Surprise U.S.-China climate deal reverberates north and south

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
When you come back, can you highlight the phrase "imminent threat" in the text?

I purposely upped the ante on that "continuing threat" to the U.S.... in line with "Bush Doctrine" (/snicker)! Cause, jeezaz, that clause would allow the U.S. to self-legalize war with a brazillion other countries that the U.S. has aspirations on bringing some tough-love FREEDOM shaping to! But hey, if you'd like... what was the "continuing threat" Iraq posed to the national security of the U.S.? Again, WMD? Mushroom clouds? :lol: Regime change --- FREEDOM (U.S. style, dontcha know)!
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
When Canada backed out it was a HUGE "I told you so!" moment and I applauded that move.

"told you so" presumes there was no value... no positive outcome from the treaty proper. Much to the chagrin of doubt-sowers, the 1st commitment phase resulted in significant emission reductions for some countries... and now into the 2nd phase a number of countries are positioned to meet those targets as well. It's one thing for Harper Conservatives to ignore Kyoto up to the point of pulling out to avoid a penalty for not meeting the binding agreement commitment... and the impact that act had on world opionon. However, it's a completely different thing for Harper Conservatives to do so while at the same time posturing over alternative (to Kyoto) replacement emission reduction commitments... and then ignoring those as well.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
There is/was no value in Kyoto, hence the reason many nations have spurned the Agreement.

PS - There is nothing stopping you from doing your bit... Hell, send cash, that'll definitely stop the globe from warming
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
"told you so" presumes there was no value... no positive outcome from the treaty proper. Much to the chagrin of doubt-sowers, the 1st commitment phase resulted in significant emission reductions for some countries... and now into the 2nd phase a number of countries are positioned to meet those targets as well. It's one thing for Harper Conservatives to ignore Kyoto up to the point of pulling out to avoid a penalty for not meeting the binding agreement commitment... and the impact that act had on world opionon. However, it's a completely different thing for Harper Conservatives to do so while at the same time posturing over alternative (to Kyoto) replacement emission reduction commitments... and then ignoring those as well.

No value at all. Is the climate behaving as you want it to behave? LMAO@U

Boy I tell you... it was such an "I told you so!" moment!
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,247
14,259
113
Low Earth Orbit
Not much to tell. The statement is quite clear.

Professor Emeritus Hal Lewis Resigns from American Physical Society

Ouch.... More bad news.

It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist

Nasty!!!
 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,247
14,259
113
Low Earth Orbit
It is of course, the global warming scam, with the (literally) trillions of dollars driving it, that has corrupted so many scientists, and has carried APS before it like a rogue wave. It is the greatest and most successful pseudoscientific fraud I have seen in my long life as a physicist. Anyone who has the faintest doubt that this is so should force himself to read the ClimateGate documents, which lay it bare. (Montford’s book organizes the facts very well.) I don’t believe that any real physicist, nay scientist, can read that stuff without revulsion. I would almost make that revulsion a definition of the word scientist

Nasty!!!
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36

are you squeaking again? I earlier challenged you to support your claims of NOAA lying... you went quiet for a while. Do you have something you'd like to add to your continued unsubstantiated claims?
 
Last edited: