About Trumps withdrawl of the US from the Paris Climate Agreement

Again name one person who has died. There are multiple locations in the world where the conditions should be such that people are dropping like flies.

The real idiocy is complete knee jerk and political opportunism in the mis application of the precautionary principle. The needless ban of DDT has resulting in ~ 30 million global deaths from malaria.

 

Then it should be very easy to name at least one individual who has died.

 

I'm just going to say one more thing to your repetitive rhetoric. You may think it comes across as clever and cute, but it really shows your ignorance and/or obstinance, and that's what others see.

 

It's a very simple question which no one has answered. There are no people who have died. Can you or anyone else can provide even one name ??

Gullibility is clearly shown by those who accept predictions based on zero evidence. The people of Beijing breathe air that is orders of magnitude above the EPA limits on 2.5 micron and the people of Beijing have a higher life expectancy the the US.

You and many others have been duped.

 

Nonsense! This "predictive model" is based upon hard-fact. You're asking for a death to be related directly to air-pollution is irrelevant. The actual cause of death was a malignancy caused by air-pollution.

For your edification as regards the subject:
Air Pollution Kills More Than 5 Million People Around the World Every Year (Feb.2016) - excerpt:

Only the far-Right refuses scientific cause-and-effect because they think we cannot find sufficient "real evidence" that substantiates the claim. They either don't look hard enough or a set-up knee-jerk refusal of the evidence found.

The effects upon climate change AND human-health are sufficiently well-known. And the scientific evidence of the present calamity (that can only worsen) is the basis for which 175 countries (with the sole and unique refusal of Donald Dork) signed the Paris Agreement ...

 

Nonsense!

That would be far too late because the affects induced by pollution take years to manifest themselves in death-deriving malignancy.

Go see a doctor to get a confirmation of that statement ...

Meanwhile, see here (from Science Daily, regarding a study done; June 2017):
Study of US seniors strengthens link between air pollution and premature death - excerpt:

 

Attempting to change the subject away from the EPA PM regulations shows an inability to argue factually.

 

Name one.

 

Who's changing subjects?

You're the one denying that the wealth of scientific research that is the bulwark argument for fearing dramatic consequences as regards life-on-earth. You cannot come up with adequate "let's do-nothing" counter-evidence because it does not exist.

Wanna see who's coping out of this exchange with senseless one-liners?

Look in the mirror ...

 

Again name one person who has died from exposure to the EPA reduced standards.

There is no scientific research that has identified anyone.

There is no credible evidence for the EPA reductions. None.

 

you have to be a brainless globalist liberal socialist to thank the paris accords is a good thing for the united states.

 

or believe in simulations which cannot be backed up by data.

 

Then he can pollute the environment and feel justified when he eliminates environmental regulations. He doesn't give a crap, destroying the ambiance by allowing hunting and fracking on government owned land, pollution of our streams and rivers, etc.

 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a...ic_environmental_pollution_agency_127814.html

 

http://www.globalistagenda.org/goalMore.htm

 

Interesting article. Does this mean that we eliminate regulations, or enforce them in a proper fashion? This article screams for
strict enforcement, not elimination.

 

no it does not,nice try;;;

Double standards. Data destruction. Imposition of radical job-killing regulations. Law-breaking with impunity. Only in Washington does a rogue government agency with an $8 billion budget get away with such serial incompetence and criminality in the name of the "public good." Protecting the environment has become a full employment racket for green crooks and cronies.

 

Exactly - read "Scare Pollution - Why and How to Fix the EPA" - Steve Milloy - 2016

 

Looks like we agree to disagree. Of course proper controls of the EPA are needed, but to eliminate regulations in a rag tag fashion
as is happening now, will lead to recession, which will result in lost jobs. Clinton and Bush are prime examples. Jobs have to adjust to environmental regulations, and they are doing this right now in the energy sector. To open our pristine government owned land to hunting and fracking is wrong, and to allow the pollution of our rivers and streams in the name of jobs will only come back to haunt us.

 

Why are you posting about air pollution? We are talking AGW...we need C02 to live.



.

 

What's wrong with Hunting? Let us guess another lefty who thinks turkey is made at the super market.



.

 

That's ridiculous.

 

The alarmists consider CO2 a pollutant.

 

You are refusing the notable scientific corroboration at hand, insisting upon evidenced human "death as proof". The deaths have occurred all around you, but you remain stubbornly ignorant of them.

What you request is IRRELEVANT to the fact that the Paris Agreement is the first of its kind in place globally to master the indiscriminate usage of carbon-based fuels that are (1) expensive and (2) recognized pollutants ....

 

Fossil fuels are overall the least expensive. Anyone with a working knowledge of energy markets knows that. And it is immoral to restrict the use of fossil fuels by third world countries in any way.

CO2 is not a pollutant. PM 2.5 micron in the concentrations 2 orders of magnitude above the EPA proposal has no short or long term effect on health.

The Paris Agreement is a joke and will make no significant reduction in global average temperature magnitude or rate of increase.