Boycott U.S. Firms Till Trump Signs to 195-Nation Paris Climate Agreement

Eric Zuesse

U.S. President Donald Trump announced, on Thursday, June 1st, that “We’re getting out” of the global agreement on limiting the amount of greenhouse gases pouring into the Earth’s atmosphere. Trump’s predecessor, Barack Obama, had described the agreement (which he had signed), by saying of it: “I believe the Paris agreement can be a turning point for our planet. It’s the biggest single step the world has ever taken toward combating global climate change.” Trump doesn’t place a high priority on the issue, and he says that to adhere to the agreement would hurt America’s economy, which he obviously cares about much more than he does about the planet’s climate.

According to the vast majority of climate-scientists, there will be no way to avoid this planet’s climate-burnout unless the promises of the Paris Climate Agreement are kept. It therefore needs the support of the world’s second-biggest national emitter of greenhouse gases; it needs U.S. President Trump’s support. The world’s biggest emitter, China, is unwavering in its commitment to the agreement. So too is virtually the entire planet — except the U.S.

In 1992, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change was approved by the U.S. Senate, and as a consequence of that, no new legislation is required in order for the U.S. to participate in this Agreement, which has since become a part of that Framework Agreement.

The only other gigantic national contributor to global warming gases (20.09% of the total), China, signed the Agreement on 22 April 2016, and is not threatening at all to back out. The United States, the second-biggest emitter, accounts for 17.89% of the total, and likewise signed on that date. But President Trump is withdrawing the U.S. That, however, could lead ultimately to the collapse of the participation of the other 194 countries, maybe even of China’s participation — unravel and destroy the entire global effort to save this planet (from its humans, who thus are obligated to do what we can to reverse our destruction of the planet).

Any intelligent person knows that abandoning this agreement wouldn’t merely be an insult to those other 194 nations; it would also be an insult to our planet. Our grandchildren should hate us if we do that. Unless this nation quickly reverses the course that Trump has chosen, they will hate us for it.

Therefore, I propose a global boycott against the U.S. aristocracy, the U.S. billionaires who control U.S.-based international corporations (the people who control the U.S. government). The way to do this would be for an international conference to be held, under U.N. auspices, in order to determine which U.S.-based international corporations are to be boycotted in the first phase, which will be be added in the second phase if need be, etc.; until the U.S. government complies with its global obligation and rejoins the Paris Agreement and is monitored strictly for its compliance with that commitment. If the U.S. then vetoes such a resolution at the U.N. Security Council — since this matter has already been officially recognized by the U.S. government as being crucial to international security — then yet an additional phase of the boycott should kick in, until the U.S. aristocracy buckles.

The alternative to such a boycott will be planetary burnout. Which of the two alternatives is preferable? Is the answer to this question not clear?

In any event, the alleged reason why Trump decided to end U.S. cooperation with the rest of the world on this, was:

“Compliance with the terms of the Paris Accord and the onerous energy restrictions it has placed on the United States could cost America as much as 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025 according to the National Economic Research Associates.  This includes 440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs.”

The appropriate way for the planet to respond to that concern would be to continue the boycott of the products of U.S. headquartered international firms until at least that number, 440,000, of U.S. manufacturing jobs, would be hit by it.

However, that ‘440,000 fewer manufacturing jobs’ was the estimate of NERA, which gets its money from the coal, and liquified natural gas, and nuclear, and other established energy-creation industries — all of the dying ones, none of the ones that are becoming increasingly cost-effective, which are the types that would be soaring if the Paris agreement doesn’t break apart. NERA is no scientific information-source; it’s a propaganda-source. Desmog blog reported:

“NERA” is shorthand for National Economic Research Associates, an economic consulting firm SourceWatch identifies as the entity that published a June 2011 report on behalf of coal industry front group American Coalition for Clean Coal Electricity (ACCCE). ACCCE’s report concluded, “clean-air rules proposed by the Obama administration would cost utilities $17.8 billion annually and raise electricity rates 11.5 percent on average in 2016.”

