Paris climate accord... we're out

[Jjz1109]

Trump's Rules of Government:

1. Did Obama create it? If so destroy it.
2. Did something good happen that you had nothing to do with? Take credit.
3. Did something bad happen that was your fault? Blame Obama and/or Democrat obstructionists.

Withdrawing from Paris was solely because of #1.

.

If that's what floats your boat. But he's been saying since the campaign he would renegotiate every bad agreement the US has entered into. As for the Paris Climate agreement, he's said he would consider something with more favorable terms.

 

[ConanTheBarber]

If that's what floats your boat. But he's been saying since the campaign he would renegotiate every bad agreement the US has entered into. As for the Paris Climate agreement, he's said he would consider something with more favorable terms.

Each country could set its own terms and revise them at will — so Trump's claim was completely specious.
Of course, Trump might not even know that, which, as a pattern, could represent a greater problem.

 

[Jjz1109]

Each country could set its own terms and revise them at will — so Trump's claim was completely specious.
Of course, Trump might not even know that, which, as a pattern, could represent a greater problem.

Lol. A little more than that. Hey, SNL can use you as a writer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...never-actually-joined/?utm_term=.8c642eca3b3a

 

[ConanTheBarber]

Lol. A little more than that. Hey, SNL can use you as a writer.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...never-actually-joined/?utm_term=.8c642eca3b3a

... and this connects to my post how?
Lol.

 

[deleted15807]

Faith healing for the planet is next up? Wow.

“As a Christian, I believe that there is a creator in God who is much bigger than us,” Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.) told constituents last week at a town hall in Coldwater, Mich. “And I’m confident that, if there’s a real problem, he can take care of it.”​

Among conservative evangelicals, that is not an unusual opinion. Nearly all evangelicals — 88 percent, according to the Pew Research Center on Religion & Public Life — believe in miracles, suggesting a faith in a proactive God. And only 28 percent of evangelicals believe human activity is causing climate change. Confidence that God will intervene to prevent people from destroying the world is one of the strongest barriers to gaining conservative evangelical support for environmental pacts like the Paris agreement.​

Why don’t Christian conservatives worry about climate change? God.
A key bloc of Trump's supporters think solving the problem is out of human hands.​

 

[Industrialsize]

.

If that's what floats your boat. But he's been saying since the campaign he would renegotiate every bad agreement the US has entered into. As for the Paris Climate agreement, he's said he would consider something with more favorable terms.

By your post, It's clear that you have no idea how the Paris Climate Accord works, not a clue.

 

[Brodie888]

For every week that passes, Trump weakens America.

 

[BULLDOG00]

Despite recent attempts to paint the United States as a major global polluter, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. is among the cleanest nations on the planet.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-among-least-polluting-nations-on-the-planet/

 

[LittleBuzzSaw]

For that matter, supremacists, home bred CONSERVATIVES, and so-called "REAL Americans TOO. Like how a Democratic candidate in Iowa has withdrawn from a Senate race because of right winged DEATH THREATS, leaving the Republican candidate unopposed.

Here's a newsflash for all these ------------ condemning Muslims as a WHOLE for the actions of a few. These fkrs who killed the democratic process by making death threats against Kim Weaver are FUCKING TERRORISTS, just as much as ISIS.

Democratic opponent to Steve King in Iowa withdraws, citing death threats

It wasn't Muslims, or ISIS who did this. THEY did. But we'll hear not a WORD of condemnation from ANY of them.

Typical.

I didn't know about this, but I agree with you 100%

 

[ConanTheBarber]

Despite recent attempts to paint the United States as a major global polluter, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. is among the cleanest nations on the planet.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-among-least-polluting-nations-on-the-planet/

The issue in terms of climate change is basically carbon dioxide emissions. (Please don't tell me you aren't fully conscious of this fact.)
And here, the U.S. retains its customary place among the leaders of the pack.
Only China, with 10.6 million kilotonnes, emits more CO2 emissions than the U.S, at 5.2 million. And the American per capita output is more than twice as high.

 

[BULLDOG00]

The issue in terms of climate change is basically carbon dioxide emissions. (Please don't tell me you aren't fully conscious of this fact.)
And here, the U.S. retains its customary place among the leaders of the pack.
Only China, with 10.6 million kilotonnes, emits more CO2 emissions than the U.S, at 5.2 million. And the American per capita output is more than twice as high.

What do plants breathe and what do they exhale?

"Current levels of carbon dioxide concentration in the environment are substantially lower than they have been during earlier periods in the planet’s history. Without human intervention, the concentration of CO2 has climbed as high as 7,000 parts per million (ppm) in prior eras, whereas at present the concentration is just over 400 ppm."

 

[TexanStar]

Despite recent attempts to paint the United States as a major global polluter, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. is among the cleanest nations on the planet.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-among-least-polluting-nations-on-the-planet/

That's particulate air pollution, not CO2.

 

[BULLDOG00]

That's particulate air pollution, not CO2.

That is correct. I care about real, actual, pollution, not fake climate change hysteria.

 

[TexanStar]

"Current levels of carbon dioxide concentration in the environment are substantially lower than they have been during earlier periods in the planet’s history. Without human intervention, the concentration of CO2 has climbed as high as 7,000 parts per million (ppm) in prior eras, whereas at present the concentration is just over 400 ppm."

I'm not sure how this helps your case. At that time the earth was warmer, the ice caps didn't exist, and the sea levels were significantly higher.

 

[TexanStar]

fake climate change hysteria.

alrighty then.

 

[BULLDOG00]

I'm not sure how this helps your case. At that time the earth was warmer, the ice caps didn't exist, and the sea levels were significantly higher.

Wow. It is almost as if the climate has been changing since the beginning of time! Who would have thought!

 

[BULLDOG00]

It is a good thing that the climate has been changing even before those pesky humans started driving their Hummers. There were freaking glaciers in Massachusetts 20,000 years ago. If the climate hadn't changed Industrialsize would be freezing his nuts off sitting on a glacier.

 

[TexanStar]

Wow. It is almost as if the climate has been changing since the beginning of time! Who would have thought!

Is it painful to run on the kind of logic where you think that because natural systems have an impact on climate, that means that humans are incapable of having an impact?

Do you have to squint really hard when bringing those thoughts to life, or do they just come naturally to you?

Humans can't start forest fires, lightning strikes start forest fires!

 

[TexanStar]

 

[Klingsor]

Despite recent attempts to paint the United States as a major global polluter, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), the U.S. is among the cleanest nations on the planet.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-among-least-polluting-nations-on-the-planet/

I'm far from an expert on the scientific issues involved, and even I can see some gaping holes in this article (it's from Breitbart, so go figure).

First of all, in declaring the U.S. one of the least polluting nations, the article is clearly intended as a salvo in the current climate change debates. But as the author himself makes clear, the WHO pollution data he cites does not include carbon dioxide emissions, the main contributor to global warming.

Then, when he finally does get around to mentioning CO2, he describes it as "colorless, odorless and completely non-toxic." This will come as news to anyone who has ever tried to hold a plastic bag over their head for more than a few seconds.

He then points out that growers pump CO2 into greenhouses to produce "stronger, greener, healthier plants"--as if that somehow makes it beneficial for humans.

He further says the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide has been much higher in earlier eras than it is now. Even if that's true, he doesn't specify which eras, or whether human beings even existed (or could have survived at all) back then.

Finally, he quotes a supposed climate scientist on the benefits of rising CO2, but without giving any specific explanation for that claim. That same "expert" further maintains that "the costs of warming are uncertain," whereas in fact climate change scientists have predicted some of the most dire long-term consequences with a significant degree of confidence and unanimity.

As I said, those are my layman's objections. Someone who's actually well-versed in the subject is welcome to add a critique of their own.