Skip to comments.Hysteria Over Paris Pullout
Posted on 06/03/2017 5:15:23 AM PDT by Kaslin
For sheer hilarity and hyperbole it's hard to beat a recent headline on a Washington Post editorial opposing President Trump's decision to remove the U.S. from the nonbinding and unenforceable Paris climate agreement.
"Trump turns his back on the world," it screamed.
A close second goes to the headline on a New York Times piece by columnist David Brooks: "Donald Trump Poisons the World."
Dishonorable mention goes to former presidential adviser David Gergen, who said on CNN that Trump had committed "one of the most shameful acts in U.S. history."
The secular progressives have again revealed their diminished capacity, which ought to disqualify them from leading anything, especially the country.
The central argument supporting "climate change" has been that a "scientific consensus" exists on the subject. Two things about this. The first is that climate scientists who disagree on that consensus have been largely shutout of the debate. Their papers and ideas are blocked from mainstream scientific journals and, thus, are not subject to peer review. Politics appears to have overshadowed science.
Second, there have been numerous cases in the not too distant past where an empirical conclusion among scientists was touted as rock-solid truth, but which later, after further examination, proved to be dead wrong. As with climate change, politicians and editorialists told us we had to accept the conclusions, related costs and possibly even diminished lifestyles in order to save the planet. After all, these were scientists and were thought by many to be as close to God as secularists get.
Newsweek magazine featured a cover story in 1975 about "global cooling." That was supposed to be a scientific consensus.
A June 2010 article in Reason magazine lists some of the other Chicken Little claims about doomsday being just around the corner. The magazine's science writer, Ronald Bailey, found a July 1, 1979 issue of The Washington Post claiming a "broad scientific consensus" that saccharin causes cancer. It took 30 years before the National Cancer Institute reported, "There is no clear evidence that saccharin causes cancer in humans."
That same year, notes Bailey, the Post published a story citing researchers who believed eating more fiber appeared to significantly reduce the incidence of colon cancer. "Twenty years later," writes Bailey, "a major prospective study of nearly 90,000 women reported that, 'No significant association between fiber intake and the risk of colorectal adenoma was found.'"
Prior to 1985, there was "scientific consensus" that acid rain caused by electricity generating plants fueled by coal and emitting sulfur dioxide was destroying vast acres of forests and lakes in the eastern U.S. In 1991, notes Bailey, "after 10 years and $500 million, the National Acid Precipitation Assessment Program study ... concluded, "That acid rain was not damaging forests, did not hurt crops, and caused no measurable health problems."
There is much more in the article that is worth reading. It should humble the scientists, politicians and editorialists who want us to embrace another "scientific consensus" on "climate change."
President Trump should counter his critics by convening a White House conference on climate. In addition to the apostles of climate change, he should invite scientists -- and only those specializing in climate science -- that have been marginalized from the debate. These would include MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, who claims believing that CO2 controls the climate "is pretty close to believing in magic."
None of those participating in the proposed conference should be academics or scientists who receive federal grants or have other connections to government. This might give them a conflict of interest and reduce their credibility.
Let's have a high-level debate on this issue and settle it once and for all.
OK!! Everybody pay attention!
Lesson for today:
1. The sun is 1,300,000 times as big as the earth.
2. The sun is a giant nuclear furnace that controls the climates of all its planets.
3. The earth is one of the suns planets.
4. The earth is a speck in comparison to the size of the sun.
5. Inhabitants of the earth are less than specks.
Study Question: How do less-than-specks in congress plan to control the sun?
The purpose of the “accord” was to disable the USA. Because the USA is very powerful in the world scene, and other countries resent that. It would have brought the USA down and killed jobs and production.
Remember when Paris ruled the world?
The “treaty” would never have been ratified anyway in congress. The US is reducing it carbon footprint without the meddling of other countries looking for a handout from the American taxpayer. The free market will create clean energy without reducing the standard of living like that of other countries.
Trump is a go8 d8m hero if you ask me
Remember when Paris ruled the world?
No. But they were a contender in early 1800’s!
Did the Paris Accords address those issues? No. What it did was give US money to economies that promised to cut down on pollution in 2030 unless they change their minds. That money is much better used in the US, where it can be instrumental in having US ingenuity really solve problems.
Mygosh, the haters are so demented that can't even think a situation through!
Many of those “consensus” scientists are willing only to affirm that the climate is changing. Pressed on the human component in climate change, many will claim that part is still being studied, or will say that it is one of many impacts on climate.
That’s not really a ringing endorsement of the Climate Religion advocates’ belief system.
Climate Religionists believe their righteousness increases each time they recycle. Attacking climate change is the equivalent for them of a muslim’s view of an infidel attacking mohammed.
[The purpose of the accord was to disable the USA. Because the USA is very powerful in the world scene, and other countries resent that. It would have brought the USA down and killed jobs and production.]
Exactly, it was just another step on Obama’s mission to take the US down in his Post-American worldview.
Remember WW2, when France had to be saved from Germany and Italy by the US and Russia? It's an indication that they're a dead state, signing an accord with Germany and Italy that they think will save them.
“Remember when Paris ruled the world?”
I don’t. It was before my time. For my life, the French, as a collection, have been bitter, trite, resentful, jealous, small-minded, lying, and insecure.
I know of their great History and I have some French Freedom Fighters in my ancestry.
While traveling, I avoid contact.
America has no real “friends”. We have allies. Sometimes our interests converge with theirs. Often they don’t.
” they should be academics or scientists who receive federal grants or have other connections to government”
Is it even possible to find researchers who aren’t connected in some way with government funding? That is one of the big problems. And if Trump utters a peep about reducingg the NIH budget or one of the other funding mechanisms for “research”, listen to the left volcano erupt then!
SCIENCE is poisoned by this nonsense which
only SERVES politicians.
One in 2000 molecules in the upper atmosphere
is CO2. How does it control ANYTHING?
That is like the open border with Mexico
being “guarded” by LEO with 1 man every 10 to 400 miles.
Exactly. There's no point in even trying to debate climate change as the Paris Accord had nothing to do with it. It was a wealth distribution scheme primarily funded by the United States to transfer hundreds of billions of dollars to the Third World. Goldman Sachs liked it because they were handling the transactions and Apple liked it because they could sell iPhones to Africans with Americans paying for them. The Pope liked it because he's all for wealth-distribution Socialism.
Additionally, Paris allowed India and China to play "catch-up" by crippling the U.S. economy with restrictions only we had to comply with that would cost trillions of dollars in productivity and millions of lost jobs.
Of all the "bad deals" the U.S. has ever been party to, this was possibly the worst. The sad fact is that President Trump will likely pay a price for his courage. Most Americans were too lazy to read the fine print of what it was going to cost. By getting us out of this gawdawful mess, no American will feel the pain it would have wrought. All they known is what CNN tells them; that Trump is poisoning the world.
We need to get the word out; Paris was never about climate change.
It’s all about money.....OUR money....
Liberal moochers upset that President Trump won’t extort $3 Trillion dollars from working taxpayers to hand
over to wealthy Libtards like Al Gore and black skinned tin-horn dictators running third world cesspits.
If you believe in climate change, and that the Paris agreement is the necessary remedy, than how do you exempt the two biggest polluters on the planet, China and India? Answer - its got nothing to do with climate change.
Exactly and both are exempt from it, aren’t they
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.