The New Yorker magazine has finally woken up to the fraud that is the UN Paris climate agreement. President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw the U.S. from the climate pact is being vindicated on a daily basis. See: NY Mag: UN Paris pact ‘starting to look like fantasy’ – Climate pact “returns are already dispiritingly grim.”
The New Yorker goes on to lament: “This week, the International Energy Agency announced that carbon emissions grew 1.7 percent in 2017, after an ambiguous couple of years optimists hoped represented a leveling off, or peak; instead, we’re climbing again. Even before the new spike, not a single major industrial nation was on track to fulfill the commitments it made in the Paris treaty.”
But there is no reason for surprise. A new best-selling book, ‘The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,” clearly and concisely exposes the outright fraudulent nature of the UN Paris pact. Below is a key excerpt from the book by Marc Morano: (Regnery Books) Order Your Book Copy Now! – Also see: Sold out! Politically Incorrect Climate Book sells out at Amazon, Target & Walmart! Ranked as ‘Best Seller’
The Politically Incorrect Guide to Climate Change,
Excerpt from Chapter 18 “Bypassing Democracy to Impose Green Energy Mandates”:
Trying to centrally plan energy economies many decades into the future while factoring in economic growth, population size, technology, and the needs of society in the year 2050 and beyond—is simply not realistic. Inter-national efforts like the UN Paris climate accord will also have no detectable impact on the climate—even if you accept UN science claims and models.
UN climate agreements are totally meaningless. University of Pennsylvania geologist Robert Giegengack has noted, “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”
Danish statistician Bjorn Lomborg conducted a cost-benefit analysis of the Paris climate accord and found that the $100 trillion cost of the pact buys no significant impact on global temperatures. Lomborg is the President of the Copenhagen Consensus Center. “You won’t be able to measure it in 100 years,” Lomborg said in 2017, noting that by the year 2100 the pact would postpone warming by less than four years. “The Paris Treaty will be the most expensive global agreement in world history. It is foolhardy and foolish for world leaders to stay fixated on Paris—not only will it likely falter, but it will be hugely costly and do almost nothing to fix climate change,” Lomborg explained.
“After hundreds of billions of dollars in annual subsidies, we only get, according to the International Energy Agency, 0.5 percent of the world’s energy needs from wind, and 0.1 percent from solar PV,” he added, noting that President Trump was right to reject the Paris pact. “Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all,” wrote Lomborg, adding that Trump withdrawing from the UN treaty “will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead-end” because even if you accept the climate claims of the UN, the agreement “will matter very little to temperature rise.”
As the statistician explained, the debate about the UN Paris agreement is “about identity politics. It’s about feeling good…but the climate doesn’t care about how you feel.” The bottom line? “If the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.”
“But here is the biggest problem: These minuscule benefits do not come free—quite the contrary. The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year,” Lomborg explained. “This is likely to be among most expensive treaties in the history of the world.” The UN Paris pact is estimated to have a $100 trillion price tag.“We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree—the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years. Again, that is using the UN’s own climate prediction model,” Lomborg wrote.
Bypassing Democracy to Impose Green Energy Mandates
Even former NASA lead global warming scientist James Hansen, who has spent his career warning of a climate crisis, is not a big fan of the UN Paris accord. He has called it “a fraud really, a fake.” As Hansen wrote in 2015, “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”
Other climate activists share Hansen’s view. Anthony Rogers-Wright, a campaigner at climate website The Leap, expressed his severe angst about Al Gore’s 2017 film An Inconvenient Sequel.“I’d probably walk out if the movie celebrates the Paris climate agreement,” Rogers-Wright told the New Republic.
U.S. greenhouse gas emissions have actually been declining in recent years. But that decline is not due to the heavy hand of regulation.24 A 2016 U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) report attributed the “increased use of natural gas for electricity generation” or fracking, as the reason for declining emissions. “Global warming crusader Al Gore won a Nobel Prize merely for his profit-making activities as a green activist.
Here’s an idea: If the Nobel committee geniuses really want to reward those who’ve done the most to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, they should give Gore’s Nobel to the U.S. fracking industry,” noted a 2017 editorial in Investor’s Business Daily. “Ironically, while the U.S. was pilloried for not ratifying the Kyoto Accord (though then–Vice President Al Gore ostentatiously signed it, despite knowing that the Senate wouldn’t ratify it) to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, it is the only major industrial nation actually slashing its output. Since the Kyoto Accord was struck in 1997 (which U.S. did not ratify) Energy Department data show, U.S. output of greenhouse gases plunged 7.3%, even though real U.S. GDP over that time has grown a whopping 52% .”
★★★★★ Not a Lot of Bang for the Buck
“Germany spends $110 billion to delay global warming by 37 hours,” Bjorn Lomborg. discovered. “The Germans are spending about $110 billion on subsidies for these solar panels,” said the statistician. “The net effect of all those investments will be to postpone global warming by 37 hours by the end of the century.” Lomborg also reported, “For every dollar spent, the EU stands to avoid about 10 cents of damage…. Over the course of this century, the ideal EU policy would cost more than $7 trillion, yet it would reduce the temperature rise by just 0.05 degrees Celsius and lower sea levels by a trivial 9 millimeters.”
End Book excerpt: