Read and learn about history. Pick out a great one!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_3
2016 – The U.S. and China, together responsible for 40% of the world's carbon emissions, both formally ratify the Paris global climate agreement.
Gotta love that one! Sounds like a great deal ehh? Obama got China to sign up for the Climate Accord. Let's find out more:
| Country | GHG emissions (MtCO2e) 2017 | Level of global total (%) 2017 | MtCO2e 2018[2] |
|---|---|---|---|
| World | 45261.2516 | 100.00% | |
 China | 12454.7110 | 27.51% | 12700 |
 United States | 6673.4497 | 14.75% | 6570 |
 European Union (28)[3] | 4224.5217 | 9.33% | |
| European Union (15)[4] | 3374.0348 | 7.45% | |
 India | 2379.1668 | 6.43% | 2870 |
 Russia | 2199.1173 | 4.86% | 2670 |
 Japan | 1353.3473 | 2.99% | 1310 |
 Brazil | 1017.8745 | 2.25% | 1050 |
 Germany | 894.0570 | 1.98% | 910 |
 Indonesia | 744.3403 | 1.64% | |
 Canada | 738.3825 | 1.63% | |
 Mexico | 733.0104 | 1.62% | 718 |
 Iran | 716.8149 | 1.58% | 876 |
 South Korea | 673.5412 | 1.49% | 732 |
 Australia | 580.0997 | 1.28% | |
 Saudi Arabia | 546.8181 | 1.21% | |
 United Kingdom | 546.2641 | 1.20% | |
 South Africa | 510.2377 | 1.13% | |
 France | 440.8485 | 0.97% | |
 Italy | 420.8244 | 0.93% |
China didn't change their position at all. It was originally to not agree to cuts that would stifle its economy and not to make any contributions. What changed was that Obama just changed the terms of the agreement for China to THEIR terms, then claimed he had hashed out an agreement to get them on board.
Those terms from China were that they would NOT commit to any CO2 emissions cuts until possibly the year 2030, which is when they thought they would be peaking based on their previous position and even better, the got Obama to agree to put them in the category of "developing country" in the accord which meant, besides not requiring cuts, they would be eligible to receive money from country's like the US supposedly as payment for climate damage reparations.
So let's see exactly how that agreement has worked out, now that we have several years of data to go by since it was made(China's CO2 emissions have soared higher and will soon be double those of the US, which has made cuts the last 10 years):
The other part of it is the money(which is a big reason why Trump withdrew):
The United States contributed $1 billion to the global Green Climate Fund, but the world’s top polluters contributed nothing, David Asman reported.
But of course China and India contributed nothing while increasing their emissions the most. That was part of the agreement, in fact the agreement means they GET money!!!
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/14/china-chief-climate-negotiator-wheres-the-money/
"Top Chinese Climate Negotiator Xie Zhenhua has responded to a parade of official reassurances about the Paris Climate Agreement, by demanding to know when “developed” countries will start paying China the money which was promised in Paris."
Here's more about China building coal plants and increasing CO2 right now:
charles the moderator / 3 days ago August 7, 2019
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/07/china-coal-mine-approvals-surge-despite-climate-pledges/
SHANGHAI/BEIJING (Reuters) – Approvals for new coal mine construction in China have surged in 2019, government documents showed, with Beijing expecting consumption of the commodity to rise in the coming years even as it steps up its fight against smog and greenhouse gas emissions.
Long-term cuts in coal consumption are a key part of China’s energy, environment and climate goals, but the fivefold increase in new mine approvals in the first-half of 2019 suggests China’s targets still provide ample room for shorter-term growth.
China’s energy regulator gave the go-ahead to build 141 million tonnes of new annual coal production capacity from January to June, compared to 25 million tonnes over the whole of last year, Reuters analysis of approval documents showed.
So we have the indisputable evidence of this Climate Accord deal between the US and China being the worst deal imaginable for the US.............all the penalties/price and the best deal imaginable for China...............all the benefits, no penalties.
Still being reported as a break through success by the Obama administration and thru the use of fake news and false narratives misleads us into thinking it did the complete opposite of the reality of what happened.
