That most people, especially liberals, have not read…
7 Reasons Trump is Right to Scrap the Paris Climate Deal
American Liberty PAC
June 1, 2017 BY D.E.
Writers are apoplectic.
Todd Stern at The Atlantic says such a move would be “indefensible.” At Slate, David McKean and David Wade said pulling out would be a huge mistake “because our planet is currently on a collision course with Mother Nature.” At the Washington Post, Greg Sargent complains that Trump’s rationale is “based on lies.”
The seven reasons listed were:
- 1. The Senate never signed the agreement. This is kind of a big deal in a democratic republic. At least America’s Founders thought so. The U.S. Constitution states that the president “shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur” (Article II, section 2).
- 2. Emission reduction targets are not binding.
- 3. It Costs Roughly $100 billion (Annually)
- 4. The (non-binding) targets are totally arbitrary. John Cassidy of the New Yorker gloomily pointed out at the time, nations can select their own emission targets.
- 5. The agreement relies on self-reporting.
- 6. The U.S. will almost certainly not meet its target—and that could have an adverse impact.
- 7. The jury on carbon dioxide is still out. (One only has to look at Al Gore’s predictions to see how the hysteria relied on false data.)
The emission targets are not just non-binding; they are self-made. As John Cassidy of the New Yorker gloomily pointed out at the time, nations can select their own emission targets.
“Not only is the accord voluntary but countries got to set their own targets for carbon emissions. As I noted a couple of weeks ago, the Paris talks were a bit like a potluck dinner, where guests bring what they can.”
In his paper, Goklany concludes that many climate impact assessments suffer from three primary flaws.
“Firstly, they rely on climate models that have failed the reality test. Secondly, they do not fully account for the benefits of carbon dioxide. Thirdly, they implicitly assume that the world of 2100 will not be much different from that of the present – except that we will be emitting more greenhouse gases and the climate will be much warmer.”
Read the article HERE.
This agreement is so bogged down in garbled words that a casual reader or one not involved would really be a bit befuddled by what the heck is being said.
Take for instance the meat of the agreement – Article 4 (looking at the first four requirements as an example)
1-Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties, and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to eradicate poverty.
Best guess: Those signing agree to reach emission standard levels asap. Developing countries of course don’t have to comply right away. Who decides and what is included in those standards? Will they stop cows from farting to reduce methane? What about human farts? Does a campfire get fined as an emission problem? Do they stop every plane and space capsule from flying? Do pharmacological labs stop producing life saving medicines? Do we go back to using clay pots and plates? What kind of paper do they plan to produce with no fossil fuels available to run equipment? How about every ship or boat? Do we go back to using sail rigging again? Just how crazy are they willing to get to reach these goals?
How this has to do with sustainable development is a mystery since most energy ,at least currently, demands some form of fossil energy back up – Most solar panels on people’s houses are fairly inefficient with less than 14% of the energy that reaches converted to electricity. Wind turbines convert around 45% of the wind passing through the blades into electricity. Over time, coal power stations operate at around 85% of full capacity.
No idea at all on how they plan to eradicate poverty with this agreement.
2- Each Party shall prepare, communicate and maintain successive nationally determined contributions that it intends to achieve. Parties shall pursue domestic mitigation measures, with the aim of achieving the objectives of such contributions.
Who monitors and assembles these communications? Read here it is up to each country to decide what if anything they plan to achieve or report. Who sets parameters and disciplinary actions for mitigation procedures? Again assume it is entirely up to the country. If this is true then why is an agreement even necessary?
3- Each Party’s successive nationally determined contribution will represent a
progression beyond the Party’s then current nationally determined contribution and
reflect its highest possible ambition, reflecting its common but differentiated
responsibilities and respective capabilities, in the light of different national
Okay, the country decides what contribution, how much to contribute toward meeting a goal? Then every contribution after that must exceed the last. Who determines by how much and if or when the contribution is made? Pay as you can and pay as you go?
4- Developed country Parties should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction targets. Developing country Parties should continue enhancing their mitigation efforts, and are encouraged to move over time towards economy-wide emission reduction or limitation targets in the light of different national circumstances.
A developed country provides you with all what you may need for living a luxurious life. The top five most developed countries are United States, Netherlands, Switzerland, Australia, and Norway according to one site. Not to be rude, but only one country in that list is among the top ten contributors to NATO or the UN and in fact THE top contributor in either.
So replace “developed” and we see — the United States should continue taking the lead by undertaking economy-wide absolute emission reduction….seriously first there is NO absolute, second there is no way as required in Number 1 to make this happen immediately…third this immediately stresses All industries and citizens because alternate fuel source plants aren’t cheap and neither are they ready for full power usage .
This would mean an immediate dissolution of every energy source except “green” energy — yeah like that would go over well. But hey never fear all those under the top five countries in the world get to set their own goals, make their own determinations and complete the projects at their own paces. Now that is just so EQUALITY conscious don’t you know.
The rest of the information continues in the same nauseating and totally discombobulated way…read it for yourself if you think you can follow along and understand it.
I would add one more reason–in a non-binding, poorly thought-out agreement of rambling legalese of any kind, the one that loses is always the one who is the “mark”. In this case, these people thought the United States would continue to be that “mark”. Thank goodness we have a president now that doesn’t see this as a good agreement.
For supposedly scientifically knowledgable people, the writing of this agreement is totally asinine. Science educators have taught for at least thirty years about the proper steps of Scientific method. Frankly those steps should apply to every discipline.
- Ask a Question: The scientific method starts when you ask a question about something that you observe: How, What, When, Who, Which, Why, or Where?
- Do Background Research:
- Construct a Hypothesis: A hypothesis is an educated guess about how things work. It is an attempt to answer your question with an explanation that can be tested. A good hypothesis allows you to then make a prediction:
“If _____[I do this] _____, then _____[this]_____ will happen.”
- State both your hypothesis and the resulting prediction you will be testing. Predictions must be easy to measure.
- Test Your Hypothesis by Doing an Experiment:
- Analyze Your Data and Draw a Conclusion: Once your experiment is complete, you collect your measurements and analyze them to see if they support your hypothesis or not.
- Communicate Your Results
These guys would fail miserably at any elementary science fair –
-they reach a hypothesis not based on historical physical changes nor measurable data but assume the hypothesis that man is the only culprit, nor does it contain the volumes of expected reliable data from all of the science disciplines like archeology, chemistry, geological, climatic observations over centuries of human population from the beginning, astronomical fields and so on.
-The proof they profess to have has been publicly noted to contain falsified information. Many notable scientists in fields of a wide range of science disciplines have actual data that is different.
-There is no reliable consistently produced physical test for this theory concerning future atmospheric or anthropogenic trends based on current statistics, only computer generated query possibilities and mathematical calculations which can’t offer up variables like projected volcanic eruption statistic changes or solar flare changes, or natural venting from beneath the earth’s crust due to unforeseen cosmic events.
More than that IF these climate change gurus were so positive that their calculations and explanations carried the weight of truth–why the heck have they threatened, actually ruined some reputable non-believing scientists, and talked about putting people in prison that did not agree with them. I’m thinking their Al Gore type predictions are just like his diarrhea as a result of the greed virus. If they talked about the stupidity, greed, and poor stewardship of humans then that is something else entirely and I would agree. But that sure as heck ain’t climate related.