That report went so far to say that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations of the coal-generated electricity sector would amount to some 1.5 million lost jobs over the next four years.

NERA was founded by Irwin Stelzer, senior fellow and director of the right-wing Hudson Institute’s Center for Economic Policy. In Oct. 2004, The Guardian described Stelzer as the “right-hand man of Rupert Murdoch,” the CEO of News Corp., which owns Fox News.

According to NERA’s website, the late Alfred E. Kahn, the “father of deregulation,” advised NERA’s 1961 foundation.

In 2010, NERA published a letter to the New York Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) to protest the prospective closure of the Indian Point Nuclear Power Plants.

A NERA report from earlier this year provided the basis for the popular King Coal refrain that the EPA’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) Rule would cost the U.S. tens of billions of dollars and “kill” 180,000-215,000 jobs.

These figures were picked up and cited by climate change denier U.S. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) in June when he spoke out against President Barack Obama’s mythological “war on coal,” as well as by the Republican Policy Committee in a May policy paper titled, “Obama’s War on Coal.”

So, that provides a good indication, as to which types of U.S. international companies would especially need to be included in the first phase of the international boycott. Basically, it’s the type that pay Republican politicians more than Democratic politicians.

What other approach than an international boycott, can be effective in order to force such an extremely corrupt nation to do what it must do, for the entire world — to join the rest of the world, in salvaging the entire planet?

—————

Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Jim G

    Eric, frankly I like you, but we are going to have to go the mat again. Really, all this is irrelevant. We have had “zero point,” “free energy” since Tesla and crystal radios. Any time the US or any one else is willing to step up and produce free electricity, it is available. This has been confirmed by Wikileaks, this has been confirmed by patents, this has been confirmed by Dr. Keshe, it has been confirmed the Saudis, and it has been confirmed by the president referring to “DARPA” technologies that plentiful and cheap energy is available without burning one carbon atom. The problem is the petro-dollar and our dependency on oil to make money and war. Do your research Eric and the world is yours. A new age of peace dawns upon us if we seize free energy. All the rest is BS. Google away and do your research.

    • Army of Addicts

      Elites! Give up your yachts, second homes, unearned income and Caribbean vacations in exchange for world peace! The 9 to 5 job is so yesterday! No more need to climb the ladder of success to have a fulfilling life. Spend more time with your kids and volunteer at the soup kitchen. Ride bikes instead of driving. Get to know your neighbors. Plant some trees. Visit a slum and connect with your colored brothers and sisters.

      Do you think they’ll buy it?

  • Mark Branham

    There is not one shred of evidence that the globe is warming… not one scientific fact supports the whole globull warming nonsense. That you have failed to understand the real science behind what’s coming shows your not really paying attention. Here’s a hint: move south or dig in… cause it’s about to get cold.

    • Dog Food

      You are an evil person.

      • M111ark

        You are aptly named, you should be ground up and fed to dogs. You are a useless moron taking up space.

    • cstahnke

      So then why are climate and other scientists, who don’t work for energy companies, believe the science is, pretty much, settled? Does that mean the scientific community is so far off because they are incompetent or are they paid off by who exactly–oil companies? I’ve looked at critiques of warming and are haven’t seen anything compelling though I’m open to it.

      • Zartan

        Because, people are stupid sheep and follow their master. They fear bucking the trend or being alone! I know scientists who cannot change their car tire … Please, mankind has very limited knowledge and less in ability! And, when they start talking absolutes … RUN, because someone is demanding MONEY!

      • Windy

        Ah,yes,those very knowing experts.Safe,clean and too cheap to meter nuclear power.Yes the great Jenner the vaccine scientist who invented the Small Pox vaccine who at one time decided horse grease would do for the vaccine ingredients instead.Great,yes. and the vaccine legacy of 1 in 45 with autism. Our wonderful medical system is the third leading cause of death.Scientists are always right.Yes?

      • M111ark

        Yes,

        John Casey Dark Winter

  • kimyo

    would the paris agreement:
    1) decrease global carbon emissions
    2) increase global carbon emissions

    if you have concluded that the answer is 1, your ‘skills’ as an ‘investigative historian’ have proved, once again, to be woefully inadequate.

    What happened in Paris? A Sham, and a Shame

    The Paris Agreement is not based on what is scientifically necessary to address climate disruption. It refers to a goal of “holding the increase in global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels,” it does not actually require action to meet these goals. The Paris Agreement contains no binding mandatory emissions reductions – only voluntary pledges from each country, called “Intended Nationally-Determined Contributions.”

    The agreement allows countries to claim reductions through carbon trading schemes – otherwise known as “carbon neutrality” – rather than requiring actual reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. For example, polluters can keep polluting through extraction and burning of oil, gas, and coal, and supposedly offset that pollution through trading based on so-called “sustainable development” mechanisms – code for what we understand to be false solutions such as forest offsets.“

    The Paris accord is a trade agreement, nothing more. It promises to privatize, commodify and sell forested lands as carbon offsets in fraudulent schemes such as REDD+ projects. These offset schemes provide a financial laundering mechanism for developed countries to launder their carbon pollution on the backs of the global south. Case-in-point, the United States’ climate change plan includes 250 million megatons to be absorbed by oceans and forest offset markets. Essentially, those responsible for the climate crisis not only get to buy their way out of compliance but they also get to profit from it as well.”

    • cstahnke

      Indeed–that is the point here. In the end what Trump did may help the case for climate science by forcing people to look at the problem realistically. The Paris Accords are and were seen as a start and these Accords have failed to do anything other than let political leaders off the hook. This will change little–countries that have a more educated populace than the U.S. will continue to pursue alternatives and the U.S. will continue to throw money away on permanent war. We are a deeply sick society at this point and until there is a general breakdown nothing can be done here.

      • Army of Addicts

        Unfortunately, during a breakdown, it’s those on the bottom half of the socio-economic ladder who will pay the highest price, those who contributed least of all to the creation of the mess in the first place. That part of a breakdown I do not look forward to.

  • Silverado

    Anyone for this Paris Treaty is anti-jobs and anti-America. Trump got this one exactly right and the proof is who has come out for all of this eco-trap-clap. So, always following the money, anything crooked Hillary and her ilk support and want I’m automatically on the other side, especially on this one. There’s no way this should have flown. And just as he ditched those terrible trade agreements that were basically another Obama and the left wing’s give-aways, the dust bin of history seems a fitting place for the end of this socialist money grabbing fiasco and fraud as well.

    • Dog Food

      You are worse than the Nazis.

      • Silverado

        Is that all you have? You and your weak kneed compatriots lacking in critical thinking are the real Nazi’s you left wing know-nothing.

        • Normando

          Hahahaha!!! Touché!!!

    • cstahnke

      You’re just shouting slogans and clearly know little about either logic or science. Science does not deal with certainty but with probabilities and the science clearly shows we are taking huge risks with our climate. You have to show us the science to back up your purely ideological claims–and you probably can’t. You have to assume that the majority of the world’s scientists believe in fairy tales–they are an imperfect lot to be sure but, knowing something about the scientific community it is next to impossible that they could all be that wrong about something this important.

      • Carl_Herman

        If you claim to have command over this science:

        1. Please document the global temperature data over the last ten years or so. Then, please explain that trend; that is, to what extent do we find increasing, stable, or decreasing overall global temperatures.

        2. Please explain how much trust we should have over political “experts” who also engage in lie-started illegal Wars of Aggression as so-called “developed” and “former colonial” powers apparently addicted to sadistic power and looting. Documentation of US rogue state empire in history: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2016/04/us-illegal-history-rogue-empire-requiring-arrests-present-introduction-define-rogue-state-perfect-match-us-illegal-wars-aggression-crimes-humanity.html

        3. Please explain the call for more taxes in light of bankster looting of a debt-based monetary system that only and always produces more debt as mechanically certain as adding negative numbers forever, when benefits of reforms documented from Ben Franklin on are easily demonstrated as ~$1 million per US household. Documentation: http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2017/05/28-minute-interview-pointing-trillions-looted-01-lying-leaders-ready-reclaimed-upon-public-demand-1-million-per-us-household-benefits-cafr-disclosure-monetary-r.html

        Again: since you claim command over the scientific facts, you have a burden of proof for point #1. This is entirely rational from the public mistrust over “official” claims asking for more money from points #2 and #3, as well as observational data of global cooling since ~2005 from ordinary educated people looking at trends for themselves, as well as observing statements and data from scientists also making claims of global cooling. I read this info, but don’t invest the time to claim I have command over these data. But you seem to feel comfortable doing so, so please provide data for point #1.

        • Nick Smegg

          Global temperature has increased from 0.7C over pre-industrial in 2000 to +1.5C over pre-industrial now. The gravity of the situation is masked by official sources switching from using a 1750 base line to the 1880s as a baseline, and now the 1951-1980 average as a baseline. Just to get soem context, the change since pre-industrial is of the same magnitude as that separating the last Ice Age from the Holocene epoch.

          There is a ten-year time lag between emissions and maximum heating, so what we are experiencing now is down to 2007 emissions, which were IIRC around 390 ppm. We are now at 410ppm with CO2 levels increasing at 3ppm per annum. This is despite official data showing that emissions have levelled off, suggesting that either the official emission data is wrong or that previous carbon dioxide sinks are now sources (oceans, forests).

          There is no evidence to back up your contention of global cooling. Local cooling has to be considered against a background of overall warming. The reduction in the temperature difference between Arctic and temperate zones has led to a very wavy jet stream whcih has dragged some cooler air south, while pushing warmer air over the Arctic. This is very bad news since the Arctic sea ice – which is headed to zero – is the planetary air conditioner.

          • Zartan

            The planet is being destroyed by mankind`s GARBAGE being dumped into the Oceans and Oil being Spilled; while everyone keeps quiet, gets delusional, and invents their own fantasies about the earth. Most Scientists are clueless. They still cannot comprehend the human genome or cure the common cold. Mankind needs to clean up the mess they made, and stop trying to CARBON TAX ( PROFIT) like the greedy little bastards they are, because there is no issue with Climate Change it is nothing but another get rich quick scheme from the Freaks who Own all of YOU.

            Truthfully, Nature should rebel and Flood the Earth mankind deserves nothing else, because all they will do is Steal, Kill and Destroy.

      • Silverado

        I’m shouting nothing and there’s no sloganeering here either. You act like all scientists agree with this fraudulent hoax called climate change when that couldn’t be any farther from the truth because not all of them do. Not even a majority support it. And until the science can be further proven and supported by economics then perhaps you’d have more to…preach with. Until then Mommy earth will be fine and Donald has done exactly what his constituents desire. And that’s a fine and wonderful thing in our opinion. So prove it or stfu…

        • Nick Smegg

          The heat trapping effects of carbon dioxide can be demonstrated in a laboratory – and that was done as far back as 1859.

          • JohnnyZ

            Nick Smog, a laboratory is a different environment than earth system. Plus proving one isolated factor is different from considering all relevant factors, who may have opposite effects. This is not science that you preach, this is scientism – the new religion.

      • 200 Years Together

        If he doesn’t believe it to be important, would that still give Climate/AGW believers sovereignty over him?

        (Answer: No)

      • Blank Reg

        Where did you get your degree in the natural sciences? I have two. I know how to read and interpret peer-reviewed papers and intricate graphs and charts. What you call “settled science” is hokum, sold as snake oil. And your only “solution” is massive wealth transfers through carbon taxes, and another bloated, tyrannical layer of global government to lord it over all us plebes. We’ll have none of it.

