I have to hand it to President Trump. He has now done what he said he would do by removing the US from the Paris climate non-treaty “Treaty.” The climate alarmists have predictably gone bonkers even though there is no objective basis for their concerns. Mr. Trump based his decision on the disproportionate cost of the “Treaty” to the US. He is absolutely right about this, of course. The less developed countries signed onto the “Treaty” on the assumption that Uncle Sugar would pay hundreds of billions to them. And if Mrs. Clinton had been elected, that very likely would have happened despite the US Government’s slipping finances. I see no basis for doing so.
Happily, it turned out that more CO2 molecules in the atmosphere do not make a significant contribution to global warming in the real world. And there is a need for more atmospheric CO2, not less, if plants are to survive future ice ages. And some added warmth would help too, so long as there is no catastrophic global warming. So everyone wins. Plants get more CO2; humans and other animals get to use more plants. Humans get to use fossil fuels to aid them in their work. And as a free bonus for plants, humans emit increased CO2 for their use. What’s not to like? No one planned it that way, but there are no known reasons to abandon the industrial/energy revolution that has had such dramatic effects on the human standard of living and made possible the enormous improvements in the the environment in recent centuries. Limits to Growth stimulated the current climate alarmist movement, but happily it was wrong again.
The Alarmists’ Shrill Complaints Can Be Dismissed
Unfortumately, the climate alarmists got the science backwards, and their shrill complaints can be dismissed as nonsense. President Trump has saved the US and its citizens hundreds of billions if not trillions. And these savings have no adverse effects on anyone other than those hoping for a redistribution of wealth to the less developed world. Hopefully the less developed world will lose interest now that the honey pot has been taken away.
So three cheers for President Trump’s action today on the US involvement (or the lack thereof) in the climate “Treaty.” There remains a need to revoke the EPA Endangerment Finding so that the alarmists cannot easily renew their war on plants if they should come to power again. But the removal of the US from the “Treaty” is a very good start.
I was very disappointed by Trump’s deliberate evasion of the fact that there is complete lack of science behind the fantasy of runaway global warming.
Pruitt evaded questions on “climate science” too — no one in the Administration will say that wild guess predictions of the climate in 100 years are not real science — just climate astrology.
If Trump and Pruitt don’t talk about climate junk science, the Paris Agreement will be rejoined by the US in four years.
Trump has no chance of winning in 2020 — he won by grossly over-promising what he could deliver — lots more spending — won’t touch entitlements — much lower taxes — huge infrastructure spending — 4% economic growth — defeat ISIS — I could not believe all the promises — the man is a world class bullshitter … er … I mean world class salesman.
Trump tricked the public one time, but when they see how little will be delivered in the next few years, they’ll never vote for him again!
The Senate Democrats can halt ALL legislation with filibusters — and they will — nothing that could benefit the country and make Trump look good will become signed legislation.
We’ve wasted $1 billion on the Paris Agreement green slush fund (thanks, Obama) and I don’t believe anyone else has contributed.
Trump could have refused to contribute a penny more and just said he would be considering dropping out of the Agreement.
Without any more donations, which have a real cost, the Agreement was voluntary , unenforceable, and could have been ignored.
The Agreement exists only to make the public think their politicians are good people who care about our planet — just meaningless virtue signaling .. with little or no effect on future temperatures even if you believed in runaway global warming (which I obviously don’t).
Trump should have spent five or ten minutes talking about the fantasy of runaway global warming.
Unfortunately, Trump seems incapable of learning anything new, nor does he seem interested in reading books and articles to learn anything new.
I don’t think Trump is smart enough to be the US spokesman for opposing climate junk science.
You could do that job, Mr. Carlin, but Donald Trump could not.
Trump could have read about climate change skepticism from a Teleprompter, but would later embarrass himself when asked about climate change in a live press conference … or by making incorrect climate change tweets.
The complete lack of science behind runaway global warming has been allowed to stand, so will be back to haunt us in four years.
What has Trump done since being elected to challenge the climate junk science and get NASA completely out of the climate astrology business?
He’s done almost nothing, and there are indications nothing will be done.
The hoax of a coming climate catastrophe can not be killed with silence!
I thought the argument by trump and Pruitt was Accessible for the public. China and India get a free rise, while the Us pays. Very one sided and anti American. The public does not have to be scientists to see this is a stupid deal. America last.
The congress will probably pass tax cuts. That will be big. Trumo should be re elected in 2020. He’s terrifying Democrats.
[…] http://www.carlineconomics.com/archives/3675 […]
I was a bit surprised that the president didn’t address the existential (or not) threat of CO2 during his speech on why he is pulling out of the Paris Agreement.
In retrospect I can see why he wrote a book on negotiating!
Ron Clutz’s insights on the legs of the stool hit the strike zone for me(1).
And the update over at fm’s site (2):
“China is far and away the global leader in greenhouse gas emissions, and for all of the EU’s stern tone and finger wagging on climate change, the bloc’s latest data show that its emissions actually increased 0.5%in 2015. Contrast that with the United States, which saw emissions drop a whopping 3% last year as a result of the continuing (shale-enabled) transition from coal to natural gas. …
“America’s real climate impacts will be determined by how quickly we can transition to a more energy efficient information economy and, more importantly, by our ability to develop and adopt new technologies (the pairing of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal well drilling being the most important example of the past decade). Paris had nothing to do with any of that. …”
put things in perspective!
As Dr. Carlin notes: the EF is going to have to be addressed. I came across a post by Jonathan Adler, who sounds like a good candidate for the Orange team, on:
“Warming Up to Climate Change Litigation
Case Legal Studies Research Paper No. 07-19
Virginia Law Review, Vol. 93, No. 61, 2007
13 Pages Posted: 23 May 2007
Jonathan H. Adler “ (3)
that’s seems like it’s worth the time to try to understand the issues.
(1) https://rclutz.wordpress.com/2017/06/02/trump-did-the-right-thing-in-the-right-way/
(2) https://fabiusmaximus.com/2017/06/02/trump-repeals-paris-agreement/
(3) https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=988402
Does anyone feel more at risk of climate harms now the US has said bye bye to Parisian balderdash?
HI Alan–
Agreed that the Endangerment Finding should be in the gunsights, but is Scott Pruitt getting good advice on this? You would be an excellent choice as an advisor to him. Are you aware of any movement within EPA or in Pruitt’s immediate entourage on this?
Comment by Alan Carlin: One temporary employee apparently left EPA/retired a few months ago in large part because Pruitt and close staff did not want to reconsider the Endangerment Finding. So the only movement I know of is against reconsideration.
Last pragraph, no, former president Obama does not rate three cheers, unless of the Bronx variety! Your good nature is making you too generous, Doc.
A Comment by Alan Carlin: Many thanks for catching my error! Sorry about that.
TRUMP and PRUITT get the SCIENCE RIGHT – NATURAL CYCLES DRIVE CLIMATE CHANGE.
Climate is controlled by natural cycles. Earth is just past the 2004+/- peak of a millennial cycle and the current cooling trend will likely continue until the next Little Ice Age minimum at about 2650.See the Energy and Environment paper at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0958305X16686488
and an earlier accessible blog version at http://climatesense-norpag.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-coming-cooling-usefully-accurate_17.html
Here is the abstract for convenience :
“ABSTRACT
This paper argues that the methods used by the establishment climate science community are not fit for purpose and that a new forecasting paradigm should be adopted. Earth’s climate is the result of resonances and beats between various quasi-cyclic processes of varying wavelengths. It is not possible to forecast the future unless we have a good understanding of where the earth is in time in relation to the current phases of those different interacting natural quasi periodicities. Evidence is presented specifying the timing and amplitude of the natural 60+/- year and, more importantly, 1,000 year periodicities (observed emergent behaviors) that are so obvious in the temperature record. Data related to the solar climate driver is discussed and the solar cycle 22 low in the neutron count (high solar activity) in 1991 is identified as a solar activity millennial peak and correlated with the millennial peak -inversion point – in the RSS temperature trend in about 2004. The cyclic trends are projected forward and predict a probable general temperature decline in the coming decades and centuries. Estimates of the timing and amplitude of the coming cooling are made. If the real climate outcomes follow a trend which approaches the near term forecasts of this working hypothesis, the divergence between the IPCC forecasts and those projected by this paper will be so large by 2021 as to make the current, supposedly actionable, level of confidence in the IPCC forecasts untenable.””