Key quotes from this video: “Climate Change is a Religion!” Oh My Lord Jesus! Another great quote: “Do what really helps people.” This would not be throw billions at climate change
The US has climate goals and the world has climate goals. So, what of them? We aren’t seeing much change to meet those goals. The goals seem arbitrary to the informed and to the average person. Is the average person concerned or knowledgeable significantly?More
The neighbor across the border chimes in on a view of the Paris Climate agreement. I wonder if he is typical of Canadians?
The Paris Agreement is nothing but a lofty and symbolic United Nations initiative – one that facilitates smug liberal virtue-signaling, big government intervention in the economy and socialist redistribution of wealth.
Here is Marlo Lewis’ take on one view of the Paris Agreement/Treaty. It is an interesting one and his thoughts were published before the Trump announcement.
The Paris Agreement was the capstone of President Obama’s climate action plan, the political strategy by which he intended to give the Clean Power Plan and other legally dubious climate policies a treaty-like status, but without going through the constitutional treaty process.
By relabeling his domestic climate agenda as commitments America made to the world, he tried to dictate U.S. energy policy for decades to come regardless of the preferences of future presidents, Congresses, and voters. It was a climate coup of breathtaking ambition, and the treaty’s supporters at home and abroad did all they could to misdirect the debate and pressure Trump to break his campaign promise. President Trump kept an open mind, listened to all sides, and made the right decision for America and the world.
Exiting the Paris Climate Agreement overturns Obama’s end run around the Constitution’s treaty process, safeguards American democracy from foreign interference, dispels the Agreement’s long shadow over the U.S. energy and manufacturing sectors, foils corporate schemes to enrich special interests at consumers and taxpayers’ expense, and helps ensure developing countries will have the access to affordable energy they need to lift people out of poverty.
Read more of Marlo’s thoughts here.
Bottom line, President Trump gave good reasons for pulling out of the Paris Accord.
In recent months I have been all over the spectrum on issues related to climate change. I was up late last night watching a presentation by Lord Monckton of the UK on climate change data from the IPCC. Based on Lord Monckton’s analysis, credibility of the IPCC process is called into question.
The IPCC has built into it’s computer modeling weighting which favors the data giving the expected outcome, the “hockey stick” projected temperature outcome.
With the new hockey stick chart and projections the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age disappeared. What caused that? The scientists and technicians who support the IPCC are not consistent. I know it is in tiny print but the chart identifies as IPCC 1990.
Some say that Michael Mann was hired by the IPCC to “smooth” the data and get rid of the Medieval warm period and the Little ice age.
Now the IPCC is producing what academics call “post-normal science” while NIPCC (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) is producing old-fashioned “real science.” “Post-normal science” comes from massaged data. Can we really trust the IPCC?
Should the USA, or any other country in the world, make laws and change lives based or massaged data? Not this year. Not until the data is firmed up and accurate. The response should not be made on hidden agendas and post-normal science.
There are rational responses to the issues raised by climate. But please don’t base responses on data built on agendas.
These are only my thoughts in summary form. There is so much data out supporting these thoughts.
We all have to keep these thoughts in mind in the conversation about climate change. The science is not firm yet.
Here are two scientists with the most level-headed take on climate change in my view. Take a look.
Rachel Martin talks to climate scientist Katharine Hayhoe, who stresses how unproductive it is to label someone a “climate denier.”
Ms. Hayhoe has found a way to find agreement without castigating people and their beliefs. I personally believe in the responses to proposed climate change that Ms. Hayhoe gives at the end of the interview.More