Halloween Climate Scare #6: Pulling Out Of The Paris Accord Dooms Humanity

This is the fifth of 10 videos highlighting false climate scares by climate alarmists. This one covers the claim that the US pulling out of the Paris Accord dooms humanity. Happy Halloween! And find real scares this year, not fake ones the climate alarmists have foisted on your children. Learn more about what’s really happening to our climate (it’s not scary) here: http://climatechangereconsidered.org/

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 26, 2019 7:16 pm

I’ve been enjoying these short videos. But then, I don’t scare easily ;o)

Reply to  H.R.
October 26, 2019 10:18 pm

I find them light weight and pretty pointless. They don’t serve any purpose and lack any clear facts. They will neither convince an alarmist they are wrong, nor provide any useful info to skeptics.

This one about Trump and Paris even fails to mention the basic fact the he had done NOTHING to even start the process of pulling US out. He has just stopped the US contributions to the UN Green Slush Fund.

If you are not going to report the facts why do a “debunk”.

Reply to  Greg
October 27, 2019 4:42 am

I think he recently set in motion the finalization of withdrawal.

Reply to  icisil
October 27, 2019 2:02 pm

Really? That sounds good , do you have a link to some info on that? I have not heard a whiff of that and I’d expect it to be heralded here berated across the rest of the media, who are still claiming he HAS pulled US out.

Anyone heard of any facts on this actually being put in motion?

Reply to  Greg
October 27, 2019 4:40 pm
Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  icisil
November 3, 2019 1:20 am

icisil October 27, 2019 at 4:42 am

I think he recently set in motion the finalization of withdrawal.


Greg October 27, 2019 at 2:02 pm

Really? That sounds good , do you have a link to some info on that? I have not heard


Greg obviously you don’t have whistle blowers in the Oval office.

As any others on this blog.

Leaves you the toil of begging on WaPo or NYT.

Reply to  Greg
October 27, 2019 10:53 am

Greg: “I find them light weight and pretty pointless.”

We’re not the target audience. I would be astonished if any regulars here found these videos to be heavy hitters.

Greg: “They don’t serve any purpose and lack any clear facts.”

On the contrary, they do provide just enough to perhaps pique the curiosity of that vast number of occupants in the middle of the ‘Climate Change’ bell curve.

I was one of those uninterested, unengaged people who considered CAGW to be background noise but probably had something to it. Then I heard the tax schemes and the extraordinary claims of disaster and that got my attention. It was something like these videos that got me researching the whole CO2-based Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming sham.

I heard on the radio someone saying that more glaciers were advancing than retreating. Huh?!? I started to look for more information on that and landed on Roger Pielke Sr.’s blog, where it was a main topic of discussion. That was when he still had comments on and was responding.

That’s what started me down the rabbit hole of CAGW more than a dozen years ago; a simple thing that happened to grab my attention. These videos may well do the same thing for others who are not at either end of the CAGW/Climate Change spectrum.

Greg: “They will neither convince an alarmist they are wrong, nor provide any useful info to skeptics. “

You are 100% correct! But that is not the purpose of these videos. There’s not a lot out there to penetrate through the constant blaring of the Klimate! Klaxon. Some people just need a little push and these videos might provide that.

Yes, Greg, these videos are quite useless to me, too. But they aren’t targeted at me. I do find them entertaining and enjoyable.

Reply to  H.R.
October 27, 2019 4:36 pm



More than 90% of the worlds population are not scientists. The alarmists hooked into this very early on and delivered high profile scare stories across the media by sound bite, not science.

Every one of those non scientists have the same voting power as scientists (in Democratic countries) and most can’t be bothered to look beyond the sensationalist MSM that’s desperate to justify its existence.

I have been calling for a low level, non sciency approach to persuade people to at least consider there is an alternative to alarmist nonsense and Anthony has grasped the nettle.

We need more of this type of thing to at least make people doubt what they are being fed.

Sceptics, by necessity, must be more scientific about climate change than alarmists, it doesn’t mean they have to communicate in science speak though, as 90% of people don’t understand what they’re saying if they do.

