Eco-dystopia

Ask any attendee at the ECOCITY World Summit in Melbourne, Australia, and they will tell you “diversity” is the key to sustainable development.

They certainly don’t mean “diversity of opinion.”

The activists and bureaucrats here for this three-day eco-shindig are so far in the closet for the Left they’ve probably popped out in Narnia.

Their mission?  To bring their command-and-control agenda to YOUR community.

Debbie Bacigalupi is a property-rights activist and a member of CFACT’s “mission Australia” team.  She reports at CFACT.org that the folks attending the ECOCITY World Summit include “city planners, architects, local authorities, elected officials, universities, renewable energy grant recipients” and of course, the big man … Al Gore, himself.

They are hearing from 80 different speakers in 100 different sessions about how to craftily impose UN-style “sustainable development” upon the masses they regulate.
                              
They want to “retrofit” the suburbs for an inefficient “renewable energy future,” use financial instruments and the courts to “drive change,” and transform our communities into “sustainable and resilient cities,” which with them in charge will be nothing of the sort.

If left unchecked, the dystopia they seek to create won’t be good news for those of us who value freedom.

The ECOCITY speakers come from a hodgepodge of liberal Green outfits – a number of whom CFACT has taken on in the past.  These extremist organizations include the likes of the Climate Action Network, ICLEI, the C40 crowd, and many others.

As Debbie notes,

“If Al Gore and his EcoCity 2017 friends have their way, a Brave New World ‘ECOCITY’ will be coming to a place near you.  It’ll be a place where you can ‘harmonize’ with Mother Earth, change your consumer behavior to conform to that of the eco-enthusiasts, and happily live in a pre-ordained ‘human habitat’ (or ‘human settlement’ as some call it) and say good-by to your carbon emitting cars and life as you know it.”

You can read the rest of Bacigalupi’s troubling report at CFACT.org.

CFACT is fighting back against these radical social planners.   Marc Morano has appeared on Australia’s Sky News network and been invited to speak on several more radio and print news outlets.

The spin-off from the confrontation with Al Gore yesterday is also drawing significant media attention to CFACT’s activities here in Australia, as it was picked up and covered in the Drudge ReportUK Daily MailFox News and more.

CFACT employed our secret weaponClimate Hustle, to great effect.  In addition to holding a sold-out showing at the prestigious Victoria State Library in downtown Melbourne, copies of the movie were handed out with our compliments to a large number of ECOCITY participants.

Surprisingly, a few were happy to receive it!  Let’s hope they learn something.

There is much work still to do.  The eco-Left is mobilizing as never before and fully intent on implementing its radical plans on unsuspecting cities and communities in America and around the world.

Rest assured CFACT is mobilizing as well and (thanks to you) will be there dogging them every step of the way!

For nature and people too.

Watch: Morano confronts Gore with ‘Climate Hustle’ DVD in Australia! Gore refuses to accept, departs in SUV

MELBOURNE, Australia — Former Vice President Al Gore was confronted by climate skeptic Marc Morano at the EcoCity World Summit in Melbourne Australia on July 13th. Morano presented a DVD copy of his film ‘Climate Hustle’. During the inconvenient encounter, Gore refused to accept the DVD of the film and walked on by to his waiting Lexus RX450h SUV “hybrid.”

Gore’s visit to Australia to promote his new film, “An Inconvenient Sequel”, is coinciding with the Australian premiere of the skeptical film “Climate Hustle,” which screened on July 12th in Melbourne at the Village Roadshow Theater at the State Library of Victoria. Climate Hustle will premiere in Brisbane and Sydney as well. See: Warmists Upset: ‘Notorious Climate Denier Marc Morano Flying to Australia’ For Climate Hustle Screenings

Al Gore’s waiting Lexus SUV at climate summit.

Transcript of Gore’s Inconvenient Encounter With Marc Morano

Morano: “Hi Mr. Gore.”

Gore: “Hey.”

Morano: “Marc Morano, I used to work for Senator James Inhofe.” (Gore shakes hands with Morano)

Gore: “Oh, nice to see you. Yeah. Thank you.”

Morano, holding up DVD: “It’s actually my film, Climate Hustle. Would you take a copy of it, please? No? Thank you.”

Gore walks on by and outside to his waiting Lexus SUV.

Security: “Can I ask how you got access to this area?”

End Video.

This was not the first time Morano and Gore met. They first met in 1992 while Morano was on assignment for Rush Limbaugh, The Television Show. And again in 2007. See: Climate Clash: Gore Rebuffs Morano 37000 feet over South China Sea in 2007 – ‘You all attack me all the time’

December 14, 2007 – 37,000 over South China Sea – Former Vice President Al Gore rebuffed Senator James Inhofe’s spokesman during the return flight from the Bali UN climate conference.

Gore, in front of excited passengers posing with photos, revealed he was not happy with the criticism that he has endured “You all attack me all the time,” an agitated Gore said.

Morano responded, “Yes.  We do.”

After a long stare, Gore refused to have photo taken and walked off. Inhofe has been one of Gore’s harshest critiques. Inhofe’s website mocks Gore for hypocrisy and  maintains a running counter of how many days since Gore has refused to pledge to use no more than the average electricity use. 

The incident occurred at approximately 5:55 ET on Friday December (2 hours into flight)

Flying between Singapore and Manila over the South China Sea.
(Flight CX 784. Or 554mph. 37000 feet)

Climate Hustle Debuts in Australia

The Climate Hustle film will also be shown in Brisbane and Sydney later this week and next week.

July 15– Brisbane, Australia – Sponsored by the Australian Institute for Progress

New Farm Cinema – Doors open at 4:30 PM – Get Brisbane Tickets Here
July 18– Sydney, Australia – Club Five Dock
Doors open at 7:00 PM – Get Sydney Tickets Here

See: Get ready Australia! Climate Hustle Movie, Craig Rucker and Marc Morano in Australia & Warmists Upset: ‘Notorious Climate Denier Marc Morano Flying to Australia’ For Climate Hustle Screenings

Morano: “We are taking a quick hop to Australia to help export the awesomeness of what is currently happening in the U.S. when it comes to climate policy.”

“There is no reason we climate skeptics in the U.S. should not be exporting our good fortune of rejecting the UN Paris pact. Climate skeptics in the U.S. have been grinning ear to ear for months now. We have lots to get done in Australia. At the top of the list is helping to spread a global Clexit — Climate exit from UN Paris Pact,” Morano added.

Craig Rucker said: “CFACT has a lot of fans and followers in Australia who have long wanted us to make a trip. We were beckoned to come and are excited to premiere our film Climate Hustle.” More on Climate Hustle film here: The Reviews Are in! ‘Climate Hustle’ is ‘the most dangerous documentary of year’ – ‘Wickedly effective use of slapstick humor’ – ‘Lays waste to Gore’ – ‘Brutal & Extremely Funny’

Marc Morano and Joanne Nova during Q&A after Melbourne screening on July 12.

Gore praises policies that led to energy blackout

Since arriving in Australia, Gore has praised the blackout plagued state in Australia for “leading the world” in green energy. 

Gore’s new sequel film premiered to bad reviews in January 2017 when it opened on the film festival circuit.

Sampling of Reviews Al Gore’s new sequel:

Warmist review of Gore’s Sequel: ‘Convoluted & diluted’ – Film plays ‘like a social media booster for Mr. Gore’

Vox.com review of Gore’s sequel: ‘Unfortunately, the filmmaking is, alas, not very good…like watching taped lectures’

‘Superhero tragedy disguised as end-times environmental doc’ – Gore ‘sequel is a superhero movie about a sad Al Gore’ – ‘The film doesn’t have an official rating, but I would suggest PG for dad jokes, dated political humor, and PowerPoint slides that belong in a junior-high science class.’

But prominent scientists are on record in Climate Hustle panning Gore’s first film ‘An Inconvenient Truth.’

Prominent Ivy League Geologist Robert Giegengack, who voted for Gore, was ‘appalled’ after viewing his first film in 2006.

5 Reasons Cities Should Not Adopt Climate Accords

Another stop on the Hate Trump Hissy-Fit Express is the decision by a couple hundred cities and some states to vote to bind themselves to the Paris climate accords.

This is a bad idea on multiple fronts. We’ve already explained why Trump was absolutely correct to pull the United States out of the environmentally worthless but constitutionally alarming agreement.

But there are plenty of reasons aside from the general awfulness of the Paris accords for these cities and states to not take this step.

  1. It’s a violation at least of the spirit of the U.S. Constitution — the contract binding the states together in a union. Constitutional scholar KrisAnne Hall recently wrote a piece explaining how states and cities cannot make contracts with foreign governments without breaking the contract of the Constitution between states — the Constitution that created the United States. While these laws and ordinances may not be a technical violation of the Constitution — they are voluntary — but they are passably close. They do bind the city or state to them as long as the political entity chooses to remain a part of them. Like any agreement between democratic nations, they can be annulled with a vote of the nation’s representatives.
  2. Another thorny constitutional issue: Which laws will these cities and states see as supreme? What will the cities and states do if the rules guiding the accords conflict with federal law in some way? Or state law or city code, for that matter? Do the Paris accords take precedence, or federal law? Considering what we’ve seen in the flagrant disregard for constitutionally authorized federal law through the sanctuary city actions, the answer does not seem as obvious and hopeful as it should. Obviously, if the Paris accords are supreme — that is, if states and cities decide to violate federal law in order to adhere to their decision to bind themselves to the Paris agreement — then we do have a full-fledged breaking of the contract binding the states together. Unlike so much of the hyperbole surrounding every Trump tweet, this is an actual, true threat to the Union.
  3. What is the cost of abiding by the Paris accords? Most cities are facing current and growing financial challenges stemming from overly generous benefits, unfunded pensions, ignored infrastructure and the future diminishment of the tax base through ongoing technological disruption. The Paris accords are costly. Even in the rosiest scenarios, the costs are steep upfront but supposedly made up over time through energy savings. Whether those savings will ever materialize or not is another question — our money is on “not,” based on virtually every historic promise of government. But since the sensationalized verbiage says that the planet is doomed if we don’t make these changes, then the costs are almost irrelevant. But if the doomsday predictions are off on climate change — and they have been so far —  and the savings do not come through, then these cities and states are setting themselves up for major financial and services problems.
  4. Let’s just clearly reiterate that all of this constitutional and financial risk is being promoted for an agreement that, by its own estimates, was not going to accomplish much in retarding the “global warming” threat. The risk-reward of the agreement itself, holding true even further for the cities and states binding themselves to it, was just never a wise endeavor — even if you accept that climate change is now anthropogenically driven and not part of a broader planetary cycle.
  5. This leads us to the final point. This looks a lot like leftist cause enthusiasm married to an opportunity to poke Trump in the eye. In that respect, this is perfect for 2017 American Democrats. Not coincidentally, all the cities and states taking these positions are Democrat dominated.

This gives every appearance of being pure pettiness, now a staple of the Left in this country. These are adopted with regular, heavily politicized anti-Trump shots. We can be quite sure that if President Obama had said he didn’t think the cost-benefit ratio of this is good for America, none of these cities would have passed their own laws to follow it.

Given all this, it just seems to be more of the ongoing strategy to diminish and undermine the duly elected President of the United States at every possible opportunity — at the risk of the union of the United States and the financial security of the cities and states involved. It’s tempting to say the citizens of these cities and states deserve better, but a majority of them elected those leaders.

So to the electorate: Caveat emptor!

RELATED ARTICLE: Global Warming: The Imminent Crisis That Never Arrives – Investor’s Business Daily

Climate scares fail to occur

Can the global warming campaign keep scaring us if their predictions never come true?

Check out the featured story this morning over at CFACT’s award-winning Climate Depot news and information service.

Radio and print journalist Kerry Jackson writes that,

“It’s summer 2017 and the Arctic was supposed to be ice-free, hurricanes were going to be more frequent and more deadly, and sea levels should be rising alarmingly. Al Gore swore in his 2006 science fiction movie, An Inconvenient Truth, that within a decade there would be a ‘true planetary emergency.'”

“Instead of these disasters, we have the climate alarmist community admitting that there has indeed been a pause in the warming and that its models failed to predict it.”

“Yes, that’s right. The alarmists are acknowledging in the abstract of a research paper that was published this month in Nature Geoscience that there have been ‘differences in model and satellite tropospheric warming rates.'”

This is a big deal.

For years CFACT has contrasted real-world temperatures measured by scientists against other scientists’ climate computer models to show that the models project a warmer world than we actually live in.

There has been no meaningful warming since the 20th Century.

Warming campaigners have been in full denial about these inconvenient facts.  That they are finally getting around to acknowledging the evidence staring us all in the face is a positive step.

“Admitting you have a problem is the first step to recovery” is what they tell people in crisis.

Let’s hope a begrudging admission that their models have been wrong all along leads to more open minds and better climate science.

RELATED ARTICLES:

How Environmental Groups Are Responding to Trump’s ‘Solar Wall’ Pitch

EPA Poised to Undo Obama’s Federal Power Grab

6 Reasons Trump was Right on the Paris Climate Accords

The dystopian world-is-ending crowd had a heyday when President Trump kept his campaign promise to pull out of the accords and protect the American people. They really should have stayed on their meds.

Before we go through the very sound reasons for Trump pulling the U.S. out, it’s worth getting a sampling of just how fevered the reaction has been. Here are a few of the Chicken Little tweets following Trump’s announcement:

  • “Trump just declared war on the very idea of life on earth.” Trita Parsi, Grawemeyer Award for Ideas Improving World Order Recipient. (TRA translation: You must now stop even thinking about earth or be attacked!)
  • “If Trump pulls the US out of the Paris Agreement he will be committing a traitorous act of war against the American people.” Billionaire and supposed environmentalist Tom Steyer. (TRA translation: Trump is a traitor. Impeach him!)
  • “Pulling out of the Paris Agreement would be a massive step back for racial justice, and an assault on communities of color across the U.S.” ACLU National tweet. (TRA translation: It’s racist.)
  • “If Trump is pulling out of Paris, he is turning his back on the public in every single US state.” Sierra Club. (TRA translation: Trump hates Americans.)
  • “As a species we flunked the collective action problem that is carbon emissions. It’s now adapt or die.” Christopher Mims, Wall Street Journal. (TRA translation: People be stupid.)
  • “Serious question-Can millions of people launch a class action suit if the US pulls out of Paris accord for negligence?” Actress Patricia Arquette. (TRA: Serious answer: Yes. In November 2020. Read your Constitution.)
  • And finally (and enough for now) the Huffington Post’s top headline on the decision: “TRUMP TO PLANET: DROP DEAD” (TRA translation: Trump’s mean. And dumb. And mean.)

Why this is just so much silliness

For all of the hyperbolic screechings of the climate change brood, there were several very sound reasons for the U.S. pulling out.

And what’s important to remember is that every one of these points holds true even if you accept the most dire warnings of the global warming alarmists. But if it is true that the global temperatures are rising quickly as a direct and primary result of human use of fossil fuels, all of these points remain legitimate to the specifics of the Paris Accords.

  • Virtually nothing would be gained on global warming. According to a Heritage Foundation study: “…using the Model for the Assessment of Greenhouse Gas Induced Climate Change developed by researchers at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, even if all carbon dioxide emissions in the United States were effectively eliminated, there would be less than two-tenths of a degree Celsius reduction in global temperatures” by 2100. And the accords were only looking at a few percentage point reduction. So, negligible at best. MIT came to the same conclusion. The agreement actually would have almost no impact on global temperatures. So explain the above tweets again?

  • Dramatic U.S. economic damage. The Heritage Foundation study found an overall average loss of nearly 400,000 jobs; an average manufacturing shortfall of more than 200,000 jobs; a total income loss of more than $20,000 for a family of four; an aggregate gross domestic product (GDP) loss of over $2.5 trillion; and an increases in household electricity expenditures between 13 percent and 20 percent.

  • The risk-reward ratio for the U.S. was awful. So combine our facts. The economic impact from the accords would be nearly catastrophic to the U.S. Guaranteed. But the benefits would be minimal at best, and the models constructing those benefits are hard to trust as they have been wrong for nearly two decades. It was a reckless set of accords — except for the people safely ensconced in those negotiating rooms in swank hotels around the world, flying in on private jets fueled by fossil fuels.

  • The accords were voluntary and unenforceable. And some of the biggest contributors would never abide by them. China, for instance, signed the accords, but stipulated they would not begin implementing any emission goals until 2030 — not coincidentally the year that the agreement runs out. But they get credit for signing it. In fact, all of the nations that signed on and are the fastest climbing carbon emitters would do nothing to curb their use. But they would gain economic advantage.

  • Risk losing national sovereignty. This agreement — negotiated remember by President Obama with no Senate approval — set the U.S. on the path to allowing a global organization, maybe headquartered in Europe, to control domestic policy. That, of course, spells ultimately the end of the Great American Experiment, and that is not hyperbole. We have no effective Constitution if other countries can set our policies. In his announcement, Trump said: “…our withdrawal from the agreement represents a reassertion of America’s sovereignty. Our constitution is unique among all nations of the world. And it is my highest obligation and greatest honor to protect it…” Absolutely correct.

  • The media coverage is wholly untrustworthy. A whole lot of people are being led to a conclusion, not provided impartial data. Never ever forget the “journalists” who were covering the Paris Accords who spontaneously responded with clapping and dancing and hugging like they were Greenpeace activists. You really have to watch the 13-second clip. So, like many of the climate change scientists, it is impossible for any average or above-average American to trust the climate change journalism gang.

For some great historical context on the untrustworthy combination of science and journalism on this topic, the 1990 Today Show program reported “facing a sea-level rise not of one to three feet in a century, but of 10 or 20 feet in a much shorter time. The Supreme Court would be flooded. You could tie your boat to the Washington Monument.” Again, worth watching the short clip.

There is a rational case for convening an impartial  panel — meaning a panel of scientists and others who think the warming is man-made and those who do not and those who think it is overstated — to truly study and verify the data without a one-sided agenda. This panel could include investigating the data we know was corrupted to make it look like there is more warming than there is. And then posting as directly to the web and people as possible to bypass the untrustworthy climate change media.

Without that, too many people are suspicious. And the worthlessness of these accords on global warming only furthers that suspicion.

A no-brainer to pull out

And finally, pulling out of the Paris Accords was a Trump campaign promise. He made promises, was duly elected and has been keeping them. This was one of those. It’s unusual in Washington, but a good thing.

This agreement was all risk for the United States and very little reward for the climate, even accepting the global warming assumptions.

The well-being of the American people was put in grave harm’s way. Any good President should stand against such an agreement. Obama made the agreement, knowing that it harmed the country. Trump removed us, knowing that doing so was good for the country. And there is virtually no harm by the climate models by doing so.

That is such a kicker. Unfortunately, millions persuaded of the horribleness of this deed may never really know that because they are trusting the climate change journalists for information.

Looking at this accord in its entirety suggests there were a lot of countries that were using it as a tool to gain an economic advantage on the United States. It had nothing to do with climate change for them.

Trump was absolutely right to keep his promise and protect the American people by pulling out of it.

EDITORS NOTE: This column originally appeared in The Revolutionary Act.

It’s hot in Phoenix… Naturally

Natural Southwest heat causes propaganda to rise like the Phoenix.

It’s hot in the American Southwest.

So hot that airlines have been delaying flights for their smaller planes, waiting for cooler, denser air to provide better lift.

Yet you can’t have a heat wave without warming campaigners coming out of the woodwork to proclaim it evidence of “climate change.”

The Southwest is broiling. Are you paying attention, President Trump?” asks Jill Filipovic at CNN.

The Atlantic asks, “Did climate change ground flights in Phoenix?” and concludes, “Yes, but it didn’t act alone.”

This is nonsense.  We shared more examples at CFACT.org.

Despite the media hype, these sizzling temperatures are historically normal.  The all-time high temperature for Phoenix of 122 degrees F has stood since June 26, 1990.

Did manmade global warming play a significant role in this recent Arizona heat wave? Almost assuredly not.

The small amount of warming that took place last century, well within range of natural variation, is simply too small.  Even after activist scientists got done fiddling with the data, the most warming they could come up with were amounts of less than one degree Celsius above the global temperature baseline.

Only in the surreal world of climate modeling is manmade global warming shown to be an evil, threatening menace. Fortunately we live on a real Earth, not a computer derived-one like in the film The Matrix.

How much cooler would Phoenix be had Americans never built factories and power plants or driven SUVs?

The question is absurd.

So is attributing hot desert weather to global warming in a world that hasn’t experienced any meaningful warming this century.

RELATED ARTICLES:

New Euro-studies Confirm Sun Dominates Earth’s Climate

80 Charts that Show Global Warming Hysteria Is a Fraud

The Paris Climate Accord: A Deadly Non-solution to a Non-problem

This week I had the opportunity to discuss President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Accord with radio host Mike Slater. As I explain in the interview, the Paris Climate Accord is a deadly non-solution to a non-problem:

  • The Accord would have robbed millions of access to energy, including the energy that allows us to cope with a naturally dangerous climate
  • It would have done nothing to avoid the climate catastrophe that supporters think fossil fuels are creating
  • And there is no evidence that the CO2 impact is catastrophic

The interview contains much more, including these kind words from Slater:

“I am just extremely impressed with what you’ve built over these last few years… Really impressed that you’ve gone out so much, and spoken, and spread this message, and done these debates with these high level environmentalists. You’ve done a wonderful job.”

You can listen to the interview here.

Dave Rubin on the moral case for fossil fuels

Interviewer Dave Rubin was recently asked about his views on climate change, and spent a big part of his answer recommending that people watch “a really interesting conversation I had with Alex Epstein from the Center for Industrial Progress, who wrote a book called The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels that I keep right there on my shelf.”

After pointing out that he received and continues to receive a ton of hate mail about my appearance on his show, Dave points out that I recorded a follow up video did where I responded to the top 100 YouTube comments about our interview. You can view that video here,

and my original interview with Dave Rubin here.

The fastest way to promote the moral case for fossil fuels

One of the fastest ways you can help spread the word about the moral case for fossil fuels is to create a short video testimonial, telling the world how these ideas have impacted you.

We’ve now made this easier than ever. Just visit our video testimonial page and you can record your thoughts right from your phone or computer.

(Please note that video testimonials requires Adobe Flash. Some browsers, like Safari, may encounter problems.)

How has the moral case for fossil fuels impacted you?

We are always striving to upgrade our ability to change hearts and minds. If you’ve followed any of my work I would be grateful if you’d give five minutes of your time to fill out a brief survey. It will be extremely valuable in helping us improve our work. (And thanks if you filled it out earlier.)

  • If you’re in the energy industry, you can fill out the survey here.
  • If you’re not in the energy industry, but care about energy issues, you can fill out the survey here.

ALSO: Whenever you’re ready, here are 3 ways I can help your organization turn non-supporters into supporters and turn supporters into champions.

1. Fill out the free Constructive Conversation Scorecard to assess where you are and where you want to be in your one-on-one communications.

Email it back to me and I’ll send you my step-by-step Constructive Conversation System that will enable you to talk to anyone about energy.

2. Hold a free Lunch-and-Learn (inside or outside the industry).

This program contains one of my favorite debates along with some “cheat sheets” to help you make the moral case for fossil fuels in your professional and personal life more easily than you thought possible. You can have access to the entire program right now. By the end of the session you and your team will:

  • gain a deeper sense of meaning from their work
  • be able to turn fossil fuel skeptics into fossil fuel supporters
  • learn the secrets to having constructive conversations about energy instead of frustrating fights

Click here to sign up for the free program.

3. Hire me to speak at your next event.

If you have an upcoming board meeting, employee town hall, or association meeting, I have some new and updated speeches about the moral case for fossil fuels, winning hearts and minds, and communications strategy in the new political climate. f you’d like to consider me for your event, just reply to this message and put “Event” in the subject line.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Trump’s EPA Chief Backs Approach to Science That Could Upend the Global Warming ‘Consensus’

New Euro-studies Confirm Sun Dominates Earth’s Climate

80 Charts that Show Global Warming Hysteria Is a Fraud

Energy & Environmental News – 6/12/17

The newest edition of the Energy and Environmental Newsletter is now online.

Despite all the news you’ve heard over the last few weeks, you’re probably unaware of one of the most significant national developments. Last week Texas (the most wind friendly state in the US) signed into law a bill that effectively prohibits wind projects from being closer than 30± miles to a military facility. (See this and this.) This law should give encouragement to similar federal legislation, as well as military-protective measures in NY and NC.

You’ve also heard a lot about the US bowing out of the Paris Agreement — most of which is rather irrational. The Newsletter has a special section on worthwhile articles (like here) on this important international topic.

Some of the more interesting Global Warming articles in this issue are:

“Climate Change” used to Create Totalitarian State

Anatomy of a Deep State

Renounce Climate Alarmism

Can we discuss the climate without the hysteria?

Lindzen: In the future, people will marvel how hysterical mankind has been

CO2 Can’t Cause the Warming Alarmists Claim it Does

CO2 Facts vs Alternative Facts

58 New Papers Invalidate Claims Of Unprecedented Modern Global Warming

mgh, Not Greenhouse Gases, Provides a Warm Earth

Some of the more informative energy articles in this issue are:

The Princess and the Pea

Human Health, Rights and Wind Turbine Deployment

A startling case of two schools in proximity to wind turbines

Wind company dealt blow by Indiana Supreme Court

Why There’s No Such Thing As a Free Market for Electricity

Offshore Wind Turbines Blamed For Killing Family Of Whales

The Private Benefit of Carbon and its Social Cost

Scientific Peer-Review is a Deeply Tainted System

PS: Our intention is to put some balance into what most people see from the mainstream media about energy and environmental issues. As always, please pass this on to open-minded citizens, and on your social media sites. If there are others who you think would benefit from being on our energy & environmental email list, please let me know. If at any time you’d like to be taken off the list, simply send me an email saying that.

PPS: I am not an attorney, so no material appearing in any of the Newsletters (or our WiseEnergy.org website) should be construed as giving legal advice. My recommendation has always been: consult a competent attorney when you are involved with legal issues.

CLEXIT: Science Wins! Trump stomps on climate religion

‘This is very close to a religious issue. This is a theological issue. People take climate change that seriously.’ ‘We are proud of a president who is staring at the UN and saying we don’t want to give up our sovereignty so that UN bureaucrats can redistribute our wealth and do nothing for the climate. This is a great day for science.’

‘The UN has admitted they will redistribute wealth by climate policy. This is all politics, it is not about saving the planet and Trump is calling them on it.’ We been called a rogue nation along with Syria and Nicaragua. The U.S was founded as a rogue nation. Trump is showing true leadership. Standing up to the world and say we are not buying belief in superstition that a UN agreement that even if you believe in UN assumptions would have no measurable impact on temps in 100 years or has anything to do with saving the planet or climate. Donald Trump should win a medal of scientific courage and political courage for pulling out of this.’

Climate Depot Round Up

It’s Official! The U.S. has done a Clexit! CNN: Trump on Paris accord: ‘We’re getting out’ & BBC: Trump announces US will withdraw from UN Paris Climate deal

Statistician LOMBORG: TRUMP IS RIGHT TO REJECT PARIS CLIMATE DEAL: IT’S LIKELY TO BE A COSTLY FAILURE – Dr. Bjorn Lomborg: The Paris Treaty will be the most expensive global agreement in world history. It is foolhardy and foolish for world leaders to stay fixated on Paris – not only will it likely falter, but it will be hugely costly and do almost nothing to fix climate change. – After hundreds of billions of dollars in annual subsidies, we only get, according to the International Energy Agency, 0.5 per cent of the world’s energy needs from wind, and 0.1 per cent from solar PV.
CNN: Trump on Paris accord: ‘We’re getting out’
Media Clips: 

Watch: Morano in Sky News TV debate with Greenpeace: ‘It’s the greatest thing for the U.S. to leave Paris pact’ – Broadcast June 1, 2017 -Sky News -Marc Morano vs. Sky News Anchor Kay Burley and a Kaisa Kosonen, a spokesperson from Greenpeace International.

