So many ways to get around Trump's idiocy.

https://weather.com/science/environm...ccord-decision

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

Originally Posted by Guest

So many ways to get around Trump's idiocy.

https://weather.com/science/environm...ccord-decision

Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk

I would think that many meteorologists know quite a bit about global warming and its effects.

global warming and its effects - Google Scholar

FactCheck.org - A Project of The Annenberg Public Policy Center

Originally Posted by Guest

I would think that many meteorologists know quite a bit about global warming and its effects.

global warming and its effects - Google Scholar

Actually, Climatologists would know much more than Meteorologists......Climatologist Vs. Meteorologist | Chron.com

Originally Posted by Guest

Actually, Climatologists would know much more than Meteorologists......Climatologist Vs. Meteorologist | Chron.com

Well I like the content of that article. I had a TV weatherman in one of my History classes at the U of Nevada, Reno as a fellow student. Probably in Renaissance History class. He was quite fun and a smart guy. Had learned meteorology in the Armed Forces. Navy?

Originally Posted by Guest

That video posted is by this man. Who just makes a lot of assertions in it. He does not present the facts as you usually are supposed to say how you got those facts if these are just projections of the rise of temperatures in the next 100 years. That's speculation though.

And is he an expert in global warming? No he is not.

In just 17 minutes - time difference between this post and your previous post - you have already come to a conclusion about this man's credibility?? Wow!

Finally some rational thought.

Originally Posted by wjboyer1

1) its not a treaty

2) all goals are voluntary, but since the usa is the worst in green house gas production, they have the most to do

3) that is a fallicy

It was intended to be a treaty, but BHO knew he could not get it past the Senate. Hence the famous executive order.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Originally Posted by Taltarzac725

That video posted is by this man. Who just makes a lot of assertions in it. He does not present the facts as you usually are supposed to say how you got those facts if these are just projections of the rise of temperatures in the next 100 years. That's speculation though.

And is he an expert in global warming? No he is not.

Besides assertions, Al Gore made a documentary. And that makes HIM an expert?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

None of this makes any difference as we are currently committed to this agreement for the next 3 1/2 years and then guess what??? It is re election time which is what his move is all about--me-me-me.

Talking about getting our facts straight. The idea that we would have to subsidize China is a complete myth. I would be upset about that too. But after doing some research, the truth is that every country decides for itself what amount of money it wants to spend on this effort. So we would not be subsidizing China. Sounds like another myth from Fox news.

Originally Posted by Guest

It was intended to be a treaty, but BHO knew he could not get it past the Senate. Hence the famous executive order.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Exactly, and it was his means to deplete our tax revenues by another trillion or more for frivolous NOTHING.

Originally Posted by Guest

Talking about getting our facts straight. The idea that we would have to subsidize China is a complete myth. I would be upset about that too. But after doing some research, the truth is that every country decides for itself what amount of money it wants to spend on this effort. So we would not be subsidizing China. Sounds like another myth from Fox news.

And India, don't forget. Gotta love it when those that have no source for their information will disparage FOX because their news is "conservative."

The problem with you all, is that you don't seem to understand that the other news channels do NOT give the complete array of news. They filter it to fit their agenda. And why not? After all, if you check out many of them, their view is subsidized by Soros. Not a conspiracy theory, because you can GOOGLE his monetary influence in our country to see long lists of his collaboration. Remember, FOX gets their news from AP and Reuters, just like other news outlets. The difference is that the others do not provide as much of the news.

Argue all you wish, but your denying it does not make your view fact. Try to learn how to discern the difference between NEWS and Commentary before running amok.

400 Billion from US tax payers 0.2 degree by 2200 China and India are burning coal and can set there own limits Yes POTUS

Let me preface this by saying I believe president Trump is a man lacking in moral character. There is much I don't like about him. But let's deal with the president we've got. I just read the Paris climate accords and Trump is right that they are vague and offer suggestions with no clear metrics as guides to keeping global rise below 2 degrees. Developed countries are to contribute whatever public money they feel is right for them as well as give to less developed countries. And we all have seen what happens when these poorly run countries get free money! Corruption, thievery, fraud, waste , etc. It is terribly written and unenforceable. Good on him for saying no! If the Gates' and Zuckerbergs of the world want to contribute to the cause it's in there too, that they will accept outside contributions. It doesn't need to be the government doing it, the business can voluntarily limit greenhouse gasses. Thanks Donald!