US Jobless claims fall to 4 decade low

[Oldstyle]

So did you want to take a crack at explaining why allowing the Chinese to continue to increase their pollution levels was a good deal for the planet?

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm going to head off to the golf course now, Georgie. You know how us dishwashers love to get in a round of golf on a nice day! You google your little tush off trying to find someone that will give you an explanation why Obama's deal with China was a good thing.

 

[Rshermr]

So, Oldstyle says:

Does your "actual science" not tell you that China is the world's largest polluter? Yes, that is simple. Has been since 2006. And we are number 2. Does your "actual science" somehow tell you that allowing the country that is polluting the most NOW to increase their levels of pollution for another fifteen years before they "cap" them at whatever level they've reached then is not a good deal for the planet? That is an untrue statement. There are many efforts by China that you choose to ignore. You are again showing you are not at all interested in truth. The concept that China is waiting until 2030 to do anything is rubbish. Lies, in other words.

"In 2015, Beijing saw a 16 percent annual fall in the concentration of the most deadly type of air pollutant, according to an analysis by the Paulson Institute and Greenpeace of air quality data from the United States Embassy in Beijing. Though virtually all of those gains were registered during the summer and early fall, they still proved enough to make 2015 the cleanest year since the embassy began publishing data in 2008."
How China Is (Surprise!) Winning Its War On Air Pollution
But the country isn’t in the clear yet.
How China Is (Surprise!) Winning Its War On Air Pollution

The simplistic concept you are pushing that China is simply going to go on and increase pollution until 2030 is untrue. A total lie. A con talking point. There is a lot going on in China, way more than in the US. Because they have a major problem, and are actually trying to do something about it. Because it takes time to stop pollution, and pollution is not stopped immediately as simplistic minds want to believe.

The amount of emissions per unit of GDP fell by 6.2% in 2014, it said.
Li said China expects to reduce that further by “more than 3.1%” this year, adding it aims to stop coal consumption growing “in key areas”.
China vows to fight pollution 'with all our might'

There is no waiting on efforts to decrease the pollution, in China. Saying they are waiting for 2030 to do something is a lie, totally dishonest. And ignorant.

 

[Rshermr]

So if the problem is so dire...why didn't Obama convince the Chinese to cut an equal amount of pollution at the same time as we are? That would have actually addressed the problem and it also wouldn't have given them a huge advantage over us from an industrial standpoint by letting them continue to burn coal and pollute MORE than they are now for another fourteen years!

More talking points by a food services worker.

 

[Rshermr]

That deal sucks even if the Chinese keep their word and we have absolutely no way of guaranteeing that will happen!

The opinion of a food services employee with no source or link. Waste of time.

 

[Rshermr]

That deal sucks even if the Chinese keep their word and we have absolutely no way of guaranteeing that will happen!

The opinion of a food services employee with no source or link. Waste of time.

So, do you suggest that the Chinese will do nothing about their pollution problem until 2030?

 

[Rshermr]

I'm going to head off to the golf course now, Georgie. You know how us dishwashers love to get in a round of golf on a nice day! You google your little tush off trying to find someone that will give you an explanation why Obama's deal was a good deal.
Ah. That explains why you just ran off 10 or so short nonsensical posts. Got it.
Paris Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First, I have made about 1/4 as many posts as you have so far this morning. So, fuck off.
Second, there is no problem finding sources saying that the Global Climate Change meeting came up with a good agreement. As always, not perfect. But a good deal. There are lots of them, just takes a couple minutes if you were interested. Which you are not.
So, lets try to educate you again:
There is no Obama agreement. Never was. It is called UNFCCC, or Paris Agreement. Only con trolls call it the Obama agreement. Because it was no such thing. Making that a lie, me boy. Please read:
"The Paris Agreement (French: L'accord de Paris) is an agreement within the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) dealing with greenhouse gases emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance starting in the year 2020. An agreement on the language of the treaty was negotiated by representatives of 195 countries at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC in Paris and adopted by consensus on 12 December 2015"

So, you may notice it was 195 countries. Not the US and China. Dipshit.
So, you may notice it was not an agreement negotiated by Obama. Dipshit.
And it was not an agreement whereby China would do nothing till 2030. Dipshit.
You lie, and lie, and lie. Posting con dogma that is talking points is dishonest.

there are many sources saying the Paris Agreement was a good, perhaps historic, event. Here is one of many, many which say exactly that:
Paris climate change agreement: the world's greatest diplomatic success
With all 196 nations having a say, the UN climate deal, with all its frustrations and drama, has proven that compromise works for the planet
Paris climate change agreement: the world's greatest diplomatic success

So, there you go. The worlds greatest diplomatic success. Impartial source, agreement that the Paris Agreement was a success. Source with link. And there are many, many more that agree. The only sources I can find that agree with you, Oldstyle, are completely partial conservative nut case sources. Sources that no rational person would ever use. I know you would like to use them, but then it would further prove you are a lying con troll.

So, while some who want more restrictions on emissions, and conservatives say it will not help, the scientific community generally sees it as a good start, with more needed. Not, as the conservatives say, that we should simply ignore it. Because the Paris Agreement does not limit changes, but rather sets a floor on minimal changes. The idea that we should make China do more is stupid. We have no way of doing so. Neither they, or any other country. But so far, China has been doing more than they have promised. Because they have a huge problem in their country that they have to solve. Not because anyone external to china is making them do anything. Or can do so.

 

[Rshermr]

So if the problem is so dire...why didn't Obama convince the Chinese to cut an equal amount of pollution at the same time as we are? That would have actually addressed the problem and it also wouldn't have given them a huge advantage over us from an industrial standpoint by letting them continue to burn coal and pollute MORE than they are now for another fourteen years!

More talking points by a food services worker.

So did you want to take a crack at explaining why allowing the Chinese to continue to increase their pollution levels was a good deal for the planet?

Simple. A crack would indicate it is questionable, but it is not. But for you, of course, it would be difficult because you are ignorant.
1. But you can not stop pollution quickly. Efforts to do so will show results in the future. Do you think it better to not worry about the future???
2. The fact is, neither we or anyone else is "allowing" china to do anything. Just as they are not "allowing" us to do anything. The concept is that of a stupid con troll.
The truth is that worldwide pollution is a huge problem and getting worse. You worry, you say, about the cost of cap and trade or other mitigation efforts. , I do not believe you at all.
I worry about the lives of future generations, including my grand children. And their quality of life. You do not, of course, because you believe the con talking points and statements of the energy industry. Because, again, you are a con troll. And cons do not use rational thought. So you believe lies. And that is fine with you.
But the rest of the world thinks pretty much as I do. We worry about our world. You worry about staying on the con talking points.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm going to head off to the golf course now, Georgie. You know how us dishwashers love to get in a round of golf on a nice day! You google your little tush off trying to find someone that will give you an explanation why Obama's deal was a good deal.
Ah. That explains why you just ran off 10 or so short nonsensical posts. Got it.
Paris Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First, I have made about 1/4 as many posts as you have so far this morning. So, fuck off.
Second, there is no problem finding sources saying that the Global Climate Change meeting came up with a good agreement. As always, not perfect. But a good deal. There are lots of them, just takes a couple minutes if you were interested. Which you are not.
So, lets try to educate you again:
There is no Obama agreement. Never was. It is called UNFCCC, or Paris Agreement. Only con trolls call it the Obama agreement. Because it was no such thing. Making that a lie, me boy. Please read:
"The Paris Agreement (French: L'accord de Paris) is an agreement within the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) dealing with greenhouse gases emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance starting in the year 2020. An agreement on the language of the treaty was negotiated by representatives of 195 countries at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC in Paris and adopted by consensus on 12 December 2015"

So, you may notice it was 195 countries. Not the US and China. Dipshit.
So, you may notice it was not an agreement negotiated by Obama. Dipshit.
And it was not an agreement whereby China would do nothing till 2030. Dipshit.
You lie, and lie, and lie. Posting con dogma that is talking points is dishonest.

