We need to talk about Donald – the Nightmare continues

[JimC]

[Hermit]

So fucking what?

I thought some people might like to address the points he raises...

like "...since developed nations are “principally responsible” for current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it is incumbent on them to bear a “heavier burden” as developing nations pursue fossil-fuel-based growth"? Developing nations are actually pursuing green energy with great vigour, by the way. China is closing down hundreds of coal-fired power stations and coal mines while pouring billions of dollars into the development of green energy plants. India is will be importing 20% less coal next year than in the current one. The aggressiveness of their pursuit of renewable energy production has resulted in an economy of scale which has reduced photovoltaic costs by between 25 and 30% last year and that reduction will continue in the following years.

The "unfair cost" of green policies is a canard anyway. The day Trump announced the abandonment of the Paris treaty three coal mines announced they were closing down. Not that coal mines employ a lot of people compared to renewable energy production sectors. Coal is a dying industry. The USA is now missing the boat if Trump and his cronies have their way. Luckily, a number of US states are ignoring him and keep going with their green energy projects regardless.

[laklak]

I honestly don't give a fuck, we're all going to Hell in a fucking handbasket anyway, no matter what anybody does. There are about 5 fucking BILLION too many goddamn ground apes about, all shitting and pissing and burning and eating and fucking and paying not the slightest bit of fucking attention to anything other than their own immediate needs. The best thing that could happen to this planet is we boil or freeze or poison ourselves out of the picture, in a million years it won't make the slightest bit of fucking difference.

[Hermit]

There are about 5 fucking BILLION too many goddamn ground apes about, all shitting and pissing and burning and eating and fucking and paying not the slightest bit of fucking attention to anything other than their own immediate needs. The best thing that could happen to this planet is we boil or freeze or poison ourselves out of the picture, in a million years it won't make the slightest bit of fucking difference.

Actually, that is not true. Environmentalists are paying attention to things other than their immediate needs. The best thing that could happen to this planet is for the number of environmentalists to grow. Yeah, well, and more contraception, but that won't be easy while capitalism depends on economic growth for its own survival.

[Jason]

So fucking what?

I thought some people might like to address the points he raises...

like "...since developed nations are “principally responsible” for current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it is incumbent on them to bear a “heavier burden” as developing nations pursue fossil-fuel-based growth"?

It should be put to a referendum, at the very least, not simply imposed. That sort of unilateral action isn't democratic.

[JimC]

In the end, societies that fully industrialise and rid themselves of peasants may cause some grief by pollution, but they also inevitably produce plunging birth rates.

[Jason]

Coal is a dying industry.

Thanks to the economic gerrymandering that allows climate alarmists to trumpet that green energy is now "competitive."

[pErvinalia]

This is why you have such a bad standing here.

You ask a question, and have it answered. The answer is not to your liking, so you accuse me of not answering a different question which you meant to pose, and which you claim I should have known you were asking, and then you insult me because of it - I point out that I answered your question as posed, and that you should probably use the words that accurately convey your question, if you mean something different, and that's why I have a bad standing here?

Do you think you have bad standing here? Or, do you think nobody sees your dishonesty, your avowed troll-status where you use, as a strategy, abuse of people you don't like for the expressed purpose of driving them off the forum? Do you think people don't see when you don't read people's posts, but knee-jerk declare them to be wrong? When you ascribe to people views they don't hold? When you constantly make threads personal fights, where you want to call people names and otherwise insult them instead of just discussing issues or having fun? You think nobody sees this about you? Your tactics of accusing people of dishonesty, when you, yourself, are often dishonest and disingenuous? Your tactic of derailing threads? Off topic ad hominem, and just merely peppering your posts with various insults and digs against people to try to get a rise out of them?

Have a cry you fucking snowflake. Sort your shit out. Don't make it my problem.

[pErvinalia]

A good article on the fall of the US as World leader.

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_an ... ement.html

Good. Since when have you folks wanted the US to be a World Leader? Isn't the US part of the problem? Always "leading" everybody into wars over oil, and meddling in the affairs of other nations?

Shouldn't you be glad that the US is not going to be the world leader it has been over the last, say, 1/4 century? Do you bemoan this fall?

Problem is that's it's going to fuck the environment (and other stuff) up a lot while it falls from grace.

[pErvinalia]

Examine away - the fact that they are "examining" something, means absolutely nothing.

Yeah right. Presidents and their inner circle are investigated for possible treason all the time.

Note, the FBI, Secret Service and CIA are also 'examining' what's going on with Kathy Griffin and her satirical beheading of Trump. Are we supposed to be concerned?

What a ridiculous analogy. she's not the fucking president of the US.

