Trump pulling out of the Paris COP21 Accord

1. 79

   jackclee lmposted 5 years ago

   Forget the Russian collusion..there was nothing there.
   It seems to me, if the claims of climate scientists are correct, why not go after Trump for crime against humanity...
   If the whole world is in agreement that climate change is the biggest threat to the world even worse than ISIS...
   Let's get to the bottom line...
   Either the claims are true or they are an exaggeration...
   If everyone is in agreement or 97% consensus as claimed...
   I would think it would be so easy to being up charges in the world court against President Trump.
   You have to ask the question... why aren't they doing it?
   With all the experts and smart ivy legue lawyers, they can't bring a charge to the world court and win? What gives?
   
   Am I crazy or am I on to something?
   As a climate change skeptic, I am merely bringing this up to expose the weakness of the climate science cas.
   
   Please think on this and reply.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Paris Accord;
      The rest of the world is pretty happy to  sit back and let American take the reigns [  and pay the bills } for all of this Paris Accord or  any U.N. generated crap ,  While the left lead ,climate change hierarchy  focus' on dirty coal burning power plants in Pennsylvania   , in Africa  , the mineral mining's  for smart phone's and I Pads mineral mining  alone tears up entire mountains , or what about the  mining of minerals for batteries in expanding mfg's of electric cars and solar panel productions that does the same ?    We cannot have politics  and policies made up of P.C.  to alter or change the errant ways of this world.   We can't support  Al Gore or Johnny Depp and other celebrities one at a time jetting around the world in private lear jets spewing  cubic tons of carbon   to accept awards from "green" climate  entities.  I don't see many celebrities in hip boots wading in the rivers pulling out old car tires or beer cans .Or how about  putting rock gardens in instead of planting thirty acre lawns at their twenty thousand square foot mansions , to save water ?
      
      I have been recycling everything  for over thirty years ,   while climate accord protesters  leave their blue tarp tents  and human waste at the city parks ?   Who counts more ?
      
      To hell with paying for  the Paris Accord -  I'm doing it local AND  Isn't that one of the left's famous [ if hypocritical ] sayings , they've been spreading in elementary schools for years ," Think Globally , Act Locally "?

      replyreport
      1. 79

         jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         I agree. We don't need a voluntary accord from Paris. Everyone who is concerned about the planet should act accordingly. This will go a long way to helping the issue if it can make a difference...
         Milton Friedman has it right. Each person acting in their best interest will lead to a better and wealthier society for all. This is how the hidden hand of free enterprise works and it should work for climate change.

         replyreport
         1. 0

            ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            Exactly my friend !

            replyreport
2. 79

   jackclee lmposted 5 years ago

   Here is one brave 11 year old -
   https://www.theatlantic.com/science/arc … it/516054/

   replyreport
3. 82

   colorfuloneposted 5 years ago

   Good point, I hadn't thought about that angle.  No, you are not crazy!  If the climate change agenda and Paris Accord was genuine President Trump would have been pursued for dropping out of the agreement.  We wouldn't have heard the end of it.  What's they say about Gore and Blood, or for Obamanation?

   replyreport
4. 82

   colorfuloneposted 5 years ago

   Obama self ratify the Paris Climate Agreement, he didn't go through Congress because they would have NO!   Turd.

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      

      replyreport
5. 94

   wildernessposted 5 years ago

   re: global warming, human caused.  I continue to receive emails from companies wanting to "give" me solar cells on my house, enough to provide for all my needs.  Free!, they claim, or sometimes just "nothing down".  So I had one rep visit my home and give an estimate.  Come to find out (surprise!), it isn't free at all, it's just that my neighbors (taxpayers) will foot the 30% down.  They even offered to build me an RV garage to provide more surface for the cells, again with 30% of that cost paid for by neighbors.  And after it was all done, my monthly cost for power + solar cell installation would rise only $50 per month.  And my home could not be sold without paying off their 10 year note, although they assured me that only the panels would be subject to confiscation, not the home itself.  (Bear in mind that in only 7 years solar panels have decreased their efficiency to only about 80%.)
   
   "Follow the money", they say.
   
   Another: a solar cell manufacturer came to my state a couple of years ago, wanting to build a massive manufacturing plant to make solar cells.  The idiots at the capital were all for it, and gave large tax breaks.  The local power company built a huge substation just for them (seems it takes lots and lots of energy to make solar cells and they didn't find it economically feasible to bring in lots and lots of solar panels from their other manufacturing plants to provide the necessary power).  They collected the subsidies from the feds and state, broke ground and flat disappeared.  Never made a single solar panel, and I'm now paying for the millions it cost to build that now-useless substation through increased power bills.
   
   So yeah - "follow the money" on just who is pushing global warming and who is benefiting from the whole scare/scam.  You won't find the man in the street, the homeowner or even the politician swallowing it all.  You will find so-called "scientists" making their living from "proving" it and you will find companies making bank from the green philosophy and tax payer provided subsidies.
   
   From MIT: http://web.mit.edu/effects/www/zjinman/GWFalse.htm

   replyreport
   1. 0

      ahorsebackposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Much like some old obsolete wind farms , These solar farms when obsolete , will  remind us of old tire dumps , empty railroad yards and junk yards of the past , All paid for by you and I ?
      
      Solar farms , wind farms ,these  tax  subsidies surround us  in Vermont .
      
      KWH  , hydro  .10 c
      KWH  , wind    .40 c
      KWH  , solar    .50 c
      We own them  I guess , but try claiming one for your own .

      replyreport
6. 83

   Ken Burgessposted 5 years ago

   Climate change is an excuse to tax and control, nothing more.
   Not to say that pollution is not a problem, but they are not going after solutions, they are going after the ability to 'tax' in new ways.
   Its kinda like what we have done here in America, practically made burning coal for cheap energy illegal.  So that we can have a cleaner planet?  So that we can fight climate change?
   HA!  You are one of their dupes if you think so.
   It is so we can ship that coal to China, so that THEY can burn it all for cheap energy, while we pay more for ours.
   Do you think the world is any less polluted by them burning it instead of us?
   Do you think 'climate change' is being arrested because they are burning it instead of us?
   As for the issue of climate change, the world has had Ice ages, and Greenhouse ages, they go back hundreds of years, thousands of years... caused by volcanoes, by the earth's shifting rotation, by solar flares, by all sorts of things we CAN'T control and have no effects on.
   Plastic in our oceans is a problem.  Chemicals in our drinking water is a problem.  Climate change is not a problem, at least its not a problem we can control with taxes and regulations.

   replyreport
   1. 94

      wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

      Well said.  As we destroy the immensity of the oceans with our garbage, we convince people that the real problem is that we aren't collecting enough money with proven methods of energy production.
      
      I've never seen it, but has anyone ever calculated the world temperature rise from our daily terrawatts of energy produced?  After all, every watt we produce ends up as heat, from a burning campfire to the light bulbs in our buildings to the friction stopping a moving car...

      replyreport
      1. 79

         jackclee lmposted 5 years agoin reply to this

         No, but here is a dose of reality -
         It is estimated that the totality of all human stuff will hold 300 cubic miles. The whole volume of the Earth comprises 260,000 Million cubic mile.
         Human activities is infinitesimal small compared to the earth.

         replyreport
         1. 94

            wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

            With this I must interject that humanity occupies only the surface of the earth and a small portion of the atmosphere.  It is much easier to affect, both positively and negatively, that tiny bit than the millions of cubic miles under our feet.
            
            While we cannot affect the temperature of the core, for instance, with a few hundred years of effort it IS possible that we could affect the temperature of the surface.  Not saying we do - evidence is inconclusive and/or non-existent, but it might be possible.

            replyreport
            1. 83

               Ken Burgessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

               Here is a great video that covers it as well as can be explained in 11 minutes, a few things are left out, but he covers much.
               
               https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dC_2WXyORGA&t=93s
               
               The end comment that we are effecting things so much in the last 100 years is in fact more hyperbolic than I would like, but that is because he is glossing over the last couple thousand of years when much more detail could be looked over (because we have a lot more information of the last 15,000 years or so, due to ice core drilling in the North & South poles.)  Carbon has been MUCH higher in the atmosphere as recently as 12,000 years ago, which also coincides with when we believe we had great melting incidents of glaciers, and ocean levels rose some 30+ feet.
               
               Perhaps man was numerous enough then, and its society helped to create that event, and the catastrophe is known today as the 'great flood', that has been debated.  But that is giving a lot of credit to mankind, to say he nearly destroyed himself and did destroy his civilization as it was some 12,000 years ago, and is doing it all over again today.
               
               I believe a bigger threat to the world right now is cows, more than man, according to plenty of documents, videos, etc.. as can be seen here in these short (5 min or less) videos:
               
               https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EIrDuQMBdh0
               
               This second one lumps all the issues together, methane being their biggest concern (a Princeton production no less)
               
               https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko4cUnzoPic
               
               Of course we are the ones raising cows and slaughtering them in horrific rates and inhumane conditions, which causes the problem, if we all ate more salads and less cows, we would not only be healthier, we would be helping cure 'global warming'.

               replyreport
               1. 94

                  wildernessposted 5 years agoin reply to this

                  There is little doubt that man, in his arrogance, will always declare the species far, far more important in the grand scheme of things than it actually is.  We are a newcomer, with our total occupation time being less than a blink of an eye.  Even lowly bacteria  produced far more change than we have (Oxygen Catastrophe).

                  replyreport