Categories
Climate Change Media Truth

How The Climate Media Subverts The Climate Debate

Rod Thomson

There is not a worse enemy of rightly understanding climate change, the causes, the threat and the cost-benefit of remediations than virtually every single media member that covers climate change.

They are part of the ongoing saga of environmental reporters who are as hardened and unobjective in their views as the Sierra Club and GreenPeace. I worked with several in newspapers over the years, and even back in the 1990s they almost universally became as activist in their reporting as the activists were in their activism. The cause was righteous and just!

It resulted in enormous misinformation and of course added to the mountain of distrust for the media that was growing skyward before social media was even on the scene. The global cooling crisis. The acid rain crisis. The nuclear energy crisis. The global deforestation crisis. The population bomb crisis. And on and on. 

But nowhere has this been more disastrous than in the climate propaganda that passes itself off as news coverage. This was made crystal clear by the throng in the media center covering the Paris Climate Accord that jumped up and down cheering when it was signed in April 2016. Literally jumped up and down. As a former member of the press corps, I recoiled at this outburst. But you should totally trust that you’re getting the straight dope from them on climate change.

The level of politicized reporting on the issue is how a member of Congress can propose the most childishly absurd Green New Deal and have every major Democratic candidate and much of the Democratic caucus sign on to it. The crisis is so severe that we need to eliminate plane travel in exchange for 19th century train travel and stop eating meat, plus so many more eye-popping proposals.

Of course the actual reality, which you have to dig for and which most Americans and virtually no Democrats access thanks to the climate media, is that climate change is real but the actual impacts are wildly overstated. Wildly, wildly, wildly overstated.

Last year’s U.S. Climate Assessment points this out, but media consumers would never know it. There is a Defcon 1 worst case scenario that results in far worse problems for the future of mankind than are delineated in the global warming issues of rising oceans and greater overall heat. This scenario envisions a nearly 12-degree increase by 2090 — three times the already questionable consensus, which nobody but the extremely extremists are suggesting is likely. It just not impossible. 

But even with that scenario, the estimated climate change-caused damage rolls up to $500 billion annually in the U.S. That is an obviously notable amount today, but could be managed with some pain. But the GDP by 2090 will be unimaginably larger than today, meaning that $500 billion becomes very manageable pain point. Yet draconian measures are needed right now! The reality is that given the pace of scientific advancement and innovation, the solvability of global warming related problems is high.

Why? Guess which number was reported and which number was not reported? Yup. A 12-degree global temperature increase followed by the normal sky-is-falling hysteria and demands for radical lifestyle changes. But there was not a mainstream media outfit that reported the actual cost, which granted was buried by the climate change activist scientists, because that would make obvious that there is no looming crisis of any significance requiring the back-breaking policies with which Al Gore to AOC want to crush the world.

Remember how ineffectual those measures would be. The Paris Climate Accords were essentially worthless in impacting the rapid CO2 growth in China and India, but hit the U.S. hard. However, the U.S. accounts for less than 15 percent of global emissions — and falling.

This irresponsible climate media activism is why every Democratic candidate thinks they need some mammoth plan for global warming — even though studies have shown that if the U.S. cut every last carbon emission today it would have a negligible impact on global temperatures 50 years from now.

Nonetheless, even the supposed moderate in the race, Joe Biden, has had to come out with an anti-global warming plan that includes forcing emissions reductions on countries using tariffs — because if Trump uses tariffs to get better trade deals for American workers and companies, then by gosh Biden can use them to assuage the hysteria fevers caused by the infected climate change media.

It’s all just forehead slapping. 

The bottom line, unfortunately, is that as bad as the political reporting is — and most every topic is now political it seems — the absolute least reliable is the climate change coverage, even more so than immigration coverage. You simply cannot accept anything you get from mainstream media sources on climate change. It’s a shame. But it’s true. And it means the ability to have any sort of unified understanding of what should be a straightforward issue is impossible.

Rod Thomson is an author, past Salem radio host, ABC TV commentator, former journalist and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. 


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Categories
Climate Change Truth

The 10 Warning Signs For Cults Applied To Climate Change

By Will

Have you thought to yourself that the Climate Change movement seems more and more like a religious movement?

I have, so I researched how to identify a religious cult. Rick Ross, an expert on cults and intervention specialist, developed a list of ten warning signs for unsafe groups, which is published by the Cult Education Institute.

So let’s take a look at all ten signs and compare:

1. Absolute authoritarianism without meaningful accountability.

The leading advocates of the Climate Change movement are politicians, entertainers, and even children. Climate preachers such as Al Gore and Leonardo DiCaprio lack any formal scientific training whatsoever, and live personal lives of unparalleled luxury while prescribing carbon austerity for the masses. Yet no one is permitted to point out their scientific ignorance or call attention to their hypocritical lifestyles.

Child advocates such as Greta Thuneberg and the crudely indoctrinated children of the “Sunrise movement” are essentially sock puppets for their shameless activist handlers. Refuse to bend the knee to these tiny fascists, as Diane Feinstein most recently did, and the mainstream left will relentlessly attack you as an accessory to mass murder.

The authority of Climate Change leaders is entirely unmerited and absolute, yet no one is permitted to hold them accountable for their ignorance, inexperience, or brazen lies. Thus, the Climate Change movement clearly meets the first warning sign for unsafe groups.

2. No tolerance for questions or critical inquiry.

The conclusions of the Climate Change movement may not be challenged or questioned under any circumstances. Those who dare scrutinize the conclusions, methodology, or prescriptions of “climate scientists” are categorically dismissed as a “Climate Denier”, an excommunicated untouchable whose opinion is no longer valid on any subject.

Questions and critical inquiry aren’t merely dismissed or refuted. The unfortunate heretic immediately experiences a relentless ad hominem onslaught of scorn and hatred from the political and media left, and is often subjected to accusations of outright murder. Simply question the effectiveness of a “carbon tax” and you may find yourself tied to a stake.

There is no tolerance for questioning the Climate Change movement, and thus it clearly meets the second warning sign for unsafe groups.

3. No meaningful financial disclosure regarding budget, expenses such as an independently audited financial statement.

Hardly anyone knows just how much money is spent on “Climate research” every year. The cost is spread out among laughably useless study grants, wind and solar farm subsidies, carbon offset credits, “green” building code evaluation and enforcement, salaries for bureaucrats solely dedicated to “climate concerns”……you get the idea, it’s a lot of hazy money.

The abhorrent practice of “sue and settle” was a flat out money laundering scheme that allowed sympathetic government officials to transfer millions of tax dollars to radical leftist environmental groups. The practice only ended when the Trump administration used executive power to clamp down on it.

The total amount of yearly financial expenditure on the Climate Change movement is vague, difficult to track, and often carried out in unethical manners. Thus, the Climate Change movement exhibits the third warning sign for unsafe groups.

4. Unreasonable fear about the outside world, such as impending catastrophe, evil conspiracies and persecutions.

This one is pretty obvious. The Climate Change movement always shouts out revised and updated apocalypse predictions, eerily reminiscent of the stereotypical bum on the sidewalk with that “The End Is Near” sign. “The world will end in X years if we don’t do X” is the constant refrain. The years always pass, and the apocalypse never happens. Interestingly, this is a characteristic of multiple religious cults (such as the Seekers of Chicago, and the Order of the Solar Temple). At the moment, we apparently have 12 years to nationalize the entire economy and phase out fossil fuels before we all die a fiery death.

There’s also no shortage of conspiracy theories about who they consider to be Earth’s greatest saboteurs. They have an enemies list. The fossil fuel industry is at the top of it, with widespread tinfoil hat theories about oil companies burying patents for efficient renewable fuel recipes to keep us all guzzling gasoline.

The “repent or burn” doomsday preaching is the most well-known staple of the Climate Change movement, and quite clearly exemplifies the fourth warning sign for unsafe groups.

5. There is no legitimate reason to leave, former followers are always wrong in leaving, negative or even evil.

Climate alarmists who leave, step back from, or even lightly criticize the movement are immediately subjected to vicious smear campaigns. Dutch professor Richard Tol experienced this phenomenon firsthand when he removed his name from an IPCC climate report and criticized the reports excessively apocalyptic predictions.

The smear campaign was led by Bob Ward, director of policy at the London School of Economics’ Grantham Research Institute on Climate Change ‘This has all the characteristics of a smear campaign”, Tol said. “It’s all about taking away my credibility as an expert.”

The treatment of Professor Tol is not uncommon, and clearly demonstrates that the Climate Change movement exhibits the fifth warning sign for unsafe groups.

6. Former members often relate the same stories of abuse and reflect a similar pattern of grievances.

Professor Tol is not an anomaly. Dr. Richard Lindzen of MITDr. Nils-Axel Mörner, and countless other former IPCC in-crowd climate experts were subjected to smear campaigns from their colleagues and the news media for the crime of throwing cold water on the outlandish predictions of the Climate Change movement.

This pattern is all too familiar to anyone who has studied what happens to individuals who leave the Church of Scientology, and clearly meets the sixth warning sign for unsafe groups.

7. There are records, books, news articles, or television programs that document the abuses of the group/leader.

The abuses of the Climate Change movement are loud and proud. They vociferously attack their perceived enemies for public consumption, and are cheered on by fellow travelers in the journalism class. Most recently they brainwashed a bunch of kids and marched them into an octogenarian Democrat Senator’s office to beg not to be murdered by a ‘No’ vote on impossible legislation. Have you seen those kids in Diane Feinstein’s office? You should, it’s creepy, here they are:

These tantrums and protests aren’t only meant to rally supporters of the Climate Change movement. They are a form of intimidation, a tactic used to silence those who question the gospel. There is ample evidence that the Climate Change movement meets the seventh warning sign of an unsafe group.

8. Followers feel they can never be “good enough.”

The atonement process for Climate warriors always demands more. It started with using a recycling bin and grocery bags. Now, in 2019, being a good follower means imposing veganism on the masses and issuing fatwahs against innocuous objects such as plastic straws and grocery bags. Despite all the efforts of the faithful, Climate minions maintain a constant state of dread and despair, knowing they can never truly do enough to stop the coming doom.

Clearly, the eighth warning sign for unsafe groups applies to the Climate Change movement.

9. The group/leader is always right.

When have the climate leaders been called wrong for their failed predictions? Regardless of the weather, they are always intrinsically correct.

Flood? Climate Change. Drought? Climate Change.

No Snow? Climate Change. Too much snow? Climate Change.

Tornado? Climate Change. Hurricane? Climate Change. Lack of hurricanes? Climate Change.

See how this works?

One of the best aspects of the movement is “weather is climate until it isn’t”. The acolytes of Climate Change will point out the window in a heat wave and say, “See? We’re right!”

If a skeptic points out the window during a blizzard, the same acolytes will simply cry “Weather isn’t climate!” It’s a game they can never lose, one in which they are never wrong and always right.

Thus, the ninth warning sign for unsafe groups clearly applies.

10. The group/leader is the exclusive means of knowing “truth” or receiving validation, no other process of discovery is really acceptable or credible.

The path to discovery for the Climate Change movement is an intentionally vague discipline referred to as “climate science”.

Did you carry out a study on gender and glaciers? Climate Science.

Did you think up the worst possible scenarios that have no actual chance of happening (actual portion of latest National Climate Assessment)? Climate Science.

Any “science” that confirms the tenets of the Climate Change movement is deemed “climate science”, while actual scientific research that disputes their conclusions is derided as “denialism”.

The tenth warning sign for unsafe groups is clearly met.

The Verdict: It’s a cult

According to the established, scientific guidelines developed by cult experts, the Climate Change movement fits the bill for a potentially unsafe group.

When I looked up these established warning signs, I honestly expected Climate Changeists to meet two or three of them, NOT TEN! The disturbingly religious nature of this supposedly “scientific” movement should alarm any thinking human being, especially since the movement now openly seeks to nationalize the entire economy.

It’s time for conservatives to realize what they are dealing with, and act accordingly. Rather than debating Climate Change activists, it may be time to start staging interventions.

If someone you know is a member of the Climate Change Movement, and you are interested in intervention strategies, please visit https://culteducation.com/prep_faq.html.

Printed by permission from Will, a nom de plume, who can be followed on Twitter at @Oil_Guns_Merica.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


Categories
Climate Change Conservatism Economy Judges Justice Supreme Court Truth

Breakdown: The World Is Measurably Better Since January 2017

Rod Thomson

The largely unreported and to some ironic reality of the past two years is that the world overall is a better, safer, more prosperous place since the swearing in of Donald Trump as President of the United States in 2016. Better than it was under Barack Obama and better than it was under George W. Bush.

Despite the nonstop onslaught of negative reporting on Trump — 90 percent according to the Media Research Center (there’s been 10 percent positive?) — and the breathless reporting on the government shutdown, the latest Robert Mueller leak or arrest, the Kavanaugh hearing fiasco, fake news such as BuzzFeed’s flat wrong non-story on Trump telling Michael Cohen to lie, the disgusting anti-Christian bigotry associated with the MAG-hat Covington Catholic High School students and so on ad infinitum — Trump’s approval ratings remain right in the range they were when he took office, and ticking upward.

That suggests that the relentlessly anti-Trump, Democratic partisan media is washed out by what his actual policies have so clearly accomplished.

But it also suggests that a lot of Americans — probably more than are reflected in polls, and at least some who support Trump — simply do not feel safe saying to anyone that they realize how much better off the country and the world are. It wasn’t supposed to happen. But the media not reporting something does not mean it didn’t happen.

So here are some of the major areas where the world is demonstrably better off since January 2016:

→ First, the economy, duh! 304,000 jobs in January, blowing out all of the predictions. Manufacturing has burst back in the U.S. when President Obama said those jobs would never return. (Man, that guy was wrong a lot.) GDP growth 50 percent higher than it had been under Obama, even though the recovery is now long in the tooth. This has led to a growing consensus among non-political economists that what has driven the economic renaissance has been tax cuts, massive deregulation, stronger trade policy, tax breaks to lure back offshore capital, and a dramatic rise in oil and natural gas production.

→ The entire federal court system will be far more conservative and constitutional for a generation as Trump’s judicial nominees have been uniformly originalists and conservative…and young. This means that there should be fewer overtly political rulings in which the law and constitution are bent to judges’ political views like a reed in the wind, and more solid rules for governing and living.

→ The dishonest and duplicitous media has been unmasked for the partisans they are. This was unintended, of course, but Americans are better off knowing this (something I have known for many, many years as a former member of the mainstream media.) The media’s vicious partisanship has been widely self-exposed for Americans to see, although many members of the media themselves seem to remain in denial. The vast majority of Americans do not.

China’s systemic cheating on trade agreements and thieving of intellectual properties has been called out and responded to forcefully. Since Trump’s inauguration, an accepted consensus has emerged that China’s actions pose a commercial threat to world trade, to its geographic neighbors and to the security of the United States. Ultimately, we will end up with better, more fair trade that will absolutely benefit American companies and workers, but also will benefit most of the rest of the world, which will be more empowered to demand better, more fair agreements for their companies and workers.

→ Pulling out of the terrorist-enabling Iran nuclear agreement did not result in the end of the world, In fact, the world basically yawned past the regular hyperbolic media coverage. Further, most of the sanctions have been reinstated, including by our European friends, when the media Democrats assured us they could not be. Iran is feeling the pinch. Leashing up the murderous Mullah’s financially makes the world that much safer.

→Similarly, when the U.S. walked away from the essentially worthless, symbolic Paris Climate Accords, the world did not warm and seas did not rise. Actually, the U.S. continues to be a leader in reduction of carbon emissions, largely through the voluntary, innovative private sector.

→ The U.S. showed its promise-keeping resolve for the first time when Trump directed the U.S. embassy in Israel to be moved from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem — just like Obama, Bush and Bill Clinton had promised to do before him, but never did. The hyperventilating over lighting the Middle East tinderbox never materialized. The normal amount of Muslim terrorism and Israeli military response ensued afterwards as before.

Black Americans are enjoying an employment resurgence like that not seen since before the disastrous implementing of the Great Society. While overall U.S. unemployment hit a 50-year low in Trump’s second year, joblessness among black Americans has set a modern record as well. Black employment has risen about 1.3 million under Trump to hit a record 19.3 million in October. Now this clearly started before Trump, but that it accelerated this long into a recovery is fairly remarkable.

Russian aggression against Ukraine and other small neighbors has been held in check as the U.S. has sent arms and supplies to the Ukraine and stiffened the response to Russian belligerence. The tough talk had already been backed by missile attacks against Russian mercenaries in Syria and Russian-backed Syrian allies. Using the big stick once or twice means carrying it around becomes a deterrent — not a joke as with the previous president. The crossing of any red line is obviously not going to be acceptable and Russia knows that.

→ Trump’s forceful efforts to denuclearize North Korea resulted in a one-one-one summit with President Kim, and second one coming up. It started with tough talk, followed by the movement of U.S. naval and air power off the coast. It’s ended so far with the self-destruction of some of North Korea’s nuclear facilities and no more of the missile tests that had become common under Obama.

→ Most of our European allies in NATO have been weak and sometimes duplicitous on defense, refusing to live up to their promise on minimal military expenditures to help defend themselves from Russia. Trump again talked tough. Considering he had pulled out of the Paris climate accords and the Iran agreement, European leaders worry he could follow through on NATO threats. They have accordingly increased their defense spending by a combined $100 billion now so far — strengthening free countries against tyranny.

ISIS decapitated.

There are plenty more. But this hits the highlights. By all the evidence, it is unarguable, even by the Orange Man Bad crowd, that the world is better off now than two years ago.

Rod Thomson is an author, host of Tampa Bay Business with Rod Thomson on the Salem Radio Network, TV commentator and former journalist, and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. Rod also is co-host of Right Talk America With Julio and Rod on the Salem Radio Network.


Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS


 

Categories
Climate Change Truth

5 Reasons Cities Should Not Adopt Climate Accords

Rod Thomson

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!

Rod Thomson is Founder and Editor-in-Chief of The Revolutionary Act.

Categories
Climate Change Liberalism Politics Truth

6 Reasons Trump was Right on the Paris Climate Accords

by Rod Thomson

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.