Trump On Paris

I’m confused. I suspect this is by design.

So Trump says we’re out of the Paris Accord. Done deal. Just out.

Then Tillerson says we might stay in if we can negotiate a ‘deal’ that is good for the USA.

Then Trump says, no we’re out. Maybe-kinda-sorta.

Well, all this leaves me a bit disoriented. As a negotiating technique, that’s a good one.

So is Trump just sending “mixed messages” to disrupt the enemy camp? Is he in fact “transactional” and willing to “cut a new deal” if he sees some gain (unfettered by worries over the lies and deception of the Global Warming Cabal)? Is Tillerson being the diplomat while Trump is being the voice of principle as they do a Mutt & Jeff? (Good Cop / Bad Cop).

I can’t tell.

Yet, done well, you really ought not be able to tell. A deception disruption must look real to be believed. A successful transaction requires that the opposite side believe you are ready to just walk away at any moment, yet would like to make a deal. Politics and the art of the Mutt & Jeff requires that both players be believed in their rolls. Ideally, you want it to be impossible for the opposition to know your game plan until the game is over.

I want to believe that Trump knows Global Warming is a bucket of steaming lies soaked in piss water and vinegar and spewed for effect at anyone not signed up with The Left, so is just toying with Them to keep Them off balance. But that is what would be wanted from the Skeptics; so is the outcome other strategies would be expecting.

Does Trump really have any Centered Principles on “Global Warming”? I just don’t know. He’s made some nice words about canning it. He wants a “deal” good for the USA. But is that from the principle that the whole “Global Warming” charade is a crock? Or just from the principle of making money for the USA? (And not getting soaked for $Billions…)

I have this vague feeling of disquiet about it all. That Paris might not be mortally wounded after all, rising from the near-dead, like the Vampire it is, to suck the green blood of money from everyone it can.

Hopefully we’ll get clue “shortly”. For now, I’m just not sure what to think.

Subscribe to feed


About E.M.Smith

A technical managerial sort interested in things from Stonehenge to computer science. My present "hot buttons' are the mythology of Climate Change and ancient metrology; but things change...
This entry was posted in Global Warming General, Political Current Events and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Trump On Paris

  1. Soronel Haetir says:

    I think the answer is a lot simpler. Trump says whatever whoever talks with him last wants to hear.

  2. David A says:

    My guess is Trump knows the Parris accord is another step in globalism and furthers international control of multinationals, business and banking, locking in massive and unequally applied regulation disadvantages to the U.S. This is against what Trump has been saying for decades.

    So my perspective is Trump is offering to renegotiate as a political move, knowing full well they cannot as the deal was predicated on massive US financial aid. Indeed the EU just affirmed there is no renegotiation on the Parris accord.

  3. Steven Fraser says:

    Trump is holding very powerful cards with respect to Paris. Everybody, everywhere knows that all he would have to do is have State send the agreement to the Senate, time would pass, and it would be done. However, as Tillerson has said, we want to have a seat at the table. My interpretation of the phrase is that this President wants to be an agent of change in the circles of worldwide power on this topic. He wants to use that seat to negotiate a better deal for the US and its allies, and, if he can, change the systemic imbalances in the deal.

    At least, that is my interpretation for now. The game that is being played is more like Cricket than speed chess.

  4. philjourdan says:

    My previous employer promised a stipend if we used our own “smart phones” for work. Even going so far as to gather all the information. It “froze” me from buying one until I got the stipend, so much that I was late to the smart phone game (I finally just went ahead probably years after the rest of you).

    Sounds a little like what Trump is doing with Paris (we never did get the stipend).

  5. Lionell Griffith says:

    I suspect that Trump is a pragmatist. Meaning he takes his position based upon what he FEELS will work. Unfortunately as with all pragmatists, he does not know what will work until he tests it. Since this is his only principle he cannot define either “what works” means nor the conditions under which it is achieved. He will know it when it FEELS right. His slogan “Make America Great Again” Is loosely identified as the feeling associated with something he calls “winning more than loosing” . He has been a “winner” and he wants to help everyone else to be a “winner” too. Especially those who have been loosing so much the past 50 to 100 years. How to get there is a work is progress but a total mystery to almost anyone and especially those in power in any branch of government.

    On the other hand, his opposition Hillery and Co. work on the principle of working both ends against the middle and selling influence to the highest bidder. Her slogan was “Stronger Together”. Also undefined but is associated by sticking it to all of us deplorables out here who simply want to be left alone to live our lives, be productive, to associate only with the willing, and to trade our produced values for the values produced by others. We call this win-win because both sides of the trade come out ahead. She pits us against the fakers, the slackers, the parasitical, and the corrupt hoping to get them to support her taking from the productive, taking a chunk of the spoils, and giving them the unearned. The unearned in vastly more quantity than if they had to earn it on their own.

    Either side is a bad deal but is the deal we are left with choosing. I voted for Trump only because it was the only choice that even had a ghost of a chance of coming out better than what we have had for longer than I care to mention.

    The cry has long been that we need better people in government. We put who we think is better in office and all we get is more of the same. What we need is better ideas in the people. Only then can a system be built that will work by the standard of INDIVIDUAL humans living, surviving, and thriving.

    It is the people who make things that work. Government only consumes, inhibits, and destroys because it is only and exactly the exercise of physical force. Hence it must be strictly limited to purpose and tightly controlled to stay in bounds. It should not act until justice demands action. Then only if the action is objectively defined, identified, and limited to fact and not opinion.

    In the final analysis, Government is rather like fire in a dry forest, if not well controlled, it will expand to consume all until there is nothing left living let alone thriving. Inspect all of governments since the first government was implemented for instructive detail.

  6. Larry Ledwick says:

    Looks like the Global Warming Weenies are beginning to fidget and about to blink.
    This item basically says oh sorry we really have a bit more time – but not much hurry buy now, our operators are standing by for your order of the Rothco slicer dicer and CO2 nixer.

  7. E.M.Smith says:


    This line is rich…

    “Keeping within the budget would require a phase-out of traditional coal power in the next two decades, and investing in trees and technology that suck CO2 from the atmosphere.”

    Would that “investing” be in the form of chopping down US Forests to ship them to the UK to burn, one wonders…

  8. Larry Ledwick says:

    Meanwhile here in Colorado they implement wood burning bans in the winter time so that people do not heat with wood when we have temperature inversion conditions because the fire places and wood burning stoves are no where near as clean as a coal fired power plant with scrubbers.

    When are temperature inversion conditions most likely you ask?
    Why the few days after a major storm when the sky clears and radiation cooling results in a sharp dip in soil surface temperatures and a still dead layer of cold air settling into the river basins in the metro area.

    Can you say chasing your tail ?
    I knew you could.

  9. Larry Ledwick says:

    Seems the ice pack is not cooperating with the Global Warming Weenies either.

  10. cdquarles says:

    One thing about chopping forests to export the products. I don’t know how many know that tree farming has been a thing in the South for at least 50 years. These are the ‘forests’ that get converted to chips. These ‘forests’ are crops. They are planted and harvested in sections such that no other forest trees need to be cut for this purpose. Now ask me what was growing in the plots prior to this ;).

  11. beththeserf says:

    Trump the enigma.
    (A serf’s musing.)

    … So why’d he go
    for President against
    the odds, risking failure
    as the likeliest scenario?
    Don’t sound like ego,
    maybe patriotism –
    make America
    great again? This,
    from his point of view
    meaning market place
    freedom to move, not EU
    supratist constraints
    on liberty. – We’ll see.

  12. Another Ian says:

    This seems to fit about here

    “Latest, belated admission the models were “too hot” is all PR and politics, nothing to do with science
    Spot the political PR paper pretending to be science: the global carbon budget just got a whopping — four – times — bigger, but instructions on how to follow the carbon religion are 100% identical.

    It’s become too obvious to everyone that the climate models have been complete failures. Thus, the global leeches were facing a crisis as their credibility and motivation drain. So the new paper in Nature Geoscience is just a retweak of the models to produce a number that isn’t so mock-worthy. There is no scientific reason offered, no new understanding of the climate. No one is even pretending that these modelers can explain the way our climate works any better than they did last year when they were utter failures. It’s all a charade. There is no honesty here — if there was, they’d admit the skeptics are years ahead of them.”

    More at

    And maybe keep an eye on what comes up at

    Doesn’t look like anything specific up atm, has had mention previously iirc

  13. Another Ian says:

    Ruairi (the resident rhymster at Jo Nova) on this

    “To some, a deplorable chump,
    At great rallies, he took to the stump,
    And defied unafraid,
    The whole warming charade,
    Is good reason to thank Donald Trump.”

  14. Another Ian says:

    September 24, 2017 at 1:29 am · Reply

    The B.O.M. needs a little safe space,
    To wipe the egg off its face,
    Due to skeptics who asked,
    Why some cooling was masked,
    Making warmer their temps. database.”

  15. pohakea says:

    AGW policies remind me of the bogus official low saturated fat diet guidelines. Nina Teicholtz (“The Big Fat Surprise 2014) discusses: Dr Jason Fung (“The Obesity Code”) truly nails it:

  16. E.M.Smith says:

    Interesting article on obesity code.

    I’ve pointed out a few times the risks from omega-6 polyunsaturated oils and low risk nature of saturated fats (positive benefits of short chain fats).

    Fasting as diabetes fix too. Glad to see it getting traction.

Comments are closed.