Morano: ‘This treaty has no basis not only in science, but in actual cost benefit analysis. Even if you use all the UN assumptions and believe everything they claim about the science, you would not be able to measure the temperature difference in a 100 years assuming all the countries did what thy planned to do…If we did face a climate apocalypse, you don’t need the UN to sit there and decide what energy mix countries should have. UN bureaucrats don’t have to be in charge. You don’t need central planning to determine that.

Sky News Anchor Kay Burley: Trump is really setting himself against almost every other country. is that what we want the leader of the free world to do?

Morano: Absolutely. We been called a rogue nation along with Syria and Nicaragua. The U.S was founded as a rogue nation. Trump wants to be a leader. Trump is showing true leadership. Standing up to the world and say we are not buying belief in superstition that a UN agreement that even if you believe in UN assumptions would have no measurable impact on temps in 100 years or has anything to do with saving the planet or climate. Donald Trump should win a medal of scientific courage and political courage for pulling out of this.

Listen: BBC radio features Morano in two separate shows: ‘We don’t want to give up our sovereignty so that UN bureaucrats do nothing for the climate’ -Climate Depot’s Morano on two BBC radio programs on Trump’s Clexit from UN Paris Treaty. Full audio from both programs below.

Morano: ‘This is very close to a religious issue. This is a theological issue. People take climate change that seriously.’ ‘We are proud of a president who is staring at the UN and saying ‘we don’t want to give up our sovereignty so that UN bureaucrats can redistribute our wealth and do nothing for the climate. This is a great day for science.’ ‘The UN has admitted they will redistribute wealth by climate policy. This is all politics, it is not about saving the planet and Trump is calling them on it.’

Morano on Blaze TV: ‘We are going to have a Clexit! A climate exit!’

Watch: Morano on Newsmax TV: UN Paris Accord Is About Wealth Redistribution, Not Climate – Morano on Newsmax TV’s Steve Malzberg show: “The UN has actually admitted the real reason for the treaty. They said this is not even environmental policy anymore, we will redistribute wealth by climate policy. That’s what they want, a $100 billion a year slush fund going to governments that are best able to keep your people locked in poverty. “This is all about social engineering, central planning, redistribution of wealth, and empowering UN bureaucrats.”

Watch Morano on TV: Trump touched on ‘religious belief’ – It’s a ‘theological debate’ on climate -Tipping Point With Liz Wheeler on OAN (One America News Network) Morano: ‘What Trump did today was a blow to superstition. No longer in Washington DC do we have to pretend that a UN climate treaty can save the planet or actually control temperature or impact storminess. This truly is a day that science has won out in DC and that is a rare day when it comes to climate change.’

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano statement:

“A U.S. Clexit (Climate Exit from UN Paris Pact) is a victory for science. President Trump today, in one swoop, made perhaps the most consequential decision of his presidency both in domestic and international policy by announcing a Clexit of the U.S. from the UN Paris agreement. One of Trump’s core political principles has been an America first policy and knowing the art of a deal. Trump realized that the UN Paris climate pact would not serve the interests of U.S. foreign policy or domestic energy policy. The near total dismantling of former President Obama’s “climate legacy” is now almost complete. Bravo!  President Trump understands that the UN has no interest in climate. The UN’s real goal is “global governance” and “wealth redistribution.” Flashback: UN IPCC Official Edenhofer: ‘We Redistribute World’s Wealth By Climate Policy’

Climate Depot’s Morano predicted Trump’s actions today back in November 2016 while attending the UN climate summit in Morocco. Morano was ejected from the summit for shredding the UN Paris agreement. See: UN Armed Security Shuts Down Skeptics After SHREDDING UN Climate Treaty at Summit Next To Trump Cut-out – November 16, 2016

A UN climate agreement is totally meaningless when it comes to the climate. University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack  has noted: “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”

Climate Depot Marc Morano adds: In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!  Make no mistake, climate campaigners who tout UN agreements and EPA regulations as a way to control Earth’s temperature and storminess are guilty of belief in superstition. Today, America rejects superstition and the belief that government regulations and UN agreements can control the climate. 

NASA’s former lead global warming scientist Dr. James Hansen is also not a big fan of the UN Paris accord. See: ‘Fraud, Fake…Worthless Words’: NASA’s James Hansen on UN Paris Pact – Trump should take note – “[The Paris agreement] is a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”
Climate experts who have looked at the UN climate agreement think Trump is correct to dismantle it. Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote “Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all.” Lomborg added that Trump withdrawing from the UN treaty “will will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end” because even if you accept the climate claims of the UN, the agreement “will matter very little to temperature rise.” (Also see: Bjorn Lomborg: ‘Germany Spends $110 Billion to Delay Global Warming by 37 Hours’)

Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100

Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100Lomborg: “If the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.”Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center: “We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree…the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years…Again, that is using the UN’s own climate prediction model.” “But here is the biggest problem: These minuscule benefits do not come free — quite the contrary. The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year.”Lomborg Blasts UN Paris Treaty’s $100 Trillion Price Tag For No Temp Impact: ‘You won’t be able to measure it in 100 years’ – Bjorn Lomborg: The debate about the UN Paris Agreement is “about identity politics. It’s about feeling good… but the climate doesn’t care about how you feel.”
Bjorn Lomborg on UN climate deal: ‘This is likely to be among most expensive treaties in the history of the world’

RELATED LINKS: 

‘Failure Of Paris Climate Deal Was Inevitable’

TRUMP: ‘Paris’ less about climate, more about others gaining advantage over US

Trump: ‘I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris’

Democrat Billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer: Trump’s Paris exit a ‘traitorous act of war’

Hulk Actor Mark Ruffalo: ‘Trump will have the death of whole nations on his hands’

Remaining Paris signatories plan to save planet by building 2,440 NEW coal plants. http://climateactiontracker.org/assets/publications/briefing_papers/CAT_Coal_Gap_Briefing_COP21.pdf …

We’re Outta There! President Pulling Out Of Paris Climate Accord

THE 10 DUMBEST REACTIONS TO TRUMP QUITTING THE PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD

1. Apparently of the opinion that Kathy Griffin pretending to behead Trump wasn’t quite distasteful enough, an editorial cartoonist for the Australian Financial Review, David Rowe, likened Trump leaving the Paris agreement to … beheading the entire planet.

9. John Kerry, one of the deal’s leading negotiators, said Trump is not helping the “forgotten Americans” he pledged to elevate, but instead will give their kids asthma (perhaps as soon as this summer!).

Weather Channel Website Goes Apocalyptic After Trump’s Paris Accord Repeal

De Blasio Declares NYC Will Defy Trump, Commit To Global Warming Agreement

Democrats Plot ‘Revolution’ To Circumvent Trump’s Paris Decision

Top Congressional Republicans Applaud Trump’s Decision To Pull Out Of Paris Climate Agreement

Environmentalists Call Trump’s Trashing Of Global Warming Deal A ‘Suicide Note For Earth’

Existing a Paris is racist?! ACLU: U.S. Exiting Paris Climate Accord Is ‘An Assault on Communities of Color’

As his climate legacy is erased, Obama slams Trump for leaving Paris agreement

Dem Senate Min. Leader Schumer: Trump tells Earth to ‘drop dead’

‘Failure Of Paris Climate Deal Was Inevitable’

TRUMP: ‘Paris’ less about climate, more about others gaining advantage over US

Trump: ‘I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris’

Democrat Billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer: Trump’s Paris exit a ‘traitorous act of war’

CNN: Trump on Paris accord: ‘We’re getting out’

BBC: Trump announces US will withdraw from UN Paris Climate deal

Hulk Actor Mark Ruffalo: ‘Trump will have the death of whole nations on his hands’

Watch Live: Trump’s announcement of UN Paris Climate Pact

It’s Over! White House Confirms Trump Will Announce U.S. Withdrawal from Paris Climate Accord

DiCaprio to Trump on UN Paris Pact: ‘I hope you’ll make the moral decision’

Fmr. CBS Newsman Dan Rather: ‘History will judge mercilessly Trump’s reported decision to withdraw from Paris’ pact

Update: CNN: Trump expected to withdraw from Paris climate agreement – Will Announce at 3pmThursday

Hillary on Trump Paris pullout: ‘Really stupid… totally incomprehensible… incredibly foolish’

VIDEO: President Trump withdraws from the Paris Accord — Let the Hysteria Begin!

President Trump has kept another campaign promise. On June 1st, 2017 he formally announced that the United States is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement stating, “I was elected to represent Pittsburgh, not Paris!”

In their column 4 Reasons Trump Was Right to Pull Out of the Paris Agreement Nicolas Loris  and Katie Tubb write:

President Donald Trump has fulfilled a key campaign pledge, announcing that the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate agreement.

The Paris Agreement, which committed the U.S. to drastically reducing greenhouse gas emissions, was a truly bad deal—bad for American taxpayers, American energy companies, and every single American who depends on affordable, reliable energy.

It was also bad for the countries that remain in the agreement. Here are four reasons Trump was right to withdraw.

1. The Paris Agreement was costly and ineffective.

2. The agreement wasted taxpayer money.

3. Withdrawal is a demonstration of leadership.

4. Withdrawal is good for American energy competitiveness.

Read more…

PowerLine’s  Steven Hayward reporting on the President’s decision wrote:

I know what you’re thinking. How can the climatistas be any more hysterical than they already are? Is it even possible to turn it up past 11? In any case, here are a few early returns, which I’ll update as the day unfolds. (That was a great speech, by the way: “I was elected to represent Pittsburgh, not Paris.”) Hear, hear! For now, this first one is the winner (although the ACLU tweet is a close rival):

Read more…

Watch the full remarks of Vice President Pence, President Trump and the Secretary of the Environmental Protection Agency Pruitt’s comments on withdrawing from the Paris Accord:

RELATED ARTICLES: 

DELINGPOLE: That Paris Speech Just Made Trump Great Again

NYT Peddles More Global Warming Science Without Numbers

Limbaugh explains why he believes American voters saved the country in 2016

Spying on You, Spying on Me, Spying on the President

RELATED VIDEO: Watch Rand Paul bulldoze through each global warming talking point – TheBlaze

VIDEO: Paris Accord is About Wealth Redistribution, Not Climate

Jason Devaney from NewsMax reports:

The Paris Climate accord’s premise is wealth distribution and it would not even have much of an impact on Earth’s climate, ClimateDepot.com founder Marc Morano said.

During an interview with Newsmax TV’s Steve Malzberg, Morano discussed the climate change agreement that President Donald Trump is reportedly leaning toward withdrawing the U.S. from.

“You wouldn’t even be able to measure the impact using the UN assumptions. This is according to a peer-reviewed paper by a statistician called Dr. Bjorn Lomborg,” Morano said.

“The UN has actually admitted the real reason for the treaty. They said this is not even environmental policy anymore, we will redistribute wealth by climate policy. That’s what they want, a $100 billion a year slush fund going to governments that are best able to keep your people locked in poverty.

Read more…

Trump is pulling U.S. out of UN Paris Climate Pact – A Victory for Science!

WASHINGTON, D.C. — President Donald Trump today officially announced that he intends to withdraw from the UN Paris climate pact. Trump has fulfilled a key campaign promise and is gutting one has been termed one of the “most expensive treaties in the history of the world.”

The Hill is reporting:

President Trump will pull the United States out of the Paris climate change agreement, Axios reported Wednesday. The report, citing two sources with “direct knowledge,” said Trump is working with a group led by Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) chief Scott Pruitt on the exact mechanism of pulling out before announcing his final decision. CBS News also reported that Trump is telling allies about his decision. The move marks a dramatic departure from the Obama administration, which was instrumental in crafting the deal. It also makes the U.S. an outlier among the world’s nations, nearly all of whom support the climate change accord. But Trump’s decision fulfills an original campaign promise he made just over a year ago to “cancel” the accord. 

The Associated Press is reporting:

A White House official says President Donald Trump is expected to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord. But the official says there may be “caveats in the language” that Trump uses to announce the withdrawal – leaving open the possibility that the decision isn’t final.

According to Axios, GOP Senators played a key role in influencing Trump to pull out of the UN climate pact.

Axios: How it happened: A letter from 22 Republican Senators (including Mitch McConnell) that called for a clean exit had reinforced Trump’s instincts to withdraw, and the president had been telling confidants over the past week that he was going to pull out.

Skeptics Rejoice:

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano statement: “A U.S. Clexit (Climate Exit from UN Paris Pact) is a victory for science.President Trump today, in one swoop, made perhaps the most consequential decision of his presidency both in domestic and international policy by announcing a Clexit of the U.S. from the UN Paris agreement. One of Trump’s core political principles has been an America first policy and knowing the art of a deal. Trump realized that the UN Paris climate pact would not serve the interests of U.S. foreign policy or domestic energy policy. The near total dismantling of former President Obama’s “climate legacy” is now almost complete. Bravo!  President Trump understands that the UN has no interest in climate. The UN’s real goal is “global governance” and “wealth redistribution.” Flashback: UN IPCC Official Edenhofer: ‘We Redistribute World’s Wealth By Climate Policy’

Climate Depot’s Morano predicted Trump’s actions today back in November 2016 while attending the UN climate summit in Morocco. Morano was ejected from the summit for shredding the UN Paris agreement. See: UN Armed Security Shuts Down Skeptics After SHREDDING UN Climate Treaty at Summit Next To Trump Cut-out – November 16, 2016

A UN climate agreement that is totally meaningless when it comes to the climate. University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack  has noted: “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”

Climate Depot Marc Morano adds: In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!  Make no mistake, climate campaigners who tout UN agreements and EPA regulations as a way to control Earth’s temperature and storminess are guilty of belief in superstition. Today, America rejects superstition and the believe that governments regulations and UN agreements can control the climate. 

NASA’s former lead global warming scientist Dr. James Hansen is also not a big fan of the UN Paris accord. See: ‘Fraud, Fake…Worthless Words’: NASA’s James Hansen on UN Paris Pact – Trump should take note – “[The Paris agreement] is a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”Climate experts who have looked at the UN climate agreement think Trump is correct to dismantle it. Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote “Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all.” Lomborg added that Trump withdrawing from the UN treaty “will will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end” because even if you accept the climate claims of the UN, the agreement “will matter very little to temperature rise.” (Also see: Bjorn Lomborg: ‘Germany Spends $110 Billion to Delay Global Warming by 37 Hours’)

Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100

Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100Lomborg: “If the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.”Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center: “We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree…the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years…Again, that is using the UN’s own climate prediction model.” “But here is the biggest problem: These minuscule benefits do not come free — quite the contrary. The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year.”
Lomborg Blasts UN Paris Treaty’s $100 Trillion Price Tag For No Temp Impact: ‘You won’t be able to measure it in 100 years’ – Bjorn Lomborg: The debate about the UN Paris Agreement is “about identity politics. It’s about feeling good… but the climate doesn’t care about how you feel.”
Bjorn Lomborg on UN climate deal: ‘This is likely to be among most expensive treaties in the history of the world’

#

Report: Trump tells ‘confidants’ U.S. will leave Paris climate deal

Latest developments below.

https://www.axios.com/scoop-trump-is-pulling-u-s-out-of-paris-climate-deal-2427773025.html?stream=top-stories&utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_term=alerts_all

Trump is pulling U.S. out of Paris climate deal

Pablo Martinez Monsivais / AP

President Trump has made his decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord, according to two sources with direct knowledge of the decision. Details on how the withdrawal will be executed are being worked out by a small team including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt. They’re deciding on whether to initiate a full, formal withdrawal — which could take 3 years — or exit the underlying United Nations climate change treaty, which would be faster but more extreme.

Why this matters: Pulling out of Paris is the biggest thing Trump could do to unravel Obama’s climate legacy. It sends a combative signal to the rest of the world that America doesn’t prioritize climate change and threatens to unravel the ambition of the entire deal.

The other outliers: The only other two countries that aren’t supporting the deal are Nicaragua and Syria.

How it happened: A letter from 22 Republican Senators (including Mitch McConnell) that called for a clean exit had reinforced Trump’s instincts to withdraw, and the president had been telling confidants over the past week that he was going to pull out.

Image result for trump climate paris

Climate Skeptics cheer Clexit from UN Paris Agreement
Cheers! Trump Refuses To Sign G7 Statement Endorsing UN Paris Climate Agreement

UN Armed Security Shuts Down Skeptics After SHREDDING UN Climate Treaty at Summit Next To Trump Cut-outFull Video of UN Climate Cops Shutting Down SkepticsSkeptics Sought to End Climate Activists Denial Over Trump Rejecting UN Paris Climate AgreementLife size stand up of Trump taken down — Would UN have objected if life size Obama image were displayed instead?

Associated Press: Climate skeptic shreds Paris Agreement at UN ‘global warming’ conference

Watch Associated Press Video of UN armed security escorting Marc Morano & Craig Rucker from UN climate summit

Climate Depot’s New ‘Talking Points’ Report – A-Z Debunking of Climate ClaimsClimate Depot’s New ‘Talking Points’ Report – A-Z Debunking of Climate Claims

Read Full report Here: http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Climate-Talking-Points.pdf

The “Talking Points Memo,” by Marc Morano of CFACT’s Climate Depot, is a complete skeptics’ guide for elected officials, media and the public on how to discuss global warming backed up by dozens of citations to peer-reviewed research. “Make no mistake, climate campaigners who tout UN agreements and EPA regulations as a way to control Earth’s temperature and storminess are guilty of belief in superstition,” he added.

The G-7’s Outrageous Hypocrisy by John Tamny

An article in Saturday’s Wall Street Journal about the European leg of President Trump’s first foreign trip came with the headline: “Leaders Confront US on Russia, Climate.” In particular, non-US G-7 leaders are all strongly in favor of the 2015 Paris climate agreement that would require participating countries to limit carbon emissions, among other restraints on economic activity.

Trump disagrees, thus the confrontation, owing to his correct belief that the climate deal would prove a barrier to economic growth.That Trump was in opposition to the other G-7 members apparently led to some tense discussion about the US’s desire to exit commitments made during the presidency of Barack Obama. German Chancellor Angela Merkel confirmed that opinions expressed about the withering climate accord “were exchanged very intensively.”

You Obey, We Ignore

Merkel and other G-7 leaders disappointed in the 45th president have no leg to stand on, and certainly aren’t in the position to confront any US president. Trump should make this plain without an ounce of regret. The latter would be true even if the Paris accord were a credible answer to the theory that says economic progress is a major threat to our existence.

Indeed, the Europeans talk a big game about the importance of commitments, and of how the alleged fight to save the earth “has to be a collective effort,” but they’ve shown no remorse about their own persistent failure to honor their NATO spending pledges.

Translated, these nations expect the United States to weaken its economy based on an unproven, but rather expensive theory about the effects of climate change. But when it comes to living up to a longstanding agreement among NATO members to share the costs of a mutual defense shield, they’ll let the US foot the bill.

More interesting here is that in their desperation to keep the US in the Paris fold, Merkel and others are implicitly saying that any agreement made among leading western European countries without the US isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on. With good reason.

So Much for Commitment

Consider non-NATO treaties like Maastricht, in which EU nations agreed to limit their deficit spending so that their debt/GDP ratios would always stay below 60%. Woops. As of 2015, Germany (74.4%), France (89.6%), and Italy (122.3%) were all well above what the G-7 countries committed to when they signed the treaty that led to the euro. As for their commitment to requiring euro member states to individually handle their debts, it too went out the window given the fear among EU members about what debt default would do to certain large banks.

Back to NATO, the European leaders so eager to guilt Trump into a climate commitment not his own have once again shown no commensurate guilt about their own safety being a function of US taxpayers and legislators regularly living up to commitments that they haven’t lived up to.

Mutual Defense

This is particularly galling when we remember that NATO’s mutual defense shield arguably has very little to do with US safety. Lest we forget, the US already has the strongest military in the world, and it’s also quite far from the world’s trouble spots. In short, the US has long stuck to an agreement that weakens it economically, and that has little to nothing to do with its ongoing existence.

Would Americans feel any less secure absent this pricey post-WWII arrangement? At the same time, could NATO survive and would Europeans still feel secure sans American support that gives NATO global relevance?The answer to the previous question explains why the Paris agreement will lose all meaning and relevance if the US backs out. We know this given the historical truth that non-US G-7 nations speak with a forked tongue.

They talk grandly about honoring commitments, but their actions invariably belie their lofty rhetoric. Just as they’ve done with NATO, or with their own inter-European treaties, they want the US to abide the Paris agreement so that they don’t have to.

In that case, President Trump would be very unwise to lend US credibility to an agreement that history says G-7 members will eventually trample on. While the Paris accord surely can’t survive without Trump’s support, neither can his commitment to 3 percent growth survive more government meddling meant to placate shaky G-7 members, all based on a theory. Trump has an easy answer; his rejection of the Paris agreement one that checks the political, economic and rationality boxes.

Trump has an easy answer; his rejection of the Paris agreement one that checks the political, economic and rationality boxes.

John Tamny

John Tamny is a Forbes contributor, editor of RealClearMarkets, a senior fellow in economics at Reason, and a senior economic adviser to Toreador Research & Trading. He’s the author of the 2016 book Who Needs the Fed? (Encounter), along with Popular Economics (Regnery Publishing, 2015).

RELATED ARTICLES:

Poll: Overwhelming majority of Israelis prefer sovereignty in Jerusalem over peace deal

Read the Confidential David Brock Memo Outlining Plans to Attack Trump

EDITORS NOTE: Get trained for success by leading entrepreneurs.  Learn more at FEEcon.org

Report: Trump tells ‘confidants’ U.S. will leave Paris climate deal

WASHINGTON – Multiple news agencies, including Reuters News, are now reporting that President Donald Trump has privately informed several officials in Washington DC that he intends to withdraw from the UN Paris climate pact.

Climate Depot’s Marc Morano statement: “A U.S. Clexit (Climate Exit from UN Paris Pact) would be a victory for science. Make no mistake, climate campaigners who tout UN agreements and EPA regulations as a way to control Earth’s temperature and storminess are guilty of belief in superstition.” 

Latest developments below.

Via: https://www.axios.com/scoop-trump-tells-confidants-he-plans-to-leave-paris-climate-deal-2424446776.html

Scoop: Trump tells confidants U.S. will quit Paris climate deal

By Jonathan Swan & Amy HarderPresident Trump has privately told multiple people, including EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt, that he plans to leave the Paris agreement on climate change, according to three sources with direct knowledge.

Image result for trump climate paris un

Publicly, Trump’s position is that he has not made up his mind and when we asked the White House about these private comments, Director of Strategic Communications Hope Hicks said, “I think his tweet was clear. He will make a decision this week.”

Why this matters: Pulling out of Paris is the biggest thing Trump could to do unravel Obama’s climate policies. It also sends a stark and combative signal to the rest of the world that working with other nations on climate change isn’t a priority to the Trump administration. And pulling out threatens to unravel the ambition of the entire deal, given how integral former President Obama was in making it come together in the first place.

Caveat: Although Trump made it clear during the campaign and in multiple conversations before his overseas trip that he favored withdrawal, he has been known to abruptly change his mind — and often floats notions to gauge the reaction of friends and aides. On the trip, he spent many hours with Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner, powerful advisers who back the deal.

Behind-the-scenes: The mood inside the EPA this week has been one of nervous optimism. In a senior staff meeting earlier this week, Pruitt told aides he wanted them to pump the brakes on publicly lobbying for withdrawal from Paris.

Via: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-climate-idUSKBN18O00J

Trump tells ‘confidants’ U.S. will leave Paris climate deal – Axio

U.S. President Donald Trump has told “confidants,” including the head of the Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt, that he plans to leave a landmark international agreement on climate change, Axios news outlet reported on Saturday, citing three sources with direct knowledge.On Saturday, Trump said in a Twitter post he would make a decision on whether to support the Paris climate deal next week.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

END REUTERS EXCERPT

Climate Depot Note: A UN climate agreement that is totally meaningless when it comes to the climate. University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack  has also noted: “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”

Climate Depot Marc Morano adds: “In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!  A U.S. Clexit (Climate Exit from UN Paris Pact) would be a victory for science. Make no mistake, climate campaigners who tout UN agreements and EPA regulations as a way to control Earth’s temperature and storminess are guilty of belief in superstition,” Morano added.

NASA’s former lead global warming scientist Dr. James Hansen is not a big fan of the UN Paris accord. See: ‘Fraud, Fake…Worthless Words’: NASA’s James Hansen on UN Paris Pact – Trump should take note – “[The Paris agreement] is a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

Climate experts who have looked at the UN climate agreement think Trump is correct to dismantle it. Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg wrote “Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all.”

Lomborg added that Trump withdrawing from the UN treaty “will will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead end” because even if you accept the climate claims of the UN, the agreement “will matter very little to temperature rise.” (Also see: Bjorn Lomborg: ‘Germany Spends $110 Billion to Delay Global Warming by 37 Hours’)

Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100

Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100

‘If the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.’Danish statistician Dr. Bjorn Lomborg, the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center: ‘We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree…the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years…Again, that is using the UN’s own climate prediction model.’‘But here is the biggest problem: These minuscule benefits do not come free — quite the contrary. The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year.’

Lomborg Blasts UN Paris Treaty’s $100 Trillion Price Tag For No Temp Impact: ‘You won’t be able to measure it in 100 years’ – Bjorn Lomborg: The debate about the UN Paris Agreement is “about identity politics. It’s about feeling good… but the climate doesn’t care about how you feel.”

Bjorn Lomborg on UN climate deal: ‘This is likely to be among most expensive treaties in the history of the world’

Climate Skeptics set to cheer Clexit from UN Paris Agreement
Cheers! Trump Refuses To Sign G7 Statement Endorsing UN Paris Climate Agreement

UN Armed Security Shuts Down Skeptics After SHREDDING UN Climate Treaty at Summit Next To Trump Cut-outFull Video of UN Climate Cops Shutting Down SkepticsSkeptics Sought to End Climate Activists Denial Over Trump Rejecting UN Paris Climate Agreement

Life size stand up of Trump taken down — Would UN have objected if life size Obama image were displayed instead?

Associated Press: Climate skeptic shreds Paris Agreement at UN ‘global warming’ conference

Watch Associated Press Video of UN armed security escorting Marc Morano & Craig Rucker from UN climate summit

Climate Depot’s New ‘Talking Points’ Report – A-Z Debunking of Climate ClaimsClimate Depot’s New ‘Talking Points’ Report – A-Z Debunking of Climate Claims

Read Full report Here: http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/04/Climate-Talking-Points.pdf

The “Talking Points Memo,” by Marc Morano of CFACT’s Climate Depot, is a complete skeptics’ guide for elected officials, media and the public on how to discuss global warming backed up by dozens of citations to peer-reviewed research. “Make no mistake, climate campaigners who tout UN agreements and EPA regulations as a way to control Earth’s temperature and storminess are guilty of belief in superstition,” he added.

VIDEO: Bill Nye the Science Lie

Have you ever wondered how the area we now know as Kansas has, over time, gone from being under 2500 feet of water to being under 2 miles of ice and back to what it is, today? Well, chances are, it wasn’t fossil fuel burning power plants.

This video does tend to put things in perspective.

RELATED ARTICLE: Al Gore: Syrian civil war and Arab Spring both resulted from climate change/food riots