Trump pulling out of Paris Climate Accord

[Billy_Bob]

Bear, you are in denial

'Washington can't stop Americans': Michael Bloomberg pledges to pay US share of Paris climate funding

'Washington can't stop Americans': Michael Bloomberg pledges to pay US share of Paris climate funding

Bloomberg doesn't have the funds to pay for it.. He is a moron..

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

It does? Then why are we spending 42 billion in foreign aid this year that we don't have? What other country does this besides the US?

Today, the U.S. manages foreign assistance programs in more than 100 countries around the world through the efforts of over 20 different U.S. government agencies. These investments further America's foreign policy interests on issues ranging from expanding free markets, combating extremism, ensuring stable democracies, and addressing the root causes of poverty, while simultaneously fostering global good will.

ForeignAssistance.gov

These aid has nothing to do with the Climate Change.

it wasn't why I posted it. Follow the conversation and perhaps you'll see why I did.

Stay with the topic if you don't mind.

You're the one that chimed in on our discussion, and now you're telling "me" to stick to the topic because you got busted not following the conversation?

No. You are bringing other foreign aid when that has nothing to do with the climate change.

That's because we drifted off to another subject. If you disagree with us talking about it, why did you get involved in the first place?

 

[Markle]

No rules in a knife, yeah, and millions of Americans, hundred cities, three states, scores of big businesses, hundreds of other businesses are all much bigger than a knife fight. There is not a thing Trump can do to stop them from working with the UN on the goals of the Paris Accord. This is all much bigger than Trump and his tiny little followers.

Even so, as much in debt as California is already, I really can't see them writing a check for tens of million to this phony accord.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Bear, you are in denial

'Washington can't stop Americans': Michael Bloomberg pledges to pay US share of Paris climate funding

'Washington can't stop Americans': Michael Bloomberg pledges to pay US share of Paris climate funding

Bloomberg doesn't have the funds to pay for it.. He is a moron..

He's donating 15 million dollars. If that's all it would cost the US, then let's give them that 15 million (and not a dime more) if it will make the liberals happy. How's that for compromise?

 

[Flopper]

It's not a treaty. Yes we benefit from the climate accord. Look around the progress we have accomplished in last 5 years.

Yep, and I know all about some of those accomplishments.

One of them was forcing diesel fuel companies to have lower sulfur in the fuel. Since that time, diesel fuel became more expensive than gasoline whereas before, diesel was around a dollar a gallon less.

Yes, it closed down some trucking operations and private haulers, but government didn't stop there.

My employer started to price new tractors to replace our old equipment a few years back. Tractors were around 10K more per unit than three years earlier. All that pollutions shit they force truck manufacturers to install in the truck was the main reason. Now, over 80% of the time something is wrong with the truck, it has to do with some pollution gadget going haywire. Our trucks are in the shop nearly every month now, and truck garages charge $80.00 per hour plus parts. Our mechanic told me that they don't have one computer anymore, they have three that have to work in sync with each other, and computers don't always perform well in single digit weather.

What's more? Diesel Emission Fluid, or DEF for short. Yes, now we have to fill up with DEF which is a separate reservoir. DEF is pollution shit that squirts into the exhaust pipe supposedly to make the fumes less harmful to the environment. If you run out of DEF, you screw up your engine.

We have to pass all these costs to our customers, and our customers pass on those costs to us--the US consumer. It also may be the breaking point of a company leaving the US because manufacturing being too expensive in this country.

But hell, it's worth it, isn't it? I mean after all, now all the environmentalists are happy and stopped complaining and making more demands.............Oh wait!!!!!!

That is incorrect. Your example is way off.
This accord started somewhere in the late 90s this did not even take effect till 2014.
Cutting the emissions from diesels engines is a major accomplishments because they omit a lot of dangerous gas that causes smog and to human health all over the US and the world.
Have you traveled to Riverside county where the concentration of heavy smog in California coming from the west counties?
We use to have lots of cars that used diesels now they are almost gone. Which is excellent.
I was in Asia early 2016 and I saw the difference of how other countries are complying with h the climate change and that includes China.

What do you mean my "example" is way off? What example? I'm a truck driver and I'm telling you the truth that your green people won't tell you about. Every single thing you buy in the store today has an intrinsic green cost to it. It may be pennies, it may be dollars, it may be hundreds of dollars, it may be thousands of dollars--but you are paying it and so am I.

