Climate change

[Actor]

I'm starting this thread with the hope that those who have hijacked the Religion II thread will move their debate here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huX1bmfdkyA

[PaceAdvantage]

That Al Gore. What a man of ACTION! :ThmbUp:

BTW...what's he flying around in these days?

[reckless]

That Al Gore. What a man of ACTION! :ThmbUp:

BTW...what's he flying around in these days?

We can add this to the mix, PA, if I may:

What advanced degree in Science/Ecology did first class fraud, Al Gore receive?

When did Al Gore, career charlatan and serial huckster, who preys on the stupidity of others, receive his Noble Prize?

Pertaining to knowledge and education ... as I recall, Al Gore failed out Divinity School, of all things. He couldn't keep up with the work load, I bet.

No wonder Al Gore's the darling of every common sense denier on God's green earth. To these dunces, Al Gore is one smart guy ... :lol::lol:

And to think there are people out there that question the bona fides of one Ivar Giaever, a true achiever in Physics, Science and education and a real Nobel Laureate!

[PaceAdvantage]

Climate Change is one branch of the religion of Liberalism, and Al Gore is their pontiff...that's all we really need to know.

[FantasticDan]

When did Al Gore, career charlatan and serial huckster, who preys on the stupidity of others, receive his Noble Prize?

Said by Donald Trump's biggest sucker :lol: :ThmbUp:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7p23mA2VV0A

[Ocala Mike]

Throwing darts at Al Gore, though an interesting exercise in target practice, doesn't change the debate. Climate science does not hang its hat on Gore any more than conservatism hangs its hat on the current resident of the WH.

Gore haters not much different than Trump haters, psychologicaly.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Climate Change is one branch of the religion of Liberalism, and Al Gore is their pontiff...that's all we really need to know.

The French liberal scientist, Claude Allegre who changed his position from "man created global warming" to "man DID NOT create global warming" is on record to say that this is about science. It is not about politics or religion.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/06/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-who-endorsed-obama-now-says-prez-is-ridiculous-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/



http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/06/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-who-endorsed-obama-now-says-prez-is-ridiculous-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/

[reckless]

The French liberal scientist, Claude Allegre who changed his position from "man created global warming" to "man DID NOT create global warming" is on record to say that this is about science. It is not about politics or religion.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/06/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-who-endorsed-obama-now-says-prez-is-ridiculous-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/



http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/06/nobel-prize-winning-scientist-who-endorsed-obama-now-says-prez-is-ridiculous-dead-wrong-on-global-warming/

Well, Jess, please remind Monsieur Allegre that his opinions are FAKE and he shouldn't come to PA-General>Climate change thread because we don't believe all this alt-right drivel. And that's, that.

Tell him, hcap sent you. :lol::lol:

[Tom]

Gore haters not much different than Trump haters, psychologicaly.

We don't hate Al - we laugh at him.
He is funny, he is stupid ( Earth's center is millions of degrees)

Most of all, we pint to his a total fraud - W had a far smaller carbon footprint than old Al.

People like Al gore are causing misery for millions of people and will kill many more millions is the ridiculous GW ideas are carried out.

THANK GOD (Sorry Actor!) Trump may well put us on the road to reversing the dem-o-damage the GW fruitcakes have caused.

[Actor]

Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To say that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice.

-- Robert Frost

[wisconsin]

Gore saw something about Global Warming on the Internet, so it has to be true.

Don't forget, he claimed to have invented the World Wide Web.

[Tom]

Fire and Ice


Been there, done that.

[jimmyb]

" Everyone including Al Gore can argue that the cost-benefit analysis favors their usage of fossil fuels. People from all walks of life — including staunch environmentalists — use fossil fuels every day and justify it based on the cost-benefit to themselves."

http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Al-Gores-Hipocrisy-The-Climate-Crusader-Profits-from-Fossil-Fuels.html

[Tom]

Careful there, jimmy, the collective is listening.:eek:

[davew]

We don't hate Al - we laugh at him.
He is funny, he is stupid ( Earth's center is millions of degrees)

Most of all, we pint to his a total fraud - W had a far smaller carbon footprint than old Al.

People like Al gore are causing misery for millions of people and will kill many more millions is the ridiculous GW ideas are carried out.

THANK GOD (Sorry Actor!) Trump may well put us on the road to reversing the dem-o-damage the GW fruitcakes have caused.


I also feel sad for the blind followers of Al Gore.

[fast4522]

I also feel sad for the blind followers of Al Gore.

Don't be, suckers are born every day. Al Gore has done nothing wrong other than finding a niche and becoming filthy rich in doing so.

[Tom]

I also feel sad for the blind followers of Al Gore.

Warning: low hanging fruit.


Those people will eventually realize that they have been left out in the cold!

:pound::pound::pound::pound::pound:

[Clocker]

Got to keep an open mind, like The Donald.

President Trump’s stance on climate change is “evolving” after meeting with European leaders who are making a last-ditch attempt to get him to stay in the Paris climate accord, a top White House official said Friday.

“He feels much more knowledgeable on the topic today,” chief economic adviser Gary Cohn said at the two-day G-7 summit in Sicily, where world leaders discussed topics including trade policy, terrorism and economic growth.

“He came here to learn — he came here to get smarter,” said Cohn.

http://nypost.com/2017/05/26/trumps-climate-change-stance-is-evolving/ (http://nypost.com/2017/05/26/trumps-climate-change-stance-is-evolving/)

[boxcar]

Don't be, suckers are born every day. Al Gore has done nothing wrong other than finding a niche and becoming filthy rich in doing so.

Gore just became "lucky". Ask another socialist like Mark Zuckerberg. He's an expert on "luck" just as Gore is one on global warming/climate change.

[chadk66]

The lying bastards promised global warming. They better deliver soon. I'm sick of being cheated out of summer here and having these horse shit winters. :mad:

[Inner Dirt]

The lying bastards promised global warming. They better deliver soon. I'm sick of being cheated out of summer here and having these horse shit winters. :mad:

Get with the program, they went from global cooling, to global warming to "climate change." Climate change is bullet proof, any variation from previous and they can yell "climate change." What I find interesting is this planet was changing constantly over time, the evidence is everywhere, for millions and millions of years before man got here. Now man gets blamed for everything.
If we were around when the dinosaurs became extinct I could see the headlines now "Man made climate change kills all the dinosaurs."

My aunt bought me a subscription to National Geographic, every mention of a diminished species of anything blames man made climate change for it. The magazine mentions climate change on almost every page, it is a damn joke. It is amazing what some publications have evolved to, they all want to just shove liberal crap down your throat instead of reporting news, events, and educating people.

[jocko699]

Nature will find a way not because of mankind but because it is truly a greater force.

[Tom]

Earth was once a fireball, a frozen tundra, the continents are moving all over the place.

Been going on for millions of years.

Nothing that has gone on for the precious short time man has been here means anything in the long run.

Yes, the seas might warm, might rise, we might get flooded.....that is called nature.

And to think we can or should freeze nature where we think it should be is bottom line stupid.

Deal with it.

[fast4522]

Earth was once a fireball, a frozen tundra, the continents are moving all over the place.

Been going on for millions of years.

Nothing that has gone on for the precious short time man has been here means anything in the long run.

Yes, the seas might warm, might rise, we might get flooded.....that is called nature.

And to think we can or should freeze nature where we think it should be is bottom line stupid.

Deal with it.

Spot on Tom, the earth has been doing its own thing forever regardless of the life that lives on our rock. The message from the earth is get with the program. Those who believe in sharing moneys because of the constant change are little more than fools who made Al Gore filthy rich.

[davew]

Warning: low hanging fruit.


Those people will eventually realize that they have been left out in the cold!

:pound::pound::pound::pound::pound:

well, at least their party may supply coal or heating oil, oops solar heat for those cold winters...

[chadk66]

Earth was once a fireball, a frozen tundra, the continents are moving all over the place.

Been going on for millions of years.

Nothing that has gone on for the precious short time man has been here means anything in the long run.

Yes, the seas might warm, might rise, we might get flooded.....that is called nature.

And to think we can or should freeze nature where we think it should be is bottom line stupid.

Deal with it.don't forget flat. the earth was once flat remember. :lol: It was the accepted science of the day:pound:

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Those who believe in sharing moneys because of the constant change are little more than fools who made Al Gore filthy rich.

It was Gore's malevolent genius that thought up selling carbon credits to monetize his hoax.

It was on a par to selling rights to the Emperor's New Clothes.

[Tom]

IF GW was anywhere near as serious as that lying SOB claimed, there was no way anyone with any integrity would approved of that idea. Goes is a liar and a fraud.

