Climate Change

Pulling Out of Paris Won't Doom the Planet

Trump may be nuts but liberals need to get a grip.

|

President Trump has not always talked about climate change in a sensible fashion. He once tweeted that it was a Chinese concoction meant to

Polar Bear
christopher michel via Foter.com

make American manufacturing uncompetitive, apparently oblivious that it was a hobbyhorse of Western enviros much before the Middle Kingdom even heard about it. And, indeed, his "us versus them" style of paranoid politics was richly on display in the Rose Garden yesterday when he announced his decision to pull out of the Paris climate change agreement. He stated:

The rest of the world applauded when we signed the Paris Agreement. They went wild. They were so happy. For the simple reason that it put our country, the United States of America, which we all love, at a very, very big economic disadvantage. A cynic would say the obvious reason for economic competitors and their wish to see us remain in the agreement is so that we continue to suffer this self-inflicted major economic wound. We would find it very hard to compete with other countries from other parts of the world.

Trump may be nuts, but that does not justify the liberal hysteria over the pull out, I note in my column at The Week. The truth is that this deal wasn't going to save the planet, and the deal's collapse won't doom it.

To the contrary, Trump's withdrawal rips the mask off the agreement's silly assumption that nations like China and India will actually deliver on the emission cuts that they promise on paper. And this might finally trigger a search for workable solutions that don't involve putting the globe on an energy diet.

I note:

Global warming cannot and should not be fought by massive international agreements. The battle will only be won when America's technology and energy sectors develop innovative solutions that present consumers with cleaner energy options that are obviously cheaper and better than what exists today. The Paris Agreement is so fixated on blaming and punishing humans because enviros barely care about finding solutions that would meet their needs.

Go here to read the column.

NEXT: Nevertheless It Persists: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau Fights Trump, Congress, and Federal Courts in Effort to Remain Unaccountable to Anyone

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. The moral outrage over this issue reveals the ugly fact that Angry Volcano God worship is all about religion and not science. The same types who claim there is no such thing as “objective truth” (the justification for gender politics, for instance) will also tell you, with a straight face, that the science is “settled”.

    1. I thought science could never be settled because hypotheses and theories are always subject to further experimentation.

      1. Science doesn’t really prove anything to be correct. What it does to is prove things to be wrong. What has not been proven to be wrong is treated as if it is correct, but it has not actually been proven as such.

        Or as Einstein put it (and I’m paraphrasing and assuming it was Einstein though I may be wrong) “No amount of experimentation can prove me right, and it only takes one experiment to prove me wrong.”

        This nonsense that is being passed off as science these days is not science.

        1. A lot of people thought brak O was really smart. The science of 8 years of corrupt Marxist thought attempted to be implemented proved that he was in fact dumber than George bush.

          side experiments have been tried in Venezuela and North Korea and Cuba. They have failed upon repeated experimentation.

      2. Strictly speaking, yes. But at a certain point you consider things settled for practical purposes. For example, I don’t think many people will argue that the heliocentric model of the solar system isn’t settled science.

        1. Actually, our solar system rotates around the barycenter of the system’s total mass, not the sun itself.

          1. Bazinga.

          2. Which lies within the sun, so I think “heliocentric” is still the word to use in ordinary conversation.

            1. And Newtonian physics breaks down when you approach the speed of light.

              1. Which is why it’s settled as wrong, but useful science.

              2. Is that why it’s wise to carry Newtonian AAA service?

        2. You consider things settled when you run out of tests to throw at it. Relativity has survived every test thrown at it for a century and we’re STILL testing it today.

          CAGW on the other hand has failed in nearly all if its incredibly small set of falsifiable predictions, and its proponents have engaged in massive ad hoc rescue attempts.

          1. Which is why I don’t cite global warming as an example of science I’d call “settled”.

            And, of course, a more complete theory that encompasses quantum physics and relativity is something people want to find. But for practical purposes, I’d still call the more well tested parts of modern physics “settled science”, at least informally.

          2. “CAGW on the other hand has failed in nearly all if its incredibly small set of falsifiable predictions”

            Can you be more specific? Climate science predicts higher temperatures and higher temperatures have been observed and measured. What more do you ask of a science?

            1. Climate science predicts higher temperatures and higher temperatures have been observed and measured.

              Therefore, everything Al Gore says is true.

              THAT’S LOGIC REASONOIDS!! LEARN SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!

              1. I was asking for specific instances where the theory has failed, instead I get specific names of celebrities you dislike.

                1. I was asking for specific instances where the theory has failed

                  Actually, NotAnotherSkippy commented that “CAGW on the other hand has failed in nearly all if its incredibly small set of falsifiable predictions.”

                  Your response was that it hasn’t failed in one element of the “incredibly small set of falsifiable predictions,” which is the prediction that GMT would rise, however slightly.

                  You then triumphantly declared yourself to have demonstrated the falseness of the statement “CAGW on the other hand has failed in nearly all if its incredibly small set of falsifiable predictions,” when what you did in fact was confirm it.

                  Because you are the most pigeon-like troll to infest these pages.

                  1. Like the others, you are confusing the failure of a computer model to accurately predict with the failure of the theory it’s meant to demonstrate. Two different things.

                    1. you are confusing the failure of a computer model to accurately predict with the failure of the theory it’s meant to demonstrate.

                      You are confusing failure at proving a theory with success at proving a theory.

                    2. Proving the theory correct would require the deaths of many human animals. Be careful what you ask for.

                    3. Proving the theory correct would require the deaths of many human animals.

                      Have you ever heard the term “circular reasoning?”

                    4. Best way to prove catastrophic global warming is to point to a pile of warm cadavers and say: “there’s your catastrophe!” Have you another proof in mind? Don’t feel shy about sharing. You can even mention Al Gore if it makes you feel better.

            2. “What more do you ask of a science?”

              A bit more than ‘something will happen sometime or other’, dipshit.

              1. “A bit more than ‘something will happen sometime or other’, dipshit.”

                The more you want, the more it’ll cost you. Science is no different from any other human endeavor in that regard. You won’t make yourself popular around here calling for increased spending on climate science.

            3. I ask science to abolish for profit industries that provide cheap energy for the world to progress.

              Or…wait… I ask gov’t to abolish for profit industries that provide cheap energy for the world to progress.

              SCIENCE

              You enviro-whackos have no idea that you are just Marxists. That’s why we love you and like to watch you freak out so much.
              Science is never settled. It is a continuance of trial, error, findings, further experimentation and mis-provings.

              1. ” It is a continuance of trial, error, findings, further experimentation and mis-provings.”

                Let me know when you’ve managed to show that CO2 is not a heat-trapping gas. Or that solar flares heat the planet.

                1. Let be know when you’ve shown that ECS is greater than 1.5C. Let me know when your models can actually predict temps instead of only managing to postdict them. Let me know when those models demonstrate any skill at predicting ENSO events. Let me know when your models can actually predict antarctic ice trends.

                  1. “Let be know when you’ve shown that ECS is greater than 1.5C. ”

                    And what will that prove?

                    The fact that climate is difficult to model has no bearing on the theory. Failure of a computer model doesn’t disprove a theory.

              2. You enviro-whackos have no idea that you are just Marxists

                Oh, mtrueman knows full well that he’s a Marxist. He’s only and exactly an environmentalist to the extent that it serves his own, deeply cynical and self-serving version of Marxism.

                You’ll get more good-faith argumentation from Tony or DanO that you will from mtrueman.

                1. Needs more celebrities. Tony, DanO and I are B list, at best.

              3. Environmental extremists may advocate for some pretty bad policies, but it really doesn’t make them “Marxists”. Manipulated by Marxists, perhaps. But Marxism is a pretty specific view of economics and politics, and ascribing it to all who take environmental protection too far is nonsense.

            4. I ask science to abolish for profit industries that provide cheap energy for the world to progress.

              Or…wait… I ask gov’t to abolish for profit industries that provide cheap energy for the world to progress.

              SCIENCE

              You enviro-whackos have no idea that you are just Marxists. That’s why we love you and like to watch you freak out so much.
              Science is never settled. It is a continuance of trial, error, findings, further experimentation and mis-provings.

            5. Getting the sign right isn’t science. The burden if proof is on the climastrologists. So what have they failed at?

              Missing tropical tropo hotspot
              Grossly exaggerated warming rates
              Complete lack of skill at predicting regional temps and precips
              Complete lack of predictive skill that the pause could even occur
              Even getting the SIGN wrong on antarctic sea ice and ice mass (oops, that pesky GRACE data)

              1. “The burden if proof…”

                Proof of what? The greenhouse gases trap heat? Something else? If you want better models, it will cost more money. Is that what you’re asking for, more money for ‘climate scientists?’

                1. Proof of what?

                  Proof that CAGW is destroying the planet and that the Paris Accord will save it.

                  Try to stay focused on the discussion at hand.

                  1. How much are you willing to spend? Want to spring for a replica planet to serve as a lab for controlled experiments? That should furnish you with the proof you demand.

                    1. How much are you willing to spend? Want to spring for a replica planet to serve as a lab for controlled experiments? That should furnish you with the proof you demand.

                      What are you arguing, in fact? Do you even know?

                    2. Sorry to be obscure. If you want unimpeachable proof, and statistical certainty, it’s gonna cost you more money than is now being spent on ‘climate science.’ They aren’t summoned up on command, but are arrived at through costly effort. Now, if you are calling for increased research (and spending) to prove the theory, I haven’t seen it. I suspect you are blowing smoke.

                    3. Ah. So you’re arguing against things no one is saying.

                      Gotcha.

                    4. “So you’re arguing against things no one is saying.”

                      So it’s my fault that morans like you prefer to discuss celebrities than the issues?

      3. Scientific consensus is practiced in all fields. Based in data, the scientists agree what the data means. Mayybe you don’t get it, but they do.

        timbo|6.2.17 @ 9:56AM|#

        I thought science could never be settled because hypotheses and theories are always subject to further experimentation.

    2. It’s basically just another example of modern-day Progressivism as a religious dogma–most of these people, who tend to be on the atheistic side but not always, are so far up their own ass about their own self-righteousness, they’ve replaced political belief with religious belief and/or community as the binding social force in their lives to the extent that anyone who doesn’t share their opinions is considered to be a heretic.

      1. And eugenics too. Mustn’t forget about eugenics.

      2. Red Rocks Baiting n Inciting|6.2.17 @ 10:34AM|#

        Have yyou come up with a better competing theory.?

        1. In a word, no. I suspect he’s of the ‘global warming is caused by solar flares’ school of thought.

  2. President Trump is the greatest boon to the virtue signaling industry the world has seen.

  3. So far, the only things that I have seen in history that are capable of dooming the planet are politicians with power and throngs of minions supporting them.

    1. That and Marxism.

      1. Marxism is not new. It is based on, as Bastiat put it, ancient ideas. Fairness through force is not a new thing. You see it in daycare all the time when kids whine and cry and steal because something isn’t fair. Adults do it too. Only they tend to kill each other. And it’s been happening since we left the cave, if not before.

        1. Amen. Children are the perfect example of the natural greed of humans.
          Greed is not some side effect of capitalism. We all want stuff. That is greed. Ethical acquisition of that which you want is the basis for free trade, mutual exchange of value for benefit, liberty, and free markets.

          I love how the progs use greed as the devil and their bullsh*t unattainable solutions as some sort of benevolence.

          1. “Politicians never accuse you of ‘greed’ for wanting other people’s money — only for wanting to keep your own money.” – Joseph Sobran

          2. I love how greed is also always limited to a desire for more money. Somehow the desire to have power over others — and to never be satisfied with your current level of power — is never mentioned.

            But it is power over your fellow humans that is far more destructive.

            At least with money, force is not an issue. Someone offers me money, I can always say no to the deal if it doesn’t appeal to me and I don’t want to participate in the proposed transaction. Even if they offer you a ridiculously large sum, you can still say “no thanks.” But just TRY politely declining when someone has power over you.

            1. Too many people view power and authority as synonyms. They are not.

              My boss has authority over me. Perhaps a bit of power, but more authority. His authority comes from the fact that I am voluntarily doing his bidding in exchange for a paycheck. I can tell him to fuck off and the worst he can to is render me unemployed.

              The police have power over me. Perhaps a bit of authority, but more power. Their authority comes from their enforcement of the law, but law and legislation are not synonyms either. So when they enforce legislation that is contrary to the laws of society, they are exercising power, not authority.

              1. Good points.

                But keep in mind that if you tell your boss to fuck off, and he loses his shit because you’ve dared to question his authority and decides to shoot you or beat you to death, he will most likely do a long stretch in prison.

                If you tell a cop to fuck off, and he loses his shit because you’ve dared to question his authority and decides to shoot you or beat you to death, he gets an extra paid vacation!

                Sure, your family could sue and they might win some cash award, but not so much as a dime will come from the pocket of the cop that did it. Taxpayers like your surviving family will fund that payment.

                1. But keep in mind that if you tell your boss to fuck off, and he loses his shit because you’ve dared to question his authority and decides to shoot you or beat you to death, he will most likely do a long stretch in prison.

                  If you tell a cop to fuck off, and he loses his shit because you’ve dared to question his authority and decides to shoot you or beat you to death, he gets an extra paid vacation!

                  That is the difference between power and authority.

                  1. You did make a mistake there. The cop only has authority if he is enforcing the law. And I don’t mean legislation. I mean the law. Not that any police officer could comprehend that distinction. Like asking a cop about bad cops. You’ll get a blank stare.

                    So that last part would more accurately be questioning a cop’s perceived authority and genuine power.

                    Yada yada. Tomato, tomahto. Penis, dick. Vaginia, cunt. Whatever.

    2. The president doesn’t need the support of minions or even the congress to launch a planet dooming nuclear attack.

      1. You’re right.

        Not giving a bunch of money to third world socialist crooks is very similar to nuclear holocaust.

        1. Except that, unlike a nuclear holocaust, it doesn’t doom the planet.

          1. Nuclear winter would cool the planet at least.

            1. Always looking on the bright side. That’s why I like you.

              Also, another benefit to all of the climate change is easily attainable polar bear meat.

              The communistas should be happy. Once the ice caps melt, all of these capitalist pigs with nice houses on the water will lose a bunch of money. Is that not all the leftists want in the world?

            2. Meh, Sagan was wrong. The effect wouldn’t be very significant.

          2. Unless those third world nations use the money we give them to get off fossil fuels use the money to make un secure nuclear facilities that are actually nuclear bomb making facilities

            1. That’s a common misconception that nuclear power = nuclear bombs. Nope. Not even close.

              That’s a huge reason that the stupid enviros are strongly anti-nuclear power. Modern nuclear power plants are their best bet to actually make major cuts to carbon emissions immediately (supposedly what they want) without making anyone give up their cell phones or computers or central heating… but nnnnooooooooo, it’s way too dangerous because if something goes wrong you get a mushroom cloud/fallout (not true), plant workers can divert U235 to bomb making (not true), terrorists can sneak out plutonium (totally not true), and lots of poisonous waste that never goes away is produced as a by-product (no longer true).

    3. 100ppm co2 increase brought 400 ft. of sea level rise from about 15,000 years ago. Do you think 120ppm will change things on earth?

  4. I blame Al Gore and his stupid documentary for all of this malarkay.

    1. If only he would have changed the name of the catastrophy a few more times in the beginning, he could have duped a few more million zombies.

    2. He certainly did the science no favors by advocating ridiculous doomsday predictions that have proven to be less accurate than Nostradamus’ own.

      1. At least Nostradamus had an excuse. Gore used all of the technology at our fingertips to create a ruse, not attempt to solve a problem or discover anything.

        1. Al Gore is attempting to create ‘Al Gore, The World’s First Carbon Billionaire’.

    3. Thankfully, the actual science seems to suggest we’re not facing imminent catastrophe, otherwise Al Gore has probably done more to doom the planet than any other single human.

      There used to be honest investigation going on where many different phenomena were investigated and many different potential causes of warming were explored.

      About 15 years ago Gore & Co. figured out that CO2 was where the money and power was. The conversation first got focused on GHGs, and then on CO2, to the exclusion of all else.

      Maybe CO2 is the primary driver of warming, but it’s looking unlikely from the actual science. If there really were CAGW going on, we have aggressively blinded ourselves and are just crossing our fingers that the problem-as-framed-by-politicians happens to be the right one to solve.

    4. Al Gore went with the science and his advisors guided him. He is actually quite accurate on presenting the climate science.

      1. Poe’s Law?

        1. No, I am serious. There is no parody here. I have been to Al Gores climate reality lectures. He is actually quite accurate in his statements of quoting science.

  5. CO2 is not a thermostat for global temperatures. Man-made global warming is bad, bad science…

    1. i.e. – for profit business is bad. – science.

    2. El Oso|6.2.17 @ 9:59AM|#

      CO2 is not a thermostat for global temperatures. Man-made global warming is bad, bad science…

      Actuallyy it is the thermostat of the earth. 100ppm co2 brought us the Holocene.

      1. Not to be rude, but you seem badlly confused. The level of CO2 during the Holocene was more like 300ppm +/-, and there isn’t anything I’m aware of that’s terribly concerning about the Holocene.

        Are you sure you’re not thinking of the Paleocene?Eocene Thermal Maximum?

        Because that is actually relevant to the debate over the relationship between CO2 and GMT, but it’s all very theoretical at this stage, and empirical tests are still being developed.

        1. I was moving fast and left crucial information to my point. I was talking about the ice age. 93% of the energy to change us from ice age to Holocene, was from positive feedbacks. Mainly co2. That was the natural way. Now we have replicated that time from a point of 280ppm co2 up to present day co2 levels. We will experience positive feed backs beyond what we have today.

  6. God damn, Shikha. I’ve been liking your articles on Detroit’s crony capitalist revival and now this. To push back against the climate doomsday which has become a rich white liberal religion is tough to do in your profession. Kudos for that.

    Now, if you could just re-read the First Amendment and promise to uphold its principles even for people you may find ‘icky’, you may become one of the best contributors here.

    1. She will still annoy people with her immigration pieces (I generally agree with her on that, but her arguments are often pretty weak). But, yeah, she does have her moments.

      1. Yeah, she did a decent job here. Excellent really, when you factor in her limited intellect.

    2. Religion needs no evidence to believe, science is all evidence. Evidence is humans are entirely responsible for warming the planet.

      1. Geez.

        Ok.

        I responded seriously above. But now I’m back to Poe’s Law.

  7. One philosophical truism “There can be no rational response to an irrational demand”.

    Now if the left will only accept Inspector Callahan’s truism “A man’s got to know his limitations”.

    1. “There can be no rational response to an irrational demand”.

      Sure there is. Here’s an example:

      Irrational demand: “I demand a Safe Space at your expense, because my feelings are so precious!”
      Rational response: “Fuck you!”

      -jcr

  8. Yeah try to find the silver lining in Trump obeying apocalyptic cultist Steve Bannon and Trump’s remaining cousin-fucking supporters over the entire rest of the planet. Even if the only thing at stake were political face-saving, this makes us all look like morons.

    1. Because you looked so smart before, chattering away in the intellectual bastion that is Oklahoma.

      Frowny clown face.

      1. Presumably your ridiculous state-based snobbery means you live in one of the socialist hellholes producing much of the country’s GDP?

        1. Sorry, but your decision to live in red state fly-over country doesn’t have anything to do with ne

        2. OK? No wonder you vent here. those good ole’ boys would knock your teeth down your fucking throat if you were dumb enough to run your faggot traitor mouth in a state like that.\\

          A weak little coward like you wouldn’t;t say shit if you had a mouthful of it. Not around there.

    2. No matter what ‘mericans do, they will always look like morons in the eyes of the super-brilliant Europeans, Tony. How is the EU working out lately?

    3. You know what else makes people look like morons?

      Using the phrase “cousin-fucking” in political discourse.

      1. Maybe American politicians should stop pandering to people who fuck their cousins.

        1. Maybe American politicians should stop pandering to people who fuck their cousins

          How are they pandering to Arabs and Hispanics?

        2. Shut your fucking face, Uncle Fucka
          You’re a cock sucking, ass licking Uncle Fucka
          You’re an Uncle Fucka, yes, it’s true
          Nobody fucks uncles quite like you

          Shut your fucking face, Uncle Fucka
          You’re the one that fucked your uncle, Uncle Fucka
          You don’t eat or sleep or mow the lawn
          You just fuck your uncle all day long

          What’s going on here?
          Fucker, fucker, Uncle Fucka
          Uncle Fucka, Uncle Fucka

          Shut your fucking face, Uncle Fucka
          You’re a boner biting bastard, Uncle Fucka
          You’re an Uncle Fucka, I must say
          You fucked your uncle yesterday!
          Uncle Fucka, that’s U-N-C-L-E, fuck you,
          Uncle Fucka……
          [Suck my balls]

        3. Yes, and maybe they should keep the hell out of those peoples’ bedrooms and mind their own business.

          Look, you and I may both agree that having sex with one’s own cousin in gross, but if the cousins in question are consenting adults, I say let them be. If it works for them and makes them happy — good for them.

          That’s one of the reasons I can’t stand the “slippery slope” argument Socons use against gay marriage. It basically goes, “Well, if we allow two men or two women to get married, what happens when you start getting polyamorous groups, or even traditional Mormons, asking for THEIR weird lifestyles to be allowed?”

          What happens, indeed. You mind your own damn business since it is not hurting you. That’s what happens.

          1. Which all really makes a strong argument to not license marriage in the first place.

        4. Tony,
          Tell us again how the Euros get cheap power from windbags like you:
          http://www.bing.com/images/sea…..ajaxhist=0

          1. Tony,
            Can I have your polar bear steak since you clearly are going to waste it?

        5. “Maybe American politicians should stop pandering to people who fuck their cousins.”

          We all know that Tony doesn’t believe our rights exist unless the government says so.

          It’s interesting that he doesn’t believe in democracy either.

          That makes Tony an elitist authoritarian.

          Right?

          Right.

    4. apocalyptic cultist

      “MUDDAH GAIA WILL SLAUGHTER US ALL!!”

      The accords have no enforcement mechanism, would have doubled as a graft machine for American corporate bankers and third world kleptocrats, and had no hard caps or requirements to spend on China and India, who contain 1/3 of the world’s population and are two of the worst offenders for large-scale pollution on the plant.

      Oh, and Elon Musk might lose the subsidies that are keeping his business afloat.

      That nominally educated people think the world is going to collapse in a spasm of environmental destruction shows that religious belief never completely extracts itself from the human psyche.

      1. So then obviously it was a good idea for the US to join Syria and… no one else… in this purely symbolic action.

        1. spending billions of $$$ for zero results that would be the stupid thing to do

        2. When it was relevant, the Holocaust wasn’t exactly unpopular. You didn’t see many countries lambasting Hitler over how he treated Jews.

        3. I don’t give a rip if you and the rest of the world think the US pulling out of this entirely symbolic agreement means the end of life on earth as we know it. Even its most dedicated supporters have admitted that fully adhering to this completely unenforceable agreement still wouldn’t cause global temperatures to drop, so this plan that you’re rending your garments about is ultimately ineffective anyway. But hey, at least you and the world’s leaders can feel good jerking yourself off over it.

          The only way to actually stop global warming, if humans are the sole/primary cause of it, is to start killing off the world’s population in response–which is cartoon-level supervillian shit. However, if you’re willing to go down that road, you’re more than welcome to jump out in front of a speeding semitruck and start the process.

          1. he only way to actually stop global warming, if humans are the sole/primary cause of it, is to start killing off the world’s population in response–which is cartoon-level supervillian shit.

            100% renewable energy

            1. Ok, now recognize this as satire.

              Hats off to you, sir.

              1. No Square, this is not satire. This is a well thought out plan.

        4. REPENT, SINNER, FOR THE END OF THE WORLD IS NIGH!!!

          Totes not a religion though.

        5. So then obviously it was a good idea for the US to join Syria and… no one else… in this purely symbolic action.

          I think your nation-state-level poll on what the right answer here is ought to remove those nation-state-level voters who are voting to receive funds from the program, since their support is unsurprising.

          What’s the “consensus” look like among paying countries under the accord?

    5. The entire planet – with 2 or 3 exceptions – is all in on fighting the Drug War, too.

      I guess it’s stupid to advocate that people shouldn’t be thrown in cages for what they do with their own bodies.

      1. ^ This.

        There was also a time when pretty much the whole world agreed that the proper way to deal with gay people is to kill them painfully. The overlap of countries who still think this way and who support the Paris Accord is rather striking, actually.

    6. Because blindly following the mob makes you look smart.

    7. At the end of the day, that’s all this comes down to – appearances, reputation, feelings, approval. Trump made us look bad. How will we ever show our face again now that the cool countries don’t like us?

      The accords did nothing to slow the rise in temperatures, created another little slush fund, and would let everyone pat themselves on the back for accomplishing their own goals.

      We don’t need an accord to do any of that.

      I like that everyone is ‘rebelling’ against this by promising to reduce emissions on their own. This is is perfect. No need to wait for any accords to take effect. Start today!

      I do find it funny that a big coalition of cities, counties, companies, etc. are said to be negotiating with the UN(?) to comply with the standards. First thing I thought – what’s to negotiate? Just do what you can to reduce your emissions.

    8. Even if the only thing at stake were political face-saving, this makes us all look like morons.

      You sound a lot like Trump. “They’re laughing at us!”

  9. While I believe that greenhouse gases play some role in warming-its not to the extent that the greenies claim it is. Regardless, even if the best “97% of scientists” models are to be believed and the recommendations of Paris are implemented, it will have next to no effect on warming. The agreement is nothing more than a proggie circle jerk and mechanism to transfer tax money from rich countries to corrupt poor countries, and pad the accounts of stakeholders along the way. This freakout over pulling out of it is nothing more than another anti-Trump cry-in. Boo hoo!

    1. Under a Trump kind of thinking, we can destroy a great deal of life on earth, about 250 years out.

      https://goo.gl/Zdh8Wx

      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]

  10. “Pulling Out of Paris” was the title to my unreleased – and unauthorized – French tourism video.

    1. OT-there have been several “racist” incidents here in the DC area this week, including one in my neighborhood where someone put up flyers with “stop the blacks” and a confederate flag. It all seems very suspicious, considering that I live in an almost entirely white prog bastion-the incidents in DC were in white proggie neighborhoods too.

      1. Assume false-flag until proven otherwise.

        1. I have no doubt the Resistards are behind this and many other incidents-they need crises to stay relevant.

          1. I have no doubt the Resistards are behind this and many other incidents-they need crises to stay relevant

            I’ve already written off the LeBron incident and the noose at the Smithsonian as such, especially given how many “hate-hoaxes” have taken place since November.

      2. Yeah, there is very little chance that there are bands of super racists putting flyers up in DC.

        1. I’m now amused by the thought of hardened racists making flyers.

    2. All this time I thought it was an alternate title to the “One Night in Paris” video.

  11. His style is sometimes “paranoid” but the paragraph you quoted is entirely accurate. The fact that Americans’ motives are more religious than spiteful doesn’t change that.

    1. Global warming science is all data. Religion is not.

  12. Open offer to liberal celebrities: I will trade you straight up, my three-bedroom ranch in Ohio for your beachhouse/penthouse/mansion in your big city coastal hangout. If we are as doomed as you say, you are getting a great deal on a property that’ll be worth a million times more than your future ocean floor property. My house also uses less energy and had a lower carbon footprint to build.

    I expect to be swamped with offers, of course, since there are so many wealthy climate activists in those soon-to-be-floodzones.

    1. Ewwww cooties!

    2. “Hmmm…do I keep my beach house in Malibu, or grab that 1980s-vintage ranch in Medina? Man that’s a tough choice!”

      — Hollywood celeb

  13. You know what can fix all of this?

    MASS HYSTERIA OVER TRIVIAL CRAP!!

    $20 trillion in debt

  14. “Trump may be nuts, but that does not justify the liberal hysteria over the pull out”

    Shikha may be a dishonest proggie slut pig, but that doesn’t mean she won’t occasionally find an acorn.
    Is that how it’s done?

    Listen up Reason. Both the Paris accord and the Obama pen-technique that created it deserve nothing less than non-stop ridicule and condemnation at this very “libertarian”? website. And anyone who terminates that steaming pile of communism deserves praise. And that should be praise without the ad hominem.

    1. praise without the ad hominem.

      You mean like “Shikha may be a dishonest proggie slut pig, but that doesn’t mean she won’t occasionally find an acorn” for example?

      1. You missed it completely.
        Read it again, especially the part where I ask her “is that how it’s done?”

        1. No need to read it again. You’re a fucking idiot.

          We’re Libertarians. We don’t cry like bitches when Republicans get rightfully insulted. Go back to your Republican sites, statist.

          1. This site stopped being libertarian a long time ago. I happen to agree that Trump is nuts. But it is proggie bullshit to attach that qualifier to everything he does. The repeal of Paris is straight up Aces. Why can’t Reason and it’s staff just say that without tugging the forelock to the cocktail set?

            If you think I’m a Republican statist, you have got a bad reading comprehension problem.

            1. Yep, Like him or not, Trump did good yesterday. He gets a gold star. Period. Which is fair. When he fucks up, he should be called out for it. Which is also fair.

          2. No, you cry like bitches when libertarians get rightfully insulted.

    2. You sure set them straight.

  15. “Global warming cannot and should not be fought by massive international agreements. The battle will only be won when America’s technology and energy sectors develop innovative solutions that present consumers with cleaner energy options that are obviously cheaper and better than what exists today.”

    No, the battle will be won in about 20 more years when everyone finally notices that absolutely nothing untoward is happening and the climate change scam fades away.

    1. It will never fade away. They will continue to push it saying that their predictions were off by a decade or so.

    2. It will never fade away though. It is as powerful as the class warfare scam. Communists are quite adept at pulling at the heartstrings of useful idiots.

      That is why politicians grasped onto the climate thing with such speed and vigor.

      Think about how powerful this scam is. people are willing to kill masses of other people on the chance that it might get hotter outside some day maybe.

      1. It will simply mutate into another form. Man is theultimate evil.

        1. NotAnotherSkippy|6.2.17 @ 11:29AM|#

          It will simply mutate into another form. Man is theultimate evil.

          More co2 in the atmosphere is warmer and less co2 is less warmer. Nothing evil.

      2. I disagree. This is a scam with a shelf life. The apocalyptic fear-mongering was designed to produce a new world order of energy and wealth distribution in a short time frame. That’s why the science was settled even before it started. That’s why Gore had pictures of Manhattan under water. That’s why thinking is not allowed by the plebes, and skepticism, the cornerstone of science, became the ultimate stigma. The Warmers know that every day that goes by, their models crumble. It is possible that Trump will give us just the time cushion we need.

        1. Hope so. These regs are crippling in aggregate.

        2. This is a scam with a shelf life.

          I agree.

          The timing may have been coincidental, but it was hard not to notice that as the UN was lining up trillions to spend on fighting CAGW, the science started showing that it was maybe not something to get too worked up about.

          That was about 15 years ago (as I mentioned above). The propagandizing since then is clearly unsustainable. When you start going around trying to say “the science is settled” and “stop thinking about this, we know the answers,” you’re going to start losing the scientists.

          Luckily for them, it takes a long time to lose the scientists – in my experience most scientists (married to one) are pretty apolitical, and tend to trust authority. If they’re told “most climate scientists think x,” they’ll tend to accept it and not really even consider that something political might be going on.

          But the more dogmatic you get, the more scientific eyebrows you raise, and as the movement loses scientists, it loses credibility.

          This is why their timeline is short to get that money spent. If they can squeeze another 5-10 years out of loudly demonizing their critics until no one takes them seriously anymore, they will do it happily.

        3. We need the earth to support us. Unlimited co2 emissions destroys the life on earth that supports us.

    3. “No, the battle will be won in about 20 more years when everyone finally notices that absolutely nothing untoward is happening and the climate change scam fades away.”

      You should work on your understanding of the problem of induction. It’ll make you a more persuasive libertarian.

      1. logical induction or thermodynamic induction?

        1. Do you know what science will find 20 years from now?

          If science doesn’t find what you expect in the next 20 years, do you assume it won’t find it 20 years after that either?

          Are those questions about logic or thermodynamics?

          1. “Do you know what science will find 20 years from now?”

            Who is this “science” you speak of? Do you think “science” is a monolithic groupthink entity?

            I’m predicting a popular trend away from “climate apocalypse” over the next 20 years.
            (I believe it is already happening.)
            Wasn’t that clear the first time I said it?

            1. You don’t know what people are going to find 20 years from now.

              If your support for capitalist and libertarian policies is only predicated on what you think people will find 20 years from now, then you’re betting it all on a roll of the dice.

              If you plan to abandon your objections to authoritarian and socialist solutions if and when we find that there’s a problem, you’re doing the same thing.

              I have no idea whether people will find 20 years from now that nothing untoward is happening and that climate change is a hoax, but I know that regardless of what they find, I’ll still oppose socialist and authoritarian solutions and advocate capitalist and libertarian solutions anyway.

              My opposition to socialism and authoritarianism is independent of whether climate change is real.

              If people find that climate change is a real concern 20 years from now, what are you going to do then? If the answer is to insist on libertarian and capitalist solutions, why not just skip the denialism entirely. Make predictions about what data we’ve never seen (over the next 20 years) will say that turn out to be false, and you’re just destroying our credibility.

              People who know what they’re talking about can see that from 20 years away, too—because you have no idea what people will find 20 years from now.

              1. “If your support for capitalist and libertarian policies is only predicated on what you think people will find 20 years from now, then you’re betting it all on a roll of the dice.”

                You are dense. My libertarianism is not a concern to me nor is it predicated on other people. But I am concerned with the harm billions of brainwashed people can do. So, if delaying this new world order a few years gets us over the hump, I’ll take it.

                In the meantime, keep copy/pasting those same several paragraphs I’ve been reading from you for as long as I’ve been here. I’m sure it’s effective.

                1. An excellent symptom of brainwashing is believing that the only things we will find over the next 20 years are things that reinforce someone’s preexisting biases.

                  Do the sensitivity analysis. If your take on the solutions the left is offering don’t change regardless of what people find over the next 20 years, then you’re better off concentrating on criticizing their authoritarian and socialist solutions.

                  Someone who can’t be persuaded by the facts of climate change–because they think they know what we’re going to find over the next 20 years–is exactly what the authoritarian socialists are talking about when they call us “denialists”. Don’t play into their hands.

                  The case for making huge sacrifices in our standard of living on the basis of the evidence we have right now might not make much sense, but that may change. Regardless, the case against authoritarian socialism will always be persuasive–regardless of whether man made climate change is a real problem.

              2. You want to avoid authoritarianism, then get with the program on climate action. Climate change is expected to accelerate. What will libertarians agree upon then? Are people willing to admit they got it wrong?

                1. You want to avoid authoritarianism, then get with the program on climate action.

                  I honestly still cannot decide whether this guy is doing satire or whether he really does lack any self-awareness or knowledge to such an appalling extent. I mean, every statement just drips with irony.

                  Well played, sir.

                  *tips hat*

                  1. If we take ourselves to the point where the problem is severe without acting on climate, the laws just may become draconian rather mere compulsory. The science has laid out the consequences of global warming. Choosing to ignor well thought out expertise is at our own peril.

          2. I would like to see:

            1. Warp drive.
            2. Carbs that don’t make me fat.
            3. The formula that will allow Dr. Tongue and Bruno to turn women into his 3D Slave chicks.

        2. What is thermodynamic induction? There’s electromagnetic induction. Aspiration is sometimes called induction. But I’ve never heard of thermodynamic induction.

          1. Google it.

            1. That “Google it” wasn’t meant to be snippy. I only referred to thermodynamic induction originally because I didn’t know what the fuck Ken meant when he told me to “work on my understanding of the problem of induction”.

  16. Someone might respond to Dalmia that Trump’s immigration policies won’t doom the planet either.

    P.S. Get a grip.

    1. Logically, allowing mass immigration from third-world to first world countries is actually a net negative in curbing global warming, because first-world countries put out a far greater carbon footprint than most third-world ones. The minute these people migrate from their home countries to Europe or the US, their own carbon footprint increases exponentially as they integrate into the economy.

      Putting strict, low caps on immigration levels to the highest energy-consuming countries is one of the few climate change mitigation strategies that would make sense, but liberal open borders advocates can’t make the connection.

      1. Authoritarian and socialist solutions to limit greenhouse gas emissions have been a failure everywhere they’ve been attempted. Even in the U.S., the reason greenhouse gas emission have been falling for ten years is because a) fracking gave us a plentiful and cheap supply of low carbon intensity energy relative to coal and b) consumer tastes changed towards smaller, more fuel efficient cars. That second solution is particularly interesting.

        People pay a premium to drive a hybrid over the cost savings from better mileage. That’s about consumer tastes. Consumers will pay a premium over alternatives to do all sorts of things that are easy on the environment, and the wealthier they are, the more apt they are to make those kinds of willing sacrifices. That’s the key. We call environmentalism a religion like that’s a bad thing, but it’s really the heart of the solution.

        1. People pay a premium to drive a hybrid over the cost savings from better mileage.

          Is that premium really all that egregious, though? A Prius costs about the same as a Camry and Kia now has a small crossover that gets mileage that’s nearly as good as a Prius, for about the same price as any other vehicle in its class.

          Also, the most popular vehicles aren’t small fuel efficient vehicles–they’re trucks, mid-size sedans, and small crossovers. Out of the top 20 best selling vehicles, only the Civic and Corolla could be considered gas-sippers. The rest get MPGs in the 15-30 MPG range. There isn’t a single hybrid in the top 20 unless you include the Ford Fusion and Camry hybrid variants in their total sales figures.

          1. Whatever the premium is, people who buy those hybrids value them for reasons of personal preference–not for cost savings.

            And I didn’t say that electric vehicles or hybrids were the most popular. I said that electric vehicles and hybrids tend to be bought by wealthier people rather than the poor, and I said that consumer tastes have changed so that more people prefer to buy more fuel efficient vehicles.

      2. The effective solution is for environmentalists who care to spread their ethics and personal preferences like an evangelist–not to use the government to force people to do things against their will. That effective strategy is increasingly effective as people get wealthier, too. It isn’t poor consumers shopping at Whole Foods, paying a premium for an electric car, or putting up expensive solar panels.

        Economic growth itself is, thus, a necessary ingredient for effective environmentalism. People who need every penny they make just to feed, house, and clothe themselves can’t make the necessary sacrifices. Wealthy people make sacrifices for the environment because being a polluter is rude and because the sacrifices they make not to be rude don’t really impact their standard of living. The more poor people we get more like that, the better the environment will be.

        Hence, cutting income taxes, corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, and deregulation are extremely important environmental issues.

        1. Its about like alcoholism. There will be a point where enough is enough. Where is that point for you?

        2. ” People who need every penny they make just to feed, house, and clothe themselves can’t make the necessary sacrifices.”

          They don’t need to make sacrifices. It’s not the poor of the world who are the problem, emission wise. But I like your idea of shaming the rich into polluting less. Tres Maoiste.

  17. The left goes collectively nuts anytime there is a literal nut in the White House. It’s like they’re sorry for him and don’t want him to be alone in his nuttery.

  18. New York is switching all of its coal plans over to natural gas, which is going to do more to reduce CO2 than most other policies, great! They still ban fracking, though, which means it’s a case of depending on others to do what is necessary.

    If CO2 is an enormous problem than all efforts must be done, then fracking should be legal, as even its hypothetical downsides don’t eliminate the fact that natgas has much less CO2 emissions than coal.

    1. Not to mention nuclear power. If CO2 driven warming is the existential threat it’s made out to be, then nuclear is really the only sensible course to take.

      1. If CO2 driven warming is the existential threat it’s made out to be, then nuclear is really the only sensible course to take.

        ^ This.

        This is where you see the fault-lines in the thinking behind your typical CAGW hysteric.

        “CO2 is going to end the world!”

        “Well – let’s go nuclear then, and stop emitting CO2.”

        “Nuclear is dangerous!”

        1. i.e – for profit businesses are dangerous.

          That is the end goal of all of this.

          1. Old school communists liked nuclear power. Of course, for profit businesses will do it more safely and cheaply, but it makes a great government project too if you are into that sort of thing.

            1. Nothing like a jobs program. Especially one that ends in a giant explosion and radiation poisoning for the masses.

              Or for that matter, nothing like a collective working together without any corruption or theft or cronyism.

              1. I was in high school when the Chernobyl meltdown happened.

                We had a visit from a nuclear physicist from San Onofre to explain the difference between how Chernobyl was built vs. how San Onofre was built.

                That was when I first started doubting what my social science teachers were telling me about the wonders of Communism.

                1. “…the wonders of Communism.”

                  The wonder that so many idiots still fall for it…

                  1. Yeah – at least in the 80s my social science teachers had the excuse that behind the Iron Curtain was essentially a black box. They could say that the western media was lying about how awful conditions really were and you didn’t have any basis to refute it.

                    How anyone still embraces communism after 1992 I have no idea.

        2. Exactly.

          To be fair, a few of the CAGW people do get it, but they are a very tiny minority and they need to keep a low profile lest they be burned at the stake for their heresy.

          1. Almost invariably they also demand a carbon tax (where have I read that…?) based on some arbitrary social cost of carbon, too. So their solutions always involve some spraining of the invisible hand.

    2. 100% renewable energy

  19. In an amazing development, the SF Chron published this quote today:
    “Even Gina McCarthy, who headed EPA under the Obama administration, conceded the so-called value of the Clean Power Plan was not measured by how much the regulations would reduce future global temperature, but by “showing strong domestic action, which can actually trigger global action.”

    IOWs, it is a ritual incantation intended to convince others of the righteousness of our faith!

    1. I’ve noticed this on NPR, too – they are pretty much openly accepting the premise that the Paris Accord was purely symbolic. I heard one half-hearted “some scientists would disagree with that statement,” but mostly the theme is the importance of empty symbolic actions and how now we’re all doomed because of the US failing its “symbolic leadership role.”

    2. Your self confidence of how wrong people are, when the science is so strong on who is responsible for warming. Can you ever look at the science and not deny its conclusion?

  20. Global Warming, Global Cooling, Inequality, Starvation, Obesity, the list goes on and on of all these “problems” that are going to destroy humanity.

    The only constant is the “solution,” which is government control over everything.

    Hm.

    1. Well who else could be trusted to design and implement solutions, except all-wise, hyper-competent, incorruptible governments?

      You know, the same governments that waged The War on Drugs, that came up with The Food Pyramid, and that will routinely pay thousands of dollars for a hammer, when you and I can pick one up at Home Depot for $20, and could figure out how to get them wholesale for a fraction of that if we know you needed a large quantity.

      Or maybe you mean the governments that run the UN Commission on Refugees, which was raping the very refugee women they were supposed to be protecting, or the governments which created the need for those refugee camps in the first place.

      If you want something done very badly, super-expensively, and with all sorts of terrible unintended consequences, you look to government. If you want it done both well and cheaply, often even exceeding your expectations, you look to free markets.

    2. noooooo. Its the government is the only thing big enough to get us through this warming mess. If you don’t accept science, at some point you will be left behind, licking your wounds and feeling sorry for your self.

      1. noooooo. Its the government is the only thing big enough to get us through this warming mess. If you don’t accept science, at some point you will be left behind, licking your wounds and feeling sorry for your self.

        Sadly, I no longer believe this is satire. I think this person does actually mean these comments in all seriousness. I sincerely hope I am wrong.

        smdh

        1. Yes I am serious. Do you recognize the problem of global warming?

  21. http://www.denverpost.com/2017…..act-check/

    “Notably, he looked at only one side of the scale ? claiming that the agreement left the United States at a competitive disadvantage, harming U.S. industries. But he often ignored the benefits that could come from tackling climate change, including potential green jobs.”

    Hahahahahahaha.

    1. “…including potential green jobs.”

      Repairing all those broken windows.

  22. “Pulling out of Paris..”

    Paris Hilton? I thought we were all on board with never stick it in crazy.

    1. Everyone makes mistakes. If you stick it into crazy, pulling out is better than nothing.

      1. And that is a damn good analogy of the Paris climate accord.

  23. Just imagine what they’d be saying if Trump didn’t pull out of the Paris Accords:

    “Hmmm…wait a minute! Russia didn’t pull out either! Aha! More proof that Trump is doing Putin’s bidding!”

    1. Putin made him pull out because he’s a cuck.

  24. If Trump thinks “we all” (including leftists) love our country, he really is nuts. But his arguments against the Paris treaty-that-isn’t-called-a-treaty were quite accurate. The real danger is that enviro-zealots would judge-shop to impose the Obama restrictions on the rest of us even after they were officially dropped.

    1. The real danger is that enviro-zealots would judge-shop to impose the Obama restrictions on the rest of us even after they were officially dropped.

      It appears you don’t accept the science. More co2 bad, less co2 good. Do you agree with this?

  25. Well, suto fox news is now becoming a public also ran like the rest of MoP
    [MoP is the Ameri’Kan Politi’Kal Klass’s National and local Ministry of Propaganda]…
    It is worth noting that the Ameri’Ka’s MoP is completed through their buttressing Ameri’Kan University of Moscow on the Hudson educational propaganda indoctrination system…

    ?can any students from those Government Propaganda mill schools spell anything except “social Justice” ?

    Suffering from the Politi’Kal Klass’s social justice propaganda fraud, the propagandized Ameri’Kan students do not appear to have the capacity to say “hey ! the Politi’Kal Klass and their Krony Kapitalist Henchmen support the hate America to destruction climate accords; so, let’s have the IRS redistribute their wealth to pay for their foreign environmental financing funds and their foreign henchmen’s economic carbon excesses.

    It is the Ameri’Kan Politi’Kal Klass [their toadies and stooges] who say they actually believe in their man caused climate fraud; therefore, they advocate it – let them pay for it.” Looks true like social justice to me.

  26. To the contrary, Trump’s withdrawal rips the mask off the agreement’s silly assumption that nations like China and India will actually deliver on the emission cuts that they promise on paper. And this might finally trigger a search for workable solutions that don’t involve putting the globe on an energy diet.

    Boy is this ever wrong. It isn’t that you dump to leave, yyou stayy in to improve. The governemnt procress usually starts out not enough, and then improves over time. This was a good start. With commitments improving in the future, we would come closer to the group goal.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.