BREAKING: U.S. O-U-T of Paris Climate Accord

MICHIO KAKU, PHYSICIST: Climate change is the 800-pound gorilla in the living room that the media dances around. But in the scientific community it's a settled question: 95 percent of scientists believe this is happening with 100 percent confidence temperatures are rising.

With 90 percent confidence, we believe it's human activity and not natural cycles that is driving the increase in temperature on the Earth.

originally posted by: ms898
a reply to: avgguy


It's a bad decision internationally because countries have lost faith with USAs word. If USA developes a reputation of not honouring promises why make a deal in the first place.

Apart from countries international businesses like stability.

I hate telling you this, but the US already has that reputation. Our term lengths for our leaders cause US foreign policy to shift every 4 years, and sometimes every 2 years. We're a very unreliable ally. People deal with us more out of necessity because we have a military and deep pockets. Diplomacy with the US is hard though, if they could they would just ignore us.

Good

We are above 50% on taxes.

Cloning trees is free,

I don't wat to hear about any more fn tax scams.

a reply to: angeldoll

Ask Michio Kaku for a source.

Well, Trump really is an idiot. He seems intent on dismantling anything Obama did just for the sake of it. I don't care if there is not even 20% proof that humans are contributing to climate change in the world. It is monumentally irresponsible to ignore it and just "hope for the best." Just because folks unscrupulously benefit from climate change hardly disproves it.

Posting an Elon Musk quote as if he is overreacting is hilarious. He has an IQ probably over 200. Trump's IQ? Well.. just take Trump's word for it!

Sorry losers and haters, but my I.Q. is one of the highest -and you all know it! Please don't feel so stupid or insecure,it's not your fault

I'm amazed so many of you are bedazzled by his incredible level of braggadocio and bull-crap.

So now we join Syria and Nicaragua as the only three countries not in the Paris Agreement. Basically an eff-you / middle-finger to the world, we can burn coal, it's all good! And I can only chuckle at you people who in your various walks of life, can confidently scoff at climate scientists (and other scientists), as if you clearly know better.

Well, only bright side I suppose, is in four years or so, we can measure if anything has changed, since the U.S. is the 2nd greatest greenhouse gas producer on the planet. And if so, maybe Trump will be hailed by you as the clever guy who found a way to prove it -is- aggravated by humans!

Stephen Hawking

The UK's most renowned theoretical physicist and cosmologist is still using his exceptional mind to map a theory of how the universe works. But when it comes to matters here on Earth, Stephen Hawking is just as concerned about President Trump's science policies as anyone.

During a recent interview with Good Morning Britain, set to air Monday, Hawking bluntly laid out his views on U.S. administration's science policies.

"Climate change is one of the great dangers we face, and it's one we can prevent," said Hawking, according to the Guardian. "It affects America badly, so tackling it should win votes for his [Trump's] second term. God forbid."

www.aol.com...

originally posted by: Shuye

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Never would have thought ATS would side with the elite

I believe the ones siding with the elites are Hollywood, the MSM, all big governments, mega corporations, etc. They are all pushing this agenda of climate change and possibly for a very good reason (on their behalf). Could be UN's agenda 21, pushing for more control over humanity, taxation, "charities" and non-profit organizations (Clinton foundation comes to mind).

These people generally don't care about the planet, therefore I personally would never side with them. They actually serve as contrast, whenever you see these corrupt imbeciles forming up together for a cause, you know something ain't right.

yes! What you said! Agenda 21 for sure. Al Gore is still using planetary resources while expecting the rest of us to sacrifice for his pleasure in his private jet and private limo. I didn't see him carpooling anywhere to save gas.

a reply to: D8Tee

nope.

originally posted by: MyHappyDogShiner
I really do wonder where the people who deny any type of human influenced climate change get their information from.

I have seen changes at the level I dwell over the last 40 years.

I've been here for more than 40. In those years (especially the earlier ones) I saw weather worse than we have now.

Know what else I've seen? Technology advance. I've seen the country get cleaner. I've seen the USA do more to reduce emissions on its own than any amount of promises to global elites.

Because of our technology.

I guess some people just see what they want to see because seeing what's in front of them is inconvenient, like the "moral hazard" of insurance let's people drive like assholes without worrying ( thinking, being mindful, being inconvenienced) about who they hurt or what they damage because they're "covered"...

What a terrible analogy.

The accords are a kind of insurance that countries of the world were going to pitch in for in order to finance research to find out if there is anything to this "global Warming".

The agreement is just another example in a long line of utopian thoughts to redistribute wealth and punish the USA for being successful.

Only ignorant fools with no fore-sight would think not participating in researching dangers to the planet and environment is a good thing.

1) Ad hominem
2) We're studying the environment
3) This agreement had miniscule benefits for the amount of money and jobs it would suck down a hole.

Of course, there are those who think we'll just go grab us another planet...

Uh Huh...

I'm all for people proving this technology on the Moon or Mars where there are no oil wells. Put up or shut up.

I listened to excerpts from President Trump's announcement of withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and what struck me about it was that there was no acknowledgement, in the bits I heard, that there is a climate problem that needs to be addressed. Mr. Trump's concern was for the US economy, "Pittsburg" for example, but not for the fact of climate change.

His attitude seemed to be "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead for the economy."

There didn't seem to be any indication of an effort to integrate economic concerns with widely acknowledged facts of climate change. Is he really trying to save the coal industry simply by deregulation?

There has to be more to it, but I don't think the Trump administration thinks that far ahead or has any new approach to offer in the face of problems which have been building up for a long time.

I don't have a sentimental attachment to the climate accord, but there is no denying a climate problem, whatever its origin might be. It seems to me that a withdrawal from the accord should have been accompanied by an outline of some sort of Plan B.

Trump seems to portray the climate accord as an attack on America by her economic competitors. I don't think that is helpful in any way at all.

a reply to: D8Tee

Ups. Even the most non-progressive ones are way more into this, more fun-facts for starters!

Who cares, we've got Kim. Can you believe that, North Korea? Can you believe that, North Korea?!? Well, good for you. I can't. Looked it up a second time to make sure I'm not dreaming this up again and yet... not a chance.

originally posted by: ipsedixit
I listened to excerpts from President Trump's announcement of withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord and what struck me about it was that there was no acknowledgement, in the bits I heard, that there is a climate problem that needs to be addressed. Mr. Trump's concern was for the US economy, "Pittsburg" for example, but not for the fact of climate change.

His attitude seemed to be "Damn the torpedoes! Full speed ahead for the economy."

There didn't seem to be any indication of an effort to integrate economic concerns with widely acknowledged facts of climate change. Is he really trying to save the coal industry simply by deregulation?

There has to be more to it, but I don't think the Trump administration thinks that far ahead or has any new approach to offer in the face of problems which have been building up for a long time.

I don't have a sentimental attachment to the climate accord, but there is no denying a climate problem, whatever its origin might be. It seems to me that a withdrawal from the accord should have been accompanied by an outline of some sort of Plan B.

Trump seems to portray the climate accord as an attack on America by her economic competitors. I don't think that is helpful in any way at all.

A robust economy and energy sector is the best way to be prepared for anything *NATURE* will throw at us.

originally posted by: Aeshma
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I did not hear trump deny climate change, he denied joining a deal he felt that would harm the united states. He also stated his goal was to make the united states the cleanest country in the world. The cleanest air, the cleanest water and the cleanest energy. He renounced the donation of hundreds of billions of dollars for foreign nations to improve their energy means and stated he would prefer to invest that money in the united states to improve its own energy production and use.

Correct me if im wrong but that sounds far better than allowing another country the opportunity to abuse US money.

Im not american by the way, i did not support trump how ever his point for not signing this agreement makes sense. He also stated he would be happy to renegotiate the agreement with the explicit purpose of protecting the american people and their interests.

It's a nice thought, but ultimately irrelevant. Being clean doesn't matter, because it's a global problem. When ocean acidification rises because of China and India, it doesn't matter that we're putting out small amounts of CO2, it only matters how much is being put out all over the world. It's not a problem where you can just walk away and focus inside your own borders, because it involves a connected global resource.

a reply to: IAMTAT

As a tax payer, I thank you Trump.

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
What a utter moron.

Honestly this is just awful, utter crap.

Climate change denial at this level is total insanity, science is not a opinion, we are heading towards a climate disaster and Trump has just put the nail in the coffin.

It is? Well, then someone come zip a straight jacket (if we can still use that term in 2017) on me! Maybe you are in a scientific profession or follow it as a hobby but to laymen like I am, I hear any given week we are heading toward a heating that will eliminate the winter season entirely except for those places below the fifteenth degrees, that we are beginning an ice age where glaciations will occur as far south as cascadia, that methane from cows and carbon monoxide and or dioxide from humans is the biggest problem our planet ever faced and ever will, and that the sun is responsible for the fluctuations we are blamed for and how we are right on the normal up and down expected path. Call me crazy...oh yea...well, call me crazy then call me something else...handsome maybe...but with all this conflicting info, all I can do is trust a source and I'm sorry but whom I consider the most trustworthy of those voicing a side, I just trust those behind the main narrative about as far as I can throw them while they smoke a marijuana cigarette driving in a Prius! And FYI im all buff and strong but I don't think I could throw all that weight any farther than just a few yards. On the other hand yea you got cooks in the denial side too but where I am at a total loss with the former side, this side at least has some people I know have no ulterior motive, are aware of but against agenda 21, and whose research I have little reason if any to be suspicious of. I just don't think its too too crazy to not trust the Clinton's, Al Gore, the UN and the Nestle corporation...

Ok, so now that I reacted to your post already, I watched the video cuz I am smart like that. Logic, yo! And i will say touché. While im still surprised that I am crazy ok, I see you are coming from a different place than your words made it seem.

a reply to: Teikiatsu

True enough but I wish he had given us some indication that preparations were being made or even thought of. I know that in the unlikely event that coal usage surges in the United States, there are going to be economic costs connected to "acid rain" in New England and in eastern Canada.

Reinvigorating the coal industry is tantamount to a roll back of environmental standards, absent some kind of technical breakthrough toward "clean coal".

Why give a crap?
Humans came about adapting to climate change, moving forward.

As a species, we started out very adaptable. Now , not so much. The ones complaining about climate change are the ones who have the most to lose and can not, or will not adapt.

We are not killing the Earth. We are barely changing it. A large asteroid would cause more damage than we, as humans, have ever done. A super volcano going off would cause much more damage than humans would.

It's a waste of time and money.

So move on, live your lives ,because one day something will happen that was not caused by humans, it will be caused by natural disasters .

a reply to: AlexandrosTheGreat

A madman's stream of consciousness! (I loved it)

originally posted by: OtherSideOfTheCoin
Question:

I am watching the news just now and the governor of California has said he will enter into his own climate change negotiations with the international community in protest against Trumps climate change policies.

Is he actually aloud to do this?

He is. Governors can enter into agreements with foreign powers for treaties with their state. However, they cannot go against national policy. I think the feds maintain veto power on the deal too, but that's rarely used.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
The U.S. is ALREADY a Clean Energy and Oil & Gas Energy Leader; we can reduce our emissions and continue to produce American energy without the Paris Accord

The US could get emissions down to zero and it wouldn't matter. We're a speck on the planet. China and India are the big players because of their population. After that in the coming decades as we seek resources, Africa will come on the stage.

What we can do doesn't matter. What we can convince others to do, does matter.