It's all bullshit - contrived, political bullshit. There isn't even an allegation that they did anything wrong. Even if they "colluded" what did they "collude" on? Nobody says the election was hacked. Nobody says the voting machines were tampered with, fraudulent votes cast, or the count tampered with. If they colluded to engage in propaganda or bad mouth Hillary, that wouldn't even be unethical, let alone illegal. The only criminal activity would be if there was an illegal hacking of the Hillary computers to get at those Wikileaks emails. However, there is nothing connecting Trump to any of that. Do you think they are going to find that Trump people and Russian people got together and plotted, starting before Trump was even considered a serious candidate, to hack the DNC?

I mean, come on....

How is the FBI investigation political? Last year you were claiming that the FBI is a party political organisation that does the bidding of the president. Newsflash, they are investigating their boss.

[pErvinalia]

Terence Corcoran: Trump calls out the global-control agenda of the Paris deal, but Canada remains oblivious

Canada embraced the Paris agreement in 2015, committing to a new carbon-emissions target of 30-per-cent below 2005 by 2030. The targets will not be met under current policies. Should Canada now join the United States by withdrawing from Paris — as it did from Kyoto — with a view to renegotiating a new global climate protocol?

Nobody in Canada will want to entertain such drastic action today. It would mean facing the wrath of the environmental organizations that now dominate the agenda-setting media reportage on climate issues. But it is clear that Trump has pulled the economic plug on an international climate agreement that has been a shambles from Day One and now has no basis for continued existence.


In his speech, Trump clearly and articulately spelled out the flaws of the Paris agreement — flaws that apply to Canada as well as the United States. Paris puts the U.S. at a disadvantage to its major trading nations. It requires a redistribution of wealth from the U.S. and Canada to other nations.

While Canada and the U.S. are required to reduce their reliance on coal and other fossil fuels, other nations — China, India and African countries — will be allowed to dramatically increase their use of fossil fuels. The expansion of coal use is already underway. China’s coal-fired capacity is forecast to jump 19 per cent over the next five years while Canada tries to eliminate coal to meet climate targets. Pakistan and South Africa are planning major coal-fired projects. India sits on vast coal reserves that it won’t likely leave in the ground.

The idea that the wealthy nations should curb their fossil-fuel-based growth while developing nations expand theirs is an idea embedded in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The theory has been that since developed nations are “principally responsible” for current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it is incumbent on them to bear a “heavier burden” as developing nations pursue fossil-fuel-based growth.

Even if one accepts the UN science on climate change, the economic fundamentals behind the Kyoto and Paris protocols are flawed, unfair, damaging and — as has been shown since all this started back in Rio in 1992 — politically unworkable on any international scale.
http://business.financialpost.com/fp-co ... -oblivious

The Financial Post seems to agree with Trump.

The argument is basically one of greed and "it's not fair to us poor developed nations". I'd never fall for an argument like that in any sphere, and won't fall for it in the climate change sphere - even if these international agreements are invariably useless. That we need a better international climate agreement is a separate argument, and you can be sure the likes of backward simpletons like Trump and the author of that article aren't interested in looking for a climate agreement that actually works. They are looking for one thing - greed and continuation of the status quo.

[pErvinalia]

Coal is a dying industry.

Thanks to the economic gerrymandering that allows climate alarmists to trumpet that green energy is now "competitive."

Oh ffs. Why is it you fools are so ignorant of the MASSIVE subsidy that fossil fuel enjoys? If you can't even get the basics right, what hope do you have of even cogently discussing potential solutions?

[Hermit]

So fucking what?

I thought some people might like to address the points he raises...

like "...since developed nations are “principally responsible” for current levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, it is incumbent on them to bear a “heavier burden” as developing nations pursue fossil-fuel-based growth"?

It should be put to a referendum, at the very least, not simply imposed. That sort of unilateral action isn't democratic.

Exactly what are we electing politicians for? I believe Canada has been democratically governed with the aid of 42 national elections and only three national referendums in the past century and a half. The US constitution does not even provide for a referendum or an initiative on the federal level.

[Animavore]

France stepping up to the plate. Scientists and innovators working on solutions to climate change welcome.


http://time.com/4802549/emmanuel-macron ... -agreement

That said, New York and California are planning on going ahead as if the treaty were signed. So they'll continue to absorb the country's best like they always have.

[rainbow]

France stepping up to the plate. Scientists and innovators working on solutions to climate change welcome.


http://time.com/4802549/emmanuel-macron ... -agreement

That said, New York and California are planning on going ahead as if the treaty were signed. So they'll continue to absorb the country's best like they always have.

Yes, but think of all those lovely jobs digging coal out of the ground that they'll miss out on.

They won't be so smug then, will they?