there are many sources saying the Paris Agreement was a good, perhaps historic, event. Here is one of many, many which say exactly that:
Paris climate change agreement: the world's greatest diplomatic success
With all 196 nations having a say, the UN climate deal, with all its frustrations and drama, has proven that compromise works for the planet
Paris climate change agreement: the world's greatest diplomatic success

So, there you go. The worlds greatest diplomatic success. Impartial source, agreement that the Paris Agreement was a success. Source with link. And there are many, many more that agree. The only sources I can find that agree with you, Oldstyle, are completely partial conservative nut case sources. Sources that no rational person would ever use. I know you would like to use them, but then it would further prove you are a lying con troll.

So, while some who want more restrictions on emissions, and conservatives say it will not help, the scientific community generally sees it as a good start, with more needed. Not, as the conservatives say, that we should simply ignore it. Because the Paris Agreement does not limit changes, but rather sets a floor on minimal changes. The idea that we should make China do more is stupid. We have no way of doing so. Neither they, or any other country. But so far, China has been doing more than they have promised. Because they have a huge problem in their country that they have to solve. Not because anyone external to china is making them do anything. Or can do so.

There you go again, Georgie...pretending that you know things, that you then immediately prove you know NOTHING about!

The deal that Obama signed between China and the US was reached back in November of 2014 and only involved those two countries. The Paris Agreement was something that was signed more than a year later and THAT was a deal involving 195 countries!

Oh, and by the way...you've made 16 posts today to my 17. That's 1/4? You're as bad at math as you are at global warming deals.

And I still haven't heard an explanation from you on how a deal that allows China to continue to increase it's levels of pollution for fifteen years before they agree to cap that level at god knows what amount somehow is a good deal for the planet? It's a great deal for the Chinese because they get to go right on building their economy on cheap energy while the US agrees to lower it's pollution levels substantially something that will cost US industries billions of dollars in energy costs. Why would anyone sign a deal that was so totally one sided?

 

[Oldstyle]

So if the problem is so dire...why didn't Obama convince the Chinese to cut an equal amount of pollution at the same time as we are? That would have actually addressed the problem and it also wouldn't have given them a huge advantage over us from an industrial standpoint by letting them continue to burn coal and pollute MORE than they are now for another fourteen years!

More talking points by a food services worker.

So did you want to take a crack at explaining why allowing the Chinese to continue to increase their pollution levels was a good deal for the planet?

Simple. A crack would indicate it is questionable, but it is not. But for you, of course, it would be difficult because you are ignorant.
1. But you can not stop pollution quickly. Efforts to do so will show results in the future. Do you think it better to not worry about the future???
2. The fact is, neither we or anyone else is "allowing" china to do anything. Just as they are not "allowing" us to do anything. The concept is that of a stupid con troll.
The truth is that worldwide pollution is a huge problem and getting worse. You worry, you say, about the cost of cap and trade or other mitigation efforts. , I do not believe you at all.
I worry about the lives of future generations, including my grand children. And their quality of life. You do not, of course, because you believe the con talking points and statements of the energy industry. Because, again, you are a con troll. And cons do not use rational thought. So you believe lies. And that is fine with you.
But the rest of the world thinks pretty much as I do. We worry about our world. You worry about staying on the con talking points.

You can't count and you don't know the difference between the Paris Accords and the deal that was signed a year earlier between China and the US on global warming. Speaking of crack...I'm beginning to wonder if you're not hitting the pipe, Georgie!

All I'm hearing is crickets now so I assume you've just figured out how idiotic you are?
What's the matter...did the "dishwasher" outsmart you AGAIN!

 

[Rshermr]

I'm going to head off to the golf course now, Georgie. You know how us dishwashers love to get in a round of golf on a nice day! You google your little tush off trying to find someone that will give you an explanation why Obama's deal was a good deal.
Ah. That explains why you just ran off 10 or so short nonsensical posts. Got it.
Paris Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First, I have made about 1/4 as many posts as you have so far this morning. So, fuck off.
Second, there is no problem finding sources saying that the Global Climate Change meeting came up with a good agreement. As always, not perfect. But a good deal. There are lots of them, just takes a couple minutes if you were interested. Which you are not.
So, lets try to educate you again:
There is no Obama agreement. Never was. It is called UNFCCC, or Paris Agreement. Only con trolls call it the Obama agreement. Because it was no such thing. Making that a lie, me boy. Please read:
"The Paris Agreement (French: L'accord de Paris) is an agreement within the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) dealing with greenhouse gases emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance starting in the year 2020. An agreement on the language of the treaty was negotiated by representatives of 195 countries at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC in Paris and adopted by consensus on 12 December 2015"

So, you may notice it was 195 countries. Not the US and China. Dipshit.
So, you may notice it was not an agreement negotiated by Obama. Dipshit.
And it was not an agreement whereby China would do nothing till 2030. Dipshit.
You lie, and lie, and lie. Posting con dogma that is talking points is dishonest.

there are many sources saying the Paris Agreement was a good, perhaps historic, event. Here is one of many, many which say exactly that:
Paris climate change agreement: the world's greatest diplomatic success
With all 196 nations having a say, the UN climate deal, with all its frustrations and drama, has proven that compromise works for the planet
Paris climate change agreement: the world's greatest diplomatic success

So, there you go. The worlds greatest diplomatic success. Impartial source, agreement that the Paris Agreement was a success. Source with link. And there are many, many more that agree. The only sources I can find that agree with you, Oldstyle, are completely partial conservative nut case sources. Sources that no rational person would ever use. I know you would like to use them, but then it would further prove you are a lying con troll.

So, while some who want more restrictions on emissions, and conservatives say it will not help, the scientific community generally sees it as a good start, with more needed. Not, as the conservatives say, that we should simply ignore it. Because the Paris Agreement does not limit changes, but rather sets a floor on minimal changes. The idea that we should make China do more is stupid. We have no way of doing so. Neither they, or any other country. But so far, China has been doing more than they have promised. Because they have a huge problem in their country that they have to solve. Not because anyone external to china is making them do anything. Or can do so.

There you go again, Georgie...pretending that you know things, that you then immediately prove you know NOTHING about!

The deal that Obama signed between China and the US was reached back in November of 2014 and only involved those two countries. The Paris Agreement was something that was signed more than a year later and THAT was a deal involving 195 countries!
Uh, me poor ignorant con troll. The Nov 2014 was simply an AGREEMENT to lead up to the Paris agreement and was folded into the Paris agreement. That is why no one looks back to the Nov agreement, because it is effectively rolled into the Paris agreement. And while Obama signed the bill, it was worked out by diplomats over a 9 month period.


Oh, and by the way...you've made 16 posts today to my 17. That's 1/4? You're as bad at math as you are at global warming deals.My posts were simply responding to you, dipshit.

And I still haven't heard an explanation from you on how a deal that allows China to continue to increase it's levels of pollution for fifteen years before they agree to cap that level at god knows what amount somehow is a good deal for the planet? It's a great deal for the Chinese because they get to go right on building their economy on cheap energy while the US agrees to lower it's pollution levels substantially something that will cost US industries billions of dollars in energy costs. Why would anyone sign a deal that was so totally one sided?

That would be, me boy, because you did not read it. I am not going to post it again. Because I can not believe you are so stupid as to believe what you were saying. Are you that stupid?

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm going to head off to the golf course now, Georgie. You know how us dishwashers love to get in a round of golf on a nice day! You google your little tush off trying to find someone that will give you an explanation why Obama's deal was a good deal.
Ah. That explains why you just ran off 10 or so short nonsensical posts. Got it.
Paris Agreement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
First, I have made about 1/4 as many posts as you have so far this morning. So, fuck off.
Second, there is no problem finding sources saying that the Global Climate Change meeting came up with a good agreement. As always, not perfect. But a good deal. There are lots of them, just takes a couple minutes if you were interested. Which you are not.
So, lets try to educate you again:
There is no Obama agreement. Never was. It is called UNFCCC, or Paris Agreement. Only con trolls call it the Obama agreement. Because it was no such thing. Making that a lie, me boy. Please read:
"The Paris Agreement (French: L'accord de Paris) is an agreement within the framework of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) dealing with greenhouse gases emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance starting in the year 2020. An agreement on the language of the treaty was negotiated by representatives of 195 countries at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC in Paris and adopted by consensus on 12 December 2015"

So, you may notice it was 195 countries. Not the US and China. Dipshit.
So, you may notice it was not an agreement negotiated by Obama. Dipshit.
And it was not an agreement whereby China would do nothing till 2030. Dipshit.
You lie, and lie, and lie. Posting con dogma that is talking points is dishonest.

there are many sources saying the Paris Agreement was a good, perhaps historic, event. Here is one of many, many which say exactly that:
Paris climate change agreement: the world's greatest diplomatic success
With all 196 nations having a say, the UN climate deal, with all its frustrations and drama, has proven that compromise works for the planet
Paris climate change agreement: the world's greatest diplomatic success

So, there you go. The worlds greatest diplomatic success. Impartial source, agreement that the Paris Agreement was a success. Source with link. And there are many, many more that agree. The only sources I can find that agree with you, Oldstyle, are completely partial conservative nut case sources. Sources that no rational person would ever use. I know you would like to use them, but then it would further prove you are a lying con troll.

So, while some who want more restrictions on emissions, and conservatives say it will not help, the scientific community generally sees it as a good start, with more needed. Not, as the conservatives say, that we should simply ignore it. Because the Paris Agreement does not limit changes, but rather sets a floor on minimal changes. The idea that we should make China do more is stupid. We have no way of doing so. Neither they, or any other country. But so far, China has been doing more than they have promised. Because they have a huge problem in their country that they have to solve. Not because anyone external to china is making them do anything. Or can do so.

There you go again, Georgie...pretending that you know things, that you then immediately prove you know NOTHING about!

The deal that Obama signed between China and the US was reached back in November of 2014 and only involved those two countries. The Paris Agreement was something that was signed more than a year later and THAT was a deal involving 195 countries!
Uh, me poor ignorant con troll. The Nov 2014 was simply an AGREEMENT to lead up to the Paris agreement and was folded into the Paris agreement. That is why no one looks back to the Nov agreement, because it is effectively rolled into the Paris agreement. And while Obama signed the bill, it was worked out by diplomats over a 9 month period.


Oh, and by the way...you've made 16 posts today to my 17. That's 1/4? You're as bad at math as you are at global warming deals.My posts were simply responding to you, dipshit.

And I still haven't heard an explanation from you on how a deal that allows China to continue to increase it's levels of pollution for fifteen years before they agree to cap that level at god knows what amount somehow is a good deal for the planet? It's a great deal for the Chinese because they get to go right on building their economy on cheap energy while the US agrees to lower it's pollution levels substantially something that will cost US industries billions of dollars in energy costs. Why would anyone sign a deal that was so totally one sided?

That would be, me boy, because you did not read it. I am not going to post it again. Because I can not believe you are so stupid as to believe what you were saying. Are you that stupid?

Did the idiot who didn't know the difference between the agreement the US and China signed in 2014 and the Paris Accord signed over a year later just call ME stupid? LOL That's some funny shit, Georgie...

 

[Rshermr]

So if the problem is so dire...why didn't Obama convince the Chinese to cut an equal amount of pollution at the same time as we are? That would have actually addressed the problem and it also wouldn't have given them a huge advantage over us from an industrial standpoint by letting them continue to burn coal and pollute MORE than they are now for another fourteen years!

More talking points by a food services worker.

So did you want to take a crack at explaining why allowing the Chinese to continue to increase their pollution levels was a good deal for the planet?

