I can't find facts to dispute anything below.

1) Warming over the last 50 years or so has averaged only about half of what computerized climate models can explain. Yet, those models are the basis for the Paris Agreement.

2) It is not obvious that recent warming is entirely the fault of our CO2 emissions. It is very possible that temperatures during the Medieval Warm Period were just as warm as today. Natural climate change exists. If we didn’t cause it, we can’t fix it.

3) Even if future warming increases to match the models, and all nations abide by the Paris commitments, we will avert only 0.3 deg. F warming by the year 2100. That’s less than 0.04 deg. F per decade, which is unmeasurable by current global temperature monitoring networks (satellites, surface thermometers, and weather balloons).

4) The cost of this unmeasurable impact on future global temperatures is variously estimated to be around $1 Trillion per year, primarily spent by the U.S. and a few other countries which drive global prosperity. As usual, the poor will be the hardest hit. That money could have been spent on clean water and providing electricity to the 1+ billion humans who still don’t have electricity.

5) China and India, which are burning coal like there is no tomorrow, don’t really have to do anything under the Agreement until 2030. It’s mainly up to the U.S. to cut our emissions, and send our wealth to poor countries where dictators will continue to enrich themselves.

6) Increasing CO2 levels have benefits, such as increased crop productivity and ‘global greening’. Life on Earth requires CO2, and over the last 60 years we have been monitoring its levels in the atmosphere, Mother Nature has been gobbling up 50% of what we emit to create even more life.

Andrea Rossi
June 2, 2017 at 6:49 AM
Kevin:
There is a lot of hypocrisy and superficiality on this issue.
I am sure of the fact that the more we research in new environmentally friendly and renewable energies, the better, but:
1- the solar energy is not economically profitable and is funded exclusively and by the taxpayer
2- the wind energy ( that indirectly is solar ) is not profitable as well as the solar and it too is economically sustainable only if funded by the taxpayer
3- both of them are profitable only in restricted areas, where sun and wind are particularly strong all the year around, not relevant in the global energy market: when you read that “30% of the energy is made by solar” it is a lie that takes advantage of the fact that laymen do not know the difference between power and energy: the solar represents 30% of the installed power, but for the 90% the solar plants and the wind towers produce no energy, therefore the energy actually produced is barely the 10% of the power installed
4- all the jobs created by the alternative energies are funded by the taxpayer, otherwise could not be paid for
5- the phrase ” all the scientific community is sure that the global warming is generated by human activities” is a lie: no serious statistic has been made on this issue and the phrase ” all the more vociferous guys in the scientific community are sure that the global warming is induced by human activities” would be more proper
6- the Earth has had dramatic climate changes along its eons, totally independent from humans: the Sahara desert was a gigantic forest, as big as the Amazonian area and the oil is the product of the decomposition of enormous amounts of organic residue degenerated underground during the “global warming” of a precedent era: in this case, not only it has not been oil to cause the global warming, but, on the contrary, it has been the global warming that has generated the oil…
7- nevertheless, I sustain that R&D in the alternative energies must be done, but without hypocritical opportunism and with serious scientific and economic approach and without the destruction of the patrimony of plants and jobs created by the traditional energies.
When I read that China and India are lecturing the USA about pollution, I take it seriously, but only as an epiphany of hypocrisy and opportunism.
Warm Regards,
A.R.

I see no one, and not just on this forum, has offered a valid rebuttal to any of the points below.

As the famous critique goes, “Your manuscript is both good and original. But the part that is good is not original, and the part that is original is not good”:

   “He’s taken an incorrect model, he’s tweaked it to match observations, but the conclusions you get from that are not correct,” Andrew Dessler, a professor of atmospheric sciences at Texas A&M University.

   “It is not newsworthy,” Daniel Murphy, a National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) cloud researcher, wrote in an email to LiveScience.

   NCAR’s Kevin Trenberth in an email: “I have read the paper. I can not believe it got published. Maybe it got through because it is not in a journal that deals with atmospheric science much?”

   Trenberth and John Fasullo at RealClimate: “The bottom line is that there is NO merit whatsoever in this paper.”

"One of the few[1] AGW deniers with real credentials"[2], Roy Spencer is a principal research scientist for the University of Alabama at Huntsville (also home to AGW denier John Christy) and is the U.S. Science Team Leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer (AMSR-E) on NASA's Aqua satellite. [3]

Spencer is on the nine-member board of the antiregulation, Scaife- and Bradley-funded Marshall Institute, though he appears not to disclose this affiliation on his website

Joseph Majkut, director of climate policy at the libertarian think tank Niskanen Center, said pulling out of the Paris accord may satisfy the America-first, nationalistic narrative, but it’s a non-binding, cooperative agreement. “There’s no real policy win that comes of this,” he told HuffPost. “It’s purely a political symbol.”

Serowbot wrote on 06/02/17 at 14:59:02:

" ... he appears not to disclose this affiliation ..."

Would that be like, your post, on a, 'Topic", where YOU  said:  'The Drug Was Identified", and  YOU,
did NOT  Say, WHERE THAT INFORMATION CAME FROM?????

(After  SEVERAL,  Repeated  Requests to do so?)

Serowbot wrote on 06/02/17 at 15:15:42:


So, no reason to start slinging polyester out yer ears,,