    • Shannonipressley


      Google is paying 97$ per hour! Work for few hours and have longer with friends & family! !mj299d:
      On tuesday I got a great new Land Rover Range Rover from having earned $8752 this last four weeks.. Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !mj299d:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽;➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialJobsCash299HomeOurPay$97Hour ★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★✫★★:::::!mj299d..,…….

    • 200 Years Together

      Jobs and America shouldn’t be the first things you think of when Climate talk is brought up. Your gut reaction should be personal liberty, human sovereignty and private property. Neither of which are considered in “Climate Talks”.

  • Zartan

    Everyone needs to work on pollution issues, but Global Warming is a Manufactured item. Volcanoes put up more greenhouse gasses than the industrial age. Thieves who will do anything to steal money are at it again. They do not care about the environment, because there are thousands of problems there, no, they want to collect cash to pocket on some BS climate change theory. However, when they spilled a MEGA load of OIL into the Gulf of Mexico, “nobody was allowed to take pictures of the wildlife,” because that FREAK for a President was protecting oil companies!

    Nobody said a Word.

    Simply, people are stupid sheep and will ONLY beg their masters to abuse them … GO BUZZ OFF with your Climate Change BS … When MIAMI disappears than we will think about it. Besides, Mankind “deserves” to be Flooded why deny Nature Her Revenge!

  • cstahnke

    The U.S. has really done very little to address warming before Trump so this does not alarm me. The Paris Accords are interesting but just come up too short to really do much about transforming the world which is what truly addressing warming would force. Americans, for a variety of reasons, don’t want to change their way of life and their political leaderships have always reflected that. In addition, I find that the science community lacks the ethical heft to insist on clearly articulating the problems we are facing and making themselves heard. Also, I blame our educational system with its almost deliberately bad science education programs that seem to be designed to discourage most people from thinking scientifically, i.e., without an ability to think critically, use logic, and understand the advantages and limitations of science how the hell is anyone going to understand a highly complex system like climate? The detractors of climate science just say that it is fraudulent because, ideologically, they oppose government regulation of the economy and they see climate change as a way to force the economy into a authoritarian state. Well, we already live in an authoritarian state, guys so wake up.

    We have to move away from ideology into pragmatism–not just to avoid the risks of warming but to cure our culture that features stress, depression, anxiety and drug abuse on a scale we have never seen in any society. We are sick puppies and acting on climate change, even should it prove to be exaggerated would do nothing but benefit all of us. It would provide some kind of social cohesion by focusing us on practicality rather than the rampant tribalism the oligarchs are promoting. Right now all we have to hold us together is War! Inc. Is that what you want?

    A simple risk assessment matrix can be set up based on examining different courses just as any business would do. Those against climate science are 100% sure that there’s nothing to it at all which signals me that they are clearly wrong because they do not possess a scientific world-view which is that nothing is 100% sure and that we can only deal with probabilities (science education remains forever in the 19th century). I have numerous quarrels with institutional science because it is often ideological and sometimes corrupt but never to the extent required to promote climate change/warming as completely fraudulent enterprise. The critics, as far as I can see, only offer slogans.

    • kimyo

      acting on climate change, even should it prove to be exaggerated would do nothing but benefit all of us

      just like the war on drugs benefitted all of us? just like the war on terror benefitted all of us? just like the war on poverty……..?

      Kyoto protocol’s carbon credit scheme ‘increased emissions by 600m tonnes’

      A key carbon offsetting scheme was so open to abuse that three quarters of its allowances lacked environmental integrity, a new report says.

      UN officials confirm the findings by the Stockholm Environment Institute that around 600m tonnes of carbon were wrongly emitted as a result, under the UNFCCC’s Joint Implementation (JI) scheme.

      “The approval of projects stopped depending on their quality but rather on connections and side payments,” he said. To gain official approval for registration under the JI scheme, Ukrainian market participants often had to transfer ERUs to a limited number of intermediary companies in Switzerland, the source alleged.

  • Zartan

    So, the fools want to go back to the stone-age? Do not worry, soon, there will be a Nuclear War and all of your climate issues will be solved.

    Dear God, Imagine a people so Evil that they want Trillions for Illegal war and Murder, Trillions for Military Entitlements, then Trillions more for on BS theories, but they cannot even take care of simple healthcare for the poor.

    God …. You “F`d” up and there is no way – in heaven or hell- that you will win in a proper court. Simply, I want a refund, because I never asked to be insulted by mankind`s perverse nature!

    You know where to find me if you have a problem with my tone!
    See you soon.

    • Zartan

      And, to explain, this post is not satire: I have given up on mankind and put all my hope, trust and faith in God, which is more than MOST. Therefore, if He does not answer for His Responsibility ( He Created this mess and claims to know better) than I will INSULT him until He does. There is too much of Importance to worry about silly vanity, besides, that is sinful.

      I publicly charge God with the MURDERS of BILLIONS for HIS Vanity. And, the MURDER of TRILLIONS considering the damage to nature. Now, for those of you in the Glee Club of Praise to GOD, think about what YOU are praising?

      I would rather BURN in HELL than Praise that … God too, must Change! I will not lie and praise GOD for a LIE.

  • Zartan

    Oh, and Mankind thinking they command science?

    Laughable!

    Mankind knows next to nothing, around, -.0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001-Percent of the Galaxy and Universal Constructs, much less in Dimensional Physics!

    They still cannot cure the cold or evolve genetically. All they can do is Blow Stuff Up, and truthfully, they are limited even in their destructive abilities!

    • Zartan

      LOL … Commanding Science … Thanks for the Laugh!

  • ICFubar

    All I would say in response Rosa Koire has said in spades regarding the use of global warming by the western plutocrats through such agencies as the Paris Agreement and its 2030 agendas. Her web site is called Democrats Against UN Agenda 21. I link to a talk she gave at the 2013 Open Mind Conference:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ykELwj1Ta8

  • HENCHMAN 0804

    Sorry, you need a treaty to be voted on by congress. The president can’t make a deal like this on his

    own. You can stick this idea up your tail pipe with a lump of coal.

    • Snow Monkey

      You are correct in describing the protocol, but Paris Accords do not constitute a Treaty.

      • Blank Reg

        That’s why Obummer was so keen to sign on. He knew he’d never get it past the Senate, but his fawning admirers would swallow his verbal ejaculate and believe it was an actual treaty.

  • Krungle

    Why boycott US corporations? They’re for this treaty. And that alone should tell you all that you need to know. Corporations are parasitic and self-interested and have never, ever acted for the good of humanity. Likewise, I need exactly zero fingers to count the number of times that world governments have acted pro-actively to protect people from environmental harm. We could get into the “science”–but based on first principles we know that this is a scam. Very wealthy people are lobbying very hard to get the US to accept this. These are very bad human beings, they’re not trying to help us. Now, if you want to talk the science, I could point out how contemporary temperature fluctuations are trivial compared to what humans have lived through since the Younger Dryas impacts, or how water vapor and solar activity are much bigger drivers of climate change. But the important facts are that we know that most science is garbage (studies on repeatability show that often more than 50% of studies have data that cannot be replicated, medical studies are worse, and some high fraction have outright fraudulent data). We know that the entire Western world has descended into fraud and racketeering. We merely need to use what we know of human nature to be distrustful of the “science,” especially given the EMOTIONAL way in which scientists react to skeptics (which all scientists are supposed to be). Scientists have financial motive for supporting this hypothesis. Just like the corporations do. Again, if money is involved, the science is compromised a priori. And we know that the data in this case has been doctored repeatedly. There is ample evidence of this. I mean Google is pushing this while they are building weaponized robots and AI. Tesla is pushing this while it benefits from child slave labor in African mines and otherwise destroys the environment to make it’s “environmentally friendly” battery powered cars. Oh, these same people are also generally involved in pushing for nuclear war with Russia. I am somehow supposed to believe that nuclear war is not going to harm the Earth more than global warming? Really? Think about this before you pen a reactionary article. And do you honestly think the Paris treaty was going to stop the US war machine from it’s polluting and destructive activities? Like we weren’t going to break the treaty anyway? They just want to monetize the product of cellular respiration so they can literally tax you for every breath you exhale. You should have seen that from a mile away….

