If the blathering blowhards of the dinosaur media and the Chicken Littles of the Twitterverse are to be believed, the world has officially come to an end. And in a way, maybe it has. Not “the” world, of course, but their world.
That’s because, as you will no doubt have heard by now, Trump just announced that the US will be pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord.
“I am fighting every day for the great people of this country,” Trump boasted in his Rose Garden press conference announcing his decision on the agreement, adopted in Paris in December 2015. “Therefore, in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord…”
…If only he had stopped there. However, after a brief applause break greeting the announcement of the withdrawal, the Dissembler-in-Chief completed the sentence thusly: “but begin negotiations to re-enter either the Paris Accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers.” And then, just to make sure he added enough political hogwash to confuse everyone, he pressed on: “So we’re getting out. But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair. And if we can, that’s great. And if we can’t, that’s fine.”
Ok, then. So the US is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement not because it is the leading edge of the $100 trillion carbon swindle wedge. Not because it is based on the fake science of fundamentally flawed models with fundamentally incorrect inputs. Not because it brings us one step closer to the Edmund Rothschild-articulated vision of a “global conservation bank” to steward over the world economy or the century-old technocratic dream of an energy-based economy where people will be assigned “carbon credits” and forced to ration their activities in response to the dictates of a de facto world government. No, not for these reasons, but because the “deal” wasn’t “fair” for “American workers?” And the Trump Administration is going to immediately begin negotiations to re-enter the agreement?
Is this another case of the right decision for the wrong reasons? And if so, should we take this as the closest we’re likely to get to actual victory in the war against the control freaks who are attempting to implement their globalist vision through the climate hoax?
Well, as it turns out there is a bright spot in all of this, after all: The repudiation of the Paris Agreement represents a “tipping point” in the climate debate.
A “tipping point,” of course, is a point of no return, and the concept should be very familiar to aficionados of climate doom-porn. There have been so many so-called “climate tipping points” proclaimed by the fear mongers over the years that I’ve lost track. Thankfully, some intrepid researchers have compiled detailed lists of these dire warnings (all of which, would you believe it, failed to come true).
In 1989, United Nations Environmental Program Director Noel Brown warned us that “entire nations could be wiped off the face of the earth by rising sea levels if global warming is not reversed by the year 2000.”
In 2007 Rajendra Pachauri (the disgraced ex-chair of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) warned that “If there’s no action before 2012, that’s too late.” Oddly, they went ahead with the Paris Agreement anyway, despite being three years past the earth’s expiry date.
In 2009 Prince Charles of the inbred eugenics-loving Saxe-Coburg-Gotha clan lectured his loyal subjects that there was just 96 months left to save the planet.
British Prime Minister Gordon Brown was not so optimistic. He gave the planet only 50 days (and added, lest a skeptical public tempt fate by waiting 51 days to act, that there is “no Plan B!”).
You get the idea. We have been told ad nauseum by the powers-that-shouldn’t-be that unless we accept the latest “Treaty to Save the Planet” then we are all doomed! DOOMED, I tell you!
The Paris Accord was no exception to this rule. We were told time and again that the agreement was essential to avoid the “tipping point” of two degrees Celsius of global average temperature increase over the next hundred years which “scientists predict” would mean “sea level rise, food and water shortage, severe flooding, and drought” and, presumably, dogs and cats marrying.
Never mind that “global average temperature” is an inherently nonsensical concept. Never mind that the thesis that carbon dioxide acts a global thermostat has been falsified. Never mind that climate modeling has been a spectacular, unparalleled failure in the annals of science. We should simply entrust that somehow or others the wise oligarchs of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change not only have the ability to constrain the rise of global average temperature to 1.5 degrees Celsius over the next 80 years (to the tenth of a degree, no less!), but that they have the knowledge necessary to do so.
And by “wise oligarchs” I mean, of course, oil companies, bankers, CFR members and other members of the psychopathic ruling class. For make no mistake, they are the ones behind the swindle at every step.
After all, it was Enron and Goldman Sachs who pioneered the emissions trading swindles (that – surprise, surprise! – are a complete and total fraud from top to bottom). It was companies like General Electric, DuPont, Johnson & Johnson, Pepsi, Siemens, AIG, BP, ConocoPhillips and GM who spearheaded the Waxman-Markey bill of 2009 by founding the US Climate Action Partnership, which wrote the “Blueprint for Legislative Action.” It was companies like EDF, Engie, Air France, Renault, and BNP Paribas that footed 20% of the bill for the Paris climate summit itself. And it is companies like Exxon and Shell (backed, of course, by the Daughter-in-Chief) who have been the Paris Agreement’s staunchest defenders.
Yes, the world is reaching a tipping point, but it has nothing to do with the trace amounts of life-giving carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Instead, the climate hoax itself is reaching a tipping point, the point at which the public stops listening to the apocalyptic predictions of the “End Is Nigh” crowd.
The evidence of this tipping point is appearing in the unlikeliest of places.
A recent Dilbert cartoon took the climate fear mongers to task for the way they treat their critics. In a company meeting, a client scientist explains to Dilbert and his co-workers that climate scientists feed the data from questionable climate models into “long-term economic models of the sort that have never been right” to determine that human activity is causing catastrophic climate change. When Dilbert asks “What if I don’t trust the economic models?” the scientist turns to Dilbert’s boss and asks “Who hired the science denier?”
The surprising part is not that “Yale Climate Connections” made a clumsy, strawman-laden non-rebuttal rebuttal of the comic strip that in fact went on to demonstrate the very point of the strip itself. The surprising part is that the public so easily saw through the charade; the video has twice as many thumbs down as thumbs up and the comments section is full of people pointing out the video’s flaws. (“The criticism is about models’ alleged inability to predict the future,” as one commenter points out. “The video is talking about how we are confident that the Earth has warmed. It’s a non-response.”)
These types of push-back against the seemingly ubiquitous “settled science” mantra are heartening given the 24/7 assault of climate propaganda that the world has been subjected to for the past two and a half decades. And they are becoming more frequent.
This is heartening, and this is the real victory of Trump’s Paris withdrawal. It is the fact that so many people support the idea of withdrawing from the Paris Agreement. Apparently, people can only take so many failed warnings of doom and gloom before they stop blindly believing what the billionaires for climate change are telling them.
So if you want to end on a positive note, stop reading here.
For the rest of you, you should be aware that Trump’s bold pronouncement is only the beginning of a two year wait before the US can actually begin the process of withdrawing from the agreement itself. And even if Trump does persist and proceed with the withdrawal in November 2019, it still would not undermine the UNFCCC itself which underlies the agreement, and thus would not derail the IPCC or the global governmental climate hoax generally.