What's new

US Pulling Out of Paris Climate Accord

So here's what we have at a glance.

Rockefeller and the smaller club of really big oil cartels running the world, on two basic precepts:

1) Keep a lid on supply/crush the competition. False propaganda on scarcity/uber regulation by wholly-owned government bureaucrats run out to play enforcer on the racket.

2) Use Theirs First. (UFT)

I might have called this stupid, but just because we're stupid to buy it.

The ideas actually fail, not because the Bigs aren't clever and effective, but because there is more C-fuel resources than we ever imagined, and because the UFT project....pump the middle east dry....is effectively meaningless in the scale of real resources.

So it has become necessary to impose a totally false climate narrative on top of it all, just to keep a lid on the market.

But probably the smarter thing that has been happening is using the climate narrative to incentivize technological gains in other energy sources, with the Bigs getting in there first to own the technology..... well, we'll see if anyone can really own technology.... just like we'll see if we can ever really have a basically fascist world government that does not morph into a self-feeding cannibalistic monster.

fundamentally, humans will never have good government unless they---the humans--can be good.

Until then, it's the various brands of attempting fascist controllers one agin the others.

funny seeing the dems start howling about the Russians after a hundred years of preening themselves in the knowledge they are the Ruskies' favs.
 
#1: We should stop subsidizing big oil companies. That should be your first concern.

#2: Solar technology is behind? There's nothing more archiac then digging up oil and burning it to pollute our air and water. Good hell you're an idiot.

#3: Nuclear is not clean. The amount of waste and water it uses is ridiculous. Not to mention the the cancer issues and safety issues. Ever heard of Fukishima?

#4 Here is how much space is needed to power the entire earth with solar.....

arearequired1000.jpg

Who cares? What a silly graphic. You are not going to run a continent on batteries while the sun is down. We have to have a backbone of steady reliable power generation. I bet you don't even get all of your power from solar. How many batteries do you have? You claim that you do but it in reality you probably trade your excess clean power for dirty power that you can't get by without. Solar will only ever represent a portion of power generation. Nuclear could replace carbon dirty power. Jesus christ natural gas has done more to reduce emissions in recent years than solar has.

As far as I'm concerned you can shut the **** up about global warming if you are opposed to nuclear power. You are part of the problem.

Fission now, lots of r&d for a fusion future.
 
Who cares? What a silly graphic. You are not going to run a continent on batteries while the sun is down. We have to have a backbone of steady reliable power generation. I bet you don't even get all of your power from solar. How many batteries do you have? You claim that you do but it in reality you probably trade your excess clean power for dirty power that you can't get by without. Solar will only ever represent a portion of power generation. Nuclear could replace carbon dirty power. Jesus christ natural gas has done more to reduce emissions in recent years than solar has.

As far as I'm concerned you can shut the **** up about global warming if you are opposed to nuclear power. You are part of the problem.

Fission now, lots of r&d for a fusion future.

CO2e (e means equivalent) is only lower in nat gas by the length of the carbon chains or rings. But CO2 emissions from coal peaked in 2005 and have declined to 1986 levels last I checked (2012). Global CO2 emissions were flatlined from 2014-2016, mostly from gains in the US and China.

You would be shocked at how much lower the other criteria pollutants are in nat gas vs. coal.
 
And the AM radio nonsense continues to be posted.

sigh

This was written by a conservative who is actually intelligent:

I’ve been on a soapbox for months now about the harm that our overheated talk is doing to us. Yes it mobilizes supporters—but by mobilizing them with hysterical accusations and pseudo-information, overheated talk has made it impossible for representatives to represent and elected leaders to lead. The real leaders are on TV and radio, and they have very different imperatives from people in government. Talk radio thrives on confrontation and recrimination. When Rush Limbaugh said that he wanted President Obama to fail, he was intelligently explaining his own interests. What he omitted to say—but what is equally true—is that he also wants Republicans to fail. If Republicans succeed—if they govern successfully in office and negotiate attractive compromises out of office—Rush’s listeners get less angry. And if they are less angry, they listen to the radio less, and hear fewer ads for Sleepnumber beds.

I've said this before, but when did it become so cool on the right to be ignorant? Is it "faith" in something higher that allows them to be so stupid on a topic like this and not worry about it? Do they have too much "faith" in these AM radio blowhards?

How do they no realize that Hannity, Rush, Jones, etc are all actors and are in it for the money? They don't believe a word they sell (especially Rush, he has made it perfectly clear that he is in it for the money).

But whatev's.
 
This was written by a conservative who is actually intelligent:



I've said this before, but when did it become so cool on the right to be ignorant? Is it "faith" in something higher that allows them to be so stupid on a topic like this and not worry about it? Do they have too much "faith" in these AM radio blowhards?

How do they no realize that Hannity, Rush, Jones, etc are all actors and are in it for the money? They don't believe a word they sell (especially Rush, he has made it perfectly clear that he is in it for the money).

But whatev's.

On the right? It's everybody! Look at Thriller for petes sake.
 
Yeah, I'd say both sides give into overheated and frantic speech, as if it is necessary to beat people over the head with the worst possible outcomes and the reassurances that only they have the solutions to fix all problems. I do agree that 24-hr news cycles have created monsters who must spew forth opinion as if it were fact. TV and radio ratings have more to do with governing than our elected officials do.

Sent from my HTC6535LVW using JazzFanz mobile app
 
This was written by a conservative who is actually intelligent:



I've said this before, but when did it become so cool on the right to be ignorant? Is it "faith" in something higher that allows them to be so stupid on a topic like this and not worry about it? Do they have too much "faith" in these AM radio blowhards?

How do they no realize that Hannity, Rush, Jones, etc are all actors and are in it for the money? They don't believe a word they sell (especially Rush, he has made it perfectly clear that he is in it for the money).

But whatev's.

I think this is a rash, unfounded judgment. Sure, there may be some self-interest in some. I don't think Rush is solely motivated by his ratings. I think he has a lot of good sense and intelligent judgment, and that he is successful for sincerely presenting his ideas, which many folks sincerely appreciate.

I think Jones is a core believer in his world view, a man on a mission. I think he doesn't understand some of the subtleties of human nature and the the actual inability of evil humans to govern the world with a winning program, say, like global governance, and that their failure will be the main problem we hopefully more altruistic humans will have to deal with, or try to deal with. I have studied all his material, and take a position perhaps not too strange from Jonah's, or Colton's, that we need to question all zealots, right or left.

Hannity, however, has convinced me of his sociable good nature and good will for all Americans and his loyalty to traditional American principles. I really respect Hannity. More than anyone else.

A few others worth mentioning for comparison are Andrew Wilkow, who is a Milton Friedman/Ayn Rand economic analyst with some solid observations on why socialism and non-market expenditures are ineffective whatever we hope to accomplish with them.

The Breitbart folks are the most credible news analysts in the market right now in terms of objectivity, which is not really any kind of wholesale endorsement for them or anyone.

One of the people I truly respect, and consider articulate and intelligent, even more than Rush, is David Webb.

The fundamental problem with the mainstream is a wholesale commitment to a false narrative and regime change for the sake of a partisan cause. They have zero credibility, like some posters in here.
 
Hawaii just passed a law trying to align itself with the Paris agreement.
 
Hawaii just passed a law trying to align itself with the Paris agreement.

nobody can stop you, really, if you want to personally align with any view or idea or agreement. Go for it.

A State does not have that option. In becoming a State, the State of Hawaii submitted to the vagaries of the US Federal government. People should understand it as taxing citizens to give the money away to foreigners with no strings attached, effectively making Hawaiians a back-of-bus no-account class with inferior rights to the scammers of Nigeria or Ghana. Of course all the devotees to the cult of Global Fascism are no strangers to the Stockholm Syndrome, and if they are indeed effective community organizers, they should consider the plight millions of effective agitators in the 200* years of progressive agitators beginning with the Jacobins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin
 
Last edited:
california did the same

Symbolic perhaps. Meaningful, no.

The Accord was about taxing Americans and handing the money over to "poor" nations. California is bankrupt itself, begging for Federal aid. If they want to drive businesses over the river to Arizona, or over the Sierra to Nevada.... well, those places are booming.
 
nobody can stop you, really, if you want to personally align with any view or idea or agreement. Go for it.

A State does not have that option. In becoming a State, the State of Hawaii submitted to the vagaries of the US Federal government. People should understand it as taxing citizens to give the money away to foreigners with no strings attached, effectively making Hawaiians a back-of-bus no-account class with inferior rights to the scammers of Nigeria or Ghana. Of course all the devotees to the cult of Global Fascism are no strangers to the Stockholm Syndrome, and if they are indeed effective community organizers, they should consider the plight millions of effective agitators in the 200* years of progressive agitators beginning with the Jacobins.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobin

Actually in this case they mostly can. If the Paris agreement is stricter than what the US gov requires than they are still meeting the gov requirements and everyone is happy.
 
I think this is a rash, unfounded judgment. Sure, there may be some self-interest in some. I don't think Rush is solely motivated by his ratings. I think he has a lot of good sense and intelligent judgment, and that he is successful for sincerely presenting his ideas, which many folks sincerely appreciate.

I think Jones is a core believer in his world view, a man on a mission. I think he doesn't understand some of the subtleties of human nature and the the actual inability of evil humans to govern the world with a winning program, say, like global governance, and that their failure will be the main problem we hopefully more altruistic humans will have to deal with, or try to deal with. I have studied all his material, and take a position perhaps not too strange from Jonah's, or Colton's, that we need to question all zealots, right or left.

Hannity, however, has convinced me of his sociable good nature and good will for all Americans and his loyalty to traditional American principles. I really respect Hannity. More than anyone else.

A few others worth mentioning for comparison are Andrew Wilkow, who is a Milton Friedman/Ayn Rand economic analyst with some solid observations on why socialism and non-market expenditures are ineffective whatever we hope to accomplish with them.

The Breitbart folks are the most credible news analysts in the market right now in terms of objectivity, which is not really any kind of wholesale endorsement for them or anyone.

One of the people I truly respect, and consider articulate and intelligent, even more than Rush, is David Webb.

The fundamental problem with the mainstream is a wholesale commitment to a false narrative and regime change for the sake of a partisan cause. They have zero credibility, like some posters in here.

Breitbart is a joke. It really is. I remember when the wiretapping came out, Breitbart published an article that was an outright lie, the quoted themselves, and then took those quotes out of context...

lol.

I have liked you babe. You make me think and make me make sure about my ideas.

But Hannity and Breitbart? They are everything wrong with news these days. They are nothing more than conspiracists looking for ratings. They have taken what Limbaugh does and taken it to the next level or ridiculousness and prove my point about the ignorant right.

When I looked at Breitbart's article on wire tapping, I clicked the links. I then discovered that they quoted themselves and even with that quote, completely took their quote out of context to try to make their point.

Pathetic.
 
Symbolic perhaps. Meaningful, no.

The Accord was about taxing Americans and handing the money over to "poor" nations. California is bankrupt itself, begging for Federal aid. If they want to drive businesses over the river to Arizona, or over the Sierra to Nevada.... well, those places are booming.

Again, California is having the money problems they are having because they are floating republican states. If you allow California to stop REDISTRIBUTING their wealth to keep people in the south alive, California explodes. The rest of the US would wilt, but California would be great.

Thank god for redistribution of wealth, right? Hell, those right wing states need to thank their god everyday for blue states and the federal dollars they pour into the system to keep food on their table in the form of food stamps and free healthcare and net neutrality that allows them to sit on their asses all day, collect their government checks, listen to Rush and Hannity and google these ridiculous conspiracy theories.
 
Again, California is having the money problems they are having because they are floating republican states. If you allow California to stop REDISTRIBUTING their wealth to keep people in the south alive, California explodes. The rest of the US would wilt, but California would be great.

Thank god for redistribution of wealth, right? Hell, those right wing states need to thank their god everyday for blue states and the federal dollars they pour into the system to keep food on their table in the form of food stamps and free healthcare and net neutrality that allows them to sit on their asses all day, collect their government checks, listen to Rush and Hannity and google these ridiculous conspiracy theories.

so you are syaing socialism doesnt work???
 
Several things here.

1st, it should not be the President's decision. This is essentially a treaty with other countries. It is up to the Senate and Congress to decide. They are not there just for advice, it is their decision. This started with the Obama administration, is continuing with the Trump administration, and both of them are wrong for it.

Second, there is some real debate as to whether this actually is a good idea. With it, we're looking at maybe a 0.17 C change in degrees over the next 70 years. That's globally. So what would we get from that? Well, an estimate a 15-20% increase in household electrical expenditures over the next decade. A loss of about 400,000 jobs. Total income loss of about $30,000 for a family of 4. Aggregate GDP loss of $2.5 Trillion. That's not exactly great.
 
Several things here.

1st, it should not be the President's decision. This is essentially a treaty with other countries. It is up to the Senate and Congress to decide. They are not there just for advice, it is their decision. This started with the Obama administration, is continuing with the Trump administration, and both of them are wrong for it.

Second, there is some real debate as to whether this actually is a good idea. With it, we're looking at maybe a 0.17 C change in degrees over the next 70 years. That's globally. So what would we get from that? Well, an estimate a 15-20% increase in household electrical expenditures over the next decade. A loss of about 400,000 jobs. Total income loss of about $30,000 for a family of 4. Aggregate GDP loss of $2.5 Trillion. That's not exactly great.

how is trump wrong!

obama bypassed senate! so trump just undid that!


and even if man made catastrophic climate change is real, the paris climate accord wont do anything
 
Again, California is having the money problems they are having because they are floating republican states. If you allow California to stop REDISTRIBUTING their wealth to keep people in the south alive, California explodes. The rest of the US would wilt, but California would be great.

Thank god for redistribution of wealth, right? Hell, those right wing states need to thank their god everyday for blue states and the federal dollars they pour into the system to keep food on their table in the form of food stamps and free healthcare and net neutrality that allows them to sit on their asses all day, collect their government checks, listen to Rush and Hannity and google these ridiculous conspiracy theories.

https://www.politifact.com/california/article/2017/feb/14/does-california-give-more-it-gets-dc/


The federal government, Coupal added, is inextricably linked to the state, not just in what it pays to federal employees, but through its management of national parks, military protection and other services the state would struggle to pay for itself.
"It’s really almost an academic debate. I know why people try to use the argument that we’re a donor state to make some sort of point," Coupal said. "It really doesn’t make much difference."

You will notice below that Utah, Wisconsin, Nevada, Texas, Kansas, Illinois, Iowa, Nebraska, Indiana, and Minnesota all receive less federal money per capita than California. It doesn't look like a red state blue state thing to me. Further,iirc, of the top six states all but Alaska went to Clinton.
LAO%20donor%20state.JPG
 
Last edited:
how is trump wrong!

obama bypassed senate! so trump just undid that!


and even if man made catastrophic climate change is real, the paris climate accord wont do anything

Trump should have done the right thing and sent it to the senate. Continuing Obama's mistakes is not the right thing.
 
Top