Paris Climate Accord

[Jabez]

Trillions of taxpayer monies fly out of the United States of America into other countries .

Paying billions of $$ for climate change to go to whom? And how does paying those billions actually decrease 'global warming' ?

Some American people want it all. They want free everything from rent to food to healthcare to college. Now 'climate change' advocates want to rip more $$ out from the pockets of the hard working americans who do have a job and are having a hard time paying for these incredible tax burdens that already exists.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jabez

Trillions of taxpayer monies fly out of the United States of America into other countries .

Paying billions of $$ for climate change to go to whom? And how does paying those billions actually decrease 'global warming' ?

Some American people want it all. They want free everything from rent to food to healthcare to college. Now 'climate change' advocates want to rip more $$ out from the pockets of the hard working americans who do have a job and are having a hard time paying for these incredible tax burdens that already exists.

Can you explain exactly how the tax payer is effected, how much is needed, and what is being paid for?

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

97% of the Scientific community is in agreement.

Do you even think about these numbers you spew? Or do you just regurgitate whatever you hear on NPR?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps.../#2e6b6f23f9ff

It’s likely that 97% of people making the 97% claim have absolutely no idea where that number comes from.

Bottom line: What the 97% of climate scientists allegedly agree on is very mild and in no way justifies restricting the energy that billions need.

But it gets even worse. Because it turns out that 97% didn’t even say that.

One of the main papers behind the 97 percent claim is authored by John Cook, who runs the popular website SkepticalScience.com, a virtual encyclopedia of arguments trying to defend predictions of catastrophic climate change from all challenges.

Here is Cook’s summary of his paper: “Cook et al. (2013) found that over 97 percent [of papers he surveyed] endorsed the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.”

This is a fairly clear statement—97 percent of the papers surveyed endorsed the view that man-made greenhouse gases were the main cause—main in common usage meaning more than 50 percent.

But even a quick scan of the paper reveals that this is not the case. Cook is able to demonstrate only that a relative handful endorse “the view that the Earth is warming up and human emissions of greenhouse gases are the main cause.” Cook calls this “explicit endorsement with quantification” (quantification meaning 50 percent or more). The problem is, only a small percentage of the papers fall into this category; Cook does not say what percentage, but when the study was publicly challenged by economist David Friedman, one observer calculated that only 1.6 percent explicitly stated that man-made greenhouse gases caused at least 50 percent of global warming.

Where did most of the 97 percent come from, then? Cook had created a category called “explicit endorsement without quantification”—that is, papers in which the author, by Cook’s admission, did not say whether 1 percent or 50 percent or 100 percent of the warming was caused by man. He had also created a category called “implicit endorsement,” for papers that imply (but don’t say) that there is some man-made global warming and don’t quantify it. In other words, he created two categories that he labeled as endorsing a view that they most certainly didn't.

The 97 percent claim is a deliberate misrepresentation designed to intimidate the public—and numerous scientists, whose papers were classified by Cook, protested

“Cook survey included 10 of my 122 eligible papers. 5/10 were rated incorrectly. 4/5 were rated as endorse rather than neutral.”

—Dr. Richard Tol

“That is not an accurate representation of my paper . . .”

—Dr. Craig Idso

“Nope . . . it is not an accurate representation.”

—Dr. Nir Shaviv

“Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument . . .”

—Dr. Nicola Scafetta

[Jabez]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Can you explain exactly how the tax payer is effected, how much is needed, and what is being paid for?

I am surprised that you ask how the taxpayer is affected. Every penny that goes out of the United States for various *commitments* comes from the taxpayers. Back in 2014 President Obama solely signed onto this nonbonding agreement and pledged $3 Billion to the Green Climate Fund according to the NY Times. First of all, no president is supposed to have the power to sign these types of agreements without putting it through Congress first. Congress is sole lawmaker of treaties (this looks like it is more of a treaty rather than an agreement) and should be passed by them by a margin of 2/3 vote. Secondly, appropriations money always originate in the House of Representatives. A sitting president has not been given the power to pledge monies, yet....a few of them have done so without the permission of Congress (american people) and Congress has shirked their duty in not reigning them in when they have done so. The $3 Billion is just for starters.

There just isn't enough money to fix crumbling infrastructure, social safety nets, free college, healthcare etc for the people of our country if the money is flowing out to the world faster than it comes in.

[Aquila]

The authority for the legally binding aspects of the agreement actually comes from a treaty that the United States Senate ratified in the 1990s: The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), as explained by the Center for Climate and Energy Solutions:

The UNFCCC, adopted in 1992, is a treaty among governments that provides a foundation for the global climate effort. Enjoying near-universal membership, the convention was ratified by the United States with the advice and consent of the Senate. The convention set a long-term objective (avoiding “dangerous human interference with the climate system”), established principles to guide the global effort, and committed all countries to “mitigate” climate change by reducing or avoiding greenhouse gas emissions. The Paris Agreement defines how countries will implement their UNFCCC commitments after 2020.

Holly Doremus, Co-Director of the Center for Law, Energy and the Environment at the Berkeley School of Law, has explained that the earliest the U.S. could formally withdraw is November 2020, if they decided to remain in the UNFCCC:

It’s not as easy to formally withdraw from the Paris Agreement as some of the coverage makes it sound. Article 28 of the Paris Agreement allows any party to notice its withdrawal three years from the date on which the Agreement entered into force for that party [November 4, 2016]. That means the earliest date on which the U.S. can formally notice its withdrawal would be November 4, 2019. Withdrawal becomes effective no sooner than one year later. So the US can’t withdraw from Paris alone until November 2020.

So, yes, it is a legal international treaty/agreement.

[Jito463]

Just saw this posted on another site.

General George
2 hours ago
Jihad report for the week of May 20-26, 2017...

Attacks: 51
Killed: 348
Injured: 485
Suicide blasts: 11
Countries: 14
Forecast: Trending up

Climate Change report for week of May 20-26, 2017...

Killed: 0
Injured: 0
Forecast: Same

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Do you even think about these numbers you spew? Or do you just regurgitate whatever you hear on NPR?

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexeps.../#2e6b6f23f9ff

Well?

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Jito463

Just saw this posted on another site.

General George
2 hours ago
Jihad report for the week of May 20-26, 2017...

Attacks: 51
Killed: 348
Injured: 485
Suicide blasts: 11
Countries: 14
Forecast: Trending up

Climate Change report for week of May 20-26, 2017...

Killed: 0
Injured: 0
Forecast: Same

Islam is a religio-political cancer that destabilizes every nation wherein it becomes a sizable minority. I would support denying Islam status as a religion to declare it a subversive body politic hostile to the United States and Western civilization as we know it. I see no reason not to treat Islam as we treated Soviet Communism during the Cold War.

I know, I know. My liberal friends will say, but what about moderate Muslims. In my opinion, a moderate Muslim is only a Muslim that hasn't become p*ssed off yet. History testifies that they are only a time-bomb demographic.

This is a clash of civilizations.

Perhaps this is one area in which I agree with the conservatives.

[Originalist]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Islam is a religio-political cancer that destabilizes every nation wherein it becomes a sizable minority. I would support denying Islam status as a religion to declare it a subversive body politic hostile to the United States and Western civilization as we know it. I see no reason not to treat Islam as we treated Soviet Communism during the Cold War.

I know, I know. My liberal friends will say, but what about moderate Muslims. In my opinion, a moderate Muslim is only a Muslim that hasn't become p*ssed off yet. History testifies that they are only a time-bomb demographic.

This is a clash of civilizations.

Perhaps this is one area in which I agree with the conservatives.

Well said. There is a reason we ask immigrant applicants if they have ever been a communist or a Nazi. Islam adherents should be treated the same way.

[Jito463]

Originally Posted by Aquila

*snip*

You're literally going to completely ignore my post debunking your "97%" myth?

I'm not sure why I expected any different.