Tucker: Trump gets US out of bad deal and left melts down

  • Thread starter Thread starter Cathoholic
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Rhubarb said:
Their political agendas on same sex marriage and abortion seems to be binding.

Which is my way of asking why the above is ‘faith and morals’ while environmentalism is ‘political’? I think protecting the lives of the human species is a point of morality.
Click to expand...
No.
 
ChurchSoldier said:
A couple things I find intriguing. First, is people aren’t angry that politicians got us into such a bad deal which costs us with an initial payout, then binds us to actions which will cost us even more.

Second, that people aren’t angry the government, which has borrowed $60,000 already on EVERY American’s account, is putting billions more on the credit card which DOESN’T force the countries we are paying the money to, to do anything.

Talking about a lose / lose. There has to be more behind the scenes we aren’t being told about.
PAX
Click to expand...
😊👍
 
Trump’s Paris Agreement Decision Shows He’s Not Afraid of Defying Global Elites

All the heroes carrying the fate of the world on their shoulders phoned in to NPR Friday morning. Former Secretary of State John Kerry, Canadian Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna, and business magnate Richard Branson, all nearly snarling, attempted to cultivate hatred and mistrust toward President Donald Trump following his decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement.

Phony high-mindedness is also being deployed against Trump. French President Emmanuel Macron, for instance, went around America’s head of state and chief representative to flatter the American public, reassuring the American public that France and the world still “believes in you.”

That global elites feel sufficient self-confidence to attempt to publicly shame the president of the United States is partly because other U.S. presidents have typically succumbed to similar pressures long before they become public.

more…
dailysignal.com/2017/06/04/337320/
 
Caldera said:
Trump’s Paris Agreement Decision Shows He’s Not Afraid of Defying Global Elites

All the heroes carrying the fate of the world on their shoulders phoned in to NPR Friday morning. Former Secretary of State John Kerry, Canadian Minister of Environment and Climate Change Catherine McKenna, and business magnate Richard Branson, all nearly snarling, attempted to cultivate hatred and mistrust toward President Donald Trump following his decision to withdraw from the Paris agreement.

Phony high-mindedness is also being deployed against Trump. French President Emmanuel Macron, for instance, went around America’s head of state and chief representative to flatter the American public, reassuring the American public that France and the world still “believes in you.”

That global elites feel sufficient self-confidence to attempt to publicly shame the president of the United States is partly because other U.S. presidents have typically succumbed to similar pressures long before they become public.

more…
dailysignal.com/2017/06/04/337320/
Click to expand...
Yeah… you could say that. But a simpler perspective is that Trump is wrong and mnay are concerned about this.
 
Rhubarb said:
Their political agendas on same sex marriage and abortion seems to be binding.

Which is my way of asking why the above is ‘faith and morals’ while environmentalism is ‘political’? I think protecting the lives of the human species is a point of morality.
Click to expand...
It is. But bowing to the wishes of hypocritical globalists who only want America to give up its economic strength to countries that have zero interest in abiding by any accord set up by leftist westerners isn’t moral in the slightest; it’s just stupid and suicidal. And the Church has something to say about suicide.
 
dvdjs said:
It is a global problem. We cannot fix it on our own. We need cooperation from everyone. We can and will do much on our own. But, while we need their cooperation, we cannot just that poorer countries lacking the financial wherewithal make take the same steps without help. So we, together with all of the developed countries pledged to mobilize support to the developing countries. All countries pledge to be transparent about the steps being taken.

That is a good and an historically good agreement. Nothing to get angry about.

What is your plan to get the global cooperation needed to make progress on this problem?
Click to expand...
Let’s see the other countries start reducing their carbon levels first. Let’s see China and India clean up their air and show some good faith before throwing money at them.
 
dvdjs said:
Yeah… you could say that. But a simpler perspective is that Trump is wrong and mnay are concerned about this.
Click to expand...
Until the left stops spouting the ‘97% of scientists believe that global warming is real and man-made’ lie, I’m not going to give their opinions the slightest bit of credibility.
 
