President Trump made good Thursday on a campaign promise to pull the United States out of the Paris global climate-change agreement, to which most nations already have subscribed.
“In order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the U.S. will withdraw from the Paris climate accord,” he said in a statement in the White House’ Rose Garden.
He added that he would be open to a new accord, one that would be “fair” to the United States.
“We will start to negotiate … and see if we can make a deal that stands.”
Vice President Mike Pence described Trump’s agenda as “working tirelessly” for the American people.
“Thanks to President Donald Trump, America is back,” he said.
Fortune reported the wealthy executives of major companies like ExxonMobil and others had lobbied the president to keep the nation under the restrictions of the deal, and tech firm magnates such as Apple’s Tim Cook and Tesla’s Elon Musk did the same.
A senior official at the Vatican, which has insisted the U.S. remain in the deal, told Reuters an exit would be viewed as a slap in the face.
The actual departure has a process to run, which could end up taking an extended time.
The deal, the result of the 2015 United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, would have cost Americans an additional 13 to 20 percent annually for their electricity, according to a recent study by the Heritage Foundation.
It also was projected to cost American families a loss of $20,000 in income by the year 2035, as well as a reduction in the U.S. Gross Domestic Product of $2.5 trillion and 400,000 jobs.
The study found the benefit would have been a reduction of less then two-tenths of a degree Celsius in global temperatures.
According to details released by the White House, the Paris deal would cost the U.S. economy nearly $3 trillion over the next few decades.
“It would effectively decapitate our coal industry, which now supplies about one-third of our electric power,” the statement said.
Meanwhile, the White House said, China actually was given a “free pass for years to come,” being allowed to “actually increase emissions until 2030.”
The U.S. already is leading in emissions reduction efforts, he said, with a decline on emissions of 12 percent since 2006.
Trump called it a “mnassive redistribution of United States’ wealth to other countries,” pointing to the agreement’s call for a $3 billion U.S. commitment to the “Green Climate Fund” – all without authorization from Congress.
President Obama signed the agreement at a ceremony in New York in September 2016, but Trump’s withdrawal was made easier by the fact Obama refused to send the treaty to the Senate for approval, as he knew it would fail there.
The goal of the 195-nation deal is to cut carbon emissions that global-warming alarmists say cause global warming, even though there’s been no evidence of global warming for decades.
Supporters of the theory that mankind is catastrophically influencing the climate through so-called greenhouse gases released by the combustion of fossil fuels routinely claim their stance is backed by a scientific consensus. But more than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition stating “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide will, in the forseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere.”
European leaders have demanded that Trump keep the U.S. in the deal.
According to the Associated Press, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker claimed Trump doesn’t “comprehensively understand” the terms of the accord, even though European leaders explained it to him “in clear, simple sentences” last week.
“This [Trump] notion, ‘I am Trump, I am American, America first and I am getting out,’ that is not going to happen,” he said.
Juncker also declared, “Eighty-three countries run into danger of disappearing from the surface of the earth if we don’t resolutely start the fight against climate change.”
A number of left-leaning governors have dedicated their states’ monies to support the agenda anyway, including California Gov. Jerry Brown, who says he wants to lead the effort to “decarbonize” the country.
The fundamentals of the Paris deal apparently have made for good business for energy producers, apparently by increasing scarcity and keeping the cost of petroleum artificially inflated. Fossil fuel companies Exxon Mobil, BP and Shell support the deal.
But Trump’s chief strategist, Steve Bannon, and EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt both support exiting the accord.
The AP reported scientists believe it is necessary to keep the U.S. in the deal to lower global temperatures because the U.S. “contributes so much to rising temperatures.” And the news wire said, “Calculations suggest withdrawal could result in emissions of up to 3 billion tons of additional carbon dioxide in the air a year – enough to melt ice sheets faster, raise seas higher and trigger more extreme weather.”
The New York Times lead story Thursday said the United States, “with its love of big cars, big houses and blasting air-conditioners, has contributed more than any other country to the atmospheric carbon dioxide that is scorching the planet.”
The Times failed to mention the U.S. has also been the world’s largest manufacturer of goods in the industrialized age.
Trump referenced the Paris accord and global warming repeatedly during his campaign, promising to get the U.S. out.
In 2016 on “Fox & Friends,” he explained: “Well, I think the climate change is just a very, very expensive form of tax. A lot of people are making a lot of money.”
He said China “does not do anything to help climate change,” leaving the U.S. with a competitive disadvantage and the costs of anti-global warming agendas, too.
WND reported a team of Ph.Ds were criticized by the National Science Teachers Association for a book chapter they wrote asserting that doubts about the theory of human-caused global warming should be considered “real science.”
The teachers association’s executive director, David Evans, said in a letter to members they must teach the agendas of the National Wildlife Federation, the North American Association for Environmental Education, the Campaign for Environmental Literacy, the Center for Climate Change Communication and other activist groups.
What they must avoid, he contends, is the information compiled by the scientists who wrote “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming.”
The chapter, written by Craig Idso, Robert Carter and S. Fred Singer and published by the Heartland Institute, challenges common climate change and global warming agenda arguments.
Spencer Irvine of Accuracy in Academia wrote in a review: “As much as the liberal media, liberal academics and pundits tell Americans that the earth is too warm and human beings are the cause for a spike in weather and temperature changes, there is little-to-no scientific consensus to support these assertions. … [I]t is clear that the climate change agenda turns a blind eye to neutral and impartial studies of the subject.”
The Heartland Institute distributed the chapter to several hundred thousand science teachers, prompting outrage from the National Science Teachers Association, the NSTA.
The NSTA’s director, Evans, told members flatly that “scientists don’t disagree about climate change or its causes” and “labeling propaganda as science does not make it so.”
The Heartland Institute explained the book is a single chapter of a much longer work in progress, “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Benefits and Costs of Fossil Fuels.”
The book is being produced by the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC).
The focal point is that there is no agreement among scientists on global warming.
“More than 31,000 scientists have signed a petition stating as clearly and forcibly as they could that ‘there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.’ In a sane world, this fact alone ought to be sufficient to end silly talk of a ‘scientific consensus,’” the institute said.
“There is much more evidence that scientists disagree than just one petition, and more importantly, good reasons why scientists disagree about this wickedly complex scientific puzzle. To learn about that, you need to read the book. It’s available for free online at heartland.org, in case you weren’t mailed one.
“We have a president of the United States and majorities of the U.S. House of Representatives and U.S. Senate who do not believe the science is settled. Many of them believe global warming is not a crisis. Are they all wrong? Is it some ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’? That seems unlikely. Maybe it’s just real science.”
WND reported last year that despite the tens of millions the U.S. government has spent publicizing the theory of human-caused “global warming,” most Americans don’t see it as an issue.
That’s according to Social and Behavioral Sciences Team, then in the executive office of the Obama administration, part of the National and Science Technology Council. Its annual report described how it worked in eight “policy areas,” including climate change.
The report said consumer adoption of “green-power plans remained low at roughly 700,000 customers nationwide.”
To improve that figure, the team initiated a dialogue with the Department of Energy’s Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy to “identify the potential behavioral barriers underlying low take-up of clean energy, as well as a suite of behavioral tools that can be used to address these barriers.”
“For example, behavioral science research indicates that prompting consumers to select a power plan from among clean and non-clean options (rather than defaulting them into a standard electricity plan) and presenting plan options in ways that facilitate informed decision-making can improve take-up,” the report said.
It also wanted to make consumers better understand what the government wanted them to do about global warming.
“To help households, communities and decision-makers better understand and adapt to the effects of rising global temperatures, SBST, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and the University of Maryland have worked to help the United States Global Change Research Program improve their ‘climate indicators,’ which convey important information about climate patterns to non-scientists,” the report said.
“This pilot yielded mixed results. For example, simplifying a graph showing changes in the Annual Greenhouse Gas Index increased successful interpretation of the indicator by 18 percent points, but did not significantly increase how well people were able to draw inferences from the indicator,” the report said.
It then went into detail about how it did research to show that simply changing a graph around might help convince people of the agenda’s value.
One of the more famous global warming predictions came from former vice president and current carbon-credit entrepreneur Al Gore, who told an audience in a 2009 speech that “the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years.”
His 2006 documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” famously predicted increasing temperatures would cause earth’s oceans to rise by 20 feet, a claim many scientists say is utterly without rational basis.
Another came from a 2013 column by Mark Hertsgaard, which was headlined “The End of the Arctic? Ocean Could be Ice Free by 2015.”
He wrote: “Say goodbye to polar bears and a whole lot of ice. New research suggests the Arctic Ocean could be ice-free by 2015, with devastating consequences for the world. Can it be stopped?”
Taking one more step back in time, the BBC said Arctic summers would be ice-free by 2013.
Sierra Club Canada also said in 2013 that the Arctic sea ice would vanish that year.
Tim Ball, a former University of Winnipeg climatology professor, said global temperatures have been dropping since the turn of the century, prompting the change in terminology from “global warming” to “climate change.”
Activists are also spending less time discussing temperatures and more time pointing to more extreme events such as tornadoes, droughts, cold snaps and heat waves. Ball said there’s a shred of truth there, but it’s being badly distorted.
“Yes, there’s been slightly more extremes,” he said in an interview with WND and Radio America. “That’s because the jet stream patterns are changing, because the earth is cooling down. All the arguments about sea-level rise, about Arctic ice disappearing, if you recall it’s not that long ago that our friend Al Gore was saying that there would be no summer ice in the Arctic. I think the year he set for it was 2014. That proved to be completely wrong.”
Listen to the WND/Radio America interview with Tim Ball:
At the Ron Paul Liberty Report, Chris Rossini said the “alarmism” about “climate change” is reaching “levels of desperation.”
“The arguments go from ridiculous to hysterical. We’re told by many politicians that ‘climate change’ is the #1 threat to Americans. This is of course a favorite of the swindling class. Others tell us that the #1 threat is ISIS, and some are now saying that it’s Donald Trump. Some say it’s North Korea, Russia, or Iran. The carousel of #1 threats is always in motion.”
Rossini continued: “In the media you’ll find stories that free birth control is needed in order to battle climate change, and that climate change will turn women into prostitutes. Non-believers of this ridiculous propaganda are branded as ‘deniers’.
“Even appeals to religion and the afterlife have been showered on Americans. Whether it be comments from the pope, or from Nobel Prize winning ‘economist’ Paul Krugman, who says: ‘You can deny global warming (and may you be punished in the afterlife for doing so – this kind of denial for petty personal or political reasons is an almost inconceivable sin).’”
Rossini wrote, “Boy, do these characters really want Americans to believe the climate change religion.”
Scientist Art Robinson has spearheaded The Petition Project, which has gathered the signatures of at least 31,487 scientists who agree that there is “no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
They say, “Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.”
Robinson, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry from the University of California-San Diego, where he served on the faculty, co-founded the Linus Pauling Institute with Nobel-recipient Linus Pauling, where he was president and research professor. He later founded the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. His son, Noah Robinson, was a key figure in the petition work and has a Ph.D. in chemistry from Caltech.
WND reported when some two dozen scientists with major U.S. universities urged President Obama to use racketeering laws to prosecute opponents who deny mankind is causing catastrophic changes in the climate.
In a letter addressed back then to Obama, Attorney General Loretta Lynch and Office of Science and Technology Policy Director John Holdren, the scientists said they “appreciate that you are making aggressive and imaginative use of the limited tools available to you in the face of a recalcitrant Congress.”
“One additional tool – recently proposed by Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse – is a RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act) investigation of corporations and other organizations that have knowingly deceived the American people about the risks of climate change, as a means to forestall America’s response to climate change,” they wrote, according to Politico.
Two years ago, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said legal punishment was the appropriate response to global-warming dissenters.
“I wish there were a law you could punish them with,” he said, launching into a diatribe against philanthropists Charles and David Koch, known for their support of conservative causes.
“I think it’s treason. Do I think the Koch brothers are treasonous – yes, I do. They are enjoying making themselves billionaire[s] by impoverishing the rest of us. Do I think they should be in jail – I think they should be [enduring] three hots and a cot at the Hague with all the other war criminals. Do I think the Koch brothers should be tried for reckless endangerment? Absolutely, that is [a] criminal offense and they ought to be serving time for it.”