Thirteen reasons to CLEXIT (climate exit)

  • President Trump should keep his campaign promise to “cancel” the UN Paris climate agreement
  • President Obama signed the UN “agreement” bypassing the constitutional requirement to seek the “advice and consent” of the Senate despite it possessing all the hallmarks of a “treaty”
  • The climate models the UN relied on continually project a warmer world than observations record the scientific case for the agreement was never adequately made
  • In the unlikely event the Paris agreement is fully complied with by all parties it will nonetheless have no meaningful impact on global temperature while imposing huge and wasteful costs and restrictions
  • The agreement fails rational cost/benefit analysis
  • The agreement weakens national sovereignty by giving foreign bureaucrats control over American energy use
  • Climate activists will seek to compel American compliance with the agreement through the courts
  • If the agreement remains in place climate activists will use it in the future as justification to reimpose burdensome regulations and create new ones
  • If the U.S. remains within the agreement while failing to comply with its terms foreign governments will seek to apply penalties for noncompliance
  • Financial transfers to the UN climate process and the Green Climate Fund represent a massive waste of taxpayer funds and an open door to corruption
  • The agreement ensures unfair and disparate impacts by committing the U.S. to reduce its carbon emissions by nearly 30% below 2005 levels while emissions from major world economies such as China’s and India’s will continue to grow at a rate rendering any U.S. reductions inconsequential
  • In effect the agreement would shift manufacturing from the U.S. and Europe to developing economies causing economic loss with no meaningful decrease in emissions
  • Highly subsidized “renewable” energy is extremely expensive yet too inefficient to power the U.S. economy
Categories

About the Author: CFACT Ed

  • John Lentini

    A new peer-reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg published in the Global Policy journal measures the actual impact of all significant climate promises made ahead of the Paris Climate Summit. Paris climate promises will reduce temperatures by just 0.05°C in 2100 (Press release).

    Subsidizing inefficient renewables is expensive and doesn’t work. The IEA estimates that we get 0.4% of our world energy from wind and solar PV right now, and even in optimistic scenarios the fraction will only rise to 2.2% by 2040. Over the next 25 years, we’ll spend about $2.5 trillion in subsidies and reduce global warming temperatures by less than 0.02°C.

    http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises

    All of the temperature calculations were made by the computer program “MAGICC”. approved by and used by the EPA and the UN IPCC.

    • Dan Phillips

      Bjorn Lomborg’s opinions are bought and paid for by oil-men, specifically the Koch brothers. (https://thinkprogress.org/bjorn-lomborg-is-part-of-the-koch-network-and-cashing-in-68dab8cf68) Do you really want to let big oil tell you what to think?

      • Immortal600

        The best you can do is try to castigate a man who is smarter than you. Why? You certainly can’t challenge his paper on an intellectual level. I thought you were supposed to be smart? What was it? “Statistically smarter the most I’m afraid”??? hahahahahaha What a JOKE! You live in a parallel universe.

        The “tell’ that you aren’t as bright as you claim are the lame links you supply. A smarter person would write a dissertation on why someone was wrong, not give lame links that prove nothing but your own ineptitude.

        • Dan Phillips

          You are apparently willing to believe that all major scientific organizations, world-wide, are party to a global conspiracy because of an imagined financial incentive, but you aren’t willing to consider that a single person could be influenced by a demonstrated and significant financial incentive? Not the best reasoning, there. Might want to ask for another fitting of that tin-foil hat.

          • Immortal600

            The boards of those organizations made up of a few. They have sold you a bill of goods. Not surprising given that you really aren’t too bright.

            LMAO at the intellectual waanabe

            • Dan Phillips

              I wish that mental health was a laughing issue, but it’s not; I hope that you can get help. In the meantime, press the creases out of your tin-foil hat; it’s looking a bit worn!

              • Immortal600

                Coming from an intellectual wannabe I find that humorous. Try again, little man.

          • Kem Patrick

            Hi Dan Phillips… I thoroughly enjoy how you conduct a debate with the AGW deniers

            • Brin Jenkins

              All that’s required is an explanation of how the Co2 molecule works?

        • Dan Phillips

          Sorry that you couldn’t read the links. I didn’t think they were particularly difficult to understand, but apparently I was mistaken. Re statistics: look up what an IQ test is, and look up the distribution of IQs. It’s a simple matter, really.

          • Immortal600

            You really obsess about IQ Why? Who cares, I don’t. You are showing the world your insecurities. Daddy must not have loved you. Why? OH, I get it! You’re a momma’s boy.

      • RealOldOne2

        “Bjorn Lomborg’s opinions are bought and paid for by oil-men, specifically the Koch brothers”
        LOL. You really are gullible swallowing all the propaganda talking points of your climate cult religion. Don’t you even know that Lomborg is one of your fellow warmists?

        • Dan Phillips

          You might want to read about the subject a little more before posting again. Just a tip.

  • BernardP

    All the hoopla around man-made climate change is only a pretext to promote leftist policies such as government control of everything and wealth redistribution between countries.

    • Dan Phillips

      Yeah, and all the hoopla around the earth being “round” is only a pretext to promote humanitarian policies of free trade and travel. (Hint: my statement made as much sense as yours did.)

      • Immortal600

        “And, just to avoid embarrassment for yourself in the future, don’t
        assume that you are as intelligent as I am – statistically very unlikely
        I’m afraid.”

        Smarter than everyone on the planet, Dan?
        Go look up ‘hubris’ in the dictionary, you’ll see your picture next to
        it. Anyone who makes the claim you have is an insecure little person. Go
        away, child

        hahahahahahaha

        • Dan Phillips

          Sounds like your reasoning isn’t exactly up to snuff, is it? Of course I’m not smarter than everyone on the planet, kiddo. Read what I wrote again and tell us all the two errors you made in that feeble straw-man. You are a treasure in your own imagination, I’m sure – but you’ve clearly demonstrated that you aren’t exactly able to play with the big boys. Sorry, I’m sure that hurts.

          • Immortal600

            A legend in your own mind, huh Dan? hahahahahaha You are an intellectual fraud incapable of writing anything halfway witty.
            hahahahaha

            BTW, there were no “errors” in the supposed “straw-man” as you claim. Your hubris is only exceeded by your ignorance.

            • Dan Phillips

              Actually, “Immortal600” (certainly a moniker without the slightest hint of hubris), you were the first one to bring up my intelligence. I’ve just responded to your uninformed assumptions.
              You wrote, “There are thousands of scientists, a whole lot smarter than you, that question AGW.” I’m not sure that you’d be able to prove the “thousands of scientists” assertion, but let’s leave that aside for the moment.
              I responded, “don’t assume that you are as intelligent as I am – statistically very unlikely I’m afraid.”
              Since you are apparently unable to realize the flaws in your statements (see again the Dunning-Kruger effect), I’ll explain them for you.
              (1) You set up the straw man “Smarter than everyone on the planet.” I never claimed that; thus it’s a straw man by definition. No “supposed” about it.
              (2) Error 1: Assumption of “everyone.” Nope, I only referred to you.
              (3) Error 2: Even then, I didn’t claim that I was smarter than you – rather, merely that it was statistically unlikely that you (as an otherwise unqualified member of the population) are as intelligent as I am. Look up IQ distributions to understand how that might be a straightforward and provable assertion.
              And finally, a hint: true wit does not require a laugh track.

              • Immortal600

                Poor insecure Dan grasping at straws……

                hahahahahaha

                You just don’t have a clue, little insecure fool

                • Dan Phillips

                  Oh, my, does that burn – insults from a three-year-old having a tantrum. Surely you don’t expect adults to be impressed? Meanwhile, all that you can offer to support your tin-foil hat theories is…well…nothing, really. Sad.

                  • Immortal600

                    Failed again, Dan. Try again, little man.

              • Immortal600

                “you were the first one to bring up my intelligence.”

                You don’t even remember your own lame writings. A refresher:

                You wrote BEFORE I responded to you the FIRST time:

                “Oh, and my apologies to those who are threatened by intelligence. Feel free to fling your best monkey-poop!”

                You were bragging right then and there about “intelligence”.
                You’re a simpleton trying to appear smart. You aren’t

                • Dan Phillips

                  Kiddo, think long and hard about whether or not Dunning-Kruger could apply here. I wasn’t writing to you, as you note. Sorry to disappoint – better luck next time!

                  • Immortal600

                    Still butt-sore I see……….You are a joke. Keep on obsessing about your inadequacies. I’m not the one raving about how smart I am. THAT’S YOU.
                    hahahahahahaha

    • Dan Phillips

      And just to be clear, the only way that could be true is if all major scientific organizations around the world (which all agree that man-made climate change is a reality) are either corrupt or stupid. Since that is a ludicrous assertion, it follows that your assertion is ludicrous as well.

      • Dan Phillips

        Oh, and my apologies to those who are threatened by intelligence. Feel free to fling your best monkey-poop!

        • Immortal600

          The thing about you AGW believers is that you think you have a monopoly on intelligence. A clue for you, you don’t. You believe in the scam, fine. Citing the ruling bodies of scientific organizations doesn’t mean squat. There are thousands of scientists, a whole lot smarter than you, that question AGW. It hasn’t been shown that CO2 has that much effect on climate. That is a fact and you can’t show where it does. You and anybody you cite doesn’t have a full understanding of climate dynamics at this time. It is too complex and chaotic to say that one minuscule compound drives climate change. Go troll elsewhere.

          • Dan Phillips

            A clue for you: you’re the one buying into a scam. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy for instance. If you maintain that anthropogenic climate change is a “scam,” then you’ll have to explain why all major scientific organizations agree that it is real – which you have not done. (I’m not going to get involved in any exchange of “facts” with some random, presumably unqualified person on a trash-blog such as this.) And, just to avoid embarrassment for yourself in the future, don’t assume that you are as intelligent as I am – statistically very unlikely I’m afraid. Look up Dunning-Kruger sometime.

            • Immortal600

              Funny you should mention Dunning-Kruger because you must be the poster child for it. You aren’t half as smart as you think. WOW! Linking Wikipedia really shows some smarts there, Dan. Come up with that one all by your little self?

              It only takes ONE person’s work to prove ALL the others wrong. I suggest you go look at this and explain how this ATMOSPHERIC PHYSICIST is wrong. He puts it into a case that even your pea-brain could grasp:

              http://edberry.com/blog/ed-berry/why-our-co2-emissions-do-not-increase-atmosphere-co2/

              If he is wrong and you have the expertise (which I highly doubt) then show him. Otherwise you are nothing more than a blowhard full of your own crap.

              • Dan Phillips

                Ah, yes, some random dude’s blog, and we should all believe that over all major scientific organizations. Because, as you propose elsewhere, they are all joined in some sort of sinister world-wide conspiracy. Of course. Now, that’s sensible. We should all be so wise and balanced.

                • Immortal600

                  That “some dude” is undoubtedly 20 times smarter than YOU, clown. Go show him how he is wrong. OR! You just might get enlightened. Nah! You are too wrapped up in your own mistaken belief how smart you are………hahahahahaha

                  • Dan Phillips

                    Sorry kiddo, the poor little man’s blog post you seem to feel explains everything is in fact written at a kindergarten level and proceeds with the assumption that all other scientists are idiots. It fails at basic levels, and as such it’s not necessary to take time to rebut such nonsense.

                    • Immortal600

                      hahahahahaa…..

                      You can’t rebut it. Figures, dummy.

                      You probably didn’t even understand it even at the “kindergarten” level.

              • Dan Phillips

                Poor little Immortal600’s safe space is being violated. Pity him.

                • Immortal600

                  Right. You are so smart you couldn’t think of anything else. hahahahah

            • Immortal600

              “If you maintain that anthropogenic climate change is a “scam,” then
              you’ll have to explain why all major scientific organizations agree that
              it is real – which you have not done.”

              I would have thought that it was evident. But being as you are slow I will put it into one word for you MONEY. Got it?

              • Dan Phillips

                Ah, so you’re proposing that all major scientific organizations, world-wide, are joined together in a massive conspiracy of corruption. Mmm-hmmm. Perhaps you might want to check the fit on that tin-foil hat. Next…

                • Immortal600

                  You are really stupid. Why? Because not all the members of those organizations agree with the governing body which is usually made up of a select few who aren’t even versed in the science. So your stupid appeals to authority fall flat. If you are as smart as you claim, you would understand that appeals to authority is a weak argument. You have no clue how complex and chaotic climate dynamics really is yet you claim to be so “intelligent”. Yeah, right. LMAO at the wannabe.

                  • Dan Phillips

                    Best to look up how such resolutions are typically passed. From your statement above, it seems like you might not understand the process. And, sadly, even that fails to rebut the basic issue: it would still require a global conspiracy, which – at the danger of repetition – places it firmly in tin-hat territory.

            • Bradam12

              You warmists have a lot to gain by your false narrative. Those that oppose you have nothing to gain. Got it ?

              • Dan Phillips

                Bradam12, it’s quite easy to see what the denialists (who are few in number, but quite loud, as we can see here!) have to gain: less regulation for their polluting industries. That’s why big oil companies, such as Exxon, and oil-industry billionaires like the Koch brothers, have spent so much money to prop up the few denialists. Got it?

            • Brin Jenkins

              Well thanks, now perhaps you will explain the mechanism of infra red and the Co2 molecule in warming in your own words please.

              • Dan Phillips

                Sure – increased CO2 (not “Co2,” as you write – the “O” stands for “Oxygen”) traps heat in the atmosphere. It’s a small effect by itself, but is greatly magnified by causing increased atmospheric H2O, which is much more effective at trapping heat. None of that is the point, though; you’re not a climate scientist, and neither am I, so neither of us are qualified for a debate on the subject. Now, perhaps you will explain why 200 or so major science organizations, from across the globe, have all issued statements which acknowledge the reality of anthropomorphic climate change. Are they all corrupt, in some massive international conspiracy? Are they all incompetent? Or, perhaps they are in fact all correct – a much more plausible theory.

      • RealOldOne2

        “are either corrupt or stupid”
        These two things can explain it:
        1) Follow the money. Scientists and scientific organizations have a vested interest to keep the ‘climate cash’ coming. Hundreds of billions of $ of government largesse have flowed into supporting climate alarmism.
        2) Groupthink and herd mentality. The climate alarmist movement meet every one of the 8 symptoms of groupthink: https://www.verywell.com/what-is-groupthink-2795213

        • Immortal600

          Watch out ROO2, Dan is full of himself. One of the smartest people on the planet too…..hahahahaha

          • RealOldOne2

            Thanks. Most foolish dupes who delusionally think that they are saving the world are full of themselves. LOL.

    • Michael Castillo

      It’s about globalism. Period!

  • Dan Phillips

    This blog is a wildly biased source, paid for in part by Chevron and ExxonMobil: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Committee_for_a_Constructive_Tomorrow. Don’t believe the lies they are paid to peddle!

    • BJC70

      Don’t believe anything on sourcewatch.

      • Dan Phillips

        Actually, that’s the thing: you don’t have to “believe” them! Unlike this propaganda blog, Sourcewatch meticulously cites their sources. So, you can check them yourself. I’d encourage you to do so – unless you just want to let big business spoon-feed you the opinions they want you to have.