175 states signing landmark Paris deal on climate change

There is no political party in the world that opposes AGW except the republicans. None. They are an embarrassment to the world

 

Tonee Abbott - previous PM here did not believe in climate change but then he was widely acknowledged to be a complete and utter Twonk

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42711922/...h-day-co-founder-killed-composted-girlfriend/

 

What has this to do with science?

 

Again, politics. Somehow some think because a few Western countries want to give money away that all the countries signing up for it are doing it to 'save the world'.

 

Russia, China (china will give more than the US), and most of Europe are donating money to fight AGW. Why would they do that?

 

Neither Russia or China are donating to the green fund. China is considered a developing nation in this agreement. The obsession with CO2 is a Western obsession.

 

China issued is first Climate Change Program in 2007, in response to its surpassing of the United States as the largest emitter of carbon dioxide emissions in the world.[16] The Chinese national carbon trading scheme was later announced in November 2008 by the national government to enforce a compulsory carbon emission trading scheme across the country's provinces as part of its strategy to create a "low carbon civilisation".[17] The scheme would allow provinces to earn money by investing in carbon capture systems in those regions that fail to invest in the technology.[18]

In 2004, Premier Wen Jiabao promised to use an "iron hand" to make China more energy efficient. China has surpassed the rest of the world as the biggest investor in wind turbines and other renewable energy technology. And it has dictated tough new energy standards for lighting and gas kilometrage for cars.[19] With $34.6 billion invested in clean technology in 2009, China is the world's leading investor in renewable energy technologies.[20][21] China produces more wind turbines and solar panels each year than any other country.[22]

 

Doesn't change the fact that they are considered a developing nation and are not contributing to the fund.

 

but, but, but.......

 

34 billion....that's a lot of yen. LOL

 

I know, you don't understand that you changed the subject. To be expected. It still does not change the fact that FOR THE PARIS AGREEMENT they are considered a developing nation and are not contributing to the Green Fund set up for it.

Why am I not surprised you cannot stay on subject?

 

Well they are a developing nation

 

Thus they are not contributing. You have a problem understanding that evidently.

 

3.1 billions sounds like real money to me. LOL

In September, China announced the establishment of an independent South-South cooperation fund of 20 billion yuan ($3.1 billion) to help developing countries affected by global warming.

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/world/XiattendsParisclimateconference/2015-12/14/content_22710450.htm

 

Doesn't change the fact that they are not contributing to the Green Fund set up for the Paris Agreement.

 

3.1 billion....that's a lot of money for a "hoax". Of course that is in addition to the over 35 billion they invest in green tech. LOL

- - - Updated - - -

3.1 billion....that's a lot of money for a "hoax". Of course that is in addition to the over 35 billion they invest in green tech. LOL

 

You do know they are funding the building of coal burning plants with that, don't you?

BTW, still doesn't change the fact they are not contributing to the fund like you claimed.

 

Drives you crazy that China would spend all this money on a "hoax". LOL

 

When you post, the old saying about a box of rocks comes to mind.

 

Man it just eats you up. LOL

 

Nah, your issues are not my problem.

 

Good because you must be VERY busy with your own. LOL

 

Neil deGrasse Tyson is pretty sure the universe is a hologram

Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson said that he thinks the likelihood of the universe being a simulation “may be very high.”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/neil-degrasse-tyson-thinks-theres-130300649.html

 

Don't confuse bad journalism with good science