Obama: Paris Climate Pact 'Best Chance We Have to Save...Planet'

Follow the money.

 

You said you'll provide the links only if I agree that the science isn't settled, with that statement you're trying to persuade me into a way of thinking before I get my eyes on the material. You're trying to force me into a way of thinking that is speculative and apprehensive to any action that would be deemed environmentally cautious, as you feel that since the science isn't settled any action is useless and not worth the money. You seem to ignore the fact the the burning of fossil fuels does affect us and the environment no matter what, that science is settled.

 

I supplied a link with over 1,350 peer reviewed scientific articles rebutting AGW.

Now you are contradicting the fundamentals of science yourself by not wanting information that could formulate a different opinion than the one you have already locked onto. And now you want to shift the focus and debate to environmental pollution.

You are not fooling anyone my friend, it's not a debate you are looking for, you just want to be heard!

 

Just because I haven't read through your link yet doesn't mean I won't. I was responding the remark you made about my use of the word "bully" by proving you had a preconceived disposition that you were looking to impose upon me before I even look at your link and any supplemental links thereafter.

 

I dont know if you guys have seen this treaty but it is shockingly unfair. Whatever your political affiliation you must realize China is one of or maybe the only primary competition we have.

In this treaty the US is classified as a developed country whereas China is a developing one. If you look at the provisions regarding "developing" countries almost everything is optional, while the wordings for developed countries are things that must be adhered too.

I cannot think of a worse negotiated treaty and Im wondering why we agreed to this.

 

You are supposed to think for yourself instead of being led by the environmentalists propaganda which there is plenty of. Since you cannot tell anyone how much change is natural, you cannot know how much is man made or if it is even bad.

- - - Updated - - -

It is not a treaty or it would need to go through Congress. It is a bunch of voluntary promises. Just more CO2 out of Paris.

 

We are 19 trillion in debt, and that is only what they are willing to tell us. If you think that this is sustainable, maybe our education system is crap. We spend more than we bring in, and nobody is addressing the problem. Can you spend more than you bring in? Will the Banks and other people allow you to go 19 trillion in debt? And don't tell me it's different for a country than an individual. It's not, numbers don't lie. If your a politician in America, then you believe you can make numbers lie, but you can't.

If one was to magically appear from 1900 to 2012. The $100 dollar bill that he had in his wallet, would only have the purchasing power of $3.48. That is insane. And guess what, we are still printing and inflating money into the system. The American people are being deceived into believing that everything is ok, so if you could please quit helping them. This is why our founders said that there is to be no notary notes, or I.O.U.'s in the currency system.

 

Same here. We say lets wait and see before spending trillions on something were not sure of. The left says damn the torpedoes full speed ahead.

- - - Updated - - -

It helps us live in this environment without fossil fuels where would we be?

 

If obama is correct then the planet is screwed.

 

So far he has only screwed the US and ME. Give him time he has a year left.

 

Nice dodge.

 

Because smog is a natural thing that has been happening for billions of year, right? Acid rain is also a completely natural phenomenon that has been occurring on the earth since the first clouds propagated the skies, right? I must also mention that the waters of the worlds rivers have always been an undrinkable cesspool of bacteria. Never once was there a time where you could cup your hands and quench your thirst with water from a river without first collecting the water in a receptacle and boiling the toxins out before proper consumption could even take place.

 

CO2 is plant food, not a pollutant. The only countries that have successfully tackled smog and pollution are those that are blamed for CO2. The acid rain scare turned out to be just that, another scare.

 

Ah so if you were to fill a room with nothing but CO2 and you had some potted plants in there, you're saying that they won't die and in fact the room would be more like a buffet to the plants. Do you have any understanding of the water cycle when you speak about acid rain? You completely dodged my assertion about drinkable water.

 

Such a strawman argument. If you filled the room with water the plant would probably die too.

 

The benefits that fossil fuels have provided us are great not correcting you there, but to think that we can live off of fossil fuels forever and not have any negative residual affects from them is completely wrong.

- - - Updated - - -

You made the argument against smog by saying "CO2 is plant food" and then you say my argument is strawman? lol

 

CO2 isn't smog but that is what you brought up in this thread about global warming.

 

Smog is a direct affect on the environment that is caused by human intervention, you deny any such intervention which is the basic theme for all the posts you have written on this subject. Denying that humans are the reason for any environmental problems is the mentality of those who are opposed to the fact of global warming, and thus I brought up obvious affects that we have had on our environment to counter said mentality and show you and others that we do affect the world and we should do something about it instead of standing around and waiting until 100% of scientist aren't being paid by oil and coal companies to produce false findings on the research done on climate change.

 

Who has denied that? That is the problem with people like you, going off on tangents that aren't true as if that proves something. You evidently don't keep up on the science of global warming or you would know better than to provide another false statement.

 

Smog is not caused by CO2. Its caused by ozone and carbon monoxide and other pollutants but not CO2

Unlike the government the oil companies invest in both sides of this research. They dont care what kind of energy they sell you.

 

You're opposed to the notion that humans are the cause of global warming, are you not?

 

To start, tell me how much warming is natural and how much is man made. Next, tell me how rising CO2 is bad or how warmer temperatures are bad. You probably don't realize that there is great debate on these issues. So far this is all based on computer models that are currently predicting warming 3 times observation and 4 times for the troposphere. Next tell me how countries like India that were at the Paris conference will reduce CO2 when they plan on doubling it to benefit their economy or how China and Japan building coal burning plants will help? Tell me how, if all promises are kept, a reduction of an estimated 0.17C in the 'predicted' warming will do much of anything other than hobbling the economies of the first world nations.

 

So in that case what's the governments ultimate goal by only funding one view on climate change? What is to be accomplished by that?
What benefits the oil companies who you say funds both views on climate change?

 

You are seeing it in Paris. More political control of your life and more redistribution of wealth and ultimately, more crony capitalism. The same answer for global cooling in the 70's and the population bomb scare.

 

I bet your opposed to the notion that humans are natural like every other species on earth.