Alasdair Fairbairn
Reply to  Greg
October 27, 2019 3:14 pm

Come off it Greg. These are for the kids not interested in boring pedantics.

John Endicott
Reply to  Greg
October 28, 2019 11:04 am

This one about Trump and Paris even fails to mention the basic fact the he had done NOTHING to even start the process of pulling US out

He’s done all he can, so far, Greg. (putting aside that it was never ratified by Congress to begin with so we were only in it for as long as Obama, the person who agreed to it, was president) According to the rules of the Accord, the *earliest* Trump can give the official written notice to pull out is Nov 2019 – which starts the one year clock making the earliest the US can “officially” be out as the day after election day 2020.

Trying to Play Nice
Reply to  Greg
October 28, 2019 4:07 pm

The Senate hasn’t ratified anything so we as a nation are not really bound by the voluntary targets.

John Endicott
Reply to  Trying to Play Nice
October 29, 2019 5:10 am

That is true, Trying to Play Nice. which is why I said in another post “for all intents and purposes we were out the moment Trump said we were leaving”. However, there’s no harm in dotting all the i’s and crossing all the t’s so that the next lefty-president that gets into offices can’t say “nope, Trump didn’t take us out “properly” so we’re still in” and then continuing on as if Trump never got us out of it. Won’t stop the next lefty-president from trying to get us back in some other way, just that it will require more effort on their part with, hopefully, the possibility of push-back from saner politicians (what few of those there are) and the public.

John F. Hultquist
October 26, 2019 7:22 pm

The United States and its people provide money all over the world.
Skipping the Green Slush Fund means more of the money gets to where it is needed.
I’ll drink to that.

October 26, 2019 7:59 pm

Unfortunately, it won’t even doom the IPCC and until that happens, climate science is doomed.

Reply to  co2isnotevil
October 26, 2019 9:03 pm

I’ve heard the UN runs out of money by the end of this month (October, 2019) and Trump isn’t going to bail them out until other countries pony up what they are obligated to pay!

And it doesn’t appear that’s going to happen, so we’ll see if these highly partisan organizations like the IPCCC have a future or not!

Reply to  RockyRoad
October 26, 2019 10:22 pm

He should have given 12mo notice to pull US out of UN FCCCP [sic] . That is the quickest way to kill this serpent, cut off its head !!

Instead he has not done a single thing about it since promising to do it.

Reply to  Greg
October 27, 2019 8:56 am

As I understand it, the multi-step process for pulling out of the agreement, as codified in the agreement, required the initial notification back then. The next step is to formally notify the UN of withdrawal. The earliest the US can do so (IAW the agreement) is, as I understand it, November 4th 2020.

If Trump had tried to do it earlier, I’m sure someone would have sued (the AG of California, the AG of NY?).

Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 27, 2019 2:09 pm

Pulling out of Paris agreement takes 4 years, was that designed around the US presidential term? Ristvan , who seems highly knowledgeable about legal matters ( amongst many things ) found that the quickest way was to quit FCCC which only requires 12mo notice.

IFAIK, he has done neither.

For some reason he seems happy to just leave it in limbo, not contributing to the slush fund, and leaving it open to some future pres. to fully get back on board, rather than killing the damned thing once and for all while he has the authority to do so.

John Endicott
Reply to  Retired_Engineer_Jim
October 28, 2019 11:30 am

Greg, it’s not his choice to “leave it in Limbo”. By the rules of the accord itself, there’s nothing else he can do until Nov 4th 2019, other than what he’s already done (declare we’re leaving and given $0 to the green slush fund).

John Endicott
Reply to  Greg
October 28, 2019 11:26 am

Trump has done all he can to exit Paris as the accord was specifically design to take years to “officially” exit. The earliest Trump can send the written notice is 3 years after the accord took effect for the US (which was Nov 4th 2016, so Nov 4th 2019 is Trump’s earliest opportunity to do so following Paris’s rules) and then waiting a year to be out (so Nov 4th 2020 is the earliest Official exit date).

