A lot of ink and wind has been expended castigating President Trump for (rightly) withdrawing from this accord. But I daresay few people have read it, which is unfortunate because it is a short document, at just over two dozen pages. When one reads the document, which can be found here, in English, it is easy to see that the climate acts only as a vehicle for social engineering, redistribution of wealth and the ceding of our sovereignty to the United Nations. A few representative excerpts will make that case.

Controlling the climate is dependent upon gender responsivity.

Article 7. 5. Parties acknowledge that adaptation action should follow a country-driven, gender-responsive, participatory and fully transparent approach, taking into consideration vulnerable groups, communities and ecosystems, and should be based on and guided by the best available science and, as appropriate, traditional knowledge, knowledge of indigenous peoples and local knowledge systems, with a view to integrating adaptation into relevant socioeconomic and environmental policies and actions, where appropriate. (emphasis added.)

Does this mean that parties (i.e. Arab countries) that are not “gender responsive” don’t have to participate? What that has to do with climate science is unclear, but the fact that the U.N. will get to enforce this agreement based on how they determine “gender responsive” is very clear. Climate now becomes just another club with which to beat those parties who disagree with whatever whim the U.N. has that day.

The Paris Agreement really has more to do with the “transfer” of technology and money than with climate:

Article 9. 1. Developed country Parties shall provide financial resources to assist developing country Parties with respect to both mitigation and adaptation in continuation of their existing obligations under the Convention.

And here,

Article 10. 2. Parties, noting the importance of technology for the implementation of mitigation and adaptation actions under this Agreement and recognizing existing technology deployment and dissemination efforts, shall strengthen cooperative action on technology development and transfer.

Follow the money:

10. 6. Support, including financial support, shall be provided to developing country Parties for the implementation of this Article, including for strengthening cooperative action on technology development and transfer at different stages of the technology cycle….

13. 14. Support shall be provided to developing countries for the implementation of this Article.

This is the reason that American Big Business reacted so badly to President Trump’s action. They were positioned for a gravy train that picked the pockets of American taxpayers to fund the development and transfer of these technologies to other countries. Surprise!

And the agreement was designed to subvert state sovereignty:

20.2 2. Any regional economic integration organization that becomes a Party to this Agreement without any of its member States being a Party shall be bound by all the obligations under this Agreement. In the case of regional economic integration organizations with one or more member States that are Parties to this Agreement, the organization and its member States shall decide their respective responsibilities for the performance of their obligations under this Agreement. In such cases, the organization and the member States shall not be entitled to exercise rights under this Agreement concurrently.

This is clearly an end run around the Federal system in the U.S. which precludes states from entering into treaties with foreign powers. But Jerry Brown and his ilk are only too quick to violate the Constitution for the climate.

Lastly, the lie has to be put to any claims of “science” in support of this agreement. The bedrock method of true science since the days of Francis Bacon, is the continual (re) testing of hypotheses with an eye to adjust methods. But climate science does none of that. Dr. Walter Williams, in his recent editorial for Townhall.com (Environmentalists are dead wrong) details some of the history of this movement. In 1970, “…the late George Wald, a Nobel laureate biology professor at Harvard University, predicted, “Civilization will end within 15 or 30 years…” In 1975, “Nigel Calder warned, “The threat of a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery for mankind.” But yet, 25 short years later, “In 2000, climate researcher David Viner told The Independent, a British newspaper…”Children just aren’t going to know what snow is,” he said. “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.” In the following years, the U.K. saw some of its largest snowfalls and lowest temperatures since records started being kept in 1914.” Is there anything in all of this that supports a “scientific approach” to the purposes of the Paris Agreement? Of course not!

But what is scientifically observable is that money from the United States will flow into multinational corporations so that they can develop “technology” that will foisted upon poorer countries that will undoubtedly not want nor need it.

Getting us out of the Paris Accords was the right thing to do. Thank you, President Trump!