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

Nobody argued we did, Sparky.

Again, no one said otherwise. However, plants exhale CO2. Trees die and rot, making them only a temporary CO2 sink. Short term thinking gets us nowhere fast. Linkypoo! Where's yours, Sparky?

 

Apparently you did not read your link that points out that plants just give off some of the CO2 they absorb, so they are not producing any. If you want a link, however, here is one that discusses what carbon sinks are since you apparently are not familiar with the concept http://www.fern.org/campaign/forests-and-climate/what-are-carbon-sinks

 

Congrats on finally posting a link. But, again,..

still just stabbing at straw men. No one said plants net produce CO2. I said,

From my link:

From your own link:

A temporary CO2 sink. Please. Read,.. Think,... Then type, Sparky.

 

All CO2 abatement is a sink. Coal is a sink. Oil is a sink.

 

Well, considering Obama didn't even ask the Senate to ratify it, of course the pullout was justified. That, and it's not even a real agreement. It's just show. All the actions by a country are voluntary, with no sanctions. It was a publicity stunt for Obama to agree to it. It's a publicity stunt for Trump to pull out of it.

 

Total bullshit. Nobody talked about carbon pollution until the mid to late 1980s. No wonder you're a Bernie fan, you are basically ignorant to truth.

Trump is going to be in office for another 3 1/2 years at least.

You should be blaming Obama for this. He's the one who didn't do his job. His job was to take treaties to the Senate and ask them to ratify it. Then the Treaty would be part of American law, and we couldn't back out of it. Obama was too lazy to work with the Senate to get an acceptable plan, and that made this agreement vulnerable to the next President's pen.

 

Correct. Coal and oil are also fossil fuels unlike temporary carbon sinks such as plants and firewood. Your point? Or are you still determined to just type stuff without thinking?

 

Eeew, another too easily irritated Sparkler! What fun!

Sadly, I'm busy

Later...

 

Well, yes and no. Continental drift theory is a part of Plate Tectonic theory. The scientists in the first half of the 20th century didn't believe in Continental Drift (which became the plate tectonic theory). They thought it was just silliness. Then, starting in the 1950s or so, the scientific evidence (things like the alternating magnetic patterns of the mid-ocean ridges) started accumulating supporting Plate Tectonic theory. I once had a College geology textbook from the 1970s. It had no mention of the Plate tectonic theory. The College geology textbook I used in the 1980s was primarily based on Plate tectonics.

 

The thing is you're wrong, and too ignorant to know it. In the 1950s, the main environmental threat was emissions. By the 1960s and 1970s, it was acid rain. Then in the 1980s it became the ozone layer and global warming. I'm a former believer that AGW was massive. I was a marine science student in the late 1980s/early 1990s. At that time, I thought if we did nothing, by 2010, there would be significant sea level rise and massive climate changes. That did not happen, so I'm skeptical now. I just hate it when people misrepresent the past, and it's primarily ignorant leftists and alt rightists who do that kind of crap.

 

Actually, there were warnings about Global Warming over 100 years ago. The year was 1912, and an article came out in the Waitamata Gazette:

http://www.snopes.com/1912-article-global-warming/

The furnaces of the world are now burning about 2,000,000,000 tons of coal a year. When this is burned, uniting with oxygen, it adds about 7,000,000,000 tons of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere yearly. This tends to make the air a more effective blanket for the earth and to raise its temperature. The effect may be considerable in a few centuries.

 

Some claim the poison gas from WW1 is warming the planet.

 

Bowerbird:

China is closing coal fired power plants?

The Chinese must be dancing in the streets of Beijing and Shanghai. Oh wait, they can't. The exertion would be too much for the smog levels there

 

That's nice. I graduated college with a science degree in 1980. I also clearly recall CO2 causing a greenhouse effect being discussed worriedly in high school (early 70's). So, sorry, nice try but no sale. If you're genuinely interested, you can read about what really happened concerning CO2 emissions here. A bit of the introduction regarding those 50's and 60's you obviously don't remember:

You're welcome.

 

This crazed talking point has not only been spouted ad nauseum here, it was easily rebutted.

 

I grew up in South California in the 60's. I remember trying to see the mountains and seeing smog instead. Today, I look at the mountains every day and they are there very clearly. The EPA has done a good job in LA and elsewhere in the US.

There is no need for a Paris Accord which does nothing but generate its own hot air and costs jobs.

I also remember an October in high school when the temperature reached 100 degrees before noon. We got out of school. When was the last time that happened? Summers have been relatively here mild for years.

 

No but you need to understand how the world works on a basic level if you're going to engage in ideological progressiveness sir.


It is the wealthy environmentalists who give billions to green-efforts nationally and internationally who are the reason you and me have clean drinking water, the reason the capitalist class isn't allowed to truly destroy the country. It isn't because of a political class. The political class are owned and paid for by the capitalist class. They are owned by them. They were elected because of them. Once they lose their support they will be replaced. That's how our world works.

The only reason America, Australia, Canada and Europe are truly the best places on Earth is 100% solely because among our capitalist classes we have, unique to our countries alone, "Morally conscious capitalists" among the inner core of our owners ranks. If it wasn't for those few hundred people and their internal arguing will their fellow ruling elite have no delusions, we'd be right back in the worst times of the industrial revolution in terms of abuses against the public.

 

A Random Man:

"You need to understand how the world works on a basic level if you're going to engage in idealogical progressiveness..."

That was pretty pompous. Did you take the sociology class in person, or online? Did you pass?

 

And at one time the smog levels of London were causing deaths

This is actually the point - to put some pressure on developing countries to clean up thier acts and if we had not had long discussions with the Chinese government do you think we would have had the successes with things such as the Paris Agreement?

 

I was agreeing with you, ya know? Yes, bloody sarcastically, but agreeing. I'm sure we could have several long discussions touching upon many different aspects of what you've plopped on the table and concluded here. Suffice it to say we agree and disagree about much. What I'd like to point out right now though is that none of this is about you or me in particular. I hope that's not too deep. "Ideological progressiveness" no doubt means many things to different people. Neither of us is a dictionary. I try to point people to good sources of information and hope that helps some achieve a better quality of life.

For instance:

WORLD FACTS
The 25 Best Countries To Live In

 

Not if his intent was to pander to his crackpots.

 

Tracker Sam;

Other Presidents have issued executive orders and signed agreements just before leaving office to undercut the popularity of the next president. Trump had the guts to call a hoax and hoax and cancel the Paris (non)Agreement.

He has torn Obama's "legacy" to shreds.

 

Like that stupid Emancipation Proclamation some silly President signed before getting himself shot to death.

Didn't even ask the Senate to ratify it. What a publicity stunt!

 

"When the (White)(Republican) president does it, that means that it is not illegal"

GWB: "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

Trump: When the President Says It, That Means It’s True