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.
The entire premise of the Paris Climate agreement is to limit global warming.
If you don't agree that global warming is a problem, then you have no basis arguing whether it is an effective agreement or not: you're arguing against something that is fundamental to even discussing the document. You're wasting your time, it's like trying to explain to an NRA convention that gun rights should have limits, or to a flat earther that the world is really round, or to MAGAs at a Trump rally in DC that violently assaulting the capitol is not the most effective way to support democracy.
You're entitled to your opinion. My opinion, and apparently President Biden's, based on the vast preponderance of scientific authorities, is that global warming is probably a pretty bad deal overall.
You are more than welcome to counter the points I raised.
The so-called scientific authority has been wrong far more time than being right.
Especially if we had started with the Trump rallies (sponsored by Golden Corral! "When you want to eat your feelings over the bad choices you've made in life, put your MAGA hat on and come on down to Golden Corral!")...
Does this have anything to do with the global warming?
In a related story, have you seen these amazing craters from methane generated from rotting, melting permafrost? The ground is literally pooting and leaving huge holes from the force.
This is similar to the argument with Covid. There are entrenched interests who want to milk every last penny out of old technology that they're heavily invested in, and they resist attempts to transition to new technology because it threatens their franchise. That's how a lot of companies went under because they saw new trends and technology but rejected them because they ate into existing business lines. There will be industries who'll generate a lot of revenue and employ a lot of people. This has been coming for a long time, and those sources of power are now competitive with technology reducing their costs in the long run.
I think the unstated goal is to create some independence from the Middle East and weaken competitors, such as Russia and Iran, who are reliant on fossil fuels for income.
You are more than welcome to counter the points I raised.
The so-called scientific authority has been wrong far more time than being right.
I don’t think I need to. The scientific community has credibility to me. You’re just a random message board poster, fully entitled to your opinion. I’m entitled to mine, which is that you would argue the color of the sky if a liberal said it was blue. Enjoy your irrelevance over at least the next two years. Bye Felicia.
I don’t think I need to. The scientific community has credibility to me. You’re just a random message board poster, fully entitled to your opinion. I’m entitled to mine, which is that you would argue the color of the sky if a liberal said it was blue. Enjoy your irrelevance over at least the next two years. Bye Felicia.
You are very condescending!
My personal motto is always seek the truth. So I don’t care if a leftist or Stalin says the sky is blue. It is still blue.
The thing is the hypothesis of global warming has accumulated so much politics that it is impossible to find the truth.
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.