So I'm going to give you nightmares tonight. I'm going to ask you what I ask of every environmentalist: What would it take to shut you people up permanently? How much would it cost, and what is the goal?

You can't answer that question and neither can any environmentalist. Why? Because there is no end to this. It's a bottomless money pit that can never be filled. How do I know this? Because we've spent trillions of dollars trying to make environmentalists happy the last 50 years, and they are more miserable today than they were 50 years ago.

Bottom line people like you is DON'T do nothing and don't worry about it. That is not acceptable and indefensible.
Where do you think this planet is going if we don't don't act now?

How to shut off people like me that care about your future? How to shut off people like me permanently that care ? How much would it cost?
Answer: There are no amount that can be measured to save this planet both your future and your kids. There are no way way to shut off people that cares. It is much worse to look the other way---- your side.

You said it exactly: there is no amount.

Don't feel bad, that's the way most leftists feel: there is no amount.

What do I do? I recycle everything that can be recycled. I drive a car that get's 32 MPH. I work 18 miles from my home and I fill up once every two weeks. What do you do with your big boat avatar?????

And where do you think this planet would go with the Paris Accord? In one hundred years, we "may" lower the temperature by a fraction of one degree? That's worth trillions of dollars; mostly US dollars?

The more expensive you make it on industry, the more likely industry will take actions to avoid those costs like so many have in the past. That's why most of our goods are made in China; China who doesn't have to do one thing to reduce their footprint for over a decade.

Since you care so much about the planet, tell me, how much did it cost you to erect that windmill in your backyard? How much do you pay in bus fare to go everywhere you need to go? How much did you pay for those solar panels on the roof of your house? How low do you keep your thermostat in the winter, and how high in the summer?

I'd bet my dime to your dollar you don't do any of these things.

It's not a matter of lowering the temperature a fraction of a degree, that's not possible. It's about keeping the rise to less than 1.5 to 2.0 degrees which are going to be devastating to coastal areas. If we don't attain this goal, the chance of reversing global warming is slim to none.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Of course citizens, businesses, governmental entities such as states and cities make deal with foreign governments all the time.

You mean collusion????

No, mayor and governors can certainly promote their cities and states with foreign powers. They can not sign treaties or agreements on behalf of the federal government but they can promote the industries in their state which many states do. They can also offer incentives to foreign or domestic businesses for dealing with businesses in their state.

Sounds great to me. Let them do so. Let them impose those costly environmental regulations on their businesses because that will chase jobs to my state, and we can always use the work.

 

[Derelict_Drvr]

China, the largest producer of both Solar and Wind power technologies

Noticed you said "Producer", not "Developer". Cheap labor? Anyone?

Next question. How are they with pollution reclamation? Come on, I know you know this. Hint, America is the world leader in it.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yep, and I know all about some of those accomplishments.

One of them was forcing diesel fuel companies to have lower sulfur in the fuel. Since that time, diesel fuel became more expensive than gasoline whereas before, diesel was around a dollar a gallon less.

Yes, it closed down some trucking operations and private haulers, but government didn't stop there.

My employer started to price new tractors to replace our old equipment a few years back. Tractors were around 10K more per unit than three years earlier. All that pollutions shit they force truck manufacturers to install in the truck was the main reason. Now, over 80% of the time something is wrong with the truck, it has to do with some pollution gadget going haywire. Our trucks are in the shop nearly every month now, and truck garages charge $80.00 per hour plus parts. Our mechanic told me that they don't have one computer anymore, they have three that have to work in sync with each other, and computers don't always perform well in single digit weather.

What's more? Diesel Emission Fluid, or DEF for short. Yes, now we have to fill up with DEF which is a separate reservoir. DEF is pollution shit that squirts into the exhaust pipe supposedly to make the fumes less harmful to the environment. If you run out of DEF, you screw up your engine.

We have to pass all these costs to our customers, and our customers pass on those costs to us--the US consumer. It also may be the breaking point of a company leaving the US because manufacturing being too expensive in this country.

But hell, it's worth it, isn't it? I mean after all, now all the environmentalists are happy and stopped complaining and making more demands.............Oh wait!!!!!!

That is incorrect. Your example is way off.
This accord started somewhere in the late 90s this did not even take effect till 2014.
Cutting the emissions from diesels engines is a major accomplishments because they omit a lot of dangerous gas that causes smog and to human health all over the US and the world.
Have you traveled to Riverside county where the concentration of heavy smog in California coming from the west counties?
We use to have lots of cars that used diesels now they are almost gone. Which is excellent.
I was in Asia early 2016 and I saw the difference of how other countries are complying with h the climate change and that includes China.

What do you mean my "example" is way off? What example? I'm a truck driver and I'm telling you the truth that your green people won't tell you about. Every single thing you buy in the store today has an intrinsic green cost to it. It may be pennies, it may be dollars, it may be hundreds of dollars, it may be thousands of dollars--but you are paying it and so am I.

So I'm going to give you nightmares tonight. I'm going to ask you what I ask of every environmentalist: What would it take to shut you people up permanently? How much would it cost, and what is the goal?

You can't answer that question and neither can any environmentalist. Why? Because there is no end to this. It's a bottomless money pit that can never be filled. How do I know this? Because we've spent trillions of dollars trying to make environmentalists happy the last 50 years, and they are more miserable today than they were 50 years ago.

Bottom line people like you is DON'T do nothing and don't worry about it. That is not acceptable and indefensible.
Where do you think this planet is going if we don't don't act now?

How to shut off people like me that care about your future? How to shut off people like me permanently that care ? How much would it cost?
Answer: There are no amount that can be measured to save this planet both your future and your kids. There are no way way to shut off people that cares. It is much worse to look the other way---- your side.

You said it exactly: there is no amount.

Don't feel bad, that's the way most leftists feel: there is no amount.

What do I do? I recycle everything that can be recycled. I drive a car that get's 32 MPH. I work 18 miles from my home and I fill up once every two weeks. What do you do with your big boat avatar?????

And where do you think this planet would go with the Paris Accord? In one hundred years, we "may" lower the temperature by a fraction of one degree? That's worth trillions of dollars; mostly US dollars?

The more expensive you make it on industry, the more likely industry will take actions to avoid those costs like so many have in the past. That's why most of our goods are made in China; China who doesn't have to do one thing to reduce their footprint for over a decade.

Since you care so much about the planet, tell me, how much did it cost you to erect that windmill in your backyard? How much do you pay in bus fare to go everywhere you need to go? How much did you pay for those solar panels on the roof of your house? How low do you keep your thermostat in the winter, and how high in the summer?

I'd bet my dime to your dollar you don't do any of these things.

It's not a matter of lowering the temperature a fraction of a degree, that's not possible. It's about keeping the rise to less than 1.5 to 2.0 degrees which are going to be devastating to coastal areas. If we don't attain this goal, the chance of reversal global warming is slim to none.

Really? From what the leftist scientist have said in the past, it can't be reversed now no matter what we do.

 

[charwin95]

.


The funniest thing about it the left can't blame it on big oil like ExxonMobil, they are against Trump pulling out


Lmfao




.

Nope. The only person to blame is Trump himself. What an ignorant old man he is turning out to be.

what is the plan to stop the earth from warming? got anything? If you got nothing, then that is the reason.

The Earth has been warming and cooling for 4.5 Billion years......it is a pretty established plan. What in God's name is your fucking point?

Wrong Buuuud. This doesn't exist 5 years ago. So you're telling us that this is a hoax?

View attachment 130486

Your posting pictures of fog now?


OK how about this picture idiot of South Carolina



View attachment 130487

That is not a fog. That is a smog and other particles in Beijing idiot.

 

[charwin95]

$3 trillions? Really? Coming from heritage.org? You've got to be kidding me. Did you really read your link or you just cherry pick? An ultra right wing hard right media also an anti Obama which is about worthless. Give me something else.

Literally what you are saying that ALL the CEOs, businesses, 195 countries including China the worst polluters are wrong? But ignorant Trump is correct.

Give me an exact example of ------- Devastating Economic Cost and Lost --------- Like what? Like what business?

Hey, I'll beleive Heritage ahead of ANY source you'll produce. If don't wish to believe, that is your problem, not mine. The facts remain, this Paris thing was NEVER about climate but about the transfer of American wealth to a world organization along with our giving up sovereignty.

I support what Trump did for this and other reasons. I don't actually have to justify them to you.

You did not even answer any of my questions. Why?

Meaning your link is nothing but anti Obama.
What is that supposed to represent? but bogus and full of crap.

I don't have to produce anything. You have to prove why you think pulling out from this climate accord is good for America? Not me.
I have the CEOs, businesses and around the globe that supports me. The whole world is furious and kicking our ass because of your god.

And YES you need to justify what you are talking about because followers like you don't even know what these means to the whole world.

Go read it. It is NOT anti-Obama, it is a group of people who follow a conservative philosophy. Your answers are in their report and it explains pretty closely why I think its a good thing to pull out of the Paris accords. As for what it means to the whole world, why should their greed affect Me?

1. You did not answer any of my questions. If you don't mind can you answer my questions?
2. It's been proven that climate change is real.
3. What greed are you talking about?
4. You are telling me that 195 countries, scientist, businesses, CEOs ------- and the rest of the world is wrong. That Trump is right? NO Trump is very wrong. He think this is a hoax.
Bottom line he did this unthinkable, unimaginable and dumb move because of dying industry----- the coal.

Trump and your explanation from pulling out of the accord is NOT acceptable.

"2. It's been proven that climate change is real."

Natural variation and thus natural climate change is very real. It's the made up man induced crap that is not.. Now if you were legitimately wanting to talk about mans influence, as of the state of known quantifiable and empirically based science today, mans impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system.

"3. What greed are you talking about?"

Ottamar Edenhoffer said it best..

If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'


"4. You are telling me that 195 countries, scientist, businesses, CEOs ------- and the rest of the world is wrong. "

I prefer the words "useful idiots". Socialism and the scam to take peoples freedoms from them was taken hook, line, and sinker... My answer to your previous question answers this one too...


Where is your quantifiable, repeatable, verifiable science with empirical evidence to support your man made global warming? Still haven't seen it anywhere..Still asking for the evidence.

I am very familiar with h Edenhoffer. LOL.
Read your what he is saying and tell me what is wrong.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Yep, and I know all about some of those accomplishments.

One of them was forcing diesel fuel companies to have lower sulfur in the fuel. Since that time, diesel fuel became more expensive than gasoline whereas before, diesel was around a dollar a gallon less.

Yes, it closed down some trucking operations and private haulers, but government didn't stop there.

My employer started to price new tractors to replace our old equipment a few years back. Tractors were around 10K more per unit than three years earlier. All that pollutions shit they force truck manufacturers to install in the truck was the main reason. Now, over 80% of the time something is wrong with the truck, it has to do with some pollution gadget going haywire. Our trucks are in the shop nearly every month now, and truck garages charge $80.00 per hour plus parts. Our mechanic told me that they don't have one computer anymore, they have three that have to work in sync with each other, and computers don't always perform well in single digit weather.

What's more? Diesel Emission Fluid, or DEF for short. Yes, now we have to fill up with DEF which is a separate reservoir. DEF is pollution shit that squirts into the exhaust pipe supposedly to make the fumes less harmful to the environment. If you run out of DEF, you screw up your engine.

We have to pass all these costs to our customers, and our customers pass on those costs to us--the US consumer. It also may be the breaking point of a company leaving the US because manufacturing being too expensive in this country.

But hell, it's worth it, isn't it? I mean after all, now all the environmentalists are happy and stopped complaining and making more demands.............Oh wait!!!!!!

That is incorrect. Your example is way off.
This accord started somewhere in the late 90s this did not even take effect till 2014.
Cutting the emissions from diesels engines is a major accomplishments because they omit a lot of dangerous gas that causes smog and to human health all over the US and the world.
Have you traveled to Riverside county where the concentration of heavy smog in California coming from the west counties?
We use to have lots of cars that used diesels now they are almost gone. Which is excellent.
I was in Asia early 2016 and I saw the difference of how other countries are complying with h the climate change and that includes China.

What do you mean my "example" is way off? What example? I'm a truck driver and I'm telling you the truth that your green people won't tell you about. Every single thing you buy in the store today has an intrinsic green cost to it. It may be pennies, it may be dollars, it may be hundreds of dollars, it may be thousands of dollars--but you are paying it and so am I.

So I'm going to give you nightmares tonight. I'm going to ask you what I ask of every environmentalist: What would it take to shut you people up permanently? How much would it cost, and what is the goal?

