ALL HAIL PRESIDENT TRUMP

Just looking at the couple previous posts, and realising I don't think I've ever been in a more grotesquely partisan thread ever in any forum/platform. And that says a lot actually.

If this can even slightly be extrapolated to your nation as a whole, then congratulations! You've crippled yourselves.

But one thing transcends all those silly political affiliations.

ANd that's climate change, i.e. the enemy of Donald.

If by some miracle you agree, then please vote him out. There is no Planet B.

"

rojimboo wrote:

climate change,

I've got a challenge for you. It involves not Googling something, and telling me only what you already knew.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

climate change,

I've got a challenge for you. It involves not Googling something, and telling me only what you already knew.

Spoiler

What policy positions did the Paris Accords seek to implement?

It's a vague question, I'm only doing this off the top of my head, but are you alluding to the fact that it's a non-binding agreement, with objectives every now and then, with which ambitious countries seek to compete with? I.e. no real policy 'positions' to speak of?

Policy implementations maybe?

I know that for the US, the now scrapped Clean Power Plan would have been part of the policy to achieve the Paris agreement goals of limiting the climate change to a 2C warming since industrial times. A very limited first step, that even was scrapped.

I wonder how well/poorly i did?

"

diablofdb wrote:
Trump 2020!

And look who's back! Welcome back, man.

(Notice how some people just come back with their original account instead of making spoofs of themselves.)

"

kolyaboo wrote:

"

diablofdb wrote:
Trump 2020!

And look who's back! Welcome back, man.

(Notice how some people just come back with their original account instead of making spoofs of themselves.)

yeah aha I was banned for like 6 months god lol. A lot happened since. I saw people who were super volatile and vocale during the Mueller's investigation. And then... oh where are they now? oh right the investigation ended up being another big nothing burger. Good to be back!

"

rojimboo wrote:

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

"

rojimboo wrote:

climate change,

I've got a challenge for you. It involves not Googling something, and telling me only what you already knew.

Spoiler

What policy positions did the Paris Accords seek to implement?

It's a vague question, I'm only doing this off the top of my head, but are you alluding to the fact that it's a non-binding agreement, with objectives every now and then, with which ambitious countries seek to compete with? I.e. no real policy 'positions' to speak of?

Policy implementations maybe?

I know that for the US, the now scrapped Clean Power Plan would have been part of the policy to achieve the Paris agreement goals of limiting the climate change to a 2C warming since industrial times. A very limited first step, that even was scrapped.

I wonder how well/poorly i did?

It seems to me you have very close to no idea what it was actually proposing. It suggests that you heard about the problem it was trying to solve, but didn't have the curiosity to figure out what solution they were proposing to fix the problem.

So with that in mind, consider this minor miracle: I think global warming is a very real and serious problem, that Trump did exactly the right thing by withdrawing from the Paris Accords, and that going back to them would wreak havoc on the US economy while actively subsidizing other countries to increase their carbon emissions.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

So with that in mind, consider this minor miracle: I think global warming is a very real and serious problem, that Trump did exactly the right thing by withdrawing from the Paris Accords, and that going back to them would wreak havoc on the US economy while actively subsidizing other countries to increase their carbon emissions.

To add on to this, the USA has reduced its carbon emissions year over year. Every other signatory of the Paris Accords has increased their carbon emissions.

The Paris Accords is a joke and is only ever brought up as an excuse to extort money from the US, even before Trump took over. Leaving was an objectively good thing.

"

Turtledove wrote:

Law is actually very logical.

Law is mostly logical, with a large portion based on precedence.

If Mom said it was OK for Jimmy (who is 17 years old) to stay up until midnight on Monday, then Dad might rule it is OK for Johnny (who is 5 years old) to stay up until midnight based on Mom's previous ruling in Jimmy V Parental Bedtime on Monday.

If a subsequent ruling by both parents overturns Jimmy V Parental Bedtime and determines there is an age based standard that must be applied, then subsequent rulings (such as Jane V Bedtimes - where Jane is only 3 years old) will have the precedent applied and Jane will not likely be allowed to stay up until midnight.

The "logic" of the judges' (Mom and Dad) decision might include the differing amount of sleep required by different age groups, and the importance of a good night's sleep before school.

Until such a precedent is made, the Mom and Dad legal system may not have the slightest logical concept of what is required for bed times. They might not consider whether it is New Year's Eve for instance, or whether the kids are out of school.

Unfortunately in the US legal system, when logic and precedence meet, precedence almost always wins. Consistency is important, but being consistent with previously poor decisions is a bad trait of our system.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

It seems to me you have very close to no idea what it was actually proposing. It suggests that you heard about the problem it was trying to solve, but didn't have the curiosity to figure out what solution they were proposing to fix the problem.

So with that in mind, consider this minor miracle: I think global warming is a very real and serious problem, that Trump did exactly the right thing by withdrawing from the Paris Accords, and that going back to them would wreak havoc on the US economy while actively subsidizing other countries to increase their carbon emissions.

I don't know where you get your climate change information from, but it's wrong. The Paris agreement is our last chance at this. We are in fact the generation that will decide how the climate will turn out.

I'm glad you have shifted from a total climate change denialist into a believer, not sure when that happened, but it makes me happy nonetheless.

I'm saddened by seeing you spout the same Heartland Institute smoking-era propaganda about the Paris agreement though.

Is it perfect? Lol, it's not even binding per se, it's largely voluntary. But it's the best we could make at this point.

I have no idea what you mean by 'subsidising other countries to pollute more', if you are referring to the Green Fund then the first part in a way is right, though really it is subsidising projects to reduce emissions, not countries. And it's voluntary how much you input into the Green Fund. Sweden for instance put in 15 times the amount per capita, the US put in, at a time when the agreement was still agreeable to Muricans. Most of the Green Fund is for poorer countries to adapt to climate change at this point anyways, and it is certainly not the main mechanism for emissions reductions in the agreement.

Those depend on each country, and their pledges.

Meanwhile, whilst other countries use the 1990 level baseline to cut emissions from the Kyoto protocol, Murica has shifted it to 2005 and then to 2010 in order to hide rampant emissions increases, and sugar coat their results, basically allowing them free polluting for a couple of decades more. Now Trump has completely destroyed the climate science base in the US, by waging war on them through various methods, not unlike an authoritarian fascist dictator scared of intellectuals. All the while emissions keep climbing for historically by far the worst polluter.

And you wonder why people are upset? About the greatest crisis humanity has ever encountered?

"

rojimboo wrote:

And you wonder why people are upset? About the greatest crisis humanity has ever encountered?

It's hardly fair to blame the US while China, India and the developing world still chuggs on spewing out Co2 and pollution. Why is it always the US's fault and not China, India or the developing world?