http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/11/12/obama-vows-us-will-cut-emissions-by-at-least-26-percent-over-next-11-years/ I knew after his electoral castration, his Lordship would go on a one-man campaign doing silly stuff, but t his is the best. He promises huge cutbacks in US emissions (not economically, politically or technically even possible), while the "deal" is China will promise to try and not increase emissions beyond 16 years from now..... Absolutely unbelievable......... I dare any greenie to defend this.
I have came to the conclusion that Obama is a product of affirmative action and his reputation as a mediocre student in high school and at Occidental College was well deserved. History will not be kind to Obama.
I have said for 6 years that he hides his Harvard grades because he would have been kicked out had he not been an affirmative action student. Otherwise why hide them? ANY passing grades from Harvard are reason to be proud.....
well presidential agreements do expire at the end of the promising presidents term and secondly I have the feeling the EPA is going to be going through some major wing clipping come January so no biggie. Just noise for the far left to have something to feel good about after getting a severe spanking by the voters
hilarious indeed this must be the equivalent of rocket science for some... americans produce three times the yearly emissions per capita that the chinese do... You may want to look up the meaning of "per capita"
what is really hilarious to me is watching both the left and the right get their bowels in a uproar over political noise, let me remind both sides of 1998 when Clinton signed the Kyoto Agreement and the Senate did not ratify it
What is your point - relevant to my post? According to AGW religious doctrine, the total CO2 emissions are what will "destroy the planet", not how many people emit them. When China puts out enough emissions to begin a run-away effect the world ends (that is the claim right?). Does it matter if those emissions are made by 2 billion people or 200...? - - - Updated - - - Of course it has no force of law....I just think it is yet another example of the audacity of this person in the White House.
We need to bend over and take whatever china is giving. We aren't the big kid on the block anymore. We can either step aside or get pushed off. Let's not be stupid about this.
Did you read the agreement?....China is "giving" NOTHING. They agreed to stop increasing by the year 2030 !!!! Even the most conservative priests of AGW would say we will all be dead from climate change by then. Only Obama's brainless sheeple would call that an agreement.....
Your post is nonsense based in ignorance...the chinese as nation lead the usa in alternative energy projects and its people produce fewer emissions per capita than americans, its americans that must meet chinese numbers ...it's the wealthy western countries like the usa, canada and australia that are the worst polluters...it's western countries that created the damage we are seeing globally not the developing nations...but you're expecting developing nations to pay more than their fair share to repair the damage we caused...
You are showing your true colors wyly.....(which was my intention)...those being you concept of AGW is not founded in science or climatology, but your idea of "fair" (your word, not mine). I'll put my question more simply....If nation A has 100 people that in total make 10,000 tons of CO2, that is 100 tons per capita - right. Now we have nation B with 10,000 people that makes only 10 tons per capita (1/10 of nation A by your thinking), and contributes therefore 100,000 tons. So the "world contribution is 110,000 tons (ya following me ok?) Now if nation A cuts their total 10% the world total goes to 109,000 tons, while if nation B cuts 10% instead, the world total is only 100,000 tons. Do you see how the big polluter in total is the key, per capita doesn't mean squat when it comes to CO2 in the atmosphere? But lets take another step, and simulate what Obama agreed to where nation A cuts 10% and nation B is allowed to increase 10%. Nation A reduction = 1000, Nation B increase = 10000, net is an INCREASE of 9000. Can't make it any simpler than that.
BTW, are you actually referring to China as a "developing" nation? You do know they landed a probe on the moon.....
And n korea has ballistic missiles, nuclear power and still use oxen to pull wagons and plows...china nkorea, india, pakistan all have advanced technology but are all still developing nations with much of their populations still living in 19th century conditions...you're out of touch with every topic you engage...
Your intention? you don't have the ability to plan that far ahead.. You have no clue what you're talking about, mixing per capita with national gross who does that! ...this as hilarious as your claims as about the earth leaving an iceage so it's getting warmer but at the same time there's no evidence that temps are rising WTH! and the glaciers are melting but sea levels aren't rising.... It's the elmer fudd comedy hour....
So, you answer is ..yes?? - - - Updated - - - 2 + 2 still equals 4, doesn't matter how many animations you post.
