Quit Claim Deed Nc: Fill & Download for Free

You can just transfer ownership to the LLC via a quit claim deed. Call a local title company and they can do this for you.

The agreement fails to make sense for the environment or the economy. The climate benefit is surely “tiny” especially compared with the cost as Trump says. CNBC article makes the case that exiting Paris will be better for the environment and the economy.“Trump's Paris accord exit will save the environmental movement from itselfPresident Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris climate deal is good for the environment.The truth is the Paris accord is all words, and little action.To save our ecology and our freedoms, we need fewer treaties and less government.Prsident Donald Trump is expected to pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement.Environmentalists should rejoice!That's right, rejoice. Because by getting the world's largest economy, (that's us), out of yet another amorphous and unenforceable international climate deal, President Trump has likely saved the environmental movement from itself. And now there's also a much better chance that millions of conservative and center/right Americans can rejoin the environmental fold.The green movement in the U.S. and around the world has been off the tracks for decades mostly because of its faulty belief in globalist politics and big government as the solution to environmental challenges. In fact, big government and centrally-planned schemes like the Paris deal are the problem.The first problem with the Paris deal is that, like an OPEC production quota, it's really hard to enforce and cheating is likely to be rampant. As many experts analyzing the agreement have noted, there are no explicit enforcement mechanisms in the accord. So nothing would happen to a country that even just ignored its contribution commitments. That leaves the countries that are more likely to adhere to the climate deal rules, like the U.S., at a distinct economic and political disadvantage.It appears that the supposed triumph of the Paris agreement is that every nation coming into it publicly acknowledged the reality and challenges of climate change coming into the negotiations. Like so many other things in politics, words have become more valuable than deeds. And with no real mechanism to punish countries that cheat on this agreement, there's a chance that the Paris deal could lead to more environmental pollution, not less.People who are really concerned with lowering emissions worldwide need to come to grips with the fact that international agreements where bad actors can't be effectively punished aren't the way to go. It may be intoxicating to see their activism rewarded with the pomp and ceremony of an accord like the Paris climate deal, but they're ultimately meaningless.If the U.S. government wants to do something about the environment, it doesn't need to collude with foreign nations. It would be much better if it started with fixing its own house in a series of moves that conservatives and libertarians could join with liberals to support. They include:Stop having all taxpayers subsidize and otherwise bolster expensive and environmentally harmful home building in coastal areas. The national flood insurance program, long opposed by liberals and anti-crony capitalist conservatives, does exactly that.Government at all levels continues to build more roads when more and more evidence shows that no new roads are needed and money would be better spent on repairing old ones. Liberals have long decried the government's anti-environmental road obsession along with conservatives who oppose the continued deficit spending needed to build them.Excessive regulation has basically killed new nuclear-power plant construction in this country, although nuclear power is safer and pollutes less than many traditional power sources, including coal and natural gas.What's much more meaningful than almost any government program or regulation is the free market's own incentives to clean up the environment. Groups like the Property and Environment Research Center, (PERC) have long explained that less government, not more, is the answer.Their cogent argument is that expanding the amount of privately-owned lands worldwide will increase responsible stewardship as opposed to continued unaccountable government ownership. And they trust the markets to reward and foster more environmentally friendly innovations and practices, as opposed to governments that rely on different levels of taxation and punishment to meet politically-influenced goals.In real terms, America has seen the free market's more effective leadership role time after time. It was the explosion in gas prices, not government rules, that played the biggest role in the auto industry's push to make more fuel-efficient cars in the late 1970s and hybrid cars over the last 15 years. And most experts rank free market innovations and other non-government created developments as the reason why the price of solar panels is now less than half of what they were in 2008, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.The Paris climate deal is one of the most prominent liberal/big government vanities in history. There is simply no evidence that it would be any more effective than the Kyoto or Copenhagen deals, and it unnecessarily raises the hackles of conservatives and moderates who fear a loss of American freedoms and sovereignty. It's agreements like these, often enforced by un-elected and even anonymous bureaucrats that fuel Brexit-like sentiments around the world.The real disaster for the ecology is the environmental movement's decision to push for these kinds of shaky international agreements that could end up harming the environment more and angering a great deal of American voters in the process.President Trump is nixing this latest example of a bad deal for the environment and our Constitutional freedoms and both of those precious American treasures are better off for it.Commentary by Jake Novak, CNBC US Home senior columnist. Follow him on Twitter @jakejakeny.http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/trump-paris-accord-exit-is-good-for-the-environment-commentary.htmlThe Paris agreement is a self- inflicted unnecessary economic burden for America and Canada without any benefit to the environment. Here is a recent report about expanding coal power in China which millions living in desperate poverty need as I have personally witnessed. We do not need a colder climate or to vilify life giving nontoxic carbon dioxide pursuant to the flawed Paris deal.What Global Warming? China Still Plans To Build New Coal Plant Every Week In 2020ANDREW FOLLETTEnergy and Science Reporter10:12 AM 11/03/2016“China’s demand for coal power is growing so fast, the country will build a new coal power plant every week until at least 2020, according to analysis published Wednesday by Bloomberg New Energy Finance (BNEF).Of the 2,400 coal-fired power plants under construction or being planned around the world, 1,171 will be built in China. This rapid growth of coal power means that, mathematically, Chinese carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions are unlikely to stop rising. Such a rapid rise in Chinese CO2 emissions will more than cancel out the rest of the world’s CO2 cuts. At the same time, China is slashing its investment in wind and solar power.“[Chinese] clean energy investment will be down 15 to 20 percent this year,” Michael Liebreich, the founder of BNEF, told Bloomberg. “As things stand, it will not bounce back to a new record in the next five years…If Asia keeps building coal-fired power stations, then there is no way of sticking within a carbon budget consistent with 2 degrees.”Chinese wind and solar is slowing relative to coal because the Chinese government has already stopped approving new wind power projects in the country’s windiest regions, according to a March statement by China’s National Energy Administration. These regions previously installed nearly 71 gigawatts of wind turbines, more than the rest of China combined. A single gigawatt of electricity is enough to power 700,000 homes. Government statistics show that 33.9 billion kilowatt-hours of wind power, or about 15 percent of all Chinese wind power, was wasted in 2015 alone.Consumption of coal in China has already grown by a factor of three from 2000 to 2013. The country consumes approximately half of all coal used worldwide and gets roughly 66 percent of its electricity from coal, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.”“Trump's Paris accord exit will save the environmental movement from itself. President Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris climate deal is good for the environment.The truth is the Paris accord is all words, and little action.* To save our ecology and our freedoms, we need fewer treaties and less government.Jake Novak | @jakejakenyWednesday, 31 May 2017 | 1:22 PM ETPresident Donald Trump is expected to pull the United States out of the Paris climate agreement.Environmentalists should rejoice!“That's right, rejoice. Because by getting the world's largest economy, (that's us), out of yet another amorphous and unenforceable international climate deal, President Trump has likely saved the environmental movement from itself. And now there's also a much better chance that millions of conservative and center/right Americans can rejoin the environmental fold.The green movement in the U.S. and around the world has been off the tracks for decades mostly because of its faulty belief in globalist politics and big government as the solution to environmental challenges. In fact, big government and centrally-planned schemes like the Paris deal are the problem.The first problem with the Paris deal is that, like an OPEC production quota, it's really hard to enforce and cheating is likely to be rampant. As many experts analyzing the agreement have noted, there are no explicit enforcement mechanisms in the accord. So nothing would happen to a country that even just ignored its contribution commitments. That leaves the countries that are more likely to adhere to the climate deal rules, like the U.S., at a distinct economic and political disadvantage.It appears that the supposed triumph of the Paris agreement is that every nation coming into it publicly acknowledged the reality and challenges of climate change coming into the negotiations. Like so many other things in politics, words have become more valuable than deeds. And with no real mechanism to punish countries that cheat on this agreement, there's a chance that the Paris deal could lead to more environmental pollution, not less.People who are really concerned with lowering emissions worldwide need to come to grips with the fact that international agreements where bad actors can't be effectively punished aren't the way to go. It may be intoxicating to see their activism rewarded with the pomp and ceremony of an accord like the Paris climate deal, but they're ultimately meaningless.If the U.S. government wants to do something about the environment, it doesn't need to collude with foreign nations. It would be much better if it started with fixing its own house in a series of moves that conservatives and libertarians could join with liberals to support. They include:·Stop having all taxpayers subsidize and otherwise bolster expensive and environmentally harmful home building in coastal areas. The national flood insurance program, long opposed by liberals and anti-crony capitalist conservatives, does exactly that.·Government at all levels continues to build more roads when more and more evidence shows that no new roads are needed and money would be better spent on repairing old ones. Liberals have long decried the government's anti-environmental road obsession along with conservatives who oppose the continued deficit spending needed to build them.·Excessive regulation has basically killed new nuclear-power plant construction in this country, although nuclear power is safer and pollutes less than many traditional power sources, including coal and natural gas.What's much more meaningful than almost any government program or regulation is the free market's own incentives to clean up the environment. Groups like the Property and Environment Research Center, (PERC) have long explained that less government, not more, is the answer.Their cogent argument is that expanding the amount of privately-owned lands worldwide will increase responsible stewardship as opposed to continued unaccountable government ownership. And they trust the markets to reward and foster more environmentally friendly innovations and practices, as opposed to governments that rely on different levels of taxation and punishment to meet politically-influenced goals.In real terms, America has seen the free market's more effective leadership role time after time. It was the explosion in gas prices, not government rules, that played the biggest role in the auto industry's push to make more fuel-efficient cars in the late 1970s and hybrid cars over the last 15 years. And most experts rank free market innovations and other non-government created developments as the reason why the price of solar panels is now less than half of what they were in 2008, according to the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.The Paris climate deal is one of the most prominent liberal/big government vanities in history. There is simply no evidence that it would be any more effective than the Kyoto or Copenhagen deals, and it unnecessarily raises the hackles of conservatives and moderates who fear a loss of American freedoms and sovereignty. It's agreements like these, often enforced by un-elected and even anonymous bureaucrats that fuel Brexit-like sentiments around the world.The real disaster for the ecology is the environmental movement's decision to push for these kinds of shaky international agreements that could end up harming the environment more and angering a great deal of American voters in the process.President Trump is nixing this latest example of a bad deal for the environment and our Constitutional freedoms and both of those precious American treasures are better off for it. “Commentary by Jake Novak, CNBC.com senior columnist. Follow him on Twitter @jakejakeny.http://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/31/trump-paris-accord-exit-is-good-for-the-environment-commentary.htmlWhat Global Warming? China Still Plans To Build New Coal Plant Every Week In 2020Trump Exiting the Mad Hatter’s climate tea partyGuest Blogger / 1 hour ago June 2, 2017“Trump was 100% right (not just 97%) to show real leadership and walk away from Paris“President Trump has rejected and exited the Paris climate treaty – walked America away from the Mad Hatter tea party that was the entire multi-decade, often hysterical and always computer model-driven UN climate process. My article this week explains why this bold move was the 100% right, ethical, moral and scientific thing to do: for the economic security of American workers and families … and the betterment of all mankind.Guest essay by Paul DriessenI can guess why a raven is like a writing-desk, Alice said. “Do you mean you think you can find out the answer?” said the March Hare. “Exactly so,” said Alice. “Then you should say what you mean,” the March Hare went on. “I do,” Alice replied. “At least I mean what I say. That’s the same thing, you know.”“Not the same thing a bit!” said the Hatter. “You might just as well say, ‘I see what I eat’ is the same thing as ‘I eat what I see’!” “You might just as well say,” added the Dormouse, ‘I breathe when I sleep’ is the same thing as ‘I sleep when I breathe’!” “It IS the same thing with you,” said the Hatter.Can you imagine stumbling upon the Mad Hatter’s tea party, watching as the discussions become increasingly absurd – and yet wanting a permanent seat at the table? Could Lewis Carroll have been having nightmares about the Paris climate treaty when he wrote Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland?President Trump was 100% correct (not just 97%) when he showed true leadership this week – and walked America away from the madness laid out before him and us on the Paris climate table.From suggestions that Earth’s climate was balmy and stable until the modern industrial era, to assertions that humans can prevent climate change and extreme weather events by controlling atmospheric carbon dioxide levels – to claims that withdrawing from Paris would “imperil our planet’s very survival” – the entire process has been driven by computer models and hysteria that have no basis in empirical science.There is no convincing real-world evidence that plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide has replaced the powerful natural forces that have driven Earth’s climate from time immemorial. Moreover, even if the United States totally eliminated its fossil fuels, atmospheric CO2 levels would continue to climb. China and India are building new coal-fired power plants at a feverish clip. So is Germany. And China is financing or building dozens of additional coal-burning electricity generators in Africa, Asia and elsewhere.Plus, even if alarmists are right about CO2, and every nation met its commitments under Paris, average planetary temperatures in 2100 would be just 0.2 degrees Celsius (0.3 F) lower than if we did nothing.But “our closest allies” wanted Trump to abide by Obama’s commitment. Some did, because they want America to shackle its economy and drive energy prices into the stratosphere the same way they have. Others dearly want to follow a real leader, and walk awayfrom the mad Paris tea party themselves.But even poor countries signed the Paris treaty. Yes, they did – because they are under no obligation to reduce their coal, oil or natural gas use or their CO2 emissions. And because they were promised $100 billion a year in cash, plus free state-of-the-art energy technologies, from developed nations that would have become FMCs (formerly rich countries) as they slashed their energy use and de-industrialized.But the Paris climate treaty was voluntary; the United States wouldn’t have to do all this. Right. Just like it’s voluntary for you to pay your taxes. China, India and poor developing countries don’t have to do anything. But the USA would have been obligated to slash its oil, gas and coal use and carbon dioxide emissions. It could impose tougher restrictions, but it could not weaken them. And make no mistake: our laws, Constitution, legal system, the Treaty on Treaties and endless lawsuits by environmentalist pressure groups before friendly judges would have ensured compliance and ever more punishing restrictions.But hundreds of companies say we should have remained in Paris. Of course they do. Follow the money.If we are to avoid a climate cataclysm, “leading experts” say, the world must impose a $4-trillion-per-year global carbon tax, and spend $6.5 trillion a year until 2030 to switch every nation on Earth from fossil fuels to renewable energy. That’s a lot of loot for bankers, bureaucrats and crony corporatists.But, they assure us, this transition and spending would bring unimaginable job creation and prosperity. If you believe that, you’d feel right at home in Alice’s Wonderland and Looking Glass world.Who do you suppose would pay those princely sums? Whose jobs would be secure, and whose would be expendable: sacrificed on the altar of climate alarmism? Here’s the Planet Earth reality.Right now, fossil fuels provide 80% of all the energy consumed in the USA – reliably and affordably, from relatively small land areas. Wind and solar account for 2% of overall energy needs, expensively and intermittently, from facilities across millions of acres. Biofuels provide 3% – mostly from corn grown on nearly 40 million acres. About 3% comes from hydroelectric, 3% from wood and trash, 9% from nuclear.Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia and other states that generate electricity with our abundant coal and natural gas pay 8 to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. California, Connecticut, New York and other states that impose wind, solar and anti-fossil fuel mandates pay 15 to 18 cents. Families in closely allied ultra-green Euro countries pay an average of 26 US cents per kWh, but 36 cents in Germany, 37 cents in Denmark.EU manufacturers are already warning that these prices could send companies, factories, jobs and CO2 emissions to China and other non-Euro countries. EU electricity prices have skyrocketed 55% since 2005; 40% of UK households are cutting back on food and other essentials, to pay for electricity; a tenth of all EU families now live in green energy poverty. Elderly people are dying because they can’t afford heat!The Paris treaty would have done the same to the United States, and worse.The Heritage Foundation says Paris restrictions would cost average US families $30,000 in cumulative higher electricity prices over the next decade. How much of their rent, mortgage, medical, food, clothing, college and retirement budgets would they cut? Paris would eliminate 400,000 high-pay manufacturing, construction and other jobs – and shrink the US economy by $2.5 trillion by 2027. Other analysts put the costs of remaining in Paris much higher than this – again for no climate or environmental benefits.Big hospitals like Wake Forest Baptist Medical Center’s Comprehensive Cancer Center in Winston-Salem, NC and Inova Fairfax Women’s and Children’s Hospital in Northern Virginia pay about $1.5 million per year at 9 cents/kWh – but $3 million annually at 18 cents … $5 million at 30 cents … and nearly $7 million at 40 cents. How many jobs and medical services would those rate hikes wipe out?Malls, factories and entire energy-intensive industries would be eliminated. Like families and small businesses, they would also face the new reality of having pricey electricity when it happens to be available, off and on all day, all week, when the wind blows or sun shines, instead of when it’s needed. Drilling and fracking, gasoline and diesel prices, trucking and travel, would also have been hard hit.Americans are largely prohibited from mining iron, gold, copper, rare earth and other metals in the USA. Paris treaty energy prices and disruptions would have ensured that American workers could not turn metals from anywhere into anything – not even wind turbines, solar panels or ethanol distillation plants.Most of the “bountiful” renewable energy utopia jobs would have been transporting, installing and maintaining wind turbines and solar panels made in China. Even growing corn and converting it to ethanol would have been made cost-prohibitive. But there would have been jobs for bureaucrats who write and enforce the anti-energy rules – and process millions of new unemployment and welfare checks.Simply put, the Paris climate treaty was a terrible deal for the United States: all pain, no gain, no jobs, no future for the vast majority of Americans – with benefits flowing only to politicians, bureaucrats and crony capitalists. President Trump refused to ignore the realities of this economic suicide pact, this attempted global government control of American lives, livelihoods and living standards.That is why he formally declared that the United States is withdrawing from the treaty. He could now submit it for advice, consent – and rejection – by the Senate. He could also withdraw the United States from the underlying UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, or negotiate that reflects empirical science and is fair to America and its families and workers. But what is really important now is this:We are out of Paris! President Trump is leading the world back from the climate insanity precipice.Paul Driessen is senior policy analyst for the Committee For A Constructive Tomorrow (www.CFACT.org) and author of Eco-Imperialism: Green power – Black death.Exiting the Mad Hatter’s climate tea partyThe Wall Street Journal analysis of the Paris deal in an article in 2016 pegged the cost at more than 2 trillion annually with no benefit to the environment.Obama’s Climate Policy Is a Hot Mess“When President Obama flew to Ottawa, Canada, on Wednesday to meet with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto, promoting their climate-change policies was near the top of the agenda. “The Paris Agreement was a turning point for our planet,” the leaders’ joint statement said, referring to the climate pact signed with fanfare in April by nearly 200 nations. “North America has the capacity, resources and the moral imperative to show strong leadership building on the Paris Agreement and promoting its early entry into force.”Attracting rather less attention than the Ottawa meeting was a June 22 hearing on Capitol Hill. Testifying before the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Gina McCarthy extolled the Paris Agreement as an “incredible achievement.” But when repeatedly asked, she wouldn’t explain exactly how much this treaty would actually cut global temperatures.The Paris Agreement will cost a fortune but do little to reduce global warming. In a peer-reviewed article published in Global Policy this year, I looked at the widely hailed major policies that Paris Agreement signatories pledged to undertake and found that they will have a negligible temperature impact. I used the same climate-prediction model that the United Nations uses.First, consider the Obama administration’s signature climate policy, the Clean Power Plan. The U.N.’s model shows that it will accomplish almost nothing. Even if the policy withstands current legal challenges and its cuts are totally implemented—not for the 14 years that the Paris agreement lasts, but for the rest of the century—the Clean Power Plan would reduce temperatures by 0.023 degrees Fahrenheit by 2100.RELATED ARTICLESHistory of a Climate ConThe Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’Two Can Play at Climate ‘Fraud’President Obama has made grander promises of future carbon cuts, beyond the plan’s sweeping restrictions on the power industry, but these are only vaguely outlined now. In the unlikely event that all of these extra cuts also happen, and are adhered to throughout the rest of the century, the combined reduction in temperatures would be 0.057 degrees. In other words, if the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the very ambitious Obama rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.Or consider the Paris Agreement promises from the entire world using the reduction estimate from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, the organization responsible for the Paris summit. The U.N.’s model reveals a temperature reduction by the end of the century of only 0.08 degrees Fahrenheit. If we generously assume that the promised cuts for 2030 are not only met (which itself would be a U.N. first), but sustained throughout the rest of the century, temperatures in 2100 would drop by 0.3 degrees—the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years at the end of the century. A cut of 0.3 degrees matches the finding of a Massachusetts Institute of Technology analysis of the Paris Agreement last year.The costs of the Paris climate pact are likely to run to $1 trillion to $2 trillion annually throughout the rest of the century, using the best estimates from the Stanford Energy Modeling Forum and the Asia Modeling Exercise. Spending more than $100 trillion for such a feeble temperature reduction by the end of the century does not make sense.Some Paris Agreement supporters defend it by claiming that its real impact on temperatures will be much more significant than the U.N. model predicts. This requires some mental gymnastics and heroic assumptions. The group doing climate modeling for the U.S. State Department assumes that without the Paris Agreement emissions would be much higher than under any realistic scenario. With such an unrealistically pessimistic baseline, they can then magically show that the agreement will cut temperatures by 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit—with about 1.5 degrees of the drop coming from a reduction of these fantasy carbon emissions.The Climate Action Tracker, widely cited by Paris Agreement fans, predicts a temperature reduction of 1.6 degrees by the end of the century. But that model is based heavily on the assumption that even stronger climate policies will be adopted in the future—98% of the assumed reductions come after the current Paris Agreement promises to expire in 2030.Even this wishful thinking won’t achieve anything close to the 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) reduction that has become the arbitrary but widely adopted benchmark for what will be essential to avoid the worst effects of global warming.The Paris Agreement is the wrong solution to a real problem. We should focus more on green-energy research and development, like that promoted by Bill Gates and the Breakthrough Coalition. Mr. Gates has announced that private investors are committing $7 billion for clean energy R&D, while the White House will double its annual $5 billion green innovation fund. Sadly, this sorely needed investment is a fraction of the cost of the same administration’s misguided carbon-cut policies.Instead of rhetoric and ever-larger subsidies of today’s inefficient green technologies, those who want to combat climate change should focus on dramatically boosting innovation to drive down the cost of future green energy.The U.S. has already shown the way. With its relentless pursuit of fracking driving down the cost of natural gas, America has made a momentous switch from coal to gas that has done more to drive down carbon-dioxide emissions than any recent climate policy. Turns out that those who gathered in Paris, France, could learn a little from Paris, Texas.Mr. Lomborg, president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center, is the author of “Cool It” (Knopf, 2007) and “Smartest Targets for the World” (Copenhagen Consensus, 2015).JAMES MATKINCOMMENTYes, a cost-benefit analysis highlights the climate alarmists debacle. This is important to head off government mania for new carbon taxes. Australians killed their carbon tax after seeing the gross waste of resources with no impact on the environment. The tax harms export industries subject to world pricing. The tax does not prevent “carbon leakage” when “emissions simply rise overseas” beyond the control of Australia.http://instituteforenergyresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/IER_AustraliaCarbonTaxStudy.pdfFurther, the whole mission of reducing C02 to save the planet is foolish. Dr. Patrick Moore explains - “CO2 is a pollutant only to politicians and bureaucrats.... By itself, it is incapable of warming the climate by more than a fraction of a degree. CO2 is an essential gas, without which there would be no life on earth. CO2 is plant food.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-biuanF5eYMY World -The United Nations Global Survey for a Better WorldFURTHER a 2015 world wide survey by the UN also showed that 97% of the 58 million respondent’s votes deny any action needed on climate change to make the world better. This means the activist climate change alarmists seeking action with only 3% are the overwhelming minority.The almost unanimous consensus is that education, better healthcare, better job opportunities, access to clean water and sanitation and protection against crime and violence etc. are the priority for a better world.MYWorld2015 AnalyticsRichard Muller’s insight is also relevant. He criticizes the exaggerated fears of too many alarmists in his advice to his son published on Quora particularly about over the top sea rise claims. His advice explains the low priority of climate change support and the reason that climate change is far from the biggest catastrophe facing the world.What is Richard Muller's stance on climate change?‘He should know that the 1.5 C rise in 250 years is too slow a rate to be noticed by any humans. People who claim that they can see climate change are actually disagreeing with science, which measures the change as quite small, so far.PARIS DEAL HAS NO EMISSIONS TARGETS FOR BIGGEST EMITTERS IN CHINA, INDIA AND IRAN BUILDING NEW COAL PLANTS EVERY WEEK - WHY? HERE IS TRUMP’S PRESS CONFERENCE ANNOUNCING EXIT FROM PARIS.