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

President Obama is correct about the landmark climate accord that was reached in Paris.

 

Oh this is VERY simple...

"Global Warming" is the term that is used by the Cult during the Summer, when it's HOT outside, thus making it easy for the Intellectually Less Fortunate to 'believe' that "The GLOBE is getting WARMER!"; despite that only half the globe got warmer... but, in fairness to them... they're only on one side, so there's no way they could know that.


"Climate Change" is the term that is used by the Cult during the Winter, when it's COLD outside, thus the use of "Global Warming" becomes, well... laughable, and "GLOBAL COOLING" was tried... but even the pop-culture dimwits can 'remember' what was said 6 months ago... So, they found it harder to sell "Global Warming" in the winter... thus explaining the need for the more innocuous "Climate CHANGE!", in the 'off season'.


So... to help' em out I use the terms: "Global Warming Season" and "Climate Change Season".

They seem to like it... until I explain what it means... then they call me a "DENIER" and pout. Which is hysterical and makes the whole exercise TOTALLY WORTH IT!

 

Yep, what developing nation wouldn't be on board since since the conference is about giving away money.

 

As soon as your dishonest self could point out where I denied science anywhere in the Op. All I see is the likely hood of Obama using a FACTUALLy divided decisions with many factually upset eole to his advantage for his own personal gain.

 

I have no opinion on this issue but shouldnt you consider ALL credible scientist opinions on a subject instead of only the opens you want to believe. I mean it just seems like Common sense to me. Of course you will likely spin the fact I said BOTH and then pretend I am denying science and call me a right wing denier.

 

So I found a ton of scientists through MEDIA, Books, interviews, news, and other outlets with high credibility saying that CO2 is needed for trees, and that the lack of CO2 is causing problems with agriculture, and trees, and forests and foliage, and other plants and etc.

Now what I find funny about the left in this thread is that, i could take these scientists, and combine them with the climate change scientists and see which are similar and which are more credible so I can find out if Climate Change exists or not, but because apparently I dont instantly believe 1oo% THE LATTER, and am using common sense before I choose, I must be a right win science denier, and all the scientists I talked about former must all now have become fake scientists somehow magically.

 

That's about it. If the science does not conform to the cultural consensus then it is no longer science. Befuddles the mind but then ideology does not necessarily have to be logical.

 

The COP21 'binding' treaty is all voluntary. LOL

 

Oh the irony. I think it's you who is blinded by ideology it makes them ignore actual science in favor of right wing conspiracy theories. I'll take the side of science and reason, you can have whackadoodle conspiracy theories.

 

Having no opinion in the face of scientific consensus is tacit denial. You are implying that you know something the scientists who make this their life's work don't. That kind of arrogance and ignorance is not common sense, it's paranoia.

By all means, hold on to your theories, the rest of the world just got together and decided to at least acknowledge that there is a problem.

 

Who was ever in doubt that trees needed CO2? COngrats on finally learning some 3rd grade science. I notice no links to credible scientific bodies to support your assertions.

I invite you to post this treasure trove of knowledge that only you have access to with your 'common sense'. Let us see where the science disproving what 90%+ of the scientists say comes from. The science showing man made climate change is available in abundance. If you want to live in conspiracy land and assert that the overwhelming scientific consensus is a vast left wing conspiracy, then the burden of proof is on you.

Crying about being labeled a denier and failing to provide any information as to why you are not a denier doesn't help your case.

- - - Updated - - -

Scientific consensus, not cultural. Learn the difference.

 

I belive in science as much as anyone else, your claim that you side with science is actually contradicting to the subject.
There are many scientists who believe man is not a significant contributor to climate change, I happen to agree with that theory!

So I'll side with science too!

As far as wackadoodle, anyone that thinks the government can stop the climate from warming or cooling by taxation is pretty (*)(*)(*)(*)ing wacky in my book!

 

Links to valid, credible scientific sources or you are nothing more than a conspiracy theorist.

You are choosing to side with your ideology, not science.

So is your problem that government would be used in combating climate change or that climate change even exists? Sounds like the former to me. Your distrust for government does not override science.

 

LMAO Dude, do you think I'm your daddy, look for your own damn link!
If you were serious about wanting the truth about climate change, you'd have already had them.

 

What a dodge...

 

Science has no consensus. Science is science. Only culture and politics has consensus. If there were such a thing as scientific consensus then there would be no inconvenient science counter to the cultural consensus.

 

A dodge my ass, if he knew as much as he thought he did about climate change, I sure as hell wouldn't have to give him links to peer reviewed sources that disagree with AGW, sources that are easily available by a simple search.

.

 

If you're so proud of these links then why can't you just provide them? I don't understand how you take the time to read these links and agree with them, and then you come to a place like these forums and when asked for proof on what you read you refuse to legitimize your source yourself.

 

Okay, I'll supply some links to peer reviewed scientific articles that disagree with AGW.
Only if you agree after reading them, that the science isn't settled.
Fair enough?

 

I'll formulate my opinion on the matter as I see fit, thank you very much.

 

Well now you see why I won't waste my time.
Your opinion is already formed!
But you can mull over this if you want.

[h=3]1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism[/h]http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html

 

This like a Catholic arguing with a Protestant over who interprets the bible better. Nobody knows the real truth.

 

I never said my opinion is formed you assume that is the case.
Your debating skills are lacking as you trying to bully me into thinking the same way as you instead of showing me these links and proof that you say you have. I'm only asking you to provide said proof and instead you're telling me how to think about it without actually showing it to me.

 

You are correct, no one knows for sure.
But I'm tired of the left claiming "they side with science" when there is plenty of science they choose to ignore.

 

No one is trying to bully you, geez, don't tell me you're one of those millennials looking for a safe place!
And I'm not trying to tell you how to think my friend, I'm telling you to get off your lazy ass and do a 2 minute Google search instead of relying on someone else to do it for you!