They can't possibly still doing this here in August 2019 after 3 years of data proving it was the worst deal imaginable and not what one side claimed?
You bet they are. This was yesterday:
"During a campaign stop in Iowa on Thursday, former vice president Joe Biden touted China’s decision to sign the Paris Climate Accords as the Obama administration’s chief accomplishment with respect to the hostile foreign power.
“We did an awful lot with China. What we did with China, first of all, was we got them to join the Paris peace accord — the climate accord,” Biden told a reporter at a campaign appearance in Iowa"
This brings to mind the expression: "With friends like this, who needs enemies" (-:
https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/With+friends+like+that%2C+who+needs+enemies%3F
metmike: But the Climate Accord was never about the climate...........this has been the world's greatest ruse, hijacking climate science for the political agenda. The China story is now far enough into the agreement to prove the fraudulence.
Here's another way to show it graphically. The effects of the commitments/agreements, if fulfilled completely..............would do almost nothing to the climate:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/31/in-one-graph-why-the-parisclimate-accord-is-useless/
"Activists think the world will be uninhabitable for our children if the U.S. pulls out of the Paris Climate Accord. For example, via Vox
Quitting the Paris climate agreement would be a moral disgrace
President Trump is selling out our kids to give false hope to coal workers.
…
There is no employment upside to an “America First” retreat from global leadership on one of the few issues that can accurately be described as a potentially existential threat to humankind.
There is only the profound immorality of abdication — of gleefully passing a mounting problem on to our children, and on to the poor.
None of this should be a surprise because that's what the FAKE deal regarding the FAKE climate crisis was from the get go when China signed up:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/13/charting-the-outcome-of-the-obama-china-climate-deal-by-2030/
By 2030 the CO2 emissions of developing Nations could well exceed the developed Nations by some 2 1/2 times.
Since the graphs prove that the Climate Accord was clearly not about cutting global emissions, what possibly could it be about?
Answer:
What's changed in the last 4 years since this thread was started?
More profound evidence of blatant fraud and fairly tale/fake green energy. Bigger lies about the fake climate crisis!
Biden elected and insanely counterproductive, economy damaging, FAKE inflation reduction act passed.
Wind turbines and batteries wrecking the planet with diffuse, intermittent energy. Killing birds, bats and whales. Tearing up the earth for raw materials. Destroying landscapes/ecosystems. Lasting 20-25 years, then they fill up landfills and have to be replaced.
All to support the crony capitalism lining the pockets of politicians with lobby money and supporting the political agenda and corrupted science that's been hijacked by the United Nations and gatekeepers of our science.
Science corruption
19 responses |
Started by metmike - March 20, 2023, 5:50 p.m.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/93926/
MM ~ THIS ISN'T ACTUALLY ON TOPIC, BUT..... I NOTICE YOU USE WIKIPEDIA, QUITE OFTEN ~ ~ I USED TO, UNTIL A COUPLE YEARS AGO WHEN THEY WEREN'T AS "MIDDLE OF THE ROAD" INFO GRABBERS, LIKE THEY USED TO BE, SOOO, I STOPPED DONATING TO THEM & STOPPED USING THEM.
TODAY, I TOOK THE TIME TO FIND THE REASON FOR THE CHANGE.
Wonderful point/post, Jean!
I agree that Wikipedia gets it wrong sometimes.
On climate change, for instance they often are just parroting the mainstream views based on the authors at Wikipedia bias. However, they usually still do a decent job telling both sides.
Most people pick their "go to" sources based on their political affiliation (for instance Rs will go to Fox or the NYPost or some of the places you share with us that are good ones and Ds to CNN or the NYT, WOP).
When those sources state things they already believe in..........they get the false sense of reliability and credibility.
People always gravitate to sources that interpret the news in a way that confirms their version of the world/ideologies. When their side lies............which it does, they believe it because they only believe that source.
https://www.marketforum.com/forum/topic/77011/#89534
Being an anti echo chamber here, I'm the opposite because I slam both sides with the same intensity based on the authentic truths.
