obama's climate deal with china is STUPID

PkrBum wrote:Have you noticed that no one has been applauding this or the g20 from the left? Obama also gave emerging countries 4b.

Why would anyone think he would have any particular skill at negotiating deals? Unless you think he's lying to stupid china.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I am frightened by the politics driving the climate change movement. There was a letter to the Editor in the PNJ the other day which claimed America's coastal cities will be swamped by rising seas before 2050 if we do not act to address climate change immediately. That is noting but pure fearmongering.

This is a political movement, which has chosen an aspect of science to use to advance its agenda. The agenda is control of humanity at a global level, simply put.

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I am frightened by the politics driving the climate change movement. There was a letter to the Editor in the PNJ the other day which claimed America's coastal cities will be swamped by rising seas before 2050 if we do not act to address climate change immediately. That is noting but pure fearmongering.

This is a political movement, which has chosen an aspect of science to use to advance its agenda. The agenda is control of humanity at a global level, simply put.

Sal wrote:China is moving toward carbon trading on a national scale, maybe even by next year.

They have a few local pilot projects now going on.

Beijing and other cities are finding that air pollution is a significant drag on their economy and a primary reason for political and social unrest.

China is so big that it has to do EVERYTHING as quickly as possible.

They are moving and will move fast.

Chinese plutocrats are jumping into green energy with both feet, not for any environmental reason, but to make bucks in an exploding market.

The US will, again, be left in the dust unless it maneuvers past Inhofe, Koch Bros, and the other Fossil(ized) Fools.

Sal wrote:

ZVUGKTUBM wrote:I am frightened by the politics driving the climate change movement. There was a letter to the Editor in the PNJ the other day which claimed America's coastal cities will be swamped by rising seas before 2050 if we do not act to address climate change immediately. That is noting but pure fearmongering.

This is a political movement, which has chosen an aspect of science to use to advance its agenda. The agenda is control of humanity at a global level, simply put.

I know you're personally invested in the fossil fuel industry, but you shouldn't let those interests interfere with your critical thinking skills.

Aligning yourself with the Flat Earth Society damages your credibility.

The seas are rising and acidifying, and there are numerous communities in Florida that will be at serious risk by 2030, forget about 2050.

Science doesn't respect politics.

Queen of the Universe wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Have you noticed that no one has been applauding this or the g20 from the left? Obama also gave emerging countries 4b.

Why would anyone think he would have any particular skill at negotiating deals? Unless you think he's lying to stupid china.

Yes, Ive noticed they have selective attention or should I say they just live in a unicorn world where they make it up as they go and ignore the truth.

And the truth is, this president doesn't have the best interest of Americans and America at heart.

Wordslinger wrote:

Queen of the Universe wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Have you noticed that no one has been applauding this or the g20 from the left? Obama also gave emerging countries 4b.

Why would anyone think he would have any particular skill at negotiating deals? Unless you think he's lying to stupid china.

Yes, Ive noticed they have selective attention or should I say they just live in a unicorn world where they make it up as they go and ignore the truth.

And the truth is, this president doesn't have the best interest of Americans and America at heart.

And neither does any other right wing Republican.

2seaoat wrote:I watched Rand Paul on Bill Mahr last night.  When Bill asked him about Global warming.   The answer from Paul who is representing a coal state was interesting.  He did not deny the science.  He said the issue is how we deal with the transition and the policy we put in place.  He called for a balanced approach to deal with the transition.

I think I come down on Z's side on this.  I think the science is good, but I do not think there is certainty as to the time table of sea level changes.  I own properties which are on waterfront and only a few feet of above sea level.  Some of those properties still have 20 years left on the mortgage.  I raised the houses to the new SR Fema elevations which increased 3 feet after Ivan.  However, if there is even a six inch increase in sea level in the next twenty years, those properties are going to be rendered almost worthless.

I think instead of looking at this as simply global warming, we should look at it as pollution.  The increase of breathing issues in this country and the world are indicative of the adverse impact pollution has on humans.  I saw where SO2 removal and the acid rain disaster was corrected in less than twenty years by pollution control.  The science is good, and the need for reduction of pollution has never been needed more.  It does not have to be puffed in a political agenda, rather the practical need is now obvious even to Rand Paul.

boards of FL wrote:

2seaoat wrote:I watched Rand Paul on Bill Mahr last night.  When Bill asked him about Global warming.   The answer from Paul who is representing a coal state was interesting.  He did not deny the science.  He said the issue is how we deal with the transition and the policy we put in place.  He called for a balanced approach to deal with the transition.

I think I come down on Z's side on this.  I think the science is good, but I do not think there is certainty as to the time table of sea level changes.  I own properties which are on waterfront and only a few feet of above sea level.  Some of those properties still have 20 years left on the mortgage.  I raised the houses to the new SR Fema elevations which increased 3 feet after Ivan.  However, if there is even a six inch increase in sea level in the next twenty years, those properties are going to be rendered almost worthless.

I think instead of looking at this as simply global warming, we should look at it as pollution.  The increase of breathing issues in this country and the world are indicative of the adverse impact pollution has on humans.  I saw where SO2 removal and the acid rain disaster was corrected in less than twenty years by pollution control.  The science is good, and the need for reduction of pollution has never been needed more.  It does not have to be puffed in a political agenda, rather the practical need is now obvious even to Rand Paul.

I have had several people tell me to watch the Rand Paul/Maher exchange.  I downloaded it but haven't watched yet.

Queen of the Universe wrote:

Wordslinger wrote:

Queen of the Universe wrote:

PkrBum wrote:Have you noticed that no one has been applauding this or the g20 from the left? Obama also gave emerging countries 4b.

Why would anyone think he would have any particular skill at negotiating deals? Unless you think he's lying to stupid china.

Yes, Ive noticed they have selective attention or should I say they just live in a unicorn world where they make it up as they go and ignore the truth.

And the truth is, this president doesn't have the best interest of Americans and America at heart.

And neither does any other right wing Republican.

This isn't about republicans.

Its about Obama making a deal with the Chinese to allow them to continue to create carbons growing their economy with cheap energy while America gets screwed by having to further reduce ours and use expensive green energy.

sorry you don't get that. But I'm not surprised.

PkrBum wrote:The key players of this agenda don't advertise their core ideology... but I think most people would not agree with it.

Things like population control and eugenics and global governance...  it's just another means to a familiar end.

Sal wrote:China is moving toward carbon trading on a national scale, maybe even by next year.

They have a few local pilot projects now going on.

Beijing and other cities are finding that air pollution is a significant drag on their economy and a primary reason for political and social unrest.

China is so big that it has to do EVERYTHING as quickly as possible.

They are moving and will move fast.

Chinese plutocrats are jumping into green energy with both feet, not for any environmental reason, but to make bucks in an exploding market.

The US will, again, be left in the dust unless it maneuvers past Inhofe, Koch Bros, and the other Fossil(ized) Fools.

2seaoat wrote:I watched Rand Paul on Bill Mahr last night.  When Bill asked him about Global warming.   The answer from Paul who is representing a coal state was interesting.  He did not deny the science.  He said the issue is how we deal with the transition and the policy we put in place.  He called for a balanced approach to deal with the transition.

I think I come down on Z's side on this.  I think the science is good, but I do not think there is certainty as to the time table of sea level changes.  I own properties which are on waterfront and only a few feet of above sea level.  Some of those properties still have 20 years left on the mortgage.  I raised the houses to the new SR Fema elevations which increased 3 feet after Ivan.  However, if there is even a six inch increase in sea level in the next twenty years, those properties are going to be rendered almost worthless.

I think instead of looking at this as simply global warming, we should look at it as pollution.  The increase of breathing issues in this country and the world are indicative of the adverse impact pollution has on humans.  I saw where SO2 removal and the acid rain disaster was corrected in less than twenty years by pollution control.  The science is good, and the need for reduction of pollution has never been needed more.  It does not have to be puffed in a political agenda, rather the practical need is now obvious even to Rand Paul.

2seaoat wrote:I watched Rand Paul on Bill Mahr last night.  When Bill asked him about Global warming.   The answer from Paul who is representing a coal state was interesting.  He did not deny the science.  He said the issue is how we deal with the transition and the policy we put in place.  He called for a balanced approach to deal with the transition.

I think I come down on Z's side on this.  I think the science is good, but I do not think there is certainty as to the time table of sea level changes.  I own properties which are on waterfront and only a few feet of above sea level.  Some of those properties still have 20 years left on the mortgage.  I raised the houses to the new SR Fema elevations which increased 3 feet after Ivan.  However, if there is even a six inch increase in sea level in the next twenty years, those properties are going to be rendered almost worthless.

I think instead of looking at this as simply global warming, we should look at it as pollution.  The increase of breathing issues in this country and the world are indicative of the adverse impact pollution has on humans.  I saw where SO2 removal and the acid rain disaster was corrected in less than twenty years by pollution control.  The science is good, and the need for reduction of pollution has never been needed more.  It does not have to be puffed in a political agenda, rather the practical need is now obvious even to Rand Paul.