Trump moves hands on Doomsday clock for the EPA and the Paris Climate Agreement

James Delingpole dropped in at the GWPF press conference where Myron Ebell says Trump will pull the US out of the Paris agreement and says “I’ve just watched the London liberal media’s heads exploding like ripe watermelons.”.

They hated it. (Especially the bit where Ebell told them that Trump would definitely be pulling the U.S. out of the Paris climate treaty) They couldn’t believe what they were hearing. They curled their lips. They laced their questions with the bitterest scorn. But they didn’t really tune into Ebell’s measured, silken, soft-spoken answers because, hell, they knew what he was saying just had to be wrong and they didn’t really understand what he meant anyway.

The reporter who set the tone – and if nothing else, you’ve got to admire his honesty – was the one from Channel 4 News who told Ebell: “It will occur to you that this room is full of people like myself who consider that nothing you say has any basis in fact. So what you’ve been telling us is essentially meaningless.”

Ebell replied with some painful home truths. “Elections are surprising things…” he began and went on to explain to the mystified audience why and how it was that Brexit happened and Trump happened.

Basically, he argued – perhaps channelling Michael Gove – people have had enough of the “Expertariat”. And with good reason: “The expert class is full of arrogance and hubris.” — Breitbart

There is a meltdown at the EPA: 

“Looks like the EPA may need its own doomsday clock, because its time of promoting dubious science to back up a political agenda is running out.” — Julie Kelly, National Review

A key advisor Myron Ebell brings the bad news to a room full of believers.  The GWPF ran a press conference with Myron Ebell, head of Trumps transition team on the EPA:

US president Donald Trump will honour his campaign pledge to pull the US out of the Paris climate agreement and defund UN climate programmes says Ebell

Argus Media:

Ebell expects Trump “to be very assiduous in keeping his promises despite all the flack he is going to get from his opponents,” adding that he brings a “message of hope” in terms of the new administration’s energy and environment policy.

The first hopeful aspect is that the US will clearly change course on climate policy, Ebell said. Secondly, the new US president has undertaken to unleash US energy production growth. Trump said he wants to make the US the world’s largest energy producer and achieve a position of global dominance for the country, he said.

This will help the US and hurt the middle east and Russia:

“This is obviously good for the US, but also for the world because in becoming the top global energy supplier the US will reduce the influence of certain countries in the Middle East and of Russia,” Ebell said. “This is going to happen because the US has the world’s largest fossil fuel reserves — by far the largest coal reserves and also, because of the shale revolution, gigantic fields of natural gas and oil.”

Three ways to get the US out of the Paris deal:

1. Cut the funds:

…the president can simply stop any US financial contributions to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). In any event, all US funding to the UNFCCC, including to the Green Climate Fund, represents a violation of US law ever since Palestine — which is not internationally recognised as a legitimate state — was accepted as a UNFCCC member, Ebell argued.

2.Congress can reject a treaty that was illegally passed by executive order:

Trump can have the US Congress reject the Paris agreement on the basis that legally it is a treaty and does not qualify as an executive presidential order. He can also withdraw the US from the UNFCCC altogether, which according to Ebell would be “the cleanest way” as it would absolve the US from any commitments, financial or otherwise, under the UNFCCC and the Paris climate deal.

3. Fix the laws based on bad science and get rid of the EPA Endangerment finding on CO2. In 2009 the Supreme Court ruled that  greenhouse gases were a threat to public health ie “pollution“. The Supreme Court finding is scientifically wrong because the hot spot does not exist, and the cause-and-effect correlation of CO2 emissions on global temperatures is lousy. (See the long report there for the details).

Via the ever-excellent JoNova