Paris Climate Agreement Collapsing

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is sickening to know how little some people care about the orb we call home. But then stupid is supposed to be self canceling, but why must they take us, the intelligent, with them?

If you whiney twats would support useful carbon-free tech like nuclear, we wouldn't mock you so much.

 

[fncceo]

It is sickening to know how little some people care about the orb we call home. But then stupid is supposed to be self canceling, but why must they take us, the intelligent, with them?

I care so much about this planet that I'm unwilling to see the developed nations be stripped of their financial resources to spend it supporting third world baby factories.

My part of the Earth First.

Go get your own money Africa and China.

 

[rightwinger]

Once Crooked Donnie is gone we will tear down the wall and rejoin the Paris Climate Accords

 

[Sunsettommy]

It is sickening to know how little some people care about the orb we call home. But then stupid is supposed to be self canceling, but why must they take us, the intelligent, with them?

America did something most signatories of the Paris Treaty FAILED to do, reduce CO2 emission.

Even Without Paris Agreement, U.S. Leads World in Declining Carbon Dioxide Emissions

"During the past two decades, the U.S., along with many Western European countries, has made emissions reduction and energy efficiency major priorities. Both through regulations that mandated stricter emissions standards for cars and power plants, as well as the deployment of new technology, the country has been able to dramatically reduce how much carbon dioxide it puts into the atmosphere.

Since 2006, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions have been reduced by 11 percent. The trend towards lower emissions has continued as electricity generation transitions away from coal. In 2016, the U.S. reduced its carbon emissions further by 2 percent. This has been a dramatic decline, as this graph, from U.K. climate scientist Robert Wilson demonstrates.

"

 

[Sunsettommy]

It is sickening to know how little some people care about the orb we call home. But then stupid is supposed to be self canceling, but why must they take us, the intelligent, with them?

They need to take a tour to Mexico and South of the Border and what the governments to for them. Now that is the Rich screwing over the poor. There are some really nice people that live down their, and they are caught between a rock and a hard place. The
Commies see them as a soft target for a take over.

You know that I go to mexico every year. I have friends there and may even move there when the time is correct. As for the rich screwing over the poor you seem to enjoy it.

Why do so many Mexicans try hard to leave Mexico into America and by the MILLIONS over three+ decades?

 

[sealybobo]

The Paris Climate Agreement is going as expected, where the big issue is no longer how to cut emissions but why the developing countries aren’t getting the $100 billion/year the developed countries promised to give them.

We all know what’s happened. They had expected the US to part of the agreement and then pay the bill for everyone else.

Where is the promised money, campaigners ask at climate talks in...

Trump is the worst when it comes to the environment

The two Republican congressmen pushing a bill to put a price on planet-warming emissions wants to tax carbon at $24 per ton. Four Democratic lawmakers pegged the price at $50 per ton in their own legislation. The Trump administration settled on something more lower: $1 to $7 per ton by 2020.

Here’s A Radical New Plan To Tax Carbon And Give Everyone In America $2,237 | HuffPost

 

[PredFan]

It is sickening to know how little some people care about the orb we call home. But then stupid is supposed to be self canceling, but why must they take us, the intelligent, with them?

What’s REALLY sickening is that people as ignorant as you vote.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Paris Climate Agreement is going as expected, where the big issue is no longer how to cut emissions but why the developing countries aren’t getting the $100 billion/year the developed countries promised to give them.

We all know what’s happened. They had expected the US to part of the agreement and then pay the bill for everyone else.

Where is the promised money, campaigners ask at climate talks in...

Trump is the worst when it comes to the environment

The two Republican congressmen pushing a bill to put a price on planet-warming emissions wants to tax carbon at $24 per ton. Four Democratic lawmakers pegged the price at $50 per ton in their own legislation. The Trump administration settled on something more lower: $1 to $7 per ton by 2020.

Here’s A Radical New Plan To Tax Carbon And Give Everyone In America $2,237 | HuffPost

The two Republican congressmen pushing a bill to put a price on planet-warming emissions wants to tax carbon at $24 per ton.

It's true, Republicans can come up with economically moronic ideas too.

If Dems were serious about the dangers of CO2, they'd be big supporters of nuclear energy.

 

[sealybobo]

The Paris Climate Agreement is going as expected, where the big issue is no longer how to cut emissions but why the developing countries aren’t getting the $100 billion/year the developed countries promised to give them.

We all know what’s happened. They had expected the US to part of the agreement and then pay the bill for everyone else.

Where is the promised money, campaigners ask at climate talks in...

Trump is the worst when it comes to the environment

The two Republican congressmen pushing a bill to put a price on planet-warming emissions wants to tax carbon at $24 per ton. Four Democratic lawmakers pegged the price at $50 per ton in their own legislation. The Trump administration settled on something more lower: $1 to $7 per ton by 2020.

Here’s A Radical New Plan To Tax Carbon And Give Everyone In America $2,237 | HuffPost

The two Republican congressmen pushing a bill to put a price on planet-warming emissions wants to tax carbon at $24 per ton.

It's true, Republicans can come up with economically moronic ideas too.

If Dems were serious about the dangers of CO2, they'd be big supporters of nuclear energy.

We aren't against that GOP, Democrats join forces to advance nuclear power bill

But we are against Trump's $1-$7 price tag. If he was serious he wouldn't have pushed that ridiculous #.

 

[sealybobo]

It is sickening to know how little some people care about the orb we call home. But then stupid is supposed to be self canceling, but why must they take us, the intelligent, with them?

Another dope who can navigate life somehow without ever considering having to answer the question, "At what cost?

Thankfully, most people weigh answering that question heavily, thus, we see very, very little going on with climate change action.

Funny as shit when the fringe mocks the majority.....its like a guy walking stark naked down the middle of Main Street shaking a banana at people warning of the apocolypse.

Majorities in all 40 nations polled say climate change is a serious problem, and a global median of 54% believe it is a very serious problem. Still, the intensity of concern varies substantially across regions and nations. Latin Americans and sub-Saharan Africans are particularly worried about climate change. Americans and Chinese, whose countries have the highest overall carbon dioxide emissions, are less concerned.

People in countries with high per-capita levels of carbon emissions are less intensely concerned about climate change. Among the nations we surveyed, the U.S. has the highest carbon emissions per capita, but it is among the least concerned about climate change and its potential impact. Others in this category are Australia, Canada and Russia. Publics in Africa, Latin America and Asia, many of which have very low emissions per capita, are frequently the most concerned about the negative effects of climate change.

This is because the corporate media is lying to us. They lie to us because their corporate masters want them to lie to us about global warming being man made and bad for us.

Same reason so many Americans don't believe in evolution. The people who run the GOP and the Churches are lying to you suckers. They are anti facts. Anti science.

Republicans, the Rich and Religion are making Americans stupid.

Evolution, Climate and Vaccines: Why Americans Deny Science

The U.S. has a science problem. Around half of the country's citizens reject the facts of evolution; fewer than a third agree there is a scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, and the number who accept the importance of vaccines is ticking downward.

 

[sealybobo]

Yet Americans love science. Even as many in the U.S. reject certain scientific conclusions, National Science Foundation surveys have found that public support of science is high, with more than 75 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of taxpayer-funded basic research.

"The whole discussion around scientific denial has become very, very simplified

Often, people's denial of scientific evidence is based on motivations other than finding truth, such as protecting their social identity, the research said.

For example, the more liberal a person is, the more likely he or she is to agree that humans are causing global warming; a conservative is far more likely to blame natural climate variation or say scientists are making the whole thing up.

Kahan's research has also shown that the more science-literate people are, the more strongly they hold to their beliefs — even if those beliefs are totally wrong.

In other words, it's not about hating science or misunderstanding the facts. It's about motivation.

"Beliefs are difficult to budge, because people don't act like scientists, weighing up evidence in an even-handed way," Matthew Hornsey, a psychologist at the University of Queensland, wrote in an email to Live Science. "When someone wants to believe something, then they act more like lawyers trying to prosecute what they already want to be true. And they cherry-pick the evidence to be able to do that."

The real question, Hornsey said, is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yet Americans love science. Even as many in the U.S. reject certain scientific conclusions, National Science Foundation surveys have found that public support of science is high, with more than 75 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of taxpayer-funded basic research.

"The whole discussion around scientific denial has become very, very simplified

Often, people's denial of scientific evidence is based on motivations other than finding truth, such as protecting their social identity, the research said.

For example, the more liberal a person is, the more likely he or she is to agree that humans are causing global warming; a conservative is far more likely to blame natural climate variation or say scientists are making the whole thing up.

Kahan's research has also shown that the more science-literate people are, the more strongly they hold to their beliefs — even if those beliefs are totally wrong.

In other words, it's not about hating science or misunderstanding the facts. It's about motivation.

"Beliefs are difficult to budge, because people don't act like scientists, weighing up evidence in an even-handed way," Matthew Hornsey, a psychologist at the University of Queensland, wrote in an email to Live Science. "When someone wants to believe something, then they act more like lawyers trying to prosecute what they already want to be true. And they cherry-pick the evidence to be able to do that."

The real question, Hornsey said, is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.

What scientific evidence that proves man is 100% responsible?


.

 

[sealybobo]

Yet Americans love science. Even as many in the U.S. reject certain scientific conclusions, National Science Foundation surveys have found that public support of science is high, with more than 75 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of taxpayer-funded basic research.

"The whole discussion around scientific denial has become very, very simplified

Often, people's denial of scientific evidence is based on motivations other than finding truth, such as protecting their social identity, the research said.

For example, the more liberal a person is, the more likely he or she is to agree that humans are causing global warming; a conservative is far more likely to blame natural climate variation or say scientists are making the whole thing up.

Kahan's research has also shown that the more science-literate people are, the more strongly they hold to their beliefs — even if those beliefs are totally wrong.

In other words, it's not about hating science or misunderstanding the facts. It's about motivation.

"Beliefs are difficult to budge, because people don't act like scientists, weighing up evidence in an even-handed way," Matthew Hornsey, a psychologist at the University of Queensland, wrote in an email to Live Science. "When someone wants to believe something, then they act more like lawyers trying to prosecute what they already want to be true. And they cherry-pick the evidence to be able to do that."

The real question, Hornsey said, is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.

What scientific evidence that proves man is 100% responsible?


.

Who said 100% responsible?

a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yet Americans love science. Even as many in the U.S. reject certain scientific conclusions, National Science Foundation surveys have found that public support of science is high, with more than 75 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of taxpayer-funded basic research.

"The whole discussion around scientific denial has become very, very simplified

Often, people's denial of scientific evidence is based on motivations other than finding truth, such as protecting their social identity, the research said.

For example, the more liberal a person is, the more likely he or she is to agree that humans are causing global warming; a conservative is far more likely to blame natural climate variation or say scientists are making the whole thing up.

Kahan's research has also shown that the more science-literate people are, the more strongly they hold to their beliefs — even if those beliefs are totally wrong.

In other words, it's not about hating science or misunderstanding the facts. It's about motivation.

"Beliefs are difficult to budge, because people don't act like scientists, weighing up evidence in an even-handed way," Matthew Hornsey, a psychologist at the University of Queensland, wrote in an email to Live Science. "When someone wants to believe something, then they act more like lawyers trying to prosecute what they already want to be true. And they cherry-pick the evidence to be able to do that."

The real question, Hornsey said, is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.

What scientific evidence that proves man is 100% responsible?


.

Who said 100% responsible?

a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.

That doesn't answer my question ...and from my point of view the AGW cult crew are no better then the guys running around in 1899 with signs on saying the end is near, or in 1999 with Y2K ...


.

 

[hadit]

It is sickening to know how little some people care about the orb we call home. But then stupid is supposed to be self canceling, but why must they take us, the intelligent, with them?

You're free to donate all you want for the cause.

I do with a caveat that nothing goes to tezass.

So only parts of the globe matter?

 

[sealybobo]

Yet Americans love science. Even as many in the U.S. reject certain scientific conclusions, National Science Foundation surveys have found that public support of science is high, with more than 75 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of taxpayer-funded basic research.

"The whole discussion around scientific denial has become very, very simplified

Often, people's denial of scientific evidence is based on motivations other than finding truth, such as protecting their social identity, the research said.

For example, the more liberal a person is, the more likely he or she is to agree that humans are causing global warming; a conservative is far more likely to blame natural climate variation or say scientists are making the whole thing up.

Kahan's research has also shown that the more science-literate people are, the more strongly they hold to their beliefs — even if those beliefs are totally wrong.

In other words, it's not about hating science or misunderstanding the facts. It's about motivation.

"Beliefs are difficult to budge, because people don't act like scientists, weighing up evidence in an even-handed way," Matthew Hornsey, a psychologist at the University of Queensland, wrote in an email to Live Science. "When someone wants to believe something, then they act more like lawyers trying to prosecute what they already want to be true. And they cherry-pick the evidence to be able to do that."

The real question, Hornsey said, is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.

What scientific evidence that proves man is 100% responsible?


.

Who said 100% responsible?

a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.

That doesn't answer my question ...and from my point of view the AGW cult crew are no better then the guys running around in 1899 with signs on saying the end is near, or in 1999 with Y2K ...


.

That’s what a lot of Marcians and Venucians said

 

[Wyatt earp]

Yet Americans love science. Even as many in the U.S. reject certain scientific conclusions, National Science Foundation surveys have found that public support of science is high, with more than 75 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of taxpayer-funded basic research.

"The whole discussion around scientific denial has become very, very simplified

Often, people's denial of scientific evidence is based on motivations other than finding truth, such as protecting their social identity, the research said.

For example, the more liberal a person is, the more likely he or she is to agree that humans are causing global warming; a conservative is far more likely to blame natural climate variation or say scientists are making the whole thing up.

Kahan's research has also shown that the more science-literate people are, the more strongly they hold to their beliefs — even if those beliefs are totally wrong.

In other words, it's not about hating science or misunderstanding the facts. It's about motivation.

"Beliefs are difficult to budge, because people don't act like scientists, weighing up evidence in an even-handed way," Matthew Hornsey, a psychologist at the University of Queensland, wrote in an email to Live Science. "When someone wants to believe something, then they act more like lawyers trying to prosecute what they already want to be true. And they cherry-pick the evidence to be able to do that."

The real question, Hornsey said, is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.

What scientific evidence that proves man is 100% responsible?


.

Who said 100% responsible?

a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.

That doesn't answer my question ...and from my point of view the AGW cult crew are no better then the guys running around in 1899 with signs on saying the end is near, or in 1999 with Y2K ...


.

That’s what a lot of Marcians and Venucians said

So now Mars and Venus had civilized life?

 

[sealybobo]

Yet Americans love science. Even as many in the U.S. reject certain scientific conclusions, National Science Foundation surveys have found that public support of science is high, with more than 75 percent of Americans saying they are in favor of taxpayer-funded basic research.

"The whole discussion around scientific denial has become very, very simplified

Often, people's denial of scientific evidence is based on motivations other than finding truth, such as protecting their social identity, the research said.

For example, the more liberal a person is, the more likely he or she is to agree that humans are causing global warming; a conservative is far more likely to blame natural climate variation or say scientists are making the whole thing up.

Kahan's research has also shown that the more science-literate people are, the more strongly they hold to their beliefs — even if those beliefs are totally wrong.

In other words, it's not about hating science or misunderstanding the facts. It's about motivation.

"Beliefs are difficult to budge, because people don't act like scientists, weighing up evidence in an even-handed way," Matthew Hornsey, a psychologist at the University of Queensland, wrote in an email to Live Science. "When someone wants to believe something, then they act more like lawyers trying to prosecute what they already want to be true. And they cherry-pick the evidence to be able to do that."

The real question, Hornsey said, is why people want to believe something that flies in the face of scientific evidence. In some cases, the reason can be political: Solving the problems created by climate change would mean standing in the way of the free market, something conservatives tend to oppose.

What scientific evidence that proves man is 100% responsible?


.

Who said 100% responsible?

a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.

That doesn't answer my question ...and from my point of view the AGW cult crew are no better then the guys running around in 1899 with signs on saying the end is near, or in 1999 with Y2K ...


.

That’s what a lot of Marcians and Venucians said

So now Mars and Venus had civilized life?

Maybe. Do you claim to know?

Who said civilized?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The Paris Climate Agreement is going as expected, where the big issue is no longer how to cut emissions but why the developing countries aren’t getting the $100 billion/year the developed countries promised to give them.

We all know what’s happened. They had expected the US to part of the agreement and then pay the bill for everyone else.

Where is the promised money, campaigners ask at climate talks in...

Trump is the worst when it comes to the environment

The two Republican congressmen pushing a bill to put a price on planet-warming emissions wants to tax carbon at $24 per ton. Four Democratic lawmakers pegged the price at $50 per ton in their own legislation. The Trump administration settled on something more lower: $1 to $7 per ton by 2020.

Here’s A Radical New Plan To Tax Carbon And Give Everyone In America $2,237 | HuffPost

The two Republican congressmen pushing a bill to put a price on planet-warming emissions wants to tax carbon at $24 per ton.

It's true, Republicans can come up with economically moronic ideas too.

If Dems were serious about the dangers of CO2, they'd be big supporters of nuclear energy.

We aren't against that GOP, Democrats join forces to advance nuclear power bill

But we are against Trump's $1-$7 price tag. If he was serious he wouldn't have pushed that ridiculous #.

We aren't against that

Only 99% of Dems are against nuclear.

But we are against Trump's $1-$7 price tag. If he was serious he wouldn't have pushed that ridiculous #.

I agree, the correct number is still $0.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What scientific evidence that proves man is 100% responsible?


.

Who said 100% responsible?

a 2010 study found that when people were shown incorrect information alongside a correction, the update failed to reverse their initial belief in the misinformation. Even worse, partisans who were motivated to believe the original incorrect information became even more firm in their belief in that information after reading a correction, the researchers found. For example, conservatives who were told that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction before the Iraq war believed that claim more firmly after reading a correction.

That doesn't answer my question ...and from my point of view the AGW cult crew are no better then the guys running around in 1899 with signs on saying the end is near, or in 1999 with Y2K ...


.

That’s what a lot of Marcians and Venucians said

So now Mars and Venus had civilized life?

Maybe. Do you claim to know?

Who said civilized?

Do you claim to know that Aliens didn't populate earth with humans?