The only way to know the authentic truth is to use ALL sources to try see everything.
I use EVERY source. Even extremely low credibility sources when they make profound points. ....which really does happen more than you might think.
My main objective here is for people to learn things based on authentic OBJECTIVE truths.
When you are debunking DISinformation/false narratives from the left, you can show the lie from that source to identify it but if you want to bust it............you'll need fact checkers ON THE RIGHT.
Same thing with right side lies. The right is not going to fact check their own lies. I'll show the DISinformation/propaganda........then bust it and the busting sources will NOT BE from the right.
Tucker was one of the lowest credibility sources on the planet but every once in a while he made a really good point that nobody else made. I watched more of him in the evenings than anybody else. Party to be entertained, partly to understand peoples thinking and partly in case he actually had something profound to say.
My car radio is always tuned to NPR. The majority of their programming is wonderful and insightful. Human interest stories based on real people and authentic realities. Very positive most of the time. However, on the fake climate crisis, their off the rails alarmism based on extreme exaggerating and blaming everything on the climate crisis is so anti scientific method and off the charts politically biased.
They clearly hated Trumps guts. Programming was designed to generate as much hate in listeners for him too. Ironic coming from a station that has all these altruistic motives to be generating hate but not even 10% as bad as Tucker was. Such is biased politics.
I do use Wikipedia more than most sources, now that you mention it but notintentionally and this is the first time thinking about it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliability_of_Wikipedia
Every source that I've every used has likely had some bs at least a few times. I've used most of them from both sides numerous times here.
The chart below is close to being accurate but I would differ strongly on a couple of them.
CNN being to the left of NPR? I listen ALOT to both of them. NO WAY!!!!
I got the EPOCH TIMES in my mailbox for over a year. Great stuff in the minority of cases and very entertaining but extremely bonkers far right on too many issues.
The people that do the bias chart can be biased themselves.
I have bias too. Everybody does. This is why I try to get my news from ALL sources and try to apply the scientific method(fact checking myself first-which has saved me from hundreds of bad posts here because I was assuming something that was wrong-which I do-but discovered it during the fact checking of myself).
And I can still be wrong but usually already vetted the information.
The vast majority of information that I use from Wikipedia relates to facts that aren't in dispute based on politics.
We should remember here that just because people believe something, doesn't make it true.
Keep in mind that I've been a meteorologist for 41 years and almost got hired out of college when the Weather Channel was forming in 1982. They tried to hire me in 1985 but I just go married and my wife's family and daughter lived here in Evansville so I turned them down.
I had an extremely close friend that worked there.
The Weather Channel USED TO BE very trustworthy. More on that below.
This guy sums it up pretty well. Just over a decade ago, TWC went bonkers for the climate crisis. Being in broadcast television for over a decade and understanding ratings/politics/revenue, it absolutely had to do with them trying to boost ratings by sensationalizing and exaggerating the fake climate crisis.
I watch them. That's definitely it.
https://www.villages-news.com/2019/10/31/hey-weather-channel-whats-up-with-the-political-stuff/
So the point here is that the Weather Channel, a group of trained meteorologists will always know more than 99.99% of their viewers do about the weather/climate.
When they aren't being political, which is less and less of the time they are providing viewers with the BEST most accurate weather on the planet.
When they ARE being political about the fake climate crisis, they don't deserve this 41% trust voting from viewers.......who mostly will believe everything they say, just like Fox and CNN viewers believe everything those sources state.
It's seems hard to imagine TWC as political because everybody thinks they are just reporting science.
Climate science today as everybody knows it in the form of a climate crisis is NOT authentic science. It's politics.
LOLOLOL IF PEOPLE TOLD THE TRUTH ON THIS ~ WE ARE IN FOR A WORLD OF HURT!
Germany Cracks Down On Climate Activists After Scholz Calls Protest Group 'Nutty'
MIKE ~ I HAVEN'T READ IT, YET.... BUT I THOUGHT OF YOU WHEN I READ THE TITLE & GOT MY 1ST LOL OF THE DAY LOLOLOL