Ever since President Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, leftists have been hyperventilating over what was effectively, a non-binding agreement. They act like Trump has just hammered the final nails in the coffin for the human race, even though there was never any guarantee that every nation would go along with this agreement. And if the US had stuck with it, it would have been a disaster for our economy.
The agreement would basically have the US send billions of dollars to other countries, and significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions over the next ten years (probably through draconian regulations). Meanwhile, some of the world’s biggest Co2 emitters, like China and India, wouldn’t have to cut emissions for many years, and wouldn’t have to pledge any money.
And assuming that every nation actually kept their promises with this agreement (and assuming that Co2 is as grave a threat as environmentalists claim it is), the UN’s own climate models suggest that it would only reduce global temperatures by .3 degrees by the end of the century.
In other words, the Paris Accord is just another environmental policy that would force the US to hobble its own economy, thus giving an advantage to other nations that don’t give a damn about pollution or the environment. And it would do so without having any significant effect on global temperatures.
So with that said, what do the supporters of this agreement have to say for themselves? What evidence do they have that pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord was a disastrous decision?
Well, one of those supporters is Philip Levine, the mayor of Miami Beach, Florida. Last week he was on Tucker Carlson’s show, and his defense of the Paris Climate Accord is very telling.
That’s all he can say. He doesn’t have any evidence, and it doesn’t even seem like he knows what’s in this agreement. His defense of the agreement, is that many scientists, governments, and mayors around the country, say it’s good. That’s it. Despite his clear adoration for this agreement, he doesn’t have any evidence, and he can’t actually explain why the Paris Agreement is good. All he can tell us, is that we should trust the judgement of other people.
It makes me wonder. If all of these scientists, governments, and mayors were asked to explain why the Paris Climate Accord can save the world, would they give a logical and evidence based response? Or would they just tell us that everyone else says it’s good, so don’t question it?
This shows the reach of the globalists. Their power decide what scientific “studies” prove, what the media presents, what “grassroots” groups push for, in effect they control the narrative and agenda. This power coupled with ignorant masses that bite into anything with a trendy “environmental” label complements of the communications industry is quite formidable. The counter argument of China being exempt is replied with, “Someone has to lead”. Unfortunately to see this big picture one must accept that the entire system is in essence one great big lie. Once one looks at everything from that perspective the pieces of the puzzle fit every nicely but do paint an upsetting mural.
… which is why CLIMATEGATE is so critical. The guy who did that is truly a world hero IMHO
“Their power decide what scientific “studies” prove”.
And which ones they will accept as real science.
That Mayor and the rest of that crowd is an idiot!
You see the NWO and their Agenda 21/30 is all about empowering Cities with all these funky rules (Paris Climate Change) and regs to raise revenue with new fees and fines. Its all a big slush fund for the Globalists to pillage and rape the population out of their wealth through regulations.
Trump ain’t buying it and neither should you. BTW/ The Climate is always changing, its like trying to control the wind, it is a never ending perpetual scam, just like terrorism and false flags to implement more Laws and take away more freedoms. Their Goal is to make every citizen their worker bee slaves, and pay into their system. We need to destroy the FREESHIT Army of Globalists Parasites once and for all,… Now go Crack Sum Skulls.
WE WUZ KANGZ!!!
CSS,
You nailed it! The Globalists and the Elites are the greatest ‘free-shit army’ this world has ever known or seen! This is why they hate Trump so much! They have been exposed for who they are and yet with the media covering for them the average Joe is still not convinced and believes they will be taken care of by Big Gov and the Globalists. Wasn’t it Reagan who described the scariest words, ” I’m from the government and I’m here to help!”. Personally, I do feel a lot of Americans have awakened thanks to Alternative Media but that same Alternative Media is being tapped and utilized by the Soros groups of the world to disseminate disenformation that is being swallowed hook, line, and sinker by millions of people like Reality Winner!
Well said.The Paris agreement was the worst deal for the USA.
So glad we have a President that has the United States best intrusts as a priority,than the
Idoit OBAMA who tried to make this loPsided deal that would cost BILLIONS and do nothing
for CO 2 reduction.President Trump is right BAD DEAL!!!
