By:  – Climate Depot and Jeff Dunetz

Multiple news agencies, including Reuters News, are now reporting that President Donald Trump has privately informed several officials in Washington DC that he intends to keep his campaign promise and withdraw from the UN Paris climate pact.

 “A U.S. Clexit (Climate Exit from UN Paris Pact) would be a victory for science. Make no mistake, climate campaigners who tout UN agreements and EPA regulations as a way to control Earth’s temperature and storminess are guilty of belief in superstition.”

Which Candidate Do You Support in the Republican Primaries?

Reuters reports

U.S. President Donald Trump has told “confidants,” including the head of the Environmental Protection Agency Scott Pruitt, that he plans to leave a landmark international agreement on climate change, Axios news outlet reported on Saturday, citing three sources with direct knowledge.

On Saturday, Trump said in a Twitter post he would make a decision on whether to support the Paris climate deal next week.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment..

Apparently the Paris deal was a point of contention at the G7 meeting because President Trump would not let on what he intended to do, something that annoyed German Chancellor Angela Merkel:

“The entire discussion about climate was very difficult, if not to say very dissatisfying,” she told reporters. “There are no indications whether the United States will stay in the Paris Agreement or not.”

His non-answer is another indication of what he intends to do, if he was going to remain in the deal he most probably would have told the G7 partners who are in favor of the deal.

Understand the Paris deal hurts economy without really helping the environment even if one believes that carbon dioxide is making the Earth warmer:

UN climate agreement that is totally meaningless when it comes to the climate. University of Pennsylvania Geologist Dr. Robert Giegengack  has also noted: “None of the strategies that have been offered by the U.S. government or by the EPA or by anybody else has the remotest chance of altering climate if in fact climate is controlled by carbon dioxide.”

Marc Morano adds: “In layman’s terms: All of the so-called ‘solutions’ to global warming are purely symbolic when it comes to climate. So, even if we actually faced a climate catastrophe and we had to rely on a UN climate agreement, we would all be doomed!  A U.S. Clexit (Climate Exit from UN Paris Pact) would be a victory for science.

Make no mistake, climate campaigners who tout UN agreements and EPA regulations as a way to control Earth’s temperature and storminess are guilty of belief in superstition,” Morano added.

NASA’s former lead global warming scientist Dr. James Hansen is not a big fan of the UN Paris accord. See: ‘Fraud, Fake…Worthless Words’: NASA’s James Hansen on UN Paris Pact – Trump should take note –

 “[The Paris agreement] is a fraud really, a fake. It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

Hansen’s rant against the deal is significant, he is such a strong proponent of the climate change hypothesis that when working for NASA, he was caught more than once faking the data to be able to report the Earth was warmer than it actually was.

Other climate experts who have looked at the UN climate agreement think Trump is correct to dismantle it. Danish statistician, author, environmentalist, and professor of political science, Bjorn Lomborg wrote “Trump’s climate plan might not be so bad after all.”
Lomborg added that Trump withdrawing from the UN treaty “will will stop the pursuit of an expensive dead-end” because even if you accept the climate claims of the UN, the agreement “will matter very little to temperature rise.”

‘If the U.S. delivers for the whole century on the President Obama’s very ambitious rhetoric, it would postpone global warming by about eight months at the end of the century.


(…) We will spend at least one hundred trillion dollars in order to reduce the temperature by the end of the century by a grand total of three tenths of one degree…the equivalent of postponing warming by less than four years…Again, that is using the UN’s own climate prediction model.’

‘But here is the biggest problem: These minuscule benefits do not come free — quite the contrary. The cost of the UN Paris climate pact is likely to run 1 to 2 trillion dollars every year.’

If the reports are true you will hear the global warming enthusiasts whine that President Trump is destroying the environment, but the truth is that at best the Paris Climate deal may carve a fraction of a degree off world-wide temperatures, will cost over a trillion dollars a year and per Bjorn Lomborg.

“U.S. promises alone — to cut greenhouse gas emissions 26%-28% below 2005 levels by 2025 — would reduce gross domestic product more than $150 billion annually.”


A trillion dollars, wow unless you are former president Obama, that’s a huge chunk of change!Of course there is that other issue, the true scientific fact that most who believe man-made climate change ignore, the earth hasn’t warmed in 20 years. 

As of April 11, the measured global values continue to decline as do the computed values for April 18.  The time-delayed post El Niño cooling is now showing up in the UAH and RSS satellite data.


Declining? But how could that be?  Isn’t Al Gore producing a sequel to his movie “An Inconvenient Truth” which predicted so many things that never happened? Why would he produce another movie if warming isn’t happening? It can’t just be because of his millions of dollars invested in global warming-related industries. But the last time the Earth as seen warming Bill Clinton was president,Titanic and the first Men In Black were the blockbuster movies, and the kids who graduate high school in a few weeks wouldn’t be born for 2-3 years.

With all of the above in mind–ponder this for a moment. The Paris deal will spend a trillion dollars/years and slow the American economy to cure a problem we haven’t seen for twenty years.Even of one is a believer in the climate change hypothesis ask yourself this;  wouldn’t the best way to find a true solution (as opposed to the Paris deal) to make sure that the economy was as strong as possible. The best chance to find a solution is to free-up the economic engine that, built the Juno space probe which took pictures of Jupiter and sent them back to earth this past week, or achieves medical breakthroughs to extend the lives of people once thought untreatable, and so much more? Wouldn’t you want that economic engine to be strong enough to come up with a real solution to the problem?
Much of this post was originally seen at Climate Depot.