  • Brabantian

    Donald Trump – however ‘impure’ his motives – did a major world good by undermining the ‘climate change’ hoaxers

    In 2009, there was a leak of thousands of e-mails amongst corrupt PhD scientists, centred in the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, showing that they manipulated & hid data to fraudulently support the ‘man-made global warming’ hoax & win more ‘climate change’ grant funding

    In 2017, Dr John Bates blew the whistle on his fellow corrupt PhD scientists at the USA national weather monitoring agency, the NOAA – National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration – who had been manipulating & hiding data to fraudulently support the ‘man-made global warming’ hoax

    The Paris climate change agreement involves a corrupt arrangement to give billions to global banksters such as Goldman Sachs seeking profits from trading in ‘carbon credits’ subsidised by world taxpayers & consumers … And when banks can make billions, they have vast amounts to bribe global politicians … especially via post-holding-office ‘speaking fees’ such as Barack Obama, Tony Blair etc have been receiving … so global politicians have their own greedy incentive for supporting ‘climate change’ hoaxing

    Donald Trump has struck a blow against all of this fraud by his exiting the corrupt Paris climate change agreement … Is that not a good and great thing Trump has done?

    Plus even more importantly, with his slam of ‘climate change’, Donald Trump has been the unique top world leader, declaring to all that we need not listen to the fake authority of ‘PhD experts’ … who may well be corrupted by their funding sources

    Donald Trump has been the unique top world leader, declaring to all that the Mainstream Media is ‘Fake News’ … in which he is both correct & significantly educating tens of millions of people

    Should we perhaps not give Donald Trump his due, regardless of the awful things he has done, even recently?

    In Europe these last few days, Trump has told Europe & Nato he is in effect ready to leave them on their own, via Trump’s clever insistence European countries must ‘pay heavily for Nato’ if they wish to keep it … in other words, there may be no more Nato-related bribery funds for Europe’s politicians … This has led to Europe’s politicians speaking of reducing tensions with Russia, & speaking of the need to now be responsible for their own fates

    Is that not another good thing Trump is doing? Is Trump perhaps doing great good in spite of it all?

    Is Trump perhaps a vehicle of other-worldly forces quite beyond himself, in fact a figure not really comprehensible in normal categories, given the degree of both good & evil in which he is involved?

    • 200 Years Together

      All the corrupt corporations are howling too that he pulled out. He did the right thing here, (finally).

  • USA_objector

    I’ve generally found Eric’s essays to be very incisive and well-researched. I’m surprised that he has lapsed into the default Decaprio-Bill-Nye-the-science-is-settled-so-you’re-a-Nazi-denier position. Trump’s speech made a compelling case for the fact that it was 190 countries vs. the USA and it would’ve been a surrender of our sovereignty, our national interests on a wholly UNCONSTITUTIONAL BASIS.

    This is a soft war, a soft coup, the New World Order finally implementing its Agenda 22 to have the US merely surrender with barely a whimper. If the elites who want to impose a trillion-dollar tax on the earth’s inhabitants are so concerned, why are they taking private jets to the “global warming, oops, I mean climate change” summits?

    • 200 Years Together

      Precisely. Jobs should be the least concern in this. Individual sovereignty and private property should be the clarion call against Climate Hoax/AGW. It implies that everyone and no one are at fault for the climate at the same time, and everyone will be responsible for fixing it…. against their will.