https://www.politico.eu/article/argentina-mulls-paris-climate-agreement-exit-with-trump
Argentina mulls Paris climate agreement exit with Trump –
President Javier Milei met with Trump overnight as both countries explore leaving the landmark 2015 accord.
BAKU, Azerbaijan — Argentina is weighing an exit from the Paris Agreement, joining the U.S. President-elect Donald Trump in reconsidering the global climate deal.
“We’re reevaluating our strategy on all matters related to climate change,” the country’s foreign minister, Gerardo Werthein, told The New York Times, adding that the country had fundamental doubts about what is driving climate change. The Washington Post also reported the news, citing an unnamed government official.
Argentina withdrew its delegation this week from the COP29 climate talks in Baku, Azerbaijan, just days into the two-week summit. Werthein told the Times no final decision had been made about the 2015 Paris accord, but noted Argentina was reconsidering participating in a deal that “has a lot of elements.”
“We decided to withdraw our delegation and reevaluate our position, nothing more,” Werthein said. “I think it’s a sovereign right.”
The Argentinian embassy in Baku did not respond to a request for comment.
Argentinian President Javier Milei has described climate change and the international effort to contain it as a “socialist lie.”
On Thursday, he met with Trump at the incoming president’s Mar-a-Lago club in Florida. Milei was the first head of state Trump received in person since winning the Nov. 5 election.
During his campaign, Trump said he would withdraw the United States from the Paris deal. The U.S. left briefly during Trump’s first term. But no other countries followed.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“Argentinian President Javier Milei has described climate change and the international effort to contain it as a “socialist lie.”
____________________________________________________________________________
The Big Lie is a lie so colossal that nobody
would believe that someone could have the
impudence to distort the truth so infamously
Those lying thermometers and microwave sounders….
The ones that show absolutely no evidence of any CO2 warming ?
Or do you mean surface thermometers in the middle of expanding and densifying URBAN areas.
1… Please provide empirical scientific evidence of warming by atmospheric CO2.
2… Please show the evidence of CO2 warming in the UAH atmospheric data.
3… Please state the exact amount of CO2 warming in the last 45 year, giving measured scientific evidence for your answer.
Please continue ignoring the past 127 years of climate science so you can qualify as the website climate buffoon.
Where does one get a degree in “Climate Science?”
Curious minds want to know.
Great point.
Climate science is highly specialized and involves collaboration across multiple disciplines.
I suspect many who rely on the ‘consensus’ argument may not fully realize that scientists primarily work within their own areas of expertise, and often accept interpretations or conclusions from experts outside their field.
And, at times, these conclusions can be accepted uncritically.
Einstein had a good comment regarding consensus science. He said in response to a 1931 book skeptical of relativity theory entitled 100 Authors against Einstein, “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”
I remember in the ClimateGate emails one that said they’d change the peer-review process if necessary to stop contrary opinions from being published.
All for “The Cause”.
So, poor RG still cannot provide answers to those 3 questions.
With 127 years of “science”, shirley you must be able to find something real to put forward as evidence.
Waiting, waiting… so far you have been a complete FAILURE.
Mindless consensus bluster is not scientific evidence…
… but seems to be all that you have.
Explain this.
Shadow.
No don’t ignore the past 127 years which would be stupid. But denying that there is no empirical evidence that CO2 is a major factor affecting temperature is equally stupid.
I am well aware of the simplistic and erroneous models…
… and lack of understanding of how the atmosphere works..
… that have persisted over the period of 127 or so years since original Arrhenius non-science conjecture.
Only is “climate science™” are radiative actions the only energy transfer in the atmosphere.
LOL
Child RG seems to type in front of a mirror. ! 😉
What an absurd display of logic. Because it has warmed, it was caused by CO2.
Because, you know, they have a pet hypothesis about that.
Meanwhile the truly hilarious part is how their hero, Arrhenius, said that IF we could manage to warm the climate by adding CO2 (IF, because he recognized this was a PURELY HYPOTHETICAL effect, not a carved-in-stone fact), that we would IMPROVE the climate. That was the most correct and meaningful part of what he said.
Warmer = BETTER. No need for panic, because it is not a crisis.
Since the start of the industrial revolution.
1850 was about when the first oil well was drilled.
More that a dozen scientists measured CO2 in the atmosphere in the 1800s.
Funny thing is 1820 measurements are comparable to today. So why was 1880 used? It was the lowest concentration in the 19th century.
So, 1880 is used as the temperature baseline for the climbing temperature graphs. So why was 1880 used? It was the lowest temperature in the 19th century.
If the benchmark was set at 1820, there would be no appreciable change.
Sparta – could you point me to some additional info about that? You know how bad the goog is trying to dig up that sort of info. I would love to have that reference available!
The instruments do what someone calibrates them to do.
And to then proceed to “adjust” the readings they record is what renders the probity of inputs to models and reports alarming in its corruption.
Exactly. Having managed independent laboratories for over 30 years, the rules were made crystal clear – you do not alter previously recorded measurement data. If you uncover reason to doubt the validity of the data you note the issue and declare the data invalid or suspect – you do not use it or “correct” (alter) it. You cannot calibrate an instrument ex post facto.
Here’s a scenario. You have an instrument that you use regularly to make key measurements. It’s calibrated once per year and a new calibration shows it is out of calibration and gives results that are high by 10%. What action should be taken?
If you answered 1 or 2 you would not have much of a future in the labs I worked in.
Note: This is why good laboratory practice includes calibration verification checks before and after critical measurements are made.
Not completely relevant to climastrology, but real labs account for variability of:
same test by Same person on same equipment
same test by different person on same equipment
same test by different person in different. Lab on equivalent equipment
same test by different person on different equipment
routine to do round robin testing with a master sample for all of the above to determine real world accuracy and precision.
#3
I worked in water treatment.
When I started, we’d enter our test results from the samples we collected in pencil. Several years ago we were required to write them in ink.
Some of our instruments were checked/recalibrated 3 times a day, at the beginning of each shift.
Other meters/instruments were checked daily or at least monthly. (One was annual. We had to call in an outside agent for that.)
We supplied safe drinking water for over half a million people.
Many of those values were reported to our state’s EPA.
If we found out something was wrong with some of the numbers, we had to explain it.
If values were falsified, whoever did it, might not just lose their certification but also face a fine and/or jailtime. It was made a crime in my state several years ago.
“Climate change” typically means something like “There is warming, it is mostly caused by humans, and it will be catastrophic.” If Milei used the term “climate change”, that’s probably what he meant was a lie. But did he use that term or is it inaccurate reporting?
Argentina President Javier Milei has previously made it clear that his objection is to the “anthropogenic” attribution.
Can you please stop using FF every day as you have done your whole life, and show us you NET ZERO mud hut home that uses NO FF, do not be a hypocrite.
Hydrocarbons and coal are not fossils.
Instruments that show no tropospheric hot spot. The existence of a tropospheric hot spot is the entire basis of the Enhanced Greenhouse Theory of water vapor feedback that amplifies insignificant CO2 atmospheric warming threefold. That, and Figure 12.12 on P. 90 of Chapter 12 of the science portion of the 2021 UN IPCC Sixth Assessment Report showing no increasing extreme weather blows up the entire CliSciFi CAGW clown show.
Those lying averages.
I think more countries would like to withdraw from the Paris agreement but don’t want the international criticism they would receive. I think that countries will start to quiet withdraw; they will say all the “right” things but do nothing of any significance in the future.
If they agreed but do not comply, then what happens? Headlines? A dirty look from greens who use FF every day themselves?
Plus one would not expect any of the countries with palms outstretched to exit the COP clown show. They only stand to potentially get their palms greased by “staying in.”
As “western” nations slowly awaken to the damage their stupid Eco-Nazi policies are doing, the COPS will inexorably lose any chance of the promised palm greasing, and the whole charade will fall apart.
Can’t happen soon enough. Find real jobs, grifters!
The US has been in he Paris Agreement since 2015 except for 10 weeks from November 4, 2020, to February 19, 2021/
The agreement is a fantasy target that no nation will meet and about 175 of 195 nations are not even trying to meet.
There is no penalty for missing a target and donations to any green slush fund are not mandatory.
Morano is an unsophisticated author best known for Fox News hyperbole.
There is no logical reason to cause controversy by leaving the voluntary Paris Agreement.
Trump’s other climate and energy changes will cause more than enough controversy.
Stay in Paris and ignore the targets as about 175 OF THE 190 NATIONS THAT JOINED PARIS ARE DOING.
The Paris Agreement is just virtue signaling with no enforcement.
I disagree with your recommendation. The US should not quietly virtue signal, but demonstrate that this hypocrisy is over.
Almost all the 190 nations “in” the Paris Agreement are there ONLY for virtue signaling.
Why not play the same game?
