ADVERTISEMENT

Al Gore admits that Paris would not have solved "the problem."

WVPATX

All-American
Gold Member
Jan 27, 2005
28,017
11,296
698
I just watched his interview with Chris Wallace. He admitted Paris would not have solved global warming. This lends significant credence to the fact this was an economic agreement, not a climate agreement. It was all about global governance and the transfer of huge sums of money.

The question is, what would the alarmists like Gore have wanted next since Paris would not solve the problem?
 
I just watched his interview with Chris Wallace. He admitted Paris would not have solved global warming. This lends significant credence to the fact this was an economic agreement, not a climate agreement. It was all about global governance and the transfer of huge sums of money.

The question is, what would the alarmists like Gore have wanted next since Paris would not solve the problem?
Global Governance is the ultimate goal.
 
I just watched his interview with Chris Wallace. He admitted Paris would not have solved global warming. This lends significant credence to the fact this was an economic agreement, not a climate agreement. It was all about global governance and the transfer of huge sums of money.

The question is, what would the alarmists like Gore have wanted next since Paris would not solve the problem?

Oh, so now you consider Al Gore an authoritative source?

So I guess what we have is a global conspiracy to transfer huge sums of money but the people advocating it, who are such evil geniuses that they could come oh so close to pulling off this grand conspiracy, are too dumb to avoid giving the whole game away when they go on the Chris Mathews Show.
 
Oh, so now you consider Al Gore an authoritative source?

So I guess what we have is a global conspiracy to transfer huge sums of money but the people advocating it, who are such evil geniuses that they could come oh so close to pulling off this grand conspiracy, are too dumb to avoid giving the whole game away when they go on the Chris Mathews Show.

It is my very strong hunch OP, you believe the Paris accords would solve the problem. As we all know, even if implemented it would be so virtually nothing to combat global warming. Even Gore acknowledge this today. And the lemmings all follow their leaders and think the Paris accords would have solved the issue. Makes them feel good but it is beyond dispute that it is incorrect.
 
The Paris Accord was a positive step, both in the commitment to help developing nations in transition, and in the commitment to not allow any nation to take advantage of openings in the market created by transition.
 
Oh, so now you consider Al Gore an authoritative source?

So I guess what we have is a global conspiracy to transfer huge sums of money but the people advocating it, who are such evil geniuses that they could come oh so close to pulling off this grand conspiracy, are too dumb to avoid giving the whole game away when they go on the Chris Mathews Show.
So you think the Paris Accord solved global warming? You make one.
 
This is why the world is upset, because papa just put his wallet back in his pocket. Now if any liberal on this board has any disposable income left after funding all the liberal causes then you are lying sacks of feces and deserve to be mocked.

59347535d18e0.jpeg
 
The Paris Accord was a positive step, both in the commitment to help developing nations in transition, and in the commitment to not allow any nation to take advantage of openings in the market created by transition.
[sick]
 
The Paris Accord was a positive step, both in the commitment to help developing nations in transition, and in the commitment to not allow any nation to take advantage of openings in the market created by transition.

Boom, you're wrong. It was NON BINDING. There was no enforcement to ensue compliance. Thus, what is the commitment of China and India and others if they could simply change their minds?

You're right about one thing. It was ALL about helping the developing nations by sending them trillions of dollars.
 
Yes it is also an attempt to get countries to alleviate our most challenging sickness...thanks

Boom, again you're wrong and Al Gore admitted it. It does almost nothing to help with man made global warming.
 
It is my very strong hunch OP, you believe the Paris accords would solve the problem. As we all know, even if implemented it would be so virtually nothing to combat global warming. Even Gore acknowledge this today. And the lemmings all follow their leaders and think the Paris accords would have solved the issue. Makes them feel good but it is beyond dispute that it is incorrect.

I don't think the Paris Accords in themselves were a huge deal. I think what is more important is the symbolic rejection of the rest of the world by the US with regards to this issue and others. You simply cannot both (a) be the world leader and (b) say to the rest of the world "We'll do whatever we want, screw you." They are mutually exclusive.

I think some people underestimate the benefits of being the world leader. It costs some money and plus you're sometimes the focus of venom from various parts of the rest of the world but that aside you get the primary say in the system that evolves over time. Not to mention, assuming you believe the values of our society are good ones you get to spread them more if you're the world leader.

It's just said to go through all those decades of Cold War and come out the winner, doing a lot of good in the world as a result, and then gradually shift into this inward looking mentality. Ya know, if we blow off the rest of the world the rest of the world isn't going to stop happening. Life for everybody else will go on. Our influence will wane. Too bad.
 
I don't think the Paris Accords in themselves were a huge deal. I think what is more important is the symbolic rejection of the rest of the world by the US with regards to this issue and others. You simply cannot both (a) be the world leader and (b) say to the rest of the world "We'll do whatever we want, screw you." They are mutually exclusive.

I think some people underestimate the benefits of being the world leader. It costs some money and plus you're sometimes the focus of venom from various parts of the rest of the world but that aside you get the primary say in the system that evolves over time. Not to mention, assuming you believe the values of our society are good ones you get to spread them more if you're the world leader.

It's just said to go through all those decades of Cold War and come out the winner, doing a lot of good in the world as a result, and then gradually shift into this inward looking mentality. Ya know, if we blow off the rest of the world the rest of the world isn't going to stop happening. Life for everybody else will go on. Our influence will wane. Too bad.

They are not mutually exclusive. We are the world's leader by nature of our stature (both economic and military power). The Accord was purely voluntary. How withdrawing from a voluntary agreement with no enforcement means we no longer lead the world is absurd.

Remember, Obama claimed we were not the world's leader. He took great pains to say we were just one of many countries. He did not believe in American exceptionalism. Now, libs are in a tizzy because we withdrew and claims it hurts our leadership when Obama himself said we were leading from behind.

Trump recognized this was a bad deal. It was voluntary. It meant a huge transfer of money from the U.S. to other countries. He harmed our economy. And it did nothing to slow down man made global warming. He agreed to renegotiate the Accord.

So, I am not sure how withdrawing from a bad deal that does not solve the problem and will cost this country enormously is even debatable. Read Andrew McCarthy's excellent piece on this Accord. Learn why Obama never asked the Senate to accept this as a Treaty which would have become law and bound Trump. Obama did so to save the Dems.
 
I read my The Economist magazine on my Ipad each week from beginning to end, which is not to say I read every article by any means, but I go through it in order and each article I come to I read in full or skim or if the first paragraph or two look uninteresting then I'll just skip it.

Coincidentally after writing my last post I read the next article in my The Economist and it was relevant to what I just wrote. Here it is in case you're interested. It sums up well what I was trying to say.

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...-who-died-aged-89-was-eloquent-spokesman-idea
 
I read my The Economist magazine on my Ipad each week from beginning to end, which is not to say I read every article by any means, but I go through it in order and each article I come to I read in full or skim or if the first paragraph or two look uninteresting then I'll just skip it.

Coincidentally after writing my last post I read the next article in my The Economist and it was relevant to what I just wrote. Here it is in case you're interested. It sums up well what I was trying to say.

http://www.economist.com/news/unite...-who-died-aged-89-was-eloquent-spokesman-idea

Brzezinski has been wrong about so much with regard to foreign policy. Again, these Accords were essentially meaningless. If the Accords were so important Obama would have submitted them to the Senate. If the Senate approved, Trump could not have withdrawn.

As I posted before, the Accord was strictly voluntary. Each country set their own goals. They could back out or change their goals at any time. Most importantly, it did nothing to address man made global warming. India wanted $2.5T to start. China didn't want to start until 2030 (if you trust them to live up to that date).

Dennis Prager said it best in his last book. Liberals like to "feel good" about government policies. This particular accord allowed them to feel good because they felt it showed they were acting.

Conservatives want to "do good." This means the policies must actually work as intended.

This Accord was a feel good agreement that would cost the U.S. tremendously. Just like the Iran deal, it is a bad deal, Obama knew it was a bad deal and thus never submitted it for a Senate vote.

