• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should America have stayed in the Paris Climate Accord?

Should America have stayed in the Paris Climate Accord?

  • Yes

    Votes: 40 46.5%

  • No

    Votes: 39 45.3%

  • Unsure/no opinion

    Votes: 7 8.1%

  • I thought only Honda made Accord's?

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    86
eohrnberger said:
A possible solution is to de-populate the Earth, be it by exploring and colonizing the universe, or other, more drastic local only means, perhaps.
Click to expand...

Freeman Dyson says that we can easily counter the effects by using no-till farming methods because tilling the soil throws more carbon into the air than fossil fuel use does. There's no need for more bureaucracy and taxes.
 
eohrnberger said:
Once there were no more than 100,000 humans on the planet, and the Earth didn't suffer from excess CO2 and climate change.
Now we've got 7.347 billion humans on the planet. Each breath of each person exhaling CO2.
The sheer numbers of added people is staggering, yet, this is never discussed in any of scientific literature or research, is it?

A possible solution is to de-populate the Earth, be it by exploring and colonizing the universe, or other, more drastic local only means, perhaps.
Click to expand...

You aren't seriously still saying the humans breathing contribute to global warming are you? It is releasing fossil carbon which is Co2 removed from the air millions of years ago and deposited as fossil fuels that is raising the temperature of our planet. This CO2 has not existed on Earth for millions of years and we are digging it up and throwing it back into the air by the millions of tons a year. What all animals breath out is recycled carbon that is part of the Earth's "carbon cycle". As far as "depopulating" I think you have shown that we need to start with educating. You really are not capable of even making a decision about anything when you don't even understand the concept. Oh wait Trump does that all the time so now its OK.....:lol:
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Why? Because of the Constitution? You should have known that Trump has no interest in reinforcing that document. Trump is an autocrat and his first 4 months should have shown you that by now.
Click to expand...

How did what I say defend Trump? I was talking about the Paris treaty and the US Constitution. Not whether I agreed with Trump or with his reasons for doing what he did. The only thing I said about Trump was that it legally made no difference what he did because the treaty was never ratified by the Senate and therefore it had no legal power over the US to begin with. Find a Trump supporter to say those things to.
 
DA60 said:
Should America have stayed in the Paris Climate Accord?


Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I voted unsure because there have been good arguments both pro and con re the Paris Accord. I approve of the President looking out for America's interests and he has indicated that we will still be attentive to the environment and renewable energy and all that, but we will call our own shots instead of putting ourselves at the mercy of the global world order.

And the idea that the Paris Accord has actually been billed as part of a one world order has bothered me. A lot. I do not want to put the fate of America in the hands of those who absolutely do not have our best interests at heart.

So I am not disturbed that he made the call, and I figure if there is a good reason for staying with the Paris Accord, we have plenty of time to change our mind before that is a done deal.
 
Not sure, because I haven't read the material, and I don't know what the optimal course is.
Wanting to not accidentally poison or drown ourselves should be a given, so the question is if the accords are the optimal vehicle for that, or if they are too heavily influenced by Al Gore style hysterics/opportunism.
 
Yes, we should have stayed in. It was a reasonable agreement and would not have placed undue strain on our economy.
 
PoS said:
Freeman Dyson says that we can easily counter the effects by using no-till farming methods because tilling the soil throws more carbon into the air than fossil fuel use does. There's no need for more bureaucracy and taxes.
Click to expand...

Dyson is an expert in physics, not farming, environmental science or climate.

For a good illustration of what happens when a brilliant Nobelist opines on a different field see Pauling, Linus.
 
countryboy said:
Right, we should saddle the poor and middle class with higher energy costs in the spirit of "international cooperation". :roll:
Click to expand...

How will the poor and the middle class living in coastal cities fare when sea levels rise?
 
Threegoofs said:
Dyson is an expert in physics, not farming, environmental science or climate.

For a good illustration of what happens when a brilliant Nobelist opines on a different field see Pauling, Linus.
Click to expand...

Dyson is the smartest man since Einstein. A lot of CC models have been proven wrong, so I dont trust the so-called climatology experts one bit.
 
I'm deeply disturbed that by leaving the agreement that the US is prohibited from doing anything to address climate issues.
 
PoS said:
Dyson is the smartest man since Einstein. A lot of CC models have been proven wrong, so I dont trust the so-called climatology experts one bit.
Click to expand...

So was Pauling.

Look at his stuff on Vitamin C.

https://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/pauling.html

The basic concept here in science is that the guy who says things doesn't matter. The data does. And everyone who is actually studying this has come to the same conclusion.

Dyson is totally inconsistent, too. He says CO2 causes minimal warming, then says the CO2 is beneficial, then suggests we change farming methods to mitigate the thing that isn't a big deal and is maybe beneficial butt maybe not?
 
No. The US should not have stayed in the Paris Accord.

Nobody wants dirty air, water, land. The Paris Accord, along with all the other UN-IPCC efforts mask their real agenda with the cloak of Climate Change.

Few people have taken the time and effort to get inside the agenda. Few have taken the time to learn about the players who helped create the agenda. Yet, via a remarkable promotional effort, many believe themselves experts on the issue.

For anyone interested, the link below contains the transcript of the opening statement given by Maurice Strong at the first United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 June 1992. Maurice Strong is considered the Father of Global Warming.

Opening Statement

Some key statements given 25 years ago that hint at the path ahead:

This is not a single issue Conference. Rather, it deals with the overall cause and effect system through which a broad range of human activities interact to shape our future

The concentration of population growth in developing countries and economic growth in the industrialized countries has deepened, creating imbalances which are unsustainable, either in environmental or economic terms.

This is the other part of the population problem: the fact that every child born in the developed world consumes 20 to 30 times the resources of the planet than a third world child.

Yet the poor need economic and social development as the only means of relieving the vicious circle of poverty in which they are caught up. Their right to development cannot be denied; nor should it be impeded by conditions unilaterally imposed on the financial flows or trade of developing countries. The rich must take the lead in bringing their development under control, reducing substantially their impacts on the environment, leaving environmental 'space' for developing countries to grow.​

The Paris Accord, and all other agreements have little to do with Climate Change, and everything to do with the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. It empowers unknown, and unencumbered leaders with powers over all humanity who will have little choice but to bow down to their commands.

This is a globalist agenda, not an environmental one. If people take the time to do the research, they can learn for themselves why pulling out of the Paris Accord was the right thing to do.
 
This should not surprise anyone. In the last 30 years, most Republicans have been on the wrong side of just about every environmental initiative. Whether it was the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, Acid Rain, CAFE standards, Wilderness Protection, the Endangered Species Act, you name it, the fought it tooth and nail. They always screamed doom and gloom about it, claiming it would destroy our economy and costs hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Then in an astonishing act of cognitive dissonance they will argue that "We have cleaned up our water and air greatly". Ignoring of course that the fact we have cleaned up our environment over the last few decades is despite them, and they fought all of efforts to do so at the time. You have to go all the way back to Richard Nixon to find a good Republican president on the environment.

You see fundamentally, the problem is they have zero faith in American innovation and creativeness. They think the only way we can compete with a nation like China is to have air and water like China. (How many times have you head a Republican say China is stealing our jobs due to job killing environmental regulations)

Now they argue that since we left the Paris Climate Accord, we can still take steps to mitigate AGW. Sure, we can, but the problem there is that these guys don't even accept the basic science behind AGW, thus why on earth would they do anything to mitigate a problem they deny exists?
 
Last edited:
ocean515 said:
No. The US should not have stayed in the Paris Accord.

Nobody wants dirty air, water, land. The Paris Accord, along with all the other UN-IPCC efforts mask their real agenda with the cloak of Climate Change.

Few people have taken the time and effort to get inside the agenda. Few have taken the time to learn about the players who helped create the agenda. Yet, via a remarkable promotional effort, many believe themselves experts on the issue.

For anyone interested, the link below contains the transcript of the opening statement given by Maurice Strong at the first United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 3 June 1992. Maurice Strong is considered the Father of Global Warming.

Opening Statement

Some key statements given 25 years ago that hint at the path ahead:

This is not a single issue Conference. Rather, it deals with the overall cause and effect system through which a broad range of human activities interact to shape our future

The concentration of population growth in developing countries and economic growth in the industrialized countries has deepened, creating imbalances which are unsustainable, either in environmental or economic terms.

This is the other part of the population problem: the fact that every child born in the developed world consumes 20 to 30 times the resources of the planet than a third world child.

Yet the poor need economic and social development as the only means of relieving the vicious circle of poverty in which they are caught up. Their right to development cannot be denied; nor should it be impeded by conditions unilaterally imposed on the financial flows or trade of developing countries. The rich must take the lead in bringing their development under control, reducing substantially their impacts on the environment, leaving environmental 'space' for developing countries to grow.​

The Paris Accord, and all other agreements have little to do with Climate Change, and everything to do with the largest transfer of wealth in the history of mankind. It empowers unknown, and unencumbered leaders with powers over all humanity who will have little choice but to bow down to their commands.

This is a globalist agenda, not an environmental one. If people take the time to do the research, they can learn for themselves why pulling out of the Paris Accord was the right thing to do.
Click to expand...

That's a well written response, however, I must disagree with some points. Global warming is a Global and Environmental issue and can only be addressed Globally. The Paris Accords are a step to a Global attempt at mitigation of a problem that can only be solved globally. The fact that it is developed by a bunch of politicians assures that the end result is likey a crap sandwich. Nevertheless, the future of the Planet as a viable life form or life support base is the issue. This appeared to me to be the first forward step in the 40+ years of attempt by Global Warming activists to address the issue. This is the point where we are supposed to teach and help the developing World to use Renewable Energies as the only sane option. Left to the Corporate Behemoth and Greed, we are doomed to failure because large scale environmental damage is their "stock in trade." That is what generates huge profits. It's as simple as an enclosed chicken coop. If you don't clean out the chicken crap, the floor moves up toward the ceiling because of the buildup of chicken crap, and pretty soon, no room for chickens. We are long past thw question of whether or not Global Warming is happening and we are close upon the edge of fatal irreversibilty. The future of humanity is at stake and we are allowing "Greed" to be the controlling dynamic. Perhaps humanity is, after all, just a pathogenic parasite upon the Planet reproducing exactly like a fatal cancerous growth.
/
 
DaveFagan said:
That's a well written response, however, I must disagree with some points. Global warming is a Global and Environmental issue and can only be addressed Globally. The Paris Accords are a step to a Global attempt at mitigation of a problem that can only be solved globally. The fact that it is developed by a bunch of politicians assures that the end result is likey a crap sandwich. Nevertheless, the future of the Planet as a viable life form or life support base is the issue. This appeared to me to be the first forward step in the 40+ years of attempt by Global Warming activists to address the issue. This is the point where we are supposed to teach and help the developing World to use Renewable Energies as the only sane option. Left to the Corporate Behemoth and Greed, we are doomed to failure because large scale environmental damage is their "stock in trade." That is what generates huge profits. It's as simple as an enclosed chicken coop. If you don't clean out the chicken crap, the floor moves up toward the ceiling because of the buildup of chicken crap, and pretty soon, no room for chickens. We are long past thw question of whether or not Global Warming is happening and we are close upon the edge of fatal irreversibilty. The future of humanity is at stake and we are allowing "Greed" to be the controlling dynamic. Perhaps humanity is, after all, just a pathogenic parasite upon the Planet reproducing exactly like a fatal cancerous growth.
/
Click to expand...

