The American public needs to understand that much of what they've heard concerning climate change policy is nonsensical and indeed internally contradictory.
In Part 1 of this series, I explained that the conventional narrative on President Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris Climate Agreement was absurd on several levels. (The latest example is Stephen Hawking telling us that Trump will turn Earth into Venus.) In the first article, I focused on the slippery elements of the pro-Paris argument--such as claiming that the Agreement has no teeth, but at the same time warning that pulling out would doom humanity.
In this present article, Part 2, I will focus on the Agreement's central climate goal: limiting global warming to 2 degrees Celsius. As we will see, the popular discussion of this target vis-a-vis the Paris Agreement is downright Orwellian.
