Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Typical denialist post. A I know better than the overwhelming scientific consensus. It is devastating news, if true, for all those that care for future generations that is.
Many of those top scientist have CHANGED the viewpoint.
Follow the money.
Please give us all the predictions your so-called expert scientist have made and the outcome.
The same ones a few years back "predicted" a major cold wave was coming. What happened?
First we had "global warming", when that was debunked they changed it to "climate change" becuae of the fools they made of themselves wuth their predidtions.
Climate changes ALL the time so they jumped on that name for their new scam.
But, lets look at what the accord said.
First, it is NON binding, meaning no country HAD to do ANYTHING.
China is said to be the worlds biggest polluter and they have 30 YEARS to do anything or NOTHING.
Then India.
Please explain how countries signing this thing are policed to make then do ANYTHING.
Are you foolish enough to believe that they ARE going to do things just because they say so?
I am not that naive.
We, already have reduced our pollution down to acceptable levels, so why ishould we pay trillions to achieve unreasonable levels when the rest of the world laughs at us for being so naive?
Please explain by pulling out of this accord it will INCREASE our pollution one iota.
If it was such a good idea, why didn't Obama go before Congress and get a bill passed instead of just signing a useless "accord"?
I think that 'libs' or whoever is saying this is at the point of trying to emphasize that it is critical we start the process of moving forward on cleaner air, cleaner water, looking after our planet and finding resources that are renewable.
Both sides use drama to get their point across.
Remember years ago when you couldn't find wild caught cod at a store for under double digits a pound....we can now....why -- because someone had a hissy fit and they put quotas on what could be fished. Sustainable fishing has resulted in not expensive, unavailable access to fish but more fish for all.
"this is at the point of trying to emphasize that it is critical we start the process of moving forward on cleaner air, cleaner water, looking after our planet and finding resources that are renewable."
Great goals.
WE are ALREADY doing those things.
How are you going to FORCE China, India etc, to do ANYTHING with a NON binding agreement?
Prepare the world for bad news!!! The United States is not going to continue paying for deadbeat countries who are not paying their share anymore and putting the burden on the American taxpayer. We have been the sucker for other countries too long.
Of course they are upset. They want things to go on as normal with our "fat cat" politicians in control who really do not care about the citizens.
At this point people are going to complain about anything Trump does just because they don't like him. He can't do anything right. He could find the cure for cancer and certain people would ***** and complain about that. He could end world hunger yet certain people would be whining about that etc etc and so forth and so forth.
Yes they do this for 8 years.
They'll never agree or like our great President even if hypothetically he gave every American citizen $1 million dollars each with no strings attached.
This is great. Just watching the left light their hair on fire is worth the price of a ticket. Remember when they said 20 years ago that the seas would be dead in 10 years? Remember when they said that we were in a global cooling time? Remember when they said that parts of the US would be under water by 2016? They are the Jehovah's Witnesses of science. They predict the end of the world then when it does not happen they move the date and claim new light. LOL What a joke.
Many of those top scientist have CHANGED the viewpoint.
Follow the money.
That is so obviously. And obviously where there's so much hysteria on the issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quick Enough
First, it is NON binding, meaning no country HAD to do ANYTHING.
********
If it was such a good idea, why didn't Obama go before Congress and get a bill passed instead of just signing a useless "accord"?[/quote]I personally took little comfort from the non-binding nature of the Accord. Had Hillary or a more pliable Republican been elected we would have been under unbearable pressure to convert the agreement to a binding one. Such is the nature of these agreements.
There is a peculiarity of our system compared to Parliamentary democracies of which many are not aware. While Britain and Canada, for example, are democracies their Prime Minister, if leading a majority government can "whip the vote" and force a treaty through. In proportional representation parliamentary systems such as Germany, Italy or Israel if the coalition and a majority of parliament members don't vote for a treaty either a new coalition forms or there are fresh elections. Thus as tot a U.S. President presenting a treaty is a two-edge sword; he cannot force the treaty through. On the other hand if it doesn't pass the President doesn't have to resign and call new elections. Thus if the U.S. Senate were in a position where it would be willing to ratify, the other countries would ratify in a heartbeat. Like a knife going through butter.
As far as passing a law Obama faced the same obstacle as getting a treaty ratified; it wasn't gong to happen.
Recall that the Greenhouse Effect, the predecessor of 'climate change', was first coined by a scientist in 1824 or thereabouts, and studied ever since. Only fools would regard this as a liberal conspiracy.
As I said earlier, this withdrawal will not, in and of itself, doom the planet to misery. It does not help, but it is not 'the final straw' for humanity.
Here is my opinion on why President Donald John Trump withdrew the US of A from the Paris accord: because he could.
President Trump did not study any papers. He did not think about this long and hard. He simply realized that being President is not as easy as it seems (as he even said), and that the number of 'wins' he has checked off is a rather poor list. He knew that most intelligent people thought we should stay.
However, to withdraw from the Paris agreement did not require help from Congress. It is not an action reviewable by the courts. It is something that he could 'do', and so he did it.
He has a 'win', and that is what is important to him.
President Trump did not make this decision or write the speech. Co-President Bannon did those things while co-president Kushner was out of town making deals with the Russian mobsters.
In my opinion the environment should be the human races #1 priority but sadly it is not. This agreement was merely a mask to appear that our governments truly care about the environment and that they are doing there part to make it better. Lets be honest, if the government truly cared about the environment society would be completely different as there is plenty of technology that is out there and has been out there that would allow us to break away from being dependent on everything that pollutes the environment. Not only are people afraid of change, the rich wont get richer as the people that run the world are so heavily invested in the fossil fuel business. It is sort of like the government must care about us because there are seatbelt laws to keep us safe. If safety was their main concern motorcycles would be banned. Its all about perception, just like the news, depending on what channel you watch they tell you what they want you to believe instead of stating the facts and letting form your own opinion.
For example; 100% electric cars that are being mass produced should have made gas powered vehicles obsolete. Biodegradable packaging should have made every other packaging obsolete. Basically, any new technology that has proven itself should make the previous technology obsolete. There is plenty of money to be made in these new technologies but unfortunately but again the people that run the world are to far invested in the outdated technologies.
People see what they want to see. People think because regulations have been placed on the corporations, agreements have been enacted, etc that the government is doing this for our best interest to be environmentally friendly, however, they fail to look at the big picture and see there is other technology out there that wouldn't even require these regulations.
I will be the first to admit I like big gas guzzling suv's, classic cars that burn high octane fuel, etc.. but the truth is just because I go buy an electric car isn't going to do a thing for the environment. The world needs to come together as a whole to protect the environment or it is a waste in my opinion. You can go drive your Prius or whatever to feel good about your self for doing your part but unless everyone is driving one its not making a difference.
I hate how people jump all over Trump for pulling out when they don't realize that it wasn't really doing much for anyone. So much more can be done, look at the big picture.
1. Non-binding agreement
2. Rich countries pay poor countries with $100 billion a year
3. The poor countries, most with dictatorship corrupted through the core, "promise" to make changes and use the money appropriately (see #1)
LOL! Best agreement I have ever seen!!!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
