Was it Right for Trump to Pull the US out of the Paris Agreement?

Compared to the alternative? Not really. And if desalinization were all that the Saudi's wouldn't be investing so heavily in solar.

Why the Saudis Are Going Solar

 

USA Today - yeah I get it. Only an ALT Rightist would consider them liberal. Trying to figure out when Trump is lying is a full-time job for a lot of people, because he is a habitual liar. And that's not FAKE News! It's not new at all.

 

No wish to simply point out the obvious, but you're saying nothing here. Are you just trying to bamboozle everyone with long discredited distractions involving clouds and contrails or something? Let's compare spaceships to CO2 by weight next why don't we? Hey, look over there! Do you get paid to deny global warming online or are you just feeling trollish and bored?

 

Mankind can unite to find a solution without wasting money to do it.

 

A solution to what?

No sense "wasting money" on our grandchildren. You don't think anything is going to happen. Never mind what already has.

 

If people want to try and improve our supposed carbon footprint then they have that option to do it without being forced to or sending money to other countries.

Nothing has already happened.

 

To your credit, you don't mince words. As the link behind "what already has" above states:

NASA posts video evidence on the right. Do you think they're just lying and making it all up?

 

All of this has been going on since the last ice age. If absolutely nothing is done about it just when will life become untenable?

 

Interesting word choice, "untenable", but I'm anxious to hear how others respond before adding my 2 cents.

eta: I should at least say that "all of this" has clearly not "been going on since the last ice age", which is plain from the same NASA link. So I must ask again, do you think they're just making it up?

 

That is the hysterical size of it. Hysteria is driven by alarmist media, politics, and only a few camera happy scientists. Like John Kerry said if the western countries did everything they promised to do in the Paris accord it would have a negligible effect. America is doing and will continue to do what it has been doing and that's cleaning up pollution and continued Innovation.

Not all science is being considered in the CO2 centric dogma. For instance solar scientists are predicting coming cooling. Temperature has never been driven by CO2 and one can argue the same now. Unfortunately the scientists that believe man contributes to warming but provide inconvenience science are shut out of the process because it has become entirely politically driven.

 

But the world has been progressively getting warmer since the last ice age and the oceans have been rising and ice caps melting.

Maybe untenable might be too subjective maybe when will human life cease to exist on Earth be better.

 

Seems weird, you name dropping John Kerry here. I wouldn't argue anything on the basis of what that sold-out, spoiled brat had to say.

Agreed, only we're leading the resistance more than the fight. Our cleaning up of pollution, for example, has mostly resulted from grassroots activism and winning court cases.

Straw man and "CO2 centric dogma" is just flinging poop. Comments worthy of a troll.

I'm sure, and in my experience, "solar scientists" have mostly proven an embarrassment to the field. Probably why you provided no link.

Baloney.

I'm sure there's some truth to that. Science is snooty and driven by a constant need to publish. One should always expect a certain amount of crap riding along with the good stuff. Some good stuff squelched by corporate interests protecting their establishment as well. Pointing out that this plays out in the political process is overstating the obvious to obscure who bribed the politicians with campaign contributions to do their bidding in the first place. Everything is political. All voices should be heard.

FAIK, 97% remain convinced that CO2 contributes significantly to global warming. In politics, that's a landslide.

 

Yes, that's to be expected coming out of an ice age. However, I believe NASA said that natural cycle has already peeked and we would be starting to cool off again were it not for the human interference you have yet to acknowledge.

Okay, that's what I'd like to hear about from others as well.

 

You do realize how insignificant that amount of power is compared to the entire energy infrastucture don't you?

China is the problem, its CO2 emissions are expected to climb for decades and they are only going to think about looking at reducing the rate of increase in 2030....long after its too late. Meanwhile CO2 emissions in the US and in the EU have dropped and that happened BEFORE the Paris accords which once again had absolutely nothing to do with it.

China uses 49% of the worlds coal, the US only uses 11%. The US going up to 12 or 13% isn't going to amount to anything because China is currently using half the coal in the world and in the not so distant future India will be using even more as well. This is assuming that coal use increase even happens. NG has taken over the cheap spot for fossil fuel power and it looks to be that way for the foreseeable future. Coal is going to be going the way of the dodo by simple market economics. By the way all the morons running around bitching about fracking were helping the coal industry the entire time because no one wants fracking to fail more than their chief competitors the coal industry.

The whole blame America for the world's problem crowd didn't do to well in math or science classes I guess.

 

How would anyone know the natural cycle has peaked.

 

The US has reduced its emissions because of fracking, so the question really is why aren't eco-warriors in favor of more fracking?

 

How does fracking reduce emissions? Fracking has been around forever.. and modern fracking has been around since 1990.

 

The alternative to a Treaty is a Congressional-Executive Agreement which requires a joint resolution of both Houses of Congress instead of by a two-thirds vote of the Senate alone. There was no joint resolution.

 

But it's not exacerbated by CO2. The Earth will naturally warm from 57.2°F to 67°F or to as high as 71°F. You need to learn how to deal with it.

 

Because it makes natural gas cheaper and more desirable than the dirtier alternatives and natural gas has lower emissions than the dirtier alternatives.

 

97% of Scientists also bought into Continental Drift, ridiculing those who supported Tectonic Plate Theory.

Continental Drift has now been thoroughly debunked...so much for consensus.

 

So you got nothing by way of refutation.

The Earth naturally warms during an Inter-Glacial Period and average global temperatures of 67°F to 71°F are not abnormal, judging by the last Inter-Glacial Period.

Prove scientifically that average global temperatures should not fall between 67°F to 71°F.

 

Not according to the vast majority of climate change scientists.

 

That's fine. You're welcome to your opinion about the Scientific community. I'll refrain from further debate on the issue. Perhaps you also don't believe your medical doctor, or seek advise.

 

Too. Didn't do too well. You guess.