Posted on 05/30/2017 11:26:31 AM PDT by Kaslin
The scientific godfather of modern global warming alarmism, James Hansen, has called the Paris Climate Agreement “a fraud really, a fake …. It’s just worthless words.”
What Dr. Hansen is referring to is that the agreement is so weak, that it amounts to all pain for no climate gain.
So why shouldn’t the U.S. remain in the Agreement, and help make it stronger?
Because the more effective it is, the more painful it will be.
Right now, the Agreement is just feel-good rhetoric, giving the illusion that we are “doing something” about climate change. But even if you believe climate change is (1) a serious threat, and (2) entirely the fault of humans, we have a problem in fixing it.
Human health and prosperity depend upon access to affordable energy. Unfortunately, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), and its 2015 Paris Climate Treaty, will hurt the human condition by making that energy much more expensive.
The push to reduce carbon dioxide emissions isn’t like installing scrubbers on smokestacks at coal-fired power plants. The only practical way to reduce CO2 emissions on a large scale is to not burn fossil fuels. Period.
I frankly don’t care where our energy comes from as long as the source is abundant and affordable. To me, that is the only moral position one can take on the subject after examining the science and economics of the matter.
There are six main issues guiding my position.
1) Warming over the last 50 years or so has averaged only about half of what computerized climate models can explain. Yet, those models are the basis for the Paris Agreement.
2) It is not obvious that recent warming is entirely the fault of our CO2 emissions. It is very possible that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were just as warm as today. Natural climate change exists. If we didn’t cause it, we can’t fix it.
3) Even if future warming increases to match the models, and all nations abide by the Paris commitments, we will avert only 0.3 deg. F warming by the year 2100. That’s less than 0.04 deg. F per decade, which is unmeasurable by current global temperature monitoring networks (satellites, surface thermometers, and weather balloons).
4) The cost of this unmeasurable impact on future global temperatures is variously estimated to be around $1 Trillion per year, primarily spent by the U.S. and a few other countries which drive global prosperity. As usual, the poor will be the hardest hit. That money could have been spent on clean water and providing electricity to the 1+ billion humans who still don’t have electricity.
5) China and India, which are burning coal like there is no tomorrow, don’t really have to do anything under the Agreement until 2030. It’s mainly up to the U.S. to cut our emissions, and send our wealth to poor countries where dictators will continue to enrich themselves.
6) Increasing CO2 levels have benefits, such as increased crop productivity and ‘global greening’. Life on Earth requires CO2, and over the last 60 years we have been monitoring its levels in the atmosphere, Mother Nature has been gobbling up 50% of what we emit to create even more life.
“But shouldn’t we do something, just in case?” you ask. Well, yes, we already are doing something.
Energy efficiency continues to increase every year, driven more by competition than by government regulation. New energy technologies (e.g. fracking, safer nuclear, renewables) will continue to be researched and developed because abundant, affordable energy is required by all.
The U.S. should exit the UNFCCC, which will automatically remove us from the Paris Agreement. Or, at least submit the Agreement to the Senate for ratification, since it is actually a treaty.
So don’t believe Leonardo DiCaprio, Al Gore, the Pope, and others who claim we owe it to the Poor to remain in the Paris Agreement.
The truth is, we owe it to the poor to get out.
We owe it to simple common sense and rationality to exit the Paris Climate Cult.
You exepct teh bipartisan progressvie Establishment to care abotu the poor?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
You expect the bipartisan progressive Establishment to care about the poor?
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!
Exactly, it’s laughable, because everyone knows that they don’t.
U.S. involvement in this stupid Paris treaty is illegal because it its unconstitutional. It is unconstitutional because the constitution doesn’t authorize the feds to meddle in “weather” issues.
That is if anyone cares about the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended as the Supreme Law of the Land and the ONLY legal bulwark of freedom against the tyranny of the 80% unconstitutional feds.
They are important tools for pushing another, completely different agenda.
Leonardo DiCaprio is a climate expert, you know...He dropped out of high school...Finally did get his GED...
That says all you need to know...
Just think about WHAT killed the dinosaurs.... It was CO2 not some asteroid!!!!!
“We Owe it to the Poor to Exit the Paris Climate Treaty”
Exactly!
It’s patently elitist to say that seniors and others must ruin themselves for home energy, just because some moron politicos and envirowacko’s conned the MSM to gain power by fabricating and criminally perpetuating wholly unconfirmed and groundless views. Shame on them!
What is the ideal world temperature?
“We Owe it to the Poor to Exit the Paris Climate Treaty”
It should be known as “The New World Order Agenda for dissolution of Nations.”
We’re getting to “crunch time” here. Have you sent a follow-up message to Trump?
Here’s the link: https://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/#page
DB
Dear Mr. President,
As expected, you are under incredible pressure to keep us in the Paris Climate international wealth redistribution SCAM. That you have thus far resisted that pressure is a testament to your courage and willpower.
All those of us who supported you — and STILL DO — need to know about how disastrous is the Paris deal is that virtually ALL the European and other officials you met on your trip URGED YOU TO REMAIN IN THE THING.
The judgement of those who leaned on you to do so — Trudeau, May, Merkel and others — MUST be taken into account: They are the same folks (freeloaders?) who resent that you asked them to pick up THEIR share of NATO costs and who invite murderous muslims into their nations, guaranteeing the destruction of their cultures and more atrocities like Manchester.
You are MUCH smarter than they are. You also possess a quality they — and the previous occupant of your office — appear to lack: YOU LOVE YOUR COUNTRY!
That you do REQUIRES that you take us OUT of the bogus Paris deal.
Regards and welcome back to “The Swamp”.
Dick Bachert
Exactly the right question:
Remember, in case you ever need brain surgery, celebs know EVERYTHING!
Isn’t that the truth???
It’s amazing to see the so concerned and thoughtful looks on their faces when talking about things they know absolutely nothing about....
Those making a career of “save the poor” have no incentive to actually end poverty. All they can do is shuffle causes of poverty, ensuring they never work themselves out of a job.
I disagree- we owe it to EVERYONE, not just the poor- to get out of this scam and to expose this scam for what it is- simply leaving the agreement leaves the door open to them to keep the scam alive- confronting it with facts however is the only thing that will decidedly put this scam to rest for good-
Our stance3 should be this “Regardless of how much it costs- the plain fact of the matter is that ‘Man Caused climate change’ is a complete fabrication and a scam and we will not be party to it- if the rest of the world is fine with being scammed, that is their business- We however have science on our side and will NOT put one red cent into this lie from this point forward”
“The scientific godfather of modern global warming alarmism, James Hansen, has called the Paris Climate Agreement “a fraud really, a fake …. It’s just worthless words.””
Even those who tout the green agenda don’t believe in global warming. If they did, then they would advance proposals that actually do something about reining in global warming.
Then, we can have a debate over whether the costs of the proposals are worth it.
I’m surprised the author didn’t mention the vast majority of IPCC reps (which started this mess) are activists, not scientists. The rest of the distinguished scientists around the world that have a differing opinion have been drowned out of the conversation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.