Simple. A crack would indicate it is questionable, but it is not. But for you, of course, it would be difficult because you are ignorant.
1. But you can not stop pollution quickly. Efforts to do so will show results in the future. Do you think it better to not worry about the future???
2. The fact is, neither we or anyone else is "allowing" china to do anything. Just as they are not "allowing" us to do anything. The concept is that of a stupid con troll.
The truth is that worldwide pollution is a huge problem and getting worse. You worry, you say, about the cost of cap and trade or other mitigation efforts. , I do not believe you at all.
I worry about the lives of future generations, including my grand children. And their quality of life. You do not, of course, because you believe the con talking points and statements of the energy industry. Because, again, you are a con troll. And cons do not use rational thought. So you believe lies. And that is fine with you.
But the rest of the world thinks pretty much as I do. We worry about our world. You worry about staying on the con talking points.

!

You can't count and you don't know the difference between the Paris Accords and the deal that was signed a year earlier between China and the US on global warming. Speaking of crack...I'm beginning to wonder if you're not hitting the pipe, Georgie!
Stupid post. As usual. No one talks any more about a short term agreement leading up to the Paris agreement. Period. Oh, except you. Because you are stupid.

All I'm hearing is crickets now so I assume you've just figured out how idiotic you are?
Jesus, I did not know how important I am to you. I had more important things to do. Though I have to admit, in terms of importance, you set a really low bar.
What's the matter...did the "dishwasher" outsmart you AGAIN.
Hardly. Outsmart someone besides yourself, and the name Oldstyle are mutually exclusive. Not again, but always. But delusion is normal for you.

 

[Oldstyle]

So if the problem is so dire...why didn't Obama convince the Chinese to cut an equal amount of pollution at the same time as we are? That would have actually addressed the problem and it also wouldn't have given them a huge advantage over us from an industrial standpoint by letting them continue to burn coal and pollute MORE than they are now for another fourteen years!

More talking points by a food services worker.

So did you want to take a crack at explaining why allowing the Chinese to continue to increase their pollution levels was a good deal for the planet?

Simple. A crack would indicate it is questionable, but it is not. But for you, of course, it would be difficult because you are ignorant.
1. But you can not stop pollution quickly. Efforts to do so will show results in the future. Do you think it better to not worry about the future???
2. The fact is, neither we or anyone else is "allowing" china to do anything. Just as they are not "allowing" us to do anything. The concept is that of a stupid con troll.
The truth is that worldwide pollution is a huge problem and getting worse. You worry, you say, about the cost of cap and trade or other mitigation efforts. , I do not believe you at all.
I worry about the lives of future generations, including my grand children. And their quality of life. You do not, of course, because you believe the con talking points and statements of the energy industry. Because, again, you are a con troll. And cons do not use rational thought. So you believe lies. And that is fine with you.
But the rest of the world thinks pretty much as I do. We worry about our world. You worry about staying on the con talking points.

!

You can't count and you don't know the difference between the Paris Accords and the deal that was signed a year earlier between China and the US on global warming. Speaking of crack...I'm beginning to wonder if you're not hitting the pipe, Georgie!
Stupid post. As usual. No one talks any more about a short term agreement leading up to the Paris agreement. Period. Oh, except you. Because you are stupid.

All I'm hearing is crickets now so I assume you've just figured out how idiotic you are?
Jesus, I did not know how important I am to you. I had more important things to do. Though I have to admit, in terms of importance, you set a really low bar.
What's the matter...did the "dishwasher" outsmart you AGAIN.
Hardly. Outsmart someone besides yourself, and the name Oldstyle are mutually exclusive. Not again, but always. But delusion is normal for you.

You still can't grasp that the two deals were exclusive of each other...can you, Georgie? That's the problem with being an idiot and trying to pretend that you know something about a topic by Googling it...sometimes you need a little knowledge to grasp what it is that you're reading...something which you obviously don't have.

 

[Oldstyle]

"Hardly. Outsmart someone besides yourself, and the name Oldstyle are mutually exclusive. Not again, but always. But delusion is normal for you."

LOL...I don't even know what that gibberish means, Georgie! When you get rattled you make even less sense than normal...

 

[Rshermr]

So if the problem is so dire...why didn't Obama convince the Chinese to cut an equal amount of pollution at the same time as we are? That would have actually addressed the problem and it also wouldn't have given them a huge advantage over us from an industrial standpoint by letting them continue to burn coal and pollute MORE than they are now for another fourteen years!

More talking points by a food services worker.

So did you want to take a crack at explaining why allowing the Chinese to continue to increase their pollution levels was a good deal for the planet?

Simple. A crack would indicate it is questionable, but it is not. But for you, of course, it would be difficult because you are ignorant.
1. But you can not stop pollution quickly. Efforts to do so will show results in the future. Do you think it better to not worry about the future???
2. The fact is, neither we or anyone else is "allowing" china to do anything. Just as they are not "allowing" us to do anything. The concept is that of a stupid con troll.
The truth is that worldwide pollution is a huge problem and getting worse. You worry, you say, about the cost of cap and trade or other mitigation efforts. , I do not believe you at all.
I worry about the lives of future generations, including my grand children. And their quality of life. You do not, of course, because you believe the con talking points and statements of the energy industry. Because, again, you are a con troll. And cons do not use rational thought. So you believe lies. And that is fine with you.
But the rest of the world thinks pretty much as I do. We worry about our world. You worry about staying on the con talking points.

!

You can't count and you don't know the difference between the Paris Accords and the deal that was signed a year earlier between China and the US on global warming. Speaking of crack...I'm beginning to wonder if you're not hitting the pipe, Georgie!
Stupid post. As usual. No one talks any more about a short term agreement leading up to the Paris agreement. Period. Oh, except you. Because you are stupid.

All I'm hearing is crickets now so I assume you've just figured out how idiotic you are?
Jesus, I did not know how important I am to you. I had more important things to do. Though I have to admit, in terms of importance, you set a really low bar.
What's the matter...did the "dishwasher" outsmart you AGAIN.
Hardly. Outsmart someone besides yourself, and the name Oldstyle are mutually exclusive. Not again, but always. But delusion is normal for you.

You still can't grasp that the two deals were exclusive of each other...can you, Georgie? That's the problem with being an idiot and trying to pretend that you know something about a topic by Googling it...sometimes you need a little knowledge to grasp what it is that you're reading...something which you obviously don't have.

Yes, me boy. I know, and everyone knows, that the two agreements were mutually exclusive. Jesus, you are stupid.
And yes, being ignorant is a big problem. As you continue to prove.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Jesus, you are stupid.

actually you are the liberal here!!! If you have anything intelligent to say in defense of liberalism please do or admit with your silence or attempts to change the subject you lack the IQ for it and are here just wasting everyone's time.

 

[Rshermr]

"Hardly. Outsmart someone besides yourself, and the name Oldstyle are mutually exclusive. Not again, but always. But delusion is normal for you."

LOL...I don't even know what that gibberish means, Georgie! When you get rattled you make even less sense than normal...

Please, your ignorance is getting embarrassing
It is simple. Even a rational third grader would understand. What it is saying is that oldstyle (that is you, dipshit) and someone who could outsmart anyone but himself, are MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. Please. Give it up. Way to complex for you, ass hole.

 

[Rshermr]

Jesus, you are stupid.

actually you are the liberal here!!!

yes, my point exactly. You are the con. and cons are stupid.
Here. Even you may understand this;
5 Scientific Studies That Prove Republicans Are Plain Stupid
5 Scientific, Peer-Reviewed Studies That Prove Republicans Are Just Stupid
NOW, TO EXPLAIN, these are actual scientific studies. Not some book written by a biassed author.

 

[Oldstyle]

Jesus, you are stupid.

actually you are the liberal here!!! If you have anything intelligent to say in defense of liberalism please do or admit with your silence or attempts to change the subject you lack the IQ for it and are here just wasting everyone's time.

Rshermr didn't know that the Paris Accord and the deal brokered a year earlier between the US and China were two separate things. I swear...every time he tries to act like he knows something about what's going on in the world around him...he ends up revealing that he's actually totally oblivious.