CDZ Two-Thirds of Americans Want U.S. to Join Climate Change Pact

[Weatherman2020]

A solid majority of Americans say the United States should join an international treaty to limit the impact of global warming, but on this and other climate-related questions, opinion divides sharply along partisan lines, according to the latest New York Times/CBS News poll.

Two-thirds of Americans support the United States joining a binding international agreement to curb growth of greenhouse gas emissions, but a slim majority of Republicans remain opposed, the poll found. Sixty-three percent of Americans — including a bare majority of Republicans — said they would support domestic policy limiting carbon emissions from power plants.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/01/w...-change-republicans-democrats.html?ref=europe

Frankly, I don't see what there is to be partisan about. What can possibly be the positive thing about doing nothing to lower the levels of carbon emissions on the only planet we know of capable of supporting life as we know it and that we have the ability to reach?

Its the way people go about it. The people that fund all of the Climate change research. It is several things, really. That being said, I see no problem with reasonable changes.

Who funds the research doesn't matter one bit. There are certain things that are really simple:

• From time to time, Mother Nature dumps huge quantities of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
• Higher levels of carbon in the air result in a warmer overall climate/planet.
• An overall warmer climate will result in some things concerning the natural world changing from what they are now.
• Mother Nature's periodic "carbon farts" plus the huge amounts people produce is a whole lot more than either one alone.
• When MN has her next big bout of flatulence happens, the planet will incur all that much greater an impact for that much longer a period given that it's combined with our our gas emissions.
• I'm really quite satisfied with how climate-related "things" are now, and how they were 40 years ago seems better.
  
• If there is some chance that humans can get the climate back to what it was 40 or 400 years ago, I'm all for it.
• A warmer planet means higher sea levels.
• Most major cities, and all the ones I can think of that matter most, are on or very near a body of water.
• HIgher sea levels means less land.
• Humans are land animals.

The short of it is that when it comes to the planet itself, I'm much more risk averse than I am about most everything else. I don't have a fallback planet available if this one goes to "shit" environmentally. If I did, I might feel differently, but I don't. Do you?

Funding matters ALOT What happens if you don't produce the results they wanted?
The UN is one of the biggest contributors to the research. The UN are a bunch of globalists. What easier way to "bring us together"? Fear tactics, if you will. Lets not be naïve.
I said that I agree with reasonable changes/regulation.

Funding matters a lot insofar as it is made available. Who makes it available is irrelevant for any objectively structured study. I care far more about the quality of the study than I do about who provided the money for it.

That why lawsuits were required to obtain the raw data used by the Gorebal Warming studies and we then learned they doctored the data?

 

[Votto]

I support building 500 nuclear plants and investing greatly into fusion...

We should also aim for 35% renewable energy.

But the environmentalist wacko's don't want that.

Instead, they want to destroy capitalism and increase taxation.

 

[Fishlore]

I'm not likely to take a NYTimes/CBS News poll as gospel

Is there a source for data on this topic that you would recommend and have confidence in?

 

[Fishlore]

I support building 500 nuclear plants and investing greatly into fusion...

We should also aim for 35% renewable energy.

But the environmentalist wacko's don't want that.

Instead, they want to destroy capitalism and increase taxation.

Is this all environmentalist wackos or just in the USA? If they succeed in destroying capitalism, won't increasing taxation be difficult?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I'm not likely to take a NYTimes/CBS News poll as gospel

Is there a source for data on this topic that you would recommend and have confidence in?

Not really, I think the entire climate change thing is nonsense and a hodgepodge of manipulated data, false predictions and an agenda. Some people will be duped but I doubt it's 2/3 of the nation.

 

[Arianrhod]

Then there are the diversionary tactics.

"I don't accept your source because Reasons."
"Hey, let's talk about Hillary or Obama or Hillary and Obama or anything except the topic..."

Is that why the LA Times says it will not print anything critical of the Manmade Gorebal Warming scam?

Because you won't stay on topic? Doubtful.

 

[320 Years of History]

Frankly, I don't see what there is to be partisan about. What can possibly be the positive thing about doing nothing to lower the levels of carbon emissions on the only planet we know of capable of supporting life as we know it and that we have the ability to reach?

Its the way people go about it. The people that fund all of the Climate change research. It is several things, really. That being said, I see no problem with reasonable changes.

Who funds the research doesn't matter one bit. There are certain things that are really simple:

• From time to time, Mother Nature dumps huge quantities of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
• Higher levels of carbon in the air result in a warmer overall climate/planet.
• An overall warmer climate will result in some things concerning the natural world changing from what they are now.
• Mother Nature's periodic "carbon farts" plus the huge amounts people produce is a whole lot more than either one alone.
• When MN has her next big bout of flatulence happens, the planet will incur all that much greater an impact for that much longer a period given that it's combined with our our gas emissions.
• I'm really quite satisfied with how climate-related "things" are now, and how they were 40 years ago seems better.
  
• If there is some chance that humans can get the climate back to what it was 40 or 400 years ago, I'm all for it.
• A warmer planet means higher sea levels.
• Most major cities, and all the ones I can think of that matter most, are on or very near a body of water.
• HIgher sea levels means less land.
• Humans are land animals.

The short of it is that when it comes to the planet itself, I'm much more risk averse than I am about most everything else. I don't have a fallback planet available if this one goes to "shit" environmentally. If I did, I might feel differently, but I don't. Do you?

Funding matters ALOT What happens if you don't produce the results they wanted?
The UN is one of the biggest contributors to the research. The UN are a bunch of globalists. What easier way to "bring us together"? Fear tactics, if you will. Lets not be naïve.
I said that I agree with reasonable changes/regulation.

Funding matters a lot insofar as it is made available. Who makes it available is irrelevant for any objectively structured study. I care far more about the quality of the study than I do about who provided the money for it.

That why lawsuits were required to obtain the raw data used by the Gorebal Warming studies and we then learned they doctored the data?

The key point being that we did learn the data were doctored....as I said, I don't care who funds the study. If it's not legit, it's not...we'll find out, as you so aptly noted. When we do, we can disregard the study.

 

[320 Years of History]

Frankly, I don't see what there is to be partisan about. What can possibly be the positive thing about doing nothing to lower the levels of carbon emissions on the only planet we know of capable of supporting life as we know it and that we have the ability to reach?

Its the way people go about it. The people that fund all of the Climate change research. It is several things, really. That being said, I see no problem with reasonable changes.

Who funds the research doesn't matter one bit. There are certain things that are really simple:

• From time to time, Mother Nature dumps huge quantities of carbon and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
• Higher levels of carbon in the air result in a warmer overall climate/planet.
• An overall warmer climate will result in some things concerning the natural world changing from what they are now.
• Mother Nature's periodic "carbon farts" plus the huge amounts people produce is a whole lot more than either one alone.
• When MN has her next big bout of flatulence happens, the planet will incur all that much greater an impact for that much longer a period given that it's combined with our our gas emissions.
• I'm really quite satisfied with how climate-related "things" are now, and how they were 40 years ago seems better.
  
• If there is some chance that humans can get the climate back to what it was 40 or 400 years ago, I'm all for it.
• A warmer planet means higher sea levels.
• Most major cities, and all the ones I can think of that matter most, are on or very near a body of water.
• HIgher sea levels means less land.
• Humans are land animals.

The short of it is that when it comes to the planet itself, I'm much more risk averse than I am about most everything else. I don't have a fallback planet available if this one goes to "shit" environmentally. If I did, I might feel differently, but I don't. Do you?

Funding matters ALOT What happens if you don't produce the results they wanted?
The UN is one of the biggest contributors to the research. The UN are a bunch of globalists. What easier way to "bring us together"? Fear tactics, if you will. Lets not be naïve.
I said that I agree with reasonable changes/regulation.

Funding matters a lot insofar as it is made available. Who makes it available is irrelevant for any objectively structured study. I care far more about the quality of the study than I do about who provided the money for it.

That why lawsuits were required to obtain the raw data used by the Gorebal Warming studies and we then learned they doctored the data?

BTW, from what I've read about An Inconvenient Truth, it seems there's general agreement that the key points are correct. The points of exception I'm aware of are:

• There are other natural causes of climate variability which the film does not address. Human activity is not the sole cause.

That exception aside, I don't really care whether humans are the primary or main cause of global warming. What I care about is the fact that the planet is warming, the warming has potentially expensive and catastrophic impacts, and that it may be possible that regardless of our role in the causes of it, we humans may have it within our power to slow, stop or reverse it. At this point, the causes are irrelevant to me.

 

[IsaacNewton]

Then there are the diversionary tactics.

"I don't accept your source because Reasons."
"Hey, let's talk about Hillary or Obama or Hillary and Obama or anything except the topic..."

lol right? That reminds me of the Sierra Club telling cruz "you have to listen to people sometimes instead of facts" Or something to that effect

It would be interesting to have access to the entire conversation, not just a sound bite making the rounds among Cruz supporters, but in any case it's still just a sidebar to the actual topic.

Ultimately, facts don't care about people's feelings.

It's funny, no one here would argue that, for example, gravity is "just an opinion." But the longer I post here, the more I wonder whether, if Newton were retconned into a "libtard," some here would make that exact claim.

You hit the nail on the head. The denier cult substitutes opinion for fact. The scientific community settled the science on this 15 years ago. There is no further debate, they are only filling the details with continued research.

People that deny the reality of Global Warming are either carrying the water for the fossil fuel industry or they are living in extreme cognitive dissonance. Its simply too scary to believe its real .

But it is real and time is running out.

 

[Fishlore]

I'm not likely to take a NYTimes/CBS News poll as gospel

Is there a source for data on this topic that you would recommend and have confidence in?

Not really, I think the entire climate change thing is nonsense and a hodgepodge of manipulated data, false predictions and an agenda. Some people will be duped but I doubt it's 2/3 of the nation.

Surely you must have reached such a dispositive conclusion on the topic of climate change with the aid of some sort of information or explanation by someone. How did you come to see the issue as nonsense and a hodgepodge of manipulated data"?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I'm not likely to take a NYTimes/CBS News poll as gospel

Is there a source for data on this topic that you would recommend and have confidence in?

Not really, I think the entire climate change thing is nonsense and a hodgepodge of manipulated data, false predictions and an agenda. Some people will be duped but I doubt it's 2/3 of the nation.

Surely you must have reached such a dispositive conclusion on the topic of climate change with the aid of some sort of information or explanation by someone. How did you come to see the issue as nonsense and a hodgepodge of manipulated data"?

I read a lot and keep informed. You're being duped....wake up

 

[Fishlore]

I'm not likely to take a NYTimes/CBS News poll as gospel

Is there a source for data on this topic that you would recommend and have confidence in?

Not really, I think the entire climate change thing is nonsense and a hodgepodge of manipulated data, false predictions and an agenda. Some people will be duped but I doubt it's 2/3 of the nation.

Surely you must have reached such a dispositive conclusion on the topic of climate change with the aid of some sort of information or explanation by someone. How did you come to see the issue as nonsense and a hodgepodge of manipulated data"?

I read a lot and keep informed. You're being duped....wake up

I'm awake -- at least I think I am. What sources have kept you informed about the hoax nature of climate change? It is hard to change my opinion without access to some sort of logical argument and factual evidence to the contrary. Why can't you provide me with some sources to support your conclusion? Is that classified or secret information that you cannot provide to the duped?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

I'm not likely to take a NYTimes/CBS News poll as gospel

Is there a source for data on this topic that you would recommend and have confidence in?

Not really, I think the entire climate change thing is nonsense and a hodgepodge of manipulated data, false predictions and an agenda. Some people will be duped but I doubt it's 2/3 of the nation.

Surely you must have reached such a dispositive conclusion on the topic of climate change with the aid of some sort of information or explanation by someone. How did you come to see the issue as nonsense and a hodgepodge of manipulated data"?

I read a lot and keep informed. You're being duped....wake up

I'm awake -- at least I think I am. What sources have kept you informed about the hoax nature of climate change? It is hard to change my opinion without access to some sort of logical argument and factual evidence to the contrary. Why can't you provide me with some sources to support your conclusion? Is that classified or secret information that you cannot provide to the duped?

I don't archive shit, try Google. If you want to buy into this nonsense buy into it, I don't. It's a scam of epic proportions

 

[Fishlore]

Is there a source for data on this topic that you would recommend and have confidence in?

Not really, I think the entire climate change thing is nonsense and a hodgepodge of manipulated data, false predictions and an agenda. Some people will be duped but I doubt it's 2/3 of the nation.

Surely you must have reached such a dispositive conclusion on the topic of climate change with the aid of some sort of information or explanation by someone. How did you come to see the issue as nonsense and a hodgepodge of manipulated data"?

I read a lot and keep informed. You're being duped....wake up

I'm awake -- at least I think I am. What sources have kept you informed about the hoax nature of climate change? It is hard to change my opinion without access to some sort of logical argument and factual evidence to the contrary. Why can't you provide me with some sources to support your conclusion? Is that classified or secret information that you cannot provide to the duped?

I don't archive shit, try Google. If you want to buy into this nonsense buy into it, I don't. It's a scam of epic proportions

I followed your advice:

climate change evidence - Google Scholar

but found nothing about climate change theories being "a scam of epic proportions". I'm afraid you are doing a Sarah Palin. Remember when a reporter asked her what newspapers she read? She replied "all of 'em" and was dismissed thereafter.

Like Mrs. Palin, your unsupported claims and testy evasions serve to strengthen the criticisms of those who characterize climate deniers as unlettered boobs gulled by talk radio demagogues. I'm sorry. This has been a very sad and disappointing exchange for me.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Not really, I think the entire climate change thing is nonsense and a hodgepodge of manipulated data, false predictions and an agenda. Some people will be duped but I doubt it's 2/3 of the nation.

Surely you must have reached such a dispositive conclusion on the topic of climate change with the aid of some sort of information or explanation by someone. How did you come to see the issue as nonsense and a hodgepodge of manipulated data"?

I read a lot and keep informed. You're being duped....wake up

I'm awake -- at least I think I am. What sources have kept you informed about the hoax nature of climate change? It is hard to change my opinion without access to some sort of logical argument and factual evidence to the contrary. Why can't you provide me with some sources to support your conclusion? Is that classified or secret information that you cannot provide to the duped?

I don't archive shit, try Google. If you want to buy into this nonsense buy into it, I don't. It's a scam of epic proportions

I followed your advice:

climate change evidence - Google Scholar

but found nothing about climate change theories being "a scam of epic proportions". I'm afraid you are doing a Sarah Palin. Remember when a reporter asked her what newspapers she read? She replied "all of 'em" and was dismissed thereafter.

Like Mrs. Palin, your unsupported claims and testy evasions serve to strengthen the criticisms of those who characterize climate deniers as unlettered boobs gulled by talk radio demagogues. I'm sorry. This has been a very sad and disappointing exchange for me.

It's a whatever, I have more important issues than some scam like globull warming. Have a nice evening

 

[Stephanie]

well, they can become little slave for the Guberment. they better get used to doing without because they won't be able to afford much anyway

we can't seem to get ahead of all the low info dummies in this country

AND. from all the polls I've seen, gloBULL warming was the last on their list of things they are concerned about. so take your pick who you beleive

 

[Stephanie]

good grief, who the hell didn't already know what this SCAM was all about. you people here fall for it at all our peril. that WEALTH they want to spread around is coming off of you and your families, because they've already labeled the United States A WEALTHY country who should be made to SHARE their wealth to everyone else. the hell with the fact generations of people here shed blood, sweat and tears to make what it is.

snip
UN Climate Summit: Causes of Climate Change “Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power”

Jim Hoft Nov 30th, 2015 5:45 pm 20 Comments

Guest post by Patch Adams

It’s all a Socialist scam.


For many years the public at large has been spoonfed the idea that Global Warming Climate Change, is caused by man’s excessive release of carbon into the atmosphere. And that the solution to the Climate crisis was to decrease the production of said gas.

Over the past several years the Global Warming fanatics have changed their tune. Many of us in the “new” media have been warning about their true motives for year.

Now, instead of the climate crisis being caused by carbon emissions, it is being caused by inequality.

On Monday, during a press conference at the United Nations Conference on Climate Change in Paris, Ms. Camille Risler, a representative of the Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development (APWLD) which is an organization listed as an official consultant to the United Nations Economic and Social Council, stated that the cause of Climate Change is the unequal distribution of wealth, carbon, and power:

“This is the press conference of the Women and (unintelligible) constituency. It is one of the nine official constituencies of the UNFCCC, and we are composed of 15 women’s rights and feminist organizations from all around the world. So I’m going to begin with kind of an overview of our positions and then I will give the floor over to my colleagues that will go more into details of each section of negotiations.

I’m Camille Risler. I’m from France but I’m living in Thailand. I’m working for a feminist network that is called Asia Pacific Forum on Women, Law and Development and I’m working for the Climate Justice Program.

So what we want to highlight here is that Climate Change is a clear symptom of an unequal and unjust world.

So if we are to address the Climate crisis we need to challenge the structural causes of the crisis which lies on unequal distribution of wealth, of carbon, and of power. Whether it’s political power, economic power, or even military power.”

Ms. Risler goes on to say that the solution to the Climate crisis is to create more “just and equitable economies”.

all of it here:
UN Climate Summit: Causes of Climate Change "Unequal Distribution of Wealth and Power" - The Gateway Pundit

 

[Votto]

Then there are the diversionary tactics.

"I don't accept your source because Reasons."
"Hey, let's talk about Hillary or Obama or Hillary and Obama or anything except the topic..."

lol right? That reminds me of the Sierra Club telling cruz "you have to listen to people sometimes instead of facts" Or something to that effect

It would be interesting to have access to the entire conversation, not just a sound bite making the rounds among Cruz supporters, but in any case it's still just a sidebar to the actual topic.

Ultimately, facts don't care about people's feelings.

It's funny, no one here would argue that, for example, gravity is "just an opinion." But the longer I post here, the more I wonder whether, if Newton were retconned into a "libtard," some here would make that exact claim.

You hit the nail on the head. The denier cult substitutes opinion for fact. The scientific community settled the science on this 15 years ago. There is no further debate, they are only filling the details with continued research.

People that deny the reality of Global Warming are either carrying the water for the fossil fuel industry or they are living in extreme cognitive dissonance. Its simply too scary to believe its real .

But it is real and time is running out.

Dim logic 101:

1. The climate is warming up.
2. Carbon emissions warms up the climate.
Therefore:
3. We are doomed unless we increase taxes on carbon emissions.

 

[MisterBeale]

Then there are the diversionary tactics.

"I don't accept your source because Reasons."
"Hey, let's talk about Hillary or Obama or Hillary and Obama or anything except the topic..."

lol right? That reminds me of the Sierra Club telling cruz "you have to listen to people sometimes instead of facts" Or something to that effect

It would be interesting to have access to the entire conversation, not just a sound bite making the rounds among Cruz supporters, but in any case it's still just a sidebar to the actual topic.

Ultimately, facts don't care about people's feelings.

It's funny, no one here would argue that, for example, gravity is "just an opinion." But the longer I post here, the more I wonder whether, if Newton were retconned into a "libtard," some here would make that exact claim.

You hit the nail on the head. The denier cult substitutes opinion for fact. The scientific community settled the science on this 15 years ago. There is no further debate, they are only filling the details with continued research.

People that deny the reality of Global Warming are either carrying the water for the fossil fuel industry or they are living in extreme cognitive dissonance. Its simply too scary to believe its real .

But it is real and time is running out.

. . . And that is why the Russians don't buy into the AGW garbage and neither do their scientists.

 

[kiwiman127]

I'm not likely to take a NYTimes/CBS News poll as gospel

.

Me too! And just like you, I get all my news and opinion from Breibart!
Thanks to Breibart, I know that Obama isn't eligible to be president as he was a Martian's and the daughter of Fidel Castro's love child. Hillary is really a drone developed by George Soros in a bunker he shared with Adoph Hitler. And Tex Cruz is actually Jesus Christ and that's why he heard God tell him to run for President. Oh. I almost forgot that Megan Kelly is the daughter of Nancy Pelosi and Bill Clinton.
Thank you Breibart, for doing something about my intelligence.