The Paris Accords Exit

The announcement will be made at 3:00 pm today (June 1, 2017).    It has been widely rumored that Trump will pull out of the Accords.  The Agreement was a very major step forward in acceptance of a global problem.

CNN outlined three options that Trump has: (1) The Normal Exit- by withdrawing from the Accords by 2020 (2) The Radical  Exit- by withdrawing from the UN organization (UNFCCC) under which the Accords were agreed upon and (3) The non-exit, which Trump simply ignores the provisions of the Accords.

The radical exit is the one supported by conservative groups,  such as the Heritage group.  The coal companies such as Peabody and Cloud Peak Coal, want Trump not to exit the Accords, as this puts the EU in a leadership role in setting targets.


A final option (“death in the legislature” option)  is for Trump to  state the Accord is really a treaty, which must be ratified by 2/3 of the Senate.  With the Republican controlled Senate, the treaty would be “dead on arrival.”   This would change the issue to one of Obama overstepping his authority, and Trump might just go for it.

The Paris Agreement is more of an “agreement in principal”  rather than a treaty, as it lacks any penalties for countries who do not reduce their carbon emissions. It is an important first step as it is an  agreement of mutual commitment  to a global problem.   As it is structured,  the US could stay in the Accords,  do nothing to reduce these emissions and not be sanctioned by the UN.

Obama signed the agreement as an Executive Order.  Trump can legally exit the agreement, but has to comply with the set schedule if he wants to do the normal exit.

I predict that many countries will be looking more at the “non-exit” or “non-compliance” option, which means climate change is something leaders of the countries are concerned about, but  nobody does much about it.

This will leave the US as the only one of 193 countries to exit the Accord.

Stay tuned,


Lamar Smith on the Warpath

Lamar Smith, Congressman from Texas  is in battle with Kathryn Sullivan, NOAA administrator.  He is conducting a fishing expedition of unprecedented scope.

At the heart of all this, is the contention that climate change is based on bad science- namely hasty judgments from incomplete data.   Sometimes, distinguishing between good and bad science is not easy, because the results do not lead to simple conclusions.  But, climate change  is not one of these areas.  Our planet’s average temperature is going up at an alarming rate.   It is no longer conjecture.  It is back up by massive data and computer models.

Science publishes new NOAA Study

Good science has certain traits.   First,  all  original data that went into calculations are made public to the scientific world.  Second,  the methodology is so abundantly clear, that the man in China could reproduce the same results.  Next. the researchers who do the work should be recognized experts in their  area.  Also, research must be published in highly respected scientific journals, which allow others to comment on the work.

Technical  questions which arise from the work should be answered directly by the scientists involved in the research.   Allegations of  scientists or supervisors which purposely biases the results for political purposes or to further their professional ambitions  should be taken seriously.

All these traits of good science are found in NOAA’s research. Scientists from around the world are finding similar results- our planet’s climate is changing due to emissions caused by  fossil fuels consumption.    Some islands are at risk of disappearing.

The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) released in June 2015 on their website, the conclusions of a new study showing no slowdown in global warming. It was published online in Science journal.

Lamar Smith, a Congressman from Texas  has created a fictional scandal- that scientists manipulated data to hide the fact there is no global warming.  It is total nonsense.

There may be some grain of truth to the claim that administrators urged researchers to publish their data as soon as possible.  Having worked in a research center,  there is generally a point where the data evidence is strong enough to share with the rest of the world and it is a trait of a good administrator, to get valid studies published.

It is surprising the kind of political stunts that Chairman of a House committee can pull, including meetings which excludes the Democrats (a minority on the committee) and issuing subpoenas without notifying  the committee.  It is a circus.  The minority leader finally pushed back.

Eddie Bernice Johnson’s Letter 

For his contribution for a declaration of war against NOAA researchers,  Congressman Lamar Smith was awarded the Flat Earth Foundation of Texas award.

Lamar Smith Award 

Congrats to the Flat Earth Foundation for finding a worthy recipient for their award, showing once again the mouth is greater than the mind.

Stay tuned,