So I am watching CNN repeat the mantra "this agreement is meant to decrease climate on the globe"

[forkup]

Sneaky question. also a dishonest one, trying to get a firm number on something like this is folly. Most Scientist agreeing that it is happening should give you pause. The fact that they can't quantify it sufficiently to your liking is a strawman argument. If I see a beach I can say with confidence there are billions of grains of sand there. If you then claim. Well you can't say exactly how many there are, so my assertion that it's only 2 grains of sand is equally valid, is simply false.

It's not a sneaky question, it was Obama's mantra claiming 97% of scientists agree..


Once again Judith Curry and company is part of the 97%

Yet your side call them deniers...

Again why is that?


.

The straw man argument again. Look not everybody agrees on everything so we are absolved of having to take action. This is my reply

But I know it's all some horrible conspiracy. At least that's what people like you claim. The lack of anything that substantiates your claims is not proof of you being wrong, but rather that "truth" is being suppressed. Easy enough to square away in your head I guess. Also something future generations might regret. Look at it like this. I'm wrong and it means the economy reshuffled to accommodate clean energy when it wasn't necessary. You're wrong, well I guess Arizona having beach front property isn't all bad.

So your in the crowd that thinks money grows on trees?

At what cost in money and jobs?

We all know why the left is upset, because it's personal to you..Trump used science you used politcs

We just don't know.

.

What science? I gave you just one of my sources you give me yours. Ever heard of Low probability, high risk? I use it at my job. It comes down to in my line of work stuff not just going wrong but going horribly wrong. The way we tackle it is by putting in as many redundancies as possible. It's time consuming and expensive but since the alternative is a giant explosion it is deemed necessary. The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous risk is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money? Something of which the economical impact is still under debate btw.

I did post my sources... You want to post man is the primary cause we have been hearing it for a 100 years..all you are saying to me is you don't know..



.

I see once again you simply refuse to answer the premise of my post I'll try again.

Ever heard of Low probability, high consequence? I use it at my job. It comes down to in my line of work stuff not just going wrong but going horribly wrong. The way we tackle it is by putting in as many redundancies as possible. It's time consuming and expensive but since the alternative is a giant explosion it is deemed necessary. The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous consequence is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money? Something of which the economical impact is still under debate btw.

 

[Wyatt earp]

It's not a sneaky question, it was Obama's mantra claiming 97% of scientists agree..


Once again Judith Curry and company is part of the 97%

Yet your side call them deniers...

Again why is that?


.

The straw man argument again. Look not everybody agrees on everything so we are absolved of having to take action. This is my reply

But I know it's all some horrible conspiracy. At least that's what people like you claim. The lack of anything that substantiates your claims is not proof of you being wrong, but rather that "truth" is being suppressed. Easy enough to square away in your head I guess. Also something future generations might regret. Look at it like this. I'm wrong and it means the economy reshuffled to accommodate clean energy when it wasn't necessary. You're wrong, well I guess Arizona having beach front property isn't all bad.

So your in the crowd that thinks money grows on trees?

At what cost in money and jobs?

We all know why the left is upset, because it's personal to you..Trump used science you used politcs

We just don't know.

.

What science? I gave you just one of my sources you give me yours. Ever heard of Low probability, high risk? I use it at my job. It comes down to in my line of work stuff not just going wrong but going horribly wrong. The way we tackle it is by putting in as many redundancies as possible. It's time consuming and expensive but since the alternative is a giant explosion it is deemed necessary. The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous risk is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money? Something of which the economical impact is still under debate btw.

I did post my sources... You want to post man is the primary cause we have been hearing it for a 100 years..all you are saying to me is you don't know..



.

I see once again you simply refuse to answer the premise of my post I'll try again.

Ever heard of Low probability, high consequence? I use it at my job. It comes down to in my line of work stuff not just going wrong but going horribly wrong. The way we tackle it is by putting in as many redundancies as possible. It's time consuming and expensive but since the alternative is a giant explosion it is deemed necessary. The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous consequence is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money? Something of which the economical impact is still under debate btw.

That's not a question your babbling ..you want a pat on your back.. A feel good measure..


To think you're doing something..


.

 

[forkup]

The straw man argument again. Look not everybody agrees on everything so we are absolved of having to take action. This is my reply

So your in the crowd that thinks money grows on trees?

At what cost in money and jobs?

We all know why the left is upset, because it's personal to you..Trump used science you used politcs

We just don't know.

.

What science? I gave you just one of my sources you give me yours. Ever heard of Low probability, high risk? I use it at my job. It comes down to in my line of work stuff not just going wrong but going horribly wrong. The way we tackle it is by putting in as many redundancies as possible. It's time consuming and expensive but since the alternative is a giant explosion it is deemed necessary. The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous risk is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money? Something of which the economical impact is still under debate btw.

I did post my sources... You want to post man is the primary cause we have been hearing it for a 100 years..all you are saying to me is you don't know..



.

I see once again you simply refuse to answer the premise of my post I'll try again.

Ever heard of Low probability, high consequence? I use it at my job. It comes down to in my line of work stuff not just going wrong but going horribly wrong. The way we tackle it is by putting in as many redundancies as possible. It's time consuming and expensive but since the alternative is a giant explosion it is deemed necessary. The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous consequence is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money? Something of which the economical impact is still under debate btw.

That's not a question your babbling ..you want a pat on your back.. A feel good measure..


To think you're doing something..


.

Fine I'll pull out the question, because all of a sudden you are claiming ignorance.
The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous consequence is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money?

 

[Wyatt earp]

So your in the crowd that thinks money grows on trees?

At what cost in money and jobs?

We all know why the left is upset, because it's personal to you..Trump used science you used politcs

We just don't know.

.

What science? I gave you just one of my sources you give me yours. Ever heard of Low probability, high risk? I use it at my job. It comes down to in my line of work stuff not just going wrong but going horribly wrong. The way we tackle it is by putting in as many redundancies as possible. It's time consuming and expensive but since the alternative is a giant explosion it is deemed necessary. The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous risk is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money? Something of which the economical impact is still under debate btw.

I did post my sources... You want to post man is the primary cause we have been hearing it for a 100 years..all you are saying to me is you don't know..



.

I see once again you simply refuse to answer the premise of my post I'll try again.

Ever heard of Low probability, high consequence? I use it at my job. It comes down to in my line of work stuff not just going wrong but going horribly wrong. The way we tackle it is by putting in as many redundancies as possible. It's time consuming and expensive but since the alternative is a giant explosion it is deemed necessary. The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous consequence is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money? Something of which the economical impact is still under debate btw.

That's not a question your babbling ..you want a pat on your back.. A feel good measure..


To think you're doing something..


.

Fine I'll phrase it in a question, because all of a sudden you are claiming ignorance.
The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous consequence is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money?

When has global warming became biblical? Site when it has?

 

[Wyatt earp]

So your in the crowd that thinks money grows on trees?

At what cost in money and jobs?

We all know why the left is upset, because it's personal to you..Trump used science you used politcs

We just don't know.

.

What science? I gave you just one of my sources you give me yours. Ever heard of Low probability, high risk? I use it at my job. It comes down to in my line of work stuff not just going wrong but going horribly wrong. The way we tackle it is by putting in as many redundancies as possible. It's time consuming and expensive but since the alternative is a giant explosion it is deemed necessary. The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous risk is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money? Something of which the economical impact is still under debate btw.

I did post my sources... You want to post man is the primary cause we have been hearing it for a 100 years..all you are saying to me is you don't know..



.

I see once again you simply refuse to answer the premise of my post I'll try again.

Ever heard of Low probability, high consequence? I use it at my job. It comes down to in my line of work stuff not just going wrong but going horribly wrong. The way we tackle it is by putting in as many redundancies as possible. It's time consuming and expensive but since the alternative is a giant explosion it is deemed necessary. The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous consequence is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money? Something of which the economical impact is still under debate btw.

That's not a question your babbling ..you want a pat on your back.. A feel good measure..


To think you're doing something..


.

Fine I'll pull out the question, because all of a sudden you are claiming ignorance.
The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous consequence is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money?

Let me guess your another one who has stocks in Polaris and Ski do?


.

 

[forkup]

What science? I gave you just one of my sources you give me yours. Ever heard of Low probability, high risk? I use it at my job. It comes down to in my line of work stuff not just going wrong but going horribly wrong. The way we tackle it is by putting in as many redundancies as possible. It's time consuming and expensive but since the alternative is a giant explosion it is deemed necessary. The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous risk is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money? Something of which the economical impact is still under debate btw.

I did post my sources... You want to post man is the primary cause we have been hearing it for a 100 years..all you are saying to me is you don't know..



.

I see once again you simply refuse to answer the premise of my post I'll try again.

Ever heard of Low probability, high consequence? I use it at my job. It comes down to in my line of work stuff not just going wrong but going horribly wrong. The way we tackle it is by putting in as many redundancies as possible. It's time consuming and expensive but since the alternative is a giant explosion it is deemed necessary. The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous consequence is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money? Something of which the economical impact is still under debate btw.

That's not a question your babbling ..you want a pat on your back.. A feel good measure..


To think you're doing something..


.

Fine I'll phrase it in a question, because all of a sudden you are claiming ignorance.
The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous consequence is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money?

When has global warming became biblical? Site when it has?

First you stop deflecting my question.

 

[dannyboys]

The more I hear about this "Accord", the more I am convinced this is just one big welfare payment to other countries. A redistribution of cash and jobs to other countries, for the benefit of global investors.

Wow, what a fraud. Thank God Trump didn't give in to this bs "deal". Some deal. The EU and China can shove it up their behinds.

PRESIDENT TRUMP!!!!!! promised to stop the US AKA TAXPAYER!!!! sending billions of dollars to tiny countries with ZERO carbon footprints so their 'leaders' could pocket most of the money and spend the rest buying wind turbines and solar panels from China and India.
For Christ sake China 'agreed' to maybe have a look at the deal in about thirty years from now. India claimed they couldn't read english but handed out free curry diner coupons at the Indian restaurant down the street from the five star hotel where their contingent of forty had been staying for almost a month.............the bill was handed to John Kerry to give to BONOBO's gov. to pay.

So you saying China became capitalist?


Doesn't that hurt you deep inside?


.

YOU MORON! China has been a capitalist country for centuries!
During Chairman Mao's rule the 'elite' NEVER missed a beat making money off the peasants.
The 'elite' at that time sent their kids to private schools in capitalist countries to shield them from Mao's lunacy.
As soon as the dunce Mao croaked China went right back to being a publically acknowledged capitalist country as it remains today. You REALLY need to read some history books asshole!

 

[Wyatt earp]

I did post my sources... You want to post man is the primary cause we have been hearing it for a 100 years..all you are saying to me is you don't know..



.

I see once again you simply refuse to answer the premise of my post I'll try again.

Ever heard of Low probability, high consequence? I use it at my job. It comes down to in my line of work stuff not just going wrong but going horribly wrong. The way we tackle it is by putting in as many redundancies as possible. It's time consuming and expensive but since the alternative is a giant explosion it is deemed necessary. The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous consequence is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money? Something of which the economical impact is still under debate btw.

That's not a question your babbling ..you want a pat on your back.. A feel good measure..


To think you're doing something..


.

Fine I'll phrase it in a question, because all of a sudden you are claiming ignorance.
The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous consequence is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money?

When has global warming became biblical? Site when it has?

First you stop deflecting my question.

You ***** you defected from my question.

Once again how many of the 97% agree on how much man contributes to global warming?


It's an easy answer...

Is it

5%

20%

50%

85%


What is the number they agree on?

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The more I hear about this "Accord", the more I am convinced this is just one big welfare payment to other countries. A redistribution of cash and jobs to other countries, for the benefit of global investors.

Wow, what a fraud. Thank God Trump didn't give in to this bs "deal". Some deal. The EU and China can shove it up their behinds.

PRESIDENT TRUMP!!!!!! promised to stop the US AKA TAXPAYER!!!! sending billions of dollars to tiny countries with ZERO carbon footprints so their 'leaders' could pocket most of the money and spend the rest buying wind turbines and solar panels from China and India.
For Christ sake China 'agreed' to maybe have a look at the deal in about thirty years from now. India claimed they couldn't read english but handed out free curry diner coupons at the Indian restaurant down the street from the five star hotel where their contingent of forty had been staying for almost a month.............the bill was handed to John Kerry to give to BONOBO's gov. to pay.

So you saying China became capitalist?


Doesn't that hurt you deep inside?


.

YOU MORON! China has been a capitalist country for centuries!
During Chairman Mao's rule the 'elite' NEVER missed a beat making money off the peasants.
The 'elite' at that time sent their kids to private schools in capitalist countries to shield them from Mao's lunacy.
As soon as the dunce Mao croaked China went right back to being a publically acknowledged capitalist country as it remains today. You REALLY need to read some history books asshole!

Got to love these morons who make shit up on here

 

[Wyatt earp]

The more I hear about this "Accord", the more I am convinced this is just one big welfare payment to other countries. A redistribution of cash and jobs to other countries, for the benefit of global investors.

Wow, what a fraud. Thank God Trump didn't give in to this bs "deal". Some deal. The EU and China can shove it up their behinds.

PRESIDENT TRUMP!!!!!! promised to stop the US AKA TAXPAYER!!!! sending billions of dollars to tiny countries with ZERO carbon footprints so their 'leaders' could pocket most of the money and spend the rest buying wind turbines and solar panels from China and India.
For Christ sake China 'agreed' to maybe have a look at the deal in about thirty years from now. India claimed they couldn't read english but handed out free curry diner coupons at the Indian restaurant down the street from the five star hotel where their contingent of forty had been staying for almost a month.............the bill was handed to John Kerry to give to BONOBO's gov. to pay.

So you saying China became capitalist?


Doesn't that hurt you deep inside?


.

YOU MORON! China has been a capitalist country for centuries!
During Chairman Mao's rule the 'elite' NEVER missed a beat making money off the peasants.
The 'elite' at that time sent their kids to private schools in capitalist countries to shield them from Mao's lunacy.
As soon as the dunce Mao croaked China went right back to being a publically acknowledged capitalist country as it remains today. You REALLY need to read some history books asshole!

Bow does it feel to post crap that makes you look like a fool?

 

[forkup]

I see once again you simply refuse to answer the premise of my post I'll try again.

That's not a question your babbling ..you want a pat on your back.. A feel good measure..


To think you're doing something..


.

Fine I'll phrase it in a question, because all of a sudden you are claiming ignorance.
The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous consequence is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money?

When has global warming became biblical? Site when it has?

First you stop deflecting my question.

You ***** you defected from my question.

Once again how many of the 97% agree on how much man contributes to global warming?


It's an easy answer...

Is it

5%

20%

50%

85%


What is the number they agree on?

.

I didn't deflect anything I answered the question honestly be saying that it's an impossible question to answer, we're talking probabilities not absolute numbers. I even gave an analogy. But again you are deflecting. Why do you think POSSIBLE economic harm warrants a high degree of potential harm to future generations. Harm that ranges from severe storms at the very least, to possible mass extinction at it's highest range?

 

[Wyatt earp]

That's not a question your babbling ..you want a pat on your back.. A feel good measure..


To think you're doing something..


.

Fine I'll phrase it in a question, because all of a sudden you are claiming ignorance.
The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous consequence is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money?

When has global warming became biblical? Site when it has?

First you stop deflecting my question.

You ***** you defected from my question.

Once again how many of the 97% agree on how much man contributes to global warming?


It's an easy answer...

Is it

5%

20%

50%

85%


What is the number they agree on?

.

I didn't deflect anything I answered the question honestly be saying that it's an impossible question to answer, we're talking probabilities not absolute numbers. I even gave an analogy. But again you are deflecting. Why do you think POSSIBLE economic harm warrants a high degree of potential harm to future generations. Harm that ranges from severe storms at the very least, to possible mass extinction at it's highest range?

Like the hurricanes al promised us after Katrina?

Your ilk wants to bankrupt us from the something we can't control..

You are not using logic we are on this planet for a ride.

 

[blastoff]

They cant predict the weather day by day so you know they are full of shit on their other forecasting.

Just because you missed the 70s ice age and the global famine that killed millions in the 80s-90s due to the man-made drought that destroyed worldwide crops and your house has survived the annual Katrina-like hurricanes since '05 that warming has caused, all the lefty kooks are full of shit? Got a link?

 

[Wyatt earp]

They cant predict the weather day by day so you know they are full of shit on their other forecasting.

Just because you missed the 70s ice age and the global famine that killed millions in the 80s-90s due to the man-made drought that destroyed worldwide crops and your house has survived the annual Katrina-like hurricanes since '05 that warming has caused, all the lefty kooks are full of shit? Got a link?

I was born in 1965 idiot..


All your doing is throwing a temper tantrum...

It's obvious.

 

[forkup]

Fine I'll phrase it in a question, because all of a sudden you are claiming ignorance.
The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous consequence is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money?

When has global warming became biblical? Site when it has?

First you stop deflecting my question.

You ***** you defected from my question.

Once again how many of the 97% agree on how much man contributes to global warming?


It's an easy answer...

Is it

5%

20%

50%

85%


What is the number they agree on?

.

I didn't deflect anything I answered the question honestly be saying that it's an impossible question to answer, we're talking probabilities not absolute numbers. I even gave an analogy. But again you are deflecting. Why do you think POSSIBLE economic harm warrants a high degree of potential harm to future generations. Harm that ranges from severe storms at the very least, to possible mass extinction at it's highest range?

Like the hurricanes al promised us after Katrina?

Your ilk wants to bankrupt us from the something we can't control..

You are not using logic we are on this planet for a ride.

The way I see it there are only 2 reasons you aren't willing to answer what I ask.
-"I'm convinced I'm right so the scientific community can suck it."
To which I would say." Being convinced of something while most evidence suggests you're wrong is faith, and you can't argue with a religious person."
-" I don't care if I'm right, my future is the only one that matters, my children can suck it."
To which I would say. " you are selfish and irresponsible."
If there's a third option I don't know what it would be. So what is it?

 

[airplanemechanic]

https://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i-w600/keep-calm-and-****-the-eu-5.jpg

 

[Wyatt earp]

When has global warming became biblical? Site when it has?

First you stop deflecting my question.

You ***** you defected from my question.

Once again how many of the 97% agree on how much man contributes to global warming?


It's an easy answer...

Is it

5%

20%

50%

85%


What is the number they agree on?

.

I didn't deflect anything I answered the question honestly be saying that it's an impossible question to answer, we're talking probabilities not absolute numbers. I even gave an analogy. But again you are deflecting. Why do you think POSSIBLE economic harm warrants a high degree of potential harm to future generations. Harm that ranges from severe storms at the very least, to possible mass extinction at it's highest range?

Like the hurricanes al promised us after Katrina?

Your ilk wants to bankrupt us from the something we can't control..

You are not using logic we are on this planet for a ride.

The way I see it there are only 2 reasons you aren't willing to answer what I ask.
-"I'm convinced I'm right so the scientific community can suck it."
To which I would say." Being convinced of something while most evidence suggests you're wrong is faith, and you can't argue with a religious person."
-" I don't care if I'm right, my future is the only one that matters, my children can suck it."
To which I would say. " you are selfish and irresponsible."
If there's a third option I don't know what it would be. So what is it?

Still posting babbling stuf and throwing a temper tantrum?

Again the paris accord does nothing except transfers wealth .

 

[Wyatt earp]

First you stop deflecting my question.

You ***** you defected from my question.

Once again how many of the 97% agree on how much man contributes to global warming?


It's an easy answer...

Is it

5%

20%

50%

85%


What is the number they agree on?

.

I didn't deflect anything I answered the question honestly be saying that it's an impossible question to answer, we're talking probabilities not absolute numbers. I even gave an analogy. But again you are deflecting. Why do you think POSSIBLE economic harm warrants a high degree of potential harm to future generations. Harm that ranges from severe storms at the very least, to possible mass extinction at it's highest range?

Like the hurricanes al promised us after Katrina?

Your ilk wants to bankrupt us from the something we can't control..

You are not using logic we are on this planet for a ride.

The way I see it there are only 2 reasons you aren't willing to answer what I ask.
-"I'm convinced I'm right so the scientific community can suck it."
To which I would say." Being convinced of something while most evidence suggests you're wrong is faith, and you can't argue with a religious person."
-" I don't care if I'm right, my future is the only one that matters, my children can suck it."
To which I would say. " you are selfish and irresponsible."
If there's a third option I don't know what it would be. So what is it?

Still posting babbling stuf and throwing a temper tantrum?

Again the paris accord does nothing except transfers wealth .

You don't want science.. That's not your goal.

It's a ruse..

.

 

[MindWars]

So, I have heard this for the last couple of days. However, not ONCE has anyone SOLD this deal. Not once. No stats about how this will decrease climate change. No stats about why it's in the best interest for America to relinquish sovereignty. No explanation as to what other countries have been doing while America decreased their emissions by 19% from 2006 numbers.

The UN, global cabals and the like are not trusted to look after American interest because China has lead the way in undermining them for so long.

I agree that climate is rising, people can hypothesize why, but the bottom line is, this agreement is far too intrusive in the American system, while losing 6 million jobs! Bloody insane. Also, America has to pay nations like India to decrease their carbon emissions, who is excited about this great deal? So tempting...

Update: Rand Paul on CNN now, really putting holes in the climate change theory. Best line "predictions and models keep altering their estimations every couple of years because they are always so far off"

Another good point, "yes, I agree that man can be contributing to global warming, but we don't know how much is man contributed and how much is nature"

Finally, "it's not fair that Russia and other countries can increase their output while America is punished and loses jobs".

Kudos to Jake Tapper having the courage to have Rand Paul on. At least it is a counter argument for once.

I'll try to touch on all the points, if I get any of them wrong please correct me.
Nobody has sold you on the paris accord because
-there are no stats on adhering to the climate accords will decrease climate change
It's hard to come up with stats for something that comes in the future. Neither is it all that easy to predict. you agree that climate is rising. It's an accepted fact in most of the scientific community that humans are the cause, and that that cause is carbon emissions. Agreeing to put less of those emissions in the air would have the effect of if not stopping at least slowing climate change which would be beneficial.
-It is a bad precedent letting the world tell us what to do.
The US is the only real superpower in the world. A position it acquired by being the only major power not ravished by conflict after WW2. A position it kept by being a trustworthy and generous ally and a bad enemy. The US will still be a bad enemy, but by reneging on deals it's creating a power vacuum. Vacuums get filled, thereby challenging America's position. It's all well and good to yell about the horribleness of globalisation, but know that it's trade that gives the US the ability to buy it's military. And know that being the worlds ONLY superpower is not a right.
-There is no info on what other countries are doing while we are making these sacrifices.
Plenty of information is available. And there is plenty of information saying that it's perfectly possible to both reduce emissions and grow GDP. Just one of these sources. Feel free to go trough the website.USA - Climate Action Tracker
-The international organisations aren't trustworthy to look after American interests.
Global warming is not an American issue. Like it says in the word, it's a global problem. And you don't challenge the fact that climate is changing.
- The US will lose jobs.
If I can't predict how much difference the Paris accords will make, how can you predict how many jobs it will cost? I'm sure it will cost jobs, but I'm equally sure it will create jobs to. What's the net effect?
-The predictions are always of so how do we know it's real.
There are no predictions the climate is stabilising, it's all a matter of how bad it's actually gonna get. If on the low end the predictions are talking about severe hurricanes and on the high end we're talking mass extinction, doing nothing is extremely irresponsible.
-We don't know how much man is responsible.
This is purely academical. The overwhelming majority of scientist agree that man is almost solely responsible for climate change the only place it's still really debated is the political arena, which should tell you all you need to know.
-it's not fair that other countries can increase their output. while we have to reduce it
The US has about 5 percent of the world's population but it has more than 14 percent of the world's total carbon emissions. That's not fair.List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia

Watch: Tony Heller of Real Climate Science: Is Carbon Dioxide A Pollutant?

 

[Moonglow]

So, I have heard this for the last couple of days. However, not ONCE has anyone SOLD this deal. Not once. No stats about how this will decrease climate change. No stats about why it's in the best interest for America to relinquish sovereignty. No explanation as to what other countries have been doing while America decreased their emissions by 19% from 2006 numbers.

The UN, global cabals and the like are not trusted to look after American interest because China has lead the way in undermining them for so long.

I agree that climate is rising, people can hypothesize why, but the bottom line is, this agreement is far too intrusive in the American system, while losing 6 million jobs! Bloody insane. Also, America has to pay nations like India to decrease their carbon emissions, who is excited about this great deal? So tempting...

Update: Rand Paul on CNN now, really putting holes in the climate change theory. Best line "predictions and models keep altering their estimations every couple of years because they are always so far off"

Another good point, "yes, I agree that man can be contributing to global warming, but we don't know how much is man contributed and how much is nature"

Finally, "it's not fair that Russia and other countries can increase their output while America is punished and loses jobs".

Kudos to Jake Tapper having the courage to have Rand Paul on. At least it is a counter argument for once.

I would really like to see someone control the climate, If I could it would be cooler when it's hot and hotter when it's cool.. yet humans have no ability to change the climate at will.