So if the models are correct--which, so far, none of them has even been close to accurate about anything, including the 20-year pause as CO2 concentrations have continued to rise--and if the US were to stay in the Paris Agreement, the temperature reduction would amount to 0.05°C.
The agreement could manage 0.17°C under some rather strict circumstances:
If every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, total temperature reduction will be 0.048°C by 2100.To quote the warrior-philosopher Jayne Cobb, "I smell a whole lotta 'if' comin' off this plan."
If all promises extended for another 70 years: every nation fulfills every promise by 2030, continues to fulfill these promises faithfully until the end of the century, and no "CO2 leakage" to non-committed nations, the entirety of the Paris promises reduce temperature rises by just 0.170°C by 2100.
All of this presumes correct the notion that human carbon emissions are going to change the climate, which has not been proven, nor even demonstrated thus far (see above, "no change as CO2 climbs"). In fact, evidence continues to amass that human carbon emissions are irrelevant to the climate, and highly beneficial to plant life.
And, as noted previously: China's commitment to the Paris Agreement is to do nothing whatsoever about their carbon emissions. Flynn states that China emits twice the carbon that the United States does. So, let me ask you: if the US emits half the carbon that China does, China is expected to do nothing, and the US pulls out of the agreement, how does that mean that the US has ruined the planet?
Seems to me that any plan which is actually motivated by a desire to save the world from carbon dioxide must seek to limit all sources, not just the ones which wish to virtue-signal by voluntarily limiting themselves to economic stagnation. But there's no way to force China to reduce their carbon emissions, and to be frank no one in the elite wants to because they're fellow travelers. (Carbon emitted by communist dictatorships is perfectly acceptable.)
With current technology, there is exactly one way to reduce emissions of "greenhouse gas", and that is to build a crapton of nuclear reactors. The elites posture and insist that "renewables" are the way to go, but they're not cost-effective without massive government subsidies and they force the price of electricity to "necessarily skyrocket", but the elites don't give a shit how much electricity costs because they can afford it regardless.
Germany eschewed nuclear power entirely, has severely curtailed use of fossil fuels, and has festooned the countryside with "renewable" sources. The result:
Germany['s] residential electricity prices [are] about triple the U.S. average. This sort of thing can result in the collapse of industries dependent on cheap power: Paper down 12 percent. Cement down 23 percent. Iron and steel down 38 per cent. Coal down 86 percent.But, hey! The ruling class in Germany can feel good about how green they are! So what if there's economic malaise and poverty and crime and all that?
Electricity is vital to a modern industrial economy. If it is too expensive, the economy cannot function. Power must be available in industrial quantities and it must be cheap. Wind and solar power cannot manage that; they're too diffuse and unpredictable.
Flynn makes the point so eloquently that I can't really add much to it, but he discusses how well California has fared in its quest to reduce its carbon emissions by 40% under its 1990 levels: it hasn't. Not since 1990, and in the remaining 12 years until the deadline in 2030, it's unlikely to manage what it hasn't managed in 27 years.
All of this is nothing but greenie horseshit meant to reduce us all to poverty, to freezing (or sweating) in the dark. And for a chimera, the notion that our carbom emissions will wreck the climate. They haven't; they won't; they can't.
* * *
So: yet again the death cult strikes, and we have more islamic savages slaughtering innocent people in the name of their pedophile prophet.
This won't do it, but it's a step in the right direction. Recognizing that lighting candles and holding hands and singing "Kumbayah" isn't working against the craven shitsocks, England's prime minister emitted a statement which almost had a clue about what will work.
As an aside, I got up to assemble breakfast before finishing that last sentence, and realized something I've repressed for a very long time: "Kumbayah" drives me into an incandescent rage. I remember sitting through some kind of stupid educational presentation in grade school, one of those stupid touchy-feely communist agitprop things which were becoming distressingly common in the 1970s. All I remember was the cast of the thing explaining how the word "kumbayah" came to being--slaves who couldn't speak English well mangling the words together--and all that did was to plant the seeds of disgust.
The PM's statement is the beginning, but as far as islam is concerned, none of that works--talking about values, prison sentences, fighting them abroad--because they don't want to coexist.
They want to eliminate or subjugate any ideology or creed counter to islam. They are at war with us; it's about time we realized it and began to react accordingly.
Trump has it 100% correct: "We must stop being politically correct and get down to the business of security for our people. If we don't get smart it will only get worse."
* * *
Another tweet from Trump, PBUH, same source: "Do you notice we are not having a gun debate right now? That's because they used knives and a truck!"
* * *
Also: "Unarmed London Police ran away."
That is all that needs saying.
* * *
Excellent quote: "Today the communists are not red, today's communists are blue." They are indeed. And not just the EU but the American Democrat party.
* * *
Today I expect to work on cleaning vehicles. It's about the same temp as yesterday, so I'll probably be sweating rather a lot. Oh well.