 + 0.0045 = 10.3 billions. No practical effect.
The Paris climate agreement is dead. Its fate has been a cradle death. The mass media of the world has not noticed this – yet. The scientific basis of the Paris agreement is almost non-existing and therefore there it cannot be found in the Paris agreement at all:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2018/04/16/challenging-the-science-basis-of-the-paris-climate-agreement/
Dr. Antero Ollila

Reply to  aveollila
April 23, 2018 6:44 am

Agreed! Which brings up the absurdity of Boomberg’s irrational stunt, Dr. Ollila!
Blooberg’s alleged payment is not the payment the greenfund, IPCC, UNFCCC, along with the myriad of funds established by UNFCCC:
e.g. Global Environment Facility (GEF): Donor country contribution pledges are expected May-June 2018.

“The Global Environment Facility (GEF) Trust Fund was established on the eve of the 1992 Rio Earth Summit, to help tackle our planet’s most pressing environmental problems. GEF funding to support the projects is contributed by donor countries. These financial contributions are replenished every four years (see GEF Replenishment documents) by the GEF 39 donor countries.
http://www.thegef.org/sites/default/files/images/replenishment-cycles.png

39 donor countries, $4.43 Billion total; works out to a $113.590 million dollars if the contribution is evenly split. Except all things UN, except the USA to foot a substantially heavier burden.
There is an additional twist to this “contribution”. UNFCCC expects “contributions” to be paid in SDRs (Special Drawing Rights), a currency hodgepodge currency conversion calculation prepared by the IMF.
Christine Lagarde is currently Chief of the IMF; who recently at Davos stated “IMF chief urges more wealth distribution to fight populism”
The GEF fund is simply one of many funds the UNFCCC expects contributions towards, along with direct payments; Special Climate Change Fund (SCCF), Least Developed Countries Fund (LDCF), Capacity Building Initiative for Transparency (CBIT), Nagoya Protocol Implementation Fund (NPFI), Adaptation Fund, etc.
Leaving Bloomersberg’s paltry $4.5 million as simply the first round ante towards a corrupt shell game that is masks a huge insatiable cash hungry maw.

Warren Blair
April 22, 2018 10:34 pm

When discussing Bloomberg, always keep in mind his criminality and hypocrisy . . .
Michael Bloomberg is a transnational tax avoidance criminal . . .
https://www.theinvestigativefund.org/investigation/2010/04/20/bloombergs-offshore-millions/

J Mac
April 22, 2018 10:54 pm

Re: “America made a commitment….
Uhhhhmm – No!
Obama made a personal commitment that was never submitted to United States of America Congress for congressional authorization or ratification. Bloomberg told an out right lie!
Because the Paris Obama Climate memo was never voted on or ratified by the US Congress, President Trump was entirely justified in rejecting Obama’s illegal and unconstitutional personal attempt to supercede the authority that belongs only to the US Congress. And Bloomberg damn well knows this!

Trevor
Reply to  J Mac
April 22, 2018 11:26 pm

J Mac : Your comment is SPOT ON !
WHEN are Americans going to START THANKING POTUS TRUMP for acting IN THEIR INTERESTS
do you think !?

Reply to  Trevor
April 23, 2018 8:22 am

This won’t happen until the left and its lackey press stops spinning all the good Trump is doing as the nefarious plot of a mad man ceding control of America to the Kremlin.
The current regime of obstructionism accelerated when GW Bush succeeded the Clintons. The right didn’t respond in kind with Obama, rapidly approved his appointments and let him get away with far too much of his radical, socialist agenda.
I don’t think the right will be as accommodating when the next Democrat comes to power, even if he/she/it is the most moderate Democrat in the bunch, just as Trump was the closest to the center among all the Republican contenders. The political left is leading the way to its own self destruction. Unfortunately, they are too consumed with Trump Derangement Syndrome to foresee the longer term consequences of their inane actions.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
April 23, 2018 1:18 pm

The Dems will then pull a “Harry Reid” and just use a 50/50 rule for appointment approvals.

Abiogenesis
April 22, 2018 11:04 pm

More money than sense,

Reply to  Abiogenesis
April 23, 2018 4:33 am

That statement becomes true at $20.

gnome
April 23, 2018 12:07 am

If he thinx $4.5 million is going to win anyone’s heart he’s sadly mistaken. The catastrophists only think in billions when they’re dealing in other peoples’ money.

Bitter&twisted
April 23, 2018 12:16 am

Classic virtue-signalling.
More money than sense.

Tim Beatty
April 23, 2018 12:41 am

Well if he thinks he can contribute on behalf of the U.S. and publicize it as a legitimate payment from the U.S., I suppose it’s now fair game to buy an NRA life membership for him and tout his commitment to the organization as if he bought it himself.

Coeur de Lion
April 23, 2018 12:53 am

Check out the salary bill for administering the Green Fund. I wish.

Mike Magure
April 23, 2018 1:12 am

Publicity/aren’t ion getting stunt from a rich, arrogant hypocrite, who uses up more fossil fuels than 100 of the average people on the planet. How is donating millions of dollars,going to cut back on fossil fuels and save the planet from catastrophic man made climate change?
Especially considering the planet just experienced the best 4 decades of climate and CO2 levels for life in the last 1,000 years. We still have not beneficially warmed or increased CO2 levels enought to reach the optimal level for most life but we are getting closer.
WTF is his donated money supposed,to,do anyway? That is, other than make him look,like he is trying to save the planet or meet important obligations for a country that would be dumb enough to,pay billions of dollars for belonging to a bogus, climate science hijacking scheme being used to extort money from rich counties that will do nothing to change the climate.

Ed Zuiderwijk
Reply to  Mike Magure
April 23, 2018 1:22 am

His donated money will buy one or two somewhere a new Merc.

April 23, 2018 1:16 am

Cold rain in Missouri tonight as solar cycle #24 ends and solar cycle #25 begins

Juan Slayton
April 23, 2018 1:20 am

Will he claim this as a charitable contribution on his tax returns?

Klem
Reply to  Juan Slayton
April 23, 2018 6:14 am

Possibly, but for Bloomberg $4.5 million is nothing more a rounding error.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  Juan Slayton
April 23, 2018 7:27 pm

Wouldn’t a charitable organization have to be approved by the IRS in order for any donations to be tax deductible?

Alasdair
April 23, 2018 2:21 am

This, of course, is dirty money, generated on the back of fossil fuel. How otherwise did he get his hands on it?
Now, if he built a wind farm and undertook to operate it for 100 years WITHOUT ANY SUBSIDIES; that would be putting money where his mouth is.

ivankinsman
April 23, 2018 3:07 am

“Bloomberg’s empty political gesture seems unlikely to win over many of the people who voted for President Trump. From what I have seen most Trump supporters are utterly fed up with pointlessly lavish handouts of US taxpayer’s money to foreigners, money which should be used to address pressing problems back home.”
What a very typical curmudgeonly comment, Eric.
First of all, why the hell should Bloomberg be wanting to win over anyone who voted for Trump? What on earth has this got to do with Trump and his base? Secondly, everyone on this site should be overjoyed by Bloomberg has made this magnificent charitable gesture. Thirdly, he is a far more successful businessman than anyone on WUWT and, as such, doesn’t simply throw his money away on lost causes. Bloomberg is fully aware of the threat posed by climate change and is acting in the US’s best interests. A huge number of Americans will be applauding him for his $4.5 million donation and this should encourage other billionaires (Not Trump as he is too mean) to chip in…

Khwarizmi
Reply to  ivankinsman
April 23, 2018 4:05 am

What on earth has this got to do with Trump and his base?
In May 2016 during his election campaign, Trump announced that he would cancel the Paris climate deal if he was elected. Trump was subsequently, despite all the bizarre propaganda to the contrary, elected.
Therefore, Bloomberg, a proud member of the ruling caste masquerading as a philanthropist, is essentially saying that he not only doesn’t respect the wishes of the people who voted for Trump’s polices, but he plans to undermine their decision on the basis that his financial might makes his policy the right one for the U.S.A. He is essentially spitting in the face of Trump voters while showing his contempt for representative democracy.
And you seem to be lovin’ it.
http://www.luminist.org/archives/rich.htm

ivankinsman
Reply to  Khwarizmi
April 23, 2018 4:51 am

Trump is also a proud member of the ruling caste as he hob nobs with his billionaire pals at Mar el Lago so no different to Bloomberg in this respect. I don’t think Bloomberg cares one jot for Trump voters – why should he?

ivankinsman
Reply to  Khwarizmi
April 23, 2018 5:07 am

Looked at the luminist.org link. How you can subscribe to that and also believe in the Donald bemuses me – he epitomises the rich corporate elite, particularly in his case when he has bankrupted several business, shafting his investors along the way as he wriggled out of bankruptcy. Trump standing up for the working man and the underprivileged – don’t make me laugh 🙂 If you believe that line he pulled during his election campaign, they you’re very gullible my friend.