While it is true that existing UNFCCC only requires 1 year (so we, in theory would be out now if he started that back when he first said he’d exit Paris) the legal standing isn’t as clear. There’s some argument whether Trump has the authority to unilaterally exit the UNFCCC or if he requires Senate approval to do so (as it was Senate approval that got us unto the UNFCCC) – In short, it would be a battle in the courts if Trump tried to unilaterally exit the UNFCCC. And if he tried to go through the Senate you have to remember it takes 60 votes to break a Filabuster and the Republicans do not have 60 votes on their own.

Reply to  RockyRoad
October 27, 2019 2:52 pm

It remains to be seen, because if entrenched bureaucracies are good at anything, it’s self preservation.

John Endicott
Reply to  RockyRoad
October 28, 2019 11:38 am

Unfortunately, RockyRoad, The US will likey pay *something* (unless and until Trump can get congress to leave it out of the annual U.S. budget – good luck with that with the Dems in charge of the house’s “power of the purse” ). The U.N. runs its budget on a calendar year while the U.S. fiscal year begins in October. A unnamed U.S. official has been quoted as saying that the “vast majority” of the U.S. debt should be paid up by the end of November.

October 26, 2019 8:08 pm

The Paris Climate Accord picked a molecule that is irrelevant to climate change.

Hitran calculates the relative absorb/emit intensity of water vapor molecules vs CO2 molecules. Comparison at zero altitude is shown at https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ECWhyyDUYAA1P89?format=jpg&name=medium . Comparison by the ratio of the summation of intensities (line lengths) for each wavenumber for each molecule species is 8.7/0.07 = 124. On average at ground level, WV molecules outnumber CO2 molecules by about 10,000/410 ≈ 24 to one. After accounting for molecule count, each WV molecule is still more than 124/24 ≈ 5 times more effective at absorb/emit of thermal radiation than a CO2 molecule.

The relative effectiveness of the increases of WV and CO2 over the last 30 years is calculated as follows:
CO2 increase in 3 decades, 1988 to 2018 = 407 – 348 = 59 ppmv

Water vapor increase trend from NASA/RSS TPW data, is 0.04272/28.9 * 100 * 10 = 1.47 % per decade.

Average global WV = 10,000 ppmv. WV increase in 3 decades = .0147 * 10,000 * 3 = 441 ppmv

Therefore, WV has been 441/59 * 5 = 37+ times more effective at increasing ground level temperature than CO2.

Above the tropopause WV molecules are reduced to about 32 ppmv because of the low temperature while CO2 molecules remain at 410 ppmv. Therefore, CO2 molecules outnumber WV molecules 410/32 ≈12 to one. At higher altitudes the molecule spacing increases and more and more of outward directed radiation makes it all the way to space. The increased cooling by more CO2 well above the tropopause counters and apparently fully compensates for the tiny added warming from CO2 increase at ground level. The result being that Climate Sensitivity is not significantly different from zero.

October 26, 2019 10:06 pm

I can still recall covering the AmericoParisian withdrawal like it was 2017.

It was my first assignment on the European front. I was on vox pops—the very definition of entry-level journalism work, but I was young and hungry and grateful for the chance to prove myself to the boss (an old-school hard-a$$ who’d lost an eye and a leg covering the Climate Wars).

One thing that struck me was that the realiable old stereotypes of GOP voters as interventionist, versus SJWs as gung-ho in favor of America pulling out of sh*t, no longer applied. There was a tectonic shift in the air. You probably can’t even guess the politics of the ordinary people I met on my virgin beat:

“Thank you, Mr President, for pulling out of Paris. But what business did our servicemen and servicepeople have there to begin with?”

“Pulling out of Jacques feels almost as good as pulling out of Iraq, which was almost as good as pulling out of Barack.”

‘Bon riddance! Monsieur le Trompe may like to act the bouffon, but e grasps somesing his predecesseurs never did: that you Americains are loveurs, not fighteurs.’

‘I believe it was me who first put it best: Trump’s failure to go along with whatever the rest of the world was doing, I said, ‘represents a shameful abdication of American leadership.’’

‘Four days ago, from the rooftops of Paris, our leader loudly put the planet on notice that a state of war exists between America and Nature. This was obviously a considered, multifactorial decision with which reasonable people can agree or disagree.’

‘Traison! Betrayal! Zis is how you Americains repay half a century of warm French hospitality?’

I’m a little embarrassed by it now, but you can see the story I filed here:


Reply to  Brad Keyes
October 27, 2019 3:57 am

;-)))) roflmao well done

Reply to  Brad Keyes
October 27, 2019 4:57 am

“Pulling out of Jacques feels almost as good as pulling out of Iraq, which was almost as good as pulling out of Barack.”

Climatus interruptus

Smart Rock
Reply to  icisil
October 27, 2019 10:22 am

Co2itus interruptus

Reply to  Smart Rock
October 27, 2019 11:10 am


Hehehe. Mesuspects you’re joking. I’ve never been one of these people who go around being scientifically literate, but even I think I can say with some confidence that’s NOT the SI chemical symbol for a carbon-pollution molecule.

Reply to  Smart Rock
October 27, 2019 7:08 pm

LOL. CO₂itus interruptus

October 27, 2019 1:49 am

They are entertaining, but after a few they are pretty much on the level of “Liar Liar pants on fire….” in terms of rebutting anything.

They are about as convincing as someone saying “My mum said!”

Reed Coray
October 27, 2019 8:25 am

‘I believe it was me who first put it best: Trump’s failure to go along with whatever the rest of the world was doing, I said, ‘represents a shameful abdication of American leadership.’’

That’s like saying the lemming who pulled out of the march to the sea represents a shameful abdication of lemming leadership.

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  Reed Coray
October 27, 2019 9:01 am

You now you’re responding to fiction, right?

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 27, 2019 10:57 am

Fiction is a fraction as f*cked-up as fact, Jeff:

Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Monday said President Trump’s refusal to affirm the Paris climate agreement represents a “striking abdication of American leadership.”

“The United States worked hard … to pledge limits to the carbon pollution that is changing weather patterns and dirtying the air that our children breathe. Now, this President is willfully undermining America’s global role, which puts Americans’ safety and economic security at risk,” Hoyer said in a statement.


Funny the way these scientifically-illiterate demagogues always seem to think their CHILDREN are coughing and wheezing, what with all the carbon-pollution molecules per million in the same air grownups somehow manage to inhale without the slightest dyspnea.

I guess “carbon pollution” must be so heavy, in their obtunded mental models, that it tends to settle down at kid-height. And come to think of it, I suppose only kids can see the “dirtiness” thereof, what with their politician dad having far too pure a mind to perceive such sordid suspensions.

Anyway, Jeff, I’m the Pablo Picasso (or Jake Hallenbeck) of veridicality: every lie is 80% truth. Words are the lies that teach you the truth. Etc. etc. Excuses excuses.

Reply to  Jeff Alberts
October 27, 2019 11:05 am

Joe Hallenbeck, I meant. (See—I can’t help myself.)

October 27, 2019 9:40 am

Have any of you guys tried to physically heat water through its surface.

Johann Wundersamer
Reply to  r.m.barclay
November 3, 2019 1:35 am
October 28, 2019 3:34 am

I’m sure Steven Hawkings voice synthesizer must have been hijacked when those foolish statements about 250 degree temperatures and sulphuric acid rain came out. In order for the Earths climate to become like the climate of Venus, not only would the Earth have to shift into a similar solar orbit to Venus, but also the density of Earths atmosphere would have to increase by about 90%.

Johann Wundersamer
November 3, 2019 1:54 am

draximus October 28, 2019 at 3:34 am

I’m sure Steven Hawkings voice synthesizer must have been hijacked when those foolish statements about 250 degree temperatures and sulphuric acid rain came out. In order for the Earths climate to [ ]

When old astrophysicians and old plasma physicians have burnt all their powder thei’re searching for new challenges. And suppose them in “climate change”.

In the case of poor old Steven Hawkins he even asked his wife for divorce so he could find his new challenges in her sister.


Sometimes there’s dark matters escorting Nobel Prices.

%d bloggers like this: