US exits the Paris climate accord....

....based on the unfair and non enforceable terms. By contrast corporate America mostly argued to stay in....largely because it ticked a box, and better the devil you know. ... But of course it was completely ineffective shifting temperature curves by less that 5 years, even if you assume the modellers' alarmist equations. Here's the findings of Climate author Lomberg: .... Dr. Lomborg’s research reveals: 'The climate impact of all Paris INDC promises is minuscule: if we measure the impact of every nation fulfilling every promise by 2030, the total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100.' ... Here's what they don't tell you. Greenhouse gasses are less than 2% of the world's atmosphere......and less than 4% of that is CO2. But it gets smaller, less than 4% of that 4% is man made CO2......making man made CO2 about 1 part in a 1000 of Greenhouse gasses. .. To make changes in that infinitesimal variable a threat, the modellers have come up with elaborate feedback loops, which result in the release of much more water vapor. .....while they largely ignore the effect of a stronger sun which scientists at San Diego State calculate at about 1/3 of the temp increase forcing. .. For whatever reason, exiting this bogus accord is a good thing.

 If I was an American I would have been very pissed off. Everybody is always jumping on their backs but the moment the sh!t hits the fan, they are all crying: "Where is America" and the MSM are playing along. They are all creating the image of the Americans now kicking the world in it's backside. Fact is that, just like with NATO, the USA are currently putting the largest share into the bucket while getting feck all out of it. Countries like China and India are the biggest culprits when it comes to air quality and they have bugger all restrictions on them. The US economy, on the other hand are abiding by all the rules, and some, and is suffering because of it and in addition to it all they are forking out the most of the funding.
This whole hooh-hah about the withdrawal of the USA from the Paris agreement has bugger all to do with climate change and everything to do with the withdrawal of US taxpayer money from an ill conceived agreement. The ones who are making the loudest noises are the ones who are either exempted from most of the restrictive measures of the agreement and/or are paying the least into the pot.
What should happen is that every member should put in their proportional fair share, just like with NATO, and everyone should abide by the exact same rules. At this stage some are more equal than others.

A 20th of a degree C in 2100 is not worth the cost.....all the inequities......and the false sense of having done something important,

 Link

 Another link

 Basque is gonna sh!t himself.

Half of the one degree increase since the Industrial revolution came before 1940 .....by which time CO2emissions were about 10% of where they are now. Ergo that half a degree was driven by something else....here comes the sun.

Or you can look it another way CO2 has a diminishing impact....here's NASA: .... NASA GISS co2 impact global warming cut 67 percent 2013 012914NASA's climate research arm, GISS, recently updated its global temperature dataset. Using the annual temperature anomaly data from GISS, in combination with annual CO2 data from NOAA, the temperature increase per atmospheric CO2 ppm increase can be calculated. Now, if global warming is solely a function of increases in atmospheric CO2 levels, then calculating the degree increase per ppm added would be a convenient measure to monitor. As this chart reveals, for the 50-year period ending 1963, for each ppm increase of CO2 there was an associated increase of +0.024°C; in contrast, for the 50-year period ending 2013, the impact on warming was 67% less per ppm. This diminishing influence of a new CO2 molecule over time is actually a function of known climate physics - the logarithmic effect of carbon dioxide. Essentially, from lab testing it was determined that increasing levels of CO2 caused a diminishing returns effect, which is better described here. The logarithmic relationship between CO2 levels and global temperature was first presented way back in the 1930s by a scientist named Guy Callendar, and it is now widely accepted as science fact. And as the entire world knows by now, global warming is stuck in 'The Hiatus' that has resulted in temperatures barely budging over the last 16 years. This is despite the prodigious amounts of new CO2 emissions over that time span - recall, as the chart indicates, the influence of CO2 has declined. What this means is that future CO2 emission impacts will likely continue to lessen, to the point where they become rather inconsequential, which the climate may already be approaching in a manner faster than expected. Certainly, it would seem this fellow Callendar was really onto something. Plus, he discounted the speculative idea that higher levels of CO2 would create a positive feedback supposedly leading to ever higher temps. It appears he was wise to dismiss the shaky concept of "tipping point" positive feedbacks. Not bad for a scientist without the "benefits" of super-computers, satellites, IPCC conferences, huge government funding of climate research and etc. Additional temperature and climate charts. GISS temperature dataset. NOAA CO2 dataset. For 2013 annual mean CO2 level, used estimate since actual 2013 mean level not published yet.

In all likelyhood both are true......the sun plays a significant role in global warming and CO2 has a role which diminishes in intensity as the level of CO2 rises. ... Anthropogenic (man made) CO2 is 0.000026 of the atmoshpere

And riddle me this......the Warmers claim solar increase had little effect on warming since the Industrial revolution. But a noted Warming site claims the decline in solar could reduce temps by 0.5 degrees at the next Minimum ... Researchers from the Physical Meteorological Observatory Davos (PMOD), the Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology (EAWAG), ETH Zurich and the University of Bern are now qualifying this assumption. Their elaborate model calculations are supplying a robust estimate of the contribution that the sun is expected to make to temperature change in the next 100 years. For the first time, a significant effect is apparent. They expect the Earth’s temperature to fall by half a degree when solar activity reaches its next minimum ... So they argue the the rise in solar activity since the Little Uce Age can be dismissed.....but the decline back to Little Ice Age levels will cost us half a degree.....convenient, because they can then claim more CO2 forcing. ... Selective statistics, selective arguments.

 I'm all for the environment, but the whole global warming houx has their focus completely wrong.

 Trum*p as usual has done absolutely the right thing and by leaving this globalist Paris accord will focus attention on this hoax which will in time crumble to dust.What it also reveals is yet another attempt by the muslim Hussein Obama to sabotage America. As one looks at Obama's record there can be no doubt that he has committed treason against the USA. One can only hope that law and order in the USA is returned and this will require the prosecution of Clinton and Obama and many other democrats. I can see a huge call for this on the web. The outrage just grows and grows as more and more evidence of criminal activity comes out. Here one has to commend the work of judicial Watch among st others.

The Paris agreement was a treasonous act by the muslim Hussrein Obama Blame former President Barack Obama for the U.S. withdrawal from the Paris climate accord, according to policy experts, as Obam a’s decision to forgo Senate approval and bank on a Democratic win in 2016 made the agreement politically vulnerable.

“The Paris climate agreement was pushed through against the declared will of America’s elected representa tives,” Dr. Benny Peiser, director of the UK-based Global Warming Policy Forum, said in a statement.

President Donald Trump announced Thursday he would withdraw the U.S. from the Paris accord. Trump’s Paris withdrawal was made easier by decisions made by Obama to unilaterally impose global warming policies.

Obama joined the Paris accord in 2016, after years of working behind the scenes to craft the non-binding global warming deal, but he did so without submitting it to the Senate.

His signature achievement on global warming, therefore, depended on Hillary Clinton winning the 2016 presidential election and the courts.

“All the other major players in the Paris negotiations knew it was a crap shoot,” Marlo Lewis, a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI), told The Daily Caller News Foundation.

U.S. credibility on meeting its Paris goal hinged, in part, on the courts. More than half the states were suing to overturn Obama’s signature global warming regulation, the Clean Power Plan. States were also suing over federal regulations on methane emissions from oil and gas drilling.

“Two months before the signing ceremony in April 2016, they also knew the Supreme Court had taken the extraordinary step of staying the Clean Power Plan before the lower court had even reviewed it,” said Lewis, a vocal opponent of the Paris accord. He and his CEI colleague Chris Horner authored a policy paper, calling for U.S. withdrawal from Paris.

The Supreme Court’s decision to halt the implementation of the Clean Power Plan in February 2016 signaled to the Obama administration and supporters the global warming regulation on power plants could be in legal trouble.

Obama pledged to reduce U.S. greenhouse gas emissions 26 to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025. The Clean Power Plan was the main compliance tool, but more policies were still needed to meet the pledge based on government and independent projections.

Clinton’s 2016 victory would have ensured the U.S. remained in the Paris Agreement, but any setback in the courts would have made keeping Obama’s plan to cut greenhouse gas emissions even more difficult to achieve.

“The agreement was always first and foremost a political strategy to perpetuate Obama’s climate agenda for decades despite the policy preferences of future presidents, Congresses, and voters,” Lewis said.

Avoiding The Senate

To climate negotiators it was clear that the Republican-controlled Senate would vote the accord down, so they crafted it in such a way so Obama could declare it an “executive agreement,” rather than a treaty, which did not need legislative approval.

Former French foreign minister Laurent Fabius told United Nations delegates in Bonn, Germany, “We know the politics in the US. Whether we like it or not, if it comes to the Congress, they will refuse.”

Fabius’s remarks came about 6 months before nearly 200 countries agreed to the Paris accord in December 2015. About three months earlier, White House press secretary Josh Earnest was asked if Congress should be involved in crafting and approving the climate deal.

“Well these are individuals whom, many of whom at least, deny the fact that climate change even exists,” Earnest said. “So I’m not sure they would be in the best position to decide whether or not a climate change agreement is one that is worth entering into.”

Republicans had swept the 2014 midterm elections, claiming control of the Senate from Democrats. That pivotal election likely changed the White House’s strategy about how to join a global climate treaty.

Republicans said they would vote down any climate agreement Obama placed before them, so the administration joined Paris in 2016 and treated it as an “executive agreement” that needed no legislative approval.

“U.S. leaders and critics had warned international leaders repeatedly that the US Senate rejected Obama’s deal and that a Republican president would shred it to pieces,” Peiser said. “Now the Paris accord faces the same fate as the Kyoto Protocol which also ended in failure.”

But even if Democrats retained control of the Senate, Obama learned in 2009 the difficulty of passing a global warming bill. That year Obama failed to get a cap-and-trade bill through the Senate — even though his party controlled 59 seats.

Republicans were able to block the cap-and-trade bill, and Obama abandoned the effort to focus on health care and tackling Wall Street. But avoiding the Senate again in 2016 meant a Democrat would have to win the 2016 election, which did not happen.

“Voters foiled their scheme in November 2016,” Lewis said.