Many argue we know more about Mars and the Moon, than we know about the Earth and the vast regions of it covered by it's oceans.

I know of few people who reject the notion of climate changing. The geologic history of the Earth proves that climate does indeed change and will continue to do so.

It changed dramatically before modern man arrived to walk the planet, and as such, it will change again whether man is responsible or not.

It is in everyone's best interests to be good stewards of the resources of the planet. It has been mankind's nature to pursue that goal regardless of regulation or outside influence. Caves gave way to manmade shelter. Campfires gave way to stoves and ovens. And the list goes on.

As Maurice Strong indicated in his own words, the "Agenda", and especially Agenda 21, has little to do with climate. The issue is global social justice and restricting developed nations.

He made that clear in 1992, when Global Warming had not yet become an issue. Take his words and see how the plan he discussed has been implemented.

The major flaw in promoting this effort has been to denigrate and attack any questioning science, or even voice, as it relates to the applied research and results at the core of the issue. This should cause all objective thinking people to take pause as to the findings, and more critically, the solution.

The "ask" in this effort should not be taken lightly.

Based on science that is not yet definitive, a select group of "leaders" are demanding mankind turn control of itself over to them, and that a significant amount of the fruits of their labor be given to these leaders, to be distributed as they see fit.

Further, this select group is demanding that every human being living on the planet now, and in the future, be subservient to their demands over life and lifestyle.

People should not be willing to be bullied, or hurried, into surrendering their future so easily and completely.
 
ocean515 said:
Many argue we know more about Mars and the Moon, than we know about the Earth and the vast regions of it covered by it's oceans.

I know of few people who reject the notion of climate changing. The geologic history of the Earth proves that climate does indeed change and will continue to do so.

It changed dramatically before modern man arrived to walk the planet, and as such, it will change again whether man is responsible or not.

It is in everyone's best interests to be good stewards of the resources of the planet. It has been mankind's nature to pursue that goal regardless of regulation or outside influence. Caves gave way to manmade shelter. Campfires gave way to stoves and ovens. And the list goes on.

As Maurice Strong indicated in his own words, the "Agenda", and especially Agenda 21, has little to do with climate. The issue is global social justice and restricting developed nations.

He made that clear in 1992, when Global Warming had not yet become an issue. Take his words and see how the plan he discussed has been implemented.

The major flaw in promoting this effort has been to denigrate and attack any questioning science, or even voice, as it relates to the applied research and results at the core of the issue. This should cause all objective thinking people to take pause as to the findings, and more critically, the solution.

The "ask" in this effort should not be taken lightly.

Based on science that is not yet definitive, a select group of "leaders" are demanding mankind turn control of itself over to them, and that a significant amount of the fruits of their labor be given to these leaders, to be distributed as they see fit.

Further, this select group is demanding that every human being living on the planet now, and in the future, be subservient to their demands over life and lifestyle.

People should not be willing to be bullied, or hurried, into surrendering their future so easily and completely.
Click to expand...

f98ea9275157e714fd7db8a500c61f5b.jpg
 
ocean515 said:
While operating as a self informed "expert" on the data, you continue to be in denial of the underlying agenda.

Why do you chose to be that way?
Click to expand...

Because you see an 'agenda' where there is none. The agenda is not some bizarre world government control shadow conspiracy, it's a plan to avoid environmental damage.

I guess I can ask the same of you- why do you ignore the agenda put forth by the fossil fuel producers funding the science denial machine?
 
ocean515 said:
While operating as a self informed "expert" on the data, you continue to be in denial of the underlying agenda.

Why do you chose to be that way?
Click to expand...

Probably because most of us value the harmonious and prosperous continued existence of our species; more than the we get upset by our snowflake feelings being hurt when some press guy at the DoE reminds that leaving the A/C on and running when we're not at home is not economical or environmental.
 
Threegoofs said:
Because you see an 'agenda' where there is none. The agenda is not some bizarre world government control shadow conspiracy, it's a plan to avoid environmental damage.

I guess I can ask the same of you- why do you ignore the agenda put forth by the fossil fuel producers funding the science denial machine?
Click to expand...

If you devoted 1/50th the time researching and reviewing the "agenda", as you have devoted to researching and reviewing the scientific data, you might give yourself the opportunity to reach a rational conclusion.

The "fossil fuel" producer meme is laughable in the face of the $10 of billions of dollars that have been spent to promote the "agenda".

The worst mistake AGW'sts have made in their promotion, is to attack anyone who dares question the agenda.

Proving the scientific method has no home in the Climate Change question is a considerable miscalculation.
 
brothern said:
Probably because most of us value the harmonious and prosperous continued existence of our species; more than the we get upset by our snowflake feelings being hurt when some press guy at the DoE reminds that leaving the A/C on and running when we're not at home is not economical or environmental.
Click to expand...

There are likely few people who don't value the harmonious continued existence of our species.

The Father of Global Warming, Maurice Strong, was one of those few, given his eugenics like recommendations hidden within the Global Warming initiative he created.
 
ocean515 said:
If you devoted 1/50th the time researching and reviewing the "agenda", as you have devoted to researching and reviewing the scientific data, you might give yourself the opportunity to reach a rational conclusion.

The "fossil fuel" producer meme is laughable in the face of the $10 of billions of dollars that have been spent to promote the "agenda".

The worst mistake AGW'sts have made in their promotion, is to attack anyone who dares question the agenda.

Proving the scientific method has no home in the Climate Change question is a considerable miscalculation.
Click to expand...

I'd flip it around and tell you that if you spent some time looking at the science instead of fake 'agenda' websites you might reach a rational conclusion....but I think we both know that you reviewing scientific data is probably a wasted time investment given your baseline knowledge.

Tens of billions of dollars isnt promoting an 'agenda'.... its being spent on scientific studies looking at the earth's environment. Your fake numbers pretend that all the money spent on weather satellites is promoting 'the agenda' when they are actually predicting weather for us (and quite accurately these days) with the side benefit of giving us data for research. The millions we spend on researching the cryosphere isnt devoted to 'the agenda',,,, its devoted to understanding the cryosphere and the behavior of land and sea ice. Only an idiot would dismiss the information gathered from these systems and not want to research potential problems further because of fear of some fake 'agenda'.
 
Manc Skipper said:
How will the poor and the middle class living in coastal cities fare when sea levels rise?
Click to expand...

I imagine theyll move (or build higher) like anyone who lives in a unfriendly area does. Happens every year here in Florida. Circumstances change and people adapt.
 
Threegoofs said:
I'd flip it around and tell you that if you spent some time looking at the science instead of fake 'agenda' websites you might reach a rational conclusion....but I think we both know that you reviewing scientific data is probably a wasted time investment given your baseline knowledge.

Tens of billions of dollars isnt promoting an 'agenda'.... its being spent on scientific studies looking at the earth's environment. Your fake numbers pretend that all the money spent on weather satellites is promoting 'the agenda' when they are actually predicting weather for us (and quite accurately these days) with the side benefit of giving us data for research. The millions we spend on researching the cryosphere isnt devoted to 'the agenda',,,, its devoted to understanding the cryosphere and the behavior of land and sea ice. Only an idiot would dismiss the information gathered from these systems and not want to research potential problems further because of fear of some fake 'agenda'.
Click to expand...

I was referring to actual documents from the UN, the IPCC, and meeting minutes from the multiple climate conferences that have taken place since Maurice Strong first organized the 1992 conference in Rio. Only an idiot would make a claim like you did about my dependence on "fake" websites. Why do you chose to be one?

So, I dismiss your insults as nothing but another typical AGW'st fearful response.

Again, I would encourage you to devote some actual time on the what the agenda is. But we know you would likely never do that given your baseline bias.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom