ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2017 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Thursday, June 01, 2017

Adieu, Paris

Trump rejects "another scheme to redistribute wealth out of America" in pulling out of the 2015 Paris Accord on unicorns.

I mean, "climate change".

"Our withdrawal from the agreement represents a restoration of America's sovereignty."

Labels:

161 Comments:

Blogger Johnny June 01, 2017 3:59 PM  

That does about sum it up. Let's hope it doesn't come back.

Blogger L' Aristokrato June 01, 2017 4:01 PM  

At this point... Nuke Paris from orbit, it's the only way to be sure!

Blogger #7139 June 01, 2017 4:02 PM  

Still not tired of winning.

Blogger James Dixon June 01, 2017 4:03 PM  

Cue the trolls trying to spin this as a negative somehow.

Blogger SamuraiJack June 01, 2017 4:03 PM  

Thank God!! Sorry Juncker and associates, maybe you can ask your new migrant populations to pay their fair share.

Anonymous Orville June 01, 2017 4:04 PM  

Warmers have been triggered. Their angst will raise global temps 2 degrees C.

Blogger Merlinus June 01, 2017 4:08 PM  

So are we pulling out effective immidiately, or are we abiding by the process in the Accord, meaning we cant officially pull out until 2020?

Blogger seeingsights June 01, 2017 4:08 PM  

Trump's policy in regards to Europe in the past few days has been encouraging for nationalists. I have to admit that when Trump ordered an air strike on Syria I was concerned that Trump had joined the globalists. Now I'm relaxed.

Anonymous Precious June 01, 2017 4:08 PM  

I welcome Trump giving us this global warming accord hiatus. May it last even longer than the global warming hiatus.

Anonymous Jeff June 01, 2017 4:12 PM  

I've been somewhat indifferent about the Paris accord, so the joy I feel right now is coming as a bit of a surprise.

The God Emperor does it again!!

Anonymous fop June 01, 2017 4:16 PM  

Brian "fake news" Williams' reaction to Trump on MSNBC:

'A dark, dark speech, long, disjointed and rambling like a Hugo Chavez speech.'

Brian "fake news" Williams' reaction to his daughter having her anus sucked by a strange man on TV:

"She’s always been an actress. For us, watching her is the family occupation."

Blogger Katechon June 01, 2017 4:16 PM  

Bravo Donald.

Vive l'empereur divin !

Blogger Rabbi B June 01, 2017 4:17 PM  

Let the shrieking begin:


TRUMP: 'Paris' less about climate, more about others gaining advantage over USA...
Big Business Begs President to Stick With Deal...
Tech Firms Final Plea...
DiCaprio Urges 'Moral Decision'...
Vatican sees exit as slap in face...
DEM SUPER DONOR: TRAITOROUS ACT OF WAR!

Anonymous Aeoli Pera June 01, 2017 4:22 PM  

All you faithless heretics out there can suck a yuge golden dick.

Anonymous Rather, Not June 01, 2017 4:22 PM  

Vox, I just want to say thank you. I would have been worried about Ivanka dragging Trump to cucking on climate change/Paris. You helped gave me the perspective necessary to save all of those brain cycles for far more productive uses. He might have cucked, but he didn't. Again.

Blogger Katechon June 01, 2017 4:23 PM  

>Nuke Paris from orbit

I see you, L'Aristokrypto

Anonymous glosoli June 01, 2017 4:24 PM  

The Goldman boys running the show are happy to ditch one accord and move onward and downward.

The Bilderbergers aren't the elite, the elite know exactly how the next couple of decades play out: rising nationalism (easy); depression (incipient); civil/race wars; international wars against a fake aggressor (radical Islam, Turkey); US currency collapse (triggered by the ECB QE into gold and all trade switching away from the USD); US civil war (brief but nasty); New World Order run by Russia, China, Israel and satan, the *new US* get a seat at the table, no power though.

Just like the 30s into the 50s, but this time the last good guy standing(the US) is taken out, so they can have it all. They want your alt-right anger and nationalism, they know how you will react.

Anonymous fop June 01, 2017 4:24 PM  

MSNBC: "We just watched a dangerous little man give a very dangerous speech...he's just a backward man, such an uneducated man..."


Anonymous AzDesertRat June 01, 2017 4:27 PM  

glosoli wrote:The Goldman boys running the show are happy to ditch one accord and move onward and downward.

The Bilderbergers aren't the elite, the elite know exactly how the next couple of decades play out: rising nationalism (easy); depression (incipient); civil/race wars; international wars against a fake aggressor (radical Islam, Turkey); US currency collapse (triggered by the ECB QE into gold and all trade switching away from the USD); US civil war (brief but nasty); New World Order run by Russia, China, Israel and satan, the *new US* get a seat at the table, no power though.

Just like the 30s into the 50s, but this time the last good guy standing(the US) is taken out, so they can have it all. They want your alt-right anger and nationalism, they know how you will react.


"The best laid schemes o'mice an' men / Gang aft a-gley" - R. Burns

Blogger swiftfoxmark2 June 01, 2017 4:28 PM  

glosoli wrote:The Goldman boys running the show are happy to ditch one accord and move onward and downward.

The Bilderbergers aren't the elite, the elite know exactly how the next couple of decades play out: rising nationalism (easy); depression (incipient); civil/race wars; international wars against a fake aggressor (radical Islam, Turkey); US currency collapse (triggered by the ECB QE into gold and all trade switching away from the USD); US civil war (brief but nasty); New World Order run by Russia, China, Israel and satan, the *new US* get a seat at the table, no power though.

Just like the 30s into the 50s, but this time the last good guy standing(the US) is taken out, so they can have it all. They want your alt-right anger and nationalism, they know how you will react.


Dude, you need to get out of your basement and go outside.

Blogger Giraffe June 01, 2017 4:29 PM  

Good. Now if we could pull out of the UN.

Anonymous Precious June 01, 2017 4:29 PM  

@glosoli They want your alt-right anger and nationalism

You are wrong and stupid.

Anonymous Didas Kalos June 01, 2017 4:30 PM  

I thought you were joking. Gross!!! These people are really sick. And they dare call ANYONE uneducated, unrefined?!

Blogger Cail Corishev June 01, 2017 4:30 PM  

The Goldman boys running the show are happy to ditch one accord and move onward and downward.

You could save time with a macro: "The sky is still falling!"

Anonymous Leonardo DiCaprio June 01, 2017 4:31 PM  

Trump is a climate-denying poopy-head. I spit on him from my private jet.

Blogger JACIII June 01, 2017 4:32 PM  

fop wrote:MSNBC: "We just watched a dangerous little man give a very dangerous speech...he's just a backward man, such an uneducated man..."



Liberal tears. Yum! They cannot know our joy or the would deny it to us. Or they are, perhaps, helpless to express their grief and pain? Either way WE WIN!

Anonymous 5343 Kinds of Deplorable June 01, 2017 4:39 PM  

All you faithless heretics out there can suck a yuge golden dick.

Ding ding ding -- THREAD WINNER!

Anonymous A Most Deplorable Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents June 01, 2017 4:41 PM  

First the Trans Pacific agreement, now this. It's not even July 4th yet, either. Still time for moar fireworks!

The squealing of the subsidized warm-mongers is like musical lulz.

Trump 2016 for the LOLZ!

Blogger Mr Darcy June 01, 2017 4:42 PM  

@23:

I know, right?

I think I halfway expected them to continue with some verbiage about his having walked a crooked mile and finding a crooked sixpence upon a crooked stile. Crooked cat; crooked mouse; crooked little house. Etc., etc.

They are seriously disturbed.

Blogger Ceasar June 01, 2017 4:42 PM  

Not...tired...of...WINNING!

Blogger The Chortling June 01, 2017 4:42 PM  

He's right back to owning the MSM narrative. They'll be frothing for a month on this position and the shame and the shock and the awe....

Anonymous fop June 01, 2017 4:44 PM  

@23

You don't understand. "Backwards and uneducated" are among the highest compliments one can receive from a progressive.

Blogger Rabbi B June 01, 2017 4:45 PM  

They just can't keep up. Current damn year!

Blogger tz June 01, 2017 4:49 PM  

Also note how the alt-south had a tizzy over Trump in a yarmulke at the wailing wall, but it was also announced the embassy move is "delayed" for at least 6 months.

The Anti-cuck, anti-Bush. He virtue signals left, but implements all the right stuff.

Blogger Sillon Bono June 01, 2017 4:50 PM  

5343 Kinds of Deplorable wrote:All you faithless heretics out there can suck a yuge golden dick.

Ding ding ding -- THREAD WINNER!



PRAISE KEK!

Blogger haus frau June 01, 2017 4:51 PM  

Coincidently, I remember a couple articles from msm outlets last week claiming that Trump was reconsidering his extreme position on climate change with a view toward a more reasonable compromise. Funny how that worked out.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 01, 2017 4:56 PM  

The Left should take to the streets

Blogger SirHamster June 01, 2017 5:01 PM  

haus frau wrote:Coincidently, I remember a couple articles from msm outlets last week claiming that Trump was reconsidering his extreme position on climate change with a view toward a more reasonable compromise. Funny how that worked out.

Wait for when Trump seriously approaches the question of how to reasonably coexist with commies.

*whup whup whup*

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 01, 2017 5:11 PM  

The globalists ask, what is our program?

Blogger Frank Gappa June 01, 2017 5:12 PM  

The only disappointment is the backing out process takes 4 years to accomplish, so that essentially leaves this issue up for the 2020 election cycle.

Anonymous Jeff June 01, 2017 5:14 PM  

Hi Energy Covfefe, baby!

Blogger Lazarus June 01, 2017 5:20 PM  

He said he would renegotiate a fair accord if possible, but if it is not possible, ce la vie. In a rational world, this would be seen as a rational position.

Blogger Dos Voltz June 01, 2017 5:20 PM  

History repeats, though with roles reversed.

Juncker is such a faggoty little Chamberlain.

Blogger Noah B The Savage Gardener June 01, 2017 5:20 PM  

"The only disappointment is the backing out process takes 4 years to accomplish..."

The Paris Accord has no force of law in the US. A presidential action got us into the Paris Accord, so a presidential action can get us out - immediately. Nevermind the lies from the Eurocrats and the Fake News.

Anonymous JAMES June 01, 2017 5:22 PM  

"I was elected to help the people of Pittsburgh not Paris"

BOOM.

This is going to eat up leftist oxygen for ages. This is exactly what Trump needs to do. Get on the front foot, make leftists rage about it, rinse and repeat.

Blogger Nick S June 01, 2017 5:23 PM  

@41

I think I'm gonna write the guys over at Counter Strike Coffee and see if they can come up with a Covfefe blend I can add to my next order of Liberal Tears.

Blogger James Dixon June 01, 2017 5:29 PM  

> They want your alt-right anger and nationalism, they know how you will react.

Oh, I'm sure they think they know. They actually have no idea.

Blogger Salt June 01, 2017 5:30 PM  

Paris got covfefed.

Anonymous BBGKB June 01, 2017 5:35 PM  

Its a good thing global warming came in to stop the harder to adapt to global cooling. Funny the solution to both is to give the (((Elite))) more power/money.

Covfefe blend I can add to my next order of Liberal Tears.

Citizen Obtained Voter Fraud Evidence Found Executed. https://gab.ai/BGKB/posts/8353893

All you faithless heretics out there can suck a yuge golden dick.

Instead of the PENCE electroshock gay conversion therapy gangs, the left should worry about TRUMP putting it on the top of the statue of liberty and all of NYC's gay jews would try to swim out to it pied piper style.

Blogger Otto Lamp June 01, 2017 5:39 PM  

The new Earth Day: June 1, 2017

Blogger Harris June 01, 2017 5:40 PM  

I taught Air Conditioning System Design in college for 3 years and spent at least a couple of hours of class time explaining to students why both the Global Warming Crisis, and the Ozone Crisis (the two are not the same) were both hoaxes by environmentalists. I began writing about this back in 1991.

So, take that into account when you read the following:

Even if the Global Warming Alarmists are right, pulling out of the Paris Agreement doesn't preclude the USA from charting its own environmental course. After all, the US Senate never ratified the Kyoto Treaty, and yet in 2012, the USA was the ONLY nation in the world to actually meet or beat the emissions targets set out by the Kyoto Treaty. That proves that the USA can go it alone, and still meet the desires of even the most rabid environmentalists.

The reality is that pulling out of the Paris Accord doesn't kill the environmentalists goals in the USA. It kills the globalists goals. Now, you may argue that the two groups have a lot of overlap, and you'd be correct. Pulling out preserves our national sovereignty, which is the bigger point that Trump was making in his Pittsburgh vs. Paris juxtaposition.

Blogger Peter Jackson June 01, 2017 5:44 PM  

...Snoopy dance...

Anonymous a deplorable rubberducky June 01, 2017 5:46 PM  

The level of histrionics over this surprises me. I knew they'd be unhappy about a US pullout, but unhinged? The Germans have been out of their minds. They've been saying the US role as leader of the free world is finished, and looking toward China.

Over this? That climate change gambit always seemed like an extremely dicey con, too much can go wrong, it would be a longshot to pull off. Oh sure, it's quite useful as a SJW bludgeon on the cultural war front, but to get nations to voluntarily agree to hamstring their own economies for rather specious gains? That's a total screwball longshot.

Maybe in the twenty years since Kyoto they've started to believe their own press? They really thought they were going to bluster, shame and threaten their way through with this turkey?

Anonymous a_peraspera June 01, 2017 5:49 PM  

I didn't know much about this climate change scare so I just now started reading about it.

Apparently average temps have risen 1.3 degrees C since 1880 (the first year that temp readings started being recorded).

1.3 degrees, and this is supposed to terrify us into sending $100 billion per year to the UN?

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 01, 2017 5:50 PM  

We must tell the left that we are preparing for a world with 4 billion Africans, now poor but will be wanting the accoutrements of wealth like cars

Blogger Dole June 01, 2017 5:51 PM  

I am relieved that Trump didn't cuck this up.

Blogger Heian-kyo Dreams June 01, 2017 5:53 PM  

Googling did not shake my resolve to avoid that show Girls.

On topic: Good, back to draining a tributary that feeds the swamp.

Blogger Lazarus June 01, 2017 5:55 PM  

a_peraspera wrote:I didn't know much about this climate change scare so I just now started reading about it.

Here is a must read site for you. Judith Curry is a climate scientist with integrity. Lots of current information.

https://judithcurry.com/

Blogger Duke Norfolk June 01, 2017 5:55 PM  

E-e-e-e-excellent! Hopefully this will amp up their anxiety to unprecedented levels as they fret about the imminent destruction of Mother Gaia.

Anonymous Rocklea June 01, 2017 5:55 PM  

You're all going to hell, unicorn poop is real and toxic, we have the computer models to prove it.

Anonymous Steve June 01, 2017 6:01 PM  

Cue the trolls trying to spin this as a negative somehow.

The Guardian has already tried.

The Paris deal pullout is more damaging to the US than the climate

It's a bunch of 888 about THE AMAZINGLY VIBRANT GREEN ENERGY SECTOR (that hoovers up subsidies like Seanan McGuire at a buffet table), BIGOTS.

Plus, some fantasy about China's super-serious and not at all fake commitment to cutting its own carbon emissions, because the Chinese Communist Party is all about slitting its own economic throat to please hippies.

But as some folks have said above, Paris was never about the environment. That's just green window dressing to fool the rubes.

It's about creating an inescapable global framework to deprecate national sovereignty, gradually drag the West down to the level of the Third World, supercharge the UN, activist judges, NGO's, and every money-snaffling swamp creature on the planet, empowering a permanent, unelected, un-get-riddable SJW class to rule over us and dictate how we may live our lives, forever. With nowhere on Earth to escape them. A Prison Planet, if you will.

It's a snare, and President Trump has manfully extricated the United States from it. This is yuge.

Blogger SteelPalm June 01, 2017 6:01 PM  

Hurray! While it's a cucky site, the Federalist published a fine collection of leftist tears;

http://thefederalist.com/2017/06/01/15-top-reactions-trumps-withdrawal-paris-climate-deal/

The most gob-smackingly stupid, condescending Tweet was by Neil DeGrasse Tyson. No surprise there.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 01, 2017 6:06 PM  

The left if it was serious should call for WAR

Blogger Wolfman at Large June 01, 2017 6:06 PM  

Rising CO2 levels make plants happy. Make plants grow faster. Plants are our friends. Cows eat plants. More plants means more cows. More cows mean more BBQs. More BBQs mean more CO2. The cycle of happiness continues.

Blogger Duke Norfolk June 01, 2017 6:06 PM  

Steve wrote:It's about creating an inescapable global framework to deprecate national sovereignty

Bingo. It was their biggest con. Well, next to central banking, of course.

Anonymous kfg June 01, 2017 6:07 PM  

" . . .we have the computer models to prove it."

Just as soon as we "tune" them - again.

Blogger Robert Divinity June 01, 2017 6:14 PM  

"Our withdrawal from the agreement represents a restoration of America's sovereignty."

The bottom line.

They want your alt-right anger and nationalism, they know how you will react.

They may want it. They may not want it. But they will get it and lose badly with the stench of death about them.

Blogger Dwight House June 01, 2017 6:14 PM  

Excellent!

Although it is a little disappointing. Trump could have agreed to go, only to tell the entire conference "No, we will not agree to this" to their faces, and the sit back and watch them squirm. That would absolutely cement the idea that Trump is evil incarnate in the eyes of the Left. They, thinking they might have gained some control would have seen their illusionary power die painfully.

Blogger Cail Corishev June 01, 2017 6:16 PM  

The level of histrionics over this surprises me.

They're now trying to make Americans freak out over issues they've literally never heard of before this moment.

More of the same, I guess. They've been overreacting and screaming that The End Is Nigh ever since they realized he was getting votes in the primaries. They couldn't get people outraged over his blunt talk on illegals, his locker room bragging, his refusal to back down on his criticism of judges, his disrespect for the media, or dozens of other matters; so they might as well try the Paris Accord, whatever that is.

Blogger weka June 01, 2017 6:18 PM  

On the way to work the local Rock station was saying every one agrees to Paris but Syria, Nicaragua and the USA.

The shilling and tears was disgusting. It does make me consider that Nicaragua has some good sense.

The UN must be destroyed.

Blogger Nick S June 01, 2017 6:28 PM  

I'm pretty sure "covfefe" is Kekian slang for "How ya like me now?".

Blogger digra June 01, 2017 6:33 PM  

Like the British PM says, no deal is better than a bad deal.

Blogger Mr.MantraMan June 01, 2017 6:47 PM  

"Rain follows the plow, polar bears follow the carbon taxes"

Does seem a troll free thread, hmmmm?

Blogger VFM #7634 June 01, 2017 6:54 PM  

The shilling and tears was disgusting. It does make me consider that Nicaragua has some good sense.

@70 weka
Unfortunately, no. Nicaragua refused to sign it for leftoid Marxist BS reasons.

Blogger Bellguard June 01, 2017 6:55 PM  

Another blow to the globalist scum.

Blogger Lazarus June 01, 2017 7:21 PM  

Duke Norfolk wrote:E-e-e-e-excellent! Hopefully this will amp up their anxiety to unprecedented levels as they fret about the imminent destruction of Mother Gaia.

Mother Gaia is a gold-digging slut, apparently.

Blogger Salt June 01, 2017 7:25 PM  

The Mayor of Pittsburgh stands against Trump. The Steel City it is not.

https://twitter.com/billpeduto/status/870369217031397377

Blogger exfarmkid June 01, 2017 7:27 PM  

I have not found an historical record of the U.S. Senate ratifying the "Paris Accord." There is nothing to withdraw from - it is not the law of the land.

If incorrect, somebody please enlighten me.

Blogger Phillip George June 01, 2017 7:40 PM  

Neither the Pope's actual nor metaphorical ring got kissed

Anonymous Eric the Red June 01, 2017 7:45 PM  

The Parisian whore and her EU pimp have been sent packing by Trump, and now they are whining like jilted lovers.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop June 01, 2017 7:53 PM  

Wolfman at Large wrote:Rising CO2 levels make plants happy. Make plants grow faster. Plants are our friends. Cows eat plants. More plants means more cows. More cows mean more BBQs. More BBQs mean more CO2. The cycle of happiness continues.

Yes, that's about right. The global vegetative mass has already increased by maybe 10% since 1982 because we have enriched the planetary atmosphere with the spice.

This is the most important story ever told-
https://www.scribd.com/document/319906948/The-Solution-to-the-Ice-Age-Extinctions
http://www.castaliahouse.com/otherscience-stories-stewards-of-the-earth/

After one year of research, I have not yet found very many people who get it, let alone understand how to capitalize on it. This will change.

Blogger Nick S June 01, 2017 8:24 PM  

After one year of research, I have not yet found very many people who get it, let alone understand how to capitalize on it.

Providing autonomous lawn care systems?

Blogger Gospace June 01, 2017 8:27 PM  

exfarmkid June 01, 2017 7:27 PM
I have not found an historical record of the U.S. Senate ratifying the "Paris Accord." There is nothing to withdraw from - it is not the law of the land.

If incorrect, somebody please enlighten me.


This is the SNOPES BS argument that he doesn't have the authority to withdraw.

But you are correct. There is no treaty, nothing to withdraw from.

Anonymous JAG June 01, 2017 8:34 PM  

Gospace wrote:exfarmkid June 01, 2017 7:27 PM

I have not found an historical record of the U.S. Senate ratifying the "Paris Accord." There is nothing to withdraw from - it is not the law of the land.

If incorrect, somebody please enlighten me.


This is the SNOPES BS argument that he doesn't have the authority to withdraw.

But you are correct. There is no treaty, nothing to withdraw from.



Snopes has their ruling. Now, let's see them enforce it.

Anonymous Paul June 01, 2017 8:41 PM  

@84 JAG

Last I checked, the United States wasn't subject to the EU or Juncker's demands.

Blogger tz June 01, 2017 8:48 PM  

I'm not sure which makes me happier, Trump keeps another promise - still not tired of winning, or the increasingly unhinged reaction of the left.
You need to go ba... to Canada like you said you would.

Blogger tz June 01, 2017 8:51 PM  

I think Putin and Russia never signed off on the Paris accords.
Plants are breathing easier. Both the vegetable kingdom and the inexpensive energy clean coal ones.

Anonymous Desert Rat June 01, 2017 8:57 PM  

How long before someone takes this into a federal courtroom and a "judge" discovers that it is unconstitutional to withdraw from the accord?

Blogger Elizabeth June 01, 2017 9:00 PM  

I'm not tired of winning.

Blogger Dedd Sirius June 01, 2017 9:03 PM  

Even if you accept the fantasy premise that "the globe is warming", you don't have to accept the premise that "warming" is "bad".

Blogger Lazarus June 01, 2017 9:05 PM  

Today was also the day Trump was supposed to let the embassy move to Jerusalem, but he did not. Nuttin' Yahoo nixed it. Bibi claims not, but he lies.

Something significant has to happen this year about Jerusalem. I thought that might be it, but so far not.

Still could do it December 1st.

Whole lotta waitin' goin' on.

Blogger Lazarus June 01, 2017 9:07 PM  

Desert Rat wrote:How long before someone takes this into a federal courtroom and a "judge" discovers that it is unconstitutional to withdraw from the accord?

I don't think so. It would have to be something invented about the constitution, but I do not dismiss the talent for fiction of the judicial clown car.

Blogger StrongCoffee61 June 01, 2017 9:24 PM  

The climate change hysteria has been one the Left's most successful distractions ever.

The overwhelming cause of environmental degradation is caused by too many poor people breeding like rabbits.
There's a fine article on the overpopulation issue at www.fairus.org/issue/the-united-states-is-already-overpopulated.

The globalist response to the real problem is to subsidize massive food distribution to poor people, make tepid efforts at promoting contraception, and flood the Western countries with unskilled poor brown people in order to provide cheap labor for business, dependency for government growth, and willing pawns for racial socialist politics.

In terms of environmental damage, climate change is a one day old puppy, poverty population growth is a rabid pit bull.
Globalists want to force the dangerous sick dog on us while diverting our attention to killing the puppy.

Crazy!




Blogger Vikki Wilson June 01, 2017 9:32 PM  

TRUMP: 'Paris' less about climate, more about others gaining advantage over USA...

Anonymous DonReynolds June 01, 2017 9:36 PM  

According to scientists, the planet has had at least six periods of "global warming", at least two of which during human history....since the end of the last Ice Age (10,000 to 12,000 years ago). Most of the global warming periods were either human pre-history or before any humans existed on the planet. Throughout the history of the planet, there have been periods of warming and cooling. This leaves the global warming advocates in a difficult spot. Since they insist that human activity is the CAUSE of global warming (and the solution to global warming), that certainly was never the case before any humans were alive nor was human activity the cause when so few lived on this planet.

Every environmental advocate claims the same CAUSE.....industrialization causes global warming, along with cow farts, eating meat, and activities that release CO2 into the atmosphere. But none of these were present during the dinosaur period, or during the Ice Age, nor during the 4,000 years that was followed by global warming.

But it is not necessary to use reason and logic to defeat enviro nonsense, since they DISPROVE their own argument every day. How? By their own behavior and lifestyles. If they actually believed that human activity was destroying the planet, they would be the first Luddites to stop using electricity, stop buying motor fuels, stop eating meats, stop using wood products, and stop buying products that (they claim) contribute to global warming. They would be the first people to practice the enviro virtues whey would insist upon everyone else....as an example of saintly sacrifice to save the planet from global warming. But they do not. Why? Because they do not believe it either.

Blogger ZhukovG June 01, 2017 9:40 PM  

This is big and I believe indicative of bigger things coming quickly. It represents nothing less than taking a gauntlet striking the Globalists across the face.

Does he already know what they were planning and is daring them to try?

Does he now feel confident enough to make a major move domestically?

It's going to be a very interesting summer.

Ave Imperator Trump.

Ad Victorium.

Blogger Natalie June 01, 2017 9:44 PM  

Wolfman - the only problem is that you said cows make BBQ. This is incorrect. Pigs make BBQ. Sometimes chickens as well. I don't care what Texans say - they're wrong.

Anonymous DonReynolds June 01, 2017 9:54 PM  

@97 Natalie
Texans think GOATS make good BBQ. I spent ten years in the Texas Hill Country and there were many more "ranchers" running goats than ever I saw with cattle or sheep. Yes, the "goat ropers" have no problem with doing BBQ with a goat. (Not many cookouts can eat an entire beef.)

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 01, 2017 10:14 PM  

DonReynolds wrote:Texans think GOATS make good BBQ.
Goats are good eating. Never tried BBQ, but lotsa times I've roasted a haunch, and birria is excellentissimo.

Blogger Matthew June 01, 2017 10:28 PM  

Purse-clutching pulled-pork-purist pussies.

Anonymous Merv H. June 01, 2017 10:32 PM  

Seems odd Elon Musk would rather pout and quit the council than to work on a new, improved agreement. Not a very good solution. But, then again, maybe he doesn't really see a problem???

Blogger Cail Corishev June 01, 2017 10:35 PM  

Glad to see Based Rand Paul approves:

"Thank you @realDonaldTrump for keeping your promise on Paris Agreement & protecting KY jobs from a bad deal. @FriendsofCoalKY"

"This action by @realDonaldTrump is great news for the economy and could save as many as 6 million U.S. jobs."

Anonymous kjj June 01, 2017 10:41 PM  

The next president can just start negotiations to get us back in, thanks to the 1992 Rio framework, which is an actual senate-ratified treaty.

https://www.infogalactic.com/info/United_Nations_Framework_Convention_on_Climate_Change

Trump needs to invoke Article 25. That would take us out of the system entirely, meaning that the next president wishing to enslave us through this route would need to negotiate a treaty first, then get it ratified, then start negotiating a new protocol. That second step, ratification in the Senate, doesn't look likely in the next decade or two.

The good news is that to exit the treaty, Trump just needs to send a letter to the UN. Tell everyone you know. We need to get memes circulating.

Blogger Mountain Man June 01, 2017 10:42 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Blogger Mountain Man June 01, 2017 10:47 PM  

This alone is why I voted for him. The Paris Agreement would have driven the final nail in the tiny sliver of heavy industry that is currently left in this country. The US has signed on to way too many of these crippling treaties, creating an environment totally unfavorable for heavy industry. It has strangled the ability for facilities, based here, to adapt and change when market forces necessitate for them to do so. A good example is the pulp and paper industry. As markets have changed, there has been very little retooling of these facilities to make other more valuable pulp and paper products. Despite many of these US mills being in decent shape, having a capable workforce and surrounded by a major wood basket with the infrastructure in place to get the raw material to the mill, many of the companies owning these mills, when faced with the need to reinvest -so that they can make products more in demand - are instead choosing to shutter them permanently. The invest monies are instead being transferred to Latin America and China. Latin America is somewhat understandable due to a variety of factors ( cheap fiber being one of them) But China ? A country lacking the raw resource to wood less than half of its pulp and paper facilities...having to rely on raw pulp from Russia, LA and NA - to do so !.
These treaties , with the EPA as the enforcer , has made the US an inhospitable place to invest in projects that cost anywhere from 150 million to 700 million - with a return 15- 20 years out.
Now that Trump has done the right thing, I just hope and pray that he maintains frame through the duration.
If he is also able to fix our dystopian tax code his legacy will carry on for decades beyond his actual term in office. The environment he will have created for business, in the US, will be the most favorable since the early 1960’s

Blogger owlish June 01, 2017 10:48 PM  

Meat slowly cooked over a fire is tasty. Beef slowly cooked over a fire is BBQ.

Both of which were coming up on the EPA's list of things to regulate out of existence.

Moar Winning.

Anonymous Crew June 01, 2017 11:05 PM  

By stymieing the Globalists and their Climate Change boondoggle, has the God Emperor Trump ensured that war with Russia/China is bound to occur sooner?

