Climate agreement: The heated debate

Monday, June 5, 2017
 | Staff (

hurricane evacuation route signSupporters of the Paris climate agreement continue to say President Trump's decision to withdraw is bad for the U.S. and the environment, but critics maintain they are wrong.

Man's burning of fossil fuels has long been claimed to contribute to bigger, more powerful storms, and those remarks have been making the rounds again since President Trump's announcement that he has pulled U.S. from an international agreement to curb greenhouse gas emissions and combat what people call man-made climate change.

Climate Depot's Marc Morano, a skeptic of catastrophic man-made climate change, says storms are not getting worse. "It's scientifically and completely totally invalid," he tells OneNewsNow. "There is no way you can measure it to claim that."

Morano, Marc (Climate Depot)Morano says people could claim it on two, three, or five year time scales, "certain things like California drought when it was really bad," he explains. "You could say, 'Oh, droughts are up the last five years,' but on any decadal or climate timescales of 50 to 100 years, you could not make the claim on any level of extreme weather, including hurricanes, which have been trending very low and have actually hit the record low for category three or larger making landfall."

Meanwhile, people such as former Secretary of State John Kerry have again raised concerns about health. He told MSNBC that Trump is not helping the forgotten American.

"He is hurting them," Kerry claimed. "Their kids will have worse asthma in the summer, and the president who talked about putting America first has now put America last."

On that note, Morano thinks skeptics should have more kids to keep people like John Kerry from ever getting elected again.

"John Kerry is trying to scare people without any scientific foundation," Morano argues.

Facts can be truly inconvenient

John Kerry isn't alone in using scare tactics. Former Vice President Al Gore, quoted below, has been predicting climate-related apocalypses since the release of his film Inconvenient Truth in 2006:

Movie clip: "This is Mount Kilimanjaro 30 years ago and last year. Within the decade there will be no more snows of Kilimanjaro."

Movie clip: "The arctic is experiencing faster melting. If this were to go, sea level worldwide would go up 20 feet."

Movie clip: "Some of the models suggest to Dr. [Wieslav] Maslowski that there is a 75-percent chance that the entire north polar ice cap during some of the summer months could be completely ice-free within the next five to seven years."

Eleven years later there's still snow on Kilimanjaro, sea levels are stable, and there's still a polar ice cap – indicating that Gore and the scientists he consulted were depending on climate models that were wrong. 


Dr. Roy Spencer, principal researcher at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, says there's really no consensus among scientists about the future of our climate.

"What is pretty well settled is that adding CO2 to the atmosphere should cause some amount of warming," he tells OneNewsNow. "What isn't settled at all is how much that warming will be."

Spencer says increasing CO2 will probably be a benefit to life on earth, noting the number of carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere.

"After a hundred years of human CO2 emissions, we've gone from three out of 10,000 to four out of 10,000 – and this is for a gas that is absolutely necessary for life to exist on earth," he adds.

As for President Trump withdrawing the U.S. from the Paris Climate Accord, Spencer says that international agreement would have had an unmeasurable impact on global temperatures by 2100, no matter one's beliefs about global warming.

"It was a huge wealth-transfer scheme," he says, "because there's basically no way to substantially reduce carbon dioxide emissions until we find some sort of new energy technology which does not presently exist."

In addition, Spencer says living up to the accord would have been "insanely expensive" and that new forms of energy can't be legislated into existence.


Cathie Adams, a national board member of Eagle Forum, believes grassroots America – like Spencer – favor the president's decision.

"In the states where people are concerned about their job and concerned about how much they're paying for their electricity, [they wondering] How much is it going to cost me to heat and cool my home? These are bread-and-butter issues. We have got to do the right thing for the American people."

Seymour, Julia (MRC)And Julia Seymour of Media Research Center points out the climate deal was so unpopular on Capitol Hill that President Obama had to use his phone and pen to push it through like a legitimate treaty.

"This agreement was something negotiated by the Obama administration," she points out. "He intentionally avoided making a climate treaty because he knew the Senate and the Congress couldn't ratify it."

We moderate all reader comments, usually within 24 hours of posting (longer on weekends). Please limit your comment to 300 words or less and ensure it addresses the article - NOT another reader's comments. Comments that contain a link (URL), an inordinate number of words in ALL CAPS, rude remarks directed at other readers, or profanity/vulgarity will not be approved. More details




What is your worst suspicion of the U.S. Senate's health care bill? (Choose all that apply)





Appeals court upholds MS religious freedom law
Senate GOP releases its version of an Obamacare replacement
FBI: No 'wider plot' suspected in Michigan airport stabbing
Census: US growing older and more racially diverse
Angry Dems turn against leaders after House election losses
Student detained in N Korea is mourned at hometown funeral


Why no one shouts 'Jesus is great' when they kill
Brown University teaching high school kids to be 'social justice warriors'
The unwritten law that helps bad cops go free
Citing no evidence, student editor claims: ‘If you’re white, you’re probably racist’
Professor calls white people "inhuman"


Cartoon of the Day


Wildlife conservation putting humans at greater risk

sharkIt's understood in science that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. That applies to government efforts at protecting wildlife, which in turn seems to be putting human life in greater danger from wild animals.