World to Trump: you first
Robert Frindt says:
One huge irony about this decision. Pressure from Democrats made it impossible for Trump to go against his core supporters on this.
There are globalist/corporate elements in the Trump entourage who wanted the USA to remain in the Paris agreement. But the #Resistance has sufficiently pressured Trump that he could not cross has base.
The law of unintended consequences strikes again.
I expect this sheer lunacy to be the last straw for Ivanka. Manhattan, here she comes.
But the pivotal question remains: will Jared follow???
Elsie Marley says:
Stupid is as stupid does.
Good grief, Gord. Do you buy that Trump alt-right Koolaid in the 55 gal drum?
Miles Lunn says:
Considering he is a narcissist who doesn't like anything where he doesn't have absolute control, why the heck would he be part of any agreement that involves working with others. Trump is a man child who doesn't know how to work with others. Interestingly enough two Republicans, Susan Collins (Senator-ME) and Arnold Schwarznegger both opposed him on this. Also Trump may not know but many countries with centre-right governments including Norway, Denmark, Netherlands, UK, Spain, Australia, and New Zealand all thought he made a mistake.
Gord, this is not a left-right issue. You assume I am on the left but centre right is where I am most comfortable. This is about putting the planet, present and future generations in peril. To ignore that fact to placate a political base that seems to denigrate science and knowledge as elitist strikes me as immoral and the height of selfishness. Trump and his base will be long gone when our grandchildren are facing the consequences of his actions. The CEOs of Goldman Sachs, Exxon, and a host of other U.S. executives have also decried this move and they are not exactly leftist ideologues.
Its hard to believe that the planet is in peril from emitting plant food into the atmosphere, which CO2 is, when, the people who insist we don't emit it, and, the same people who say we should pay more to emit it, emit more themselves then 10,000 normal ordinary people would do in a lifetime.
If its so disastrous why can some emit more then others? If its so disastrous why do so many who preach about its dangers all have private jets yachts and take trips around the world like you and I walk to the store. If its so disastrous why can a person or a business emit as much as they want if they give governments money.
How come an oil tanker full of Saudi Oil can stroll down the St Lawrence seaway yet a tanker full of oil from Alberta cant touch water in BC?
How come so many scientists who specialize in weather patterns just don't buy into AGW, they are easy to find, they are accredited researchers.
How come the earth over the past 100,000 years has gone through thousands of weather events that no one can explain.
I once thought that like Greenpeace the Global Warming movement was to push the world into cleaner, greener alternative energy, and, I thought that that was OK.
But, how is asking single parents, seniors and the millions of Canadians who just make it by every week to pay more for food, clothing, bus passes, daycare etc helping reduce emitting plant food into the air.
I'm as progressive as a human being can be, but, I cant be expected to not have doubts about AGW when all around me it screams that something doesn't add up.
I was in a geology class in 1982 when the Professor told us that the world will run out of oil by the mid-1990's.
These "scientists" have been forecasting catastrophe as long as I have been alive. None of it has ever come true, but there is never any accountability for repeated error.
The global temperature increases are well below the model forecasts – hence, the "pause".
https://www.nature.com/articles/nclimate2938.epdf?referrer_access_token=rO_LAj7Squh3f_qt6natqdRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0OqExA1EwYluYLwiaayT9ble9FcNagQ1ss5L1V0KiWd-xzbFQjp8p3e-nUsgU7jNuUykRRWZpgMltUfROWf3xSKeGSSY7TvMiWdaeBCmNzlbQKCodQ3ivWje8eZYAs8Dr1uu8L-i3CHt8f_jYiil5eUpRpdxdWDCSCvqts_NYB_l8yUG-b6Qu0dtrZLMnaUyec%3D&tracking_referrer=www.nature.com
If all economists agreed, and they were always wrong. We would ignore them.
How many times do environmental "scientists" have to cry wolf before we ignore them ?
Bill Templeman says:
Gary, if you are really polite and uber-unctuous, Gord will post links to his "proof" that AGW is a hoax. You will get links to a bunch of sites written by hacks with no science credentials, and illustrated with bogus statistics & stock photos. You are absolutely right, of course. Global warming and climate change are not left-right issues. The list of corporations opposed to Trump's decision is truly impressive. These are consummate business professionals. They know the research and understand the numbers. That is why they support the Paris Accord. Gord is wrong. What troubles me is that Gord and Trump are threatening the world my kids and grandkids will inherit.
Governments have been, and will continue to, throw hundreds of billions, indeed even trillions, worth of grants and subsidies to fight climate change…almost all of it out of taxpayers' pockets.
Corporate bosses aren't stupid! They can recognize a gravy train when they see one! Of course they're for it!
Thirty years from now? Here's a prediction, which I won't be around to say I told you so – a) the world will be awash in rusted out hulks of abandoned wind farms that absolutely nobody will want to pay the costs to clean up. And b) people will be thanking God Himself for the miracle of abundant food to feed the 9 billion inhabitants of the planet that was only made possible by an atmosphere enriched by CO2.
…and global climate will be just fine, albeit in an endless state flux as it always has been since time immemorial.
I was delighted! About time someone had the guts to tell the zealots of the Church of Climate Change, and its legions of ruthless inquisitors, to go pound sand up their asses!
…speaking as someone who has investigated both sides of the AGW issue. And who knows something about the history of both the planet, civilization, and religion.
I prefer that the environmental movement focus on other things. For instance, how many people are aware of the massive rainforest destruction in Indonesia due to the palm oil industry? Is that not a more important environmental issue than speculation of whether the Earth's temperature will rise 1/5 of 1% a hundred years from now?
Everyone wasted enough time babbling about Kyoto and nobody did anything, including Canada.
Well Gord & Al, we have been down this road before and you know full well what is coming next. So here we go: I herewith invite both of you to post links to any reports, articles, studies, white papers, you name it, that for you prove that anthropogenic global warming is a hoax.
Warren gets quite a few readers passing through these screens, particularly on weekends. They are by and large a well-informed bunch. Let's let them decide. Deal? Let the Games begin!
Two conditions, Bill…
a) You actually read/listen to the links I put up, and by that I mean the content…as opposed to merely indulging in character assassination as is so typical of AGW proponents. Any links I post will consist of actual data, insights from accredited scientists, and observations of reputable, knowledgeable participants in the debate, such as Freeman Dyson, Matt Ridley, and the late Michael Crichton (scientist).
b) Warren is okay with it. This is his website, not ours. I will completely understand if he says nope, take your battles somewhere else!
Thank you, Al. I will read everything you post. Of course it is up to Warren; this is his party. But here's another AGW proponent you are going to have to fight with. Much more formidable that me. Are you really willing to step into the ring with the Terminator? Seriously?
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article154047614.html
Checked back here a number of times, thought you'd forgotten about this.
I don't want to inundate you, so I'm going to present several items that appeal to logic, i.e., good common sense, along with some historical and scientific context.
Matt Ridley – http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/what-the-climate-wars-did-to-science.aspx
Michael Crichton – http://www.hawaiifreepress.com/ArticlesMain/tabid/56/ID/2818/Crichton-Environmentalism-is-a-religion.aspx
Freeman Dyson – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs
Patrick Moore – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Z-7wTpvD9Q This is particularly informative as it puts climate change in its proper context, which spans millions of years. The world did not merely begin 150 years ago! And he deals in scientific fact.
I would add that I can provide proof that there is not one thing unusual about current climate…it only appears so when taken out of the greater historical context. 5000 years ago, the Columbia Ice Fields didn't exist. That's a fact, the world was a much warmer place than today. During the medieval warming period 1000 to 1400 AD, the Columbia Glacier retreated far beyond its current state. It expanded during the mini-ice age from 1400 to circa 1750, and once again began retreating from that period on. 5000 years ago, where the eastern Sahara Desert now is a lot of sand dunes, it was back then something more similar to the Serengeti Plains, full of wildlife, including rivers with crocs and hippos.
The fact is that the planet is in what is called an "interstadial", meaning that technically we are still within the grip of the Pleistocene Ice Age, and one day most of Canada will once again be under a mile thick sheet of ice, as it already has been four times at least in the last million years.
BTW, 1936, during the "Dirty Thirties" was in fact the hottest year since records have been kept, as was that entire decade. Just because NOAA takes it upon itself to "adjust" the data, doesn't make the facts of the last century go away. And bear in mind that satellite tracking of global temperatures has proven that global temperature has been static for the last 19 years, with hard data that can't be adjusted in any manner that could be explained away with a wave of a hand. Every study I've seen regarding ground station monitoring has proven that it's so corrupted that it's beyond laughable.
There's an agenda at play. And it doesn't take rocket science to figure out what it's all about.