And hcap, before you disagree, that is EXACTLY what you lefties bitch about the wealthy - buying their way out of everything.
You should be calling for Gore's hide for selling out the planet.

Are you?

[tucker6]

Reports that the USA will pull out of Paris redistribution of wealth agreement. Hallelujah!!

[OntheRail]

Reports that the USA will pull out of Paris redistribution of wealth agreement. Hallelujah!!

Yes Trump said "Let ME Think About It". He did and thought it to be a bad deal for the USA.

[reckless]

Yes Trump said "Let ME Think About It". He did and thought it to be a bad deal for the USA.

The next thing Trump needs to do is close all our military bases in Germany and let the Germans pay for their own homeland defense and security. Bring our troops home, Mister President!

To hell with Germany (and Europe) and Angela's Muslim migrant suicide mission.

[Ocala Mike]

Makes perfect sense to do so, if you believe that he's a Russian apparatchik.

[boxcar]

Makes perfect sense to do so, if you believe that he's a Russian apparatchik.

Actually, it made very good sense decades ago under numerous presidents who didn't have the gonads Trump has.

[davew]

Yes Trump said "Let ME Think About It". He did and thought it to be a bad deal for the USA.

what's so bad about it? the country already supports over half the people in the USA, why not half the people in the world?

[tucker6]

If the US followed its obligations set forth in the Paris Accord, it would reduce temperatures in 2100 by 0.008C. That's far less than the uncertainty of the numbers in the temperature record by more than a factor of 10.

if we were optimistic and continued the obligations beyond 2030 all the way to the end of the century, it would reduce global temperature rise by 0.031C. That's 1/20th of a degree F folks. Again, well inside the uncertainty bars of the measurements themselves.

The entirety of the Paris Agreement globally would reduce the rise by 0.08C, and if we also extended it another 70 years, it would reduce the rise by 0.17C. Again, this assumes the models are correct, but which have never been so far.

So at a cost to our economy of massive job loss and wealth loss over the coming decades, AND the dispersal of $75B to foreign countries to help them clean up their messes, we will save the planet (potentially) a fever of 0.17C. The global cost would rise into the trillions.

As stated by me many times on here, this is simply a redistribution of wealth scheme. Who would spend trillions on an issue where the problem is not well defined and modeled with any great confidence and the benefit by the spend is dubious at best. $2 trillion spend for maybe a 0.17C savings? That's ridiculous.

As for the US, why do we need to outlay $75B to other countries? We can clean up our act without the need to give freebies to everyone else. I heard on TV today that India expects $1.3T in proceeds from this redistribution scheme over time. That's insane. They have 300 million people without electricity in India, yet found enough cash to have nuclear weapons. Why don't they spend less on the military and more on their people, and why should I have to foot the bill for their poor decision-making?

[incoming]

As for the US, why do we need to outlay $75B to other countries? We can clean up our act without the need to give freebies to everyone else. I heard on TV today that India expects $1.3T in proceeds from this redistribution scheme over time. That's insane. They have 300 million people without electricity in India, yet found enough cash to have nuclear weapons. Why don't they spend less on the military and more on their people, and why should I have to foot the bill for their poor decision-making?

It only makes sense if you use "Dim's Logic." It is just one more monstrosity of a brain fart that cost trillions to implement and then leave the mess to be cleaned up by someone else. Time to hit the streets and torch something else or deny someone their rights for a invited guest to deliver their speech.:puke::popcorn:

[davew]

it is past the point of no return

Al Gore made the proclamation over 10 years ago
http://www.progressivestoday.com/al-gore-said-we-only-have-ten-years-left-to-save-the-planet-ten-years-ago/

[Inner Dirt]

it is past the point of no return

Al Gore made the proclamation over 10 years ago
http://www.progressivestoday.com/al-gore-said-we-only-have-ten-years-left-to-save-the-planet-ten-years-ago/

If called on it he will say his scientists used models using the extreme of the variables erring on the side of caution. People that believe in global warming or climate change are never wrong, they have a phone book long list of excuses for all their wrong predictions.

[Rise Over Run]

Politicians that like to lecture us on the importance of addressing climate change are perfectly receptive to fly in separate planes because it would be uncomfortable to fly with another FLOTUS...

https://twitter.com/HashtagGriswold/status/870312791957278721

[PaceAdvantage]

She needed her own plane in case she was hit by one of her debilitating "spells" again...

Either that or she's a racist.

[boxcar]

She needed her own plane in case she was hit by one of her debilitating "spells" again...

Either that or she's a racist.

Or a extremely elite elitist.

[boxcar]

If the US followed its obligations set forth in the Paris Accord, it would reduce temperatures in 2100 by 0.008C. That's far less than the uncertainty of the numbers in the temperature record by more than a factor of 10.

if we were optimistic and continued the obligations beyond 2030 all the way to the end of the century, it would reduce global temperature rise by 0.031C. That's 1/20th of a degree F folks. Again, well inside the uncertainty bars of the measurements themselves.

The entirety of the Paris Agreement globally would reduce the rise by 0.08C, and if we also extended it another 70 years, it would reduce the rise by 0.17C. Again, this assumes the models are correct, but which have never been so far.

So at a cost to our economy of massive job loss and wealth loss over the coming decades, AND the dispersal of $75B to foreign countries to help them clean up their messes, we will save the planet (potentially) a fever of 0.17C. The global cost would rise into the trillions.

As stated by me many times on here, this is simply a redistribution of wealth scheme. Who would spend trillions on an issue where the problem is not well defined and modeled with any great confidence and the benefit by the spend is dubious at best. $2 trillion spend for maybe a 0.17C savings? That's ridiculous.

As for the US, why do we need to outlay $75B to other countries? We can clean up our act without the need to give freebies to everyone else. I heard on TV today that India expects $1.3T in proceeds from this redistribution scheme over time. That's insane. They have 300 million people without electricity in India, yet found enough cash to have nuclear weapons. Why don't they spend less on the military and more on their people, and why should I have to foot the bill for their poor decision-making? Well

Well stated, Tucker! And The Donald has heard you and other critical thinkers like you. We're out of the Paris Accord. Not only do I love it but Wall Street does too! :ThmbUp::jump:

[classhandicapper]

If the US followed its obligations set forth in the Paris Accord, it would reduce temperatures in 2100 by 0.008C. That's far less than the uncertainty of the numbers in the temperature record by more than a factor of 10.

if we were optimistic and continued the obligations beyond 2030 all the way to the end of the century, it would reduce global temperature rise by 0.031C. That's 1/20th of a degree F folks. Again, well inside the uncertainty bars of the measurements themselves.

The entirety of the Paris Agreement globally would reduce the rise by 0.08C, and if we also extended it another 70 years, it would reduce the rise by 0.17C. Again, this assumes the models are correct, but which have never been so far.

So at a cost to our economy of massive job loss and wealth loss over the coming decades, AND the dispersal of $75B to foreign countries to help them clean up their messes, we will save the planet (potentially) a fever of 0.17C. The global cost would rise into the trillions.

As stated by me many times on here, this is simply a redistribution of wealth scheme. Who would spend trillions on an issue where the problem is not well defined and modeled with any great confidence and the benefit by the spend is dubious at best. $2 trillion spend for maybe a 0.17C savings? That's ridiculous.

As for the US, why do we need to outlay $75B to other countries? We can clean up our act without the need to give freebies to everyone else. I heard on TV today that India expects $1.3T in proceeds from this redistribution scheme over time. That's insane. They have 300 million people without electricity in India, yet found enough cash to have nuclear weapons. Why don't they spend less on the military and more on their people, and why should I have to foot the bill for their poor decision-making?

I can't vouch for your numbers, but this is absolutely the correct way to think about the issue.

Beyond that they are worried about 100 years from now as if the world, how we house ourselves, where people want to live and work, the technology we have at our disposal, etc.. will all be identical. That's nonsensical. Even if the temperature was exactly the same 100 years from now there would still be huge changes to all of that. In fact, that's what we are striving for. In 100 years we'll probably be terraforming the moon and Mars and have much greater control over the environment on earth. This is pretty much a non issue even if the science and projections are 100% accurate.

[reckless]

Wow, now, just maybe... super fraud Elon Musk will have to use his own money instead of the billions of subsidy dollars he glommed from the US taxpayer to finance his idiotic dreams.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Well

Well stated, Tucker! And The Donald has heard you and other critical thinkers like you. We're out of the Paris Accord. Not only do I love it but Wall Street does too! :ThmbUp::jump:

Another in the long list of great things that President Trump has done in undoing the nightmare of the previous 8 years.

[Clocker]

I can't vouch for your numbers, but this is absolutely the correct way to think about the issue.

Are you implying that the mayor of New York isn't thinking clearly? :eek:

“We’ll take matters into our own hands,” de Blasio continued. “I plan to sign an executive order maintaining New York City’s commitment to the Paris Agreement.”Will the last company to leave NYC please turn out the lights. We need to conserve that energy.

[fast4522]

As for the US, why do we need to outlay $75B to other countries?

Great post tucker6, I chopped out all but one line for a in to maybe provide a addendum. The other side of this argument if you want to call it that is they would have everyone believe besides having a measurable result in the case for it, it will provide subsidies for the emerging markets that need it. When in fact nothing measurable in our lifetime will occur and the bulk of subsidies will be pocketed by big time investors.

I honestly hope Hillary Clinton will be running for President in 2020, as Dan Pena will say "he will rip her to shreds".

[boxcar]

Great post tucker6, I chopped out all but one line for a in to maybe provide a addendum. The other side of this argument if you want to call it that is they would have everyone believe besides having a measurable result in the case for it, it will provide subsidies for the emerging markets that need it. When in fact nothing measurable in our lifetime will occur and the bulk of subsidies will be pocketed by big time investors.

I honestly hope Hillary Clinton will be running for President in 2020, as Dan Pena will say "he will rip her to shreds".

Hillary is toast. She won't risk losing the WH for a third time. He mind wouldn't be able to cope. Plus the Slickster is in very poor health.

[reckless]

The two biggest polluters on God's green earth, China and India, are not required to adhere to the lowering of greenhouse gases and other demands in the Paris Accord. Yet they will receive billions with a b in annual subsidies from the USA, who is expected to be the largest contributor to the Accord.

[JustRalph]

Obama came out guns blazing after Trump pulled out of the Paris treaty on global warming. Obama being the ultimate Global Warming warrior he is, took time out from his latest vacation to make a statement on how horrible Trump is for pulling out of the agreement. Here's a picture of Obama, the Global Warming Warrior on his latest vacation.

[Tom]

That was a great speech today. Very presidential.

Let's review now.....


Not Hillary check
Not Paris check

If it end tomorrow, this has been the best presidency in decades.

[jk3521]

To tell everybody the truth...I don't give a sh_t what happens in the world any longer ! :rant:

[Tom]

That was a great speech today. Very presidential.

Let's review now.....


Not Hillary check
Not Paris check

If it end tomorrow, this has been the best presidency in decades.

$350 billion in deals check

[davew]

$350 billion in deals check


the dem leaders have that many deals as well - but they were for themselves and friends

[boxcar]

Can someone bring me up to speed on something? How would membership in the Paris Accord lower the level of that horrible, poisoning carbon dioxide gas we all exhale? Seems to me that the only solution to this ghastly problem is mass extermination of the entities exhaling that poison.

Maybe North Korea and Iran are on to something with their nuclear programs...

[jk3521]

Seems to me that the only solution to this ghastly problem is mass extermination of the entities exhaling that poison.


I'm all for that !

[Inner Dirt]

Obama came out guns blazing after Trump pulled out of the Paris treaty on global warming. Obama being the ultimate Global Warming warrior he is, took time out from his latest vacation to make a statement on how horrible Trump is for pulling out of the agreement. Here's a picture of Obama, the Global Warming Warrior on his latest vacation.


Aren't those Global Warming Warriors that lead by example great? I can't remember the last time one was interviewed living in an unheated cave, riding a bicycle everywhere while eating nuts and berries they gathered.

[Andy Asaro]

https://twitter.com/mikedorr77/status/870644310131310594

[FantasticDan]

Aren't those Global Warming Warriors that lead by example great? I can't remember the last time one was interviewed living in an unheated cave, riding a bicycle everywhere while eating nuts and berries they gathered.
Yes, because being someone who believes it's important to confront climate change means you must live like a monk or a caveman.. :rolleyes: :cool:

[boxcar]

Yes, because being someone who believes it's important to confront climate change means you must live like a monk or a caveman.. :rolleyes: :cool:

Well...is that what the globalistic/envrironmentalists elitists want the common folk to do? You don't believe in leading by example? You must have loved the society created by the president in the Hunger Games. :coffee:

[Inner Dirt]

Yes, because being someone who believes it's important to confront climate change means you must live like a monk or a caveman.. :rolleyes: :cool:

Can't live like a caveman, it has been found they used fire. For the hard core greenie fire destroys the ozone and all sources of energy generation has something evil associated with it. Don't know about monks as long as they don't heat anything and consume something that farts or that comes from something that farts (no milk) they should be in compliance. You know cow farts contribute heavily to global warming, right?

[Inner Dirt]

Wasn't the whole state of Florida supposed to be under water by now?

[PaceAdvantage]

To tell everybody the truth...I don't give a sh_t what happens in the world any longer ! :rant:It will continue to get along fine with or without your worry.

[tucker6]

A couple questions for our lefty friends on here.

What would stop Trump and America from continuing to clean air and water, and producing cleaner energy outside of a Paris Accord? Why do we need to specifically help other countries clean up their act? Why do we need someone in Brussels to tell us how much CO2 a power plant in Montana can produce? Can't we figure that out for ourselves? After all, we reduced our CO2 footprint by 18% in the last 20 years without an Accord because of our investment in renewable energy and industrial automation.

The real question is why does the USA need to stay in the Paris Accords in order to reduce our footprint? What specifically in that Accord will actually help us do better? Better environmental training? Being able to acquire advanced green technologies? What?

[classhandicapper]

A couple questions for our lefty friends on here.

What would stop Trump and America from continuing to clean air and water, and producing cleaner energy outside of a Paris Accord? Why do we need to specifically help other countries clean up their act? Why do we need someone in Brussels to tell us how much CO2 a power plant in Montana can produce? Can't we figure that out for ourselves? After all, we reduced our CO2 footprint by 18% in the last 20 years without an Accord because of our investment in renewable energy and industrial automation.

The real question is why does the USA need to stay in the Paris Accords in order to reduce our footprint? What specifically in that Accord will actually help us do better? Better environmental training? Being able to acquire advanced green technologies? What?

+1000

Thank you.

It's all a bunch of left wing globalist balderdash. It's a way for them to control the US economy and to extort our money. There is absolutely nothing stopping the US from pursuing green energy in a way that makes environmental and economic sense and there is nothing stopping them or us from encouraging others to do so either.

These globalists are the literal enemies of freedom that will say or do anything to brainwash the masses and continue down the path of attaining power and dooming freedom.

[tucker6]

+1000

Thank you.

It's all a bunch of left wing globalist balderdash. It's a way for them to control the US economy and to extort our money. There is absolutely nothing stopping the US from pursuing green energy in a way that makes environmental and economic sense and there is nothing stopping them or us from encouraging others to do so either.

These globalists are the literal enemies of freedom that will say or do anything to brainwash the masses and continue down the path of attaining power and dooming freedom.

It's just one big magician's sleigh of hand. It pretends that nothing is being done now to curb unhealthy growth while at the same time trying to highlight the supposed only escape route (Paris accord) to our future. For those at the end of that gravy train, I can see why they are melting today. That was a multi-trillion dollar gravy train and would have been the largest bank heist in history. All in the name of an issue that isn't a problem. So I revise my past statements that AGW is a religion. It is just one face of a scheme to defraud American taxpayers of their wealth.

[Binder]

Its like the kid in school who has to buy his friendships,

Once we show the world what WE can do, Then they will follow the plan
how well we clean up our own messes.
The world will RESPECT us once again and follow , the great USA.
Do the right things and you get respect and admiration and you teach ,
Giving trillions does not work ,

[boxcar]

The real question is why does the USA need to stay in the Paris Accords in order to reduce our footprint? What specifically in that Accord will actually help us do better? Better environmental training? Being able to acquire advanced green technologies? What?

Actually, Mr. Tucker, you need to listen to the pseudo-intellectual lefties who are going bat-turd crazy over Trump's decision. The U.S.A. is racist, and anti-world communities of color and blah, blah, blah, blah... Did you notice that even though Trump kept the door open for U.S. participation in the Accord if a fairer deal could be cut, both Germany and France immediately rebuffed his offer. And here's why: Follow the money. Without U.S. participation in this wealth redistribution scam, The Biggest Cash Cow is DEAD. And along with its death will be the demise of the accord. Countries will start to pull out and the whole scheme will unravel. :jump::jump::jump:

[tucker6]

Actually, Mr. Tucker, you need to listen to the pseudo-intellectual lefties who are going bat-turd crazy over Trump's decision. The U.S.A. is racist, and anti-world communities of color and blah, blah, blah, blah... Did you notice that even though Trump kept the door open for U.S. participation in the Accord if a fairer deal could be cut, both Germany and France immediately rebuffed his offer. And here's why: Follow the money. Without U.S. participation in this wealth redistribution scam, The Biggest Cash Cow is DEAD. And along with its death will be the demise of the accord. Countries will start to pull out and the whole scheme will unravel. :jump::jump::jump:

I agree. Trump's offer was hollow because he knew once he stopped the money flow, the house of cards collapses. They others rejected it as such. The wicked witch is dead. For now.

[jk3521]

It will continue to get along fine with or without your worry.


Or anybody else's. The planet itself will be okay . It's just the humans in it that a F'd !

[tucker6]

Or anybody else's. The planet itself will be okay . It's just the humans in it that a F'd !

How? Please give an example or two.

[JustRalph]

Or anybody else's. The planet itself will be okay . It's just the humans in it that a F'd !

Hysterical! :lol:

[classhandicapper]

Actually, Mr. Tucker, you need to listen to the pseudo-intellectual lefties who are going bat-turd crazy over Trump's decision. The U.S.A. is racist, and anti-world communities of color and blah, blah, blah, blah... Did you notice that even though Trump kept the door open for U.S. participation in the Accord if a fairer deal could be cut, both Germany and France immediately rebuffed his offer. And here's why: Follow the money. Without U.S. participation in this wealth redistribution scam, The Biggest Cash Cow is DEAD. And along with its death will be the demise of the accord. Countries will start to pull out and the whole scheme will unravel. :jump::jump::jump:

Exactly.

The only reason anyone joined in was because the US was going to pay for a lot of it and it would give other countries a competitive advantage in other ways.

I'm calling BS on a deal like that too.

I doesn't even matter whether you believe the worst case scenarios are likely, you are at the other extreme and think it's all BS, or you are somewhere in the middle like me. It makes sense to move in the direction of cleaner cost effective energy, but that doesn't mean the US should have to pick up the tab and give up a bunch of jobs to other countries for a temperature gain that's not even significant to the goal.

As the technology improves and becomes more cost effective, the world will keep moving in that direction at an ever more rapid pace and other countries will be able to enjoy the benefits of R&D.

[tucker6]

Exactly.

The only reason anyone joined in was because the US was going to pay for a lot of it and it would give other countries a competitive advantage in other ways.

I'm calling BS on a deal like that too.

I doesn't even matter whether you believe the worst case scenarios are likely, you are at the other extreme and think it's all BS, or you are somewhere in the middle like me. It makes sense to move in the direction of cleaner cost effective energy, but that doesn't mean the US should have to pick up the tab and give up a bunch of jobs to other countries for a temperature gain that's not even significant to the goal.

As the technology improves and becomes more cost effective, the world will keep moving in that direction at an ever more rapid pace and other countries will be able to enjoy the benefits of R&D.

Agreed. The markets will tend to move to better and cleaner technologies in the long run. China WILL pay the price long term for all the pollution they are spewing into the atmosphere. They are gonna have a big cancer and CPD health cost over time that will be a huge drag on their economy, just like cigarette smoke and obesity are a health problem here and a drag on our economy. Once that happens, the chinese will begin to move away from environmental problems like we did in the 70's with Love Canal and acid rain, etc.

[boxcar]

Agreed. The markets will tend to move to better and cleaner technologies in the long run. China WILL pay the price long term for all the pollution they are spewing into the atmosphere. They are gonna have a big cancer and CPD health cost over time that will be a huge drag on their economy, just like cigarette smoke and obesity are a health problem here and a drag on our economy. Once that happens, the chinese will begin to move away from environmental problems like we did in the 70's with Love Canal and acid rain, etc.

Let China fix it's own pollution problems. Did any country fix ours in LA decades ago? We don't need any stinkin' global welfare schemes to fix the problems of countries of color or the economically-disadvantaged.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

A couple questions for our lefty friends on here.

What would stop Trump and America from continuing to clean air and water, and producing cleaner energy outside of a Paris Accord? Why do we need to specifically help other countries clean up their act? Why do we need someone in Brussels to tell us how much CO2 a power plant in Montana can produce? Can't we figure that out for ourselves? After all, we reduced our CO2 footprint by 18% in the last 20 years without an Accord because of our investment in renewable energy and industrial automation.

The real question is why does the USA need to stay in the Paris Accords in order to reduce our footprint? What specifically in that Accord will actually help us do better? Better environmental training? Being able to acquire advanced green technologies? What?

Don't ask that question. The wack-a-doodles have no interest in thinking logically. John Kerry says your kids will now get asthma because of President Trump. That's all you have to know.

Hard to figure what to enjoy more. The actions of our great President, or watching the loony left implode right before our eyes.

[boxcar]

Don't ask that question. The wack-a-doodles have no interest in thinking logically. John Kerry says your kids will now get asthma because of President Trump. That's all you have to know.

Hard to figure what to enjoy more. The actions of our great President, or watching the loony left implode right before our eyes.

And the Left believes in its dark, self-deceived, little heart that they are mainstream. :coffee:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

As a public service I'll provide answers to some of the questions that have appeared in this thread. Just information, no political proselytizing.

How would membership in the Paris Accord lower the level of CO2?

Membership per se is not what causes CO2 decreases. The Paris Accord is a voluntary agreement, meaning each country can decide on its own reduction goals. That can be done without having signed the agreement. There are no sanctions or punitive measures for not achieving a goal.

Cow farts contribute heavily to global warming.

There are about 1.5 billion cows and bulls in the world, which are apparently enough to provide beef and milk to 7.2 billion people. The entire agricultural sector, including the cattle, contributes about 24% to the total emissions of greenhouse gases in the U.S. That is more that transportation (14%), industry (21%), buildings (6%), and energy production (10%), and less than electricity and heat production (25%).

Wasn't the whole state of Florida supposed to be under water by now?

Unfortunately, no. But we can always hope.

What would stop Trump and America from continuing to clean air and water, and producing cleaner energy outside of a Paris Accord?

Technically, nothing in the Accord. However, the best answer seems to be Scott Pruitt and budget cuts.

Why do we need to specifically help other countries clean up their act?

Whether or not we needed to, the following was the reason why they did. Many of the signers of the Paris Accord are poor countries and could not meet any reduction goals if they had to depend on paying for it themselves. Rich countries have extracted and burned huge amounts of fossil fuels. Poor countries seeking to grow their economies are pressured to not use the same fuels. Many low-lying poor countries also will be among the first to bear the worst impacts of climate change. Assuming richer nations wanted the poorer nations to start with clean technologies instead of cheaper but dirtier technologies, the richer nations agreed to help the poorer nations. It was meant as an incentive to get poorer nations to use cleaner technologies.

Why do we need someone in Brussels to tell us how much CO2 a power plant in Montana can produce? Can't we figure that out for ourselves? After all, we reduced our CO2 footprint by 18% in the last 20 years without an Accord because of our investment in renewable energy and industrial automation.

Nothing in the Paris Accord needed anyone to tell anyone else anything about CO2 from a power plant in Montana. Whatever commitments there were, were developed by each individual country for themselves and were voluntary. In America, investments in renewable energy and industrial automation were important to reducing CO2 emissions, as were emissions control regulations. The irony, of course, is that had we stayed on the same trajectory we'd have come close to meeting what we volunteered in the Paris Accord, and we wouldn't have had to take new or extraordinary measures. We are on a path that wouldn't have necessarily accelerated with the Paris Accord, and likely won't decelerate without it. Power plants aren't going away. We would still need to produce power at greater levels than we do today, and cleaner power may have produced even more jobs. We'd still have cars in the same amounts we have them today. People will still need to be warm in the winter and cool in the summer. We'll still need to eat, and that will include plenty of meat.

The real question is why does the USA need to stay in the Paris Accords in order to reduce our footprint? What specifically in that Accord will actually help us do better? Better environmental training? Being able to acquire advanced green technologies? What?

The Paris Accord was largely symbolic. That's the nature of voluntary agreements. If there was an advantage to the U.S., it was that it gave us a chance to demonstrate leadership. It also kept China in a secondary position. It was never about helping us do better or provide environmental training or advanced technologies. Engineers in the United States are making a lot of the advancements in technology anyway. That won't change because business will demand it. The world, except for Nicaragua and Syria signed on. That's a pretty big accomplishment to have the world agree to anything.

[tucker6]

As a public service I'll provide answers to some of the questions that have appeared in this thread. Just information, no political proselytizing.

How would membership in the Paris Accord lower the level of CO2?

Membership per se is not what causes CO2 decreases. The Paris Accord is a voluntary agreement, meaning each country can decide on its own reduction goals. That can be done without having signed the agreement. There are no sanctions or punitive measures for not achieving a goal.

Cow farts contribute heavily to global warming.

There are about 1.5 billion cows and bulls in the world, which are apparently enough to provide beef and milk to 7.2 billion people. The entire agricultural sector, including the cattle, contributes about 24% to the total emissions of greenhouse gases in the U.S. That is more that transportation (14%), industry (21%), buildings (6%), and energy production (10%), and less than electricity and heat production (25%).

Wasn't the whole state of Florida supposed to be under water by now?

Unfortunately, no. But we can always hope.

What would stop Trump and America from continuing to clean air and water, and producing cleaner energy outside of a Paris Accord?

Technically, nothing in the Accord. However, the best answer seems to be Scott Pruitt and budget cuts.

Why do we need to specifically help other countries clean up their act?

Whether or not we needed to, the following was the reason why they did. Many of the signers of the Paris Accord are poor countries and could not meet any reduction goals if they had to depend on paying for it themselves. Rich countries have extracted and burned huge amounts of fossil fuels. Poor countries seeking to grow their economies are pressured to not use the same fuels. Many low-lying poor countries also will be among the first to bear the worst impacts of climate change. Assuming richer nations wanted the poorer nations to start with clean technologies instead of cheaper but dirtier technologies, the richer nations agreed to help the poorer nations. It was meant as an incentive to get poorer nations to use cleaner technologies.

Why do we need someone in Brussels to tell us how much CO2 a power plant in Montana can produce? Can't we figure that out for ourselves? After all, we reduced our CO2 footprint by 18% in the last 20 years without an Accord because of our investment in renewable energy and industrial automation.

Nothing in the Paris Accord needed anyone to tell anyone else anything about CO2 from a power plant in Montana. Whatever commitments there were, were developed by each individual country for themselves and were voluntary. In America, investments in renewable energy and industrial automation were important to reducing CO2 emissions, as were emissions control regulations. The irony, of course, is that had we stayed on the same trajectory we'd have come close to meeting what we volunteered in the Paris Accord, and we wouldn't have had to take new or extraordinary measures. We are on a path that wouldn't have necessarily accelerated with the Paris Accord, and likely won't decelerate without it. Power plants aren't going away. We would still need to produce power at greater levels than we do today, and cleaner power may have produced even more jobs. We'd still have cars in the same amounts we have them today. People will still need to be warm in the winter and cool in the summer. We'll still need to eat, and that will include plenty of meat.

The real question is why does the USA need to stay in the Paris Accords in order to reduce our footprint? What specifically in that Accord will actually help us do better? Better environmental training? Being able to acquire advanced green technologies? What?

The Paris Accord was largely symbolic. That's the nature of voluntary agreements. If there was an advantage to the U.S., it was that it gave us a chance to demonstrate leadership. It also kept China in a secondary position. It was never about helping us do better or provide environmental training or advanced technologies. Engineers in the United States are making a lot of the advancements in technology anyway. That won't change because business will demand it. The world, except for Nicaragua and Syria signed on. That's a pretty big accomplishment to have the world agree to anything.

I'm afraid you missed the part in the "voluntary" agreement which would allow people to sue the US govt to force them to meet the goals of this "voluntary" agreement. If this is so voluntary, why will it take four years just to exit? Heck, Brexit will only take England and the EU two years to accomplish and that was a marriage.

[Tom]

It is hilarious watching the left-wing dingbats melt down over this. Some many leftie, so little brain cells.

Here are facts the left ignores.

The worse polluters on the planet were given a pass in thsi stupid accord.

The USA lead the world in fighting pollution. We will continue to outpace everyone on our own, without the stupid accord.

The list people who are doing the most good in lowering emissions doesn't include Al Gore or Leo the Moron, or any other hollywood bigmouth.

The Paris Accord was re-distribution of wealth plan, nothing more.

If your lefties really miss the Accords, then buy a freaking Honda. But don't drive it.

[tucker6]

It is hilarious watching the left-wing dingbats melt down over this. Some many leftie, so little brain cells.

Here are facts the left ignores.

The worse polluters on the planet were given a pass in thsi stupid accord.

The USA lead the world in fighting pollution. We will continue to outpace everyone on our own, without the stupid accord.

The list people who are doing the most good in lowering emissions doesn't include Al Gore or Leo the Moron, or any other hollywood bigmouth.

The Paris Accord was re-distribution of wealth plan, nothing more.

If your lefties really miss the Accords, then buy a freaking Honda. But don't drive it.
Nothing is stopping Al and Barry and Leo from living a simple existence. You know, lead by example.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I'm afraid you missed the part in the "voluntary" agreement which would allow people to sue the US govt to force them to meet the goals of this "voluntary" agreement. If this is so voluntary, why will it take four years just to exit? Heck, Brexit will only take England and the EU two years to accomplish and that was a marriage.

No, the Accord doesn't allow people to sue. This came from a guy named Christopher C. Horner, a senior legal fellow at the Energy and Environment Legal Institute, who said liberal state attorneys general and climate activists would inevitably sue over efforts to weaken the targets. But the accord doesn't have a "right to sue" provision. No sanctions at all. This "right to sue" was purely speculative, although it helped sell the withdrawal.

The provision at issue, Article 4.11, states that a nation “may at any time adjust its existing nationally determined contribution with a view to enhancing its level of ambition.” The question is whether the ability to “adjust” is like a ratchet, allowing progress only in one direction — upward — or if it permits a country to weaken its commitment without violating the terms of the deal. Bannon and Pruitt argued that the plain language of the Article really meant countries couldn't reduce the target. Ivanka and Rex Tillerson argued that it allows adjustments in either direction.

However, Todd D. Stern, the lead climate negotiator in the Obama administration and an expert on the deal, said negotiators wrote the flexibility to reduce targets into the agreement by careful design. The drafters believe a country could adjust either way. In fact, downward adjustment had already occurred with climate commitments. Japan, after losing nuclear power facilities in the Fukushima disaster, had to adjust its targets downward.

Yes, the accord’s formal withdrawal mechanism takes four years — but America could stop participating in any future climate talks immediately and there is no penalty for either withdrawing or discontinuing participation. That's the nature of a voluntary agreement. If you want an opinion, nobody actually anticipated any highly developed country withdrawing. I don't think they anticipated needing the language for any important country. As for Brexit, I believe the timeline was set by referendum.

Believe what you want.

[Tom]

I believe this - there was no benefit to the US, WE would be paying through the nose to make up the rest of the useless nations of the world.

Getting into that mess was the stupidest thing we ever did as a nation, short of electing the Kenyan Krackpot.

Let Luxemburg go tell China to stop polluting.

[chrisl]

Halvnot: Your last statement caused more BS than all the animals in the survey. The cloud just will not go away. Nice job

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Halvnot: Your last statement caused more BS than all the animals in the survey. The cloud just will not go away. Nice job

I've discontinued arguing with those with nothing important to say.

[hcap]

I've discontinued arguing with those with nothing important to say.Not worth discussing reality with a whole bunch of little boxcars. Suppressed you got as far as you did.

[hcap]

Not worth discussing reality with a whole bunch of little boxcars. "Suppressed" you got as far as you did.Oops, I am legally blind. Make that surprised

[reckless]

As a public service I'll provide answers to some of the questions that have appeared in this thread. Just information, no political proselytizing.

How would membership in the Paris Accord lower the level of CO2?

Membership per se is not what causes CO2 decreases. The Paris Accord is a voluntary agreement, meaning each country can decide on its own reduction goals. That can be done without having signed the agreement. There are no sanctions or punitive measures for not achieving a goal.

Cow farts contribute heavily to global warming.

There are about 1.5 billion cows and bulls in the world, which are apparently enough to provide beef and milk to 7.2 billion people. The entire agricultural sector, including the cattle, contributes about 24% to the total emissions of greenhouse gases in the U.S. That is more that transportation (14%), industry (21%), buildings (6%), and energy production (10%), and less than electricity and heat production (25%).

Wasn't the whole state of Florida supposed to be under water by now?

Unfortunately, no. But we can always hope.

What would stop Trump and America from continuing to clean air and water, and producing cleaner energy outside of a Paris Accord?

Technically, nothing in the Accord. However, the best answer seems to be Scott Pruitt and budget cuts.

Why do we need to specifically help other countries clean up their act?

Whether or not we needed to, the following was the reason why they did. Many of the signers of the Paris Accord are poor countries and could not meet any reduction goals if they had to depend on paying for it themselves. Rich countries have extracted and burned huge amounts of fossil fuels. Poor countries seeking to grow their economies are pressured to not use the same fuels. Many low-lying poor countries also will be among the first to bear the worst impacts of climate change. Assuming richer nations wanted the poorer nations to start with clean technologies instead of cheaper but dirtier technologies, the richer nations agreed to help the poorer nations. It was meant as an incentive to get poorer nations to use cleaner technologies.

Why do we need someone in Brussels to tell us how much CO2 a power plant in Montana can produce? Can't we figure that out for ourselves? After all, we reduced our CO2 footprint by 18% in the last 20 years without an Accord because of our investment in renewable energy and industrial automation.

Nothing in the Paris Accord needed anyone to tell anyone else anything about CO2 from a power plant in Montana. Whatever commitments there were, were developed by each individual country for themselves and were voluntary. In America, investments in renewable energy and industrial automation were important to reducing CO2 emissions, as were emissions control regulations. The irony, of course, is that had we stayed on the same trajectory we'd have come close to meeting what we volunteered in the Paris Accord, and we wouldn't have had to take new or extraordinary measures. We are on a path that wouldn't have necessarily accelerated with the Paris Accord, and likely won't decelerate without it. Power plants aren't going away. We would still need to produce power at greater levels than we do today, and cleaner power may have produced even more jobs. We'd still have cars in the same amounts we have them today. People will still need to be warm in the winter and cool in the summer. We'll still need to eat, and that will include plenty of meat.

The real question is why does the USA need to stay in the Paris Accords in order to reduce our footprint? What specifically in that Accord will actually help us do better? Better environmental training? Being able to acquire advanced green technologies? What?

The Paris Accord was largely symbolic. That's the nature of voluntary agreements. If there was an advantage to the U.S., it was that it gave us a chance to demonstrate leadership. It also kept China in a secondary position. It was never about helping us do better or provide environmental training or advanced technologies. Engineers in the United States are making a lot of the advancements in technology anyway. That won't change because business will demand it. The world, except for Nicaragua and Syria signed on. That's a pretty big accomplishment to have the world agree to anything.

Tucker Carlson on Friday night made uber liberal Mark Green look like your typical uber liberal -- stupid, clueless and basically devoid of reality. I just love it when lunatic liberals like Green, as do many lefties on this beloved web site do too -- often say, 'Don't you know science? You science deniers just drop dead. End of discussion.' Nice way to win an argument defending your point of view. Enjoy.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/06/02/tucker-to-mark-green-why-is-paris-climate-agreement-good-thing.html

[tucker6]

I've discontinued arguing with those with nothing important to say.
Ran out of ammo eh? It's people like you who are a danger to future generations.

What you rail against is a president that saw through the smoke and mirrors to a redistribution of wealth scheme. Pure and simple, that's what Paris was really about. Even your answers above confirm it. The US doesn't need any agreement in order to enact every "voluntary" pollution level announced. So why the vitriol and hand wringing. We'll have our cake and eat it too. Fix our problems without being saddled with the cost of doing the same for others.

As for the wealth redistribution, sending money to despots in hopes that they'll do the right thing with all that cash is akin to opening up a Brinks truck in the middle of a riot. Nothing good will come of it.

[Greyfox]

Good luck sending any money to the United Nations with the belief that it will reach poorer countries in need intact.

[boxcar]

I'm afraid you missed the part in the "voluntary" agreement which would allow people to sue the US govt to force them to meet the goals of this "voluntary" agreement. If this is so voluntary, why will it take four years just to exit? Heck, Brexit will only take England and the EU two years to accomplish and that was a marriage.

Oh that's easy to answer: The four years to exit is a penalty since the exiting countries would still have to pay in to this scam until the exit date.

Imagine joining a wholesale club with rules that stated all members must give the club 4 years notice of intent to quit the club and that the dues are payable for that 4-year period. Would anyone join such a club? (Rhetorical question. Of course people would join. They're called Liberals.) :coffee:

[boxcar]

As for the wealth redistribution, sending money to despots in hopes that they'll do the right thing with all that cash is akin to opening up a Brinks truck in the middle of a riot. Nothing good will come of it.

Great analogy, Tucker! :ThmbUp: Don't see many of those around here, save for mine. :coffee:

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Ran out of ammo eh? It's people like you who are a danger to future generations.

What you rail against is a president that saw through the smoke and mirrors to a redistribution of wealth scheme. Pure and simple, that's what Paris was really about. Even your answers above confirm it. The US doesn't need any agreement in order to enact every "voluntary" pollution level announced. So why the vitriol and hand wringing. We'll have our cake and eat it too. Fix our problems without being saddled with the cost of doing the same for others.

As for the wealth redistribution, sending money to despots in hopes that they'll do the right thing with all that cash is akin to opening up a Brinks truck in the middle of a riot. Nothing good will come of it.

You asked questions, I answered them with no political slant. Just the facts. Nothing about degrees celsius or rising sea level or hurricanes or policy. No railing against anybody. Doesn't matter to me if you don't like the facts. I'm not going to argue with anyone whose argument is based on fake news. In other words, someone with nothing important to say. Believe what you want.

[boxcar]

You asked questions, I answered them with no political slant. Just the facts. Nothing about degrees celsius or rising sea level or hurricanes or policy. No railing against anybody. Doesn't matter to me if you don't like the facts. I'm not going to argue with anyone whose argument is based on fake news. In other words, someone with nothing important to say. Believe what you want.

:lol::lol::lol: "No political slant", heh? Congratulations! You just gutted the entire environmental movement that is driven by politics. :coffee:

[delayjf]

Cow farts contribute heavily to global warming.

There are about 1.5 billion cows and bulls in the world, which are apparently enough to provide beef and milk to 7.2 billion people. The entire agricultural sector, including the cattle, contributes about 24% to the total emissions of greenhouse gases in the U.S. That is more that transportation (14%), industry (21%), buildings (6%), and energy production (10%), and less than electricity and heat production (25%).

This begs the question (seriously) - how much does human farting contribute total greenhouse emissions? Lord knows I'm contributing my fair share.

[Tom]

Ban Budweiser!:D

[rastajenk]

This begs the question (seriously)...

I've been told I contribute more than my fair share. :ThmbUp:

[reckless]

As a public service I'll provide answers to some of the questions that have appeared in this thread. Just information, no political proselytizing.

How would membership in the Paris Accord lower the level of CO2?

Membership per se is not what causes CO2 decreases. The Paris Accord is a voluntary agreement, meaning each country can decide on its own reduction goals. That can be done without having signed the agreement. There are no sanctions or punitive measures for not achieving a goal.

Cow farts contribute heavily to global warming.

There are about 1.5 billion cows and bulls in the world, which are apparently enough to provide beef and milk to 7.2 billion people. The entire agricultural sector, including the cattle, contributes about 24% to the total emissions of greenhouse gases in the U.S. That is more that transportation (14%), industry (21%), buildings (6%), and energy production (10%), and less than electricity and heat production (25%).

Wasn't the whole state of Florida supposed to be under water by now?

Unfortunately, no. But we can always hope.

What would stop Trump and America from continuing to clean air and water, and producing cleaner energy outside of a Paris Accord?

Technically, nothing in the Accord. However, the best answer seems to be Scott Pruitt and budget cuts.

Why do we need to specifically help other countries clean up their act?

Whether or not we needed to, the following was the reason why they did. Many of the signers of the Paris Accord are poor countries and could not meet any reduction goals if they had to depend on paying for it themselves. Rich countries have extracted and burned huge amounts of fossil fuels. Poor countries seeking to grow their economies are pressured to not use the same fuels. Many low-lying poor countries also will be among the first to bear the worst impacts of climate change. Assuming richer nations wanted the poorer nations to start with clean technologies instead of cheaper but dirtier technologies, the richer nations agreed to help the poorer nations. It was meant as an incentive to get poorer nations to use cleaner technologies.

Why do we need someone in Brussels to tell us how much CO2 a power plant in Montana can produce? Can't we figure that out for ourselves? After all, we reduced our CO2 footprint by 18% in the last 20 years without an Accord because of our investment in renewable energy and industrial automation.

Nothing in the Paris Accord needed anyone to tell anyone else anything about CO2 from a power plant in Montana. Whatever commitments there were, were developed by each individual country for themselves and were voluntary. In America, investments in renewable energy and industrial automation were important to reducing CO2 emissions, as were emissions control regulations. The irony, of course, is that had we stayed on the same trajectory we'd have come close to meeting what we volunteered in the Paris Accord, and we wouldn't have had to take new or extraordinary measures. We are on a path that wouldn't have necessarily accelerated with the Paris Accord, and likely won't decelerate without it. Power plants aren't going away. We would still need to produce power at greater levels than we do today, and cleaner power may have produced even more jobs. We'd still have cars in the same amounts we have them today. People will still need to be warm in the winter and cool in the summer. We'll still need to eat, and that will include plenty of meat.

The real question is why does the USA need to stay in the Paris Accords in order to reduce our footprint? What specifically in that Accord will actually help us do better? Better environmental training? Being able to acquire advanced green technologies? What?

The Paris Accord was largely symbolic. That's the nature of voluntary agreements. If there was an advantage to the U.S., it was that it gave us a chance to demonstrate leadership. It also kept China in a secondary position. It was never about helping us do better or provide environmental training or advanced technologies. Engineers in the United States are making a lot of the advancements in technology anyway. That won't change because business will demand it. The world, except for Nicaragua and Syria signed on. That's a pretty big accomplishment to have the world agree to anything.


All I know is that Merkel and the entire EU have been all in on this Climate Change/Global Warming lunacy for way over 10 years now. Complete surrender to common sense.

And all this has resulted in ... bankrupt countries, highest utility rates in history, negative and/or stagnant economic growth. Plus, we have many countries not paying their fair share into this slush fund -- and they are all those countries not named the United States of America. Similar to NATO funding promises not kept.

Then we have Merkel, Macon and the other Climate Change charlatans just the other day denounce my great US president, Donald J. Trump, as someone who wants to destroy the Planet by leaving the Paris Accord. :lol::lol: I kid you not.

Merkel, Hollande, and now, Macon, have all committed treason against the citizens of their very own country with their support of this Climate Change larceny in addition to their policy of open borders and immigration allowing Muslims unfettered access into their homeland. How many more terrorist bombings, murders and rapes will be committed before this ends?

Trump and the US taxpayer will no longer be required to pay for the stupidity and ill-policies of the EU, led by Merkel, along with Macon. If the EU will not help themselves, why should we?

Germany, France and the rest of the EU can all go to hell.

[tucker6]

You asked questions, I answered them with no political slant. Just the facts. Nothing about degrees celsius or rising sea level or hurricanes or policy. No railing against anybody. Doesn't matter to me if you don't like the facts. I'm not going to argue with anyone whose argument is based on fake news. In other words, someone with nothing important to say. Believe what you want.

Lol, you have no slant. Zero credibility with that comment.

[buzzy]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.amp.html

[incoming]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile.nytimes.com/2016/09/04/science/flooding-of-coast-caused-by-global-warming-has-already-begun.amp.html
BrainFart: Could this be the driving force behind the "dim's logic" of climate change. If a realtor tell you your ocean front property is actually worthless because of mountains of sea water coming your way....beware. If you are in the markets....buy REITs.:pound::lol:

[buzzy]

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/watch-our-hbo-episode-about-climate-change-from-all-sides-of-the-issue

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/watch-our-hbo-episode-about-climate-change-from-all-sides-of-the-issue

Right. It really looks like they will be looking at ALL SIDES of the issue. Will they interview the leading scientists around the world who say that man is not responsible for global warming?

I don't think so.

[barn32]

BrainFart: You don't have to worry. This will contribute nothing to global warming, because, first of all, you have to have a brain.

[incoming]

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/watch-our-hbo-episode-about-climate-change-from-all-sides-of-the-issue

Worthless properties soon to be on sale: Florida Keys, Outer Banks, North Carolina, Manhattan, New York, and Jamaica. Getum while they are hot:headbanger::pound::pound:

[Show Me the Wire]

As a public service I'll provide answers to some of the questions that have appeared in this thread. Just information, no political proselytizing..................................... .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ......................
The Paris Accord was largely symbolic. That's the nature of voluntary agreements. If there was an advantage to the U.S., it was that it gave us a chance to demonstrate leadership. It also kept China in a secondary position. It was never about helping us do better or provide environmental training or advanced technologies. Engineers in the United States are making a lot of the advancements in technology anyway. That won't change because business will demand it. The world, except for Nicaragua and Syria signed on. That's a pretty big accomplishment to have the world agree to anything.

Could you explain to me why we have to bribe, I mean contribute money to other countries to keep China in a secondary position. Is it not better to lead by example? Also, if the E.U. wants to look to China, a leading polluter, as a leader, why do we care?

[incoming]

You don't have to worry. This will contribute nothing to global warming, because, first of all, you have to have a brain.

Judging by your reply...my BrainFart is far faraway from your scope.:)

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Lol, you have no slant. Zero credibility with that comment.

Sorry. I'm still looking for that section in the Paris Accord that allows filing of lawsuits if a country wants to reduce their target. And of course the article in the Accord that says a country must pay for those poor countries even after they decide to withdraw from the agreement. Plus, I'll see if I can find the article that specifies the sanctions are for a country that decides not to pay. I'll get back to you when I do, although it could take a long time to find them since I'll be looking at the actual Accord instead of listening to fake news and having a frenzy talking to people like boxcar who by their own admission (1) have a nasty disdain for science and (2) don't actually read anything that disagrees with their dogma.

By the way, you might want to look at my posts in the thread to see where I expressed any opinion about Trump getting out of the Paris agreement. Because I don't recall saying it was either a great move by Trump or the end of the world.

[barn32]

Sorry. I'm still looking for that section in the Paris Accord that allows filing of lawsuits if a country wants to reduce their target. And of course the article in the Accord that says a country must pay for those poor countries even after they decide to withdraw from the agreement. Plus, I'll see if I can find the article that specifies the sanctions are for a country that decides not to pay. I'll get back to you when I do, although it could take a long time to find them since I'll be looking at the actual Accord instead of listening to fake news and having a frenzy talking to people like boxcar who by their own admission (1) have a nasty disdain for science and (2) don't actually read anything that disagrees with their dogma.

By the way, you might want to look at my posts in the thread to see where I expressed any opinion about Trump getting out of the Paris agreement. Because I don't recall saying it was either a great move by Trump or the end of the world.Maybe Incoming can loan him one of his "Brain Farts."

[Tom]

The Paris Accord was largely symbolic.

Then there is no harm done by us leaving.
Why is the left having breakdowns over it?

Are you saying the lefties are idiots?
Are you saying Michael Moore is a fool?
Are you saying John Kerry is an ignorant jerk?

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Could you explain to me why we have to bribe, I mean contribute money to other countries to keep China in a secondary position. Is it not better to lead by example? Also, if the E.U. wants to look to China, a leading polluter, as a leader, why do we care?

I explained how the language about helping poor countries got into the Accord. I made no comment about why it was or wasn't a great idea, and I didn't say paying into the fund would keep China in a secondary position. I simply said as long as we were in the Accord China would be second to the U.S. The U.S. abdicating creates an opening at the top, and China might like to fill the space. Given their historical position, I don't know if they will ever be accepted as a leader. I don't know how dropping out of the Accord will negatively affect the U.S., and I don't know what plans Trump has for having us lead by example. Time will certainly let us know if it was a positive, neutral or negative action, and I can't wait to find out.

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Then there is no harm done by us leaving.
Why is the left having breakdowns over it?

Are you saying the lefties are idiots?
Are you saying Michael Moore is a fool?
Are you saying John Kerry is an ignorant jerk?

You need to ask the people who are having the breakdown, not me.

[FantasticDan]

Lol, you have no slant. Zero credibility with that comment.Lol Halv did exactly what you requested with no opinion one way or the other, and you insult him anyway just cuz you're a prick lol. :ThmbUp:

[boxcar]

Maybe Incoming can loan him one of his "Brain Farts."

If he's generous enough to do so, it would advance you miles ahead of where you are currently. :coffee:

[davew]

Could you explain to me why we have to bribe, I mean contribute money to other countries to keep China in a secondary position. Is it not better to lead by example? Also, if the E.U. wants to look to China, a leading polluter, as a leader, why do we care?

I herd it was $100 billion per year to the UN = but I was thinking that can't be right, 0bama would have needed to get Congress approval for such a commitment.

I also heard India was going to get $2.3 Trillion before making any effort to reduce anything.

[fast4522]

I herd it was $100 billion per year to the UN = but I was thinking that can't be right, 0bama would have needed to get Congress approval for such a commitment.

I also heard India was going to get $2.3 Trillion before making any effort to reduce anything.
Shut the mother DOWN, go TRUMP:ThmbUp::ThmbUp::ThmbUp:

[Tom]

Bottom line, the Climate Change movement is pure terrorism.
Threatening people to shake them down for money and to gain control of their lives.

How about we tell India to go to Hell?
Oh, my bad, India IS Hell!

[tucker6]

Oh, my bad, India IS Hell!

You got that right!

[HalvOnHorseracing]

I herd it was $100 billion per year to the UN = but I was thinking that can't be right, 0bama would have needed to get Congress approval for such a commitment.

I also heard India was going to get $2.3 Trillion before making any effort to reduce anything.
You were right when you said that can't be right.

Other countries have contributed to the Green Climate Fund. In fact, 43 governments have pledged money to the fund, including nine developing countries. The countries have pledged to pay $10.13 billion collectively - $100 billion- and the U.S. share is $3 billion (also not $100 billion). As of May 2017, the United States has contributed $1 billion of the $3 billion it pledged. While Trump implied that the money was taken out of U.S. defense monies, the U.S. contributions were paid out of the State Department’s Economic Support Fund, one of the foreign assistance programs to promote economic or political stability based on U.S. strategic interests. The payments were made with congressional notification and meetings with congressional staff.

China, in its Paris Accord commitment, said that, compared to 2005 levels, it would seek to cut its carbon emissions by 60 to 65 percent per unit of GDP by 2030. India said it would reduce its emissions per unit of economic output by 33 to 35 percent below 2005 by 2030. India's submission does seek foreign aid to meet its goals and mitigate the costs. I can't come up with a source for the $2.3 trillion, although it sounds more like what India will spend reducing carbon emissions.

India has exceeded its targets for wind power this fiscal year and has made some strides in increasing its solar capacity. In addition, the country is holding off on the construction of some new coal-fired power generating plants because the extra capacity may not be needed for now, according to a new draft electricity plan.

Piyush Goyal, India’s energy minister, said that India remains committed to its Paris pledge — no matter what happens in the rest of the world.

Just the facts. No political spin.

[Tom]

Piyush Goyal, India’s energy minister, said that India remains committed to its Paris pledge — no matter what happens in the rest of the world.

Good for him.
Those cow farts are his problem.

Smart logic, like his efforts will do anything if the rest of the world doesn't go along. But then, he lives in India, so......

I would think India has far more pressing problems than fake science. Maybe they need new leaders.

Like we did.
A leader who is not an ass-clown of a fool, like the Kenyan Krackpot.

[woodtoo]

Green Climate Fund Contributions
U.S. 1 Billion all other countries combined 0

[HalvOnHorseracing]

Green Climate Fund Contributions
U.S. 1 Billion all other countries combined 0

Not true.

https://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/24868/Status_of_Pledges.pdf/eef538d3-2987-4659-8c7c-5566ed6afd19

Other countries have committed $7.1327 billion. 43 countries have already made their contributions.

Just more facts to counter fake news.

[chrisl]

Who gives a crap about how much a country give's to this nonsense. Just as long is America does not give a Penney.

[Tom]

Eactly.
$1B we could use here at home to repair our infrastructure.

How much of that 1B do you suppose will be skimmed off the top for "expenses?"

I'd guess......95% minimum.

[Parkview_Pirate]

Could you explain to me why we have to bribe, I mean contribute money to other countries to keep China in a secondary position. Is it not better to lead by example? Also, if the E.U. wants to look to China, a leading polluter, as a leader, why do we care?

The Paris agreement was/is a bribe, in a vain attempt to maintain the status quo. I'm pretty much in agreement with Jim Kunstler's view on the issue - from his blog today:
http://kunstler.com/cluster****-nation/gimme-shelter/

In the meantime, Trump prevails, the mad bull elephant of the Republican herd, majestically swinging his trunk against everything breakable in the political china shop while trumpeting “Covfefe! Covfefe!” Last week it was the Paris Climate Accords. The op-ed writers in the usual places bounced off the walls of their virtual rubber room in response. Paul Krugman had to be dragged down to hydrotherapy at the NYT after he set his hair on fire. And Rachel Maddow practically popped a carotid artery in her muscular neck from all that shrieking.

I’m a bit more sanguine about the US withdrawal. To me, the Paris Accords were just another feel-good PR stunt enabling politicians to pretend that they could control forces that are already way out-of-hand, an international vanity project of ass-covering. The coming economic collapse will depress global industrial activity whether anybody likes it or not, and despite anyone’s pretense of good intentions — and then we will have a range of much more practical problems of everyday life to contend with.

[reckless]

As is the case, always, when there's a debate between people that know what they're talking about and the common sense deniers, such as TV 'journalists' knowledge and truth win out at the end.

CNN's Jake Tapper 'debates' Sen. Rand Paul in a pre Paris Accord withdrawal interview.

http://710wor.iheart.com/onair/mark-simone-52176/watch-rand-paul-give-biased-cnn-15887533/

[boxcar]

More Gorisms:

According to Mr. Gore, the melting of icebergs, etc. is so bad that he saw fish swimming in the streets of Miami and somewhere in Hawaii, as well. I heard all this on Rush's show today, and I think he said this during the Wallace interview. See link below.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/04/watch-chris-wallace-confronts-al-gore-over-his-faulty-climate-change-claims-that-never-came-true/

During the interview I think Wallace asked him if all this could be reversed, and of course Gore was optimistic. He thought it could be. Bit even if what he said were true, that would imply that there is no more Miami Beach. What was sandy beach is now ocean floor, so what power does man have to reverse that.
Can man command the Atlantic to recede back to its former level?

The idiocy of these environmentalist whakos knows no boundaries.

[jimmyb]

Record low of 48 degrees in Worcester, MA today. Still waiting for the global warming and the streets full of fish here.

[delayjf]

The Paris Accord was largely symbolic. That's the nature of voluntary agreements.

Symbolic or not, what concerns me if is that a liberal President could get elected, and unilaterally commit the USA to support (Money) and implement (regulation) the Paris Accord to the detriment of the US; due to their support for globalism and their perceived view that the US is committed to the Accord.

IMO, it was good that Trump killed this snake in the grass.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

More Gorisms:

According to Mr. Gore, the melting of icebergs, etc. is so bad that he saw fish swimming in the streets of Miami and somewhere in Hawaii, as well. I heard all this on Rush's show today, and I think he said this during the Wallace interview. See link below.

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/06/04/watch-chris-wallace-confronts-al-gore-over-his-faulty-climate-change-claims-that-never-came-true/

During the interview I think Wallace asked him if all this could be reversed, and of course Gore was optimistic. He thought it could be. Bit even if what he said were true, that would imply that there is no more Miami Beach. What was sandy beach is now ocean floor, so what power does man have to reverse that.
Can man command the Atlantic to recede back to its former level?

The idiocy of these environmentalist whakos knows no boundaries.

He did say that during the Wallace interview. I saw it. Wallace also pointed out that Gore said there would be terrible tragedies to the world within 10 years if nothing was done. Gore said that in 2006.

For those who don't remember, the first end-of-the-world within 15 years started in 1985. Has it been 15 years since 1985? :rolleyes:

[classhandicapper]

Sea Levels declined the last 2 years (media blackout)



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-27/nasa-confirms-falling-sea-levels-two-years-amidst-media-blackout

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

[davew]

Sea Levels declined the last 2 years (media blackout)



http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-07-27/nasa-confirms-falling-sea-levels-two-years-amidst-media-blackout

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/

That is because they calculated wrong and the satellites are dropping. Once they adjust all their raw data, seas will be rising again....

There also was a couple of big ice shelves that broke loose from the Antarctica region. Since this occurred, there will be more melting and soon a 3 foot ocean rise (or island sinkage, or satellite falling out of orbit...)

[boxcar]

That is because they calculated wrong and the satellites are dropping. Once they adjust all their raw data, seas will be rising again....

There also was a couple of big ice shelves that broke loose from the Antarctica region. Since this occurred, there will be more melting and soon a 3 foot ocean rise (or island sinkage, or satellite falling out of orbit...)

Good thing I renewed my flood insurance the other day -- although I don't think it covers sinking islands or falling satellites. :popcorn:

[MONEY]

One of the things that I know about water is that water takes up more space when it freezes.
Most of an icebergs volume is under the water. According to Wikipedia it's 91%.
As the ice melts the resulting water will take up less space.

The way I see it, since an iceberg is already in the ocean, a melting iceberg should not make ocean levels rise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceberg

[chadk66]

One of the things that I know about water is that water takes up more space when it freezes.
Most of an icebergs volume is under the water. According to Wikipedia it's 91%.
As the ice melts the resulting water will take up less space.

The way I see it, since an iceberg is already in the ocean, a melting iceberg should not make ocean levels rise.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icebergvery true. been my feeling for a long time.

[incoming]

A very simple test that most of us figured out over the years.... Fill a glass with ice, add liquid too the rim, let glass sit and ice melt. Guess what...the glass doesn't spill.:lol::lol: I also should explain for the ones still in the dark the liquid on the outside of the glass is called... condensation.:lol::lol: Blaming rising seas on global warming is one of the biggest cons ever pulled. A great example of "Dim's Logic."

[chrisl]

Not true.

https://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/24868/Status_of_Pledges.pdf/eef538d3-2987-4659-8c7c-5566ed6afd19

Other countries have committed $7.1327 billion. 43 countries have already made their contributions.

Just more facts to counter fake news.

Great post! You have proven that there are 43 more suckers out there. Nice job