Climate Accord
12 responses | 0 likes
Started by metmike - June 1, 2018, 12:45 p.m.

This is the main reason that I voted for the lunatic in the White House:

Trump’s Paris Decision One Year Later: Looking Better and Better

Guest essay by Robert Bradley Jr. on WUWT

"President Trump’s statement one year ago today on the Paris pullout comprised 2,500 words. Here are some highlights:"

  • “Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.”
  • “China will be able to increase these emissions by a staggering number of years—13…. Not us. India makes its participation contingent on receiving billions and billions and billions of dollars in foreign aid from developed countries.”
  • “China will be allowed to build hundreds of additional coal plants. So we can’t build the plants, but they can, according to this agreement. India will be allowed to double its coal production by 2020…. Even Europe is allowed to continue construction of coal plants.”
  • “Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree—think of that; this much—Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100…. In fact, 14 days of carbon emissions from China alone would wipe out the gains from America … in the year 2030.”
  • “The [Paris Accord’s] Green Fund would likely obligate the United States to commit potentially tens of billions of dollars of which the United States has already handed over $1 billion…. In 2015, the Green Climate Fund’s executive director reportedly stated that estimated funding needed would increase to $450 billion per year after 2020. And nobody even knows where the money is going to.”
  • “The risks [of the Paris Accord] grow as historically these agreements only tend to become more and more ambitious over time. In other words, the Paris framework is a starting point—as bad as it is—not an end point.”
  • “… exiting the agreement protects the United States from future intrusions on the United States’ sovereignty and massive future legal liability. Believe me, we have massive legal liability if we stay in.”
By GunterK - June 1, 2018, 10:12 p.m.
Like Reply

Educational post. Thanks

I had my doubts about Trump's decision to pull out, but this post explains a lot.

By metmike - June 2, 2018, 7:05 a.m.
Like Reply

YW Gunter!

"Climate scientist James Hansen called it “a fraud really, a fake.” President Donald Trump called it “a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.” And this odd couple of alarmist scientist and skeptical politician agreed: the Obama-led Paris climate accord was all about lobbyists and imaging, not climate change."

As an environmentalist, atmospheric scientist and US citizen, I am outraged that United Nations politics has fraudulently  hijacked climate science to hoodwink the well intentioned world in order to bilk US tax payers out of hundreds of billions of dollars with the fake "save the planet" narrative. 

I am all for rich countries giving money and massive support to help poor countries but when an agreement designed to do it,  hides it's true agenda............the entity(United Nations) responsible for the scheme,  cannot be trusted. 

BTW, the last 40 years of weather and climate have been the best for life on this planet in over 1,000 years(since the Mideival Warm Period that was also this warm but didn't have this much beneficial CO2).

By mcfarm - June 2, 2018, 7:41 a.m.
Like Reply

the bigger lunatic seems to be this very political pope. seems he will deliver some  global warming message. Grown very tired of him very quickly

By TimNew - June 2, 2018, 8:28 a.m.
Like Reply

But, to his credit,  he's gotten the left to stop screaming about their imaginary "Separation of Church and State"... 

By metmike - June 2, 2018, 3:39 p.m.
Like Reply


This pope is sincerely doing whatever is best for the poor. 

The climate accord is a huge fraud but it is designed to help the poor. There would be loads of graft and corruption and it would greatly hurt the US with no benefits......but poor countries would get tons of money. 

It's about transfer of wealth........from  rich countries to poor countries.

Most of the world is very poor......of course they would be for it. I understand this and am ok with the philosophy and even most of the terms...... as long as they are up front about it and the terms don't include harsh penalties for using cheap, reliable and abundant fossil fuels that we and the poor countries need to have robust economic growth.

One of the hypocritical items with the climate accord is that India and China will continue to increase use of coal but the US must cut back. 

Between them, those  poor countries have well over 2 billion people.  If CO2 is pollution, why do 2 billion people get to increase their CO2 emissions(actually, if you include Africa and other poor nations it's more than double that) but the 300 million people in the US must cut back?

Go ahead and let 4 or 5 billion poor people increase their CO2 emissions but don't try to take down the US with completely different standards and tell us that we have to cut back, using  junk science about CO2 and applying it only to us and few rich countries to level the playing field. 

By mcfarm - June 2, 2018, 7:43 p.m.
Like Reply

yes Mike he is sincerely concerned about the poor but like any good lib he wants to cure the problem using socialism and capitalism with solid foundation is the only nice to feel all gushy about these things with other peoples money, time and effort. How about tearing down those walls around his castle and actually helping instead of feeling?

By metmike - June 2, 2018, 8:29 p.m.
Like Reply

Agree mcfarm,

The best way to help these poor countries is to help them to help themselves. 

Sending them billions of dollars is only a temporary fix if they are just going to use it up and continue with the same dead end life style and economies. The long term solution to teaching them how to grow their economies or helping them to develop agriculture to become self sufficient is not that easy but its the way to go longer term. 

It's not the job of the US to grow all the food and make all the money to give away but we are blessed with an overabundance of wealth, food, the best soils and weather on the planet and plenty of God given gifts, intellectually and work ethic wise.

Billions of people on this planet are born with nothing to start with and no opportunities to improve their situation and no clue on what to do to make things better. 


If you were born the person that you are but to a poor family in the middle of India or Africa, coming to Indiana to grow corn and soybeans would not even register in your head. 

With regards to allowing these people to come here. Yeah, we have room for a few but not billions.  Our efforts would be best spent on helping these countries develop their economies/agriculture so that the people in those countries can support themselves. Taking in a few million immigrants each year is a good thing but we owe it to ourselves and this country to let in people that have the potential to make positive contributions to  the United States.

If we are letting in people that are criminals or leaches, we would be better off just sending money to their country of birth and where they are not doing harm to us or our economy. That said, the vast majority of immigrants that come here are vetted and become productive citizens...........which must be a requirement. 

By mcfarm - June 2, 2018, 8:43 p.m.
Like Reply

as I read your post could not help but think of howard Buffets efforts in Africa. He is actually trying to help them help their selves with agriculture production. Mean while Bill gates is throwing money at the problem with his foundation. There is no doubt in my mind which approach is better

By TimNew - June 3, 2018, 8:45 a.m.
Like Reply

When you find the phrase "Separation of Church and State" in the 1st amendment, or anywhere in the constitution for that matter,  let me know.

But it'll be a long wait as it does not exist no matter how hard the left has attempted to misinterpret it.

Still, it's humorous to watch the left go into epileptic fits when a religious figure uses scripture, or religious principles to argue against something like abortion, yet remain silent, or even voice undying support when a religious figure does the same for socialism... 

By mcfarm - June 3, 2018, 12:18 p.m.
Like Reply

well said Tim. As we had tried to explain may times to our current crop of libs our very small and non intrusive government way back when had a goal in keep gov out of most areas....religion being one