President Trump Refused to Join the Paris Climate Accord. Here’s Why.

President Trump Refused to Join the Paris Climate Accord. Here’s Why. by The Elephant's Child

July 9, 2017, 6:32 am
Filed under: Bureaucracy, Domestic Policy, Economics, Energy, Environment, Foreign Policy, Media Bias, National Security, Progressivism, Statism, The United States | Tags: Climate Science Is Not Settled, No Measurable Difference, Paris Climate Accord

Angela Merkel is furious that President Trump refused to join in the Paris Climate Accord. As Roy Spencer PhD admits, it would make no measurable difference. It is Dr. Spencer and Dr. Christie at the University of Alabama at Huntsville who run the satellites and weather balloons that give us our most accurate measurements of climate around the world. Climate science has been dominated by the assertion that the following 5 general points are indisputable. They range from scientific to economic.

1) global warming is occurring, will continue to occur, and will have dangerous consequences

2) the warming is mostly, if not totally, caused by our CO2 emissions

3) there are no benefits to our CO2 emissions, either direct (biological) or indirect (economic)

4) we can reduce our CO2 emissions to a level that we avoid a substantial amount of the expected damage

5) the cost of reducing CO2 emissions is low enough to make it worthwhile (e.g. mandating much more wind, solar, etc.)

For things like the Paris Climate Agreement to make much sense, Spenser says, all five must be essentially true. There is peer reviewed and published analysis in science and economics which would allow one to contest each of the five claims.

A growing volume of evidence undercuts “consensus” science. Already 285 Scientific Papers published in 2017 support a skeptical position on Climate alarm. They cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob, or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models, or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policy makers and mainstream media.

Climate science is not settled.

Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented. Many regions of the Earth are cooler now than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years.

Natural factors such as the Sun (84 papers), multi-decadal oceanic-atmospheric oscillations such as the NAO, AMO/PDO, ENSO (31 papers), decadal-scale cloud cover variations, and internal variability in general have exerted a significant influence on weather and climate changes during both the past and present. Detecting a clear anthropogenic forcing signal amidst the noise of unforced natural variability may therefore be difficult.

And current emissions-mitigation policies, especially related to the advocacy for renewables, are often costly, ineffective, and perhaps even harmful to the environment. On the other hand, elevated CO2 and a warmer climate provide unheralded benefits to the biosphere (i.e., a greener planet and enhanced crop yields).

For a list of the papers and links to them, click on this link, and scroll down.

In the United States, despite tens of billions of dollars in government subsidies provided, an EIA report on energy production shows that wind and solar combined provided only 3.2% of U.S. energy in 2016. 90% of 2016 U.S.Energy production was provided by fossil fuels, nuclear and hydro, with rising petroleum and natural gas use while the use of coal has declined.

The mainstream media continues to hype the role of heavily subsidized renewable energy, the reality of energy use continues to be dependent on fossil fuels, nuclear and hydropower energy sources.

2 Comments

2 Comments so far
Leave a comment

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI