Trump pulling out of Paris Climate Accord

[Derelict_Drvr]

Here's another good video blowing the "97%" claim out of the water.

A guy who makes money by pushing industry & fossil fuels duping asshole feeble minded jerks ilke you. Where's the surprise to that?

97% agree climate change is real. Stomp your feet, scream, cry, and pout all you want. Science says yes, El Dumpster says no. I'll stick with the scientists.

More stupid BULLSHIT, YES climate change is REAL, man made climate change or the ability of man to make even a scintilla of change to the climate is NOT real, it is a con game to take trillions of dollars from the people and give it to a group of central one world government initiatives. If you are to stupid to know that, you should be in an insane asylum.

So, you think man can spew all kinds of shit into our atmosphere & not change anything? Really?

NASA: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. "

But hey, what the fuck does NASA know, lets believe a lying, business cheat, women grioping orange asshole instead.

I see that you didn't watch the 2 recent videos posted that debunks your assertions.

You run around with your hair on fire screaming "Armageddon Is Coming!" and claiming "97% agree". You conflate terms like "suggests" and "likely" to mean absolute proof has be presented, and then get pissy when we call bullshit on it. You call us dupes, all the while you were duped into taking junk science as gospel.

You, sir, are a "Climate Alarmist", and won't let little things like facts stand in the way of your panic.

 

[Darkwind]

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.

1. The report answers your questions.
2. It has not, and the Paris Accords isn't about climate. Are you even aware that if accomplished, the Paris accord is estimated to lower global temperature by a whopping 0.2 degrees by the end of the century. For that result, the USA gets to hamstring itself while the two worst offenders get to continue to pollute at or above current levels.
3. Call it what you want, political greed, government greed, ideological greed, it amounts to the same thing. Others dream up issues and take money to solve them. Money and position that keeps them in power.
4. I'm telling you that it is a false comparison. None of the 195 countries stand to lose, we do. The accord is nothing but a scheme to bleed the US while costing them nothing. Why wouldn't they be on board?

Bottom line. Nothing will happen, just like nothing happened when we trashed Kyoto. Life and the world will continue on. All of this hair pulling is amusing to watch, but gets tiresome in the way that an adult gets tired of listening to a toddler scream for hours on end.

Bottom line, you keep quoting the same debunked study that Trump did.

That .2 degrees is above the change in existing protocols already in place. The Pris Accord is just the first step.

Trump lied when he claimed the Accord tells America that it can't build coal plants or anything of the sort. Some countries still need to expand their rids & power supply as they become closer to being fully developed. China has cancelled plans for hundreds of coal plants.

The truth is we are where we are now with carbon in the atmosphere because we led the world in this for decades.

Untrue. It wasn't 2 degrees. It was 0.2 degrees. And that was BEST CASE scenerio.

China doesn't have to control emissions until 2030. It is written right into the accords. India only needs to control emmission AFTER they recieve 2.5 TRILLION dollars in aid.

Sorry, but the left like this accord because it harms the USA, not because of any climate benefit.

 

[bripat9643]

About that overwhelming 97-98% number of scientists that say there is a climate consensus…
"Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”."

The very poor quality of your circumspection and ostensibly "critical" analysis is perfunctory at best. Though I'd like to be incredulous that you've cited the content of a 2009 essay that's based on a 2008 survey in response to my having provided multiple more current survey/study results -- ranging from 2010 to 2013 (effectively early 2014, for one the 2013 survey results I cited included information pertaining to scientists who published work up through December 2013) -- answering the very same question using content from the same general body and types of scientists, even if they aren't the same individuals, I cannot because the simple fact is that's precisely what you have done.

Let's be honest, given the placement of temporal indicators in my earlier post and the fact that the post was made before the one containing the content quoted above, looking only at the date of the study you referenced should have been enough for you to recognize the comparative insufficiency of citing the 2008-2009 work. And yet an observation that basic, that simplistic and easily performed, is one you either didn't make or one you didn't consider thoroughly enough to at least present something that credibly and with rigor (equal to or besting that of the more recent studies) militates for rejecting the more recent studies findings and that thereby gives due cause for instead accepting the findings of the early study.

More important than your patently evident cognitive quiescence and indolence, however, is that of the respondents to the 2008 survey you've cited, "82% agreed that ‘human activity’ had been ‘a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures’"

In, the American Meteorological Society conducted its own survey of all 7,197 AMS members for whom AMS had an e-mail address, excluding associate members and student members." With a slightly lower than average participation rate, they found that:

• 93% of actively publishing climate scientists indicated they are convinced that humans have contributed to global warming. Our findings also revealed that majorities of experts view human activity as the primary cause of recent climate change: 78% of climate experts actively publishing on climate change, 73% of all people actively publishing on climate change, and 62% of active publishers who mostly do not publish on climate change.
• Higher expertise was associated with a greater likelihood of viewing global warming as real and harmful.... Expertise[is] positively associated with meteorologists’ views about global warming, concurring with previous studies on the relationship between climate science expertise and global warming views. [1] This result is [in contrast with] members of the public with greater scientific literacy [who have been found to view] climate change as a slightly less serious risk [than do experts]. The difference between is likely explained by the different measures of expertise. As opposed to comprehension of rudimentary scientific facts, knowledge acquired via graduate-level training and publishing in climate science does appear to increase the likelihood of viewing global warming as real, human caused, and harmful, if other factors are held constant.

From where I sit, 70%, 73%, 78%, 82%, 93% or 97% are indeed different percentages, but in the context of the topic at hand -- the extent of agreement among scientists regarding whether the currently observed patterns of global warming are anthropogenically caused -- its a difference with distinction. It is that for me for several reasons:

• That many scientists are not going to risk their careers and credibility, thus their livelihood, by misrepresenting their own research results or by openly attesting to an outcome that cannot be corroborated indirectly or directly by other objective researchers who aim to do so, respectively, by performing a valid propositional inference test or a replicating a researcher's work.
• Scientists (people having a PhD in a scientific rather than arts discipline) are all capable of reading a scientific study's methodology and determining whether it is valid. The reason for that is that the available mathematical modelling, testing and analytical approaches are the same no matter what one is examining. It's a matter of whether one applies the correct model/testing approach for the situation at hand. [2] Given that any scientist will be at least familiar with all of them -- they have to be because they cannot predict which of them they'll need to use for any given research they may one day perform -- it's not much of a "leap" to discern whether a specific subject matter is better or worse suited to one modelling approach or another.[3]

Even just thinking about the significance of the noted range of rates were they merely political consensus about, frankly any matter, the least of them would, for example, be sufficient, say, to accord Congress a veto-proof vote. Were a POTUS or any other elected official to win an election with 70% or more of the electoral or popular vote, it'd indeed be rightly termed a landslide. Yet when that degree of consensus exists among scientists -- people whose very raison d'etre is to rigorously and soundly challenge and question things, not agree with them out of hand -- remarking on the verity of anthropogenically effected climate change, you challenge the rate of their concurrence rather than reviewing their published works and credibly showing the material error(s) in their research methodology. Moreover, when upon reading the document you cited (cited) in an attempt to bolster your challenge of the concurrent among scientists, one sees the researchers found not 97%, but an immaterially different 82%, which, rather than lending strength to your assertion, amplifies its demerits and languor.


