MAGA?

[kenny]

Is this making America great again?
What an embarrassing disgrace for the richest and 2nd most-polluting country on earth!

U.S. Formally Begins To Leave The Paris Climate Agreement

Under the agreement hammered out in 2015, the first day that countries can reverse the promises they made is Nov. 4, 2019. It will be another year before the American withdrawal is official.

www.npr.org

SNIP:

Nearly 200 countries signed on to the agreement in 2015 and made national pledges to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

The U.S. is now the only country to pull out of the pact.

 

[Karl_K]

What is wrong about wanting to spend our money here(or even better yet dont steal it from people at gunpoint in the first place) rather than paying it to corrupt poophole countries?

 

[Dancing Fire]

China and India are the most guilty of polluting the air.

 

[Tekate]

You seriously think it's about MONEY? it's about working to save the planet...

from wiki:

Under the Paris Agreement, each country must determine, plan, and regularly report on the contribution that it undertakes to mitigate global warming.[6] No mechanism forces[7] a country to set a specific target by a specific date,[8] but each target should go beyond previously set targets. In June 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced his intention to withdraw the United States from the agreement.

Either we pay or we stop polluting.. my state of Maine is losing lobster to Canada as the fish move north for colder water. Where does it say we are paying corrupt countries? Aren't we corrupt? look at trump now THERE's a corrup poophole. We OWE it to the future of American chiidren to have a world that isn't burning up.

We are #2 in pollution in the world, let's NOT do that anymore.. Does your side have one ounce of caring for others besides themselves? shame shame.

What is wrong about wanting to spend our money here(or even better yet dont steal it from people at gunpoint in the first place) rather than paying it to corrupt poophole countries?

 

[Tekate]

How's America GREAT? when America was great in my life America was a leader, now we are a runner, now we take NO responsibility for our actions. We've turned into a poophole, banana republic run by a minority.. We need to turn around the burning earth.

 

[Tekate]

yeah? and they are part of the Paris agreement.

List of parties to the Paris Agreement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

China and India are the most guilty of polluting the air.

 

[MaisOuiMadame]

@Tekate thanks for having the energy and strength to stand up for what's right. Im feeding baby and 2 toddlers and can't type fast enough with one hand. But the future generations will thank you! Hugs and peace from across the pond!

 

[Maria D]

yeah? and they are part of the Paris agreement.

List of parties to the Paris Agreement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Let me try to explain DF's thinking to you as I deal with it all the time. Johnny failed the test because he didn't study. Mary and Tommy failed too, in fact with lower scores, because they studied even less. Mary and Tommy start coming in for help after school because they want to improve. Johnny doesn't bother because he thinks he's smarter than Mary and Tommy - after all he got a higher failing grade. At the end of the year Johnny is angry that he's getting an F and has to go to summer school. He blames Mary and Tommy.

 

[Tekate]

Got it! never accept blame..

Let me try to explain DF's thinking to you as I deal with it all the time. Johnny failed the test because he didn't study. Mary and Tommy failed too, in fact with lower scores, because they studied even less. Mary and Tommy start coming in for help after school because they want to improve. Johnny doesn't bother because he thinks he's smarter than Mary and Tommy - after all he got a higher failing grade. At the end of the year Johnny is angry that he's getting an F and has to go to summer school. He blames Mary and Tommy.

 

[OoohShiny]

You seriously think it's about MONEY working to save the planet? it's about working to save the planet control of the population (and money)...

Fixed that for you


There is so much discussion around whether or not CO2 is causing the climate to change, or whether or not it actually follows (rather than causes) changes in global temperature, it would need a thread on its own and would likely never reach consensus, seeing as scientists are still presenting data that seems to support both arguments.


I am certainly no expert, but at least one thing doesn't add up for me in the 'climate alarmists' arguments:

CO2 is 0.04% of the global atmosphere. Man's contribution to that is 4% - therefore 0.0016% of the global atmosphere.

"To put that in perspective, imagine if the whole atmosphere is represented by a rod the height of Big Ben’s tower (316 ft); the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) on top and Man’s contribution to that CO2 is between 1 & 2 mm – a pigeon dropping – on top."

(source:
https://readingunidebating.wordpres...orbyn-man-made-climate-change-does-not-exist/)




Yet this 0.0016% of the atmosphere is apparently the controller of entire global temperature?

I remain unconvinced.


It is seemingly now heresy to challenge the 'Believers', and anyone doing so is called a 'Denier' - and call me cynical, but anything that resembles (unchallengeable) organised religion, with what appears to be an underlying motive of control of the population's actions and choices and ideologies, especially with regards to those that might be wealthy, smacks of something that needs to be approached with a high degree of caution rather than unquestioning acceptance.

 

[Karl_K]

You seriously think it's about MONEY? it's about working to save the planet...

Its right in the article.
"Each country set its own goals, and many wealthy countries, including the U.S., also agreed to help poorer countries pay for the costs associated with climate change. "
The US goverment has no money, they only way it can spend money is to steal it at gun point or mortgage the next generations.
The national debt is the ultimate form of taxation without representation.
People not even born yet are being taxed.

 

[Karl_K]

Color me a skeptic and not ashamed of it.
In my lifetime it the hysteria has went from global cooling, nope they were wrong, to global warming, nope those models didn't work so lets get people hysterical about climate change.
Hate to tell ya but climate has been changing since the beginning of time.

Now cleaning up the environment and stopping many different kinds of pollution are a good thing and developing technology to make things cleaner and even clean up old messes is a good thing.
The answer instead of hysterical screaming is faster development of technology.
Most of what was done so far is a lot of just move the pollution to other parts of the world instead of primarily developing cleaner technology.
The US using the EPA kicked it out of the US so they moved it to China, China is starting to kick some of it out so its moving to Vietnam and other places. Its moving rather than improving,
But giving money to corrupt governments or even for the sake of argument good ones is not going to change that.

 

[Dancing Fire]

Color me a skeptic and not ashamed of it.
In my lifetime it the hysteria has went from global cooling, nope they were wrong, to global warming, nope those models didn't work so lets get people hysterical about climate change.
Hate to tell ya but climate has been changing since the beginning of time.

Yup, First it was global cooling then global warming and now let's call it climate change to be safe. Heck, The climate have had been changing for the past 3 billion yrs way before human being was on earth.

 

[Tekate]

We agreed to pay money to encourage and assist poor polluters to change to cleaner technologies. The US has no money and the reason is? Cut taxes, raise taxes and cut armed services, move on to this century. We seem to have plenty of money when the government wants to give welfare to farmers. The next generation is HOSED by Trump, blame him. I have a vested interest in the future, my granddaughter, and I want clean air and I want clean water for her. Hey I'd even say WTF on leaving the Paris agreement BUT Trump is cutting BACK on emissions controls, he's pushing coal and oil.. not only is he screwing us he's screwing other countries who will continue to experience OUR pollution. Face it, you just don't want to help anyone unless it's in YOUR OWN persona interest. Libertarians.. pffft

Its right in the article.
"Each country set its own goals, and many wealthy countries, including the U.S., also agreed to help poorer countries pay for the costs associated with climate change. "
The US goverment has no money, they only way it can spend money is to steal it at gun point or mortgage the next generations.
The national debt is the ultimate form of taxation without representation.
People not even born yet are being taxed.

 

[Tekate]

Nope don't call you a skeptic I call you out as SELFISH - unless it is in YOUR OWN self interest you coud care less, you read nonsense and want to believe it because IT SERVES YOUR OWN INTEREST, lower taxes.. more money for you, guns to protect yourself against god knows who's coming after you. meh. In my lifetime I NEVER heard of global cooling.. https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Technology/story?id=4335191&page=1

I remember oil running out was the HUGE topic of the 70s..

We have done a decent job of cleaning up the environment till Trump. https://www.environmentalintegrity.org/trump-watch-epa/regulatory-rollbacks/

the guy is ruining America financially, morally, spirtually, and environmentally.

Prove that most of what was done by the US EPA was ove pollution to other parts of the world. We HAVE sent garbage to other parts of the world because they accept because they are POORER.. we need to control OUR garbage here. As to air pollution we are polluters.

Trump is allowing pollution to occur, he should be stopping it for the future, for a too hot planet now, for air. He's pathetic. What do you mean by this:

The answer instead of hysterical screaming is faster development of technology.
Most of what was done so far is a lot of just move the pollution to other parts of the world instead of primarily developing cleaner technology.
The US using the EPA kicked it out of the US so they moved it to China, China is starting to kick some of it out so its moving to Vietnam and other places. Its moving rather than improving,
But giving money to corrupt governments or even for the sake of argument good ones is not going to change that.

This makes no sense to me.

Color me a skeptic and not ashamed of it.
In my lifetime it the hysteria has went from global cooling, nope they were wrong, to global warming, nope those models didn't work so lets get people hysterical about climate change.
Hate to tell ya but climate has been changing since the beginning of time.

Now cleaning up the environment and stopping many different kinds of pollution are a good thing and developing technology to make things cleaner and even clean up old messes is a good thing.
The answer instead of hysterical screaming is faster development of technology.
Most of what was done so far is a lot of just move the pollution to other parts of the world instead of primarily developing cleaner technology.
The US using the EPA kicked it out of the US so they moved it to China, China is starting to kick some of it out so its moving to Vietnam and other places. Its moving rather than improving,
But giving money to corrupt governments or even for the sake of argument good ones is not going to change that.

 

[partgypsy]

I am shaking my head at all those people who refuse higher taxes to save the future of our planet. I hope you don't have children. The US is the ONLY country that has a sizeable percent of people who deny climate change. It also happens to have a ton of rich people whose best interest to snow us and keep us in ignorance as long as possible, until they admit it is true then say it is "too late".
For those who don't believe that us humans can affect the planet. I remember when I was a kid. My walk home from school in 5th grade, I would pass by neighborhoods yes, but there was also a set of woods, as well as undeveloped fields. One of the fields by the park was a pond, and every spring and fall the geese would stop there during their migration. During that 40 years time, all those woods and fields have been bulldozed and replaced with buildings and roads and parking lots. I still remember the first year the geese came back. They circled a number of times, and finally flew off. I don't know where they ended up. Multiply that by a million times. You don't even have to look at a graph to realize cutting down all the trees and replacing them with buildings and roads affects our environment, our water, our air. I don't have a God complex and disbelieve when 97% of the worlds scientists have consensus. If you don't want to believe the consensus of scientists and what saying is saying, please, just join the flat earth society. It would be a lot less harmful to the rest of us.

 

[Maria D]

There is so much discussion around whether or not CO2 is causing the climate to change, or whether or not it actually follows (rather than causes) changes in global temperature, it would need a thread on its own and would likely never reach consensus, seeing as scientists are still presenting data that seems to support both arguments.


I am certainly no expert, (snip)

97% of scientists who publish research regarding climate change HAVE reached consensus. Your assertion is either disingenuous or woefully misinformed.

 

[OoohShiny]

I don't have a God complex and disbelieve when 97% of the worlds scientists have consensus. If you don't want to believe the consensus of scientists and what saying is saying, please, just join the flat earth society. It would be a lot less harmful to the rest of us.

The 97% claim appears to be extremely shaky:

Debunking The 97% Climate Consensus Myth | PSI, Inc.

MYTH: A 97% consensus [agreement] of scientists say that Earth's climate is experiencing dangerous warming caused by human activities.

principia-scientific.org

For those who don't believe that us humans can affect the planet. I remember when I was a kid. My walk home from school in 5th grade, I would pass by neighborhoods yes, but there was also a set of woods, as well as undeveloped fields. One of the fields by the park was a pond, and every spring and fall the geese would stop there during their migration. During that 40 years time, all those woods and fields have been bulldozed and replaced with buildings and roads and parking lots. I still remember the first year the geese came back. They circled a number of times, and finally flew off. I don't know where they ended up. Multiply that by a million times. You don't even have to look at a graph to realize cutting down all the trees and replacing them with buildings and roads affects our environment, our water, our air.

Is the situation you describe not comparable to if/when a river diverts course and floods a new area of land but leaves the original route as dry riverbed?

Or a beaver dams a river?

Or a forest fire following a lightning storm burns hundreds of acres of trees and bush to the ground?

Or coastal erosion removes a large chunk of the coastline?



We must also consider that there are plenty of re-wilding and re-forestation programmes that have taken place historically and in the present, many areas are more densely populated with trees and grasses than since historic times, and that increased CO2 in the atmosphere (when combined with a warmer and wetter environment, however caused) enhances the conditions required for flora growth and therefore increases growth rates, variety of fauna (a marked increase in mushroom varieties and growth noted in the UK at the present, for example), and carbon sequestration.

 

[Tekate]

I think it's anyone's right to challenge scientists, it's up to us what to believe. One thing I DO know, since the 1950s it's a hella hotter here in NE, lobsters are movng north. Our president has cancelled out EPA standards, scientifically backed standards. Do you have any backing for this or is it just a feeling?

an underlying motive of control of the population's actions and choices and ideologies, especially with regards to those that might be wealthy, smacks of something that needs to be approached with a high degree of caution

What does it take to convince someone like you who is a denier or maybe a 'questioner'? What would make you believe that man has caused this global catastrophe heading our way?

Here's NASA:

Scientific Consensus

It’s important to remember that scientists always focus on the evidence, not on opinions. Scientific evidence continues to show that human activities (primarily the human burning of fossil fuels) have warmed Earth’s surface and its ocean basins, which in turn have continued to impact Earth’s...

climate.nasa.gov

How to talk to a climate denier:

How to Talk to a Climate Skeptic: Responses to common arguments

Here are handy talking points to refute any climate skeptic argument.

grist.org

I give this to you so you can read the answers.

To me you base your 'uncertainty' on who's behind it and making money on it.. Is that true?

Fixed that for you


There is so much discussion around whether or not CO2 is causing the climate to change, or whether or not it actually follows (rather than causes) changes in global temperature, it would need a thread on its own and would likely never reach consensus, seeing as scientists are still presenting data that seems to support both arguments. Personally I have never found a scientist controlling or wanting to control, but maybe the employers do, any pointers or proof of your statement that


I am certainly no expert, but at least one thing doesn't add up for me in the 'climate alarmists' arguments:

CO2 is 0.04% of the global atmosphere. Man's contribution to that is 4% - therefore 0.0016% of the global atmosphere.

"To put that in perspective, imagine if the whole atmosphere is represented by a rod the height of Big Ben’s tower (316 ft); the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) on top and Man’s contribution to that CO2 is between 1 & 2 mm – a pigeon dropping – on top."

(source:
https://readingunidebating.wordpres...orbyn-man-made-climate-change-does-not-exist/)




Yet this 0.0016% of the atmosphere is apparently the controller of entire global temperature?

I remain unconvinced.


It is seemingly now heresy to challenge the 'Believers', and anyone doing so is called a 'Denier' - and call me cynical, but anything that resembles (unchallengeable) organised religion, with what appears to be an underlying motive of control of the population's actions and choices and ideologies, especially with regards to those that might be wealthy, smacks of something that needs to be approached with a high degree of caution rather than unquestioning acceptance.

 

[Tekate]

Principa Scientific International.

Principia Scientific International

Photo credit: Principia Scientific International Principia Scientific International Background Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organisation based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI was formed in...

www.desmogblog.com

First line from blog: Principia Scientific International (PSI) is an organization based in the United Kingdom which promotes fringe views and material to claim that carbon dioxide is not a greenhouse gas. PSI was formed in 2010 around the time they published their first book, titled Slaying the Sky Dragon: Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory. [1]


Media Bias Fact Check

Principia Scientific International (PSI) - Media Bias/Fact Check

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a...

mediabiasfactcheck.com

CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE
Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information, therefore fact checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources.

From what I first check your site produces pseudo science, please fact check my sites for veracity, I mean the fact checkers could be wrong, but I doubt it.

I'm wondering if you understand what you are writing or you just believe global warming is because there are more trees? (which isn't true btw).

I'm all for FACTS not pseudo science on EITHER side.

The 97% claim appears to be extremely shaky:

Debunking The 97% Climate Consensus Myth | PSI, Inc.

MYTH: A 97% consensus [agreement] of scientists say that Earth's climate is experiencing dangerous warming caused by human activities.

principia-scientific.org

Is the situation you describe not comparable to if/when a river diverts course and floods a new area of land but leaves the original route as dry riverbed?

Or a beaver dams a river?

Or a forest fire following a lightning storm burns hundreds of acres of trees and bush to the ground?

Or coastal erosion removes a large chunk of the coastline?



We must also consider that there are plenty of re-wilding and re-forestation programmes that have taken place historically and in the present, many areas are more densely populated with trees and grasses than since historic times, and that increased CO2 in the atmosphere (when combined with a warmer and wetter environment, however caused) enhances the conditions required for flora growth and therefore increases growth rates, variety of fauna (a marked increase in mushroom varieties and growth noted in the UK at the present, for example), and carbon sequestration.

 

[Dancing Fire]

97% of scientists who publish research regarding climate change HAVE reached consensus. Your assertion is either disingenuous or woefully misinformed.

Those so called scientists are funded by far left wingers like Soros.

 

[Dancing Fire]

yeah? and they are part of the Paris agreement.

List of parties to the Paris Agreement - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yeah, but China and India don't give a damn they'll continue to use the cheapest energy resources which would be oil and coal.

 

[Dancing Fire]

What does it take to convince someone like you who is a denier or maybe a 'questioner'? What would make you believe that man has caused this global catastrophe heading our way?

Some kind of proof that there were no climate change before the 2nd Industrial Revolution.

 

[Tekate]

why?

Some kind of proof that there were no climate change before the 2nd Industrial Revolution.

 

[Tekate]

Who says? what proof do you have that 'far left wingers etc' fun climate change? for what purpose? i

Those so called scientists are funded by far left wingers like Soros.

 

[Dancing Fire]

why?

So, According your theories the periods before discovery of using coal and oil as the main resources of energy there were no climate change, right?

 

[Dancing Fire]

Who says? what proof do you have that 'far left wingers etc' fun climate change? for what purpose? i

For what purpose? ...For the purpose of beating Trump, b/c the D party have zero talking points to run on.

 

[kenny]

Yeah, but China and India don't give a damn they'll continue to use the cheapest energy resources which would be oil and coal.

If so, isn't it even more important for other countries to take the high road by using cleaner energy?

Glass half empty, or half full?

I'm not a fan of the reasoning, "But Mommy, Jonny and Tommy piss on the playground so it's if okay I do too.
Lovely moral standards there.

Trump and his fans make me so glad I don't have kids.

 

[Maria D]

Those so called scientists are funded by far left wingers like Soros.

What a truly ignorant and pathetic thing to say. It sickens me that anyone with no credentials on this subject matter at all would have the audacity to refer to highly educated, respected people as "so-called scientists." I don't know if you truly believe this or are just trolling as usual; either way it's one of the dumbest things you've ever posted (and that's saying a lot.)

 

[JPie]

I don’t understand how people can believe that global warming is nothing more than a vast, global conspiracy designed to control the population or whatever crazy end game. The only way that could be true is if someone or some group managed to corrupt the majority of scientists around the world to push their insidious agenda.

I think climate change denial is similar to believing the earth is flat in that the sheer amount of conspirators involved and coordination necessary to perpetuate the conspiracy is outside the realm of plausibility, but that doesn’t stop people from believing nonsense.

Is it an ego thing where conspiracy theorists need to believe that they’re the only ones smart enough to see the truth and everyone else is a sheep?