Ever since President Trump pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement, leftists have been hyperventilating over what was effectively, a non-binding agreement. They act like Trump has just hammered the final nails in the coffin for the human race, even though there was never any guarantee that every nation would go along with this agreement. And if the US had stuck with it, it would have been a disaster for our economy.

The agreement would basically have the US send billions of dollars to other countries, and significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions over the next ten years (probably through draconian regulations). Meanwhile, some of the world’s biggest Co2 emitters, like China and India, wouldn’t have to cut emissions for many years, and wouldn’t have to pledge any money.

And assuming that every nation actually kept their promises with this agreement (and assuming that Co2 is as grave a threat as environmentalists claim it is), the UN’s own climate models suggest that it would only reduce global temperatures by .3 degrees by the end of the century.

In other words, the Paris Accord is just another environmental policy that would force the US to hobble its own economy, thus giving an advantage to other nations that don’t give a damn about pollution or the environment. And it would do so without having any significant effect on global temperatures.

So with that said, what do the supporters of this agreement have to say for themselves? What evidence do they have that pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord was a disastrous decision?

Well, one of those supporters is Philip Levine, the mayor of Miami Beach, Florida. Last week he was on Tucker Carlson’s show, and his defense of the Paris Climate Accord is very telling.

That’s all he can say. He doesn’t have any evidence, and it doesn’t even seem like he knows what’s in this agreement. His defense of the agreement, is that many scientists, governments, and mayors around the country, say it’s good. That’s it. Despite his clear adoration for this agreement, he doesn’t have any evidence, and he can’t actually explain why the Paris Agreement is good. All he can tell us, is that we should trust the judgement of other people.

It makes me wonder. If all of these scientists, governments, and mayors were asked to explain why the Paris Climate Accord can save the world, would they give a logical and evidence based response? Or would they just tell us that everyone else says it’s good, so don’t question it?