What’s the deal with Tucker guys? I can’t understand this cat. He talks a big free market game. But he works for the mainstream? What’s his angle?
I never watched Tucker until this past election cycle. Incidentally, this is about when he switched from those pompous bow ties to the standard necktie… I find Tucker inserts his bias/emotions the least out of all the TV talking heads on Fox–can’t even bring myself to turn the channel to the other shit shows like CNN et al. Tucker usually makes solid arguements and rarely gets one-upped. He also has a good mix of partisans, so there is a balance; and when he schools these leftists, he really schools them. There’s always a sense of enjoyment watching their BS platforms destroyed on live TV…
Trump did the right thing rejecting the climate deal. It would’ve finished off what’s left of our economy. The US doesn’t owe the world shit. If the world wants to commit suicide, that’s their own affair. We don’t have to follow them.
Pretty sure if the world commits suicide, you’ll be dead too?!
Unless… your in your own world!
The Financial Stability Bd stated it would take 73 TRILLION to implement over the next 15 years.
BIG GREEN MONEY is what is bleak, and 73 trillion WILL destroy the future of the young.
As Blaise Pascal once noted, once science is divorced from ethics, scientists will use their skills to pursue power, not truth. The following paper is a case study in this exact issue. What is behind the global warming? The same thing that was behind the global cooling scare of the 1970s: The 1974 Club of Rome report titled, Mankind at the Turning Point stated, “The real enemy then, is humanity itself.” Their solution was simple – engineer a massive reduction in population and utterly change the socio-economic system through centralized planning via total government control. And yes, this does smack of being called “The Final Solution” to me, too. This “man is the enemy” was reiterated by the Club of Rome in 1993, as well, when they stated in their The First Global Revolution, downloadable at http://www.scribd.com/doc/2297152/Alexander-King-Bertrand-Schneider-The-First-Global-Revolution-Club-of-Rome-1993-Edition that “In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill….All these dangers are caused by human intervention, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome. The real enemy then, is humanity itself.”
“We came up with the idea??” In other words, a conclusion had already been reached, and now they needed to create a “reason” to support their unsupported – and as Julian Simon provisionally demonstrated, possibly false – a priori assumptions. Do not try this technique in any school paper you may attempt, or you will be failed!
As Robert Zubrin observed, to the warmers, “… each new life is unwelcome, each unregulated thought or act is menace, every person is fundamentally the enemy of every other person, and each race or nation is the enemy of every other race or nation.” Perhaps it is put most clearly by the World Wildlife Fund Living Plant Report of 2012, which Lewis Page summarizes in the May 16, 2012 edition of the Register that “economic growth should be abandoned, (and) citizens of the world’s wealthy nations should prepare for poverty.” The rich, of course, are especially bad, as the Education for Sustainable Development Toolkit, by Rosalyn McKeown, found at http://www.esdtoolkit.org/ tells us: “Generally, more highly educated people who have higher incomes, consume more resources than poorly educated people, who tend to have lower incomes. In this case, more education increases the threat to sustainability.” Of course, individual rights are verboten, given the Malthusian threat to the earth. As Harvey Ruvin, Vice-chair of International Committee for Local Environment Initiatives (ICLEI), a group that wants to impose the green agenda on everyone has noted, “Individual rights must take a back seat to the collective.” Pol Pot, move over. (Incidentally, the Malthusians might want to get a clue, as between 30 and 50 percent of all food produced globally, equivalent to two billion tons, is thrown away each year according to a recent report written by the UK-based Institution of Mechanical Engineers (IME), titled ‘Global Food; Waste Not, Want Not’, found at http://www.imeche.org/Libraries/Reports/IMechE_Global_Food_Report.sflb.ashx. Of course, per the usually PC Time Magazine, the Malthusians are doubly wrong, as “…it turns out the world’s population isn’t growing nearly as fast as it once did. In fact, experts say the rate of population growth will continue to slow and that the total population will eventually — likely within our lifetimes — fall.” http://newsfeed.time.com/2013/01/11/overcrowding-nah-the-worlds-population-may-actually-be-declining/
Theoretical physicist and Democrat voter Freeman Dyson on global warming: “It’s very sad that in this country, political opinion parted [people’s views on climate change],” he said, in an interview with The Register. “I’m 100 percent Democrat myself, and I like Obama. But he took the wrong side on this issue, and the Republicans took the right side.” Now retired, Dyson was a professor of physics at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton between 1953 and 1994.
Famed for his work in quantum electrodynamics and nuclear engineering, Dyson also worked on climate studies during his career.Climate change, according to Freeman, “is not a scientific mystery but a human mystery. How does it happen that a whole generation of scientific experts is blind to obvious facts?” The physicist and mathematician argues that pollution caused by fossil fuels has been conflated with climate change. “Coal is very unpleasant stuff, and there are problems with coal quite apart from climate,” he said. “Pollution is quite separate to the climate problem: one can be solved, and the other cannot, and the public doesn’t understand that.”
During his interview with The Register Dyson noted shortcomings in climate models. “What has happened in the past 10 years is that the discrepancies between what’s observed and what’s predicted have become much stronger,” he said. “It’s clear now the models are wrong, but it wasn’t so clear 10 years ago. I can’t say if they’ll always be wrong, but the observations are improving and so the models are becoming more verifiable.”
Dyson also wrote a strong foreword to a report published Monday by The Global Warming Policy Foundation, which calls for a reassessment of carbon dioxide. “To any unprejudiced person reading this account, the facts should be obvious: that the non-climatic effects of carbon dioxide as a sustainer of wildlife and crop plants are enormously beneficial, that the possibly harmful climatic effects of carbon dioxide have been greatly exaggerated, and that the benefits clearly outweigh the possible damage,” he wrote. http://www.foxnews.com/science/2015/10/14/obama-took-wrong-side-on-climate-change-says-physicist-freeman-dyson.html
And speaking of Democrats calling out the scam of global warming, former Energy Department Undersecretary Steven Koonin told The Wall Street Journal April 24, 2017, re. the global warming scam, that “bureaucrats within former President Barack Obama’s administration spun scientific data to manipulate public opinion: ‘What you saw coming out of the press releases about climate data, climate analysis, was, I’d say, misleading, sometimes just wrong,’ Koonin said, referring to elements within the Obama administration he said were responsible for manipulating climate data. He pointed to a National Climate Assessment in 2014 showing hurricane activity has increased from 1980 as an illustration of how federal agencies fudged climate data. Koonin said the assessment was technically incorrect. “What they forgot to tell you, and you don’t know until you read all the way into the fine print, is that it actually decreased in the decades before that,” he said. The U.N. published reports in 2014 essentially mirroring Koonin’s argument.” (Cited from http://joemiller.us/2017/04/former-obama-official-says-bureaucrats-manipulate-climate-stats-influence-policy/)
And what is the actual presence of CO2 in the atmosphere? Just over 400 ppm or less than 0.04%, up from 320 ppm, or 0.032% 50 years ago. Of the remaining percentages, nitrogen amounts for 78%, oxygen 21%. Of the 1% that then remains, 90% of that is argon, with less than 4% of that 1% being carbon dioxide (these percentages exclude highly variable water vapor, which is usually around 1 – 4% of the atmosphere – and a much more major contributor to global warming, estimated at being 50-90% of the greenhouse effect). Of course the logarithmic effect of CO2 means each additional increase has less impact that the prior, same sized increase. And of course, the extra CO2 has helped crop, forest and grassland plants more drought resistant, helping them grow faster and better, and “greening” vast areas that had been brown and barren. Even more, about 96 to 97% of carbon dioxide comes from natural sources, such as animals, plant decay and volcanoes.
In fact, relative to volcanoes, former FDA investigator Dr. Arthur Evangelista, noted that the 2010 eruption of Eyafjallajokull in Iceland emitted, in four days, enough CO2 in four days to negate every single effort mankind made that year to reduce CO2. But this volcano was a piker compared to Mt. Pinatubo, which when it erupted in the Philippines in 1991 “spewed out more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than the entire human race had emitted in its entire 40 MILLION YEARS on earth.” And this doesn’t include that fact that, as he notes the “bush fire season across the western USA and Australia this year alone will negate your efforts to reduce carbon in our world for the next two to three years. And it happens every year.”
The politicians as usual are not experts(like Gore) but are seeing dollar sign and believe the propaganda. Its all about the money for other countries but the U.S. gets hosed. The worst polluter(China)gets to do whatever they want with no repercussions for 13 years all at our expense. Obama signed a treaty without going through the Senate. Trump negated it and the world goes nuts. It is non binding and the sun will continue to come up tomorrow. Just another dump on the U.S. by Obama.
Sea level, Mr. Mayor? Are you stupid? Lying? Intentionally ignorant?
ATuvalu, which at its highest point is 21’ above sea level has been monitoring the ocean levels for 50 years and the only change they’ve seen is a 2″ DROP in ocean levels. Meanwhile, http://www.3news.co.nz/Study-Coral-atolls-hold-on-despite-sea-level-rise/tabid/1160/articleID/159245/Default.aspx#top reports that “Some South Pacific coral atolls have held their own or even grown in size over the past 60 years despite rising sea levels, research has shown.”
A bit dated, but per Jonathan Bamber, in Nature, Feb. 23, 2012, fewer than 120 (0.075%) of the world’s glaciers and ice caps have had their mass balance (the sum of annual gains and losses) actually measured, with records beyond 30 years only belong to 37 of them. The new GRACE satellites, mentioned elsewhere in this paper, show that sea level rise from melting ex-Antarctica and Greenland is half of what was previously estimated (0.41 +/- 0.08/mm/yr, while the high mountains in Asia are 1/10th what was previously thought (0.01 mm/yr.) DDP reports that, overall, including Antarctica and Greenland, all melting may be adding 1.48+/- 0.26 mm/yr. Run for the hills.
More for our ignorant mayor: Dr. Wibjorn Karlen, emeritus professor, Dept. of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden noted, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure system.” However, Karlen goes on to note the ‘mass balance’ of Antarctica ice is positive—more snow is accumulating than melting off. As a result, there is an increase in the ‘calving’ of icebergs as the ice dome of Antarctica is growing and flowing to the oceans. When Greenland and Antarctica are assessed together their mass balance is considered to possibly increase the sea level by 0.03 mm/year— not much of an effect,’ Karlen concludes. “The Antarctica has survived warm and cold events over millions of years. A meltdown is simply not a realistic scenario in the foreseeable future.” For a detailed summary, including graphs, summarizing the rise of ocean levels, see http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/Entries/2008/3/19_At_Sea_Over_Sea-Levels.html. Basically, this site states that sea level is never constant, and that the “sea-level remains at its lowest for the last 240 million years, despite a rise during the last 22,000 years of around 120 m; current sea-level is rising in cms per hundred years, and this trend is likely to continue, with or without ‘global warming’, although it may slow if we enter a new cooling phase;”
The Danish scientist Bjorn Lomborg wrote in Canada’s National Post Oct. 17, 2008 that since 1992, satellites have measured sea levels, noting a 3.2 mm increase/yr. Unfortunately for Mr. Gore, the past two years have shown a slight drop in sea level, and Lomborg also notes that “the heat content of the world’s oceans had been dropping for the past four years where we have measurements.” In fact, in 2011, the Washington Post reported that sea level had dropped ¼ of an inch! (strangely, the article attributes this to heavy rains in Brazil; the Post also notes in this article “A recent tide gauge study of sea levels in Australia and New Zealand, published in the Journal of Coastal Research, provided readings that suggested the rate of ocean rise has declined in the past decade.”) One other tidbit bears noting: Any ice melt in the Arctic will not increase the sea level, of course… any more than melting ice cubs in your drinks raise the water level in your glass. Finally, sea level data from 2011 still show no rise in a report published at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/11/new-sea-level-dataset-now-available-still-flat/ – with data from Univ. of Colorado’s Sea Level Research Group, which shows a 0.3 mm rise in sea level per year over the past few years, being considered flawed in that it fails to take into account isostacy (the rebound of land masses from the last Ice Age, which is still continuing today) , or else doctored due to political reasons (see http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2011/06/17/research-center-under-fire-for-adjusted-sea-level-data/ .