Reply to  ivankinsman
April 23, 2018 12:24 pm

Driving unemployment to historical lows is anti-workingman, Ivan?

ivankinsman
Reply to  Dave Fair
April 23, 2018 8:49 pm

Look around the world Dave and unemployment everywhere is at historical lows so it is not just the Trump effect but a vibrant global economy. I see some positives – he is right to take in China and bring business back to the US, to punish US companies for stashing their cash overseas, and for highlighting the opiod crisis. I am also pro his tackling illegal economic migration which is also the curse of Europe. But to say he is doing all of this in the interests of the working man to me smacks of hypocrisy.

scraft1
Reply to  Khwarizmi
April 23, 2018 5:50 am

This is b.s. Khwarwizmi. Bloomberg is expressing his own opinion and backing it up with his own money. You may not agree with Paris’ climate goals and I may not either. But Bloomberg is among many in his individual support of the climate goals, and does no harm to U.S. interests in expressing this support. He’s making a payment that Trump has passed on, and a payment which was U.S. policy before an election made it unpopular.
Is this a silly expenditure of one’s own money? Probably. But that’s my opinion and people have different opinions. Some people think sending money to the Trump campaign is seditious, and this is equally stupid.
Why can’t we respect other’s opinions, so long as its legal, particularly if they back up their mouth with their money? This looks to me like kneejerk partisanship. Why does this have to become of feature of this blog?

MarkW
Reply to  Khwarizmi
April 23, 2018 7:13 am

If it’s merely him doing what he believes is right, why call a press conference to tell the world about it?

scraft1
Reply to  Khwarizmi
April 23, 2018 10:16 am

MarkW, calling a press conference is part of expressing one’s own opinion. He’s keeping others of like mind informed of what he’s doing, and he’s obviously hoping others will do the same.

TA
Reply to  Khwarizmi
April 23, 2018 11:29 am

“He’s making a payment that Trump has passed on, and a payment which was U.S. policy before an election made it unpopular. ”
No, it wasn’t U.S. policy. For that to be the case, the U.S. Senate would have had to vote in favor of the Paris Climate Agreement. Obama didn’t submit the agreement to the U.S. Senate, so it is not official U.S. policy. It was Obama’s policy. Now we have a new president who has decided not to continue Obama’s policy.

MarkW
Reply to  Khwarizmi
April 23, 2018 2:01 pm

If he’s merely doing what he believes is right, he doesn’t need to tell the world about it.
In fact bragging about being good is solid evidence that what you are doing isn’t good after all.

DonM
Reply to  Khwarizmi
April 23, 2018 4:20 pm

scraft,
“Why can’t we respect other’s opinions, so long as its legal, particularly if they back up their mouth with their money?”
Because it is not just his opinion. He will follow through in trying to force action, based on “his opinion”, on everyone else in the USA.
His opinion is that his security detail should carry guns, but my security detail should not.
He has the opinion is that my fossil fuel use should be restricted through various means, but his use need not be altered in a manner that he will feel the impact.
He has the means to try get others to force his hypocritical opinions on me. I don’t respect his opinions or his efforts of force and I never will.

MarkW
Reply to  ivankinsman
April 23, 2018 7:12 am

Ivanski, if you don’t understand that this is nothing more than a cheap political gesture, then you are even more clueless than you have proven in the past.

Reply to  ivankinsman
April 23, 2018 12:04 pm

Funny, that Bloomberg; worried and making donations about vague threats of future climate change and at the same time funding anti-gun attempts to deny people the protections they need from real, current threats.

Non Nomen
April 23, 2018 3:08 am

What are guys from the IRS going to say? Is it tax deductible? Then the US citizen pays nonetheless.

Mike Ozanne
April 23, 2018 3:55 am

The man really needs a tax deductible…..

Matthew R Epp
April 23, 2018 4:05 am

Maybe Bloomberg could start a “Go fund me” page on Facebook book for the Paris Accord. He could pledge to match every donation and then all the people who really believe in the cause can use their OWN money to support it.

April 23, 2018 4:09 am

This is what comes of half measures. The President should have exited the entire UN Climate Framework and declared the premise junk science for a global cabal. A full skeptical team should have been assembled and the political firestorm would have benefited his agenda. Instead he pandered to the Greenshirt authority which remains in place.

Bruce Cobb
April 23, 2018 4:21 am

$4.5 million buys a lot of “carbon” indulgences, and tons of virtue-signalling. Of course, that money could have done something actually useful, like helping homeless people, or any of hundreds of worthy causes. But no, instead, he wants to help a “cause” which is actually anti-humanity. Shows where the priorities of Warmunists actually lies. Disgusting.

stock
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
April 23, 2018 10:35 am

Agreed, I mean think what you could do of benefit to a city, with $4.5 M not spent wastefully? A LOT!

John Garrett
April 23, 2018 4:34 am

What an idiot.
The fact that he started his career as an employee of Salomon Brothers tells you something about his intellect, judgement and integrity.

Mihaly Malzenicky
Reply to  John Garrett
April 23, 2018 10:00 am

If rich people donate, it may be good. Soros helped eradicate communism while helping to blow up the Ukrainian conflict and migration. Blomberg’s current action is certainly a good thing.

stock
Reply to  Mihaly Malzenicky
April 23, 2018 10:34 am

Ya but donate to what? Perpetuating a lie? handing money to idiots is not a good use of money.

papiertigre
Reply to  Mihaly Malzenicky
April 23, 2018 12:32 pm

fully rearming anti-american propagandists..

rapscallion
April 23, 2018 4:41 am

A fool and his money are easily parted.

Rob
April 23, 2018 4:52 am

Putting money in the pockets of his world government masters at the corrupt and evil UN.

Tom in Florida
April 23, 2018 4:52 am

Good for him. It’s his money and he can spend it anyway he wants, legally that is. If it makes him feel better so what. Just like donating to your favorite church or charity. But it does go to show the other elites that they all need to put THEIR MONEY where their mouths are and stop asking us to foot the bill for their follies.

ScarletMacaw
April 23, 2018 5:23 am

Didn’t Obama send over a billion dollars to the UN climate group? I seem to remember they got around $1.5B in money Obama stole from US taxpayers and used it to build a new climate bureaucracy Taj Mahal.
If so, $4.5 million will not come close to covering the Obama tithe.

Gums
Reply to  ScarletMacaw
April 23, 2018 7:44 am

Close, Scarlet.
From wiki, re the Green Climate Fund:

U.S. President Obama committed the US to contributing US$3 billion to the fund. In January 2017, in his final 3 days in office, Obama initiated the transfer of a second $500m installment to the fund, leaving $2 billion owing. Incoming President Trump was not expected to make further contributions

Gums sends…

Reply to  Gums
April 23, 2018 2:03 pm

If there were a gold standard and money was real, instead of printed currency, you can bet none of this could happen.
The monetary system in the hands of Keynesian’s and war inflationists were the founding junk science of the 20th century. We lost the logic compass long ago and climate idiocy grew out of it.

beng135
April 23, 2018 5:34 am

Guarantee that money will be dirty — laundered from some under-the-table source. Perhaps originally taxpayer money.

beng135
April 23, 2018 5:37 am

Doubt if that money would be his — prb’ly laundered from some NGO foundation.

Dr. Bob
April 23, 2018 5:38 am

Remember, Bloomberg will take this as a tax deduction so the American taxpayer will be footing at least part of this payment anyway.

prjindigo
April 23, 2018 5:42 am

Pretty sure this is actually illegal.

papiertigre
Reply to  prjindigo
April 23, 2018 12:38 pm

yep. All Trump has to do is stir Jeff Sessions into motion, and Bloomberg is done with subverting US policy.
Please bring the usurper to justice, Mr President.

Jim
April 23, 2018 5:43 am

I’m guessing that he’ll be able to write this off on next year’s federal tax return.

Klem
April 23, 2018 6:07 am

Wow $4.5 million, that’s pocket change for Bloomburg. He could write that cheque every week and it would have no measurable effect on his obscene wealth. What a cheapskate.

michael hart
April 23, 2018 6:50 am

Well that’ll keep the UN hopefuls supplied with canapés and fine wines for a week or two. Now, if only Bloomberg could stump up the hundreds of billions of Dollars per year in cash that the crazies were angling to squeeze out of the industrialized economies with this little scheme (and that ignores the squillions of Dollars of collateral economic damage that their decarbonizing agenda would cause if fully implemented)
The even funnier bit was the BBC account of the story. They were still fantasizing about Trump changing his mind, as if it was likely that he will reverse his policy on international agreements that obviously harm the US economy. They were some of the first things that he tackled on entering office. All he really suggested was that he could reconsider if it was re-written to not penalize America, which would of course completely gut an already worthless agreement.

William Astley
April 23, 2018 6:54 am

Why are we talking about a one-time waste of $2.5 million for idiotic UN climate conferences?
Almost all of the developed countries are deeply in debt. Our economies are growly slower and we have not reduced public expenditures.
Rather than face real problems which must be address (debt, health care costs, trade deficit with China, infastructure, and so on), we invented fake problems, with fake solutions, which are impossible to fund.
The cult of CAGW requires/promised $100 billion/year ramping up to a $1 trillion/year to send to corrupt third world countries.
The actual cost for every country on the planet to ‘de-carbonize’ (with solar and wind power, without nuclear power) is beyond astronomical.
http://fortune.com/2014/09/23/climate-summit-kicks-off-with-promises-of-200-billion-for-clean-energy/
2014
I promise this, I promise that, which we cannot afford which is a complete waste blah, blah, blah.

Obama promised the United States would lead a global effort to forge an international agreement next year that would require all countries to set emission targets by 2020 and provide upwards of $100 billion annually to help the poorest countries shift away from fossil fuels and adapt to the worsening floods and heat waves that come with warming temperatures.
…Opening the session alongside Vice President Al Gore and a bearded Leonardo DiCaprio, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon warned that time was running out for the world to agree on a legally-binding deal that would force nations…

http://www.wsj.com/articles/obamas-renewable-energy-fantasy-1436104555

Recently Bill Gates explained in an interview with the Financial Times why current renewables are dead-end technologies. They are unreliable. Battery storage is inadequate. Wind and solar output depends on the weather. The cost of decarbonization using today’s technology (William: Solar and wind power rather than nuclear) is “beyond astronomical,” Mr. Gates concluded.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/22/shocker-top-google-engineers-say-renewable-energy-simply-wont-work/
P.S. There has been a second jump up and down breakthrough. This one ends the climate wars.

stock
Reply to  William Astley
April 23, 2018 10:33 am

ya, it’s just a fake way to transfer money…..and cause money to be “printed” aka conjured up, effectively a larger pot to skim from, whilst the inflationary effects keeps all the hamsters on the hamster wheels. males and females both, whilst the young ‘uns get into the hands of the liberal education “system” for better indoctrination.

jclarke341
April 23, 2018 7:08 am

If giving more money to bureaucrats led to climate control, we would all live in the Garden of Eden by now.

Melon Labbe
April 23, 2018 7:45 am

$4.5 million ! The amount expected from the USA is $100 billion per year. He’s $99,995,500,000.00 short this year. Maybe next year …
[The mods request that you keep the same username, per site policy. Unless you’re permanently changing it for some reason, in which case, note what it used to be in your handle (at least for a while). Thanks. -mod]

JimG1
April 23, 2018 7:49 am

I guess one can have an EE degree and still be an idiot but it would be unusual, unless he bought his degree. My supposition is that being four feet tall has gjven him some serious ego issues and he is a control freak looking for ways to restrict the world around him and prove that he is, indeed, a deity. Think about a guy that wants to keep others from having a giant coke because he knows what’s best for them. Vanity was the first sin and the beat goes on.

JJW
April 23, 2018 8:13 am

“… utterly fed up with pointlessly lavish handouts of US taxpayer’s money to foreigners, money which should be used to address pressing problems back home.”
More accurately money which I know what to do with better than the government does. So I’d like to keep it!.

Paul Johnson
April 23, 2018 9:39 am

If he really ramps, hopefully he will become the first socialist to run out of his own money.

Gary Pearse
April 23, 2018 9:48 am

Surely 4.5 million is a drop in the bucket designed by UN. Oh Michael, you look so feel-good and virtuous, but why don’t you just give them a few billion? Your purchase price for love is equivalent to a donation from my resources of a few bucks.
Com’on you progressive elites, you can do it. Most of you got your cash from riding the progressive wave benefiting from skewed policy. Yeah but you know the gravy has dried up. The Clinton Foundation is living on wasting assets and other Champagne soshulist are wasting theirs on trying to rehabilitate the New World dodo bird.

stock
April 23, 2018 10:27 am

Always a lively discussion here, and a good review on important stuff like “we were never in the Paris agreement because it was, in effect, if effective, a treaty, that was adopted by Obama, although required to be passed by congress.
I am sure “they” would play the “because Paris is non-binding” we can skirt around the fact that it is a “treaty”.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  stock
April 23, 2018 10:54 am

To be clear, treaties are not “required to be passed by congress” but rather voted on by the Senate where 2/3 of Senators present must concur.

stock
April 23, 2018 10:29 am

Also good to rethink, this $4.5M is chump change, a leftist attempt to somehow keep USA in the agreement, grasping at straws. In reality, the Paris agreement rolled out would cost the citizens of the world around $20T
20,000,000 Million
Whilst the “quiet sun” has more cooling affect than anything man could do.

James Bull
April 23, 2018 10:30 am

As the saying goes “A fool and his money are soon parted”
James Bull

stock
April 23, 2018 11:20 am

Anyone labelled as a Philanthropist in Wikipedia should immediately be suspected as a Globalist

April 23, 2018 11:42 am

America made a commitment …

I did NOT get a vote in the decision to make that commitment. None of my state’s elected officials got a vote in the decision to make that commitment. So, here I am — at least one American who did NOT make, and who was NOT given an opportunity to consider making, such a commitment.
CONCLUSION: Bull sh**

April 23, 2018 12:03 pm

Paris is only a spawn of Satan. The UN Climate Framework itself must be destroyed.
It’s all derivative of oligarchic collectivism, New World Order thinking after the Soviet fell. The President has determined to pander and posture as a moderate with the Greenshirt fringe, it doesn’t end well historically. Leaving the green structure in incubation mode a terrible fate for future generations.
Leaving Paris and babbling about “renegotiation” was a terrible indicator of where it is going in the worlds future.

April 23, 2018 12:09 pm

You mean “The UN We-Know-Very-Certainly-Humans-Are-To-Blame-For-Catastrophic-Changes-To-The Climate Framework”

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
April 23, 2018 12:10 pm

They just use the abbreviate form.

Reply to  Robert Kernodle
April 23, 2018 12:11 pm

“abbreviateD”

ResourceGuy
April 23, 2018 12:48 pm

The bar is open boys!

stinkerp
April 23, 2018 2:30 pm

As others have also pointed out, it’s as clear a violation of the Logan Act as you’ll ever find. The Paris Treaty was negotiated, and rejected, by the federal government of the United States, not Michael Bloomberg, and it impacts all citizens of the United States, not just Michael Bloomberg. Not that anyone has ever been convicted on a Logan Act violation, but there’s no better time than the present. Do it! And pass the popcorn.

Tom in Florida
Reply to  stinkerp
April 23, 2018 3:29 pm

I don’t think so. The Paris Accord was duly negotiated by the Executive Branch but never sent to the Senate for ratification. It was not rejected by the federal government. Trump just renegotiated it unilaterally.
Here is the Logan act:
” Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
This section shall not abridge the right of a citizen to apply, himself or his agent, to any foreign government or the agents thereof for redress of any injury which he may have sustained from such government or any of its agents or subjects.”
I would suggest that a private donation to an international organization rather than a foreign government would not be a violation. Beside, the wording is so broad it would take a total imbecile of a defense attorney not to get an accused off.

David S
April 23, 2018 3:35 pm

I think it is interesting that if Bloomberg has indeed paid $4.5 million to the UN on behalf of the US this is more than probably three quarters of the countries that have signed up to the Paris agreement. Whilst the US is officially pulling out just about all the other countries pay lip service to it.

Michael Jankowski
April 23, 2018 5:22 pm

He said he’d write a check this year…he hasn’t paid yet.

Juan Carlos Frederico de Alvarez
April 23, 2018 9:50 pm

He also funds staged shootings.

dayhay
April 24, 2018 8:52 am

Dear Mike, only you and your ilk [snip] would assume to speak for the citizens of the USA.

%d bloggers like this: