Paris Accords as good as dead!!

[skookerasbil]

The Paris Climate Accords Are Looking More and More Like Fantasy



I said after Trump pulled out it was doa....every alarmist guy called bs..

Guess what s0ns....wrong again

 

[saveliberty]

negative emissions....sounds like bladder damage.

 

[jillian]

The Paris Climate Accords Are Looking More and More Like Fantasy



I said after Trump pulled out it was doa....every alarmist guy called bs..

Guess what s0ns....wrong again

look how the idiots celebrate stupid.

 

[Missourian]

It was a joke to begin with...

 

[Sunsettommy]

From the link,

"This kind of indifference is, unfortunately, nothing new when it comes to climate. In 1997, the Kyoto Protocol extended the 1992 U.N. Framework Convention on Climate Change into a binding international treaty, committing all nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to “a level that would prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” You don’t hear much about Kyoto anymore, despite its landmark status, because it was completely ineffective; the 20 years that followed the treaty produced more carbon emissions than the 20 years that preceded it, and brought us where we are today, in dire straits."

Kyoto FAILED too, America stayed out it with a 95-0 vote telling Clinton they would never ratify that mess as it is. Billy withdrew the documents in response.

 

[Sunsettommy]

By the way already started a similar post earlier,

LINK

 

[DGS49]

Do your homework. The Paris "accords" are a joke. Each country was asked to MAKE UP THEIR OWN COMMITMENT, and aside from a few Western countries they are all garbage. China - the largest polluter and generator of CO2 - "committed" to keep increasing its CO2 output until 2030(!), when it will level off, then gradually decrease. India - also near the top - committed to keep doing what they were doing anyway. They are meaningless.

More importantly, the countries where the increase in CO2 will be greatest are third-world countries (like India) where they will be fighting to get electricity, sanitation, air conditioning, transportation into areas where they now do not have them. Do you think they give a **** for one moment about their "carbon footprint"? They want to advance to more modern, healthy standard, and they are entitled to pursue that, even if it means generating tons of CO2.

Finally, if every country, including the U.S., met all of their "commitments" under Paris, it would result in a decrease in the earth's surface temperature of less than one half of one degree C by year 2100, when compared to "doing nothing."

Paris deserves to die.

The civilized world needs to be committing to making the engineering changes necessary to deal with climate change, whether that means moving populations (as China did with the Three Gorges Dam), building levees, desalinating water, or whatever. The earth is warming and "we" need to adapt. It won't be a problem, although it will be costly. But it would be a total waste of money to take extraordinary measures to reduce carbon emissions in developing countries. Work on efficiencies, conservation of energy, and NUCLEAR POWER.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Ooooh another Ears legacy shot to shit

 

[shockedcanadian]

Yet another global socialist agenda created, planned and enacted to destroy the United States of America, all while propping up China and India for world dominance. The loss of Hillary was worth it to avoid this treasonous "Accord" in and of itself.

Any global socialist who supported this in the desire to further exploit and destroy America, its economy and taxpayer, deserves their place in the Afterlife, and I pray I'm not sharing this same place with you.

 

[irosie91]

negative emissions....sounds like bladder damage.

no----urethra back up

 

[irosie91]

fret not, climateers. In times of stress------and need.-------MAKING A
LIVING TRUMPS THE HEALTH OF THE DAISIES OF THE FIELD.

 

[skookerasbil]

Welp... sure as hell is looking like nobody cares about the carbon footprint

 

[skookerasbil]

Just a little observation.... is there a member who consistently creates more irrelevant posts than Jillian?

 

[skookerasbil]

You know you have to ask yourself.... who is having way more fun these days? The Skeptics or the warmers?

Well duh....

 

[JGalt]

The Paris Climate Accords Are Looking More and More Like Fantasy



I said after Trump pulled out it was doa....every alarmist guy called bs..

Guess what s0ns....wrong again

look how the idiots celebrate stupid.

No, actually we're celebrating American autonomy, the right to decide our own energy future, and the right to not be forced to kowtow to a bunch of globalist dickheads who honestly, don't have the best interests of my country at heart.

But you're free to move to Paris anytime you want to.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The Paris Climate Accords Are Looking More and More Like Fantasy



I said after Trump pulled out it was doa....every alarmist guy called bs..

Guess what s0ns....wrong again

While Wallace-Wells' editorial makes for interesting reading, I'm not of a mind that his perspective or representation of the matter is spot on. I may agree with him or not, but I don't see him as someone on whose opinion/remarks I can rely. He strikes me as someone who's slightly more given to "grinding an axe" than he is to, with complete factual accuracy, presenting facts and from them developing legitimate premises wherefrom in turn are developed sound/cogent inferences and conclusions.

Don't get me wrong, his positions aren't typically flat-out weak; but he's developed a track record of putting a good deal of effort into presenting positions that are also not strong. I guess that makes some of his positions/arguments of mediocre strength. That may be good enough for some people, but I'm not among one of those people.

As goes his position about the Paris accord, well, it's certainly plausible and it has a decent measure of probability for the U.S. a major world player as goes climate mis-/management. Thus I'm not rejecting his "headline" conclusion, but insofar as the U.S. isn't currently a member of the Paris Accord, I see that agreement's ongoing success/failure as something its member nations must bring to fruition to whatever extent they can given the U.S.' non-participation. Accordingly, I'm not going to read his essay to find out precisely how strong or weak it is.

 

[skookerasbil]

Crickets from the motley fool's....losing does suck so certainly understandable.

 

[skookerasbil]

The Paris Climate Accords Are Looking More and More Like Fantasy



I said after Trump pulled out it was doa....every alarmist guy called bs..

Guess what s0ns....wrong again

While Wallace-Wells' editorial makes for interesting reading, I'm not of a mind that his perspective or representation of the matter is spot on. I may agree with him or not, but I don't see him as someone on whose opinion/remarks I can rely. He strikes me as someone who's slightly more given to "grinding an axe" than he is to, with complete factual accuracy, presenting facts and from them developing legitimate premises wherefrom in turn are developed sound/cogent inferences and conclusions.

Don't get me wrong, his positions aren't typically flat-out weak; but he's developed a track record of putting a good deal of effort into presenting positions that are also not strong. I guess that makes some of his positions/arguments of mediocre strength. That may be good enough for some people, but I'm not among one of those people.

As goes his position about the Paris accord, well, it's certainly plausible and it has a decent measure of probability for the U.S. a major world player as goes climate mis-/management. Thus I'm not rejecting his "headline" conclusion, but insofar as the U.S. isn't currently a member of the Paris Accord, I see that agreement's ongoing success/failure as something its member nations must bring to fruition to whatever extent they can given the U.S.' non-participation. Accordingly, I'm not going to read his essay to find out precisely how strong or weak it is.

When have these summits ever been successful? The answer is.... never....and that was WITH American $$. The bars they set on emissions laughable but more hysterical is what they could even realistically achieve on temp decrease. Only a complete nut would call it even a marginal success

 

[usmbguest5318]

The Paris Climate Accords Are Looking More and More Like Fantasy



I said after Trump pulled out it was doa....every alarmist guy called bs..

Guess what s0ns....wrong again

While Wallace-Wells' editorial makes for interesting reading, I'm not of a mind that his perspective or representation of the matter is spot on. I may agree with him or not, but I don't see him as someone on whose opinion/remarks I can rely. He strikes me as someone who's slightly more given to "grinding an axe" than he is to, with complete factual accuracy, presenting facts and from them developing legitimate premises wherefrom in turn are developed sound/cogent inferences and conclusions.

Don't get me wrong, his positions aren't typically flat-out weak; but he's developed a track record of putting a good deal of effort into presenting positions that are also not strong. I guess that makes some of his positions/arguments of mediocre strength. That may be good enough for some people, but I'm not among one of those people.

As goes his position about the Paris accord, well, it's certainly plausible and it has a decent measure of probability for the U.S. a major world player as goes climate mis-/management. Thus I'm not rejecting his "headline" conclusion, but insofar as the U.S. isn't currently a member of the Paris Accord, I see that agreement's ongoing success/failure as something its member nations must bring to fruition to whatever extent they can given the U.S.' non-participation. Accordingly, I'm not going to read his essay to find out precisely how strong or weak it is.

When have these summits ever been successful? The answer is.... never....and that was WITH American $$. The bars they set on emissions laughable but more hysterical is what they could even realistically achieve on temp decrease. Only a complete nut would call it even a marginal success

When have these summits ever been successful? The answer is.... never.

Your thinking the answer is "never" reflects either your naivete, inanity, ignorance or novelty, or some combination of those, or perhaps and quite probably all four. The success or failure of political and international summit, a negotiation meeting, between/among sovereign entities is defined by what be the goals of the negotiation. Indeed, the mere fact that a treaty/agreement was signed means success of some sort was achieved. Among the goals of no negotiation is the goal of "lasting forever," though that may be what folks would like to result from an agreement. Be that as it may, intelligent humans know going-in that nothing lasts forever.

History is replete with successful summits. Here are but a few of the "big ones":

• Yalta -- Sought to find agreement among the Allies for the apportionment of Germany after WWII. It did.
• President Nixon with Premier Chou En-lai -- Sought to restore communication between the U.S. and China. It did.
  
• President Carter, Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel and President Anwar Sadat of Egypt -- Sought to obtain a signed peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. It did.
  
• Reagan and Gorbachev "Fireside Chat" -- Sought to establish rapport that would in turn facilitate the two countries later being able to arrive at nuclear arms agreements. It did.
  
• Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) -- Sought to obtain among the whole of Christendom ecumenical concordance about what be the nature of Christian faith. It did.
• Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) -- Sought to divide newly discovered lands outside of Europe between Spain and Portugal. It did. Indeed, it is why Brazil is today a Portuguese speaking country and the rest of Mexico, Central and South America are Spanish speaking countries.
  
• Summit at Münster and Osnabrück (1648) -- Sought to end the Thirty Years' War. It did. Treaty/Peace of Westphalia.
• Paris Summit (1783) -- Produced the Treaty of Paris which, as the oldest agreement signed by the United States, is AFAIK still in effect. It sought to end the American Revolution and secured recognition of the United States' sovereignty by other world powers of the day, most notably France and England, and defined the borders of the newly formed nation. It did.
• Summit at Versailles -- Sought to obtain agreement among Europe's powers to end WWI. It did. It's product is called the Treaty of Versailles (1919)
  
• Congress of Vienna (1814–15) -- The agreement's necessity resulted from Napoleon's defeat. Sought to define what land Europe would be designated as being part of what country. It did.
  
  Map of Europe in 1812
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 500+ pages of treaties and agreements between the U.S. and other nations that remained in effect as of 2017.
  • Partial list of the treaties contained in the above document: United States Treaties and International Agreements: 1776-1949

Apparently you think think treaties are negotiated, agreement and signatures obtained via "Vulcan mind meld" or something other than a summit.

 

[Sunsettommy]

The Paris Climate Accords Are Looking More and More Like Fantasy



I said after Trump pulled out it was doa....every alarmist guy called bs..

Guess what s0ns....wrong again

While Wallace-Wells' editorial makes for interesting reading, I'm not of a mind that his perspective or representation of the matter is spot on. I may agree with him or not, but I don't see him as someone on whose opinion/remarks I can rely. He strikes me as someone who's slightly more given to "grinding an axe" than he is to, with complete factual accuracy, presenting facts and from them developing legitimate premises wherefrom in turn are developed sound/cogent inferences and conclusions.

Don't get me wrong, his positions aren't typically flat-out weak; but he's developed a track record of putting a good deal of effort into presenting positions that are also not strong. I guess that makes some of his positions/arguments of mediocre strength. That may be good enough for some people, but I'm not among one of those people.

As goes his position about the Paris accord, well, it's certainly plausible and it has a decent measure of probability for the U.S. a major world player as goes climate mis-/management. Thus I'm not rejecting his "headline" conclusion, but insofar as the U.S. isn't currently a member of the Paris Accord, I see that agreement's ongoing success/failure as something its member nations must bring to fruition to whatever extent they can given the U.S.' non-participation. Accordingly, I'm not going to read his essay to find out precisely how strong or weak it is.

When have these summits ever been successful? The answer is.... never....and that was WITH American $$. The bars they set on emissions laughable but more hysterical is what they could even realistically achieve on temp decrease. Only a complete nut would call it even a marginal success

When have these summits ever been successful? The answer is.... never.

Your thinking the answer is "never" reflects either your naivete, inanity, ignorance or novelty, or some combination of those, or perhaps and quite probably all four. The success or failure of political and international summit, a negotiation meeting, between/among sovereign entities is defined by what be the goals of the negotiation. Among those goals is never the goal of "lasting forever." History is replete with successful summits. Here are but a few of the "big ones":

• Yalta -- Sought to find agreement among the Allies for the apportionment of Germany after WWII. It did.
• President Nixon with Premier Chou En-lai -- Sought to restore communication between the U.S. and China. It did.
  
• President Carter, Prime Minister Menachem Begin of Israel and President Anwar Sadat of Egypt -- Sought to obtain a signed peace agreement between Israel and Egypt. It did.
  
• Reagan and Gorbachev "Fireside Chat" -- Sought to establish rapport that would in turn facilitate the two countries later being able to arrive at nuclear arms agreements. It did.
  
• Council of Nicea (325 A.D.) -- Sought to obtain among the whole of Christendom ecumenical concordance about what be the nature of Christian faith. It did.
• Treaty of Tordesillas (1494) -- Sought to divide newly discovered lands outside of Europe between Spain and Portugal. It did. Indeed, it is why Brazil is today a Portuguese speaking country and the rest of Mexico, Central and South America are Spanish speaking countries.
  
• Summit at Münster and Osnabrück (1648) -- Sought to end the Thirty Years' War. It did. Treaty/Peace of Westphalia.
• Paris Summit (1783) -- Produced the Treaty of Paris which, as the oldest agreement signed by the United States, is AFAIK still in effect. It sought to end the American Revolution and secured recognition of the United States' sovereignty by other world powers of the day, most notably France and England, and defined the borders of the newly formed nation. It did.
• Summit at Versailles -- Sought to obtain agreement among Europe's powers to end WWI. It did. It's product is called the Treaty of Versailles (1919)
  
• Congress of Vienna (1814–15) -- The agreement's necessity resulted from Napoleon's defeat. Sought to define what land Europe would be designated as being part of what country. It did.
  
  Map of Europe in 1812
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 500+ pages of treaties and agreements between the U.S. and other nations that remained in effect as of 2017.
  • Partial list of the treaties contained in the above document: United States Treaties and International Agreements: 1776-1949

Apparently you think think treaties are negotiated, agreement and signatures obtained via "Vulcan mind meld" or something other than a summit.

A fine reply, but I think he was referring to climate summits.