You can't answer that question and neither can any environmentalist. Why? Because there is no end to this. It's a bottomless money pit that can never be filled. How do I know this? Because we've spent trillions of dollars trying to make environmentalists happy the last 50 years, and they are more miserable today than they were 50 years ago.

Bottom line people like you is DON'T do nothing and don't worry about it. That is not acceptable and indefensible.
Where do you think this planet is going if we don't don't act now?

How to shut off people like me that care about your future? How to shut off people like me permanently that care ? How much would it cost?
Answer: There are no amount that can be measured to save this planet both your future and your kids. There are no way way to shut off people that cares. It is much worse to look the other way---- your side.

You said it exactly: there is no amount.

Don't feel bad, that's the way most leftists feel: there is no amount.

What do I do? I recycle everything that can be recycled. I drive a car that get's 32 MPH. I work 18 miles from my home and I fill up once every two weeks. What do you do with your big boat avatar?????

And where do you think this planet would go with the Paris Accord? In one hundred years, we "may" lower the temperature by a fraction of one degree? That's worth trillions of dollars; mostly US dollars?

The more expensive you make it on industry, the more likely industry will take actions to avoid those costs like so many have in the past. That's why most of our goods are made in China; China who doesn't have to do one thing to reduce their footprint for over a decade.

Since you care so much about the planet, tell me, how much did it cost you to erect that windmill in your backyard? How much do you pay in bus fare to go everywhere you need to go? How much did you pay for those solar panels on the roof of your house? How low do you keep your thermostat in the winter, and how high in the summer?

I'd bet my dime to your dollar you don't do any of these things.

It's not a matter of lowering the temperature a fraction of a degree, that's not possible. It's about keeping the rise to less than 1.5 to 2.0 degrees which are going to be devastating to coastal areas. If we don't attain this goal, the chance of reversal global warming is slim to none.

Sea level rise has not accelerated in over 300 years.. What are you using for proof of this dire prediction?

 

[Billy_Bob]

Hey, I'll beleive Heritage ahead of ANY source you'll produce. If don't wish to believe, that is your problem, not mine. The facts remain, this Paris thing was NEVER about climate but about the transfer of American wealth to a world organization along with our giving up sovereignty.

I support what Trump did for this and other reasons. I don't actually have to justify them to you.

You did not even answer any of my questions. Why?

Meaning your link is nothing but anti Obama.
What is that supposed to represent? but bogus and full of crap.

I don't have to produce anything. You have to prove why you think pulling out from this climate accord is good for America? Not me.
I have the CEOs, businesses and around the globe that supports me. The whole world is furious and kicking our ass because of your god.

And YES you need to justify what you are talking about because followers like you don't even know what these means to the whole world.

Go read it. It is NOT anti-Obama, it is a group of people who follow a conservative philosophy. Your answers are in their report and it explains pretty closely why I think its a good thing to pull out of the Paris accords. As for what it means to the whole world, why should their greed affect Me?

1. You did not answer any of my questions. If you don't mind can you answer my questions?
2. It's been proven that climate change is real.
3. What greed are you talking about?
4. You are telling me that 195 countries, scientist, businesses, CEOs ------- and the rest of the world is wrong. That Trump is right? NO Trump is very wrong. He think this is a hoax.
Bottom line he did this unthinkable, unimaginable and dumb move because of dying industry----- the coal.

Trump and your explanation from pulling out of the accord is NOT acceptable.

"2. It's been proven that climate change is real."

Natural variation and thus natural climate change is very real. It's the made up man induced crap that is not.. Now if you were legitimately wanting to talk about mans influence, as of the state of known quantifiable and empirically based science today, mans impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system.

"3. What greed are you talking about?"

Ottamar Edenhoffer said it best..

If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'


"4. You are telling me that 195 countries, scientist, businesses, CEOs ------- and the rest of the world is wrong. "

I prefer the words "useful idiots". Socialism and the scam to take peoples freedoms from them was taken hook, line, and sinker... My answer to your previous question answers this one too...


Where is your quantifiable, repeatable, verifiable science with empirical evidence to support your man made global warming? Still haven't seen it anywhere..Still asking for the evidence.

I am very familiar with h Edenhoffer. LOL.
Read your what he is saying and tell me what is wrong.

Clueless.... to the last....

 

[charwin95]

The Climate accord is a fucking joke...
It would kill small business.

I am having a hard time understanding this Rustic.
I've been asking this question since yesterday.

What businesses or benefits do we lost from being part of the climate accord?

Anyone?

Youre so used to paying high taxes you don't even care in Seattle..

You can't comprehend the good life.


.

What is this has to do with climate change?

BTW ------ After more than 2 years------ Did Seattle collapsed because of MW hike? You don't know what you are talking about dude.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Hey, I'll beleive Heritage ahead of ANY source you'll produce. If don't wish to believe, that is your problem, not mine. The facts remain, this Paris thing was NEVER about climate but about the transfer of American wealth to a world organization along with our giving up sovereignty.

I support what Trump did for this and other reasons. I don't actually have to justify them to you.

You did not even answer any of my questions. Why?

Meaning your link is nothing but anti Obama.
What is that supposed to represent? but bogus and full of crap.

I don't have to produce anything. You have to prove why you think pulling out from this climate accord is good for America? Not me.
I have the CEOs, businesses and around the globe that supports me. The whole world is furious and kicking our ass because of your god.

And YES you need to justify what you are talking about because followers like you don't even know what these means to the whole world.

Go read it. It is NOT anti-Obama, it is a group of people who follow a conservative philosophy. Your answers are in their report and it explains pretty closely why I think its a good thing to pull out of the Paris accords. As for what it means to the whole world, why should their greed affect Me?

1. You did not answer any of my questions. If you don't mind can you answer my questions?
2. It's been proven that climate change is real.
3. What greed are you talking about?
4. You are telling me that 195 countries, scientist, businesses, CEOs ------- and the rest of the world is wrong. That Trump is right? NO Trump is very wrong. He think this is a hoax.
Bottom line he did this unthinkable, unimaginable and dumb move because of dying industry----- the coal.

Trump and your explanation from pulling out of the accord is NOT acceptable.

"2. It's been proven that climate change is real."

Natural variation and thus natural climate change is very real. It's the made up man induced crap that is not.. Now if you were legitimately wanting to talk about mans influence, as of the state of known quantifiable and empirically based science today, mans impact can not be discerned from noise in our climatic system.

"3. What greed are you talking about?"

Ottamar Edenhoffer said it best..

If you needed any more evidence that the entire theory of manmade global warming was a scheme to redistribute wealth you got it Sunday when a leading member of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change told a German news outlet, "[W]e redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy."

Such was originally published by Germany's NZZ Online Sunday, and reprinted in English by the Global Warming Policy Foundation moments ago:

(NZZ AM SONNTAG): The new thing about your proposal for a Global Deal is the stress on the importance of development policy for climate policy. Until now, many think of aid when they hear development policies.

(OTTMAR EDENHOFER, UN IPCC OFFICIAL): That will change immediately if global emission rights are distributed. If this happens, on a per capita basis, then Africa will be the big winner, and huge amounts of money will flow there. This will have enormous implications for development policy. And it will raise the question if these countries can deal responsibly with so much money at all.

(NZZ): That does not sound anymore like the climate policy that we know.

(EDENHOFER): Basically it's a big mistake to discuss climate policy separately from the major themes of globalization. The climate summit in Cancun at the end of the month is not a climate conference, but one of the largest economic conferences since the Second World War. Why? Because we have 11,000 gigatons of carbon in the coal reserves in the soil under our feet - and we must emit only 400 gigatons in the atmosphere if we want to keep the 2-degree target. 11 000 to 400 - there is no getting around the fact that most of the fossil reserves must remain in the soil.

(NZZ): De facto, this means an expropriation of the countries with natural resources. This leads to a very different development from that which has been triggered by development policy.

(EDENHOFER): First of all, developed countries have basically expropriated the atmosphere of the world community. But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world's wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore, with problems such as deforestation or the ozone hole.

For the record, Edenhofer was co-chair of the IPCC's Working Group III, and was a lead author of the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report released in 2007 which controversially concluded, "Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations."

As such, this man is a huge player in advancing this theory, and he has now made it quite clear - as folks on the realist side of this debate have been saying for years - that this is actually an international economic scheme designed to redistribute wealth.

UN IPCC Official Admits 'We Redistribute World's Wealth By Climate Policy'


"4. You are telling me that 195 countries, scientist, businesses, CEOs ------- and the rest of the world is wrong. "

I prefer the words "useful idiots". Socialism and the scam to take peoples freedoms from them was taken hook, line, and sinker... My answer to your previous question answers this one too...


Where is your quantifiable, repeatable, verifiable science with empirical evidence to support your man made global warming? Still haven't seen it anywhere..Still asking for the evidence.

I am very familiar with h Edenhoffer. LOL.
Read your what he is saying and tell me what is wrong.

So you admit the man made global warming is a hoax, it's all about social economic change

 

[charwin95]

The Climate accord is a fucking joke...
It would kill small business.

I am having a hard time understanding this Rustic.
I've been asking this question since yesterday.

What businesses or benefits do we lost from being part of the climate accord?

Anyone?

Evidently a lot of jobs that required anything close to understanding English.

Yet you cannot answer a very simple question but insult. Get the fuck out of here.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The Climate accord is a fucking joke...
It would kill small business.

I am having a hard time understanding this Rustic.
I've been asking this question since yesterday.

What businesses or benefits do we lost from being part of the climate accord?

Anyone?

Youre so used to paying high taxes you don't even care in Seattle..

You can't comprehend the good life.


.

What is this has to do with climate change?

BTW ------ After more than 2 years------ Did Seattle collapsed because of MW hike? You don't know what you are talking about dude.

Does Iowa have the dot com industry?

You dumb fuck..

 

[charwin95]

[be gone mrobama legacy , be gone]

Obama is the name not MROBAMA. A racist asshole like you should disappear. NOW.

 

[charwin95]

That is the way ecology works

It is cheaper to dump your shit into the rivers and air. You just don't do it because it is damaging in the long run

Then why are all the douche bags who support the treaty acting like we're missing out on something by rejecting it?

We are missing out on being respected by the rest of the world

The global warming douche bags claim we would benefit economically from the treaty. Which is it? Do we benefit or not?

It's not a treaty. Yes we benefit from the climate accord. Look around the progress we have accomplished in last 5 years.

Your emperor has no clothes

Posting these kind of nonsense doesn't make you smarter or credible. Try to keep that in mind old man.

 

[Wyatt earp]

[be gone mrobama legacy , be gone]

Obama is the name not MROBAMA. A racist asshole like you should disappear. NOW.

Lmfao you still want to deny the three stooges of Obama, Hillary and Eric and there dumb ass resistance?


.

 

[Flopper]

No rules in a knife, yeah, and millions of Americans, hundred cities, three states, scores of big businesses, hundreds of other businesses are all much bigger than a knife fight. There is not a thing Trump can do to stop them from working with the UN on the goals of the Paris Accord. This is all much bigger than Trump and his tiny little followers.

The major impact of Trump pulling the US out of the Paris Accords, is passing leadership to China, the largest producer of both Solar and Wind power technologies, a position which the US was striving to attain. And for what? To save the dying coal industry. That's not going to happen. The conversion from coal to natural gas in power plants, industrial and residential use will remain the same because the increase in natural gas production will continue to lower the prices and the desire cleaner burning fuel will continue to force US coal producers out of the market. What stupidity, all to fill a campaign promise that will be meaningless in the next election.

But China was given a free thirteen year pass on doing anything about their "emissions"....so explain to me as to why it's fine for China to keep the status quo while continuing their pollution with no regulations but not "OK" for America, that has imposed it's own regulations but simply "opted" out of an agreement that would have only handcuffed them further?

Think of it like a softball game where every right-handed batter has to bat left-handed and vice versa, wear the glove on their throwing hand while the other team doesn't while spotting them a ten run lead before the game even starts.....which team is gonna win??? You haven't thought this out very well.

As far as energy goes? The technology to get off of petroleum and coal (which by the way is NOT a "fossil fuel) has been around since the days of Nikola Tesla but since the world's economy revolves around the petro-dollar, a fiat currency backed by nothing with an intrinsic value? Don't count on anything changing but the continual downgrade of the middle class.

Questions?????

You seem to think of the global warming issue as which nation will get the best deal and have the least sacrifices now and who will got a free pass on carbon omissions in past years. Is that really going to matter in a hundred years when every coastal city in the US is flooded and many parts of the US are unlivable. Ten years ago, the primary emphasis of dealing with global warming was prevention. It is now changing to long range planning for dealing with the inevitable consequences. Today, the UN is working with a number countries to get more construction at high levels, building living and work spaces 12 to 15 feet above sea level.