I’m afraid. Trump withdrew from the Paris Accord walking away from a commitment that we made with virtually every nation on earth.
The science of climate change – global warming – has been debated here and else where for years now. I don’t wanna get into that now except to say that for the purpose of this post, I have settled that we are not in danger of catastrophic warming. Because of that, I am fine with the reasons for rejecting Paris.
But before we rejected Paris, we agreed to it. And that should mean something.
Now, as for the world without American leadership? Screw ’em. I am less and less inclined to care what a Parisan sipping coffee at 2.00 pm thinks of America while the rest of the world refuses to act in most cases. We’re a handful of days away from the anniversary of America’s leadership.
No. What scares me is that without Obama we don’t have Trump. But we had Obama, and now we have Trump.
Barack ruled with his phone and his pen. Paris was illegal. GM’s bankruptcy was illegal. His immigration policies were illegal. Libya? Illegal. And the list goes on and on. So, mostly, as Trump undoes Obama’s work with equal executive orders, I am conflicted. We are removing oddles and oodles of illegal and wrong minded policy.
But I don’t believe that Trump is going to stop. He’s going to get used to ruling, aka Barack, and will simply, and horrifically, continue on the trajectory.
The President never should have pulled out of Paris. But the President never should have entered Paris. Without the first, we never have the second.
The religion of apocalyptic climate change has entered into it’s Crusade stage, and it’s ugly: Via Via
Tens of millions of pounds of UK aid money have been spent on a programme that has forcibly sterilised Indian women and men, the Observer has learned. Many have died as a result of botched operations, while others have been left bleeding and in agony. A number of pregnant women selected for sterilisation suffered miscarriages and lost their babies.
The UK agreed to give India £166m to fund the programme, despite allegations that the money would be used to sterilise the poor in an attempt to curb the country’s burgeoning population of 1.2 billion people.
Sterilisation has been mired in controversy for years. With officials and doctors paid a bonus for every operation, poor and little-educated men and women in rural areas are routinely rounded up and sterilised without having a chance to object. Activists say some are told they are going to health camps for operations that will improve their general wellbeing and only discover the truth after going under the knife.
Court documents filed in India earlier this month claim that many victims have been left in pain, with little or no aftercare. Across the country, there have been numerous reports of deaths and of pregnant women suffering miscarriages after being selected for sterilisation without being warned that they would lose their unborn babies.
Yet a working paper published by the UK’s Department for International Development in 2010 cited the need to fight climate change as one of the key reasons for pressing ahead with such programmes. The document argued that reducing population numbers would cut greenhouse gases, although it warned that there were “complex human rights and ethical issues” involved in forced population control.
So, to be clear, we have a religion that believes the world is undergoing dramatic warming due to significant positive feedback loops which can only be prevented by building wind energy that only contributes to the problem and that thinks involuntary sterilizations are an okay measure to take.
I thought shutting down coal plants was bad.
In the debate on global warming and it’s impact on climate change, the left has successfully framed the position such that you are either a believer in catastrophic climate change that requires dramatic and immediate economic damage in order to save the world from literal existence or you are a denier who believes man walked with the dinosaur.
I happen to take the very real and legitimate position that :
- CO2 is a green house gas.
- Green house gases cause temperatures to rise.
- Man contributes to an increase in CO2.
- The world is warmer than it might otherwise be.
I do NOT ascribe to the belief in the positive feedback models that are necessary to create the catastrophe that the alarmists envision.
And now there is one more of me in the world.
We are seeing tornadoes across America.
And by the looks of things, it would seem the year is bad. Really REALLY bad.
But is it?
Well, the guys over at Poison Your Mind seem to think so:
We can’t link any individual event to global warming, but it’s a large-scale pattern that may be increasing the frequency or severity of types of events.
Nickgb creates some very compelling points in his post, I highly recommend reading all of it. And when you’re done, stop on back and see my critique.