Like most sane people, all I had to know about this idiotic Paris Climate thing is that even if everyone who agreed to it abided by all of its stupid rules and requirements and even if America ponied-up most of the cash to make it work, it would only – ONLY – decrease the global temperature by a mere fraction of a percent of a degree by the year 2100.
Oh gee, that sounds like a lot of work for not a lot of results. Yay for crappy progressive policies!
(Isn’t it funny that most of these “SAVE THE PLANET!” initiatives involve developed nations spending exorbitant amounts of money for not a lot of success? I thought we established that throwing money at a problem doesn’t necessarily mean that things are going to get better. Look at public schools, for example.)
“I think one of the reasons President Trump was elected is that he promised that he would defend American workers and American jobs,” [Paul] said. “There are estimates that this agreement, which is unfair, and punishes America in a much greater fashion than other countries, that we would lose 6 and a half million jobs. Meanwhile, countries like India and countries like Iran, we would have to pay them to reduce their carbon emissions.”
“I can’t imagine a worse agreement than this thing for the American worker,” he continued. “But I think this is something that President Trump promised the voters.
“So if America, under this accord, has to reduce her carbon footprint by 20 percent, but China doesn’t have to reduce their carbon footprint at all,” he said, “how could that possibly be fair? Who in their right mind would sign something that says China doesn’t have to do anything? When you reduce your carbon footprint it means you have to reduce your energy output, or you have to convert to other sources, but there may not be enough energy from the other sources. So then we’re talking about going without energy.”
Senator Paul also pointed out how unpredictable modeling and climate patterns can be –
“You need to make sure that your viewers know that most of their modeling has been wrong,” Paul said, “they readjust their modeling every year because they haven’t been good at predicting things. Predicting the future is notoriously difficult, and this is a modeling is not an exact science.”
Seriously – have you watched a weather report? Like, ever? If you can’t accurately predict what the weather’s going to be like tomorrow, how can you predict what it’s going to be like decades from now?
I’m sure that climate change is happening, but it has nothing to do with anything humans do on a daily basis. Nature has this funny way of taking care of herself and climate cycles go in a natural pattern.
Also – what people in big cities don’t seem to understand is that cities are just one small part of the planet as a whole. You get outside of the urban areas into more rural and open places and you can see that the natural world is doing just fine. The city-dwellers’ hysteria over climate change is pretty laughable to the people who actually live and work close to nature and who have a vested financial interest – not to mention decades of experience – in keeping the land healthy and productive (though maybe it takes a ranch girl who grew up in those wide open spaces to point out the painfully obvious).
Here’s the deal: If those 200-some-odd other countries that signed up for the Paris Climate Agreement want to spend their time, money, and effort on a losing proposition, they are more than welcome to do so. Whatever gives them the warm fuzzies and makes Leonardo DiCaprio love them (while we’re at it, he’s also free to move over there and preach his condescending lectures to a welcoming audience). But America doesn’t have to commit economic suicide by joining them.