By Leaving Paris Climate-Change Deal, Trump Will Do U.S. Economy A ‘Yuuuge’ Favor
Climate Change: President Trump is letting it be known that he intends to take the U.S. out of the Paris Accords on climate change. While it will no doubt cause a political flap, it’s a smart move that ends the cynical charade of limiting climate change by shrinking our economy.
Trump is reportedly working with Environmental Protection Agency chief Scott Pruitt on the details of pulling out before announcing the decision, according to news reports. Trump issued a tweet earlier Wednesday saying only that he “will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days.”
Even so, the hyperventilation by climate-change fanatics has already begun.
Tom Steyer, the billionaire leftist who has embraced the global warming cause as a springboard to political power, termed Trump’s possible move a “traitorous act of war.” Tesla and Space X founder Elon Musk said he’ll quit all the advisory groups he serves on in the White House if Trump withdraws.
A group of very big energy companies, including ExxonMobil (Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s old firm), Shell, BP, Cheniere Energy and a large number of others joined together (for political reasons) to get Trump to stay in. Even Ivanka, Trump’s daughter, pressured him.
Yet, Trump promised a little more than a year ago that he would pull out, and seems on his way to keeping his promise — even if it angers China and the European Union, which have joined forces to oppose Trump’s move, not to mention Ivanka.
Sorry, Trump’s right, and his foes are wrong. The Paris Agreement is a bad deal that will devastate the economies of the West, in particular, the U.S., while leaving the fastest growing emitters of CO2 — namely, China and India — out of the picture.
Has the world heated up in the last 150 years? Of course. But that’s because we were leaving something that climatologists have dubbed “The Little Ice Age.”
But is human-produced CO2 the cause? The proof is thin, and relies heavily on more than 70 mathematical models, none of which can even back-cast past temperatures, much less forecast future ones.
And the temperature data themselves are compromised. They have been fudged so many times by pro-global warming scientists that there’s now little question that much of what passes for science is really fraud. The most reliable temperature data, which come from satellites, show unequivocally no warming since 1998. But this is ignored.
Worst of all, the 200 signatories to this so-called accord would have us all spend trillions of dollars each year to mitigate global temperatures by a mere 0.17 of a degree by 2100. That’s one-fifth of a degree, rounded up.
Put in perspective, the main global warming models predict as much as two degrees of warming by the end of the century. Take that at face value: That means we’ll spend literally trillions of dollars each year for 1.8 degrees of warming instead of 2 degrees of warming.
This is crazy from a cost-benefit perspective, especially since many agriculture experts say that if the climate warms — for whatever reason — it will raise crop yields and help us to feed the two billion or so added people we are likely to have on Earth by then.