Sign Up Sheet Available Here: Fill & Download for Free

IntegrityWasting public fundsScienceResilienceDemocracyThese a few of the pros for withdrawing from the PARIS CLIMATE ACCORD.IntegrityThe Paris Accord is a fraud as it purports to save the world from climate disaster but even within its flawed analysis the targets and compliance process is hopelessly inadequate.1) NO ACTIONS, JUST WORDS as world leaders have agreed on a voluntary system whereby countries are required to submit emission reduction plans which are then reviewed every five years, with the aim of speeding up reductions over time. These targets are not legally binding, however, and even if they had been, there would be no way to enforce compliance.James Hansen, the leading ex-NASA climate scientist, is clear in his assessment:It’s a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2*C 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 continue to be burned.Three reasons why the Paris climate deal is a fraud•••CONCLUSION THE US LEAVING PARIS IS IRRELEVANT ASNONE OF THE CLIMATE TREATIES MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO RISE OF CO2The US has the best record of reducing CO2 because market forces are pushing energy consumption to clean natural gas as the big winner.“Celebrating humanity's flourishing through the spread of capitalism and the rule of law” [ meaning that market energy wins over carbon targets]ref. July 28, 2017 – Utopia, you are standing in it!EDITORIALS“The UN Admits That The Paris Climate Deal Was A Fraud11/02/2017Global Hot Air: Here's a United Nations climate report that environmentalists probably don't want anybody to read. It says that even if every country abides by the grand promises they made last year in Paris to reduce greenhouse gases, the planet would still be "doomed."So taking a look at the index. 00:1702:26When President Obama hitched America to the Paris accords in 2016, he declared that it was "the moment that we finally decided to save our planet." And when Trump pulled out of the deal this year, he was berated by legions of environmentalists for killing it.But it turns out that the Paris accord was little more than a sham that will do nothing to "save the planet."According to the latest annual UN report on the "emissions gap," the Paris agreement will provide only a third of the cuts in greenhouse gas that environmentalists claim is needed to prevent catastrophic warming. If every country involved in those accords abides by their pledges between now and 2030 — which is a dubious proposition — temperatures will still rise by 3 degrees Celsius by 2100. The goal of the Paris agreement was to keep the global temperature increase to under 2 degrees.Eric Solheim, head of the U.N. Environment Program, which produces the annual report, said this week that "One year after the Paris Agreement entered into force, we still find ourselves in a situation where we are not doing nearly enough to save hundreds of millions of people from a miserable future. Governments, the private sector and civil society must bridge this catastrophic climate gap."The report says unless global greenhouse gas emissions peak before 2020, the CO2 levels will be way above the goal set for 2030, which, it goes on, will make it "extremely unlikely that the goal of holding global warming to well below 2 degrees C can still be reached."Not to worry. The UN claims that closing this gap will be easy enough, if nations set their collective minds to it.But this is a fantasy. The list of what would need to be done by 2020 — a little over two years from now — includes: Boosting renewable energy's share to 30%. Pushing electric cars to 15% of new car sales, up from less than 1% today. Doubling mass transit use. Cutting air travel CO2 emissions by 20%. And coming up with $1 trillion for "climate action."Oh, and coal-fired power plants would have to be phased out worldwide, starting now.According to the report, "phasing out coal consumption … is an indispensable condition for achieving international climate change targets." That means putting a halt to any new coal plants while starting to phase out the ones currently in use.Good luck with that. There are currently 273 gigawatts of coal capacity under construction around the world, and another 570 gigawatts in the pipeline, the UN says. That would represent a 42% increase in global energy production from coal. Does anyone really think developing countries who need coal as a cheap source of fuel to grow their economies will suddenly call it quits?So, does this mean the planet is doomed? Hardly. As we have noted in this space many times, all those forecasts of global catastrophe are based on computer models that have been unreliable predictors of warming. And all of the horror stories assume the worst.What the report does make clear, however, is that all the posturing by government leaders in Paris was just that. Posturing. None of these countries intended to take the drastic and economically catastrophic steps environmentalist claim are needed to prevent a climate change doomsday. As such, Trump was right to stop pretending.Whether you believe in climate change or not, the Paris climate accord amounted to nothing, or pretty close to it. Even the UN admits that now.https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/the-un-admits-that-the-paris-climate-deal-was-a-fraud/The Legal and Economic Case Against the Paris Climate Treaty Canceling U.S. Participation Protects Competitiveness and the ConstitutionBy Christopher C. Horner, Esq. and Marlo Lewis, Jr.,Ph.D.Executive SummaryPresident Trump should keep his two-part campaign promise to cancel U.S. participation in the Paris Climate Agreement and stop all payments to United Nations global warming programs.The Paris Agreement is a costly and ineffectual solution to the alleged climate crisis. It is also plainly a treaty, despite President Obama’s attempt to implement it without the Senate’s advice and consent.Failure to withdraw from the agreement would entrench a constitutionally damaging precedent, set President Trump’s domestic and foreign policies in conflict, and ensure decades of diplomatic blowback. For those and other reasons, the Paris Agreement imperils both America’s economic future and capacity for self-government.The Paris Agreement and the 1992 treaty it purports to modify, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, both contain provisions for withdrawal.Concerns about diplomatic blowback if President Trump withdraws from the Agreement or submits it for the Senate’s advice and consent actually confirm the wisdom of exercising one of those options.The Paris Agreement is designed to institutionalize a running campaign of diplomatic blowback unless the U.S. submits to ever-tightening constraints, ratcheting up every five years. If Trump withdraws, any diplomatic blowback would largely be a muted one-off event, without the economic, political, and security costs that staying in the Paris Agreement entails.To safeguard America’s economic future and capacity for self-government, President Trump should pull out of the Paris Agreement. There are several options for doing so, which are discussed in this paper.Regardless of which option Trump selects, his administration should make the case for withdrawal based on the following key points:1. The Paris Climate Agreement is a treaty by virtue of its costs and risks, ambition compared to predecessor climate treaties, dependence on subsequent legislation by Congress, intent to affect state laws, U.S. historic practice with regard to multilateral environmental agreements, and other common-sense criteria.2. In America’s constitutional system, treaties must obtain the advice and consent of the Senate before the United States may lawfully join them. President Obama deemed the Paris Agreement to not be a treaty in order to evade constitutional review, which the Agreement almost certainly would not have survived.3. Allowing Obama’s climate coup to stand will set a dangerous precedent that will undermine one of the Constitution’s important checks and balances. It will allow a future president to adopt any treaty he and foreign elites want, without Senate ratification, just by deeming it “not a treaty.”4. The Agreement endangers America’s capacity for self-government. It empowers one administration to make legislative commitments for decades to come, without congressional authorization, and regardless of the outcome of future elections. It would also make U.S. energy policies increasingly unaccountable to voters, and increasingly beholden to the demands of foreign leaders, U.N. bureaucrats, and international pressure groups.”….https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Chris%20Horner%20and%20Marlo%20Lewis%20-%20The%20Legal%20and%20Economic%20Case%20Against%20the%20Paris%20Climate%20Treaty.pdf (https://cei.org/sites/default/files/Chris%20Horner%20and%20Marlo%20Lewis%20-%20The%20Legal%20and%20Economic%20Case%20Against%20the%20Paris%20Climate%20Treaty.pdf)ScienceThe science behind the Paris Agreement is false as CO2 is not a greenhouse gas warming the planet and in fact the planet is not warming much if at all as the current Quaternary Ice Age continues in control with a warmer interglacial and a freezing glaciation that is disastrous. Too much warming is completely out of the question.Freezing temperatures are breaking records around the world and the issue is now have we exited the Little Ice Age or not?The Paris Accord vainly hopes to make the climate colder yes colder as we fall into the continuation of the brutal Little Ice Age. This is more than stupidity. It borders on a terrible crime against humanity.We are in an Ice Age often defined by the fact of Polar glaciation that is extant and not melting away. Quaere: why do Paris Accord government think we need to make the ice age climate colder?An ice age is a long period of reduction in the temperature of the Earth's surface and atmosphere, resulting in the presence or expansion of continental and polar ice sheets and alpine glaciers. Earth is currently in the Quaternary glaciation, known in popular terminology as the Ice Age.[1] WikipediaWhile we do not have all the answers to what caused the ice age and what triggers a change of climate from warmer interglacial to much colder glaciation, we do know to be wary of longer winters, shorter springs and cooler summers. There is good reason. Snowfall though the albedo reflections has a strong cooling effect on the climate.Look at the Antarctic temperatures over the past decades they never get above freezing. If there is any melting it is from something other than atmospheric temperature - volcanos likely.ANY sign of ‘warming’ at the inconvenient South Pole sends the climate-theory-obsessed mainstream media into a collective meltdown.A recent and ongoing example being the discovery of melt occurring along the Western Antarctic ice shelf caused by recently discovered undersea volcanoes, not by evil mankind’s gasses:BIAS BY OMISSION : No Mention Of Mother Nature’s Undersea Volcanoes In The Latest Antarctic ‘Global Warming’ Scare Story | ClimatismScientists: Antarctica hasn’t warmed in over a centuryRecent climate trends for the West Antarctic Ice Sheet have not offset the long-term cooling trend. The region was actually much warmer than modern for most of the last 2000 years.Image Source: Stenni et al., 2017In fact, recent paleoclimate evidence suggests (Stenni et al., 2017) that “no continent-scale warming of Antarctica is evident in the last century.”The North Pole is floating on the ocean and is obviously less stable, but it is still one might chunk of ice not becoming any easier to navigate even in the summer.Arctic supply service cancelled 2019.Canada: sea ice prevents crucial supply deliveries to isolated communitiesPaulatuk, Kugluktuk and Cambridge Bay were unable to receive shipments of food, fuel and lumber 2019Authorities in Canada’s Arctic north are scrambling to transport critical supplies to three isolated communities after the early arrival of sea ice prevented delivery barges from reaching in the region.Paulatuk, Kugluktuk and Cambridge Bay, which have a combined population of nearly 3,000 people, have been unable to receive shipments of food, fuel and lumber after ice moving from the high Arctic sealed off the Amundsen Gulf.The government of the Northwest Territories now plans to airlift nearly 600,000 litres of diesel fuel to ensure residents have sufficient reserves to weather the bitterly cold winters. The operation is expected to involved 50 to 60 flights.“This is absolute ridiculous,” said Joh Holland, a municipal representative from Paulatuk. “We’ve got people waiting for food. We’ve got hunters waiting for vehicles.”Crucial water treatment supplies and municipal vehicles – including a new bus – are also among the stranded items. Residents are already making payments on vehicles that likely won’t arrive until next year while some small businesses awaiting buildings supplies expressed fears they might not survive without the deliveries.The ice has been described by officials as “extreme” and even the Canadian coast guard’s largest icebreaker in the region – the Louis St Laurent – was unable to help break open a channel for the barges. The government has rejected attempting to move the barge without an escort ship.“The ice can be like the pinchers of a giant pair of pliers,” assistant deputy minister John Vandenberg in the department of infrastructure, told the CBC. “You don’t survive that.”Fortunately, no evident correlation between Co2 and temperature. Also 0.8 degree rise in temperature spread over 140 years does not Global Warming make. That is less than 0.007 degrees per year … basically NOTHING!Supporters of the Paris Accord make the anti-intellectual claim that the science is settled. This is laughable nonsense. Of course there are many esteemed scientist using well referenced peer reviewed papers who have demolished the shoddy science about Co2 pitched by the alarmist crowd.I am an environmental groundwater geologist (who almost majored in fine arts). Your take on the Al Gore/global warming pseudo-catastrophe was right on target.Where are the intellectuals in this massive attack of groupthink? Inert, passive and cowardly, the lot of them. True intellectuals would be alarmed and repelled by the heavy fog of dogma that now hangs over the debate about climate change. More skeptical voices need to be heard. Why are liberals abandoning this issue to the right wing, which is successfully using it to contrast conservative rationality with liberal emotionalism? The environmental movement, whose roots are in nature-worshipping Romanticism, is vitally important to humanity, but it can only be undermined by rampant propaganda and half-truths.https://www.salon.com/2007/10/10...Camille Paglia is a second-wave feminist and an American academic specializing in literature and culture, particularly topics around gender, sex, and sexuality. She has taught at the University of the Arts in Philadelphia since 1984, but is better known for her books and journalism. In 2005 she was voted #20 on a list of top public intellectuals by Prospect and Foreign Policy magazines.Another example of a leading scientist discrediting the Paris Accord unproven view is German Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt author of a ground breaking book, THE NEGLECTED SUN. He is interesting because he changed his mind about the work of the UN alarmists.German Professor: IPCC in a serious jam... "5AR likely to be last of its kind"P GosselinNo Tricks ZoneMon, 16 Sep 2013 16:59 UTC© Warum die Klimakatastrophe nicht stattfindetProf. Fritz VahrenholtAnd: "Extreme weather is the only card they have got left to play."So says German Prof. Fritz Vahrenholt, who is one of the founders of Germany's modern environmental movement, and agreed to an interview with NoTricksZone. He is one of the co-authors of the German skeptic book "Die kalte Sonne", which took Germany by storm last year and is now available at bookstores worldwide in English under the title: The Neglected Sun.In Germany Prof. Vahrenholt has had to endure a lot heat from the media, activists, and climate scientists for having expressed a different view. But as global temperatures remain stagnant and CO2 climate sensitivity is being scaled back, he feels vindicated.Here's his interview explaining his doubts:NTZ: You were once a believer in the man-made CO2 climate disaster. What changed your mind?FV: I was Environmental Senator of Hamburg until 1998 and had had absolutely no doubts about the AGW hypothesis because global temperatures indeed had been running parallel with CO2 emissions. My first doubts over the IPCC's science arose after the dramatic errors of the 2007 4th Assessment Report came to light. On German public television PIK Director Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber said the Himalayan glaciers would melt away by the year 2035. Then as a CEO of Shell Repower Systems, and later RWE Innogy, where I was responsible for the development of renewable energies and discovered that natural factors were impacting our climate. We saw that the wind strength in Northwest Europe had been in decline year after year. Yet, climate scientists had told us just the opposite was supposed to occur, i.e. that wind strength would increase. So I looked at the literature in detail and was able to find there was a relationship with the North Atlantic Oscillation, whose 60-year cycle had entered a weak phase. I wrote articles about this in leading German dailies, and I was immediately branded as a "climate denier" by Stefan Rahmstorf. His reaction led me to look even deeper into the literature. In the end it was Schellnhuber and Rahmstorf who turned me into a skeptic.