Saturday, June 10, 2017

June, 2017, Part 4, I Am A Global Warming Doubter and A Believer In Science: 26 Reasons Why It Was Right To Pull Out of The Paris Climate Agreement

Every month we have enough material to return to a continuing theme in this blog, namely that “I am a global warming doubter AND a believer in science.” This became of interest because of people like Al Gore who fanatically and verbosely claimed that you had to be an idiot to not believe in manmade global warming. It has been my life belief that anyone that is that loud and that obnoxious is hiding something, that rather than argue facts and reality it is better to beat down and insult anyone who disagrees

As we have dove into the whole issue of manmade global warming, or its new rebranded title of climate change, we found that Al Gore and people like him were guilty of a number of things:
  • Ignoring science and realities that did not support their opinions and positions.
  • Rather than have an adult conversation about climate, these types of advocates like Gore sank to the level of insulting those who dared look at ALL science by calling them a variety of names including racists, homophobes, terrorists, flat earth believers, and other slanderous names.
  • Continuing to insist that politicians step up their intrusions into our lives with higher taxes, more regulations, and more control of our freedoms and standards of living based on a shaky theory at best.
To see the past posts and the multitude of evidence that we have compiled that showed it is perfectly okay to be a global warming doubter and a believer in science, enter the phrase "global warming doubter” in the search box above or go through the monthly historical posts listed on the right side of this page.

Thus, let’s see the latest facts and science that prove you can be a global warming doubter and a believer in science, regardless of what Al Gore proclaims.

Since Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement that was negotiated under Obama, many global warming/climate change advocates have been going crazy. To stem their lunacy, let’s list out 26 reasons why pulling out of Paris was a good idea, starting out with some random but actual facts and realities that we have previously covered under this recurring theme and then adding in some other thoughts and wisdom from other sources on why pulling out of the climate agreement was the right call:

1) For almost the past twenty years, the earth’s temperature has remained basically constant, blowing away the integrity of every global warming forecast that has ever been put forth which a) predicted the earth’s temperature would be much hotter today than it is and b) never predicted that rising temperatures would stabilize like they have over the past two decades.

2) Despite the warnings that global warming would result in more intense and frequent hurricanes, that global warming would result in more intense and frequent tornadoes, that global warming would result in more intense and frequent wildfires, that global warming would result in more intense and frequent droughts, none of those dire predictions have come true if one looks at actual data and history.

3) Despite the warming in 2007 or so by Al Gore that there was about a three to one chance that by 2015 the North Pole ice cap would be completely melted by 2015, the ice cap is still alive and cold.

4) The polar bear population is larger than it was back when Al Gore was born, killing another global warming fear that the polar bears would become extinct because of manmade global warming.

5) As we have discussed many times, 97% of scientists do NOT think that mankind is having an extensive and fatal impact on the Earth’s temperature since the study that generated that statistic was bogus, the analysis of that study’s data was bogus, and the conclusions drawn from that flawed study and flawed analysis are bogus.

6) Although 2016 was a very hot year, out of character with the long term leveling off of rising temperatures over the past twenty years or so, that 2016 heat wave was likely caused by an El Nino, a regularly occurring natural phenomenon caused the high temps last year, not mankind.

7) CERN the premier scientific community on the planet showed back in 2011 that the sun’s cosmic activity and its impact on cloud formation was the primary cause of warming temperatures, not mankind.

8) While Obama committed the U.S. to pay $1 billion into the Green Climate Fund (which was an illegal and unConstitutional payment that was not approved by Congress) as part of the Paris Climate Agreement, the other top industrial countries, China, Russia, and China are committed to paying nothing into the fund. If the climate crisis is so real, shouldn't everyone in the world contribute something to saving mankind and not just the American taxpayer?

9) And given that the U.S. has led the world in reducing its carbon footprint over the past decade or so, why are we paying so much for having done so much while others are paying nothing for having done nothing to affect the climate in a positive manner?

10) At last count, India and China, just by themselves, are scheduled to build 2,400 coal burning electricity plants in the next several years, certainly not a friendly trend relative to manmade global warming/climate change. Why were they not forced to curtail this atrocity while American coal miners and the domestic coal industry were being squashed by the likes of the Obama administration.

11) Al Gore is the biggest global warming/climate change advocate in the world. However, when he was recently interviewed, he actually stated that the Paris Climate Agreement would not actually “help the climate:” 

So if the biggest advocate of all says the agreement will not actually help the planet, why have the agreement at all and have the American taxpayer fund something that will have no impact.

12) Given that Al Gore claims that the Paris Climate Agreement would have no effect, the Daily Signal pointed that why then should the U.S. sacrifice trillions of dollars in economic growth and hundreds of thousands of jobs for no purpose while other industrial nations and economic competitors, e,g. China and India, would not have to make the same sacrifices?

13) Part of the agreement is to have countries like the U.S. and its taxpayers transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to poorer countries to help with their green energy projects and infrastructure development. Who really thinks that this climate money given to despots and dictators will actually be used for the intended climate purposes? 

14) Economist Larry Kudlow, interviewed in a recent Moneynews article, correctly pointed out that the climate agreement was illegal since it was never ratified by the Senate, a basic Constitutional necessity.

15) Kudlow also pointed out that while the U.S. has continued to reduce its carbon footprint over the years, Germany, a signer and support of the agreement, has been and will continue to raise its carbon footprint as it transforms its energy mix from nuclear to coal.

16) The Independent Journal Review recently ran an article that accurately described the reality of the agreement: “The Paris Accord is nothing more than a vague, non-binding commitment by nations to do something about carbon emissions. That may be admirable, but it places no serious definition on what 'something' is. The European Union proudly pledged ambitious targets, but so far isn't meeting them. China bravely committed that it would continue to accelerate its carbon emissions for the next ten years or so.”

17) And the article also pointed out how the U.S. was doing in reducing its carbon footprint: “But there is good news! Paris Accord or not, the United States has been leading the world in cutting carbon emissions - and dramatically so:

But the second positive note in the numbers is that the U.S. continues to lead the world in reducing carbon dioxide emissions. In 2015, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions fell by 145 million tons, by far the largest decline of any country in the world. In comparison, Russia was in 2nd place with a decline of 64 million tons from 2014. On the other end of the spectrum was India, which led the world with a 112 million ton increase in carbon dioxide emissions from 2014.”

Again, the American taxpayer has to pay for doing a great job in reducing its carbon footprint? Who negotiated this deal anyway

18) A Democrat in the Senate, Joe Manchin, actually supported Trump’s decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement, saying that: “I do not believe that the Paris Agreement ensures a balance between our environment and our economy.” Give that Democrats in the Senate usually reject anything that Trump does, it is significant that at least one Democrat had the guts to speak out on his true position and convictions.

19) According to an article on the Angry Patriot Movement website, China has no restrictions on its coal mining operations and there are no restrictions on India’s use of coal while American coal miners go unemployed.

20) Even though Trump has offered to reopen negotiations on the tenets and requirements of the agreement, most of Europe’s leaders say they will not renegotiate an illegal and unConstitutional treaty, indicating that it was never about the climate in the first place, it was all about U.S. taxpayer money leaving the U.S. and that fact is non-negotiable in the eyes of European leaders.

21) The Independent Sentinel had a very insightful observation about the reality around the agreement: “While 195 nations say they support the agreement, not all have signed and most, if not all will not abide by it if history is precedent. Most nations don’t have to do a thing for more than a decade.”

22) Ross McKitrick, writing for Cato on April 26, 2017, had the following insight why it was right to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement: “The first thing to note is that the same computer models that say global warming is a problem also say that Paris will not fix it. If one were to graph the standard warming projections over the next century with and without Paris, the two lines overlap almost exactly. Whatever greenhouse gas (GHG) concentration we would have reached in the year 2100 without Paris, we will reach it shortly thereafter with. 

For all its costs, the Paris treaty will have almost no effect on global warming, and by depleting global income it will make it harder for countries to adapt and innovate in response to whatever changes occur. Thus not only does Paris not solve the problem, it arguably makes it worse.”

23) McKitrick also reminded us that the agreement to keep the Earth’s global average temperature to two degrees C above pre-industrial levels was a completely arbitrary, made up, fictional number with no scientific basis or justification.

24) But the Agreement, according to McKitrick, also has some non-climate requirements that have nothing to do with climate such as requiring countries “to address extraneous themes like gender equity, biodiversity, poverty eradication, migrants, disabled persons, a “just transition of the workforce,” “creation of decent work,”” Really, a climate treaty that tries to resolve perceived social injustices around the world, when something tries to do everything it usually succeeds in doing nothing, making this a useless agreement.

25) A recent article by Benjamin Zycher of the National Review pointed out how nations will game the system: “Since emissions are closely correlated with economic growth, a nation can “achieve” its promise by overestimating future economic growth slightly; when future growth proves lower than projected, the same will be true for emissions. Thus will the “commitments” be met without any actual change in underlying emissions behavior at all.”

In other words, nations can intentionally overestimate their future economic growth, upon which their emissions commitments are based, and then meet their commitments when the more realistic and actual economic growth occurs, doing nothing to reduce a carbon footprint.

26) Zycher also had some good insights on China’s favorable treatment in the agreement: “The Chinese commitment is particularly amusing. They promise that their greenhouse-gas emissions will peak “around 2030.” How high will that peak be? No one knows. What will their emissions be after the peak? No one knows. Accordingly, a “renegotiated” Paris will change the promises, but not the outcomes. Suppose the Chinese promise an actual emissions cut of, say, 20 percent by 2030. What will anyone do if they fail to achieve it? This question too answers itself.”

There you have it, 26 reasons, facts, and realities why Trump was correct to pull us out of the Paris Climate Agreement. It is an agreement that will not make any difference for the climate, it will cost the American taxpayer trillions of dollars in actual cash, lost economic growth, and lost jobs, and it will allow foreign economies to grow while our economy suffers. Can anyone come up with 26 reason why we should have stayed in the agreement, given the realities listed above? Let me know.

Our book, "Love My Country, Loathe My Government - Fifty First Steps To Restoring Our Freedom And Destroying The American Political Class" is now available at:

It is also available online at Amazon and Barnes and Noble. Please pass our message of freedom onward. Let your friends and family know about our websites and blogs, ask your library to carry the book, and respect freedom for both yourselves and others everyday.

Please visit the following sites for freedom:

No comments: