Trump pulling out of Paris Climate Accord

Now all the deniers are denying the Accord's agreements.

Kids, we are not going to walk away from the Accord until November 2020. Tough that you don't like it.
seems you are bubba. but I'm not surprised. you've been lost for quite some time.
Because Bubba Trump says "we are done" does not make it so. First, the language of the Accord allows out in 2020. Second, persons, cities, universities, states, and business are setting up a network to interconnect with the UN on continuing fighting global warming. Neither Trump nor you can stop that.
 
Now all the deniers are denying the Accord's agreements.

Kids, we are not going to walk away from the Accord until November 2020. Tough that you don't like it.
seems you are bubba. but I'm not surprised. you've been lost for quite some time.
Because Bubba Trump says "we are done" does not make it so. First, the language of the Accord allows out in 2020. Second, persons, cities, universities, states, and business are setting up a network to interconnect with the UN on continuing fighting global warming. Neither Trump nor you can stop that.
well where are they, the EU, going to get the money from the US then bubba?
 


So ya think the parris acord will solve it?

What do you think tard there is some huge thermostat of the world?


.
A giant crack in Antarctic ice is 'days or weeks' from breaking off a Delaware-size iceberg

The piece of floating ice in question is colossal. It's at least 1,100 feet thick at the edge — it thickens inland — and roughly 2,000 square miles. It's destabilizing quickly, a process accelerated by human-caused climate change.

What's more, Luckman and O'Leary say, the larger swath of the Larsen C ice shelf that sits behind the soon-to-calve iceberg "will be less stable than it was prior to the rift" and may rapidly disintegrate like a neighboring ice shelf did in 2002. Such an event could quickly raise sea levels by several inches.

Bye bye, military bases!
 
A_u8RmuCUAAV5nI.jpg%2Blarge.jpg
 
At the moment, Syria and Nicaragua. That's the company in which Trump wants to put the U.S.

There is zero enforcement mechanism. ZERO! The BRIC nations (nor Indonesia) aren't doing a thing under the agreement. In fact they are doing the opposite and vastly expanding coal production.

However in spite of Obama and the liberal war on fracking, through the 1000 fold increase in natural gas production the US is seeing a ginormous decrease in natural gas emissions.

See liberal only approve of wind (a horrible source) and solar (a source that has great potential but is decades away from being a via source). They hate natural gas, hydro and nuclear, 3 sources that produce little to no emissions!
through the 1000 fold increase in natural gas production the US is seeing a ginormous decrease in natural gas emissions.

Can you provide a credible reference supporting the veracity of the first of those two assertions and one that precisely quantifies the second? If so, will you please do so?
 
Stop "subsidizing" who?

California is a donor state.
A donor state? Your ass it is.. its a donate too state as welfare and social programs are 10x the average...

Yes, you're an ass and CA is a donor state.

Does California give more than it gets from D.C.?

The LAO also cites figures from a March 2016 report by the Pew Charitable Trusts. It found the federal government spent nearly $356 billion in California in fiscal year 2014, for salaries and wages, grants, contracts, retirement benefits and other benefits. That same year, California paid about $369 billion in total federal tax -- or about $13 billion more than it received -- according to the Internal Revenue Service Data Book, 2014.

So, please, by all means, "cut off" CA and save us $13 billion.
Cali received over 23.5 billion in government payments last year.. We would do well to cut you and your programs off..

No, CA received $356 billion. It paid out $369 billion. If you can't do that math in your head, it's more than $10 billion more CA paid than received.

That's irrelevant. The issue is how much CA's green energy programs get in subsidies, and it's a lot. If it wasn't for these subsidies, energy production by wind and solar would be zero.

It's not irrelevant. If the Feds don't have to give CA money, CA doesn't have to give the Feds money. CA wins in that "deal" by billions.
 


A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

And oddly, you didn't link to this NASA study. Could it be because NASA supports the science that point to human caused climate change?
 
At the moment, Syria and Nicaragua. That's the company in which Trump wants to put the U.S.
Now....explain logically WHY that is.

<Crickets>

Thought so.
Excuse me? Are you seriously asking me to logically explain why, with regard to climate change commitments, Trump wants to put the U.S. in the same league as Syria and Nicaragua?

There's little that man does that is soundly explainable, and that move on his part suffers from that dereliction. Yes, Trump has given an explanation for why he wanted to withdraw from the Paris climate accord; however, the explanation he's given is merely an explanation, not a sound one.
 
Last edited:


So ya think the parris acord will solve it?

What do you think tard there is some huge thermostat of the world?


.
A giant crack in Antarctic ice is 'days or weeks' from breaking off a Delaware-size iceberg

The piece of floating ice in question is colossal. It's at least 1,100 feet thick at the edge — it thickens inland — and roughly 2,000 square miles. It's destabilizing quickly, a process accelerated by human-caused climate change.

What's more, Luckman and O'Leary say, the larger swath of the Larsen C ice shelf that sits behind the soon-to-calve iceberg "will be less stable than it was prior to the rift" and may rapidly disintegrate like a neighboring ice shelf did in 2002. Such an event could quickly raise sea levels by several inches.

Bye bye, military bases!
it's already floating. so not sure what your point is.
 


A new NASA study says that an increase in Antarctic snow accumulation that began 10,000 years ago is currently adding enough ice to the continent to outweigh the increased losses from its thinning glaciers.

And oddly, you didn't link to this NASA study. Could it be because NASA supports the science that point to human caused climate change?

NASA has been caught red-handed doctoring the data. It has no credibility.
 

Forum List

Back
Top