Paris Agreement Climate Change

Trump Announces Withdrawal From Paris Climate Deal. What Happens Now?

The climate after Trump

|

MakeEarthGreatAgainZazzle
Zazzle

President Donald Trump is withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Agreement on climate change, announcing today that he hopes to negotiate a new and "fair" climate deal. What will the withdrawal mean for the climate?

Following the Paris agreement, the Obama administration pledged to cut the country's greenhouse gas emissions to 26-28 percent below their 2005 levels. According to Climate Interactive, that would account for 21 percent of the world's greenhouse gas reductions by 2030. In the unlikely scenario that the U.S. adopts no climate policies at all, Climate Interactive estimates that American emissions would amount to 6.7 gigatons of CO2 equivalents per year by 2025, compared to emissions of 5.3 gigatons per year if the U.S. follows through on its Paris commitments. Global annual emissions would be 57.3 gigatons per year instead of 55.8 gigatons per year, a difference of nearly 3 percent:

ClimateInterActiveUS
Climate Interactive

In March, the Rhodium Group consultancy calculated what would happen to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions if President Trump's executive order rolling back most Obama-era energy and climate regulations were fully implemented:

RhodiumTrumpPolicies
Rhodium

Basically, emissions would stabilize at around 14 percent below their 2005 levels—nowhere near Obama's 28 percent Paris pledge.

So what would happen to global temperatures' trajectory if Trump repudiates the Paris Agreement and stops trying to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions?

Climate Interactive calculates that implementing every country's carbon-reduction pledges made under the Paris Agreement would result in a global average temperature increase of 3.3 degrees Celsius:

ClimateInteractiveGlobal
Climate Interactive

Humanity would have to stop emitting greenhouse gasses entirely by around 2065, if the goal is to keep the future temperature increase below 1.5 degree Celsius. The folks at the Climate Action Tracker basically concur that the Paris pledges would limit warming to about 2.8 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels—or in probabilistic terms, that they would likely limit warming below 3.1 degrees Celsius.

In the November 2016 issue of Global Environmental Change, a group of European climate researchers modeled the impact of the policies implied by the Paris Agreement on future global average temperatures:

EUTempChart
GEC

The researchers considered (1) all climate policies announced before the Paris Agreement; (2) each country's pledged emission reductions after Paris; and (3) the reductions it would actually take to keep the average global temperature increase below 2 degrees Celsius by 2100. As you can see, merely implementing the Paris pledges would implies a global average temperature increase of 3 degrees Celsius.

In a November 2015 article published in Global Policy, Copenhagen Consensus Center head Bjorn Lomborg calculated that implementing just the Paris pledges over the course of the entire century would reduce future warming by 0.17 degree Celsius by 2100:

LomborgParis
Lomborg

Clearly all climate modelers calculate that much deeper cuts in greenhouse gas emissions would have to be made in order to meet the Paris targets.

Make the heroic assumption that the climate models are right: What should be done? In an article for Foreign Affairs, the eco-modernists over at the Breakthrough Institute advocate policies encouraging the innovation that would make carbon-free energy cheaper than that provided by burning fossil fuels. This might include, among other things, the entrepreneurial development of radically safer and cheaper nuclear power.

My own solution for any problems that might arise from man-made climate change (and for most other challenges faced by humanity) is to adopt policies that boost technological innovation and wealth creation. For details on what that would entail, go here.

NEXT: Is It Wrong for Old People to Receive Blood Infusions From Teenagers?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. What will the withdrawal mean for the climate?

    Exactly what the original signing meant for the climate: fuck all.

    1. No, the Withdrawal will mean some of the most nausea-inducing headlines since Trump won the election in November.

      1. Yeah, but that doesn’t affect the climate.

        1. You’re telling me all that hot air won’t affect the climate?

          Whatever, Hitler.

          1. …all that hot air won’t affect the climate?

            It’ll be offset by an increase in particulates from all the vomiting. IOW, tiny particles of vomit will hang in the air, decreasing the amount of sunlight reaching the surface thereby offsetting the heating effect of the hot air.

            1. I’m making over $7k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

              This is what I do… http://www.webcash10.com

      2. You mean since The Don was declared the winner in secret and unverifiable illictions counted by looters of both factions? The europeans did the same thing in 1920, trying to get Murrican chumps into the League of Nations tht export Morphine. Then they tried to welsh on war loans–the whole reason doughboys went Over There, then they manipulated Germany into whining to Hoover for a Moratorium on Brains so they could all default on war loans and commercial paper debt.
        Democrats and Republicans make Americans look like carnival fairway suckers to Eurotrash sharpsters.

    2. Pretty much exactly this.

    3. Hey, the purpose of life is to hydrogenate carbon dioxide. More CO2 just means more hydrogenation for the taking.

      1. MAKE METHANOGENS GREAT AGAIN!

        1. Make ’em all legal first.

    4. Nay, one half the square root of fuck all.

    5. What will the withdrawal mean for the climate?

      The climate will continue to change in ways no one can accurately predict. Plants will enjoy higher growth rates, however.

      1. Unless we clear all the plants out to make room for parking lots.

      2. There will be decreasing growth rates in the tropical zones. The midwest United States will see decreased growth rates with our cereal grains.

        1. Oh my god!!!!!!!

          What we need is some kind of scientific answer where perhaps genetically modifying seeds and improving farming techniques can better deal with weather related irregularities and improve yields thus feeding more people all over the globe for less money.

          Its as though humans are capable of dealing with problems with market related solutions and they don’t need government’s help at all.
          Come to think of it, not signing onto a treaty that only enriches scumbags might be a great thing for humanity.
          And crop yields will not decrease in the slightest because profit driven market solutions have a much better track record of alleviating these potential concerns than any thing cunt Hillary could dream up.

        2. How come food production continues to rise and we’ve already added 120 PPM of carbon to the atmosphere?

    6. Paris accord=more tax money for bureaucrats and politicians to play with and market manipulation to make said politicians/bureaucrats and their buddies insanely rich. It really is just that simple.

      1. Paris accord = slush funds for unaccountable international apparatchiks
        Money for the worldwide Deep State

        Fuck that with a rusty pipe

  2. Nearly three percent? Noooooo! It’s the end of the worlllllllllduh!

  3. USA! USA! FOUR MORE YEARS! FOUR MORE YEARS!

    1. If he keeps doing things like this I’ll vote for him again.

    2. I love this president!

      1. #somuchwinning

  4. If the ‘free market’ is killing coal then why do we need supranational regulations to limit coal production through the Paris Agreement? Can you square that, because both those statements cannot coexist

    1. Regulations are killing coal by artificially raising the free market price! Duh!

    2. It’s killing coal slowly, but if we don’t eliminate it by 100% immediately and thrust the plebs back to the medieval era right away, then the ramifications will be ‘Uge! ‘Uge I tell you! So much more ‘Uge than the POTUS’s tiny hands!

      Don’t worry, Waka, if you’re wealthy and powerful enough, or close enough to those who are, you’ll be allowed to have electricity, and to heat your home in the winter.

      1. Burning coal is just unhealthy for life on earth and natural gas is a cheaper, better source.

        https://goo.gl/OK8Kf7

        Cheap Natural Gas To Spark Another Wave Of Coal Plant Retirements

        1. ^^ This means renewableguy is pro fracking. +1
          (Usually his comments are idiotic so this one-off must have been a typo)

    3. If the ‘free market’ is killing coal then why do we need supranational regulations to limit coal production through the Paris Agreement?

      Oddly, NPR asked some congress critter exactly this just this morning. My jaw nearly hit the floor.

      He spewed some word salad about priorities and how we can’t give up on the earth, etc., etc.

      The interviewer, unsurprisingly, didn’t point out that he didn’t address the question even a little bit.

    4. Because all the anti-fracking dickheads are doing their best to make coal great again.

      1. The bible-humping assholes who run my state were forced to regulate fracking because we were sick of all the earthquakes it was causing. Are these Republicans the dickheads you’re referring to?

        1. So you’re saying they didn’t actually stop fracking, just created rules on its extraction?

          1. No, the Republicans shut down wells to stop the earthquakes.

            1. Did they shut down the wells, or did they change they wastewater disposal practices?

              Because if anything, it was improper wastewater disposal that was causing earthquakes, not the wells. And fracking is far from unique in producing wastewater that is disposed of in injection wells.

              Try harder.

              1. Ok is an example of poor tax cutting policies, with related industry deregulation.

                Now the state is broke, has done nothing but cut the public school systems’s budget, and for years. There are those that are suggesting privatizing the whole system in order to get greater savings. The same applies to other areas, such as prisons. Meanwhile, they decided to keep hiring for other state agencies and give out a few raises.

                While one can argue (and I agree partially on both) about how inefficient the school system can be, and how it starts a process of indoctrination, but it is still better than nothing, most of the time, and there are plenty of failed charter school examples out there

                That example in OK is my fear with the incoming tax reform. The POTUS has his eyes on the huge cash reserves set by Apple, Microsoft, etc… (a a big factor with the tax reform) but these companies are already running plenty of R&D . Do you guys really see that money being re-invested? I am not sure, but I ask the question. Would Alphabet invest more on a self driving car if they had access to that cash?

                Are we not gambling that these companies, that have cash reserves both here and abroad, will invest when they do not think they need to now? I just feel that if Apple had the next big idea, they would just develop it, and sell it as they do now. I do not think they are not using that reserve just because they can not bring it to the USA. Thoughts?

                Sorry for being off topic.

          2. BTW I didn’t sign up for any earthquakes. Who can I sue?

            1. Ask the Californians.

            2. BTW, they shut down 37 wells, not the entire fracking operation in the state.

            3. Tony|6.1.17 @ 5:36PM|#
              “BTW I didn’t sign up for any earthquakes. Who can I sue?”

              BTW, I didn’t sign up for a piles of lefty shit; can I sue you?

            4. I didn’t sign up for the income tax or the Affordable Care Act.

            5. BTW I didn’t sign up for any earthquakes. Who can I sue?

              The regulators who mandate disposal of the wastewater into underground injection wells?

            6. Actually, we didn’t sign up for the Paris accord, either. It was done by government fiat.

        2. Poor Tony.

          Living in Povertytown, Oklahoma.

          * Throws dollar in Tony’s hat *

          1. You’d think for how much he bitches about the Bible-humpers there, he’d be looking to move somewhere that won’t put him at risk for being the next Matthew Shepherd.

            1. He’d move to California, but, cost of living, you know.

              And not a teachable moment to be had.

            2. Living near Oklahoma, I have to assume he stays there because he fits in with the locals

              Intellectually, I mean.

            3. Yeh, yet Democrats have enacted more destructive policies corroding American life in the South for over a century than any Bible-Humpers could even imagine.

            4. I could abandon my entire family and all my friends and move somewhere with 5 times the cost of living, but I’m happy just visiting those places.

  5. The Climate After Trump
    What happens now?

    If journalist’s reactions are any indication, it’ll be Armageddon with women and minorities hardest hit.

    Seriously.

    I dare any of you motherfuckers to head over to huffpo main page. I dare you. I double dog dare you.

    1. I kid you not. This is the ACLU’s response:

      “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.”

      It’s like they’re trying to get people to not care.

      1. For the first time since November, there’s a tiny part of me that’s becoming a Trump supporter.

        1. Second best thing he’s done (Gorsuch being first). Maybe the only two good things he’s done, other than giving the right people the sadz

          1. I think some of the trolling has been fairly entertaining, Covfefe.

        2. I still hate the guy, but even I would admit that he has somehow managed to OBumble better than Mr. Uh himself.

          It’s as if the entire world woke up and realized they aren’t children, and America isn’t actually their Uncle Sam. When most children grow up, they do tend to realize their parents didn’t have a clue what they were doing.

          It’s not that surprising that so many people have a problem with the American hegemon slowing it’s roll though. A lot of people have paid good money to keep it on the rails but those idiot voters in that idiot Republic keep failing to do what other people, in other countries, with their own interests want us to do regardless of our own interests.

          HOW DARE WE!

    2. It will be so horrible that no progtard should take a chance. They should all kill themselves now, to avoid their horrible fates.

      1. That would reduce the U.S. CO2 output by almost half immediately and solve the problem. I think you found the solution.

        1. More than half. What, you think they eat their own dog food?

      2. Is “progtard” a virtue signal yet?

        The right wing terminology is just as hideous as the left.

        Can’t people just use language creatively? Aren’t libertarians supposed to prize innovation?

        E.G. Pugnacious psuedo progressive practicioner with brain limitations
        Progistanni (from Progistan)
        Virtue buggerer.

        Off the top of my head.

  6. BTW, I was hearing NPR’s McGuffin Journalism approach to the story.

    The good guys want to hold on to the Paris Orb Of Climate Power, the bad guys don’t want the good guys to have it, but nary a single fucking word of what the Paris Orb of Climate Power does. Not one. Just a movie about the characters who’re trying to control it.

    1. Yes. And I caught on NPR the last two days a sudden, jarring new narrative: Leaving the Paris Accord is turning against globalism and toward nationalism, recanting the US’s position of global leadership. The Hell?

      The lemming that stops before the cliff and tries to go the other direction is the leader.

      1. Poor lemmings. Everyone knows they don’t actually run off cliffs en masse, right?

        I think people are the only animals that do things like that deliberately.

      2. Seriously. Watch how many other countries pull out now – it’ll be a freakin’ stampede.

        1. since they can’t get money from the U.S. why be in it

      3. The same left that was screaming for the US to stop being the ‘world’s policemen’ and discontinue its ‘imperialistic ways’ are now upset that we’re supposedly pulling back from the global stage and that Europe’s nations may start to take more control of their own affairs.

        1. Yeah, I think the left abandoned the ‘world’s policeman’ gripe around 1992.

      4. Yeah it’s fucking pathetic. They’re trying to paint Pruitt as a “nationalist” and are suddenly talking nice about Rex Tillerson the globalist good guy. Hey look, what’s that over there?

    2. Just call it a ring with vague powers, and hand the thing to some exceedingly short people. I hear they are very resistant to mysterious powers.

    3. Narrative bro. Narratives.

    4. Standard Operating Procedure for Leftist journalism

      It’s all “whose side are you on?” Here are the good guys, here are the bad guys. Boo bad guys! BOOOO!

      It has infuriated me since I was a kid. I’m twelve years old asking “are they ever going to tell me what the fucking law actually does?” I was young and naive. I thought journalists wanted to communicate reality.

  7. Withdrawal, as in pulling out?

    That is like the least effective means of birth control and stuff.

  8. Beautiful!! Here’s hoping Tom Steyer and George Soros both become so apoplectic with rage that they die of a stroke.

    1. Steyer is already calling it an act of War

      1. May he be the first casualty; the world would be a much better place.

      2. I will give Steyer my fossil fuels when he peies it from my coal, dead hands.

      3. I will give Steyer my fossil fuels when he pries it from my coal, dead hands.

    2. > Here’s hoping Tom Steyer and George Soros both become so apoplectic with rage that they die of a stroke.

      Steyer is just pissed off because he stood to make a lot more money off of the massive wealth redistribution – the exact same reason the global elites are throwing fits.

  9. Ron,

    Disappointed (but unsurprised) to see you linking to the fabulists at Climate Interactive especially absent a disclaimer re their obvious detachment from reality.

    On their site, they explain how their models work.

    The C-ROADS reference scenario (also called “business as usual”) accounts for the UN’s medium fertility population projections, historical GDP per capita rates that converge over time to be consistent with other integrated assessment models, and GHG per capita projections for each gas that reflect trends over the last decade for CO2 and follow the IPCC’s RCP8.5 for the non-CO2 greenhouse gases.

    The RCP 8.5 scenario is not “business as usual.” It’s an utterly unrealistic pathway to get 8.5 watts per meter extra heating out of greenhouse gases:

    RCP8.5 gets the most attention. It assumes the fastest population growth (a doubling of Earth’s population to 12 billion), the lowest rate of technology development, slow GDP growth, a massive increase in world poverty, plus high energy use and emissions.

    It has no more business in an article on climate change than pronouncements from the flat earth society.

    1. And those who are tempted to think that the fact that they follow RCP 8.5 for non CO2 greenhouse gases means that it’s more realistic than the complete scenario should bear in mind that the warming directly from CO2 is not that great. It’s the other non CO2 greenhouse gases that are released as a result of the CO2 warming that really govern how much or how little the Earth will warm. And under RCP 8.5, most of the warming is due to water vapor, methane and other greenhouse gases.

      1. t: I hear you – the links and charts are to give readers a sense of the claims that are being made. I do note that Lomborg’s analysis used RCP8.5 as well. BTW, some analysts think that global emissions are currently on that pathway.

        1. The problem is the bait and switch.

          There used to be two future scenarios, SRES A1 and A2, that were environmentally unaware. But A1, due to business as usual growth and global harmony projections, generally fares well in benefits against costs even with its higher warming. A2 looks bad by adding dysfunction to constrain growth and make environmentally conscious B1 actually look better.

          So what is the response of climate researchers? In the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s Third National Climate Assessment, we find this:

          1. Perspectives on “plausible” emissions scenarios evolve over time. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has released three different sets of scenarios since 1990. In 2000, the IPCC released a Special Report on Emission Scenarios 1 that provided a set of scenarios, known as the SRES, which described a wide range of socioeconomic futures and resulting emissions. Near the higher end of the range, the SRES A2 scenario represents a world with high population growth, low economic growth, relatively slow technology improvements and diffusion, and other factors that contribute to high emissions and lower adaptive capacity (for example, low per capita wealth). At the lower end of the range, the SRES B1 scenario represents a world with lower population growth, higher economic development, a shift to low-emitting efficient energy technologies that are diffused rapidly around the world through free trade, and other conditions that reduce the rate and magnitude of climate change as well as increase capacity for adaptation. The SRES A2 and B1 scenarios are the foundation scenarios used in this assessment to evaluate future impacts.

            To further obscure the fraud, they’ve just renamed A2 to RCP8.5.

        2. 1) Past performance =/= future results. Clearly, since none of their predictions have ever been right. None.

          2) This is one grand appeal to authority. It’s obnoxious.

          1. Ron loves him some Top Men.

        3. some analysts think that global emissions are currently on that pathway.

          And some civil engineers also think that jet fuel not burning hot enough to melt steel, WTC 1 & 2 must have been brought down by demolition. That doesn’t mean that the demolition theory has any credibility – it means the civil engineers are either bad engineers or maliciously misrepresenters. And any knowledgeable journalist who covers civil engineering has some duty to point out the flaw in their argument (hot steel plastically deforms at a lower compressive stress than cold steel). If they fail to do so, they are complicit in misleading their audience.

          Bluntly, it’s this sort of misleading faux even-handedness on your part that has caused me to nearly cease reading your writing, Ron. Your coverage of climategate was deficient. Your coverage of the hounding of Willie Soon was atrocious. Your coverage of the Exxon Knew campaign was misleading to the point of being unethical. I don’t make that charge lightly. You interacted with the commentariat, and had to have seen the links to eelegal.org and the Climate Accountability Institute’s website laying out the extortion scam. You actually have the threads to a major investigative book as earth-shaking as anything Radley Balko produced. And yet you stay quiet. If I were the editor of Reason magazine, knowing how deficient your writing on this subject has been, I would without hesitation can your ass.

          1. Someone had to say it!

            Thanks.

        4. Bailey’s Blinded By Scientism.

    2. Enough about the details, just tell me who wants the deal and who doesn’t want it. That’s a faster way of helping me decide whether it’s good or not.

      1. interestingly enough all the evil corporations are now being touted as good corporations for wanting to stay in the deal. what they don’t count on is that no matter what tax you put on fossil fuels the corporations still makes money and many corporations were just looking for government hand outs in order to comply with any regulations imposed on them. Just like Elon Musk since why buy electric cars if fossil fuel is still allowed

        1. Large corporations actually like regulations because it’s a barrier to entry into the market. Companies with teams of lawyers and compliance staff can comply with regulations more easily than, say, a startup company. Just another way that regulations pick winners and losers.

          1. > Large corporations actually like regulations because it’s a barrier to entry into the market.

            Precisely. And, they also actually believe that, if they virtue signal, the left is going to leave them alone. It’s just like when Thomas Perez worked for the civil rights division of the justice department. He would sue corporations for “disparate impact,” knowing that the CEOs would not want to deal with it and would rush to settle. Then, the Texas Department of Housing challenged disparate impact and Perez did everything humanly possible to keep it from going to the supreme court.

            If CEOs would just ignore the left, they would go away because being ignored makes them look ineffective. If you settle with them, they’ll smell blood in the water and will keep attacking you.

    3. slow GDP growth, a massive increase in world poverty

      Venezuela has these two down.

    4. I knew you couldn’t really quit us, tarran.

    5. Ron can’t even, right now

    6. We are to believe that these model coders understand the complexities of the world’s climate and the world’s economy.

      Look, if this is true, then Hayek was full of shit: a centrally-controlled economy will work just fine.

    7. https://goo.gl/Zdh8Wx

      In the ways of Trump, and the world to follow him, RCP8.5 is very possible. But then the world doesn’t think Trump. To continue to burn baby burn, is a destruction of life on earth.

      Emissions[edit]
      The RCPs are consistent with a wide range of possible changes in future anthropogenic (i.e., human) greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.[3] RCP 2.6 assumes that global annual GHG emissions (measured in CO2-equivalents) peak between 2010-2020, with emissions declining substantially thereafter.[4] Emissions in RCP 4.5 peak around 2040, then decline.[4] In RCP 6, emissions peak around 2080, then decline.[4] In RCP 8.5, emissions continue to rise throughout the 21st century.[4]
      The four RCPs are consistent with certain socio-economic assumptions but are to be substituted with the Shared Socio-economic Pathways which are anticipated to provide flexible descriptions of possible futures within each RCP.

  10. Trump Announces Withdrawal From Paris Climate Deal. What Happens Now?

    A lot of hysterical bullshit.

    1. I think Slate’s headline is: “Trump to Planet: Drop Dead”

      1. should have wrote “Planet your fired, literally” but they missed that chance

        1. More C Oh Twuuuuge

  11. Make the heroic assumption that the climate models are right: What should be done?

    Why should anyone assume this? And how is making this assumption heroic? Is it heroic because it would take a “heroic” leap of faith to trust the people who have been wrong at every single prediction they’ve made dating back to the “we’re all going to freeze to death!!” fear-mongering of decades past?

    First you published an article today in which you used every means of sophistry you could think of to argue that your government must submit to treaties it hasn’t signed, and that as a result your kinsmen should have no say in their own governance. Now this junk piece. What a crock.

    C’mon Bailey, you can do better than this. Much better.

    1. K: you used every means of sophistry you could think of to argue that your government must submit to treaties it hasn’t signed – Say what? I was just explaining the legal background and controversies over international agreements. FWIW, I still think he should have submitted to the Senate for advice and consent.

      1. To pull out of an agree,met that was never voted on by the Senate in the first place? What the fuck for?

        1. EK: I think that it would provide for more democratic accountability and enable the American public to weigh in on the debate over climate change policies. My hope is that it would help depolarize this issue at least somewhat.

          1. I agree that he should have brought the agreement to the Senate, but it’s hard to ‘depolarize’ an issue that literally costs jobs for working people and rewards money to billionaires like Elon Musk

            1. There is always a billionaire making money. It was taking from one to another. I have a feeling the jobs numbers could have been dealt with a little bit better with some job training to shift some of the available man power, but maybe not, as it seems as if every one in West Virginia just sat around waiting for coal to come back. I wish them good luck, and do not forget the canary on the way down.

          2. enable the American public to weigh in on the debate over climate change policies

            What the hell does the Senate have to do with the “American public” weighing in on anything?

            1. This. Over and over again, this.

              Bailey is the science guy, just not the political science guy.

              1. W & SoT: Never heard of writing your congresscritter?

                1. They don’t give a shit what I have to say. I’m in a safe district, and as I am in WA, it’s progtopia here. Especially since we have arguably, the dumbest memeber of the senate here, Patty Murray.

                  1. I’m in a safe district, and as I am in WA, it’s progtopia here. Especially since we have arguably, the dumbest memeber of the senate here, Patty Murray.

                    Don’t sell Maria Cantwell short…she’s a special kind of idiot too.

                    Those two are one of my favorite reasons to use the Countable app to directly email them my opinions on their legislative choices. I can absolutely taste the venom when they reply to tell me how they’d never vote for all of those evil conservative/libertarian policies I support.

                2. Ever hear of TARP? Remember the when the American Public weighed in by contacting their Congresscritters? 10 to 1 were against it. It had no effect.

                3. “W & SoT: Never heard of writing your congresscritter?”

                  HAHAHAHAHAHA… oh my god… are you serious???

                  What the Senate decides is not at all the same thing as the american people weighing in on something. Not practically or theoretically. Ron, you seem like a nice fellow, but this is outrageous.

                4. Looters are fond of saying “your” congressman and “your” taxes. In fact one is the government faction looter and the other a bill extorted at gunpoint. Where did Reason find this assistant-to-Jabba-the-Hutt?

          3. Ron, it would certainly be a different approach from the last eight years of the chocolate emperor.

          4. “My hope is that it would help depolarize this issue at least somewhat.”

            I can’t see this.
            The watermelons have the left side staked out, and they’re not going to give an inch; it is their LAST hope of centralized control, and they saw what happened in 1989.
            The other side is pretty fragmented already with denialists at the extreme, luke-warmers like me, and those who simply are convinced humanity is bright enough to deal with it absent government planning.
            So any hope of reducing the polarization is getting movement from the watermelons, and like statists in general, that movement is always toward more control.

      2. Bailey, I like your stuff, and I like that you engage the commenters.

        In your other article you argued that we’re actually bound to the Paris “treaty” because we’re bound to the Vienna “treaty” except we never ratified the Vienna treaty, and even if we did, it would have to withstand a Constitutional Challenge, because it is uncertain whether or not Congress can give up such authority via a mere treaty, and not through a Constitutional Amendment.

        IF the Vienna treaty does in fact bind us, you are arguing that your kinsmen should have zero say in their government’s international policies, because the Senate never ratified it.

        1. K: My understanding right now is that Trump is actually going to go through the 3-year withdrawal procedure as outlined in the Paris agreement.

          1. K: My understanding right now is that Trump is actually going to go through the 3-year withdrawal procedure as outlined in the Paris agreement.

            If that’s true, that would seem to imply that Trump believes that Obama’s entering into the agreement originally was wholly legitimate; it would seem he is the one that believes the people should have no say in these policies. Probably doesn’t want to tie his own hands if he gets in an executive agreeable mood at some point later in the term.

          2. I think we should expect other countries to want out in our wake, too.

            If Australia produces a tiny fraction of America’s greenhouse gas emissions, why should they make sacrifices when their percentage contribution to world greenhouse gas emissions is negligible compared to ours–and we’re making no such sacrifices?

            The Paris accord will make a lot less sense to an awful lot of countries if we’re not making any sacrifices for the accord–and their contribution to world greenhouse gas emissions is a fraction of our own.

            P.S. Someone might tell them that America’s greenhouse gas emissions are projected to continue falling regardless, but I wouldn’t expect that argument to hold much water.

            1. I think we should expect other countries to want out in our wake, too.

              I agree. I see people making comments like “the rest of the world thinks we’re selfish idiots now.” They already thought that anyway. But no, a lot of countries are now jealous and wondering why they allowed themselves to be bullied into it by Europe.

          3. The Volokh guys look at the legal niceties – here

          4. Mistake.

            Trump should go through the 3-second withdrawal of the Constitution – “Never ratified. Not Law. I aint Obama.”

            He should also send the UN a copy of the US Constitution. Highlite the part about ratification of treaties.

      3. Ron, respectfully, I’m gonna disagree very strongly here.

        You don’t use an unconstitutional process to bind 330,000,000 to an agreement they had no representation on, then suddenly turn to a stately democratic process requiring what… 2/3rds of the senate to pull out of it?

        The Paris Climate Agreement isn’t Columbia Records. We don’t automatically get signed up when we do nothing, then have to spend three months making phone calls and signing documents to get out of it.

        1. I don’t want to speak for Ron, but looking over his piece earlier, I believe he was suggesting that Trump submit the agreement/treaty itself to the Senate, not a proposal to withdraw from it; to say that Obama’s earlier entry into it was inconsistent with constitutional obligations and that this would be the “real” decision on whether or not to enter it at all.

          1. Ok, that’s fair, but I’m seeing a distinction without a whole lot of difference.

            Well, there is a difference, but I’m closing my eyes and imagining the fucking wailing when Trump submits an agreement that the Anointed One already agreed to, and watching it inevitably take a 99-0 dump in the Senate (which it would have).

            I mean, we literally have Journalists chin scratching and navel gazing over whether or not Trump can unilaterally back out of an agreement Obama unilaterally agreed on. Trump submitting the PCA to the Senate would have essentially been a way of pulling out of it, using the “fig leaf of democracy”. That would have been your HuffPo headline.

          2. My take also.

          3. Trump could send it to the Senate, but part of our system of checks and balances is that the Executive gets to negotiate treaties and choose which he wants to submit to the Senate for ratification.

            Trump doesn’t want the Treaty. He doesn’t send it.

            That’s the Constitution.

            #somuchwinning

      4. no need to pass bad deals forward since everyone would know he was just passing the buck instead of dealing with a BS treaty like it should scrap paper. He could have passed it on to the senate if they had been involved from the start but they weren’t it was Obama private deal

        1. And ditching it is bringing so many yummy tears and heartache to a lot of despicle progtards today. Why do anything to spoil the mirth?

          1. Four more years = for more tears

            1. So tasty!

      5. The Senate doesn’t provide “advice and consent” on treaties, just concurrence. That’s for appointing those the president nominates for positions in our government.

    2. Is it heroic because it would take a “heroic” leap of faith to trust the people who have been wrong at every single prediction they’ve made dating back to the “we’re all going to freeze to death!!” fear-mongering of decades past?

      That’s how I interpreted it.

    3. I thought the article was pretty informative myself, it’s just reporting what the usual suspects are complaining about this time.

    4. If yyou take out the human contributions to the climate, no model how simple or complicated can reproduce the past average temperature increase. As a matter of fact, they go into slight cooling. The IPCC models are quite accurate of present temperature increases. The long term projections are actually quite accurate based on their won assumptions plugged in. That is why they have several scenarios to show what the future will be in general. If we choose a high carbon emission pathway, the consequences of that decision is laid out before us.

      https://goo.gl/Zdh8Wx

      23rd century
      AR5 also projects changes in climate beyond the 21st century. The extended RCP2.6 pathway assumes sustained net negative anthropogenic GHG emissions after the year 2070.[3] “Negative emissions” means that in total, humans absorb more GHGs from the atmosphere than they release. The extended RCP8.5 pathway assumes continued anthropogenic GHG emissions after 2100.[3] In the extended RCP 2.6 pathway, atmospheric CO2 concentrations reach around 360 ppmv by 2300, while in the extended RCP8.5 pathway, CO2 concentrations reach around 2000 ppmv in 2250, which is nearly seven times the pre-industrial level.[3]
      For the extended RCP2.6 scenario, global warming of 0.0 to 1.2 ?C is projected for the late-23rd century (2281-2300 average), relative to 1986-2005.[6] For the extended RCP8.5, global warming of 3.0 to 12.6 ?C is projected over the same time period.[6]

      1. If you take out the human contributions to the climate, no model how simple or complicated can reproduce the past average temperature increase. As a matter of fact, they go into slight cooling.

        Fossil fuels saved us from global cooling! Yay!

        Is there anything dead dinosaurs can’t do?

        #somuchwinning

  12. It means Bill Nye will do the cable news circuit and shit his pants at each stop along the way.

    1. Bill Nye……. I swear he looks like Matt Smith was regenerating into Peter Capaldi, and suddenly stopped halfway through.

      1. Ha he does. With maybe a little Where’s-Waldo DNA snuck in during the process.

        1. Though sadly, no time lord DNA. He wouldn’t be an AGW supporter if he did.

  13. The idea that some outside entity should determine the policies of the U.S. goes against most libertarian principles on foreign policy and interventionism.
    For now these determinations are only supposed to be suggestions but certainly leave the door open for much more than that.

    Even permanent treaties without apparent review are dangerous as they frequently require members to respond to attack on member nations.

    I still remember that warning of avoiding foreign entanglements.

    1. I still remember that warning of avoiding foreign entanglements.

      Damn, how old are you?

      1. I’be been around forever – does that please you ?

        1. So the young blood thing, it really works?

    2. These are voluntary goals. Climate is a global issue with breathing and living in everyone else’s carbon. We are entangled together whether you like it or not due to a shared atmosphere. This is where libertarianism has a problem since it is so rooted in not going into foreign relationships. The United States could of stayed in and weakened the climate plan any way they wanted. Instead they chose to weaken the United States by not being in the rub for negotiations. The grand negotiator has failed us.

      https://goo.gl/wZn3vr
      Each country set its own targets, with reductions to begin in 2020. By mid century, the goal would be zero greenhouse gas emissions.

      1. The Grand Negotiator chose to cut our support for the power of unaccountable international apparatchiks.

        #somuchwinning

  14. I hear if we don’t do something, NYC will be under water by 2012,

    1. Another promise the left didn’t keep.

    2. I always wanted a house on the water I don’t know why everyone is complaining about that. High rises would be the perfect waterfront realestate. Maybe thats Trumps goal make his realestate more valuable waterfronts

  15. What we should be looking at is a graph of Trump’s approval ratings in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, both before and after he announced we were pulling out of the Paris accord.

    Trump certainly has nothing to lose if his approval ratings slip because of this in California, Massachusetts, and Washington state.

    You know what hopefully will come out of this?

    Honest environmentalists (I consider myself one) will come to realize that inflicting environmentalism on the American people by way of the coercive power of government is a losing strategy. If you want average Americans to make sacrifices for the environment, you’ll need to get them to make them willingly.

    IF IF IF climate change really is a coming disaster, and the American people refuse to do anything to stop it, the blame won’t belong to those who refused to submit to authoritarian and socialist solutions. The blame will rightly belong to those phony environmentalists who’d rather not save the world if doing so required them to embrace capitalist and libertarian solutions.

    1. Doing nothing is asking Americans (go Murca, the only country that matters!) to sacrifice more than the other options.

      Syria and Nicaragua (the latter because Paris didn’t go far enough). We look like fools to everyone in the world. Except Trump voters.

      Of course the problem is never ever with Trump voters.

      1. “Doing nothing is asking Americans (go Murca, the only country that matters!) to sacrifice more than the other options.

        This is absurd.

        Whole economies can speed up or slow down depending on the relative price of energy.

        And the poor are hurt the worst by that.

        If I didn’t know better, I’d think you were a plant by someone who hates progressives–sent here just to make progressives look bad. You certainly make environmentalists look dishonest.

        Do you imagine that being an honest environmentalist entails believing that saving the world from climate change won’t involve painful sacrifices? Only a progressive masquerading as an environmentalist would believe something so stupid. Honest environmentalists are nowhere near that dumb–even those who hold that AGW is a serious problem.

        1. You’re premise is that the price of energy will surge beyond manageable levels.

          Your solution is to let Saudi Arabia dictate the price of energy, of course.

          Doom and gloom nonsense meant to stop the conversation and stall progress. And you’re not even getting paid. I know you’re not, because none of the oil companies are even backing this shit anymore.

          1. Doom and gloom nonsense meant to stop the conversation and stall progress

            Such as, “Mother Gaia will kill half the world’s population if we don’t figure out how to force the entire 1st World to convert to wind and solar because of KLIMAT JUZTIZZ.”

            1. Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting|6.1.17 @ 5:37PM|#

              Doom and gloom nonsense meant to stop the conversation and stall progress

              Such as, “Mother Gaia will kill half the world’s population if we don’t figure out how to force the entire 1st World to convert to wind and solar because of KLIMAT JUZTIZZ.”

              You choose to ignor reality. The African Tropics will become hotter causing stronger droughts. With that solar and storage would be a great option there to take advantage of a bad situation.

          2. Perhaps you haven’t noticed, but your hated fracking has reduced the ability of Saudi Arabia & OPEC to set (fossil fuel) energy prices.

          3. Tony, if you knew anything about the current oil market, you would know OPEC has waning control over oil prices.

          4. Doom and gloom nonsense meant to stop the conversation and stall progress.

            So we need to follow the Paris Accord because (insert word synonymous with catastrophe and rhyming with tomb).

        2. 100% renewable energy gets cheaper than fossil fuels as the foundation is laid in.

        3. > Do you imagine that being an honest environmentalist entails believing that saving the world from climate change won’t involve painful sacrifices? Only a progressive masquerading as an environmentalist would believe something so stupid.

          I no longer call people who ACTUALLY care about the environment “environmentalists.” I call them “conservationists.” The environmentalists have abandoned all pretense that they actually care about anything but standing on capitalism’s energy hose and redistributing wealth.

          1. Almost all causes have been infiltrated and converted by the Progressive Theocracy. It’s what they do. They infest and overwhelm. Keeping them out of organizations is the great challenge of mankind.

      2. It’s quite the assertion that this asks for the biggest sacrifice of all available options. That’s an assumption based on climate models that haven’t been very predictive (though I do still buy that temperature is increasing, we have a poor handle on what goes into many of these models) combined with utterly laughable economic analysis. It also tends to assume no human ingenuity. I’m still waiting on the study that makes this case persuasively, but even then I’m hesitant on central planning as the best solution

        I just don’t think AGW is the defining battle of our time. Global poverty is probably still the number one issue if we’re talking about what would help the greatest number of people (and don’t sell me that “AGW = more poverty” bullshit, greenhouse gas emissions and progress have been linked since arguably the dawn of civilization, you can see evidence in lake cores of things like the Black Death). I’d rank the threat of nuclear holocaust as far greater if we’re talking “end of civilization” type stuff. Hope we haven’t been rattling the war sabers against other nuclear powers lately…

  16. Let’s just assume we are going to use all the carbon based fuels in some fashion or another and operate on that scenario.

    What do the models project once the carbon based fuels are all gone?

    The big government people can look at mitigation as stimulus spending. The rest of us can look at things as the market steering us towards an optimal world where desires and costs are reasonably well balanced.

    1. At some point, as carbon based fuels started to become less and less available, other sources would become increasingly cost competitive–and more available.

      I think the consensus models have it that the negative impacts of climate change would hit us pretty hard long before we’re likely to run out of carbon based fuels. We have enough oil, natural gas, and coal to last us a long time.

      1. Didn’t we hit peak oil a few years ago? Why is it cheaper now?

        1. Because the markets are controlled by Trump’s Exxon friends and Russia.

        2. We don’t know when peak oil will occur. It has not happened yet.

          1. But pulling out of Paris is creating peak derp. Millions of gullible socialists who believe in the AGW religion are wailing as if their first born were being mutilated before their eyes. Barrels of salty prog tears will put NYC under water when melting ice caps couldn’t.

            Enjoy the show!

    2. we were supposed to run out of carbon based fuels I think somewhere before 2000 so so much for that modeling

      1. We ran out in 1979. I seen Mad Max.

      2. A lot of shit was supposed to happen by such and such a date.

      3. > we were supposed to run out of carbon based fuels I think somewhere before 2000 so so much for that modeling

        That won’t convince the left. They still hold Paul Ehrlich in high esteem. His “Population Bomb” thesis has been proven wrong so many times, any other “expert” would be relegated to the trash heap of history. But, Ehrlich still insists he’s right and the left still agrees.

        5,000 years of human experience mean nothing to a leftist. He/she is here now and it’s going to be different.

        1. Cults are rarely deterred when their End of the World proclamations fail to materialize.

  17. I would have told my speechwriter to say something along these lines: “This Accord was handled improperly by the Obama Administration. It should have been sent to the Senate for ratification, or not, as a Treaty. But, since the Obama Administration sought an end-run around the Constitution, I won’t be a party to it. Therefore, I am submitting the Accord to the U.S. Senate for action before Sept. 1. If they can’t agree, then I will tear it up and seek a new treaty for submission to the Senate, to be acted on before the 2018 elections.”

    1. c: You are obviously a thoughtful and insightful person. See my earlier arguments.

      1. No. Live by executive fiat, die by executive fiat. Trump should have publicly torn it up and said it’s done, go home.

      2. Obama knew the Senate would not ratify the Paris Climate Accord. Since the carbon industry practically owns the Republican Party, we get a destructive influence that distorts our democracy.

      3. Bad deal. There is a new Sheriff in town. If the previous Sheriff wanted this treaty to become law, he should have submitted it to the Senate for ratification. He didn’t. Snooze, you lose.

        The deal blows for America. America First. You want a new deal, come to me and we’ll talk.

        Sincerely,
        The God Emperor

    2. Good plan, but give the Senate until July 1st to agree. And come up with your own play by 2024.

  18. Fucking rednecks would rather see human civilization wiped out than see President Blacky McBlackerson get credit for anything.

    1. Yes that’s it. All those unemployed coal miners and working people paying higher electric bills were just racist. You’re so smart

      1. Fuck coal miners. Waah the government has to make sure I don’t lose my job to new technology, but go capitalism!

        1. Regulation is the opposite of free markets. If free markets were killing coal than there would be no need for regulations on the industry to appease the climate gods

          1. There isn’t a single industry that is untouched by regulation, and by the way why shouldn’t the dirtiest industry of them all be regulated? Are you saying we should let them shit on other people’s property for free? Why? Don’t you believe in property rights?

            Yet only coal gets their ass powdered by Trump and his internet spokeassholes like you.

            If the market itself was taking care of coal fine, but coal should have been regulated out of existence a long time ago, with retraining programs or whatever to help the poor workers who alone in the workforce apparently don’t have any bootstraps.

            Just stop talking like a fucking cut-rate Sean Spicer. None of this stuff makes any sense. Make your own arguments. Try it, it’s fun.

            1. do you need a snickers bar or something?

              1. That would be lovely.

            2. Tony|6.1.17 @ 5:04PM|#
              “There isn’t a single industry that is untouched by regulation,”

              And there isn’t a single one which is doing worse as a result.

              1. Most regulations protect us from harm. The nuclear industry is one of the most regulated industries since it has the most potential to do the most harm. Regulations protect us.

            3. Go coal, and fuck off Tony!

    2. Tony has been triggered.

      “Human civilization wiped out.” LOL

      1. I was confused by that Tony comment. Is he saying that environmental activista in response to CAGW fears will starve us all to death?

    3. That awkward moment when the only person in the room making racist jokes is the person who believes they’re making a pointed comment about other people’s racism.

      1. Yeah, I’m sure the always-hateful Oklahoma dude who thinks slavery is only wrong if it’s illegal is totally NOT a racist. Honest, you guys!

    4. Not sure why anyone would give Obama credit for abusing his power and running around the constitution.

      All of his crap that he signed with a pen instead of making it go through congress can easily be undone by the next guy, so you get what you deserve

      1. Yeah defend this action. Trump and Syria. I’m sure they’ll be the ones to win the argument when all is said and done.

        1. Yeah I will defend scuttling a shit agreement that does nothing and wasn’t even passed through the proper channels.

          1. I’ll be here to witness all your criticism of Trump’s executive actions, which I’m sure are forthcoming.

            1. pulling out of nafta will be the big one

              1. Why not NATO?

            2. Tony|6.1.17 @ 5:29PM|#
              “I’ll be here to witness all your criticism of Trump’s executive actions, which I’m sure are forthcoming.”

              He’s bad on free trade.
              There ya go!

      2. Obama knows constitutional law. He did this under executive action.

        1. “Obama knows constitutional law. He did this under executive action.”
          There you go again. Well said. +1. …but you forgot the “/sarc” tag.

    5. No . . . I’ve just always wanted waterfront property, and according to the infallible climate models, this is the easiest way for me to get it.

    6. Fuck, that hurt! My eyes rolled so hard one of them almost popped out.

    7. Fucking rednecks would rather see human civilization wiped out than see President Blacky McBlackerson get credit for anything.

      Cry more!

  19. So what would happen to global temperatures’ trajectory if Trump repudiates the Paris Agreement and stops trying to cut U.S. greenhouse gas emissions?

    Temperatures will go up by almost exactly as much as they were going to go up with the Paris Agreement.

    1. Only now when the temperature goes up, everyone will blame Trump.
      If the Paris agreement were in place and the temperature went up, they would just say their models underestimated how bad AGW really is.

    2. The idea is to turn emissions trajectory downward. The sooner we do this as a world society, the better it is for our future generations.

      1. “The idea is to turn emissions emotions trajectory downward. The sooner we do this as a world society, the better it is for our future generations.” FTFY

      2. Why? A warmer planet is a more hospitable planet to our species. We weren’t meant to live in Europe or the Mid-Atlantic, for example, but unfortunately we already built a lot of infrastructure in those places, and global warming can only help.

  20. “Following the Paris agreement, the Obama administration pledged to cut the country’s greenhouse gas emissions to 26-28 percent below their 2005 levels.

    “Pledged” meaning jaw-jaw with no legal muscle behind it, no?

    There’s a reason he didn’t put Paris before the Senate for actual ratification – he knew they’d kill it.

    And yet CO2 emissions go down because of fracking anyway – Thanks, Obama.

    (As Reynolds puts it, “I’ll believe it’s a crisis when they start acting like it’s a crisis” … say, by building as many nuclear plants as possible to shut down every coal and gas power plant [in that order].

    “Accords” that have no enforcement and that everyone will – if history is any guide – simply ignore, just as a show of “caring”?

    Fuck that.)

    1. Gas and nuclear power not needed. 100% renewable energy will do the job just fine.

      1. I look forward to our sparkly unicorn fart powered future.

  21. Get ready for a flood of self-righteous prog huffing and puffing, with a nice side of melodramatic doomsday scenario predictions.

  22. In NPR’s little pre-game show on the Paris Orb of Climate Power, they admitted that Obama created climate regulations because Democratic senators wouldn’t pass legislation, because they knew they’d get killed at the polls.

    1. Democrats have a long history of getting killed in elections after passing good laws. It’s what they do.

      1. And a long and storied history of opposing civil rights, too! History is fun!

        1. You mean before they dumped the South and started passing civil rights legislation, the first and most important example of what I was talking about.

          1. lol, more like after the racist democrats all started dying off.

            1. The racist Democrats became Republicans. It’s kind of why Republicans have relied on white racial resentment to gain political power for the past 50 years.

              1. uh huh. if there’s one faction that exploits race for political gain, it sure as hell is the progressives.

                Tony, you remind me of the Marxists that ended up in the gulags. See the anti-communists knew why they were there, but it was always the devout follower that still believed “oh, this is one big mistake. Everyone else here is guilty, but I just need to get in touch with the right person to get this all sorted out.”

                You do realize that you’ll be the first to go once the little SJWs try another cultural revolution?

                http://insider.foxnews.com/201…..reen-state

              2. Nope. None of that ever happened. It’s just another bit of democrat fan fiction to whitewash historic democrat racism.

                Being a progressive means never ever being accountable, right Tony?

                1. “historic”?

                  Democrats are the racist ones. Just looks at the effects of their policies

              3. The fundamental organizing principle of the modern Left is hatred of white men, past, present, and future.

      2. If only we could turn regular rubes good like Democratic politicians. The New Soviet Man is on the horizon!

        1. Hey these guys are the one supporting socialism for miners in a Russian accent.

          1. It’s a topsy turvy world! Democrats pushed socialism on the dirty masses in flyover country, and they finally bought in!

          2. The government not purposefully killing an industry that’s dying anyway = socialism.

      3. only when they screwed over Hillary

  23. “What happens now?”

    The sun will continue to rise in the east, people will continue to work, play, meet, get married, have families, garden, vacation and on and on.

    Life will get better. The environmentally pious are in no way prevented from living a CO2 free lifestyle by Trump’s pulling the US out of the Paris scam…

    1. The sun will continue to rise in the east, people will continue to work, play, meet, get married, have families, garden, vacation and on and on.

      That’s precisely what pisses off the environmentalists.

      1. Being an environmentalist, I have grown used to people being resolute and not listening. But just the same, the conversation has to continue. Back in the 1800’s diseases were connected to human waste. It took 50 years of people living in disease and knowing before solid action was taken. Part of it was just society momentum of present waste handling that would have to change. I hope we don’t have to experience RCP 8.5 22nd century consequences to make this change.

        1. It’s not a conversation if no one is listening. Still, please STFU.

    2. The environmentally pious are in no way prevented from living a CO2 free lifestyle by Trump’s pulling the US out of the Paris scam…

      Exactly. Then again, how many progtarded environmentalists do YOU know who bicycle exclusively, heat and cool their homes with solar, light it with candles, grow their own food, abstain from travel that involves jet air flight, abstain from having children, etc.?

      1. Hating a group of people doesn’t work very well. The science is true coming out of the IPCC. What are ou going to do now? Nothing? Something wrong with changing for the better?

  24. There’s not a chance in hell Americans would accept European level electric bills to support a honor system non treaty that half of them never cared about.

    Nuclear power emits very little emission and gives us plenty of electricity. Let the eco maniacs ride bikes to work, the rest of us don’t have to suffer their quixotic illusions.

    1. You’re right. The average electricity bill in France, which is largely nuclear powered, is 35% less than the average bill in the US. Oh, you weren’t right about the higher prices in Europe part.

      1. Industry may leave Germany due to the high cost of electricity. China can produce the aluminum.

        1. You mean industries voluntarily go to a state-controlled economy? I thought all they wanted was freedom.

          1. You’d think there would be a teachable moment in that.

          2. Yes, because the state-controlled economy of mainland China is more free than the state-controlled economy of Germany.

          3. First and foremost, a business needs to survive. And you progtarded filth work round the clock at destroying business.

            1. You’re a parody commenter, right?

        2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQTWG8ncVJA

          IS producing aluminum.
          BMW execs like having the lights go on when you flip the switch.

        3. Actually industry pays less. Its the common man paying for the renewable energy expansion.

          1. STFU

      2. The average electricity bill in France, which is largely nuclear powered

        Yeah, we can thank the hippie left for taking us away from that glorious road.

        1. Actually, the commie left and some dummies. In the 70s the USA was crisscrossed with highways suitable for evac and supplies, but also usable for airplanes. To attack a nation linked by phones, covered with runways and powered by reactors with thick domes like Faraday cages was not attractive. Better to get the chumps to unplug the power before hitting them. It seems to be working on Econazi Germany, but… no big loss there.

      3. when the power plan is subsidized, it’s no wonder the end prices are cheaper!

      4. Sigh. Tony’s record of spewing gibberish continues.

        Gas and electricity in Europe are higher than here in North America; which overall has lower costs of living.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing

          1. You’ll find the US ‘way the third lowest world-wide, with Germany nearly 300% of the US number.
            Yep, those Euros really know how to pump out those electrons!

            1. Oh, and that famous place France that Tony claimed was 35% cheaper than the US? 50% higher.

            2. Canada is skewed. Quebec has lots of hydro. So much so they sell a lot south of the border. Ontario is paying about 14.5 cents a kWh not including delivery charges (thank you green energy). Including delivery charges residential power costs between 21 and 23 cents per kWh. The US 12.5 cents per kWh includes delivery charges.

              1. Holy shit. Ontario is paying $0.21/kWh? That’s insane with all of their hydro.

                1. Feed in tariffs for green energy. They pay higher than retail for solar. The power companies are required by law to buy all the wind power if they needed it or not. This has resulted in the power companies have to sell the power at a negative price. IOW, they have to pay someone else on the grid to take it.

                2. “Ontario is paying $0.21/kWh? That’s insane with all of their hydro.”

                  Wanna bet it’s skewed by subsidies for watermelons?

                    1. Not very legible. I found this from 3 years ago though. Looks like they made good on their threat commitment.

                  1. Canada exports power from its CANDU reactors to the People’s States in the northern USA. It’s like Brazilians paying a premium for electricity because a lot goes into making aluminum for export.

    2. I ride bikes and am absolutely willing to take on anybody’s alternative energy so long as I get to use my nukes. In fact, reactors free up gas and other hydrocarbons (burned a LOT to cover peak demand) for use in vehicles. The Health Hazards of Not Going Nuclear sums it up. Beckmann was also a bike rider in Boulder. For Brits there is Commonsense and Nuclear Energy, by Sir Fred Hoyle and son.

  25. Withdraw = oldest method

    1. And we have already given it a few pumps.

  26. Whatever else Elon Musk is, he’s also a douchebag.

    Once he publicly threatened to quit if his boss did something, he should have been dismissed–even if Trump stayed in the Paris accord.

    Elon Musk wouldn’t tolerate those kinds of threats from any of his subordinates.

    1. True,

      But the better option politically may be to let him just fade away.

    2. his boss

      ??

      He was a panel member, not an employee.

      1. You know who else was only a panel member?

        1. Max Planck?

          1. That’s…wow. uh, nice one?

        2. Whatever.

          He should have been publicly dismissed as a panel member, then.

          Sheesh.

          Publicly threatening to resign if the president doesn’t do what you say is douchebag behavior.

  27. So Ron,

    How do actual temperatures compare to the models?

      1. So it is still true. Thanks.

        Oh. I forgot we get new models every 5 years or so.

        Well that helps.

        I can’t wait until they get it right.

        F still equals ma – that model hasn’t changed for quite some time.

        1. Uh, actually…

          F=dp/dt under relativity.

          1. Actually, Newton also used dp/dt in his fluxions. The dumbed-down versions for High School became ingrained to make the definition of force memorizable by the football team.

    1. Well, they generally line up pretty well since there is only station data for a small portion of the Earth and they use the models to fill in the missing data? and backfill the data? and update the historical data? and correct the satellite data?

    2. The data, graphs, and facilities for doing them yourself are at realclimatescience.com
      The guy is not smarmy like most. He is a lot more like Petr Beckmann who used to be on one of the Reason boards before he resigned in disgust over Poole and them being milquetoast pacifists. But the data is verifiable and there are other engineers and scientists handy to field questions. The skepticalscience site is an econazi false flag operation, much like rationalwiki.

  28. How about leaving the alarmism to the people buying oceanfront property like Saint Algore and the most exalted Obama and learning something about the shell game: http://www.heritage.org/enviro…..ially-zero

  29. What happens now?

    Nothing.

    1. 1) Lefty Freakout
      2) Echo Chamber Cares
      3) Others Don’t
      4) Suffer Another Defeat
      5) Go To 1

      Every special election so far, and now this.

      1. I’m wondering if the lefties finally get so enraged that they try that Berkeley shit all across the country.

        1. no, because it’s only there they have mommy and daddy major / police support that lets them get away with that shit.

          Try doing that in a place with concealed carry, or with a non-BAMN / Marxist sympathizer in charge.

          1. Yeah, where I live, armed C&C permit holders are almost ubiquitous. Most of whom can throw down pretty well even without weapons. So those little assholes would come to a short brutal end.

            Unfortunately, my community is also host to both Melissa Click and Rachel Dolezal. So we have those crosses to bear.

  30. What happens now? Much gnashing of teeth and rending of garments by The Usual Suspects. And it looks so good on them, too.

  31. The local newspaper had a drawing showing how much of a change in climate there would be here in Michigan. Our summers would be longer, somewhat warmer. Our winters would be shorter, and not as cold. By 2114 we’d have the climate now found in Kentucky.

    1. Yes, if reality weren’t what it is, then the future would not only be unknowable, but different too. That’s the thing about invented gibberish hypotheticals and arguments from cluelessness. Things either would be, or else.
      “Or else what?” asked Alice.

  32. All this would be very interesting if there were anything to the plot known as global warming, aka climate change (what else do climate do?). Those promoting the fraud have much to gain and their lies and abuses are myriad.

    1. “Those promoting the fraud have much to gain and their lies and abuses are myriad.”
      And much to lose if they are called on it.
      Trump seems to be doing so, whether by ignorance or calumny, I don’t know. But even at the worst, he’s calling them on what is clearly bullshit:
      “Prove that this agreement helps humanity”

  33. Good for Trump. May he continue to spit in the face of the DeepState/DarkState

  34. Entangling alliances and international bureaucratic institutions are shitty. The less we are involved the better. If localities or regions choose to voluntarily participate in reducing “climate change” so be it. In the early Middle Ages the world experienced unusually warmer temperatures which contributed to higher crop yields therefore spurring population growth and subsequently economic and technological development.

  35. “Trump Announces Withdrawal From Paris Climate Deal. What Happens Now?”

    Except for the tearing of hair and gnashing of teeth, exactly what would have happened otherwise.

  36. Since none of these models has ever correctly predicted future temperatures, why should we care what they say? A failed prediction disproves the theory. That’s elementary science, at least for those who still rely on the scientific method instead of treating their chosen scientists as prophets.

    1. “Since none of these models has ever correctly predicted future temperatures, why should we care what they say?”

      Because………………………….
      T-ball! Because moral cripples like Tony! Because Bill Nye and George Clooney!

      Because of every insufferable, self-righteous lying twit you ever met, that’s why!

  37. Obama single-handedly wrote us into that obscenity without any consensus support other than from the scientists who are funded by, and dependent on, the government. Trump can and should remove us from this mess with a single stroke of the pen.

    Climate change basic “solutions”. (1) America should slow its anemic growth even more. (2) China is applauded for participating even though they need to curb emissions just to make their cities livable and to continue growing their economy. (3) The US is supposed to commit itself to funding corrupt global regimes, with money it doesn’t have, to help them cope with climate change. (4) The long-term effects of climate change are presumed to be accurate on the basis of a laughable 100-year model.

    My investment world laughs at any model that goes beyond 10 years and should laugh at most that are even shorter.

    Climate Change policy is not anything upon which coercive government policy, or “incentives” should or can be based.

    I think that most who look at the data agree that humans do contribute to it. The long-term consequences and policy prescriptions are what are clearly debatable among all but the government-dependent. It is all about funding. “Follow the money.”

    Adaptation is how most of the world’s problems are “resolved” — fully, or cleanly, or not.

    What doesn’t work is King Canute wading into the sea and commanding it to recede. Childish nonsense.

    1. ^ Threadwinner.

    2. I think it was Bailey who pointed out how hilarious it was when a “five-year plan” was proposed at one of these summit type things

      Central planning is gonna work this time, I can feel it!

  38. Armegeddon!
    Property values of coastal cities to collapse as seas rise.
    Starvation ensues as cropland whithers in the Noon Day Sun.
    BTW, that Coming Ice Age we warned you about 40-some years ago…..
    Never Mind!

  39. There is honestly way too much disinformation, hysteria, and death threats associated with climate anything for me to even have a general bearing on this subject any longer. I recuse myself. In the words of Alexander, “Let the strongest rule.” and be done with it.

  40. Leaving a symbolic, ineffectual agreement that is no more than a push for a forced Socialistic One World Government is a good thing.

    The climate is changing, always has and always will. Man’s effect, large or small will have to be dealt with by adaptation. Politics will have ZERO effect other than to increase wealth and power of elites during the adaptation. Their desire to amplify their wealth/power grab through Social Engineering of a Socialistic One World Government is abhorrent to any thinking person.

    The evolution of a one world government MUST happen naturally through the gradual adoption of shared cultural values, NOT by forceful means. That is the only way to ensure its success and guarantee individual Liberty. Keep the internet free and borders secure, until the necessity for borders is no longer there. That can only happen with a free internet that allows everyone to see their similarities are greater than their differences. Shared values.

  41. The notion that nations can reduce greenhouse emissions with some kind of treaty is a monumental exercise in magical thinking. In only a few countries are treaties enforceable law. The United States is one of those. The only others are a few northern European countries. And even in those any such laws would be effectively unenforceable. Certainly in China, where law, except to protect the corrupt elite, is a joke.
    Most greenhouse emissions do not come from point sources, like power plants or motor vehicles. They come from the oxidation of topsoil, exposed to the air by tilling and erosion, that converts humus to desert grit. Livestock are another major source. That and the burning of wood for heating and cooking, which is the main cause of deforestation. That is human caused but not human controllable. This is not a world of law. Laws are everywhere ignored or disobeyed with impunity.
    The solution is new, cheaper technology. We have already achieved solar arrays that produce electric energy at a lower cost that any other source, at least in sunny regions. Another alternative is nuclear, but using Thorium reactors, not Uranium-Plutonium, which are too dangerous. Those are also the main technology that it would make sense for government to subsidize, because of opposition from the Uranium cartel.
    The cost to develop alternative energy sources is much lower than the cost to control emissions. That is the only way to go.

  42. Another point is that the warming models are missing an important element. Water has a triple-point temperature (0 degrees Celsius) at which increases in heat shift the state from ice to liquid to vapor, but with little effect on temperature. It would take the evaporation of the oceans to greatly increase temperature, and if that happened it would not be the temperature that would get us but the lack of water.

  43. Ron, at this point, do you realty believe those figures you cite are remotely reliable given what we know about how climate and politics interact?

    It’s easy to make all these promises (and Obama did it for the image because I doubt even a math challenged, anti-capitalist like him probably didn’t even believe have the crap he spewed) since the time horizons are so far out they’re really pointless and it’s not like any politician or party will be around to be held accountable for it.

    We can’t even get full proof local weather forecasts but we’re supposed to take climate ‘earf’ forecasts as ‘fact’? Worse they want to jeopardize are bloody economies for all this uncertainty? Who will ever face the consequences if the trade-offs actually hurt citizens; and most likely the poor? Of course not.

    And never mind not seeing what all of this for what it is: SYSTEM CHANGE. Not climate change and the ones who make the transition happen will profit from it while you and me hold the bag wondering ‘wha happened?!’

    It doesn’t even pass the simple fart test. To me, it’s all reminiscent of Chevy Chase when he said, ‘it was to my understanding there would be no math’.

  44. Ya know, it’s just a shame that Jackandace isn’t still here to remind us that all a president needs is a pen! Who needs the Senate?

    1. Maybe he drowned when the sea levels rose due to CAGW melting of the polar caps and flooded the dormitory at the commune where he resided.

    2. What happened to that faggoty fuck anyway?

  45. Make the heroic assumption that the climate models are right: What should be done? In an article for Foreign Affairs, the eco-modernists over at the Breakthrough Institute advocate policies encouraging the innovation that would make carbon-free energy cheaper than that provided by burning fossil fuels. This might include, among other things, the entrepreneurial development of radically safer and cheaper nuclear power.

    What a great idea. I mean its not like there is any incentive to do that now. I mean its not like inventing a cheap source of energy wouldn’t be worth billions or maybe even trillions of dollars or anything.

    Seriously, how are people this stupid allowed to live alone much less spout their opinions?

    1. This pretty much falls into the same category as scheduling invention. It’s OK to challenge engineers (and it’s the engineers that do the job, not the scientists) and push them well out of their comfort zone. They need that. But too often non-technical ppl just get all pop-sci/pop-mech and just think that their flying (or self-driving) cars are coming Real Soon Now(tm).

      The final line that you quoted requires some attention, though. We have advanced, passively-safe nuclear designs now that could be implemented to reduce the cost of nuclear, sorry nukular power. As usual it’s the government and tards like Tony that prevent real progress.

      1. I have managed design engineers under pressure to design a specific part, which part must fit to (unmodified) existing parts and deliver X result.
        The existing parts simply do not have the physical dimensions to allow the ‘designed’ part to do what is required without modification of the ‘existing’ parts at cost far above what the ‘designed’ part itself would cost.
        It doesn’t matter; those (hoping to) drive the design respond with ‘well, you’ve done magic there, why can’t you do the same here?
        Yes, there is a 4th dimension; it’s “time”. There is no 4th physical dimension; that dimension is that dimension no matter how much you wish it to be otherwise.

  46. This is all fake science. This climate change nonsense is the greatest fraud ever perpetrated by globalist leaders who want to destroy America so as to create a one world government. No thank you. I thank Trump for sticking to his promise to make America great again.

  47. The Paris accords are not perfect but they are a start. The minority persident’s claim to be able to negotiate a “new and better” agreement is just a lie, on a par with his promise to create a “new and better” health care plan. The nations who signed the agreement have already said they will not renegotiate it. Mr. Trump has obviously confused soverign nations with the banks who lent him money and were forced to renegotiate the loans on threat of his default. They were interested in protecting their bottom line so they let him force the renegotiation and never lent him any money again- enter Russian oligarchs. There is no similar compulsion for renegotiating this agreement. The nations of the world agree that something must be done and they do not believe that this president would ever stiffen the caps on carbon emissions. These nations will keep their regulations, just as California and other concerned states will keep theirs. This means that Mr. Trump can attempt all the repeals he wishes but businesses will be compelled to follow the stricter rules set by those who wish to slow down global warming or see their markets evaportate.
    \

    1. “…The minority president’s…”

      Poor loser Amogin.
      Hey, Amogin! You and the rest of the lefty losers LOST! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

      1. Optimistically … with nobody cheating … (I have a bridge for sale to anyone who thinks there won’t be cheating). Paris would have reduced the temperature at $100 billion annually in the year 2100 by ….

        ***drum roll***

        0.170 C

        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com…..12295/full

        1. It is unfortunate that this sort of data will be ignored by the watermelons.
          I wandered into some comments regarding the deregulation of the use of wild horses (they could now be sold to be food). “Trump knows the price of everything and the value of nothing!!!!”
          Fucking lefties think THEY know what the market doesn’t. They don’t care about that cost; they’ll just get the taxpayer to make the poor whole again, since Gaia (or some such bullshit).
          Tiresome…

    2. “…The minority president’s…”

      Cute. You’re in the wrong place, pal if you’re gonna chime in with that progressive gibberish.

    3. So you are saying that states should be able to decide which kind of onerous regulations they want to burden upon their people? Now you are starting to understand Amogin.

      With lesser central government control, people have the right to vote with their feet and get the f*ck out of california when the weight of their insane climate regs finally brings down the economy and whole state government.

      That’s all sane people are asking for. I don’t want my economic decision to be made by some ass hole in Washington. Trump just loosened the noose by a hair. You should be happy.

  48. The Paris accords are not perfect but they are a start.

    So would dancing around a fire and chanting which would be equally effective.

    1. Not to mention cheaper!

      1. And with a lower carbon footprint.

  49. Say what? I was just explaining the legal background and controversies over international agreements. FWIW, I still think he should have submitted to the Senate for advice and consent.

    Should have? Robby, persuant to the US Constitution, “international agreements” are treaties. Treaties must be ratified by the US Senate in order to be legally binding. This “climate agreement” does not meet any standard as to be enforceable in US law. So, “should have”? It should have been presented as a treaty in the first place. It is an unenforceable agreement based on an unenforceable premise.

    1. The Kenyan should have done that, so the scam could join the Kyoto hara-kiri in the same wastebasket. 32000 degreed scientists at petitionproject.org signed that the Kyoto hustle is a con job. This one is exactly the same thing: a bunch of degenerate looter politicians trying to hustle stupid gringos. We have an ample stock of those already. Bailey claims to know science, so 9th-grade algebra should not be too daunting. Ask him how many scientists it takes to make the chant-refrain-reinforced “97% of all scientists” if only the 32000 signers of the petitionproject.org record are the remaining 3%. Then ask him “The Fermi Question”.

  50. “In March, the Rhodium Group consultancy calculated what would happen to U.S. greenhouse gas emissions if President Trump’s executive order rolling back most Obama-era energy and climate regulations were fully implemented:”

    Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria.

  51. It’s surprising we don’t have the normal arrival of one or more (new; ignoring Tony, trueman, etc) lefty twits explaining their vast knowledge of libertarian thought and how it is both mistaken and violated in this case; ‘you’re all hypocrites, ’cause Trump!’.
    I’m sure they’re not out of ammo, but maybe just out of the ordnance to shoot it; whines about how regulation is a wonderful thing don’t load well in the bore of a market that’s rising.

  52. Lots of pretty graphs backed up by lots of bullshit statistics. No one can actually say what the Paris Climate Accord would have done, and no one can actually predict what will happen without it. It was dead on arrival and likely to be ignored as much as Kyoto was. The idea that global temperature can actually be measured so accurately as to predict the impact either way is ludicrous and a major sign of how far off the rails some “scientists” have gone in their pursuit of climate religion.

    1. Something that might happen 100 years from now is perfectly probable clause to cripple entire economies.

      The logic is no different than preparing for the sun to burn out. No sound business decision can be made based on projections that are indefinite and infinite. No one plans their business for 50 years out much less 100, short of major infrastructure investments which are based on markets and population growth.

      With the morons in charge, how would we plan for the sun burning out? Not let blanket factories sell their product so all could have free warmth for a while?

      1. The earth’s rotation is actually slowing. This is shown by atomic clocks and from the graph in the old Halliday and Resnick physics books you can work out that Earth will face the Sun on one side (the way Luna does Earth) is some 26 centuries. But overpopulation? If the Cassandras alienate the mystics who want to force women to reproduce, where would they find suckers enough to swell their crowds of morons to proportions likely to attract and impress politicians? Dinosaurs had no means to understand the bolide impact that took them out. Humans, however, will deserve exactly that if weak-minded fools deprive us of access to energy before a separate foothold can be gained on Luna.

    2. Go to realclimatescience.com for an eyeful of how fake the tampered data is. You can download a free app that lets you access datasets, then plot them on the woodfortrees website yourself. The thermometers installed in 1920 and still working in 2017 show a slight decrease in temperature, on the trendline, for what is nearly a century.

  53. Do the nimrods at Reason actually believe all the climate claptrap?

  54. “what happens now?”

    Now we dance.

  55. I was planning to retire closer to the beach. Now I can just wait for the beach to come to me.
    If only I could believe this climate change hysteria. Oh well……………..

  56. The changing climate means less rain where it’s needed and massive gobbits of rain that wash everything away. If you don’t like to eat or drink water there’s no problem stick your head back into the sand.

  57. The changing climate means less rain where it’s needed and massive gobbits of rain that wash everything away. If you don’t like to eat or drink water there’s no problem stick your head back into the sand.

    1. Brian Whittle|6.2.17 @ 5:41PM|#
      “The changing climate means less rain where it’s needed and massive gobbits of rain that wash everything away. If you don’t like to eat or drink water there’s no problem stick your head back into the sand.”

      No, it means stupid comments like this show up all over the place.

  58. Bailey is clearly clueless about actual measurements of past climate records. Those are regularly tampered with by an altruistic priesthood of anonymous “scientists” no one but a government would hire. Their products are changing depictions of the past, to make it seem cooler, and fudging (out of whole cloth) prayerful prophesies concerning the future. These are prophecies found inherently unworkable by genuine matematicians, including Johnny Von Neumann, back in the 1940s. Without exception EVERY single prophesy demands drastic increases in government coercion enforced by men with guns as the ONLY solution, and NONE has been anywhere near correct these past four decades.

  59. HEY BAILEY, DO YOUR GRAPHS “HIDE THE DECLINE”? DO THEY USE “MIKE’S NATURE TRICK”?

  60. It’s amusing see the left lose their minds on this. I’d be embarrassed if Jerry Brown was my governor. Global warming is the official religion of the left, and they just completely lose it when you’re not buying their theology – “Deniers!”. Reminds me of the Children of the Corn kids.

  61. Don’t forget, global warming is just a means to an end – a global collectivist end.

    Sometimes the mask slips on some of these leftists:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/…..capitalism

  62. So what happens with the US withdrawal ? So let’s see…the US government doesn’t mandate changes. The local politicians and consumers pressure their suppliers to be evermore green and CO2 emitting drops in the US. More polluting products are made in China and lesser regulated places so CO2 continues to rise and everyone blames the US for not paying other countries not to pollute. Fewer corrupt leaders and administrators will be buying villas because they don’t get to skim nonexistent US taxpayer monies. Still billions will be spent researching and developing ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere. All the while major contributors to the CO2 levels like burning forests for farmland, pouring evermore concrete over green areas, uncontrollable volcanic outgassing and eruptions will continue. Finally in the end a major eruption will occur to lower temps fo a decade or so. Eventually some scientists will discover how to fix a man-made problem that never really existed.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.