Borealis said:
Let’s see the other countries start reducing their carbon levels first. Let’s see China and India clean up their air and show some good faith before throwing money at them.
Click to expand...
They won’t do it, and didn’t agree to do it. What China agreed to do was start working on emissions after it reached its “peak” level, whatever that is (as much industrialization as it wants, I guess). Right now, that’s estimated to be in 2030, but it is free to reset that.

India didn’t even agree to do that.
 
Ridgerunner said:
They won’t do it, and didn’t agree to do it. What China agreed to do was start working on emissions after it reached its “peak” level, whatever that is (as much industrialization as it wants, I guess). Right now, that’s estimated to be in 2030, but it is free to reset that.

India didn’t even agree to do that.
Click to expand...
Then why give them a penny of taxpayer money? They’re just making the ‘global threat’ worse, aren’t they? I don’t want Canada to start subsidizing Chinese industrial development just so the lefties in Parliament can preen about how they’re saving the world.
 
Borealis said:
Until the left stops spouting the ‘97% of scientists believe that global warming is real and man-made’ lie, I’m not going to give their opinions the slightest bit of credibility.
Click to expand...
That is not particularly logical. The science - correct or not - does not hinge on the arguments of “the left”.
 
Borealis said:
Then why give them a penny of taxpayer money? They’re just making the ‘global threat’ worse, aren’t they? I don’t want Canada to start subsidizing Chinese industrial development just so the lefties in Parliament can preen about how they’re saving the world.
Click to expand...
I assume you are referring to Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 3 ? Tell me so I will know exactly which paragraph you are grossly misrepresenting. In case you need a reference to the full text of the agreement, here it is.
 
dvdjs said:
That is not particularly logical. The science - correct or not - does not hinge on the arguments of “the left”.
Click to expand...
It does when the science isn’t at all scientific. The climate “scientists” don’t include the effects of that really big hot thing way, way up in the sky. You know, the one we used to think went around the earth? Yeah, that one. It’s called ‘the sun.’ Well, none of the current climate models include any variation in solar effects. Now, I might not be getting million-dollar grants from the Al Gore Foundation for Ripping People Off Through Climate Scams, but I’m pretty sure I remember my high-school science enough to know that ignoring variables in a scientific experiment is a great way to make your conclusions utterly irrelevant.

The East Anglia e-mails confirmed long ago that the climate change “science” is nothing more than a fraud.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I assume you are referring to Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 3 ? Tell me so I will know exactly which paragraph you are grossly misrepresenting. In case you need a reference to the full text of the agreement, here it is.
Click to expand...
I speak more than one language, but Bureaucrat isn’t one of them. Nor do I ever intend it to be one. But when Article 9 says that ‘developing’ countries are going to get windfalls from the first-world countries, and then we find out that China and India, two nuclear powers, are going to be counted among those ‘developing’ countries, I smell scam. And it stinks. The Chinese must be laughing like crazy at how stupid the Europeans are.
 
LeafByNiggle said:
I assume you are referring to Article 9, paragraphs 1 and 3 ? Tell me so I will know exactly which paragraph you are grossly misrepresenting. In case you need a reference to the full text of the agreement, here it is.
Click to expand...
If enforceable, it’s even worse for the U.S. than I thought. Whether it’s enforceable against the U.S. in some manner other than “emission-shaming” is unclear, because it refers to other agreements, one of them being the Warsaw Convention on loss and damages. It’s pretty obscure itself, because it refers to other documents and agreements as well. An excerpt:

“Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its eighteenth session Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties 1/CP.19 Further advancing the Durban Platform 2/CP.19 Warsaw international mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change impacts 3/CP.19 Long-term climate finance 4/CP.19 Report of the Green Climate Fund to the Conference of the Parties and guidance to the Green Climate Fund 5/CP.19 Arrangements between the Conference of the Parties and the Green Climate Fund 6/CP.19 Report of the Global Environment Facility to the Conference of the Parties and guidance to the Global Environment Facility 7/CP.19 Report of the Standing Committee on Finance to the Conference of the Parties 8/CP.19 Fifth review of the financial mechanism 9/CP.19 Work programme on results-based finance to progress the full implementation of the activities referred to in decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 70 10/CP.19 Coordination of support for the implementation of activities in relation to mitigation actions in the forest sector by developing countries, including institutional arrangements 11/CP.19 Modalities for national forest monitoring systems 12/CP.19 The timing and the frequency of presentations of the summary of information on how all the safeguards referred to in decision 1/CP.16, appendix I, are being addressed and respected 13/CP.19 Guidelines and procedures for the technical assessment of submissions from Parties on proposed forest reference emission levels and/or forest reference levels 14/CP.19 Modalities for measuring, reporting and verifying 15/CP.19 Addressing the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation”

The Paris agreement, among other things, commits “developed” members to financially aiding less developed countries reach their emission goals, but does encourage developed nations to buy credits from others (like Al Gore? and George Soros?). It also commits developed nations to pay other nations to develop their own bureaucracies to study and develop climate change information.

And, of course, the U.S. gets one vote in all of this.
 
Wow, great interview. I have to agree with Tucker. He was not saying that global warming is a hoax, he was asking what does this agreement do?

The only answer I understood was that the world comes together. But that is where the explanation ended. How? I really am interested in the details, just like Tucker was. Not bashing, no need for agenda pushing. Just straight up education that is unbiased and scientific.

The little I read from the USCCB in response was that world leaders come together. I wished they had more specific answers too. For I do trust the USCCB, and they said this is troublesome.
 
Ridgerunner said:
If enforceable, it’s even worse for the U.S. than I thought. Whether it’s enforceable against the U.S. in some manner other than “emission-shaming” is unclear, because it refers to other agreements, one of them being the Warsaw Convention on loss and damages. It’s pretty obscure itself, because it refers to other documents and agreements as well. An excerpt:

“Action taken by the Conference of the Parties at its eighteenth session Decisions adopted by the Conference of the Parties 1/CP.19 Further advancing the Durban Platform 2/CP.19 Warsaw international mechanism for loss and damage associated with climate change impacts 3/CP.19 Long-term climate finance 4/CP.19 Report of the Green Climate Fund to the Conference of the Parties and guidance to the Green Climate Fund 5/CP.19 Arrangements between the Conference of the Parties and the Green Climate Fund 6/CP.19 Report of the Global Environment Facility to the Conference of the Parties and guidance to the Global Environment Facility 7/CP.19 Report of the Standing Committee on Finance to the Conference of the Parties 8/CP.19 Fifth review of the financial mechanism 9/CP.19 Work programme on results-based finance to progress the full implementation of the activities referred to in decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 70 10/CP.19 Coordination of support for the implementation of activities in relation to mitigation actions in the forest sector by developing countries, including institutional arrangements 11/CP.19 Modalities for national forest monitoring systems 12/CP.19 The timing and the frequency of presentations of the summary of information on how all the safeguards referred to in decision 1/CP.16, appendix I, are being addressed and respected 13/CP.19 Guidelines and procedures for the technical assessment of submissions from Parties on proposed forest reference emission levels and/or forest reference levels 14/CP.19 Modalities for measuring, reporting and verifying 15/CP.19 Addressing the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation”

The Paris agreement, among other things, commits “developed” members to financially aiding less developed countries reach their emission goals, but does encourage developed nations to buy credits from others (like Al Gore? and George Soros?). It also commits developed nations to pay other nations to develop their own bureaucracies to study and develop climate change information.

And, of course, the U.S. gets one vote in all of this.
Click to expand...
Its not that simple considering the US currency is the default currency and the US can print all it wants to. When nations get together and proclaim dollar is longer their preferred, then the US is like other countries and gets one vote if it still wants it.
 
I still don’t understand how us giving money away lowers this so-called global warming.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top