Hey Test,
In all my years of engineering, I learned, that
Perception is more important than facts. The vast majority of people are too stupid. That is why we have so many Democrats. Most are stupid, but a few are very clever.
Sorry, should read Tuvalu. My typing is about as good as this anti-science mayor’s climatology abilities
Helping intellectually dishonest, or anti-science mayors, with supposed sea rise. In sum, it’s scientists vs. politicians and BIG GREEN MONEY
The NIPCC report from 2011 doesn’t do any favours to the “sea is rising crowd” either, as can be read at http://www.nipccreport.org/articles/2011/dec/13dec2011a1.html.
Another report from http://www.heraldextra.com/news/opinion/article_e642454a-35b3-57dc-9a75-e7bee5853a9b.html quotes Nils-Axel Mærner, who is chief of the paleogeophysics and geodynamics department at Sweden’s Stockholm University. Maerner stating that sea level has “risen by about 1 millimeter a year from about 1850 to perhaps 1940. That’s a tiny amount. But then sea levels fell. There’s no trend, absolutely no trend.” Regarding the IPCC report on rising ocean levels Maerner said the IPCC team didn’t record ¬– i.e., actually see — such an increase. It was a “correction factor” of a computer model. In other words, Mærner said, “It is a falsification of the data set.”
The article also discusses the Maldives Islands sinking into the Indian Ocean, which Maerner has visited. What he discovered from the people living there that there was a sinking of the sea level — in the 1970s; however, this may have been caused by non-oceanic factors. Nevertheless, the new level, per Maerner, “has been stable, has not changed in the last 35 years.” The polar regions melting? “Antarctic is certainly not melting,” Maerner said, and “All the Antarctic records show expansion of ice.” The problem, to Maerner, is that the warmers have no background in sea-level research. “So all this talk that sea level is rising, this stems from the computer modeling, not from observations…The observations don’t find it!”
Dr. Klaus Ekart-Puls, physicist and meteorologist, has also noted about sea level that “it’s important to remember that mean sea level is a calculated magnitude, and not a measured one. There are a great number of factors that influence sea level, e.g. tectonic processes, continental shifting, wind currents, passats, and volcanoes. Climate change is only one of ten factors.” Sea level rise, according the Ekart-Puls, has risen 100m from 10,000 years ago (as noted elsewhere, the Romans and Vikings didn’t drive SUVs), but from 1900 to 2000 sea level rose only 25 cm – a slowdown even though CO2 and temperature rose from the LIA See http://notrickszone.com/2012/04/26/klaus-ekhart-puls-sea-level-rise-is-slowing-down-theres-going-to-be-no-acceleration/ for full details on the subject
For completeness on the sea level issue, see Dr. Tim Ball’s summary graph, found at http://drtimball.com/2011/when-sea-level-change-is-not-sea-level-change/, also show no precipitous rise:
Meanwhile, ftp://ftp.aviso.oceanobs.com/ reported Sept., 2011, on sea level numbers, and Envisat showed that a two year long decline in sea level was continuing at that point (I haven’t looked since then), at a rate of 5mm per year (see http://www.real-science.com/uncategorized/sea-level-continues-historic-decline). A Der Spiegel report from 2011 at http://notrickszone.com/2011/08/31/der-spiegel-global-warming-now-causes-sea-level-drop-through-weather-shifts/ also confirms sea level is dropping.
This mayor was so utterly glib, yet ignorant, just one more, if I may.
Prior to tidal gauges and satellites, but in geologically stable areas of the world, David Whitehouse points out, at http://www.thegwpf.org/the-observatory/3943-sea-level-another-thing-the-ipcc-got-wrong.html, in “salt marsh sediments from Atlantic Canada that show stable sea levels between 0 and 1000 AD, then falling levels until to the mid-19th century, Mollusc distribution, and corals microatols (that occur close to average low water) also show falling levels until the past 200 years or so. Archeological evidence, especially from the Mediterranean, suggest sea level was at its current level 2000 years ago, possibly higher between 300 and 600 and lower between the 13th century and the 19th, and rising since. The important point is that all records show a falling sea level in the past thousand years.” But the key point, Whitehouse asks, is what happened about 1850 when sea levels started to rise consistently? And, tellingly, mankind could NOT have been culpable for a rise that started in 1850! Of course, it is quite obvious that we are simply coming out of the Little Ice Age – but that is of little consequence to carbon billionaire Al Gore and his myrmidons who stand to make oodles of dollars, plus gain control of society!
Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT (who, incidentally receives zero funding from any energy companies), wrote in “Why So Gloomy,” April 16, 2007, Newsweek International that “Sea levels, for example, have been increasing since the end of the last ice age. When you look at recent centuries in perspective, ignoring short-term fluctuations, the rate of sea-level rise has been relatively uniform (less than a couple of millimeters a year). There’s even some evidence that the rate was higher in the first half of the twentieth century than in the second half. Overall, the risk of sea-level rise from global warming is less at almost any given location than that from other causes, such as tectonic motions of the earth’s surface.”
Dr. Lindzen also notes the IPCC projects over 10 years – in contrast to non-scientist Frantic Al’s predictions, and this absurd leftist mayor above – for the sea level to rise 1.26 inches, not 200 feet – and Lindzen notes dryly that “This is not readily distinguishable from the change that has been occurring since the end of the last ice age.” Similarly, Dr. Fred Singer also notes that sea levels have been rising since the last ice age about 18,000 years ago, due to solar cycles, and has risen, in total, about 400 feet since that time, averaging about 7 inches per century over that time. (Since cars and factories have only been in common use less than 100 years, perhaps we may hypothesize it was mastodon flatulence that caused the warming? (And speaking of which, while American cars only cause about 6% of greenhouse gases, livestock is estimated to cause 18% of greenhouse gases) . Might be time to ask Ted Nugent to go seal hunting in Canada, and tell PETA to stop causing global warming by protecting cows, sheep, pigs and wildlife in general!).
Local and state democratic leaders are using the withdrawal of the US from the Paris accords as an excuse to sign treaties with foreign countries. The biggest example is Jerry Brown negotiating a treaty with China. Furthering your political career at the expense of the country is treasonous. No wonder that the symbol of the democratic party is an ass!
The data above is a little stale. I did 400 page, 700 footnote paper on the topic a few years ago, and was appalled at the lies, ignorance and BIG GREEN MONEY involved (Can anyone say “ClimateGate?”) Nevertheless, I have zero doubt none of the facts have changed over the past few years since I did this paper.
The whole AGW scam remains, as Dr. Richard Lindzen, professor of atmospheric science at MIT, Dr. William Gray, the number one hurricane forecaster in the world (and say! Where HAVE all those hurricanes gone that Al Gore predicted?) and John Colman, founder of the Weather Channel (go to YouTube and search for JOhn Coleman + global warming) in their own words (and I quote ipssisima verba) “A SCAM.”
Is it just me, or did the video of Kerry look like a computer animation?
BTW, in Miami, it may not be the ocean rising, but the land sinking. If the ocean were rising, water would be running in the streets here in NC, and my back yard would be under water now.
I have to assume there are major corporations who seek to benefit from the Paris/Kyoto Climate Protocols.
Who are these corporations, and what exactly do they stand to gain by promoting the global warming theme?
Trump scores again !!!
__ ?
__
Paris Climate Agreement was bad for America, Trump did the right thing!
Like all liberals…can’t answer a simple question. Why are we paying these other countries billions of dollars to not have to do anything to curve their greenhouse emissions? The toad from Miami could not answer the question. SHTF could not come soon enough.
the sheeple are so brainwashed that they actually think the world will end if we dont agree to give them billions of dollars. can someone tell me on what this program would our money be spent? what actions would be taken to stop this global warming? someone must have the facts. if you dont then why are you so upset.
Grampa
Another mealy mouthed political hack who won’t answer a simple question.