Should be starting now: Trump can either dump Paris and stick with serious science and economics or he can fudge. I am hoping he’ll dump but I expect a fudge.
Update: Either way Trump is keeping us waiting…12:09. According to You-tube there are 51,418 people watching this stream. 12:20, 62k and change. Trump is keeping us on the edge of our seats. !2:27…on a different feed Steve Bannon looks very happy.
Update #2: Pence let the cat out of the bag but what colour is the cat? LOL, Trump is trolling hard. You want to hear about Paris? You have to listen to the commercial messages about how great Trump’s administration has been. “Fair and reciprocal trade.”
Update #3: Keeping my campaign promises. The United States will withdraw!!!
Update #4: But we’ll renegotiate a new deal….getting out but start to negotiate.
So Trump is basically treating Paris as a trade deal that the US was screwed on. He is not going after the science. Just the trade and economics. Kills “Green Climate Fund”. Could cost 2.7 million lost jobs.
Update #5: Goes after the Green Fund. Points out the rest of the world is not contributing. Blames Obama for taking money from anti-terror for Green Fund. Says no one knows where the money is going. Points to US debt.
Update #6: Reassertion of America’s sovereignty.
Update the Last: And he is done. If Trump accomplishes nothing other than the Gorsuch appointment and pulling out of Paris he will be a grand President.
At a guess, after the media has gone crazy, the effect of today’s announcement will be to collapse the crazier end of the Greenie cult. Other countries will walk away from the agreement. The science will be scruitinized. The 97% consensus lie will be exposed and, with luck, “climate change” will be looked at carefully, with a mind to the inherent uncertainties of the science and the cost/benefits of action in the face of those uncertainties.
A great day for America and the beginning of the end for the hysterical, expensive, group think which climate change has occasioned.
Jay Currie 
You know, I actually gained a little respect for Trump after the announcement. He was very careful to not challenge the science and make it a political decision. Of course he went too far and said it was about the economics and that is where he is (justifiably) getting nailed. But at least he had to guts to essentially say “I don’t care what the science says, I am going to do it for may base”.
Now, I am not an economist, but when you get the CEOs of companies like ExxonMobil, 3M Company, Cargill Inc. Citigroup Inc. Dow Chemical Company, General Electric, Goldman Sachs Group, Morgan Stanley, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Microsoft, Shell Oil, Apple, etc all supporting staying in the Paris accord I tend to pay attention.
In regards to scrutinizing the science, I will see what happens. The problem is that there are simply no creditable arguments against the science left. Need I remind you of your old site where I started keeping track of your points that were demonstrably wrong. I think I was up to 6 before you shut the site down.
Are there arguments left to be made – I sincerely hope so since I really want the science of climate change to be wrong. But given the history of the counter arguments I am holding my breath.
I’ll tell you why they support it, or many of them do. In my industry the EPA regulations that were proposed after the Paris accord would essentially mean the replacement of every process, supply chain and piece of equipment in operation today. Things that are commodity priced now because of multiple suppliers would become very expensive and specialized. The customer base would change as well; instead of a large number of companies and clients choosing among many different suppliers and solutions, there would be far fewer and larger clients and far fewer and larger suppliers.
The financing and technology required would be complex and very expensive.
These firms recognize a situation, an opportunity to rewrite the rules of how things are done to their benefit. If the world is turning into peons and those who build monasteries, is it any surprise that those who are wealthy and seeking influence side with the ones building the monasteries?
“The problem is that there are simply no creditable arguments against the science left.”
You’re right. It’s very clear that at least most of the warming has been driven by humanity probably the CO2. It’s also clear that it’s not getting anywhere near the level where it would be a serious problem, and therefore government action is unneeded. It’s also clear that we already have a way to reduce CO2 emissions: fracking (specifically the natgas thereby produced). That in combo with 3D printing and maybe viable nuclear will slash CO2 emissions, not junk tech like solar and wind and biomass.
The part of the science that is less clear is the ‘pause’ of recent times. It is currently a bone of contention. Hilariously, some papers claiming to dispute it actually sort of support its existence: http://reason.com/blog/2017/05/31/scott-pruitt-refuted-on-leveling-off-of