U.S. formally begins exit from Paris climate agreement
On Monday the Trump administration fulfilled one of Trump’s campaign promises and formally began the year-long process to exit the Paris climate agreement.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the move in a statement. “President Trump made the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement because of the unfair economic burden imposed on American workers, businesses, and taxpayers by U.S. pledges made under the Agreement,” Pompeo said. “The United States has reduced all types of emissions, even as we grow our economy and ensure our citizens’ access to affordable energy….The U.S. approach incorporates the reality of the global energy mix,” he added, arguing “innovation and open markets” will drive emissions reductions.
There is ample data that indicates the U.S. is beating the targets of the Paris accord, even though Trump made it clear very shortly after taking office that the government would no longer require its implementation.
The article is amusing in its biased effort to provide a soapbox for every special interest (from environmentalists to Democrats) to express their horror at Trump’s decision. Like most
mainstream outlets, it devotes practically no effort to give the whole story.
Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.
Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:
If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
On Monday the Trump administration fulfilled one of Trump’s campaign promises and formally began the year-long process to exit the Paris climate agreement.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo announced the move in a statement. “President Trump made the decision to withdraw from the Paris Agreement because of the unfair economic burden imposed on American workers, businesses, and taxpayers by U.S. pledges made under the Agreement,” Pompeo said. “The United States has reduced all types of emissions, even as we grow our economy and ensure our citizens’ access to affordable energy….The U.S. approach incorporates the reality of the global energy mix,” he added, arguing “innovation and open markets” will drive emissions reductions.
There is ample data that indicates the U.S. is beating the targets of the Paris accord, even though Trump made it clear very shortly after taking office that the government would no longer require its implementation.
The article is amusing in its biased effort to provide a soapbox for every special interest (from environmentalists to Democrats) to express their horror at Trump’s decision. Like most
mainstream outlets, it devotes practically no effort to give the whole story.
Please consider donating to Behind the Black, by giving either a one-time contribution or a regular subscription, as outlined in the tip jar below. Your support will allow me to continue covering science and culture as I have for the past twenty years, independent and free from any outside influence.
Regular readers can support Behind The Black with a contribution via paypal:
If Paypal doesn't work for you, you can support Behind The Black directly by sending your donation by check, payable to Robert Zimmerman, to
Behind The Black
c/o Robert Zimmerman
P.O.Box 1262
Cortaro, AZ 85652
This agreement was meant to stifle American economy in favor of China, India and other 3 world countries. Also, it allowed countries to increase the tax base.
Science has shown the idea of AGW is idiotic.
The solar powered climate change model shows this. The Canadian farmer that is close to the Rockies has experienced it the last two years!
I can not express the frustration I feel when combating the AGW camp.
Phill O wrote: “Science has shown the idea of AGW is idiotic.”
There has been surprisingly little science in the coming-ice-age/global-warming/climate-change/climate-weirding/whatever field. As it turned out, in order to continue getting funding for the climate science field, a scientist has to be willing to draw predetermined conclusions, whether or not they are supported by the data. Drawing different conclusions results in rejection by publishers and rejection by funding organizations. This is no way to perform actual science.
Science has failed to show any anthropogenic global warming, much less any significant contribution to warming. This is not quite the same as AGW being idiotic, but the application of the science has certainly been idiotic. Just because science has yet to show AGW being significant does not mean that it is not. As I mentioned, not much science has yet been applied to this field of study.
The main problem is that the data that we use to indicate climate is very noisy, and contributions by any source, including man, natural CO2 releases, solar output, etc. are lost in all that noise. Pulling signals of each contributing phenomenon is difficult, especially when there are so many competing phenomena in the noise.
The only real evidence of some sort of correlation is with sun spots and temperature as seen in the past grand minimum of sunspots a few centuries ago. However, as Robert has noted, we really don’t have much scientific evidence that there is a relationship rather than this being a coincidence.
https://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/sunspot-update-sept-2019the-blankest-sun-in-decades/
We do know, however, that the models that are used to predict future climates have failed to predict the current climate. These models have assumed that AGW is real and significant, but the lack of skill in these models suggests otherwise (do not confuse a suggestion with a conclusion). The models also assume that temperature increases follow CO2 increases, but past scientific investigation has shown that it has long been the other way around, that historically CO2 increases have followed temperature increases. Other science has shown that CO2 bound up in soils is released into the atmosphere when temperatures increase. A valid conclusion is that these models fail to properly account for factors that make up climate, whether these factors are AGW, sunspots, cosmic rays, or whatever.