Educational post. Thanks

I had my doubts about Trump's decision to pull out, but this post explains a lot.

YW Gunter!

"Climate scientist James Hansen called it “a fraud really, a fake.” President Donald Trump called it “a massive redistribution of United States wealth to other countries.” And this odd couple of alarmist scientist and skeptical politician agreed: the Obama-led Paris climate accord was all about lobbyists and imaging, not climate change."

As an environmentalist, atmospheric scientist and US citizen, I am outraged that United Nations politics has fraudulently  hijacked climate science to hoodwink the well intentioned world in order to bilk US tax payers out of hundreds of billions of dollars with the fake "save the planet" narrative. 

I am all for rich countries giving money and massive support to help poor countries but when an agreement designed to do it,  hides it's true agenda............the entity(United Nations) responsible for the scheme,  cannot be trusted. 

BTW, the last 40 years of weather and climate have been the best for life on this planet in over 1,000 years(since the Mideival Warm Period that was also this warm but didn't have this much beneficial CO2).

the bigger lunatic seems to be this very political pope. seems he will deliver some  global warming message. Grown very tired of him very quickly

But, to his credit,  he's gotten the left to stop screaming about their imaginary "Separation of Church and State"... 

mcfarm,

This pope is sincerely doing whatever is best for the poor. 

The climate accord is a huge fraud but it is designed to help the poor. There would be loads of graft and corruption and it would greatly hurt the US with no benefits......but poor countries would get tons of money. 

It's about transfer of wealth........from  rich countries to poor countries.

Most of the world is very poor......of course they would be for it. I understand this and am ok with the philosophy and even most of the terms...... as long as they are up front about it and the terms don't include harsh penalties for using cheap, reliable and abundant fossil fuels that we and the poor countries need to have robust economic growth.

One of the hypocritical items with the climate accord is that India and China will continue to increase use of coal but the US must cut back. 

Between them, those  poor countries have well over 2 billion people.  If CO2 is pollution, why do 2 billion people get to increase their CO2 emissions(actually, if you include Africa and other poor nations it's more than double that) but the 300 million people in the US must cut back?

Go ahead and let 4 or 5 billion poor people increase their CO2 emissions but don't try to take down the US with completely different standards and tell us that we have to cut back, using  junk science about CO2 and applying it only to us and few rich countries to level the playing field. 

yes Mike he is sincerely concerned about the poor but like any good lib he wants to cure the problem using socialism and capitalism with solid foundation is the only cure....it nice to feel all gushy about these things with other peoples money, time and effort. How about tearing down those walls around his castle and actually helping instead of feeling?

Agree mcfarm,

The best way to help these poor countries is to help them to help themselves. 

Sending them billions of dollars is only a temporary fix if they are just going to use it up and continue with the same dead end life style and economies. The long term solution to teaching them how to grow their economies or helping them to develop agriculture to become self sufficient is not that easy but its the way to go longer term. 

It's not the job of the US to grow all the food and make all the money to give away but we are blessed with an overabundance of wealth, food, the best soils and weather on the planet and plenty of God given gifts, intellectually and work ethic wise.

Billions of people on this planet are born with nothing to start with and no opportunities to improve their situation and no clue on what to do to make things better. 

mcfarm, 

If you were born the person that you are but to a poor family in the middle of India or Africa, coming to Indiana to grow corn and soybeans would not even register in your head. 

With regards to allowing these people to come here. Yeah, we have room for a few but not billions.  Our efforts would be best spent on helping these countries develop their economies/agriculture so that the people in those countries can support themselves. Taking in a few million immigrants each year is a good thing but we owe it to ourselves and this country to let in people that have the potential to make positive contributions to  the United States.

If we are letting in people that are criminals or leaches, we would be better off just sending money to their country of birth and where they are not doing harm to us or our economy. That said, the vast majority of immigrants that come here are vetted and become productive citizens...........which must be a requirement. 

as I read your post could not help but think of howard Buffets efforts in Africa. He is actually trying to help them help their selves with agriculture production. Mean while Bill gates is throwing money at the problem with his foundation. There is no doubt in my mind which approach is better

When you find the phrase "Separation of Church and State" in the 1st amendment, or anywhere in the constitution for that matter,  let me know.

But it'll be a long wait as it does not exist no matter how hard the left has attempted to misinterpret it.

Still, it's humorous to watch the left go into epileptic fits when a religious figure uses scripture, or religious principles to argue against something like abortion, yet remain silent, or even voice undying support when a religious figure does the same for socialism... 

well said Tim. As we had tried to explain may times to our current crop of libs our very small and non intrusive government way back when had a goal in mind....to keep gov out of most areas....religion being one