I saw Brzezinski on Morning Joe several months ago. He claimed Trump would destroy NATO. Instead, Trump wants NATO countries to live up to their financial commitments. He also wants NATO to change to become more relevant in today's world. Brzezinski was a far left liberal. That is why Carter selected him. And we lost Iran on his watch.
 
Last edited:
Brzezinski has been wrong about so much with regard to foreign policy. Again, these Accords were essentially meaningless. If the Accords were so important Obama would have submitted them to the Senate. If the Senate approved, Trump could not have withdrawn.

As I posted before, the Accord was strictly voluntary. Each country set their own goals. They could back out or change their goals at any time. Most importantly, it did nothing to address man made global warming. India wanted $2.5T to start. China didn't want to start until 2030 (if you trust them to live up to that date).

Dennis Prager said it best in his last book. Liberals like to "feel good" about government policies. This particular accord allowed them to feel good because they felt it showed they were acting.

Conservatives want to "do good." This means the policies must actually work as intended.

This Accord was a feel good agreement that would cost the U.S. tremendously. Just like the Iran deal, it is a bad deal, Obama knew it was a bad deal and thus never submitted it for a Senate vote.

I saw Brzezinski on Morning Joe several months ago. He claimed Trump would destroy NATO. Instead, Trump wants NATO countries to live up to their financial commitments. He also wants NATO to change to become more relevant in today's world. Brzezinski was a far left liberal. That is why Carter selected him. And we lost Iran on his watch.

The article was about much more than Brzrz or Paris. You either didn't read it or didn't think about it.

I agree that liberals (by the US definition of liberal) often put "feel good" ahead of "do good." But The Economist magazine is far from a liberal magazine (by the US definition of liberal that is...by the European definition of liberal The Economist is liberal, which is libertarian in the US.)
 
The article was about much more than Brzrz or Paris. You either didn't read it or didn't think about it.

I agree that liberals (by the US definition of liberal) often put "feel good" ahead of "do good." But The Economist magazine is far from a liberal magazine (by the US definition of liberal that is...by the European definition of liberal The Economist is liberal, which is libertarian in the US.)

The writer of this article was a lib. The Economist is a fair periodical in that it has writers that present both sides. But it all depends on who authors the articles.

This article, Imo, is a rather simplistic view of Trump's foreign policy likening it to Trump's business strategies in foreign countries. I believe Trump looks out for American interests first and foremost and any leader that tells you they are not looking out for their country's interests is a liar. Trump does not like foreign military intervention but would rather use our influence to create alliances that help the locals achieve goals in accordance with our policy objectives. Brzezinski was a globalist as described in Andrew McCarthy's article. Trump is not. But that does not mean that Trump will shy away from international agreements or efforts as long as those efforts are what is best for America and in our national security interests.

When I saw Brzezinski on Morning Joe talking about Trump's pending destruction of NATO, I knew he was once again wrong.
 
The Paris Accord was a positive step, both in the commitment to help developing nations in transition, and in the commitment to not allow any nation to take advantage of openings in the market created by transition.
Positive step?? Really only a way to cripple the USA and send massive amounts of our tax dollars to other nations, Infia and China included? Do thee two really deservee such a hand out from us? I, and many, many others think NOT.
 
Positive step?? Really only a way to cripple the USA and send massive amounts of our tax dollars to other nations, Infia and China included? Do thee two really deservee such a hand out from us? I, and many, many others think NOT.

Most importantly, for those that believe in man-made global warming, this Accord accomplishes virtually nothing by the year 2100. It simply makes no sense.
 
He admitted Paris would not have solved global warming. This lends significant credence to the fact this was an economic agreement, not a climate agreement. It was all about global governance and the transfer of huge sums of money

This is all it ever was about. It's all the whole "climate change" scam is all about. Leftist income redistribution and control over the Global economy.
 
This is all it ever was about. It's all the whole "climate change" scam is all about. Leftist income redistribution and control over the Global economy.

Think about it. There is ONE global superpower, both economic and military). The global elite don't like that one bit. The only way to bring that power down and make the global elite relevant is to make the U.S. subservient to the global elite (community). Obama bought into that vision. Trump does not.

Thankfully, our Constitution does not buy into that vision either. Andrew McCarthy makes that excellent point in the article I posted earlier.
 
The markets are rarely wrong. Beach front property is very, very valuable. If it was going to disappear, its value would be plummeting.

The insurance market is betting on the predictions about global warming being right. Is that market wrong? If so, start your own insurance company, put into place policies contrary to the insurance market at large and make your fortune.

You don't have to worry about whether your property is going to disappear if it's not going to disappear anytime soon. The whole Earth is going to disappear eventually but people are still buying houses. That said, you can google the topic of seaside home prices and rising oceans and read about the subject if you like.
 
Think about it. There is ONE global superpower, both economic and military). The global elite don't like that one bit. The only way to bring that power down and make the global elite relevant is to make the U.S. subservient to the global elite (community). Obama bought into that vision. Trump does not.

Thankfully, our Constitution does not buy into that vision either. Andrew McCarthy makes that excellent point in the article I posted earlier.

Umm, if there is only one global superpower both economically and militarily then that means we ARE the global elite.

And it wasn't Obama that began the policy of the US being heavily engaged with the global community instead of withdrawn into itself, rather FDR started that on Dec 8, 1941 and it's been going on non-stop since then, until now that is.
 
The insurance market is betting on the predictions about global warming being right. Is that market wrong? If so, start your own insurance company, put into place policies contrary to the insurance market at large and make your fortune.

You don't have to worry about whether your property is going to disappear if it's not going to disappear anytime soon. The whole Earth is going to disappear eventually but people are still buying houses. That said, you can google the topic of seaside home prices and rising oceans and read about the subject if you like.

Sea levels have been rising for 10,000 years. But, current sea level rise is below normal.

Today’s sea-level rise is BELOW normal
By Robert Felix

During the last ice age most of Canada, along with parts of Europe and Asia, were buried beneath one to two miles of ice. At the same time, sea levels stood 350 to 400 feet lower than today.

Sea levels were so low that the entire continental shelf, at least in eastern North America, was above water. Many states on the eastern seaboard were twice as big as today. New Jersey’s shoreline, for example, was 60 to 100 miles east of its present location.

Same in the west.

The land between Alaska and Asia rose out of the sea like a bridge (or rather, the sea dropped away from the land), and the Bering Strait, which today is only 18 stories deep at its deepest point, was above water. Sarah Palin could have walked to Siberia. (The word bridge is misleading. The land connection between Alaska and Siberia was almost as wide as Alaska itself.)

Why were sea levels so low? Because that’s where the water came from to create those huge ice sheets. Literally millions of cubic miles of water had turned to ice.

Then, about 10,000 years ago, the ice began to melt and sea levels began to rise.

Here’s a sea-level graph from Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever.



___________________________________________________________________________
If you run the numbers* you’ll find that sea levels have been rising an average of .42 to .48 inches (just under half-an-inch) per year for the past 10,000 years. Rising sea levels have been the norm, in other words, for 10,000 years.

And that brings us to today. What are sea levels doing right now?

According to NASA, sea levels are rising 3.24 mm (about 1/8th of an inch) per year. That’s about the thickness of two nickels stacked on top of each other. Not the diameter, the thickness, which means that sea levels are rising slower than normal.

And that doesn’t even take into account that sea levels declined in both 2010 and 2011. Yes, no matter how assiduously the media tries to ignore it, sea levels actually declined in both of those years.

Where is the water going?

It’s being locked up on land as snow and ice. That’s how ice ages begin.

If we keep getting record snowfall as we have during the past few years, sea levels will begin falling and won’t begin rising again until the end of the next ice age.

This talk of unprecedented rising sea levels and catastrophic global warming is complete nonsense. It is just simply not true.

It’s not rocket science. Try it yourself. Multiply 400 by 12 and you get 4,800. That’s how many inches in 400 feet. Now divide 4,800 by 10,000, and you get .48, just under ½ inch. That’s how much sea levels have been rising per year for the past 10,000 years. Today, sea levels are rising only 1/8 of an inch per year.

And we’re supposed to throw billions if not trillions of dollars at it?______________________________________________________________
Robert Felix is author of Not by Fire but by Ice, in which he maintains that the next ice age could begin any day.
See www.iceagenow.info
 
Umm, if there is only one global superpower both economically and militarily then that means we ARE the global elite.

And it wasn't Obama that began the policy of the US being heavily engaged with the global community instead of withdrawn into itself, rather FDR started that on Dec 8, 1941 and it's been going on non-stop since then, until now that is.

No, it was Obama that shunned American Exceptionalism. It was Obama that said we are just one of many. It was Obama that said we must lead from behind.

Trump is doing what is best for America. Obama did what he thought was best for the global community even if it cost or was harmful to the U.S. (see Paris Climate Accord).

For the last time, the Accord did nothing for man made global warming but did mean a huge transfer of wealth from the U.S. to other countries administered by global elites.

Trump is not suggesting we withdraw from the global community. Again, he offered to renegotiate Paris. What Trump wants are global deals that benefit the U.S.
 
Positive step?? Really only a way to cripple the USA and send massive amounts of our tax dollars to other nations, Infia and China included? Do thee two really deservee such a hand out from us? I, and many, many others think NOT.
To control emissions from production that we gobble up like hungry pigs? I think so, to some degree, If we want to press change to be faster than the market.
 
Sea levels have been rising for 10,000 years. But, current sea level rise is below normal.

Today’s sea-level rise is BELOW normal
By Robert Felix

During the last ice age most of Canada, along with parts of Europe and Asia, were buried beneath one to two miles of ice. At the same time, sea levels stood 350 to 400 feet lower than today.

Sea levels were so low that the entire continental shelf, at least in eastern North America, was above water. Many states on the eastern seaboard were twice as big as today. New Jersey’s shoreline, for example, was 60 to 100 miles east of its present location.

Same in the west.

The land between Alaska and Asia rose out of the sea like a bridge (or rather, the sea dropped away from the land), and the Bering Strait, which today is only 18 stories deep at its deepest point, was above water. Sarah Palin could have walked to Siberia. (The word bridge is misleading. The land connection between Alaska and Siberia was almost as wide as Alaska itself.)

Why were sea levels so low? Because that’s where the water came from to create those huge ice sheets. Literally millions of cubic miles of water had turned to ice.

Then, about 10,000 years ago, the ice began to melt and sea levels began to rise.

Here’s a sea-level graph from Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever.



___________________________________________________________________________
If you run the numbers* you’ll find that sea levels have been rising an average of .42 to .48 inches (just under half-an-inch) per year for the past 10,000 years. Rising sea levels have been the norm, in other words, for 10,000 years.

And that brings us to today. What are sea levels doing right now?

According to NASA, sea levels are rising 3.24 mm (about 1/8th of an inch) per year. That’s about the thickness of two nickels stacked on top of each other. Not the diameter, the thickness, which means that sea levels are rising slower than normal.

And that doesn’t even take into account that sea levels declined in both 2010 and 2011. Yes, no matter how assiduously the media tries to ignore it, sea levels actually declined in both of those years.

Where is the water going?

It’s being locked up on land as snow and ice. That’s how ice ages begin.

If we keep getting record snowfall as we have during the past few years, sea levels will begin falling and won’t begin rising again until the end of the next ice age.

This talk of unprecedented rising sea levels and catastrophic global warming is complete nonsense. It is just simply not true.

It’s not rocket science. Try it yourself. Multiply 400 by 12 and you get 4,800. That’s how many inches in 400 feet. Now divide 4,800 by 10,000, and you get .48, just under ½ inch. That’s how much sea levels have been rising per year for the past 10,000 years. Today, sea levels are rising only 1/8 of an inch per year.