The alternative is to build a coalition of nations to withdraw, which would be politically smart, or be the only nation to withdraw and get a lot of negative feedback.
I’m sure there are people who voted for Republicans in 2024 that would object to leaving Paris.
US climate and energy policy under Trump will be the same whether we are in or out f Paris in one year.
Why make waves for no gain?
Why play any stupid virtue-seeking games at all.
That is just more mindless virtue-seeking.
It would be politically smart to have absolutely nothing to do with the Paris farce.
Why play the game?
Why not be honest and transparent?
That would be a breath of fresh air, no?
Leaders lead and not follow the herd when it is going in the wrong direction.
Again, nonsense. Take. A principled stand and call fraud fraud. When the big dog leaves others will follow. Submit the treaty to the Senate let it get voted down and kill it once and for all.
“Why not play the same game?”
Just how many billions, trillions have been lost by “just playing the Climate Change game”?
Paris is just one of tables where the taxpayers lose. Everytime.
Staying in an agreement or organisation that you fundamentally disagree with would be pure hypocrisy.
The only honest option would be to leave.
Chris
I’m sure there are people who voted for Republicans in 2024 that would object to leaving Paris.
While is it likely there are a few, it is not a significant percentage, perhaps as high as 11% according to Pew Research, and climate change ranked as the bottom issue.
“There is no logical reason to cause controversy by leaving the voluntary Paris Agreement.”
There is no logical reason to stay in the Paris Agreement for the reasons you stated.
The Paris Agreement is an international treaty which, by the way, was never submitted to the Senate and never ratified.
As such, USA is not bound to any of the terms and conditions in the accord.
So why bother staying in the agreement, wasting money we don’t have in the process?
Socialist virtue signaling, perhaps?
Or genuflecting to the One World Order, perhaps?
Perhaps as simple as having a crisis to use to leverage getting reelected.
I do believe the USA will not bother staying in the agreement and will cease wasting money and accumulating debt that our great-grandchildren will still be paying off.
A very naïve and stupid way to look at things.
As you say, Paris is just virtue-seeking… No sane country should go anywhere near it.
Also, Morano has far more sophistication, integrity and intelligence than you have ever shown.
That’s nonsense. Call out the scam for what it is and do not participate.
Remaining it in has enormous costs!
It licenses all kinds of expensive madnesses in national policy. Where do you think the impetus to and justification of wind and solar, to heat pumps and EVs, comes from? Its because countries have signed up to Paris targets.
Remaining basically endorses the narrative of climate crisis -> net zero -> wind, solar, EVs, heat pumps.
The only way to stop the madness in the 15 or so countries that are taking Paris seriously and which are trying to get to net zero in consequence is to leave, and with leaving, to announce that as a matter of public policy they are no longer making any effort to reduce emissions. They are no longer setting net zero as a target.
If you take the US and the UK, the consequence of leaving with such an announcement will be a change in legislation.
In the UK the Climate Act can be repealed, the Climate Change Committee abolished, the quotas on EVs and heat pumps can then be abolished, and maybe schools, government cafeterias can stop going vegan in the effort to reduce methane emissions, the health service can stop trying to eliminate valuable anesthetics because climate… and so on.
In the US the Inflation Reduction Act can be repealed. In both, all subsidies to wind and solar and to EVs can stop.
You can never do any of these things while remaining in the Paris Agreement. That is the reason for leaving. Remaining licenses your national lunatic pressure groups successfully to demand policies which inflict huge damage on country and society.
Why do you want to remain in the light of this?
Some good news?
“More than ever, the energy outlook is complex, multifaceted and defies a single view on how the future might unfold”
“Recent clean energy trends in advanced economies present a mixed picture with accelerations in some areas accompanied by slow downs in others, including a large fall in heat pump sales in Europe in the first half of 2024”
IEA ‘World Energy Outlook 2024’ (Oct. 2024)
The scam is running its’ course. Virtue signaling was acceptable as long as reality didn’t get in the way, and it has.
Leaving the Paris agreement won’t prevent further temperature rise.
Then again, staying in it won’t either, judging by the subsequent actions of the nations that signed up at the time.
As things stand, the US engagement with Paris 2015 is immaterial.
The whole Paris agreement is immaterial, because it is based on a scientific fantasy cultism.
and that’s the final nail in this whole sad lunacy.
It’s not about temperature.
It’s not about environment.
It’s about money, power, and control.
It’s about enslaving humanity in the guise of One World Order.
So what. Nothing any human does will prevent the climate changing. Earth’s relationship with the sun is always changing making climate change inevitable.
Where do you live and how has the temperature rise you have experienced been detrimental to your life?
I live at 37S not too far from Bass Strait. Our temperature extremes have been moderating – summers cooler and winters warmer. In my lifetime I have observed the local trees and shrubs growing faster and getting a little top heavy so in need of more regular trimming to prevent damage in storms. Lodged trees in State forests appear to be more frequent but that could be related to logging bans rather than forest productivity and wetter ground.
Therefore, stop the charade and redirect money and effort to more important things.
As things stand, the US is spending our great-grandchildren into debt.
As things stand, blackouts will kill millions.
So, no, not immaterial.
A”socialist lie” is apt.
I wonder when Paris withdraws from Paris Agreement.
“Paris” wasn’t asked in the first place.
Probably because nobody in the IPCC knew how to draft a survey in Arabic or Berber languages.
Argentina won’t be the only nation to follow the US and withdraw from the Paris accords.
I do not understand just what does the Paris climate accord stipulate or demand?
Simple.
Even the Beatles sang about it –
give me money (that’s what I want)
That’s what I want (that’s what I want)
That’s what I want (that’s what I want) yeah
That’s what I want
Or, in another way…
“(If you drive a car, car)
I’ll tax the street
(If you try to sit, sit)
I’ll tax your seat
(If you get too cold, cold)
I’ll tax the heat
(If you take a walk, walk)
I’ll tax your feet
Cause I’m the Tax Man, yeah I’m the Tax Man”
Only this: We will meet next year at COPnn to discuss redistribution of wealth.
And have a big party complete with beef and other “prohibited” culinary delights.
Not to mention wine, women, and song.
Withdraw from the Paris Agreement, cancel all US money for IPCC, cut US money for UN, withdraw all mandates for wind, solar and EVs, withdraw all tax preferences and subsidies for wind, solar and EVs, fire up all fossil fuel and nuclear generators, build new fossil fuel and nuclear generators and remove all wind and solar from the grid. Don’t worry about job losses the green weenies will be kept busy for quite some time dismantling and recycling all those wind, solar and EV monstrosities.
Don’t mull it over. Just do it. This should be an EASY decision.
Great to see there are more government officials recognising the Climate scam.
The one certainty is that it is carbon combustion is not the source of observed climate trends. .
Reduced attendance at COP29 and world leaders from the 13 largest CO2 emitters, including EU, U.S. China, India and Brazil, who chose not to attend suggests that the CAGW movement is on the downward slope.
It would be a good idea for both countries to pull out of the Paris Agreement which, like the COP conferences, is achieving less and less every year. Then more countries will follow and these meetings/agreements will collapse for good. They’ve wasted enough time and money already and are both considered to be charades which never served any useful purpose from the outset. They were both just con jobs designed to raise taxes and overall living costs under the guise of saving the planet and civilization.
“Stay in Paris agreement ?” : No thanks, instead : GET OUT!
Re: this in the title of the above article, following the same phrase used in the referenced Politico blurb:
“Both countries explore leaving the landmark 2015 accord.”
Why do the Paris Climate Accords of 2015 merit classification as “landmark??? Those Accords amount to a bunch of signatures from the “leaders” of the 195 nations that pledged reductions in their nation’s CO2 emissions over time, with the whole world seeing that in the 9 years since the Accords were signed relatively few nations actually reduced their CO2 emissions.
There is no penalty for not meeting a commitment under the Paris Accords . . . in fact, very little bad press is given to countries violating their commitments!
Over the period of 2015 to 2021, among the top seven countries contributing the highest human-originated CO2 emissions (these five comprise 68% of worldwide CO2 emissions), there is this accounting (ref: “CO2 emissions of all world countries”, https://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/report_2022 ), in descending order of total annual emissions:— China, up 15%
— United States, down 10%
— India, up 16%
— Russia, up 14%
— Japan, down 12%.
If the Paris Accords are “landmark”, it is because of the flagrant violations of this treaty, not because of anything it has accomplished toward reducing global emissions of CO2, as if that was something beneficial for mankind in the first place.
Only reason US is down, is because the substituted GAS for COAL.
Nothing to do with wind or solar.
Javier Milei, the Madman, is proving to be more sane than many western leaders.
Meanwhile at the G20 summit, the heads of state gathered for a photo op. The picture only includes 19. Why? Joe Biden had wandered off, presumedly dazed and confused, and the others decided not to wait for him to show up.