Obama is tears today

[bornaneer]

You enjoyed that didn't you?

Not really.....This one was not a jab at you. If it was I would have invoked my favorite....the Cartoons. I was pondering what example to use to show how we do things to put OUR children at risk. We also put them at risk when we let them enjoy the Suns rays at the beach.

 

[atlkvb]

$100B / yr by 2020, and that would increase

So what happens to that money boom? What do they do with it that "changes" the climate and how soon before we see the positive results?

 

[Boomboom521]

Absolutely.

At least I respect your confidence. You believe the science is wrong. Your not just choosing money over the environment

 

[Boomboom521]

Not really.....This one was not a jab at you. If it was I would have invoked my favorite....the Cartoons. I was pondering what example to use to show how we do things to put OUR children at risk. We also put them at risk when we let them enjoy the Suns ray at the beach.

Agreed.

 

[bornaneer]

Agreed.

We also gave Pop Tarts to our kids and I have enjoyed a few myself.

 

[TarHeelEer]

At least I respect your confidence. You believe the science is wrong. Your not just choosing money over the environment

You are trusting the rest of the world to use the money the way its intended. This is nothing but a scheme to empty our wallets even more.

 

[Boomboom521]

You are trusting the rest of the world to use the money the way its intended. This is nothing but a scheme to empty our wallets even more.

Appreciate your skepticism and patriotism, but I don't agree. But I guess your got the votes, and all I can do is cry cry cry like the liberal ***** snowflake I am.:joy:

 

[TarHeelEer]

Appreciate your skepticism and patriotism, but I don't agree. But I guess your got the votes, and all I can do is cry cry cry like the liberal ***** snowflake I am.:joy:

The first phase is acceptance.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

This was a world accord, imo, it was a collective agreement to not allow any one nation from benefitting from the scaling back of emissions in other countries. Kind of like a proliferation treaty. And I agree that the US should shoulder a greater load than other nations, we've been the biggest energy user for decades.

We disagree on the USs responsibility. We have a responsibility to our country and our citizenry first and only. If this negatively impacts our citizenry, which it would have, then it wasn't a good for our country. May have been good for the world, but frankly, I give less than zero fvcks about any other nation's plight.

 

[Boomboom521]

We disagree on the USs responsibility. We have a responsibility to our country and our citizenry first and only. If this negatively impacts our citizenry, which it would have, then it wasn't a good for our country. May have been good for the world, but frankly, I give less than zero fvcks about any other nation's plight.

Ok. But if you subscribe to the science, it is massively in US interests to have this climate trend reversed. So that's really the key difference. This is something we HAVE to be proactive on. Reactionary policy will be even more expensive.

 

[atlkvb]

We disagree on the USs responsibility. We have a responsibility to our country and our citizenry first and only. If this negatively impacts our citizenry, which it would have, then it wasn't a good for our country. May have been good for the world, but frankly, I give less than zero fvcks about any other nation's plight.

I care about us being environmentally responsible, but not at the cost of our Freedoms & way of life especially when we are forced to fund how well the rest of the world gets to live at our expense while we're asked to give up some of our self funded luxuries.

 

[TarHeelEer]

Ok. But if you subscribe to the science, it is massively in US interests to have this climate trend reversed. So that's really the key difference. This is something we HAVE to be proactive on. Reactionary policy will be even more expensive.

Will it? They can't even forecast 10 years accurately.

 

[atlkvb]

Ok. But if you subscribe to the science, it is massively in US interests to have this climate trend reversed. So that's really the key difference. This is something we HAVE to be proactive on. Reactionary policy will be even more expensive.

I just want someone to tell us what changes and when after half of our GDP is transferred to third world countries?

Why is THAT the only solution to control "climate change"?

 

[op2]

We disagree on the USs responsibility. We have a responsibility to our country and our citizenry first and only. If this negatively impacts our citizenry, which it would have, then it wasn't a good for our country. May have been good for the world, but frankly, I give less than zero fvcks about any other nation's plight.

You're last sentence is how a lot of people feel and it's also an abdication of the role of world leader that the USA has held for the last 75 years. All good things come to an end I suppose. I'd prefer the US to lead the world than China but obviously many here in the US feel different.

Oh and since the temperature is going up all over the planet, what is good for the world and good for the US align in this instance. And also, 9/11 wasn't good for our citizenry but I guess if that wasn't enough for you to want to get off of fossil fuels then nothing is.

 

[WVPATX]

What's amazing to me is that some in this nation actually believe that the entire world is either corrupt or completely duped in regards to climate change. The Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, China....195 nations have stepped up to honor this desire to protect our planets future through a collective effort to drive energy towards cleaner, renewable sources. But yet folks in "the real America" are convinced that it's all a political scheme. I'm just absolutely floored by this. There are many intelligent, passionate, and thorough men and women in these 195 NATIONS! How can you possibly believe it's all a Clinton-Obama scam?

What part of "Bad Deal" do you not understand. China signed on but does not have to reduce any carbon until at least 2030. In fact, the U.S. may have to pay China in the interim. India wants payment right now before they will do anything. And you actually trust China to reduce emission in 2030 if they decide not too? This is a voluntary agreement with ZERO enforcement.

It might be a good idea to actually learn about the deal and the economic ramifications to the U.S. before commenting much further. The economic impact to the U.S. is severe, jobs lost, much lower economic growth, reduced competitiveness, etc.

 

[WVPATX]

The Paris accord did nothing for global warming. Or global cooling. Which is it this month? Oh we're not sure. Let's call it climate change. You sheep are such fools.

If everyone complied with what they said they would do (yeah, I really trust China and India to meet their goals in 20 years), it would reduce global warming by .05 degrees C by 2100. In other words, it does almost nothing.

 

[op2]

What part of "Bad Deal" do you not understand. China signed on but does not have to reduce any carbon until at least 2030. In fact, the U.S. may have to pay China in the interim. India wants payment right now before they will do anything. And you actually trust China to reduce emission in 2030 if they decide not too? This is a voluntary agreement with ZERO enforcement.

It might be a good idea to actually learn about the deal and the economic ramifications to the U.S. before commenting much further. The economic impact to the U.S. is severe, jobs lost, much lower economic growth, reduced competitiveness, etc.

Nobody has to do anything until down the road. That's what the whole deal is. "We'll reduce carbon by X% by year Y." Considering that, saying they don't have to do something until 2030 is pretty silly.

There isn't going to be severe jobs lost, instead you just loves you some Islamic fundies and you love shoving money their way. And Russia and Venezuela too.

 

[PriddyBoy]

Even Trump's WH wasn't in agreement on this..

You don't have to believe in Climate Scientology, you just have to say you do so people will like you. Real scientists will continue to learn about the subtle complexities of Earth and other planets.

..but you're so sure you're willing to gamble with your children's future?

Spending the unborns' money, which we currently do, is not a gamble; it's corrupt.

 

[WVPATX]

Nobody has to do anything until down the road. That's what the whole deal is. "We'll reduce carbon by X% by year Y." Considering that, saying they don't have to do something until 2030 is pretty silly.

There isn't going to be severe jobs lost, instead you just loves you some Islamic fundies and you love shoving money their way. And Russia and Venezuela too.

OP, that is an absurd statement (and I don't mean to denigrate you). If you set the goal of a 20% reduction by 2030, you have to start now. You can't wait until the end, it will never happen.

No, actually it is in the agreement that China does not have to reduce any carbon until beginning in 2030 and the U.S. may have to send them money since they are considered a developing country. This is all about a huge transfer of wealth. India won't do anything until they start receiving money today.

Very good organizations have already developed the estimates of job loss and GDP loss. They are staggering. Remember when Obama promised all those green jobs? They never materialized even when the government provided giant subsidies.

 

[Boomboom521]

What part of "Bad Deal" do you not understand. China signed on but does not have to reduce any carbon until at least 2030. In fact, the U.S. may have to pay China in the interim. India wants payment right now before they will do anything. And you actually trust China to reduce emission in 2030 if they decide not too? This is a voluntary agreement with ZERO enforcement.

It might be a good idea to actually learn about the deal and the economic ramifications to the U.S. before commenting much further. The economic impact to the U.S. is severe, jobs lost, much lower economic growth, reduced competitiveness, etc.

I trust that the nations at this table realize the impact of not doing anything, and want to work together for solution. Asking me to trust a nation in the future isn't practical. But it isn't about that, it isn't about who wins with this accord, it's about coming together to identify and find solutions to a problem.

Stop thinking you know, not just everything, but everything I know as well. It really makes you look like a fool. This is a big issue for me, and thinking I haven't read multiple perspectives is insulting. I post on a db, my opinion post formation.

Maybe you should consider the economic impacts of the catastrophic potential effects of not doing anything? Ah.....you don't believe in them. That's the real difference here.

 

[WVPATX]

You're last sentence is how a lot of people feel and it's also an abdication of the role of world leader that the USA has held for the last 75 years. All good things come to an end I suppose. I'd prefer the US to lead the world than China but obviously many here in the US feel different.

Oh and since the temperature is going up all over the planet, what is good for the world and good for the US align in this instance. And also, 9/11 wasn't good for our citizenry but I guess if that wasn't enough for you to want to get off of fossil fuels then nothing is.

China leading the world based on the U.S. pulling out of this agreement? LMAO. China is out of it until 2030 but is free to ignore that if they feel like it. ZERO enforcement. Read the agreement or at least summaries of it. Bad Deal. Just as the Iran Deal was a bad deal.

 

[TarHeelEer]

I trust that the nations at this table realize the impact of not doing anything, and want to work together for solution. Asking me to trust a nation in the future isn't practical. But it isn't about that, it isn't about who wins with this accord, it's about coming together to identify and find solutions to a problem.

Stop thinking you know, not just everything, but everything I know as well. It really makes you look like a fool. This is a big issue for me, and thinking I haven't read multiple perspectives is insulting. I post on a db, my opinion post formation.

Maybe you should consider the economic impacts of the catastrophic potential effects of not doing anything? Ah.....you don't believe in them. That's the real difference here.

They can't forecast 10 years right. Once they do that right, I'll start believing them.

 

[WVPATX]

I trust that the nations at this table realize the impact of not doing anything, and want to work together for solution. Asking me to trust a nation in the future isn't practical. But it isn't about that, it isn't about who wins with this accord, it's about coming together to identify and find solutions to a problem.

Stop thinking you know, not just everything, but everything I know as well. It really makes you look like a fool. This is a big issue for me, and thinking I haven't read multiple perspectives is insulting. I post on a db, my opinion post formation.

Maybe you should consider the economic impacts of the catastrophic potential effects of not doing anything? Ah.....you don't believe in them. That's the real difference here.

Boom, we have greatly reduced our carbon output since 2005. Without any treaty. Why? Technology, innovation, capitalism. We will continue to do so. We don't need a feckless treaty to have clean air and water. You act as if we are doing nothing, which is not the case.

This deal was simply a BAD DEAL. Not fair to the U.S. China loved it.

 

[Boomboom521]

You don't have to believe in Climate Scientology, you just have to say you do so people will like you. Real scientists will continue to learn about the subtle complexities of Earth and other planets.

Spending the unborns' money, which we currently do, is not a gamble; it's corrupt.

"Climate Scientology".....that's good. Conservatives are so good at naming things in order to evoke emotional response. Where does that talent come from?

 

[Boomboom521]

Boom, we have greatly reduced our carbon output since 2005. Without any treaty. Why? Technology, innovation, capitalism. We will continue to do so. We don't need a feckless treaty to have clean air and water. You act as if we are doing nothing, which is not the case.

This deal was simply a BAD DEAL. Not fair to the U.S. China loved it.

Is that where you were all morning? Blowing Pruitt? JK.

Look, your opinion is based in the disbelief of climate science consensus. All else is really not able to be discussed. I don't agree, and I think we owe the world a little something. But hey, it's your boy calling the plays.

 

[DvlDog4WVU]

You're last sentence is how a lot of people feel and it's also an abdication of the role of world leader that the USA has held for the last 75 years. All good things come to an end I suppose. I'd prefer the US to lead the world than China but obviously many here in the US feel different.

Oh and since the temperature is going up all over the planet, what is good for the world and good for the US align in this instance. And also, 9/11 wasn't good for our citizenry but I guess if that wasn't enough for you to want to get off of fossil fuels then nothing is.

You somehow left out Nazis and Russians from your talking points. Try harder.

 

[WVPATX]

Is that where you were all morning? Blowing Pruitt? JK.

Look, your opinion is based in the disbelief of climate science consensus. All else is really not able to be discussed. I don't agree, and I think we owe the world a little something. But hey, it's your boy calling the plays.

This is not about climate science. It is about a BAD DEAL. Trump offered to enter into a new agreement that is fair to all. Paris is a bad deal. Why did Obama not try and get the Senate to ratify it? He had 60 votes in the Senate for a while?

Because Kyoto was voted down 97-1.

 

[WVPATX]

They can't forecast 10 years right. Once they do that right, I'll start believing them.

The alarmists don't want to hear that the models of global warming have all been wrong. They don't want to hear the Paris Accord does almost nothing for global warming. They don't want to hear that China and India will not only receive money from the U.S. but don't have to do anything for many years and even then can opt out and simply continue doing what they are doing right now. They don't want to hear that we have had no warming based on satellite data for over 18 years. It is a religion for these people.

 

[Original Mountaineer1]

The cost of the climate deal was $3 trillion.
Trump decided to stand with the American worker and against globalist elites.

The Dow Jones Industrial also closed at a record high on the news today.

But Barack Hussein Obama wasn’t happy about this news since his goal was to destroy the U.S. He hates seeing his ‘legacy’ unravel as President Trump destroys it one day at a time.

Hussein Obama released a statement following the news about Trump pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord. Remember, Barack Hussein Obama used his power as president to join the Paris Accord WITHOUT a vote in the legislature. Similarly, Trump can use his authority to call it quits.

Here is Hussein Obama’s statement:

You were, at one-time, logical and worth reading....you have gone off the cliff dude. We are going to read about you in some compound holed up with Cliven Bundy's family.

And as I have mentioned a dozen times, I don't believe in man made global warming.

 

[Boomboom521]

This is not about climate science. It is about a BAD DEAL. Trump offered to enter into a new agreement that is fair to all. Paris is a bad deal. Why did Obama not try and get the Senate to ratify it? He had 60 votes in the Senate for a while?

Because Kyoto was voted down 97-1.

Maybe, but the science and evidence is much different than in 97. The US would have to give up more in any deal for it to be "fair".

 

[Boomboom521]

The alarmists don't want to hear that the models of global warming have all been wrong. They don't want to hear the Paris Accord does almost nothing for global warming. They don't want to hear that China and India will not only receive money from the U.S. but don't have to do anything for many years and even then can opt out and simply continue doing what they are doing right now. They don't want to hear that we have had no warming based on satellite data for over 18 years. It is a religion for these people.

You seek out the science that supports your conclusion.

Evidenced by the fact that where you got your information that the accord does nothing for warming, is from someone that believes in warming.....yet you don't.

 

[WVPATX]

You seek out the science that supports your conclusion.

Evidenced by the fact that where you got your information that the accord does nothing for warming, is from someone that believes in warming.....yet you don't.

You are misrepresenting my opinion. The planet has slightly warmed since 1850 when we emerged from the Little Ice Age. How much of that warming is due to man is unknown. How much is due to natural variability is unknown. The climate models have all been wrong. We have had an 18 year warming hiatus.

Until we know much more with much greater certainly, we should not destroy industries or jobs. We should continue to use technology and innovation to do even more to reduce pollution. We have done a great deal and since 2005 lead the world in CO2 reduction (with no climate treaty).

 

[WVPATX]

Maybe, but the science and evidence is much different than in 97. The US would have to give up more in any deal for it to be "fair".

Why? China pollutes far more than we do. Why are they allowed to do nothing while we pay them money? India is requiring $2.5T before they do anything. How is this fair?

 

[eerdoc]

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/448201/paris-agreement-trump-right-pull-out

American presidents have gotten into the disturbing habit of discarding constitutional process when they find it inconvenient. Barack Obama did it when he agreed to the Paris accords, when he negotiated the Iran nuclear deal, and when he launched a war against Libya without congressional approval. Trump did the same earlier this year when he launched a new military action against the Syrian regime, also without congressional approval. But just as presidents must be challenged when they violate the Constitution, they should be applauded when they respect its terms.

Not in agreement that the strike against Syria fits with the many lawless actions of Obama. Presidents for decades (or much longer) have ordered military strikes when THEY deemed them necessary. Check history of strikes by Reagan, Clinton, and 'raids into foreign lands the one strike affair or a campaign that would be done with in days.
Obama seemed to act as if he thought of himself as King and treated the Constitution with absolute disdain.

 

[atlkvb]

This is all about a huge transfer of wealth. India won't do anything until they start receiving money today.

If you strip out all of the scientific hyperbole from the Left, this is essentially all we're talking about. Since when does a problem involving "scientific applications" require "income redistribution" as its primary solution?

We don't need a feckless treaty to have clean air and water.

We are the world's leader in this and still get no credit for it, only blame for causing a non existent problem.

This is not about climate science. It is about a BAD DEAL

No one who is objective about this deal can read it any differently. However if your aim is to dismantle America and our way of life, it's a great deal!

The alarmists don't want to hear that the models of global warming have all been wrong

This is the fact they refuse to admit to. They simply change the terms of how their false predictions are measured. No evidence of forecasted "global warming"? Fine...it's now called "climate change".

They don't want to hear the Paris Accord does almost nothing for global warming.

This is the irony of ironies! We send them all of our money, nothing changes. We're writing a blank check...literally!

They don't want to hear that we have had no warming based on satellite data for over 18 years.

They can also not tell us when we'll see the positive effects of our agreement to get ripped off. When do we even begin to see the climate change? Probably after we transfer out all of our GDP, then the Left will blame us for causing the World economy to collapse so we can't grow enough to produce "green energy" and THAT'S why the planet is not cooling off!:weary:

 

[atlkvb]

[QUOTE="Boomboom521, post: 1561921, member: 14642"]I trust that the nations at this table realize the impact of not doing anything, and want to work together for solution.[/QUOTE]

That's fine boomer, I say to them "go for it". Show us how it's done? We're already doing our part, our Co2 emissions are lower than most of the nations signed onto this scam.

So let them show us how to do it better and solve the problem?

Like a good meal served at a fine restaurant, I prefer to pay AFTER service, so I know what I've been charged for.

Let me decide if the price was worth it.

 

[WVPATX]

You're last sentence is how a lot of people feel and it's also an abdication of the role of world leader that the USA has held for the last 75 years. All good things come to an end I suppose. I'd prefer the US to lead the world than China but obviously many here in the US feel different.

Oh and since the temperature is going up all over the planet, what is good for the world and good for the US align in this instance. And also, 9/11 wasn't good for our citizenry but I guess if that wasn't enough for you to want to get off of fossil fuels then nothing is.

No warming in nearly 20 years according to our most accurate measurements, satellite data.

 

[op2]

No warming in nearly 20 years according to our most accurate measurements, satellite data.

Sez you.

 

[WVPATX]

Sez you.

No, says the satellite data. I can post it for you if you like?

 

[Boomboom521]

Why? China pollutes far more than we do. Why are they allowed to do nothing while we pay them money? India is requiring $2.5T before they do anything. How is this fair?

Well look at their populations, their infrastructures and their economy. We can handle it right now, they absolutely can not. Once we corner the field of new technology, we will get our return, imo.