Notes:

1. One will note that this finding corresponds to those in the 2010 study I cited in post 1547.
2. Even middle and high school students, in principle if not so as to literally express as much, understand this to be so. Think of how many different kinds of word problems (mathematical applications) teachers and textbooks present to test/illustrate any given math technique, say, determining the length of a side of a right triangle using the Pythagorean Theorem. It's no different with applying other and more advanced measurement and analysis techniques. Is there a limit to the types of things that can be analyzed using "this or that" regression model? No. It's merely a matter of choosing the one that's best suited to the subject matter being examined. Doing so is conceptually much the same as choosing to use trigonometric functions, rather than the Pythagorean Theorem, to obtain the side-length of an equilateral triangle.
3. Being able to aptly and quickly discern what type of modelling approach best, reasonably well, or doesn't suit a given context is why high school students are taught math/statistics theory along with practice. That's not to say that literally everyone need be strong at both; however, if one is of a mind to challenge (or fully understand) the methodology and results of a scientific (natural or social) study, one need to be strong enough at both to comprehend the match used in the study. That is why there is, minimally, a baccalaureate-level statistics and calculus requirement associated with any graduate degree in a scientific discipline offered by a "high quality" institution. (I wrote "high quality" only because I don't know what every institution requires, but I do know what the schools that I applied to requires(-ed), each of which was "top-ten" ranked at the time -- they may still be, but I haven't bothered to check for I no longer need to know whether they are because I have long since successfully completed all the advanced-degree-seeking study I intend to perform.)

Among the many defects in your analysis is the main one: Consensus isn't science. The minute you start talking about consensus, you unmask yourself as a quack and a fraud.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Of course now they are going to claim there was no danger or bad deal for the US in this sham of a deal. The truly hidden danger of the Paris Accord is that it would have given the globalist elites the authority to bypass our own government and mandate any changes that they wished. If they chose to outlaw coal or shale oils then all they would have to do is mandate it.

If they decided that nuclear energy was altering the atmosphere then we would have to shut it down. That agreement was the single biggest sell-out and scam on the American people of Obama's eight year horrendous reign.

Just understand what this is about control and nothing to do with the environment. It never is. As I have pointed out, if the planet is so dire and it truly is dying as a result of the mythical CO2 crap, then they would not be creating a NON BINDING "accord."

The ONLY "evidence" of CO2 emissions causing global warming/climate change is from computer climate models that can be, and ARE being, manipulated to get the desired POLITICAL result. In other words, there is absolutely NO evidence that human activities have any effect on global temperatures or on changing the Earth's climate.

It's all a massive hoax fabricated out of whole cloth in the 1990s by Maurice Strong and his UN Commission on Global Governance.

As Michael Crichton pointed out in a speech several years ago:

"Let's be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

"In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it's consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it isn't consensus.Period."

So, whenever you hear them talking about consensus or "97%" and skewed numbers like that, know they are nothing but political tools pushing an agenda. Most of them do not even know it. Most of them admittedly have good intentions, but that is typical.

Here, read this article about manipulated data....

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...noaa-manipula/

The report claimed that the ‘pause’ or ‘slowdown’ in global warming in the period since 1998 – revealed by UN scientists in 2013 – never existed, and that world temperatures had been rising faster than scientists expected. Launched by NOAA with a public relations fanfare, it was splashed across the world’s media, and cited repeatedly by politicians and policy makers.
But the whistleblower, Dr John Bates, a top NOAA scientist with an impeccable reputation, has shown The Mail on Sunday irrefutable evidence that the paper was based on misleading, ‘unverified’ data.

---------------------------------------------

They are liars. One can also tell how GOOD this was for AMERICAN and the real people. Look at all who are bitching. Make believe and want to be celebrities, MEDIA, some talk show host, The fat one Moore, Hollywood, Washed up and to old actors, SWAMP creatures in POLITICS both R and D, "etc" When they are against it one knows it is good for the country.

The far worse sellout, hidden in the Paris accord, was that it rendered our Constitution dissolved along with our sovereignty and individual rights, to include gun ownership to protect those rights.. All they had to do was say your guns are a threat to the environment and the OWG control and those rights were GONE!

This is why Obama never presented it to Congress for ratification, it would have exposed the sham and Obama's treasonous behavior violating his oath to protect and defend the US Constitution.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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 for 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.

The major impact of Trump pulling the US out of the Paris Accords, is passing leadership to China,

If China wants to waste their own money, they are free to do so.

the largest producer of both Solar and Wind power technologies, a position which the US was striving to attain. And for what?

I agree, for what purpose were we striving to attain the most unreliable, more expensive "green energy"?
To make a bunch of idiots, who don't understand economics, feel better? LOL!

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

No thanks to Obama and the Greens resisting fracking from the start.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Don't believe the hype...."Climate Change" is being caused by geo-engineering and ionospheric heaters.

Spray heavy metal nano-particulates into the upper atmosphere and "zap" it with extremely low but heavy modulated frequencies that heat up the particles while bouncing those frequencies off of the ionosphere that creates a vacuum that must be filled....which can then in turn be used to manipulate the jet stream. They can create high pressure zones with this technology but not low pressure zones but can suppress them and thus steer storms to "wherever". They can strengthen storms or weaken them depending on the outcome that they want. You may not believe this is possible but it most definitely is a fact...weather modification has been the goal of the military industrial complex for 70 plus years. They are at least 50 to 100 years ahead of what we are allowed to know about and they only release technology that can benefit them financially...."free energy devices" have been around since the early 1930's.

Hence the rains in California that pulled them from the brink?

A joke.

They intentionally drought-ed out MANY farmers during that man-made, "rain-free" siege and Monsanto was "johnny on the spot" to buy them up since they have genetically modified, drought resistant seeds that will grow in aluminum corrupted soil. All of this was done intentionally and all a part of Agenda 21. Sometimes it is so hard to wrap my mind around this shit and I often wish that I had never taken this path.

You're seeing a whole team of psychiatrists, aren't you?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Since when do we care about what "Germany and France" think?

It's not only France and Germany------- Its the whole world laughing at us because we are going backwards.
The whole world is sacrificing for the sake of one Planet A and the future. There is no planet B.

They were laughing at Obama behind his back when he signed on to this giant swindle.

Sent from my SM-G935P using USMessageBoard.com mobile app

The whole world signed and agreed to this accord except Nicaragua and Syria. The whole world supports Obama.
Today the whole world is laughing at Trump and blasting Trump as a ignorant who claim this is hoax here and over seas. That's a fact.
BTW his EPA chief cannot even answer direct questions from his news briefing today. That's a fact.

If the whole world signed onto this farce, why the need for the US to do it too? Seems like those countries will do just fine without us.

US is the second worst polluters. We are the leader not a backward follower. We now at level of Syria and Nicaragua. Even China the worst polluters sign on to this accord.

Even China the worst polluters sign on to this accord.

Sure, they signed an agreement that says they don't have to do anything until 2030.
I'd sign one of those if it harmed my competition.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Here's another good video blowing the "97%" claim out of the water.

A guy who makes money by pushing industry & fossil fuels duping asshole feeble minded jerks ilke you. Where's the surprise to that?

97% agree climate change is real. Stomp your feet, scream, cry, and pout all you want. Science says yes, El Dumpster says no. I'll stick with the scientists.

You idiot he is part of the 97%

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Here's another good video blowing the "97%" claim out of the water.

A guy who makes money by pushing industry & fossil fuels duping asshole feeble minded jerks ilke you. Where's the surprise to that?

97% agree climate change is real. Stomp your feet, scream, cry, and pout all you want. Science says yes, El Dumpster says no. I'll stick with the scientists.

More stupid BULLSHIT, YES climate change is REAL, man made climate change or the ability of man to make even a scintilla of change to the climate is NOT real, it is a con game to take trillions of dollars from the people and give it to a group of central one world government initiatives. If you are to stupid to know that, you should be in an insane asylum.

So, you think man can spew all kinds of shit into our atmosphere & not change anything? Really?

NASA: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. "

But hey, what the fuck does NASA know, lets believe a lying, business cheat, women grioping orange asshole instead.

Once again spend your own money.

But oops you have no money..

 

[Wyatt earp]

Here's another good video blowing the "97%" claim out of the water.

A guy who makes money by pushing industry & fossil fuels duping asshole feeble minded jerks ilke you. Where's the surprise to that?

97% agree climate change is real. Stomp your feet, scream, cry, and pout all you want. Science says yes, El Dumpster says no. I'll stick with the scientists.

More stupid BULLSHIT, YES climate change is REAL, man made climate change or the ability of man to make even a scintilla of change to the climate is NOT real, it is a con game to take trillions of dollars from the people and give it to a group of central one world government initiatives. If you are to stupid to know that, you should be in an insane asylum.

So, you think man can spew all kinds of shit into our atmosphere & not change anything? Really?

NASA: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. "

But hey, what the fuck does NASA know, lets believe a lying, business cheat, women grioping orange asshole instead.

You just got raped in this thread..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lets do some math that our liberal fascist climate change fear mongers have refused to do...

The Paris accord requires the US to submit 0.8% of its GDP, of the previous year, to the UN Climate Change control body..

Using this graph of GDP for 2015.. we had 112.1 + 113.2 +113.8 +114.2= 453.3 Trillion dollars in that period. Our payment to the UN is then calculated 453.3 * 0.8% =$362.64 billion dollars.
Last years total was 482.2... making our payment amount about 380 billion..

Quite the scam wouldn't you say?

The US federal government budget is ABOUT 4.1 TRILLION DOLLARS..

 

[bripat9643]

Lets do some math that our liberal fascist climate change fear mongers have refused to do...

The Paris accord requires the US to submit 0.8% of its GDP, of the previous year, to the UN Climate Change control body..

Using this graph of GDP for 2015.. we had 112.1 + 113.2 +113.8 +114.2= 453.3 Trillion dollars in that period. Our payment to the UN is then calculated 453.3 * 0.8% =$362.64 billion dollars.
Last years total was 482.2... making our payment amount about 380 billion..

Quite the scam wouldn't you say?

Obama actually agreed to that? He's a bigger idiot than I ever imagined. No wonder all the globalist douche bags are having such a hissy fit. You have to be a major idiot to support this swindle.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lets do some math that our liberal fascist climate change fear mongers have refused to do...

The Paris accord requires the US to submit 0.8% of its GDP, of the previous year, to the UN Climate Change control body..

Using this graph of GDP for 2015.. we had 112.1 + 113.2 +113.8 +114.2= 453.3 Trillion dollars in that period. Our payment to the UN is then calculated 453.3 * 0.8% =$362.64 billion dollars.
Last years total was 482.2... making our payment amount about 380 billion..

Quite the scam wouldn't you say?

Obama actually agreed to that? He's a bigger idiot than I ever imagined. No wonder all the globalist douche bags are having such a hissy fit. You have to be a major idiot to support this swindle.

One of the many reasons the Accord was NEVER PRESENTED TO CONGRESS.. Executive Fiat... Obama is one treasonous bastard..

Trump killed their Golden Cow... And they are pissed! Now we got idiots like Bloomberg trying to make some of them happy because they fear the repercussions..

 

[WEATHER53]

Imagine trying to stick the USA with paying for other Nations pollution because "they need their money more to develop more" . Global Socialusm at its worst
Thank you President Trump for being
President to and for the USA rather than some half assed global ambassador wanna be

 

[bripat9643]

Lets do some math that our liberal fascist climate change fear mongers have refused to do...

The Paris accord requires the US to submit 0.8% of its GDP, of the previous year, to the UN Climate Change control body..

Using this graph of GDP for 2015.. we had 112.1 + 113.2 +113.8 +114.2= 453.3 Trillion dollars in that period. Our payment to the UN is then calculated 453.3 * 0.8% =$362.64 billion dollars.
Last years total was 482.2... making our payment amount about 380 billion..

Quite the scam wouldn't you say?

Obama actually agreed to that? He's a bigger idiot than I ever imagined. No wonder all the globalist douche bags are having such a hissy fit. You have to be a major idiot to support this swindle.

One of the many reasons the Accord was NEVER PRESENTED TO CONGRESS.. Executive Fiat... Obama is one treasonous bastard..

Trump killed their Golden Cow... And they are pissed! Now we got idiots like Bloomberg trying to make some of them happy because they fear the repercussions..

Blatantly unconstitutional. The president cannot impose taxes in the American people. That power is reserved to Congress.

And the douche bag snowflakes all defend this corruption to the last flake.

 

[OldLady]

The fact is that anthropogenic climate change is a theory, a theory that is very popular among uninformed masses and scientist who make a living researching and writing about it. Making dramatic changes to our economic structure which will harm an already stressed and shrinking middle class is very reckless.

How would we ever survive (if we had to have cars that get 40 MPG and free power from the sun)?

Yes, because its that simple..

Well it's not going to get any easier if we don't get started. Norway is now 50% electric cars. 80% of their power is hydroelectric. Now they're a lot smaller than us; I get that. But it can be done.

Horseshit. Show me where you get this claim that 50% of the cares on the road in Norway are electric.

You're right, she made it up, or just lied. Come on Old Lady, you're better than that.
Electric car use by country - Wikipedia
Norway is the country with the highest market penetration per capita in the world, also the country with the largest plug-in electric segment market share of new car sales (29.1% in 2016), and in March 2014 Norway became the first country where over 1 in every 100 passenger cars on the roads is a plug-in electric vehicle. The segment's market penetration climbed to 3% in December 2015, and achieved 5% at the end of 2016.[9][10][1

I remembered the stats wrong. Maybe the goal is 50% by such and such a date. I saw it on the news, so couldn't check back on the #'s. Thanks for fixing that. I don't purposely lie. I AM better than that.

 

[OldLady]

The far and alt rights are terrified now that they realize their goals can all slip away.

Seems to me they're on a roll and it's us who need to be concerned.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Here's another good video blowing the "97%" claim out of the water.

A guy who makes money by pushing industry & fossil fuels duping asshole feeble minded jerks ilke you. Where's the surprise to that?

97% agree climate change is real. Stomp your feet, scream, cry, and pout all you want. Science says yes, El Dumpster says no. I'll stick with the scientists.

More stupid BULLSHIT, YES climate change is REAL, man made climate change or the ability of man to make even a scintilla of change to the climate is NOT real, it is a con game to take trillions of dollars from the people and give it to a group of central one world government initiatives. If you are to stupid to know that, you should be in an insane asylum.

So, you think man can spew all kinds of shit into our atmosphere & not change anything? Really?

NASA: "Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position. "

But hey, what the fuck does NASA know, lets believe a lying, business cheat, women grioping orange asshole instead.

And who runs NASA again? I forget. Who signs their paychecks???

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

3. Call it what you want, political greed, government greed, ideological greed, it amounts to the same thing. Others dream up issues and take money to solve them. Money and position that keeps them in power.

It's more than that I think. It's kind of like bureaucrats. When a politician wants to screw the people or do something they won't like, they have a bureaucrat do it instead. That way the politician just shrugs his or her shoulders and says "I had nothing to do with it!"

Down the road when the effects of this hit home, the Democrats will do the same as bureaucrats. They will tell us the wheels were in motion before they got there and it can't be stopped.

 

[OldLady]

Does not matter what the nay sayers like Ray say. Does not matter what the confirmation science nay sayers say.

And the great majority of America's people and their institutions are saying to Donald that it does not matter what he says.

Tell that to Paris. In a couple weeks, you will also need to tell that to the refugees seeking entry from certain countries, as well.