Cheers! Momentum in Trump Admin has turned against UN Paris climate agreement
Foes of the Paris climate agreement have gained the upper hand in the ongoing White House debate over whether the U.S. should pull out of the historic pact, according to participants in the discussions and those briefed on the deliberations, although President Trump has yet to make a final decision.
Senior administration officials have met twice since Thursday to discuss whether the United States should abandon the U.N. accord struck in December 2015, under which the United States pledged to cut its greenhouse gas emissions 26 percent to 28 percent below 2005 levels by 2025.
The president’s aides remain divided over the international and domestic legal implications of remaining party to the agreement, which has provided a critical political opening for those pushing for an exit.
On Thursday several Cabinet members — including Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, who’s called for exiting the accord, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who wants it renegotiated, and Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who advocates remaining a party to it — met with top White House advisers, including Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband, Jared Kushner, and Chief of Staff Reince Priebus. Both Ivanka Trump and Kushner advocate remaining part of the U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change, even though the president has repeatedly criticized the global warming deal.
During that meeting, according to several people who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations, White House counsel Don McGahn informed participants that the United States could not remain in the agreement and lower the level of carbon cuts it would make by 2025.
The administration is working to unravel many Obama-era policies underpinning that pledge, and the economic consulting firm Rhodium Group has estimated that the elimination of those policies would mean the United States would cut its emissions by 14 percent by 2025 compared with 21 percent if they remained in place.…
Trump Axes EPA’s ‘Outdated’ Climate Pages On Day Of Global Warming Marches
‘The book burning has commenced!’
Source: Trump Axes EPA’s ‘Outdated’ Climate Pages On Day Of Global Warming Marches…
Pull Out Of Paris Climate Deal, US Energy Group Tells Trump
The U.S. president needs to pull the country out of the Paris climate agreement in order to stimulate the oil and gas sector, a trade group said. The Western Energy Alliance, a trade group representing the business interests of the exploration and production sector in several western states, said President Donald Trump should pull out of the multilateral climate agreement for the sake of oil and gas industries. “With an end to the regulatory overreach that has been stifling the oil and natural gas and many other industries, we can get on with the business of helping the president create thousands of new jobs,” it said in a recent statement.
Source: Pull Out Of Paris Climate Deal, US Energy Group Tells Trump…
Inconvenient study concludes: warmer temperatures lead to a more stable climate
From RESEARCH ORGANIZATION OF INFORMATION AND SYSTEMS and the “goodbye climate disruption” department, comes this study that might very well explain why we have less landfalling U.S. hurricanes, less tornadoes, and extreme weather of all kinds seems to be waning.
Climate instability over the past 720,000 years
Ice core analysis from Dome Fuji, Antarctica and climate simulation
A research group formed by 64 researchers from the National Institute of Polar Research, the University of Tokyo, and other organizations analyzed atmospheric temperatures and dust for the past 720,000 years using an ice core obtained at Dome Fuji in Antarctica. Results indicate that when intermediate temperatures occurred within a glacial period, the climate was highly unstable and fluctuated. A climate simulation was also performed based on the Coupled Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation Model, which revealed that the major cause of the observed climate instability was global cooling by a decline in the greenhouse effect.
Climate instability severely impacts both the Earth’s natural environment and human society. In the continued effort for understanding how global warming could affect climate instability, it is important to identify periods in the past that experienced climate instability. These periods need to be studied and modeled to clarify any potential causes of the observed instability. However, little progress has been made in improving our documenting and understanding of climate instability prior to the last glacial period.
The research groups of Dr. Kenji Kawamura and Dr. Hideaki Motoyama (National Institute of Polar Research) analyzed the Second Dome Fuji ice core (Fig. 1, left) that were obtained as part of the Japanese Antarctic Research Expedition (JARE) between 2003 and 2007. Their team reproduced fluctuations in the air temperature and dust (solid particulate mat
‘Environmentalists’ Leave #ClimateMarch TRASHED
BY: AMANDA PRESTIGIACOMO on MAY 2, 2017 I f there’s one thing we can count on in this world, it’s self-styled environmentalists being total hypocrites when it comes to the environment. On Saturday, the “People’s Climate March”in Washington, DC was packed with tens of thousands of hippies, tree-huggers, celebrities, politicians and climate change alarmists all shouting about the dire need for the government to “save” the planet, as they all bonded over their mutual hatred for President Donald Trump, of course. The marchers, unsurprisingly, left DC trashed. Signs about the precious environment ironically littered the street, trash overowed the garbage and food and drink containers covered the green grass. It was apparently too much for the (CO -exhaling*) hippies to dispose of their garbage in an environmentally-friendly manner before taking ‘Environmentalists’ Leave #ClimateMarch TRASHED Screenshot: Twitter 2 5/…
Watch: Greenpeace Co-Founder Dr. Patrick Moore 45 min. interview – ‘There is no such thing as climate science’
Published on May 1, 2017
In a very special #LwC, for one full hour, we sat down with Dr. Patrick Moore, PHD in Ecology and founder of Greenpeace, and dissected the scam that is modern “climate change”.…
Sea Level 2000 years ago higher than today? Roman coastline discovered two miles inland
Dig uncovers Roman invasion coast |
||
An archaeological dig at a Kent fort has uncovered the coastline at the time of the Roman invasion of Britain in 43AD – two miles from today’s shore. The team was excavating a 295ft (90m) stretch of collapsed Roman wall, when they found a small medieval dock. English Heritage archaeologist Tony Wilmott said they then found a “hard surface”, in a water-filled trench, which was the Roman beach. The dig was on previously untouched land at Richborough Roman Fort. Mr Wilmott said: “It is widely known that Richborough Roman Fort was the gateway to Roman Britain 2,000 years ago. “But what is really exciting is that we have actually found the Roman foreshore while digging in a deep trench alongside the remains of a Roman wall. “The bottom of the trench continually fills with water and by trowelling you can feel the hard surface, which was the Roman beach.” He added: “We have long been curious about this fallen Roman fort wall and now we know there was a Roman harbour sitting out there.”
At the start of the dig, local volunteers helped to reclaim the walls from undergrowth, exposing them for the first time since the 1930s. |
||
Climate Change Alarmists’ Prediction About Pacific Northwest Now Looks Embarrassingly Bad
…NY Times Columnist Finds Out What Happens When You Question the Global Warming Narrative
…In Bret Stephens’ debut column for the New York Times, the Pulitzer prize-winning author cautioned global warming activists to maybe perhaps not claim “total certainty” about the science behind their proposed policies.
Using the Clinton campaign’s reliance on data versus traditional campaigning as an example of certainty leading to a disastrous loss, he turned to topic of global warming. He said the right words to lead off (emphasis mine):
“…while the modest (0.85 degrees Celsius, or about 1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) warming of the NorthernHemisphere since 1880 is indisputable, as is the human influence on that warming…
What he added next had heads exploding:
“…much else that passes as accepted fact is really a matter of probabilities.
It should be obvious to scientists or anyone who even took a science class in school that projections of how climate change will affect us 20 years from now are just that – projections. And projections are rarely, if ever, 100 percent correct. Still, global warming activists claim absolute certainty.
Stephens quoted a Times reporter who covered climate issues, who said that while the science activists relied on was scrupulous, the “boosters” themselves weren’t – using hyperbole to effect policy changes (a fancy way of saying “scare tactics”).
“Demanding abrupt and expensive changes in public policy raises fair questions about ideological intentions. Censoriously asserting one’s moral superiority and treating skeptics as imbeciles and deplorables wins few converts.”
Nowhere did he dismiss global warming concerns or say he personally didn’t believe in it; he simply offered a strategy that might help others win people to their point of view.
‘Can California Cars Save the Climate?’ ‘There’s not a single automaker that makes money on an electric car’
…Via: http://capitalandmain.com/can-california-cars-save-the-climate-0420
Co-published by Fast Company
Eric Noble works in the automobile industry, but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t worry about climate change. When he and his two sons, 11 and 15 years old, travel south to surf on Baja’s Pacific Coast a few times a year, they can detect the impact greenhouse gases are having on the earth. “We can see the sea level rising,” he says. “Little coastal roads we used to be able to drive on are inundated now. This is happening.” He understands that transportation is responsible for more than a quarter of the greenhouse gases that linger in our atmosphere, and light-duty vehicles—passenger cars, mostly—emit close to two-thirds of that pollution.
And so Noble, who is president of the Orange County, California-based automotive consulting firm CarLab, also worries whether California’s strict zero-emissions vehicle strategy, which forces automakers to market exhaust-free hydrogen-fueled and battery-powered vehicles in the state, is really the most consumer-friendly, egalitarian way to go. Not just in California and the nine states that have followed its lead on emissions standards, but throughout the nation.
…
California is moving rapidly toward low-carbon electricity generation. But even with a cleaner grid, or solar charging stations in home garages, it’s not enough for car makers to sell a handful of clean cars to do-gooder early adopters. People have to buy them in sufficient numbers to make a difference. Even with substantial perks for drivers—a $7,500 federal tax credit for a pure electric vehicle, carpool lane privileges, the quiet power of an electric motor—manufacturers still lease their cars cheap, and at a loss.
“There’s not a single automaker that makes money on an electric car,” Noble says. Tesla, with its rising stock shares and fame, turned a slim profit in the third quarter of 2016, but likely because of $139 million in ZEV credits it sold to less-green manufacturers. General Motors expects to lose money on every unit it sells of its new Chevrolet Bolt, the all-electric car pitched as an answer to “range anxiety,” because, if you’re careful not to drive it too hard, it can last for 238 miles on a charge.