It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Watch Live: President Trump announces his decision on the Paris Climate Accord

page: 9
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 04:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity
A. who said anything about predicting the future? That is not what climate scientist try to do. There is so much more to it than just "predicting what will happen"


Predicting the future is what this is all based on. The belief that we are all doomed if we do not reduce emissions immediately is what the entire need for the Paris accord is based on. If the actual warming that occurs is far less than the predicted doom the entire supposed necessity of the agreement goes away.



B. Yes, it IS worth it. CO2 is related to more than you or I know


That is your opinion, and you know what if money grew on trees and there wasn't a limited amount of money to spend I would agree.

Let me ask you this - An Asteroid is almost certain to hit earth and wipe out all life - and we don't know when it will happen. Should we spend trillions on an asteroid defense system? To me this is actually more likely to wipe us out then global warming - why, because we already well on our way to cutting emissions drastically with no government action needed. But what are we doing to defend against asteroids? Nothing.



C. main funder? Even if we are the main funder, it would be nice to be the leader to a cleaner, healthier world. Why did he have to pull out all together, why not just lessen the funding? Bc he does not believe in climate change and he is a jerk.

about pulling out reducing CO2 emissions...im sorry, but that makes no sense.


Sure it would be nice. It would also be nice to end all world hunger. Guess what we can't afford to do that either.
If you were listening, and not just fuming - you should have heard him say he was willing to renegotiate, and join the deal.
Also he never said he did not believe in climate change - in fact I have heard him say exactly the opposite. His position is the same as mine - it is a cost benefit analysis - and right now the costs out weigh the benefits for the USA.




posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 04:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: veracity

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: veracity
Everyone excited about seeing our emissions increase?

Good thing we can get back in after 4 years, he is such a wasteful president, mirrors the waste he is himself.


Whats the Paris Agreement do that you like it so much?


What about the environment and our Earth do you hate so much that you dont want to protect it?

or, do you believe global warming is a hoax...thats it, stupidity taking over our country


Just as I thought, ask you what the Paris Agreement would actually do and you have nothing but defend and deflect.

Yea, I hate the earth so much... Keep saying that if it makes you feel better.



I dont think you hate the earth


I just think you are ignorant of what is happening to the earth


Explain how the Paris Accord addresses 'what is happening on earth'.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: proximo


Should we spend trillions on an asteroid defense system?
This card will be played soon, it's almost a sure fire bet you could convince a good portion of the population it's a worthy cause. The sheep are willingly led to the slaughter, just like with this global warming scam.




posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 04:22 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Well that's just great...making us seem more foolish to the world...yay.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 04:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: veracity
A. who said anything about predicting the future? That is not what climate scientist try to do. There is so much more to it than just "predicting what will happen"


Predicting the future is what this is all based on. The belief that we are all doomed if we do not reduce emissions immediately is what the entire need for the Paris accord is based on. If the actual warming that occurs is far less than the predicted doom the entire supposed necessity of the agreement goes away.



B. Yes, it IS worth it. CO2 is related to more than you or I know


That is your opinion, and you know what if money grew on trees and there wasn't a limited amount of money to spend I would agree.

Let me ask you this - An Asteroid is almost certain to hit earth and wipe out all life - and we don't know when it will happen. Should we spend trillions on an asteroid defense system? To me this is actually more likely to wipe us out then global warming - why, because we already well on our way to cutting emissions drastically with no government action needed. But what are we doing to defend against asteroids? Nothing.



C. main funder? Even if we are the main funder, it would be nice to be the leader to a cleaner, healthier world. Why did he have to pull out all together, why not just lessen the funding? Bc he does not believe in climate change and he is a jerk.

about pulling out reducing CO2 emissions...im sorry, but that makes no sense.


Sure it would be nice. It would also be nice to end all world hunger. Guess what we can't afford to do that either.
If you were listening, and not just fuming - you should have heard him say he was willing to renegotiate, and join the deal.
Also he never said he did not believe in climate change - in fact I have heard him say exactly the opposite. His position is the same as mine - it is a cost benefit analysis - and right now the costs out weigh the benefits for the USA.


I know i didnt make it up when he said that climate change is a hoax that the chinese made up...He could have changed his stance on things.

Im glad that he is willing to renegotiate and I agree that we should not spend our money flagrantly. The only thing that "fumes" me is when people deny climate change and it seems that you guys do not do that.

There IS waaaay more to it than we know, to think we know it all and its not worth it to put forth money is very ignorant. I am not a scientist myself, but I am smart enough to not think that its all about CO2 and fraudulant spending.

I am a recycler/ tree hugger/ wannabe witch/ weather watcher. Its not hard to be in tuned to the earth ( if you want to be) and understand that something is not right. I also understand how easily one can think "oh just 1 person cannot make a difference" and refuse to do their part. Pulling out of this makes me cringe...I cringe at mountain top removal, building more oil lines when more efficient cars are being made (just have to wait for them to be affordable to most which is already happening), Oil should be almost obsolete now but then that means the filthy rich will not have as much money and they buy our politicians, and I feel uncomfortable being as someones house who does not recycle. I want money to go towards solar energy and windmills (that will not happen under trump). I want earth to be cleaner and I cringe at the thought of doing anything to go backwards. I see other countries such a finland, Sweden, Costa Rica, Germany moving to renewable energy and I cringe that the US is not in that list.

I am glad that at least my fellow conservative atsers are not denying climate change...thank you. Now please tell me you recycle.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Indigo5

Yea keep quoting The Guardian, you'll have lots of material as they run their propaganda pieces on an almost daily basis.



????

perhaps the Department of Defense is a more direct source if you seem incapable of reading?

archive.defense.gov...



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 04:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Indigo5

Yea keep quoting The Guardian, you'll have lots of material as they run their propaganda pieces on an almost daily basis.



????

perhaps the Department of Defense is a more direct source if you seem incapable of reading?

archive.defense.gov...


Yea I know, cause climate change caused the war in Syria.

Not everyone is stupid enough to believe the lies.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 04:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: xuenchen
Trump getting ready to announce his "decision" on the Paris Climate Accord.

Many nations are signing on to this, but Trump has been indicating his displeasure in the name of "U.S. Economic Interests".



SYRIA and NICARUAGUA ...Those are the only two nations who haven't signed on...

Trump is taking the USA down the tubes...and FAST...


If Syria and Nicaragua had signed on, would that have lessened American taxpayer's financial burden?


We owed 2B over 20 years..
That is 8.3 Million a month.

Trump's visits to Mar Largo per annum cost taxpayers more than the Paris Accord.

We will waste more money making the orange oompa loompa more orange in sunny Florida.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Indigo5

Yea keep quoting The Guardian, you'll have lots of material as they run their propaganda pieces on an almost daily basis.



????

perhaps the Department of Defense is a more direct source if you seem incapable of reading?

archive.defense.gov...


Not everyone is stupid enough to believe the lies.


Apparently Trump and Trumpites are.

Good job boys and girls...The US is heading down the tubes until the Orange Menace resigns or is impeached.

Lets cheer how low we can go!

I forgot North Korea...Syria, Nicaragua and North Korea are the only countries that haven't signed the accord.

Great effen company! Now we have sunk lower than Russia and China who are already cheering the US exit from the world stage.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee

Actually, that's a myth. Syria war was caused by overpopulation. Syria population increased from 4 million in 1960 to 20 million in 2010.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 04:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: xuenchen
Trump getting ready to announce his "decision" on the Paris Climate Accord.

Many nations are signing on to this, but Trump has been indicating his displeasure in the name of "U.S. Economic Interests".



SYRIA and NICARUAGUA ...Those are the only two nations who haven't signed on...

Trump is taking the USA down the tubes...and FAST...


If Syria and Nicaragua had signed on, would that have lessened American taxpayer's financial burden?


We owed 2B over 20 years..
That is 8.3 Million a month.

Trump's visits to Mar Largo per annum cost taxpayers more than the Paris Accord.

We will waste more money making the orange oompa loompa more orange in sunny Florida.



What are you talking about 2 billion over 20 years?

USA has already given The Green Climate Fund 1 billion dollars.

The plan for the slush fund was 100 billion a year by 2020.

Where do you think the majority of that cash was coming from?



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: xuenchen
Trump getting ready to announce his "decision" on the Paris Climate Accord.

Many nations are signing on to this, but Trump has been indicating his displeasure in the name of "U.S. Economic Interests".



SYRIA and NICARUAGUA ...Those are the only two nations who haven't signed on...

Trump is taking the USA down the tubes...and FAST...


This might be a legitimate point except for one huge problem - All countries are not remotely treated the same in this agreement.

Why is it wrong to ask for fair treatment?


How?

The US pledged 3 Billion...China upped the ante and pledged 3.1 Billion..

All Denier BS aside...We are ceding a critical mass of technology and trade to China...they are over the moon here....



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: D8Tee

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: carewemust

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: xuenchen
Trump getting ready to announce his "decision" on the Paris Climate Accord.

Many nations are signing on to this, but Trump has been indicating his displeasure in the name of "U.S. Economic Interests".



SYRIA and NICARUAGUA ...Those are the only two nations who haven't signed on...

Trump is taking the USA down the tubes...and FAST...


If Syria and Nicaragua had signed on, would that have lessened American taxpayer's financial burden?


We owed 2B over 20 years..
That is 8.3 Million a month.

Trump's visits to Mar Largo per annum cost taxpayers more than the Paris Accord.

We will waste more money making the orange oompa loompa more orange in sunny Florida.



What are you talking about 2 billion over 20 years?

USA has already given The Green Climate Fund 1 billion dollars.

The plan for the slush fund was 100 billion a year by 2020.

Where do you think the majority of that cash was coming from?



We pledged a total of 3 Billion to the fund and have paid 1 Billion...the terms are for 20 years.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: veracity

Yeah, I recycle.

Oil will not go away anytime soon - even if none of it is used on energy, plastic and tons of other materials are made from it. You need to get used to the idea it is not going anywhere. With that said the idea that oil money is the source of all our corruption is short sighted, Big finance is a far far larger corrupting factor.

Look, I really don't think there are many "Climate Deniers". That is just a phrase used to shout down anyone who is against carbon taxes, anyone who questions the impending doom story. Only a true idiot would say climate does not change, science clearly shows that is the case - it also shows CO2 levels have been way higher than they are now, but somehow life persevered. The science is also clear if CO2 goes up - and here is the key - everything else stays the same then the temperature will increase. But there are many other factors - which is exactly why the models suck, the suns activity level, there are trillions of organisms that eat the CO2, and many other sources besides man that create it. It is ridiculous that anyone can claim with a straight face they can model all of that. For gods sake they can't accurately forecast the weather three days in advance, let alone three decades.

I understand the desire to want to live in an ideal world with no pollution, no war, no hunger, and no suffering. But it is just not remotely realistic. Humans are selfish - it is what drives everything we do.

We will not stop polluting if it is good for us individually, All we are talking about here is reducing emissions, not eliminating them because everyone knows that is impossible. This is just like stating there should never be conflict or war - well duh, but we have not evolved nearly enough for that to be realistic, and it isn't going to happen in either of our lifetimes.

My whole problem with lefties is they generally think with their emotions and not reality. There is not unlimited money, we cannot afford to give everyone a perfect life. Even if we could it would never happen because powerful people in control would not allow it because power corrupts - always. That is why true socialism is impossible at least until we evolve.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 05:05 PM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

I mentioned this on another thread.

The US spends $600bn on its military anally.

A few billion over a few years is nothing, its not a reason to pull out of this deal



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 05:09 PM
link   

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: proximo

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: xuenchen
Trump getting ready to announce his "decision" on the Paris Climate Accord.

Many nations are signing on to this, but Trump has been indicating his displeasure in the name of "U.S. Economic Interests".



SYRIA and NICARUAGUA ...Those are the only two nations who haven't signed on...

Trump is taking the USA down the tubes...and FAST...


This might be a legitimate point except for one huge problem - All countries are not remotely treated the same in this agreement.

Why is it wrong to ask for fair treatment?


How?

The US pledged 3 Billion...China upped the ante and pledged 3.1 Billion..

All Denier BS aside...We are ceding a critical mass of technology and trade to China...they are over the moon here....
When did China pledge this 3 billion? I see no evidence of this and I've been following it rather closely, if I missed it please show me where.
Pledges as of May



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 05:10 PM
link   
I'm glad that he saw the unfairness of trade here how it will affect the economy and jobs in America. Seems to me it has little to do with climate change. Actually all the money in would can't stop a typhoon, that's the message actually. Climate change is going to happen, period. People need to wise up on their own, like not building along the coastlines. Water (sea level) is rising. Did the Paris thing stop this? NO

China is doing what they can, but it really comes down to economics and economic health of their country and that as we all know comes with few regulations toward polluting their country. The ocean off of China is so polluted these days. The rivers have many fish kills due to rouge polluters that set up their companies along the rivers.

Anyway, President Trump is right, its all about taking away the economic edge America wants to retain and doing that means playing tough.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: D8Tee




Where do you think the majority of that cash was coming from?



I haven't seen it, but I have been told about it.

There is a big ole money tree in Washington D.C. It's called The Taxpayer.

We currently have a president that understands what Swampers and Special Interests have been doing to The Taxpayer. He's trying to make it healthy again.


edit on 1-6-2017 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   
Statement from 3 leading European countries:

The governments of Italy, France, and Germany Thursday flatly rejected U.S. President Donald Trump’s offer to renegotiate the Paris climate accord. “We deem the momentum generated in Paris in December 2015 irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated, since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies,” the leaders of the three countries said in a joint statement.


So, clearly they are not that interested in the planet after all. If they were they'd be eager to negotiate.



posted on Jun, 1 2017 @ 05:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: UKTruth
Statement from 3 leading European countries:

The governments of Italy, France, and Germany Thursday flatly rejected U.S. President Donald Trump’s offer to renegotiate the Paris climate accord. “We deem the momentum generated in Paris in December 2015 irreversible and we firmly believe that the Paris Agreement cannot be renegotiated, since it is a vital instrument for our planet, societies and economies,” the leaders of the three countries said in a joint statement.


So, clearly they are not that interested in the planet after all. If they were they'd be eager to negotiate.


Clearly it's not about the planet, but still the lefties won't be able to see that. Are they that blinded by their ideology that common sense and reason has left them?




top topics



 
18
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join