The Paris agreement and the whole global warming industry is another attempt at transnational wealth redistribution. Rich northern hemisphere countries are supposed to assuage their white guilt by paying trillions to third world crooks. 40 years ago they tried the same thing under the North-South dialogue framework. No doubt His Holiness the Pope was all for that too.
A Great Victory - Trump expected to withdraw from Paris climate agreement
- Thread starter gwb-trading
- Start date
My question is this: if this is so serious that the future of the planet is at stake, why would there be any exceptions? After all, every single carbon molecule is like a tiny nuclear bomb aimed at us all. China and India must not be as convinced of the danger as Frau Merkel. If the future of the planet was truly at risk, surely they would be as concerned as everyone else. Instead they are balancing the risk against economic growth. Kind of like we should be doing.
More fact free conclusions derived from pre conceived notions, everything about 'wealth' and 'whites' with the Trump crowd
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/opinion/paris-agreement-climate-china-india.html?_r=0
http://climateactiontracker.org/new...Trumps-polices-will-flatten-US-emissions.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/22/opinion/paris-agreement-climate-china-india.html?_r=0
http://climateactiontracker.org/new...Trumps-polices-will-flatten-US-emissions.html
I stated you said "conclusively"... (i will bold and underline your use of the world below.)
here is my proof...
"Again, nobody is disputing that but what they are saying is that the current changes cannot be explained by natural cycles alone - that's what the Berkeley project was all about, it proved conclusively that man made CO2 at least did play a part. And this guy had ZERO reasons to lie about this, he was funded by the Koch's and has been a skeptic for decades till he went out to prove his skepticism. What data sets have you collected or analyzed to prove him wrong?"
here is my proof...
"Again, nobody is disputing that but what they are saying is that the current changes cannot be explained by natural cycles alone - that's what the Berkeley project was all about, it proved conclusively that man made CO2 at least did play a part. And this guy had ZERO reasons to lie about this, he was funded by the Koch's and has been a skeptic for decades till he went out to prove his skepticism. What data sets have you collected or analyzed to prove him wrong?"
Hey retard, the opposite of PARTIALLY which you used is COMPLETELY.
Nowhere did I make the argument about PARTIALLY or COMPLETELY, so why did you bring that strawman up?
When did I say anything about partially or completely for you to go on a tirade if that was the crux of our debate?
And after all this time where you said man made CO2 had no effect, you accept it has partial effect but it's my fault that I said CONCLUSIVELY which has got NOTHING TO DO WITH the words partially or completely.
I mean, what the hell.
lol... you don't even comprehend or recognize your own argument.
I was using word because it came your from your quote of the Mueller paper.
I used the word "partially" because Mueller used it in his paper. I used it to avoid your anticipated troll tactic.
wow... did your troll argument just backfire on you.
this time the typo is also yours... here is your quote on this issue.
" Tat process may be partially anthropogenic
and include effects whose time evolution is not proportional to CO2.
It might also include natural processes."
I was using word because it came your from your quote of the Mueller paper.
I used the word "partially" because Mueller used it in his paper. I used it to avoid your anticipated troll tactic.
wow... did your troll argument just backfire on you.
this time the typo is also yours... here is your quote on this issue.
" Tat process may be partially anthropogenic
and include effects whose time evolution is not proportional to CO2.
It might also include natural processes."