Big oil resisted all the way until they got what they wanted. They pushed the target back from 1.5c to 2 and then got the rest of the world to agree that the targets would be non-binding. No penalties whatsoever for flouters. Trump says it was a bad deal for the US, but the US got everything it wanted.
Trump could have just gone along and flouted the agreement, but he needs to keep his base from deserting him and this is a big distraction from Jared's legal troubles.
The report finds that climate change is a security risk, Pentagon officials said, because it degrades living conditions, human security and the ability of governments to meet the basic needs of their populations. Communities and states that already are fragile and have limited resources are significantly more vulnerable to disruption and far less likely to respond effectively and be resilient to new challenges, they added.
“The Department of Defense's primary responsibility is to protect national security interests around the world,” officials said in a news release announcing the report’s submission. “This involves considering all aspects of the global security environment and planning appropriately for potential contingencies and the possibility of unexpected developments both in the near and the longer terms.
“It is in this context,” they continued, “that the department must consider the effects of climate change -- such as sea level rise, shifting climate zones and more frequent and intense severe weather events -- and how these effects could impact national security.”
By “global warming” these papers don’t, of course, mean the mild warming of around 0.8 degrees Celsius that the planet has experienced since the middle of the 19th century as the world crawled out of the Little Ice Age. Pretty much everyone, alarmists and skeptics alike, is agreed on that.
Rather, they mean “global warming” in the sense that is most commonly used today by grant-troughing scientists, and huxter politicians, and scaremongering green activists, and brainwashed mainstream media (MSM) environmental correspondents. “Global warming” as in the scary, historically unprecedented, primarily man-made phenomenon which we must address urgently before the icecaps melt and the Pacific islands disappear beneath the waves and all the baby polar bears drown.
What all these papers argue in their different ways is that the alarmist version of global warming — aka Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) — is a fake artefact.
That is, all these different experts from around the world — China, Russia, Canada, the U.S., Italy, etc. — have been looking closely at different aspects of the global warming puzzle in various regions and on different timescales and come to the conclusion in irreproachable, peer-reviewed scientific ways that there is no evidence to support the global warming scare story.
Late 20th century and early 21st century global warming, they show, is neither dramatic, nor unusual, nor scary.
Here, as collated by Kenneth Richard at No Tricks Zone, are just some of the charts to prove it.
Büntgen et al, below, shows that temperatures in the northern hemisphere were warmer in the early 1400s than they are today
Abrantes et al (below) confirms the traditional view — which Michael Mann tried to dismiss with his discredited Hockey Stick chart — that the Medieval Warming Period was warmer than anything we have experienced in our own era.
Here’s one from Li et al showing that China was much warmer 8,000 years ago
Here’s an unusual one from Guillet et al suggesting that there’s nothing new about wildly early or late grape harvests through the centuries:
And on and on it goes — there are 80 graphs in all, each showing in its different way why the scare about global warming has been horribly overdone because the evidence just doesn’t support its being unusual or a problem. Several of the papers note that the primary influence on warming appears to be solar activity. Few, if any, entertain the notion that carbon dioxide levels have much to do with it.
The intellectually corrupt and mendacious alarmist science establishment — I’m thinking, for example, of my personal bete noir, the left-wing political activist and Nobel-prizewinning geneticist Sir Paul Nurse, former president of the Royal Society — would have us believe that climate skepticism is a minority activity, the preserve of a few cranks, championed only by people who don’t do the science. But this is just ugly propaganda.
Here are dozens of reputable scientists from around the world with no axe to grind collaborating on studies which all corroborate, independently and rigorously, the increasingly respectable view that “man-made global warming” just isn’t a thing.
Not that it ever was a thing, really. This debate — as I argue at some length in Watermelons — was always about left-wing ideology, quasi-religious hysteria, and “follow the money” corruption, never about “science.”
Still, it’s always a comfort to know that “the science” is on our side too.
Obozo's legacy will remain intact for all time. The worst US president in history! Considering the idiots we've had lead this country, not the least of which was George W Bush, that's quite an accomplishment.
No more half black community organizers for president please!
The liberal media and the Trump bashers proclaim a world tragedy is around the corner because President Trump decided to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accords. These critics choose to focus on the general issue of global warming when the real issue is "the value, effectiveness and legitimacy of the Paris Accords."
The accords urge decreasing greenhouse gas emissions to limit global temperature increases below 2 degrees Celsius with an ultimate goal of 1.5 degrees. They refer to climate change/global warming data that suggests the amount of greenhouse gas in the atmosphere affects global temperature. I'm not challenging that issue. I am challenging the real value of the Paris Accords to deal with the issue.
The accords ask each country to make a commitment to reducing the amount of greenhouse gas emitted. They do not demand a specific reduction in output to meet an emissions target that will achieve the temperature change of 2 degrees. There are no enforcement mechanism or penalties that ensures countries achieve their goals. I would call it a "feel good" document, not an action plan as many suggest. However, it does include a funding mechanism requiring rich countries (USA and others) to provide $100 billion each year to fund less rich countries for whatever they are doing.
Interestingly, a separate UN study estimates that if all the countries meet their emission targets by 2030, carbon emissions would decline by 56 gigatons but a reduction of 6,000 gigatons is actually needed to achieve a 2 degree limit. Further estimates suggest to achieve the ultimate target of a 1.5 degree limit the entire planet must abandon all fossil fuels in four years. Are you confused? You should be. Because without specific predetermined emission goals assigned to each country based upon its current greenhouse gas output, it's a useless document. Maybe it should be called "The Paris Pipe Dream."
Another fact that seems to be ignored by Trump's critics is that the USA contributes only 14 percent of the greenhouse gas emitted into the world's atmosphere. Other countries emit the other 86 percent. Our ability to directly affect the amount of greenhouse gas emitted is incidental compared to what is emitted around the world. China and India currently contribute more than 37 percent of the greenhouse gas emitted, significantly affecting greenhouse missions and yet the accords give them a pass.
The USA has decreased its emissions by 17-18 percent over the last 15 years, while China and India have almost doubled their output and will continue to complete construction of hundreds of coal-fired power plants. While we spend billions cutting emissions, they spend billions adding greenhouse gas to the atmosphere. Why don't the accords demand that China, India and others cut emissions sooner? Because they consider economic growth and financial strength more important than climate change.
The Paris Climate Accords will not significantly change the trajectory of the global amount of greenhouse gas emitted into the atmosphere.
It seems like just another effort to redistribute USA wealth. I'm tired of footing the bill for the rest of the world. The world should share in the cost to reduce emissions based upon their direct contribution. Apparently, the world is not prepared to put teeth into a specific, no-nonsense agreement that requires everyone to quickly cut emissions -- and to pay for it. Without that kind of world commitment everything else is just "a lot of hot air."
Contrary to the irate responses from the liberals, President Trump's decision to withdraw from the Paris Accords will have no effect on the output of greenhouse gas. But it will save American taxpayers from wasting billions of dollars on a non-binding plan going nowhere.
One final thought, perhaps the USA should spend tax money funding technology driven process improvements that allow the use of inexpensive fossil fuels that will not add greenhouse gas emissions.
That would produce cheaper energy, cleaner air and more American jobs.
How could Trump pull us out of the Paris accord? The president does not have the power to unilaterally sign or dissolve a treaty without the advice and consent of the senate as per the US Constitution.
The treaty was never ratified by the senate. He could take us "out" of it only because we were never "in" it to begin with.
EDIT: Here's the beginning part of it, there are more articles as Germany's auto industry progresses out of the BS agreement but it doesn't meet the world news leftist standard so the articles are hard to find.
In a nutshell without the US getting raped and robbed first Germany as the second largest steps to the front of the line to be raped and robbed. They are saying nein!
German Automakers Lament Loss Of Competitive Edge Over U.S. Withdrawal From Paris Climate Accord
Germany’s auto industry expressed disappointment over the decision by the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord, saying that Europe’s international competitive edge will now be harmed.
“The regrettable announcement by the USA makes it inevitable that Europe must facilitate a cost efficient and economically feasible climate policy to remain internationally competitive,” Matthias Wissmann, president of the German auto industry lobby group VDA, said in a statement to Reuters Friday.
Additionally, the VDA, which represents automakers BMW Volkswagen and Mercedes-Benz parent Daimler, said that Germany is already at a disadvantage to the U.S. as their electricity and energy costs are higher in their country.
President Donald Trump announced Friday the U.S. would withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord prompting an international backlash from countries that signed on to the 2015 treaty, including German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Emmanuel Macron.
“This decision cannot and will not deter all of us who feel obliged to protect this earth,” Merkel said.
Trump, in his announcement Friday to withdraw the U.S., stressed the economic disadvantage the treaty that President Obama signed the U.S. on to unilaterally placed the country in.
“I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris,” the president said.
He went on to say, “It is time to put Youngstown, Ohio; Detroit, Mich.; and Pittsburgh, Pa., along with many, many other locations within our great country, before Paris, France,” he said. “It is time to make America great again.”
For the record this paris agreement horsepellets has nothing to do with "global warming" and everything to do with globalists gaining more money and more control of the world economy. The European Union already sold it's sovereignty and it's soul so they have nothing more to lose. So anything that damages the US is good for them.