And we’re supposed to throw billions if not trillions of dollars at it?______________________________________________________________
Robert Felix is author of Not by Fire but by Ice, in which he maintains that the next ice age could begin any day.
See www.iceagenow.info
The guy is a crackpot. Sea levels are rising.
 
To control emissions from production that we gobble up like hungry pigs? I think so, to some degree, If we want to press change to be faster than the market.

To control emissions to what end? It does almost nothing for global warming. And it will cost the U.S. dramatically in terms of lost GDP, jobs, and money.

If we do something, there has to be some tangible benefit and in this case, there is none.
 
To control emissions to what end? It does almost nothing for global warming. And it will cost the U.S. dramatically in terms of lost GDP, jobs, and money.

If we do something, there has to be some tangible benefit and in this case, there is none.

I'm amazed how the only solution to controlling the rising sea levels, or cooling off the planet all involve only the U.S. either sending more money overseas or paying more money into some Global fund that tracks our carbon footprint.

Why is the U.S. the only nation that has to dig so deep into it's bank account to "change" the climate? Why do the only solutions to the alleged problem all involve America surrendering massive amounts of its money to the rest of the world?

How does that stop any damage to the environment, or "change" any climate patterns?

What a scam!
 
I'm amazed how the only solution to controlling the rising sea levels, or cooling off the planet all involve only the U.S. either sending more money overseas or paying more money into some Global fund that tracks our carbon footprint.

Why is the U.S. the only nation that has to dig so deep into it's bank account to "change" the climate? Why do the only solutions to the alleged problem all involve America surrendering massive amounts of its money to the rest of the world?

How does that stop any damage to the environment, or "change" any climate patterns?

What a scam!

The interesting part to me is that Trump offered to renegotiate and Germany and France turned him down. I wonder why? LOL. They know what a sweet deal they had. If global warming is that critical and important, you would think they would join the U.S. in trying to reach a real climate treaty.

Their denial speaks volumes.
 
The Paris Accord was a positive step, both in the commitment to help developing nations in transition, and in the commitment to not allow any nation to take advantage of openings in the market created by transition.
These idiots here can't counter a point without taking that point to an extreme, then arguing against it. Not one person has claimed the Paris Accord would solve global warming. Not one, yet it's the only argument they have. So they pretend.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Boomboom521
The interesting part to me is that Trump offered to renegotiate and Germany and France turned him down. I wonder why? LOL. They know what a sweet deal they had. If global warming is that critical and important, you would think they would join the U.S. in trying to reach a real climate treaty.

Their denial speaks volumes.

They're just upset we pulled the plug on the scam. I'll guarantee they're not sending any of their money over to us or anyone else. They didn't sign up to get raped.

Ditto China, India, and virtually all of the so called "developing" nations. The cash flows only one way under that Ponzi scheme. Out from America.
 
These idiots here can't counter a point without taking that point to an extreme, then arguing against it. Not one person has claimed the Paris Accord would solve global warming. Not one, yet it's the only argument they have. So they pretend.

Exactly. Then why the angst over leaving the accord. As you said, it doesn't solve anything nor actually impacts global warming in any significant way. It's voluntary and thus irrelevant. Yet, it will cost the U.S. enormously. Trump offered to renegotiate and the Germans and French said no. So, we do what we have been doing, innovating, creating, producing and solving.
 
Catastrophic global warming that threatens all life is a myth. You're welcome.

I just read a new study. The impact of the accord by 2100 would be .2 degrees C IF all the nations lived up to their goals. Wow. The alarmists claim we have catastrophic global warming and come up with a plan to reduce the temperatures by .2 degrees C in 80 years. What geniuses.
 
  • Like
Reactions: atlkvb
These idiots here can't counter a point without taking that point to an extreme, then arguing against it. Not one person has claimed the Paris Accord would solve global warming. Not one, yet it's the only argument they have. So they pretend.

Who's the bigger idiot. The idiots who signed onto that fraud, or the idiots who believe it was a legitimate attempt to "change" the climate?

Or maybe it's folks calling anyone who sees through the scam "idiots"?
 
ADVERTISEMENT