Anonymous Azimus June 01, 2017 11:17 PM  

What is the definitive layman's work supporting AGW/Climate Change? I want to read it because all I ever get from the news is point-and-shriek "see? SEE? ITS REAL! And if you don't believe me you're an idiot." I've never been given a clear, logical, supported case for AGW/CC and I want to see the best arguments for why it's real. Can someone recommend something?

Blogger Mountain Man June 01, 2017 11:18 PM  

@107

With McMaster acting as Betrayus err.. Petrauses alter ego..that is a very plausible possibility.

Anonymous Azimus June 01, 2017 11:20 PM  

The Paris Agreement would have driven the final nail in the tiny sliver of heavy industry that is currently left in this country

I was talking today to a guy from the US steel industry. He was telling me that the Chinese steel capacity was 1,400 million tons, and they currently had 400 million tons of extra capacity. He told me the TOTAL US capacity in steel was 100 million tons. So basically China has the ability to out-produce us 14 to 1 and could wipe out the US steel industry with the snap of their fingers. The steel guy was YUGE for Trump.

Anonymous kfg June 02, 2017 12:01 AM  

@108: "What is the definitive layman's work supporting AGW . . ."

see? SEE? ITS REAL! And if you don't believe me you're an idiot.

". . .Climate Change?"

Actually, pretty much anywhere you look. Like maybe a freshman biology textbook (climate change killed circa 90% of life on Earth, including bacteria, once the aerobics started pumping the atmosphere full of the toxic and highly corrosive gas known as "oxygen").

Change is what the climate does. Only Perfect Creationists think the climate doesn't change.

Anonymous Homesteader June 02, 2017 12:19 AM  

See Jo Nova's site- The Skeptic's Handbook is excellent. And the Petition Project as well. Also James Watts, and the Silicon Greybeard's piece on global warming.

Anonymous Looking Glass June 02, 2017 12:26 AM  

Trump could have left this on day 1, but I'm kind of enjoying the drag things out approach. It builds this interesting, "Trump is being co-opted! We gotta trust Trump! Trump came through!" Narrative. And it's reinforcing itself at each step.

Blogger Benjamin Kraft June 02, 2017 1:53 AM  

Vox, why oh why must you insult Unicorns. There's more and better evidence for them than for "climate change"!

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey June 02, 2017 2:08 AM  

@111 kfg

"Change is what the climate does. Only Perfect Creationists think the climate doesn't change"

You got it. The motivation behind that name change was rather transparent. Whatever you think of AGW, at least it's a hypothesis that's at leat theoretically falsifiable. "Climate change?" That's worse than wrong-- it's unfalsifiable.

Blogger John Wright June 02, 2017 2:12 AM  

@ 21
"Good. Now if we could pull out of the UN."

From your Giraffe throat to God's ear!

Anonymous CloseHauled June 02, 2017 2:46 AM  

If anthropogenic global warming was real the globalists such as Soros wouldn't be flooding the West with 3rd Worlders.

It increases their C02 footprint (use more resources and C02 than they would in 3rd World) and also that of the nation ... all while said nations have to reduce their footprint ... double whammy.

Blogger JP June 02, 2017 3:02 AM  

Also dark skin attracts and traps more heat. It is (actual, real) science!

Blogger szopen June 02, 2017 3:03 AM  

Azimus wrote:What is the definitive layman's work supporting AGW/Climate Change? I want to read it because all I ever get from the news is point-and-shriek "see? SEE? ITS REAL! And if you don't believe me you're an idiot." I've never been given a clear, logical, supported case for AGW/CC and I want to see the best arguments for why it's real. Can someone recommend something?

google.

The basic theory, as understood by a layman like me, is like this: light goes through atmosphere, changes into heat, heat (a different wavelength than visible light) is partially captured by atmosphere. How much - depends on the how much greenhouse gas is in atmosphere.

For example, assume that due the Milankovitch cycles the amount of solar energy coming to earth increases. That rises temperature, melts the ice, warms the water, and it rises CO2 concentration levels in atmosphere, which causes cascade effects including changes in water vapour amount and so on. This causes more temperature rise, which causes more CO2 and so on until situation stabilizes. Hence - the temperature changes more than it would be expected from the changes in solar energy going to Earth alone. If the solar energy goes down, temperature falls, more ice, albedo changes, CO2 concentration goes down, which causes more temperature changes - and we have Ice Age more severe than expected without taking CO2 into account. So this set theories is hypothesized to explain why temperature changes during ice ages were different from what would be expected from Milankovitch cycles.

Also, this could explain why in the past, when Sun was colder, we had still quite warm Earth. Simply, CO2 concentration levels were higher.

Then someone thought that the same theory could be applicated without the initial changes in amount of solar energy going to earth, i.e. what if CO2 levels simply rise because of human activity? The whole theory is exactly the same, so - obviously - calling it "theory of AGW" is misnomer. The only difference is the cause of CO2 level rises.

I would give you a decent blog in you would speak Polish.

Anyway, I like the theory because it's neat and because it explains several phenomenons which otherwise would require separate explanations.

Ah, one more thing - remember that changes in CO2 in atmosphere causes more than just temperature changes. What would be the effects of changes in ocean acidification levels?

Anyways, it all moot point. We will all see who is right within our lifetime. Of course, if "my side" is right, it would be then too late to do anything about it without radical geoengineering. Some say it is already too late.

Blogger szopen June 02, 2017 3:04 AM  

CloseHauled wrote:If anthropogenic global warming was real the globalists such as Soros wouldn't be flooding the West with 3rd Worlders.

It increases their C02 footprint (use more resources and C02 than they would in 3rd World) and also that of the nation ...

Actually, this is the argument I am using against immigration since at least few years. Immigration is wrong, because it causes more CO2 going into the atmosphere. Also, helping Africans to procreate is wrong for exactly the same reasons.

Blogger szopen June 02, 2017 3:07 AM  

Francis Parker Yockey wrote:@111 kfg

"Change is what the climate does. Only Perfect Creationists think the climate doesn't change"

You got it. The motivation behind that name change was rather transparent. Whatever you think of AGW, at least it's a hypothesis that's at leat theoretically falsifiable. "Climate change?" That's worse than wrong-- it's unfalsifiable.

AGW is wrong name because there is no scientific theory. There are set of theories on characteristics of some gases and the effects of their concentration in the atmosphere on the climate. This theory gives specific predictions what would happen if the concentration of this gases changes - which, depending of the change, may cause temperature to rise or fall.

"Climate change", btw, was used in scientific papers talking about global warming even before 1980. Use scholar.google if you do not believe me.

Blogger szopen June 02, 2017 3:15 AM  

DonReynolds wrote:Throughout the history of the planet, there have been periods of warming and cooling. This leaves the global warming advocates in a difficult spot. Since they insist that human activity is the CAUSE of global warming (and the solution to global warming), that certainly was never the case before any humans were alive nor was human activity the cause when so few lived on this planet.

So, your argument goes like this: because every time before fires were caused by lightnings and were happening before humans were living on earth, it is impossible that humans cause any fires.

Also, note that the same theory which postulates warming now is used to solve the several puzzles about climate changes in the past.


Rising CO2 levels make plants happy. Make plants grow faster. Plants are our friends. Cows eat plants. More plants means more cows. More cows mean more BBQs. More BBQs mean more CO2. The cycle of happiness continues.

Rising temperature means also more bugs and weeds. That means we need to use more herbicides and pesticides. That means more pollution and less healthy food.

Blogger wreckage June 02, 2017 3:29 AM  

@122, your second point is false. I work in agriculture, whoever gave you that argument was at best carefully cropping the facts for you, at worst outright lying.

As for your first, links to any climate model back-casting actual climate puzzles of the past? Very curious.

Anonymous JAG June 02, 2017 3:39 AM  

szopen wrote:Francis Parker Yockey wrote:@111 kfg

"Change is what the climate does. Only Perfect Creationists think the climate doesn't change"

You got it. The motivation behind that name change was rather transparent. Whatever you think of AGW, at least it's a hypothesis that's at leat theoretically falsifiable. "Climate change?" That's worse than wrong-- it's unfalsifiable.


AGW is wrong name because there is no scientific theory. There are set of theories on characteristics of some gases and the effects of their concentration in the atmosphere on the climate. This theory gives specific predictions what would happen if the concentration of this gases changes - which, depending of the change, may cause temperature to rise or fall.

"Climate change", btw, was used in scientific papers talking about global warming even before 1980. Use scholar.google if you do not believe me.


In the 1970s, it was global cooling that was the big lie the left was trying to scare everyone into slavery with.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/01/global-cooling-compilation/

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2017 3:46 AM  

@116

"From your Giraffe throat to God's ear!"

We don't really want to pull out ("doesn't sound very manly to me." -- George Carlin), for two reasons. One is that the UN has precisely one virtue; it's a place where peer or near peer competitors can make it absolutely clear, via their P5 veto, that they intend war. Now, France and the UK vetoing something, of even the EU? (Probably would be an improvement to fold the French vote into the EU and give the UK's to India, really.) No, they're not peers; they don't have a credible deployed war making capability anymore unless sucking at our logistic teat. But we, Russia, and China, do, and it's worthwhile keeping some forum (though something better the the UN would be nice) for making clear how serious we are about this or that.

The other reason is that, as long as we're on the inside, we can sabotage it.

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2017 3:48 AM  

@121

"AGW is wrong name because there is no scientific theory."

It's te wrong name because it always should have been called "GPPOBOTWKAUCB" (global pocket picking on behalf of third world kleptocrats and useless, corrupt bureaucrats).

Blogger wreckage June 02, 2017 4:06 AM  

AGW is correct because it reads-in the necessary assumption that GW is caused by A. Because the current debate is actually, in practice, entirely about A and nothing else. There are no policies that approach GW as a phenomenon in its own right - none, zero, zilch. All policies are all and always A.

No, the tag AGW is absolutely necessary. Ifit weren't necessary they wouldn't try to suppress it. SJWs and CJWs are the same people, the same organizations, and the same pathological inability to not ... always ... lie.

OpenID anonymos-coward June 02, 2017 5:03 AM  

glosoli wrote:the last good guy standing(the US)

The US is not and was never the 'good guy'. The US is the original home and main sponsor of socialism and moral degeneracy, and always was.

Blogger SciVo June 02, 2017 5:19 AM  

glosoli wrote:They want your alt-right anger and nationalism, they know how you will react.

Wait. You mean, they don't realize that they will be the first up against the wall? Those inbred midwits really think that their wishes are horses?

This timeline is best timeline.

Blogger szopen June 02, 2017 6:27 AM  

JAG wrote:
In the 1970s, it was global cooling that was the big lie the left was trying to scare everyone into slavery with.

In the 1970 there was no consensus about global cooling. There was discussion between climate scientists who is right - GW or GC. The debate was won by GW.
How it was reported by the press is another matter, but by now you should know that one should not trust press to report accurately anything, not just scientific findings.

Blogger szopen June 02, 2017 6:29 AM  

wreckage wrote:@122, your second point is false. I work in agriculture, whoever gave you that argument was at best carefully cropping the facts for you, at worst outright lying.

https://books.google.pl/books?id=rj6h-nQ1KlUC&pg=PA2016&lpg=PA2016&dq=more+co2+more+weeds&source=bl&ots=5wk-KeHVFz&sig=lR4My3mfK16wvzito_rjEedrslk&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiL88Pc-Z7UAhXGDZoKHVjRADwQ6AEIQzAE#v=onepage&q=more%20co2%20more%20weeds&f=false

Blogger Cataline Sergius June 02, 2017 6:46 AM  

I hadn't realized just how insidious the Paris Accords were because I hadn't known about the Treaty on Treaties, which simply says that if we announce support in principle, that if we sign an ancillary document promising to do what we can, that is the same thing as the Senate ratifying it with two-thirds of the Senate voting. It is a trick by globalists to get the United States to sign a treaty -by the way- well, I say trick.

The Paris Accords have the eco-freaks sobbing in their ironic PBRs about the Death of Gaia but its' the Bilderbergers that are really gnashing their teeth over this.

According to past SCOTUS decisions treaties supersede our own constitution. The Paris Accords were the first successful attempt by the EU's leadership to yoke the US. And it was done by executive order.

Praise and Glory to the God-Emperor!!!

Anonymous Forrest Bishop June 02, 2017 6:49 AM  

szopen wrote:Rising CO2 levels make plants happy. Make plants grow faster. Plants are our friends. Cows eat plants. More plants means more cows. More cows mean more BBQs. More BBQs mean more CO2. The cycle of happiness continues.

Rising temperature means also more bugs and weeds. That means we need to use more herbicides and pesticides. That means more pollution and less healthy food.


Not true. Higher CO2 levels reduce "weeds" because many of what we call weeds are C4-photosynthetic plants. At higher CO2 levels, C3 photosynthesis is competitive with C4. That would include all the sensitive tropical rainforest C3 trees along with the other virtue signals.

Notice: Most of what we call weeds are associated with grasslands. But grasslands are the result of lower C02 levels, of CO2 starvation. You will not find that statement in the enemy's textbooks.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop June 02, 2017 7:06 AM  

Cataline Sergius wrote:According to past SCOTUS decisions treaties supersede our own constitution.

Exactically. This same scam is found in a number of other areas, starting with monetary policy. Bretton Woods, anyone?

Anonymous Forrest Bishop June 02, 2017 7:19 AM  

wreckage wrote:No, the tag AGW is absolutely necessary. [If it] weren't necessary they wouldn't try to suppress it. SJWs and CJWs are the same people, the same organizations, and the same pathological inability to not ... always ... lie.

This needs to be savored. SJW = Social Justice Warrior, a meme the enemy originally used in their own praise, since turned against them like Fake News was.

More recently they have come up with Climate Justice as their war cry. We heard them beat that drum during the recent "March for Science" protests.

SJW = Social Justice Warrior
CJW = Climate Justice Warrior

All your memes are belong to us.

Blogger szopen June 02, 2017 7:42 AM  

Forrest Bishop wrote:szopen wrote:Rising CO2 levels make plants happy. Make plants grow faster. Plants are our friends. Cows eat plants. More plants means more cows. More cows mean more BBQs. More BBQs mean more CO2. The cycle of happiness continues.

Rising temperature means also more bugs and weeds. That means we need to use more herbicides and pesticides. That means more pollution and less healthy food.


Not true. Higher CO2 levels reduce "weeds" because many of what we call weeds are C4-photosynthetic plants. At higher CO2 levels, C3 photosynthesis is competitive with C4. That would include all the sensitive tropical rainforest C3 trees along with the other virtue signals.

Notice: Most of what we call weeds are associated with grasslands. But grasslands are the result of lower C02 levels, of CO2 starvation. You will not find that statement in the enemy's textbooks.


OK - to tell the truth I was reading the papers stating that it's not cleat what would be the effects on the crops and weeds, and that there is a possibility that weeds will thrive, while crops will not. But if you say so, OK - I have no time to check this.

Anonymous Punisher June 02, 2017 8:05 AM  

And cue the ninth circuit court judge who will somehow find a way to deem this unconstitutional and bring our joy to a screeching halt....

Anonymous Hoppes #9 June 02, 2017 9:45 AM  

Pittsburgh - not so much, but out here in the surrounding counties where sensible people still reside, dancing in the streets!

Blogger BunE22 June 02, 2017 10:19 AM  

szopen This is interesting: https://www.google.com/amp/www.breitbart.com/london/2016/09/14/massive-cover-exposed-lying-alarmists-rebranded-70s-global-cooling-scare-myth/amp/

http://notrickszone.com/2016/05/10/fears-of-global-cooling-very-real-in-1970s-scientists-devised-ways-to-warm-the-planet/#sthash.8cB4WXU3.ZRVWGIqW.dpbs

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/

Anonymous kfg June 02, 2017 10:19 AM  

"Because the current debate is actually, in practice, entirely about A and nothing else."

And thus the charge of "Climate Change Denier" is a rhetorical lie.

You'd think it's what they do or something.

In fact, it is the AGW promoters who actually deny climate change, fudging the data to make things like the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age disappear, because to promote the anthropogenic factor of climate change they have to make it look like the climate didn't change until the Industrial Era.

Blogger BunE22 June 02, 2017 10:21 AM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous rienzi June 02, 2017 10:26 AM  

Have you ever noticed that these hysterical alarmists' projections are always set so far in the future that if they are utterly wrong, they hope nobody will remember.

I have lived long enough to see some ludicrous examples. Back in 1972 the "prestigious" "Club of Rome", came out with a series of predictions of when we were going to run out of a lot of materials. Accordingly the press went crazy with how we all had to cut back on our consumption of just about everything, for the good of all.

Gold, all gone by 1981. Mercury and Silver 1985, Tin 1987, Zinc 1990, Oil 1992, Copper, Lead, and Natural Gas, 1993, Aluminum 2005-2021.

Last time I looked, all of this stuff is still in pretty good supply. Bloody f**kin' idiots.

Anonymous rienzi June 02, 2017 10:47 AM  

The climate change lunatics always act as if the present climate is somehow absolutely optimal. But we are never told why this is so. Maybe a boatload of AGW makes things a whole lot better overall.

Assume they're correct. The Maldives goes under the waves but gigantic swathes of Canada and Russia become generally habitable. Sorry Maldivians, but I'll take that exchange. Grow pineapples in Montana, palm trees in Pittsburgh. Sounds good to me.

Blogger wreckage June 02, 2017 10:56 AM  

@131, I can't read Polish, but that's very clearly a little university grabbing some Climate funding to study something worthwhile. It's a very common strategy amongst the actual science departments, who are starved of funding. My own observations would be that strong, fast growth with reduced water stress strongly favoured crops over weeds in non-irrigated wheat here in Australia; except for a number of weeds encouraged by our cultural practices, we had reduced trouble with most weeds from the early 90s to the mid 2000s.

Organic weed control methods do not care if the weeds are growing more strongly or not, so again, any increase in vigour will favour the crops - perhaps more so in organic cropping than conventional; I hope to be able to speak more authoritatively on that over the next ten years or so as I gain some first-hand experience.

But, broadly speaking, vigorous weeds are easier to manage than stressed ones. By far the most difficult to manage are those that grow intermittently but opportunistically, never attaining great health but still drawing down resources. Strong, healthy weeds are much better targets for cultural or chemical control.

Anonymous kfg June 02, 2017 11:09 AM  

Gold, . . . Mercury and Silver 1985, Tin 1987, Zinc 1990, . . . Copper, Lead . . ."

. . . are elements. They can be lost to use, but are not used up in use.

Copper was supposed to "run out" in the 20s. 1993 is the new new old date for the copper rapture, but 80% of copper ever mined is still available for immediate use and total amount available continues to increase every day.

What can happen is that the rate of increase slows. Perhaps at some point it could reach homeostasis, but the copper we have we will still have. The power lines are not going to disappear in a puff of illogic and leave us in an electricity free world (and never mind that there are other things that conduct electricity).

Blogger Tom Kratman June 02, 2017 11:15 AM  

"According to past SCOTUS decisions treaties supersede our own constitution."

Not really, no; the only times I can think of we've subordinated ourselves in any way were a) de minimis, and b) had enabling legislation attached. But any arm of the state lacks the power under the constitution to create law on its own. The left cannot do, with the senate, the prez, or the two together, anything that would require bicameral approval and presentment, or those plus amendment voted for in sufficient of the states. Thus, treaties can do some things, but not all that much.

The left has been trying this for a while, and have had surprisingly little success with it, given how long and hard they've been trying. The success they have had is in good part due to the Supreme Court recognizing the problem of the wording of the constitution and trying to duck the issue. But it can't be ducked much longer.

Now, of course, if the Supreme Court were to permit it then it would be lamppost time.

Blogger The Remnant June 02, 2017 11:58 AM  

Well played, Mr. Trump. The climate-change cult is based on lies of both philosophical and empirical dimensions.

Nobody knows what temperature the Earth is "supposed" to be (it's been both far warmer and far cooler). Nobody knows what the "right" amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide is (there have been several orders of magnitude more of it). Humanity's contribution of carbon dioxide is an infinitesimal portion, so even subjecting all of us to slavery won't make a lick of difference. And the empirical data -- whose manipulation in the service of politics is a matter of record -- do not support the environmentalist narrative anyway.

Yet there remain so many Americans eager to sacrifice their freedom and independence on the altar of this cult. I believe it's a result of their own spiritual poverty, since they must replace the God they have rejected with a golden calf.

Blogger szopen June 02, 2017 12:49 PM  

BunE22 wrote:szopen This is interesting: [bunch of links]

Note I am not saying there were no scientists fearing GLobal Cooling. There were. What I am saying is that there was no consensus then; that at the time, scientists were divided on the issue.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1

"One way to determine what scientists
think is to ask them. This was actually done
in 1977 following the severe 1976/77 winter in the
eastern United States. “Collectively,” the 24 eminent
climatologists responding to the survey “tended
to anticipate a slight global warming rather than
a cooling”"

"we conducted a rigorous literature review
of the American Meteorological Society’s electronic
archives as well as those of Nature and the scholarly
journal archive Journal Storage (JSTOR). To capture
the relevant topics, we used global temperature, global
warming, and global cooling, as well as a variety of
other less directly relevant search terms." [cut the methodology - if you interested, read the paper, it's freely available]

"The survey identified only 7 articles indicating
cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those
seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the
citations"

Actually, the paper arguably had methodological flaws and my hunch is that actually there could be majority, especially when counting also the 1960s. But the point was that there was no consensus comparable to today's. And even if it was, that fact cannot be used as an argument; just as the fact that majority of scientists once believed in flogiston does not mean one should not stop believing the physicists. The theories should be evaluated on their own, not on the validity of the past theories, or on character or morality of the people who propose the theory. It could be that all of the thousands and thousands of climatologists are all willing to lie, that they are zealots and fanatics; but it does not mean the theory is false because of that. On the contrary, all the climate sceptics may be saints, who never lie; if they theories suck and are false, then they suck and are false.

Blogger Duke Norfolk June 02, 2017 12:57 PM  

Actually I think it's important to stress that it's really about CAGW (catastrophic) vs. just AGW. Even if we cede the point the all or some of the warming (which has been modest and very likely normal) has been caused by humans, the notion that it will be catastrophic sometime in the future is totally based on computer models and positive feedbacks that will ostensibly create a runaway heating effect. But, of course, that is belied by the past, and the nature of natural systems to tend toward equilibrium with many negative feedbacks which are easily seen.

But of course whenever this is debated the alarmists engage in classic sophistry, continually moving the goalposts, obfuscating things with a masterful shell game of facts, figures, consensus, etc. ad nauseum. And, of course, outright lies. The credibility of the most ardent advocates has been thoroughly trashed numerous times. It doesn't matter what they say now, I won't believe them. They could tell me the sky is blue...

Anonymous kfg June 02, 2017 2:35 PM  

"They could tell me the sky is blue..."

http://en.es-static.us/upl/2014/12/sunset-crepuscular-rays-December-2013-Phil-Rettke-Photography-e1417956345300.jpg

Blogger James Dixon June 02, 2017 2:38 PM  

> Of course, if "my side" is right, it would be then too late to do anything about it without radical geoengineering. Some say it is already too late.

If the math your side is using is correct, it's far too late. It was probably too late 30 years ago.

Blogger James Dixon June 02, 2017 2:39 PM  

> The credibility of the most ardent advocates has been thoroughly trashed numerous times. It doesn't matter what they say now, I won't believe them. They could tell me the sky is blue...

I've pointed this out to Mr. Rational several times now, but it seems to go right over his head. I'm not going to accept anything proven liars tell me without really good evidence.

Blogger Robert What? June 02, 2017 6:35 PM  

Does this mean that Trump is coming out from under his daughter's thumb?

Blogger Snidely Whiplash June 02, 2017 8:15 PM  

Robert What? wrote:Does this mean that Trump is coming out from under his daughter's thumb?
No.
It means you don't understand the man at all. You listen to media and believe what they say. He's not the kind who takes direction from a woman.

Blogger SOMBATH June 03, 2017 7:20 AM  

gclub
ทางเข้าจีคลับ
gclub casino
บาคาร่า
gclub online
"The survey identified only 7 articles indicating
cooling compared to 44 indicating warming. Those
seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the
citations"

Blogger Robert What? June 03, 2017 8:55 AM  

@Snidely Whiplash

"It means you don't understand the man at all. You listen to media and believe what they say. He's not the kind who takes direction from a woman."

She's not just "a woman"; she's his daughter. How do you explain President Trump almost completely reversing the foreign policy platforms of Candidate Trump?

Blogger wreckage June 03, 2017 10:44 AM  

"How do you explain President Trump almost completely reversing the foreign policy platforms of Candidate Trump?"

The same way I explain Tokyo being destroyed by a giant robot.

Blogger Robert What? June 03, 2017 1:01 PM  

@Wreckage

"The same way I explain Tokyo being destroyed by a giant robot."

I'm sure that was meant to be witty and all, but I'm a bit slow. So watzitmean?

Anonymous Avalanche June 03, 2017 4:07 PM  

Buy a warm jacket!
Random bits from around:

At least five major ice ages have occurred throughout Earth's history: the earliest was over 2 billion years ago, and the most recent one began approximately 3 million years ago and continues today (yes, we live in an ice age!). Currently, we are in a warm interglacial that began about 11,000 years ago.

There were very few Ice Ages until about 2.75 million years ago when Earth's climate entered an unusual period of instability. Starting about a million years ago cycles of ice ages lasting about 100,000 years, separated by relatively short interglacial perioods, like the one we are now living in became the rule.

Northern Hemisphere glaciation during the Last Glacial Maximum. The creation of 3 to 4 km (1.9 to 2.5 mi) thick ice sheets equate to a global sea level drop of about 120 m (390 ft).

A glacial period (alternatively glacial or glaciation) is an interval of time (thousands of years) within an ice age that is marked by colder temperatures and glacier advances. Interglacials, on the other hand, are periods of warmer climate between glacial periods. The last glacial period ended about 15,000 years ago.

An interglacial period (or alternatively interglacial) is a geological interval of warmer global average temperature lasting thousands of years that separates consecutive glacial periods within an ice age. The current Holocene interglacial began at the end of the Pleistocene, about 11,700 years ago.

The new results from the NEEM ice core drilling project in northwest Greenland, led by the Niels Bohr Institute at the University of Copenhagen show that the climate in Greenland was around 8 degrees C warmer than today during the last interglacial period, the Eemian period, 130,000 to 115,000 thousand years ago.

The Younger Dryas is one of the most well-known examples of abrupt change. About 14,500 years ago, the Earth's climate began to shift from a cold glacial world to a warmer interglacial state.


======================
Finally: Short article (http://www.winningreen.com/site/epage/59549_621.htm), from which:
...
The last "little" Ice Age started as early as the 14th century when the Baltic Sea froze over followed by unseasonable cold, storms, and a rise in the level of the Caspian Sea. That was followed by the extinction of the Norse settlements in Greenland and the loss of grain cultivation in Iceland. Harvests were even severely reduced in Scandinavia And this was a mere foreshadowing of the miseries to come.

By the mid-17th century, glaciers in the Swiss Alps advanced, wiping out farms and entire villages. In England, the River Thames froze during the winter, and in 1780, New York Harbor froze. Had this continued, history would have been very different. Luckily, the decrease in solar activity that caused the Little Ice Age ended and the result was the continued flowering of modern civilization.

There were very few Ice Ages until about 2.75 million years ago when Earth's climate entered an unusual period of instability. Starting about a million years ago cycles of ice ages lasting about 100,000 years, separated by relatively short interglacial periods, like the one we are now living in became the rule. Before the onset of the Ice Ages, and for most of the Earth's history, it was far warmer than it is today.

Indeed, the Sun has been getting brighter over the whole history of the Earth and large land plants have flourished. Both of these had the effect of dropping carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere to the lowest level in Earth's long history.

Five hundred million years ago, carbon dioxide concentrations were over 13 times current levels; and not until about 20 million years ago did carbon dioxide levels drop to a little less than twice what they are today.
...
NASA has predicted that the solar cycle peaking in 2022 could be one of the weakest in centuries and should cause a very significant cooling of Earth's climate. Will this be the trigger that initiates a new Ice Age?
...

Anonymous kfg June 03, 2017 4:22 PM  

@158:

FX

Anonymous Mr. Rational June 04, 2017 1:47 AM  

Forrest Bishop wrote:Most of what we call weeds are associated with grasslands. But grasslands are the result of lower C02 levels, of CO2 starvation.
Self-evident bullshit.  The Sahara was a forest when CO2 levels were far lower than the immediate pre-industrial 275 ppm.  So was the Amazon basin.  Rainfall and temperature determine what is a forest and what is a grassland, not CO2.

High CO2 favors woody vines over trees.  I'm fighting a number of infestations which are literally killing my trees.  Most is wild grape, but there's a lot of something I don't recognize.

rienzi wrote:The Maldives goes under the waves but gigantic swathes of Canada and Russia become generally habitable.
But they don't have any soils worth talking about, so you will not be able to grow much of anything on them.  (Not that the soils in Iowa will be good for much longer, as most of what was there is now in the Gulf of Mexico.  We've been doing really shitty management.)

Grow pineapples in Montana, palm trees in Pittsburgh. Sounds good to me.
How does endemic malaria and yellow fever north to Yellowknife sound to you?

The Remnant wrote:Humanity's contribution of carbon dioxide is an infinitesimal portion
I just calculated that.  Humanity's contribution is roughly equivalent to a 35-inch layer of pure CO2 at sea-level pressure.  (I could have goofed this up.  Figure 130 ppm by volume, MW 44 compared to 29 for air and work from there.)  Humanity's contribution is almost 1/3 of all the CO2 now in the atmosphere.

even subjecting all of us to slavery won't make a lick of difference.
But converting all our electric power to nuclear and changing our ag practices would.

James Dixon wrote:> The credibility of the most ardent advocates has been thoroughly trashed numerous times. It doesn't matter what they say now, I won't believe them. They could tell me the sky is blue...

I've pointed this out to Mr. Rational several times now

And you keep ignoring that the advocates don't matter, only the science does.  If someone is pushing globalist non-solutions, ignore them.  They are not worth listening to; their positions may be designed to discredit the truth by their association with them.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts