By on June 2, 2017

Donald Trump, public domain

On Thursday, President Trump made the decision to ditch the Paris climate accord and the entire internet seemingly spent the next twelve hours calling it a misstep. Either the president possesses a hidden wisdom on the subject that nobody else can seem to fathom, or he has severely misjudged the public’s position on environmental issues. Calling the accord “unfair at the highest level to the United States,” Trump suggested the deal was detrimental to the country’s manufacturing efforts and gave other nations a financial advantage.

However, the instant feedback from the automotive industry did not appear to share his viewpoint. With nearly 200 other countries still adhering to the nonbinding Paris agreement, it’s almost as if Trump had forgotten car companies operate on a global stage. Both General Motors and Ford Motor Company issued statements in opposition to Trump’s decision.

“We believe climate change is real, and remain deeply committed to reducing greenhouse gas emissions in our vehicles and our facilities,” announced Ford. “Our commitment to sustainability is why we’re investing so heavily in electrification and adding 13 new electrified vehicles to our lineup.”

General Motors’ statement was similar in tone: “GM will not waver from our commitment to the environment and our position on climate change has not changed. International agreements aside, we remain committed to creating a better environment.”

The automaker also confirmed CEO Mary Barra will continue to serve on the President’s Strategy and Policy Forum because it “provides GM a seat at an important table to contribute to a constructive dialogue about key policy issues.”

However, Elon Musk’s seat at that table did not seem to sway Trump’s final decision on the matter. As a result, the head of Tesla chose to abandon his post after publicly promising to do so if the president pulled out of the Paris agreement. “Climate change is real,” Musk said in a tweet. “Leaving Paris is not good for America or the world.”

Even oil companies like Exxon and Shell didn’t stand by the choice. Exxon’s environmental manager, Peter Trelenberg, wrote a letter — published in the Financial Times — urging the president to reconsider. Meanwhile, Shell CEO Ben van Beurden has been a longtime and highly vocal proponent of the agreement.

It’s true that automotive companies want some leeway when it comes to emissions standards. One of Trump’s first days in office was spent meeting with industry heads to discuss exactly that. However, none of them can risk becoming a social outcast.

Furthermore, most automakers have invested heavily into new technologies designed specifically to adhere to more stringent environmental guidelines. Regardless of individual beliefs about climate change, the table has been set and the industry has sat down with tech in hand after having sunk billions of dollars into R&D. American automakers must engineer their product to a global benchmark, even if the U.S. government says its alright to take it easy. It’s not financially sound to develop a completely divergent product line for the domestic market when you’re also selling cars in Europe and Asia.

Even within North America, automakers would have to adhere to higher standards in Canada and certain states that vehemently oppose rolling back regulatory guidelines. Practically every foreign leader condemned Trump’s decision, while Californian governor Jerry Brown had things covered stateside. “He’s wrong on the facts,” Brown said. “America’s economy is boosted by following the Paris Agreement. He’s wrong on the science. Totally wrong. California will resist this misguided and insane course of action.”

Still, there are many who would disagree. Several Republican senators came out in favor of the president, most notably West Virginia’s Shelley Moore Capito and Oklahoma’s James Inhofe — both of whom claimed the decision was in the best interest of the U.S. workforce. White House chief strategist Steve Bannon and EPA administrator Scott Pruitt were also in opposition to the Paris accord and helped to influence Trump’s final decision.

The president concluded his time on the White House lawn by suggesting abandoning environmental concerns would bolster cities like Detroit — bringing back manual labor jobs and returning America to its former glory. However, that’s difficult to believe. Even if you detach yourself from partisanship and environmental issues entirely, you’re left with the practical problem of how to sell vehicles abroad that don’t adhere to the same global standard of your competitors.

Get the latest TTAC e-Newsletter!

Recommended

268 Comments on “Even Automakers Disagree With Trump’s Choice to Abandon the Paris Accord...”


  • avatar
    DeadWeight

    Slow Friday – popcorn at the ready here.

    • 0 avatar
      VW4motion

      Bottom line trump is a pos and doesn’t two craps about anything. The United States will get their moral compass back in 2-3 years. It is sad watching people defend this guy when he admittedly bragged about sexually assaulting women, makes fun of handicapped people, and talked numerous times about his daughters glorious breasts. And this is just what we have on video.

      People didn’t vote this guy in for his moral values. They basically hated Hillary.

      • 0 avatar
        reclusive_in_nature

        You should cry about it on a car website.

        • 0 avatar
          VW4motion

          Reclusive,
          No crying, just stating what majority of the country is thinking. Don’t be a trump snowflake like the rest of his low informed sycophants just regurgitating levin and rush.

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        @VW4motion

        Adults are talking about the global economy and the possible limitations individual/national sovereignty. Please grow up and stop talking about tabloid nonsense.

        Hillary was a national security risk, and she really did believe misleading the public (with claims of 40% corporate tax rates) were a good way to get elected president. She was a Machiavellian fool, and the people who voted for her lack self-respect.

        • 0 avatar
          joeaverage

          There are numerous articles on IT websites where people have tested Trump’s network security in FL and other places. Guess what – he and his are worse than Hillary in that regard.

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          “Hillary was a national security risk, and she really did believe misleading the public (with claims of 40% corporate tax rates) were a good way to get elected president. She was a Machiavellian fool, and the people who voted for her lack self-respect.”

          Amazing, the election really was a no-win scenario with the worst pair of candidates.

          Because everything you just wrote about her could be said about him. But you bought that turd, so you now feel obligated to polish it just as the Hillary supporters who you feel superior to would have done had she won.

          Interesting world, isn’t it?

        • 0 avatar
          VW4motion

          Tw5,
          Get out of your silo. As you listen to only what you want the hear, trump is practically giving the Washington DC keys to the Russia. I think it’s up to 5 trump team members that “forgot” about meeting Russian bankers and leaders. Trump and the Russians are laughing at how they have full control of 35% of this country. Trump was not kidding when he said he could shot someone in the middle if Times Square and sycophants would not care .

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @VW4motion – #covfefepotus, like any “reality” TV celebrity cares about ratings. His popularity has been dropping even among Republicans. Notice to withdraw from the Paris Accord is an attempt to shore up his core support. It takes 3 – 4 years to completely withdraw. That puts withdrawal AFTER the next federal election.
        His notice to renegotiate NAFTA to a great degree falls under the same boat. There has to be a 3 month notice to renegotiate. It takes 6 months notice to withdraw. That puts him at mid-terms.
        His popularity numbers of 40-42% extrapolated from historical data means that the Republicans are going to get the sh!t kicked out of them mid-term.
        World leaders are viewing #covfefepotus as a temporary abomination and all are hoping that he doesn’t f^ck things up too badly before sanity return to the WhiteHouse.

        • 0 avatar
          TW5

          @Lou

          If you believe any of the free conventional wisdom or polling data you get from the mainstream press, you are a bigger fool than Hillary herself.

          • 0 avatar
            ect

            TW5, you engage in an ad hominem attack to try to discredit Lou_BC’s analysis and data, without offering any of your own. Presumably because the available data doesn’t conform to your prejudices.

          • 0 avatar
            APaGttH

            Ya, that Fox News Poll is sure part of the mainstream media – and Rasmussen too.

            The latest Fox News poll literally had not one piece of good news in it for the Trump Administration.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @ect

            If you’re unfamiliar with how poorly the election predictions were during the last election cycle, there is nothing any of us can do for you.

            I’ll not play the scapegoat.

          • 0 avatar
            ect

            TW5,

            QED

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            TW5 – how about something from a news source that you trust:

            “That’s according to a new Fox News Poll of registered voters nationwide.

            The last month took a toll on the president’s ratings. The poll finds 40 percent of voters approve of the job Trump is doing, down from 45 percent last month. Disapproval is up 5 points to 53 percent.

            Some of the drop in approval comes from Republicans, as just 81 percent approve of the president. GOP approval had been between 84-87 percent during Trump’s first three months in office. Plus, his approval among whites without a college degree went from 62 percent last month to 53 percent now. Working-class whites were a key voting bloc for him in the election (66 percent backed Trump according to the Fox News Exit Poll).”

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @ Lou

            The valid polling models and data analysis are proprietary in the modern era, and are not published for public consumption. Needless to say, the free polls have generally been embarrassingly inaccurate for the last two election cycles.

            Wall Street and the campaigns have the real information. It is not shared with the public. Democrats are far too desperate for them to be looking at a 2018 landslide. The levels of desperation are more similar to Obama’s behavior when he announced on national television that illegals could vote in the US elections with impunity. He knew what was about to happen. Democrats are not seeing good numbers in their own internal data, and to make matters worse they understand the vulnerability Obama left in his wake.

            No one knows what 2018 holds, but it is not positive for the Democratic Party at the moment. When they stop marching in the streets and screaming about Russia, and they start talking about policy, you’ll know they are planning to wield legislative power.

          • 0 avatar
            sportyaccordy

            Trump himself cites those polls whenever they favor him, and I’m sure you do too.

        • 0 avatar
          Master Baiter

          “It takes 3 – 4 years to completely withdraw”

          The provisions aren’t binding anyway. Trump’s EPA can stop enforcing whatever regs Obama had set up immediately.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            “It takes 3 – 4 years to completely withdraw”

            The provisions aren’t binding anyway. Trump’s EPA can stop enforcing whatever regs Obama had set up immediately.

            It really takes a special deficiency to believe that it takes three or four years to withdraw from a non-binding non-ratified treaty. What it we just stop writing the checks and passing unconstitutional regulations? That would nullify it yesterday.

      • 0 avatar
        markf

        “It is sad watching people defend this guy when he admittedly bragged about sexually assaulting women, makes fun of handicapped people”

        As opposed to Bill Clinton who actually raped women but denied it under oath and perjured himself.

        THe making fun of “handicapped” people has been debunked so many times but I guess that would not matter to you…..

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          markf – your whole rebuttal is predicated upon the supposition that @VW4motion is totally fine with the behaviour’s’ of Bill Clinton.

          The self titled moral majority and/or Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian right supported #loserpuzzygrab by turning a blind eye to his behaviour BUT were salivating at the thought of impeaching Clinton for the same thing.

          What has changed in 20 odd years to make that sort of behaviour acceptable?

          Oh, yes, the Fundamentalist right/Christain Conservatives struck a Faustian bargain with the devil aka #putinspotus to satisfy their lust/desire for power and control over LGBT and sexual reproduction.

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice. If you are gonna lecture Americans on American history, take 5 mins to actually learn the history.

            Donald Trump is the only candidate in history to go int an election supporting gay marriage so not sure how he “satisfying lust for power and control over LGBT” whatever that is supposed to mean.

            So Trump is #Putinspotus. Please explain. Putin is SOOOOOOOOO powerful he now controls the US Government, yet he lets folks like you live to expose his evil conspiracies. Makes sense…..

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “Donald Trump is the only candidate in history to go int an election supporting gay marriage so not sure how he “satisfying lust for power and control over LGBT” whatever that is supposed to mean.”

            Allow me to correct that statement: “Donald Trump is the only candidate in history to go into an election CLAIMING he supports gay marriage.” He has since backtracked so severely that his “supporters” are actively threatening bodily harm to gays and anyone else Trump claims may be harming “the American Way.”
            The man told people what he thought they wanted to hear. You listen to ANY TWO of his campaign speeches and he would actively contradict statements made in the other one, one way or another. He offered no concrete policy outside of trying to destroy Obamacare. Everything else changed depending on where he was and who he was talking to.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            There is one thing Trump is guilty of destroying, and that’s the sanity and integrity of his detractors.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @markf – Yes. Clinton lied about it but the witch-hunt started over his sexual misbehavior.They went after him over that and he made it worse by lying.

            So you are now saying that being a sexual predator is fine if you openly brag about it?

            “Donald Trump is the only candidate in history to go int an election supporting gay marriage so not sure how he “satisfying lust for power and control over LGBT” whatever that is supposed to mean.”
            Lying is also morally wrong but that must be okay now-a-days since fact checking shows that 96% of #pussygrabpotus comments are lies.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @ Vulpine

            You are exhibiting the symptoms of post-modern existential meltdown. In short, people who’ve never developed an intellectual understanding of how societies organize and regulate themselves tend to function purely on emotional reaction to sociopolitical stimuli, which means any disagreement with their views, can only be interpreted as hostility towards them as individuals and as aggrieved political demographics.

            It’s the only way people can be led to believe that a man who wants more strict vetting of religious fundamentalists is actually part of a political movement designed to promote bodily harm to the LGBTQ community.

            Democrats and liberals are isolating themselves and threatening their own existence by indulging their psychological disorders, which was something promoted by their presidential candidate, who dismissed half of the country as deplorables with no real intrinsic value. You should try to gain understanding instead of following her lead. Perhaps you will eventually realize that the American left-wing is so vastly inferior to social democrats throughout the G20 that no one in their right mind could possibly support them.

            Even if Democrats reacquire power, it will be as catastrophic for the nation as the Obama presidency because they have no direction, and even less ability to accomplish basic tasks, like running a national committee that isn’t overrun with corruption and national security scandals.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            I would refer you to the definition of Psychobabble.

            Seriously, TW5, you’re not helping your case.

      • 0 avatar
        TomHend

        Wow, you really have no idea what’s going on.

        Perhaps turn off your Uniparty ideology for a couple minutes.

  • avatar
    don1967

    “the entire internet seemingly spent the next twelve hours calling it a misstep.”

    Hillary, is that you?

    • 0 avatar
      ajla

      The verified Twitterverse is representative of the United States in the same way the TTAC & Jalopnik comment sections are representative of automotive buyers.

      • 0 avatar
        quaquaqua

        Do you seriously think there aren’t conservative commentators with millions of followers all over Twitter? Some of them probably actually have real followers, unlike the millions of Twitterbots that have started to follow the Cheeto in the past few weeks.

        • 0 avatar
          ajla

          “Do you seriously think there aren’t conservative commentators with millions of followers all over Twitter?”

          Those people are also not representative of anything but their own echo chambers. Twitter is a f*cking sewer.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            “Twitter is a f*cking sewer”

            Indeed. Unfortunately, our president has chosen to live in that f*cking covfefe

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “the entire internet seemingly spent the next twelve hours calling it a misstep.”
      “Hillary, is that you?”

      Vladimir is that you?

  • avatar
    danio3834

    A nice chance for everyone to signal their virtues and make sure everyone knows that they’re good non-sinners.

    Especially these guys:

    “Even oil companies like Exxon and Shell didn’t stand by the choice. Exxon’s environmental manager, Peter Trelenberg, wrote a letter — published in the Financial Times — urging the president to reconsider. Meanwhile, Shell CEO Ben van Beurden has been a longtime and highly vocal proponent of the agreement.”

    • 0 avatar
      Carrera

      I have a feeling that the oil companies think it is good PR to say they supported the treaty. Everyone knows it means nothing, no checks, no balances, no punishment for violators.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        It’s good PR for everyone who decides to be especially vocal about it, especially those who’s interests it’s most contrary to. Everyone gets a back-pat. Feel good politics.

      • 0 avatar
        ect

        Royal Dutch Shell has been supporting carbon taxes for over a decade, and now ties executive bonuses (in part) to greenhouse gas reductions.

        In Canada, Shell, Suncor and Syncrude have all publicly urged the government to introduce carbon pricing.

        The times, they are a’changin…

    • 0 avatar
      shaker

      They didn’t want a resurgent coal industry to dent their natural gas bubble.

      • 0 avatar
        ect

        Coal has lost significant US power generation market share to natural gas during the past decade – the decline in natgas prices has made coal uneconomic.

        Renewables are also gaining – the price of solar panels has declined by 80% over the past 5 or so years, and onshore wind power generation is already below the cost of coal-fired thermal plants.

        The coal industry is in decline, and that decline shows no signs of stopping. It has nothing to do with politics, and everything to do with economics.

      • 0 avatar
        APaGttH

        If you look at actual data, the only thing that masked the decline in global coal consumption, that started over 30 years ago, was the sudden surge in China. China is choking to death in clouds of pollution, literally, and is moving away from coal as fast as they can.

        The only thing natural gas did was accelerate the change in the United States. There is no natural gas “bubble,” you can’t have your cake and eat it too.

        The shale oil deposits are full of natural gas. So much so it is flared off in huge quantities all over the Dakotas and Wyoming. There is such a vast amount of gas in the United States that if you “want” us to be the number oil production nation in the world, if you want drill baby drill (which happened I remind you under the previous administration), then you’re going by proxy to get more natural gas.

        It isn’t a bubble – it’s a reality.

        Coal is dead.

        Just like pewter dishes and mugs, just like buggy whips, just like Mercury in clothing production, just like asbestos ceiling tiles, and just like lead pipes.

        • 0 avatar
          accord1999

          “If you look at actual data, the only thing that masked the decline in global coal consumption, that started over 30 years ago, was the sudden surge in China.”

          The actual data shows that coal more than doubled in consumption in that 30 years, with China’s growth being probably the single greatest increase of energy usage in the history of mankind. China today consumes more coal than what the entire world consumed 30 years ago.

          Coal today has a greater share of global electricity generation and primary energy than it did in the 1970s. And China isn’t moving away from coal at all, as Q1 2017 showed record high electricity generation from coal and will supply the majority of Chinese vast energy requirements for decades.

        • 0 avatar
          shaker

          It’s bubbling right into the atmosphere, keeping the price up.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Corporations want to use US taxpayer dollars to reorder the global economy to their liking. No mystery.

  • avatar
    ajla

    “None of them can risk becoming a social outcast.”

    You need both a public and a private position.

  • avatar
    Speed3

    #Americalast

  • avatar
    Car Guy

    At the end of the day all this agreement does is create a global carbon tax scheme and will add another layer of cost onto your everyday life. And like everything else, the US is always left paying way more than its fair share with others riding on our coat tails. No thanks.

  • avatar
    2drsedanman

    Not sure I would say Jerry Brown “has things covered stateside”. He is not exactly a bastion of objectivity regarding these matters. And if Elon Musk is so concerned regarding climate change, maybe he should park his Gulfstream G650 ER and drive around one of his own cars.

  • avatar
    larrystew

    And what gets me is that this kind of feel-good mindshare is how all this crap regulation gets passed that saddled me with Ford’s Powersh•t transmission via CAFE standards, etc. Believe me, I would’ve rather suffered the 10% mileage loss, Ford.

    • 0 avatar
      quaquaqua

      You chose a car with a uniquely terrible transmission, whose design has been adopted by basically no other mainstream auto manufacturer. But sure, blame the gub’ment, that sounds about right.

      • 0 avatar
        larrystew

        You can’t take the “gub’ment’s” influence out of the equation. They may not be guilty in everyone’s eyes, but both parties contributed to this. Ford made a bad choice of transmission in order to squeak out their “gub’ment” mileage requirements.

    • 0 avatar
      Higheriq

      But Ford’s quest to get 10% more mileage was a result of CAFE being rammed down the automaker’s throats. But rest-assured, Trump will gut the EPA before he’s done. AMEN!

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Interesting “argument,” given that Ford had a perfectly good non DSG transmission in the Fiesta all those years, and VW has had a DSG even longer that no one seems too fed up with.

      Could it be that Ford just humped the bunk with the execution of the Powershift? Nawwww…blame the gubmit.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        VW buyers have been trained to expect less. DSGs have expensive upkeep and a fair number of problems, but VW drivers figure that’s their penance for driving a German car without the credit score needed for a subsidized BMW lease.

    • 0 avatar
      srh

      Engineering is art with constraints. There are many constraints and many ways to design within those constraints. Ford needs to fire their bad engineers and hire good ones.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      Same with Honda likely dumping the Accord V6 for a worthless, wheezing turbo!

      This big, blue marble was around a helluva long time before humans inhabited it, and it’ll be around after we’ve nuked ourselves!

      As has been implied on here, would the biggest supporters of this charade kindly dump your Gulfstreams, Chirons, and whatever else is shooting your “carbon footprint” sky-high, and ride a one-speed bike or take the bus, just like you want the rest of us to do, if this damned planet will be uninhabitable by 2046 as you all claim?!

      Otherwise, STFU, and let me drive whatever the hell I wish, and let the automakers provide that choice, instead of forcing them to provide different variations of the same Trabant, with the same 0-60 times, measured not with a stopwatch, but a sundial!!!!

      No flamage, please..I’ll show myself out!

    • 0 avatar
      Phillin_Phresh

      @larrystew – Consumer demand is actually a much bigger driver of fuel economy than CAFE ever was. But sure, go ahead and change the facts to suit your narrative. I suppose CAFE made you buy a Ford Focus/Fiesta too?

      • 0 avatar
        larrystew

        @Phillin_Phresh

        I think that’s inaccurate. If consumers want great fuel economy so badly, then why are SUVs selling so much better than compact, fuel-efficient cars? I would say they are choosing the form factor over the fuel economy.

        @FreedMike

        I have simply stated that CAFE influenced Ford to put a crappy transmission into its economy cars to eek out 10% more fuel efficiency. I have only implicated it in one part of the DCT disaster. Ford, for sure, failed to implement the DCT correctly, and has yet to program it for better function. I agree that they humped the bunk, as you put it.

  • avatar
    thegamper

    Its sort of funny that GM and Ford would say this, coming from two companies who would love to see a pickuptruck in every driveway. I am guessing that they are down with all the green initiatives as long as they have loopholes like CAFE that lets them keep selling super sized land barges to the commuting masses. Just sayin, lets call it like it is.

    The least efficient vehicles they sell are, after all, the only thing keeping the UAW’s pockets filled and profits rolling in.

  • avatar
    LeMansteve

    Ford said “We believe in climate change…”

    When will climate change become a matter of fact, instead of a matter of belief?

    It took hundreds of years for people to generally accept the earth rotated around the sun.

    Given the technology we have today, the measurement and cause of climate change would seem to be a much simpler nut to crack. Why the continuous debate?

    • 0 avatar
      quaquaqua

      Why the debate? Because people love — *love* — their ignorance. It comforts them. Look at the comment section here to get a taste of it. People who don’t have any idea how ANYTHING works outside of their own house. Political talks, environmental regulations, you name it. They understand none of it. They’re sure of one thing only: EVERYTHING that requires them to think, or question an iota of their beliefs, is bad for them. It’s how we got this joke of a president that has every Brit, German, and Canadian I deal with asking me “are you okay??” on business calls. Well, it’s all crashing down around him, entirely his own doing, and yet when it all happens it will still be *everyone’s* fault except his. That’s how the United States works. Say no, point fingers, and keep yelling. USA!

      • 0 avatar
        Higheriq

        You have underestimated the people who voted for Trump – they would have voted for a blind yellow dog if it meant keeping Hitlery out of the White House. Trump may not be the best President, but he’s not Hitlery, and he’s a huge turnaround from Obumble.

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          Dump the Trump Humpers! Their head is their Rump and its Plump and ready for a Dump!

          Sorry, your *higher IQ* co-opted my rhetoric there. Back to normal now…I gotta get the hell away from this page.

        • 0 avatar
          waywardboi

          Obama will go down as one of our greatest presidents….watch and see (the talk is already out there)! I know its maybe hard for you to grasp the fact that a black man was actually good at that job. What do you think we will be saying about this clown in office now? Bet it wont be nearly as good!

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        @quaquaqua

        Suppose I believe in your religion, is it going to bring down the temperature? No.

        So what you are actually doing is indulging your Nazi-esque obsession with culture control, though you know it has no correlation with pollution or temperature, and you’re achieving nothing because you’re raging that everyone doesn’t practice your religion.

        Furthermore, can you give any assurance that after we eliminate carbon emissions the climate will actually be more hospitable? No. Incentivizing people with promises of superior weather might not be a good idea.

        No offense, but you are participating in the dumbest cult since the Bolshevik Revolution in Russia. You should be embarrassed, not indignant.

    • 0 avatar
      30-mile fetch

      “Why the continuous debate?”

      That’s a fascinating question and books will probably be written on it someday. Simplistically, I’d wager that it is a perfect combination of fear over the resulting government policy mixed with world view reactionism similar to that seen over the Theory of Evolution.

      Facts don’t change people’s political views. God Almighty Himself could descend from the heavens in clear view of the entire world population and tell us to stop f-ing up his creation, and there’d still be a contingent flying to the blogosphere to decry the Fake Diety.

      • 0 avatar
        LeMansteve

        @ 30-mile

        You’re probably right. God would descend and tell us “Reduce greenhouse gas output 25% by 2050 or else you will all die!!!”. Then there would be a hundred different interpretations of what he said, what he didn’t say, what he really meant, whose responsibility it should be, why the actual Coming of God is a much bigger deal than the words he said, what The Media didn’t tell you he said, etc.

        We are our own worst enemies.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Why the debate? S**t, that’s easy. You just have to follow the money that’s funding the debate.

        Basically, the effort to affect climate change boils down to figuring out a better, cleaner way to power all of our stuff. And governments are more than willing to do things that will directly or indirectly finance that better mousetrap. Thus, cap and trade.

        Now, a) what business sector loses if someone figures out a better energy mousetrap, b) how much money and political clout does that business sector have, and c) what party parrots this business sector’s company line?

        This isn’t about climate change at all. It’s about killing the competition before it’s even born. Ironic, given the “free market uber alles” lines that corporations and right wingers like to spout.

        • 0 avatar
          TW5

          @FreedMike

          Cap and trade pays people to pollute. It has nothing to do with sensible policy, and everything to do with giving the exchanges and investment bankers a new product to hawk.

          Carbon tax is less obtuse. The godfather of negative externalities policy pointed this out, and you’d know that if you had an education regarding policy or ecological economics.

      • 0 avatar
        ect

        Evolution is no longer a theory, but the foundation of the biological sciences. Still, there a re many who want to deny it, because it contradicts their prejudices.

        Similarly, there are those who want to deny the safety and efficacy of vaccination, which is arguably the greatest advance in preventive medicine in human history. Not to mention the wingnuts who decry the fluoridation of drinking water.

        And there are those who want to deny the broad scientific consensus that human activity is, independent of other factors, raising the average temperature of the planet. Again, because it represents a truth they would prefer not to believe.

        Junk science isn’t science at all, just junk. In all its forms.

        • 0 avatar
          TW5

          @ect

          The theory of evolution as taught in most academic settings can’t even explain the domesticated dog. It’s sad when “scientists” go out of their way to ignore Darwin’s theory of artificial selection because they don’t like the implications. Humans have a huge impact on what exists and what doesn’t exist, and that will only grow as time goes on. Natural-selection is a dying religion.

          Regarding vaccines, the opposition is quite easy to understand. A small percentage of people suffer serious side effects from vaccines. They are made to pay the price so the rest of us can be healthy. It should come as no surprise then that some parents fret about the perils of vaccination, and they question whether it should be mandatory.

          Whoever educated you provided you with no understanding of the facts you have learned, and even less respect for other opinions. That is why you fail, and climate change is the biggest failure of all. We would be well on our way to solving the problem, if politicians and their sycophants were not so obsessed with enforcing a singular politically-correct narrative as to the only reason you’re allowed to reduce pollution.

          These people couldn’t be more inept if they tried.

          • 0 avatar
            ect

            TW5,

            Again, QED.

            Reality is that evolution IS the foundation of the biological sciences, and your polemic has no basis in science at all. None.

            The data tells us that a tiny minority of people do suffer mild side-effects (e.g., local redness, swelling, warmth) from some vaccinations. But there is no data that supports your statement that a percentage of people suffer “serious side effects” from vaccines generally. None.

            There is, however, a wealth of data about the benefits from vaccination programs, if virtually everyone is vaccinated.

            There is a wealth of data to show that human activity, by itself, is releasing pollutants into the atmosphere at a rate that is raising the average temperature of the planet. And that is something that, as a species, we ought to be dealing with.

            The data is the data, and that’s what guides me. I won’t engage in the juvenile name-calling you seem to prefer. I’m better than that.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @ect

            Domesticated animals, GMO’s and clones are not polemical devices, and natural-selection is obviously not the foundation for modern genetic sciences. We don’t place external environmental pressures on organisms as a means of mutating their genetics slowly over thousands or millions of years. This should be self-evident to people with proper education.

            The narrative about climate change, on the other hand, is pure polemics. No one can guarantee climate stability no matter what we do as human beings, which means climate science has virtually nothing to offer. The fundamental reinforcements for altering consumption patterns, if necessary, will have nothing to do with climate science, and yet bellicose citizens, all of whom claim to be supremely educated, are fretting because people couldn’t care less about the scientific findings of the climate community.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “Domesticated animals, GMO’s and clones are not polemical devices, and natural-selection is obviously not the foundation for modern genetic sciences. We don’t place external environmental pressures on organisms as a means of mutating their genetics slowly over thousands or millions of years. This should be self-evident to people with proper education.”

            We don’t have to take millions or thousands of years; we can do it in a matter of a very few generations for most animal and plant types even without physically injection DNA from other sources. It only took about 30 years for a group of Russian fur farmers to create a domesticated breed of fox. Their problem became one of the quality of fur coming down the friendlier the foxes became. And yes, it was by placing external environmental pressures on them that helped modify the genes as they essentially interbred the individuals that showed less fear towards their handlers with each generation and ‘discarding’ the more aggressive or fearful ones. If you really bother to look, humanity itself is doing much the same–with each generation living longer than the one before it. I, myself, stand a chance of living 120 years or longer because my mother’s grandmother lived to 99-11/12ths and my mother is currently 92 and still active. It wasn’t all that long ago that a mere 50 years was considered old and 65 was considered ancient.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @TW5
            1. Evolution can’t explain the domestic dog?
            Darwin developed the theory of evolution and natural selection by studying artificial selection.

            2. Vaccines – statistically the odds of a more serious complication from most vaccines are 1 in a million.
            Lets pick MMR or mumps measles, and rubella.
            Measles causes Encephalitis in around 1 in 1,000 children.
            In young children, mumps can cause permanent deafness
            in about 1 out of 20,000 infected children. Mumps related encephalitis (swelling of the brain) occurs in about 2 out of 100,000 infected children.

            “Whoever educated you provided you with no understanding of the facts you have learned, and even less respect for other opinions.”

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            We don’t place external environmental pressures on organisms as a means of mutating their genetics slowly over thousands or millions of years. This should be self-evident to people with proper education.”

            MRSA. You don’t need millions of years of selective pressure for organisms with tiny generation times. Since you have a proper education, I’m wondering how this is not obvious to you.

            Also, re-read your posts (any of them, your nastiness is ubiquitous) and challenge yourself to identify the irony in accusing others of not respecting other’s opinions. I’ve met a few people as arrogant as you, but not many. They have one thing in common: an ego that casts a bigger shadow than their realm of knowledge.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @ Lou_BC

            We’re talking about natural-selection, which is what the average American associates with “evolution” because our morally-bankrupt school system emphasized natural-selection to keep the religious zealots at bay. Schools don’t want to get into artificial selection because it opens the door to existential subject matter and interpretive theory. It’s also the future of evolutionary science as we’ve begun to modify nearly everything we contact. Schools are doing us no favors.

            Most Americans don’t even realize Darwin proposed artificial-selection as part of his theory of evolution. School administrators have no desire to inform students otherwise because it doesn’t fit their anti-theistic agenda. Their wanton attacks on religion result in a fundamentally dumber populace with few critical thinking skills.

            Regarding vaccines, I don’t care. The discussion is less about the specific data, which is egregiously manipulated by everyone, and more about the obvious moral hazards with compulsory vaccination. Mandating minimum risk at the individual level is a perilous pastime.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @30-mile fetch –
        “But scientists have a long way to go before they fully understand denial. As one researcher acknowledged, “Deficits in insight …. and emotional awareness have largely been ignored in the field of addiction, despite the fact that this disorder is finally recognized as a disease of the brain, amenable to intervention and treatment.”
        “To make matters worse, few things exacerbate fears, threaten esteem, send stress levels through the roof, and turn dopamine flow off more than learning about how neurotransmitters manipulate behavior or admitting how much we have in common with chimpanzees and junkies.”

        If one is to accept reality, one must question one’s beliefs and perhaps abandon them. That creates stress which drops dopamine and we no longer feel “good”. We are “addicted” to feeling good and like an addict, will do almost anything to keep those dopamine levels up.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      “Given the technology we have today, the measurement and cause of climate change would seem to be a much simpler nut to crack. Why the continuous debate?”

      Because there are hundreds of specious arguments that try to link unrelated theories into a “climate change is not man-made” argument. One of the more recent ones thrown at me had to do with a theorized 300-year solar cycle where the supposedly-approaching Solar Minimum will be deeper and longer than it has been in the last 300 years–to the extent of 50 years or longer, cooling the Earth back down to previous norms.

      This, of course, totally ignores ALL of the other data that shows that our atmospheric chemistry itself has changed due to man-made activities and and even attempts to ignore by-products of our technology such as hot spots created by our cities (they think because it’s white concrete it should be cooler) and insist that jet engines have no effect on cloud formation in our skies because they don’t, in themselves, emit water as part of their exhaust. There are so many proofs of man-made effects being openly ignored that they simply believe we can’t be having any effect on our atmosphere, not even accidentally.

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        @Vulpine

        Can you provide assurances that after we eliminate pollution or man-made climate interference that the weather will improve or that humanity will keep living for tens of thousands of years?

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          What I can provide is evidence that eliminating mankind’s effects on the atmosphere will have beneficial effects, though it may not totally stop the normal cycles which typically take tens of thousands of years to have as much effect as we’ve seen over the last 300 years.

          Living in the east central states, some 100 miles from DC, when the 9-11 events occurred, civil aviation was grounded for a week. Within 2 days, our air cleared remarkably, without the benefit of a cold air front to push the pollution out to sea. For three days we had some of the most gorgeous late-summer weather you could possibly imagine. Skies so clear you could see stars normally blocked by light pollution from nearby cities (Washington, Baltimore, Philly, etc.) The daytime temperatures dropped from 5-10 degrees F and nighttime dropped from humid 70s to a much-less-humid 60s. After the civil aircraft were allowed to fly again, conditions jumped right back up to their previous levels.

          We can improve things, but it will take drastic measures to do so. The problem is, the people who know what to do are the ones being ridiculed by people who don’t want to change their lifestyles in any way.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @ Vulpine

            You cannot guarantee a superior climate or quality of life for anyone in the future, and I’ll ask you not to proliferate the fraud foisted upon us by unelected bureaucrats in the Church of Climatology.

            As soon as you let go of the inane illusion that we can control the global climate, you’ll start looking for real tangible rewards you can offer to people to reduce pollution, rather than proliferating the culture of punishment and inquisition, as if were were living under the thumb of the medieval Catholic church.

            The lack of science in the church of climatology is astounding, and it’s proof positive that this entire thing is a political hoax, which merely undermines the otherwise noble goal of protecting the planet and our incredible natural wonders.

    • 0 avatar
      Master Baiter

      “When will climate change become a matter of fact, instead of a matter of belief?”

      When there’s actually compelling evidence that it’s happening, and at a rate above natural variability. All we have now are computer models which have notoriously over-predicted warming.

      If global warming were real, it would be self evident. Those pushing it wouldn’t have to keep trying to convince people it’s real.

      I love the European bureaucrats: we can’t stop Islamic terrorism, but we CAN control the temperature of the earth in the year 2100. When you can’t solve real problems, you make up imaginary ones to solve.
      .
      .

      .
      .

      • 0 avatar
        sgeffe

        Sometimes it feels like I’m in an alternate universe!! The cognitive dissonance goes beyond any semblance of rational thought!

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          !!!Says the guy whose strongest argument against the existence of climate change is that DiCaprio flies around in planes! Niiiice!!

          You want cognitive dissonance, here it is: people who demand inarguable scientific proof yet don’t have the faintest understanding of the science being presented to them. Now that’s some mental static you can’t hear anything over.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        “When there’s actually compelling evidence that it’s happening, and at a rate above natural variability. All we have now are computer models which have notoriously over-predicted warming.”
        — No, they haven’t over-predicted it; not to the extent you imagine, any way.

        “If global warming were real, it would be self evident. Those pushing it wouldn’t have to keep trying to convince people it’s real.”
        — It is self evident, if you’d only bother to look. Look at the drought in California… deeper than any in recorded history. Take a look at the number and severity of forest fires, some started by humans but doing far more damage than almost any time in recorded history. And not just here in the US but Canada, Australia, even Europe and Asia. Take a look at all the glaciers around the world; photographed as much as 100 years ago covering vast swaths of land and now almost gone. Just because you don’t want to believe doesn’t mean you can’t see the facts–you just don’t WANT to see the facts.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        Climate change gets the press but what gets overlooked is carbon sequestration in the oceans of the world.

        “Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1, a drop of 0.1 pH units, representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries. The oceans currently absorb about a third of human-created CO2 emissions, roughly 22 million tons a day.”

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          “Over the past 300 million years, ocean pH has been slightly basic, averaging about 8.2. Today, it is around 8.1, a drop of 0.1 pH units, representing a 25-percent increase in acidity over the past two centuries. The oceans currently absorb about a third of human-created CO2 emissions, roughly 22 million tons a day.”

          Some reports are coming out that sub-surface methane deposits are beginning to percolate up to the surface, releasing other greenhouse gasses such as that ‘sequestered’ CO2. It may still be trapping some but if you do a little research, we’re getting dangerously close to the point where the oceans will start releasing gasses it’s held for millennia. How that will affect humanity as a species I have no idea. But society as we know it will most certainly change.

  • avatar
    vanpressburg

    Paris climate agreement is a horrible deal.
    1.It doesn’t apply to China and India the same way as to USA.
    2.Many countries in the world have enormous environmental problems, citizens of these countries work in factories with cancerous material and they die often in their 50′.
    Is climate change priority for these people or is a cancer priority?
    I strongly believe (and I know, I am from former communist country) they have MILLION times bigger problems than climate change !!!
    Why do you force them spend money on fighting climate change(with no significant impact) when they are facing death of cancer?

    Good decision, president Donald Trump.

    • 0 avatar
      thegamper

      So lets do nothing and hope for the ice caps to re-materialize and that the subsequent worldwide droughts don’t kill off the population and that Florida and the Eastern seaboard manage to stay above water.

      I see what you are saying. There are a lot of horrible, immediate problems around the world. However, if any of the worst predictions about climate change come to pass, the consequences for humanity may make many of today’s problems look trivial. Its easy to shrug off as it wont be you or probably not even your children that are swimming in the streets we now drive our pickups on to grocery stores stocked to ceiling with food.

      Whether you want to admit it or not, we are doing future generations a great disservice by not taking it more seriously. Self inflicted wounds are often the most painful and preventable.

      • 0 avatar
        RobbieAZ

        Just because we’re not in this agreement doesn’t mean we are doing nothing. We will still make progress in this area. We don’t need the ridiculously corrupt and anti-American UN or some other governing body to tell us what to do or how to do it. And we certainly don’t need to be funding these efforts in other countries, most of which hate us anyway.

      • 0 avatar
        danio3834

        The fear of the economic terrorism alarmist policies amount to is warranted. I used to live in Ontario.

      • 0 avatar
        28-Cars-Later

        So let’s screw ourselves in the meantime while our competition gains an edge, when this is going to happen anyway according to the Green Religion?

        Several MIRV warheads get to the root of the problem.

      • 0 avatar
        Whittaker

        “Whether you want to admit it or not, we are doing future generations a great disservice by not taking it more seriously.”

        That’s exactly what they were saying about the coming ice age less than 50 yrs ago.

        “Self inflicted wounds are often the most painful and preventable.”

        Agreed.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          “That’s exactly what they were saying about a coming ice age less than 50 yrs ago.”

          Who was promising a ‘coming ice age’? The oil companies?

          • 0 avatar
            Whittaker

            “Who was promising a ‘coming ice age’? The oil companies?”

            Scientists.
            You can pretend it didn’t happen but I was there. It happened.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            Show me. I’m not pretending anything, I want to see it.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      “I strongly believe (and I know, I am from former communist country) they have MILLION times bigger problems than climate change !!!”

      Speaking of coming from a communist country… may I ask what happened to that one lake that once totally isolated the Soviet Union’s nuclear laboratories?

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      The US emits more emissions per capita than China or India.

      So, why don’t you say the US will emit the same per capita.

  • avatar
    Rick T.

    Just heard the the President of the Maldives on NPR accuse President Trump of condemning his country to death.

    • 0 avatar
      ToddAtlasF1

      We really need to defund NPR.

      • 0 avatar
        30-mile fetch

        Seriously. They also had the nerve to interview the editor of a conservative publication on why free market forces should be used to address climate change, and a coal country representative in the House about how the Paris accord was a bad deal. The nerve of these people.

  • avatar
    RobbieAZ

    If all these companies are already doing their best to reduce carbon footprints then why do they care whether we’re in the agreement or not? No one’s telling them they can’t continue their efforts or build to some global standard. Their objection isn’t about the environment. The car companies need the government to ostensibly force people to buy cars they don’t want.

    • 0 avatar
      Higheriq

      Because it’s good PR for a company to say they are for it. ;)

    • 0 avatar
      carlisimo

      To a large extent it’s symbolic – each signatory country makes a nonspecific commitment to reduce its emissions, with checks every five years. It establishes that there should be a single accounting method, with outside auditing to try to keep those reported numbers trustworthy.

      The potentially most important part of the agreement is its provisions for a carbon market. It falls short of creating one, but the groundwork is there. That’s what a lot of US companies are scared of being excluded from, if it provides funding for less carbon-intensive technology or if it allows countries to trade credits for having saved more than their goal. This is purely hypothetical, but it could include something like taking some of those funds to pay Toyota to share its hybrid technology with every other automaker from a signatory country. Nothing concrete yet.

  • avatar
    Hummer

    This is one of those things you kind of expected more push back, but even the left has a hard time justifying our continued payments to countries that have no interest in making their own contributions. The little pushback I see is alarmism from the same dopes that predicted the planets end several years back.

    If the Treaty had any real meaning they would have been quick to offer to make a deal that doesn’t hurt our country. Telling us it’s all or nothing makes it pretty clear it’s solely about the money.

    I haven’t been this excited/comfortable about this countries future at any time in my life as I am now.

  • avatar
    chuckrs

    If the Paris manifesto was such a good thing, why didn’t Obama do the constitutionally correct thing and submit it to the Senate for ratification and approval?
    Many of them may privately think otherwise, but a US president is not a king. Many of Obama’s regulations are being shot down through the Congressional Review Act because the Obama era regulators did not follow the rules. I don’t know that is more attributable to arrogance or ignorance.
    To understand national, corporate and personal positions, you need to follow the money. Next, you need to follow the money. Thirdly, follow the money.
    Is mitigating climate change the primary motivator? The largest consumers of coal are China and India. China and India get relief from pollution limits. I guess it must only be fair to let them pollute as much as we used to. Meanwhile, those high tech Germans continue to mine and burn lignite, the crappiest coal there is.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      “…why didn’t Obama do the constitutionally correct thing and submit it to the Senate for ratification and approval?”

      All due respect, but did you pay attention to what was going on in the government the last few years? Obama could have asked Congress to declare National Rescue A Kitten From A Tree Day and they’d have told him to f**k off.

      • 0 avatar
        chuckrs

        With all due respect, please look up who controlled the Senate during Obama’s 8 years. 6 of 8 years, democrat. Some of it with supermajority control. The House doesn’t count for treaty ratification.

        • 0 avatar
          markf

          “With all due respect, please look up who controlled the Senate during Obama’s 8 years. 6 of 8 years, democrat. Some of it with supermajority control.”

          Yup, cause even obama knew most Dem Senators would not have supported it. As Trump rightly said it is inherent unfair to America so by signing a non-binding “agreement” he could virtue signal. obama and his Dem buddies in Senate knew this, they would never have voted for it.

          “All due respect, but did you pay attention to what was going on in the government the last few years? Obama could have asked Congress to declare National Rescue A Kitten From A Tree Day and they’d have told him to f**k off.”

          Seriously if you are gonna blame Congress spent 3 mins and realize who controlled the Senate during obama’s term. Then take 5 mins and learn how treaties are ratified…..

          • 0 avatar
            ExPatBrit

            Senator Franken was not seated until July 2009.

            Scott Brown won the special election to replace Kennedy at the end of 2009..

            Democrats had a Filibuster proof majority July 2009-February 2010.

            Republicans are in worse shape, that’s why they won’t get anything done except via EOs.

  • avatar
    redapple

    Global warming is FAKE.
    Vostok Ice Core Sample Study shows this.

    Global Warming is social justice play. Increase taxes and retard 1st world super powers. Empower, enrich 2nd and 3rd world countries.

    US corporations parrot it is real in order to escape Global warming is real crowds’ RATH.

    I know i ll get flamed. So be it.

    • 0 avatar
      jjster6

      ^ This
      |
      |

    • 0 avatar
      jjster6

      I might flame you if I could figure out what the hell you are trying to say.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      Actually, I think you’re looking to get flamed.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      Anthropogenic Global Warming is different things to different people. For Nazis, it’s a new opportunity to beat people into submission and impose a new social contract. For the non-for-profit industrial complex, it’s a new apocalypse to solicit donations. For politicians, it’s a new opportunity to seize power and regulate commerce globally. For businesses, it’s a way for them to have regulatory certainty and for them to convert public funds into corporate welfare. For poor people, it’s a new way to swindle the G20.

      Every faction wins, which means the majority is about to get hosed.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      Vostok disproven: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/

      “Frédéric Parrenin of the Laboratory of Glaciology and Geophysical Environment in France and a team of researchers may have found an answer to the question. His team compiled an extensive record of Antarctic temperatures and CO2 data from existing data and five ice cores drilled in the Antarctic interior over the last 30 years. Their results, published February 28 in Science, show CO2 lagged temperature by less than 200 years, drastically decreasing the amount of uncertainty in previous estimates.”

      http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html

      • 0 avatar
        shaker

        It’s going to take a lot more truth to even put a dent into the right’s well-crafted conspiracy theory…

      • 0 avatar
        chuckrs

        From the SciAm link – interesting article BTW

        “Their results, published February 28 in Science, show CO2 lagged temperature by less than 200 years, drastically decreasing the amount of uncertainty in previous estimates.”

        Causality still not shown. Vostok neither proven or disproven.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          The one Vostock article claiming no causation worked on the assumption that CO2 lagged temperatures by several thousand years. The article I presented showed how that was wrong due to how the gasses move through ice. over the course of hundreds of thousands of years (nearly 1 million years by the article I presented, compared to the half-million from Vostock) 200 years isn’t even a tick of the clock; they are as near to simultaneity as can be measured on such a scale.

          Even so, our current conditions clearly show that as CO2 rises, our current global temperature rises. I will grant and emphasize that CO2 is not the ONLY greenhouse gas we’re working with today, either; water vapor and many other emissions affected by man’s activities are also rising to higher altitudes and the added energy is being felt not only in the warming but also in the violent swings in our global weather. Storms are getting stronger because they have more energy to dissipate. Temperature swings of twenty degrees or more from one day to the next and even daily temperature swings of forty degrees or more between day and night in non-desert locales are making themselves felt. The conditions we’re experiencing today are not the conditions we experienced when I was a kid. The changes are becoming almost visibly apparent over the course of a single generation.

          Yes, Vostock, or rather the Vostock article by that climate denier site, has been disproven. But it takes an understanding of the broad picture; you can’t look at a single pixel and say, “that’s proof it’s all a lie.”

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      “There is a close correlation between Antarctic temperature and atmospheric concentrations of CO2 (Barnola et al. 1987). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows that the main trends of CO2 are similar for each glacial cycle. Major transitions from the lowest to the highest values are associated with glacial-interglacial transitions. During these transitions, the atmospheric concentrations of CO2 rises from 180 to 280-300 ppmv (Petit et al. 1999). The extension of the Vostok CO2 record shows the present-day levels of CO2 are unprecedented during the past 420 kyr. Pre-industrial Holocene levels (~280 ppmv) are found during all interglacials, with the highest values (~300 ppmv) found approximately 323 kyr BP. When the Vostok ice core data were compared with other ice core data (Delmas et al. 1980; Neftel et al. 1982) for the past 30,000 – 40,000 years, good agreement was found between the records: all show low CO2 values [~200 parts per million by volume (ppmv)] during the Last Glacial Maximum and increased atmospheric CO2 concentrations associated with the glacial-Holocene transition. According to Barnola et al. (1991) and Petit et al. (1999) these measurements indicate that, at the beginning of the deglaciations, the CO2 increase either was in phase or lagged by less than ~1000 years with respect to the Antarctic temperature, whereas it clearly lagged behind the temperature at the onset of the glaciations.”
      …………………………………………………………………..
      This is an abstract from the OakRidge National Laboratory. Where does it say that global warming is a myth?
      There are natural cyclic trends to Global Warming. The ice samples show that historically peak CO2 is around *280-300 ppmv*.
      We currently sit at 409 ppm.

  • avatar
    Ralahamy

    Climate change has been occurring for 4.5 billion years. Paris Accord can do nothing to stop it. Someone said that all it would do is create another slush fund for UN bureaucrats. US automakers should stay out of this politically charged unrealistic religious crusade to stop climate change.

    • 0 avatar
      FreedMike

      This message brought to you by Exxon.

      • 0 avatar
        TW5

        @FreedMike

        Exxon would much rather have complete control of renewables production than to negotiate and renegotiate with foreign countries.

        Your inability to understand the basic motivation of energy companies is troubling.

      • 0 avatar
        tnk479

        “This message brought to you by Exxon.”

        Hey FreedMike, check out the news sometime. Exxon made a public statement that they are in favor of the Paris Accord, whatever that even means.

    • 0 avatar
      SCE to AUX

      “religious crusade”

      +1. That’s what it is.

      ‘Deniers’ are vilified, and called insulting names.

      • 0 avatar
        FreedMike

        Deniers might face less vilification and insulting names if they engaged in less vilification and insults, SCE…

        • 0 avatar
          30-mile fetch

          Yeah, I just went through this same thing with my 4-year olds this very morning. Of course they both were poking, nudging, nettling each other, but each came whining to me about how so-and-so did it all with no recognition of their own role in it.

          Looks like that carries into adulthood.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            The last year was certainly witness to it.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            Indeed. And when the next election cycle fires up in…oh, about 15 minutes it’s going to get even worse.

            I hear Greenland is due for a warm up. Might be a good place to escape to.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I would be impressed if Greenland became more habitable to any serious degree.

          • 0 avatar
            30-mile fetch

            I don’t care if it’s McMurdo. It’s better than here during campaign season.

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I’d like to visit here in general, and I imagine this would make a fine refuge.

            http://www.visitfaroeislands.com/

    • 0 avatar
      LeMansteve

      Nobody should deny the fact that temperature and CO2 have been on a roller coaster ride when viewed over a long period of time. The frequency and rate of change are well known.

      The concerning fact is, in recent years both have been rising much faster than historical rates.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      Ralahamy – see my post above. Climate change occurs in natural cycles but we are making it much worse.

  • avatar
    28-Cars-Later

    Gee, I would be for it too if the stupid it helps to generate allows me to sell $25,000 pickups for $70,000.

  • avatar
    tomLU86

    Right on, thegamper! “We’re for sustainment..but we’ll still keep making gas guzzlers, cuz if we don’t, the other guys will”

    As long as gasoline is cheap, people will use a lot more of it than they would otherwise.

    We all want everyone else to do the ‘right thing’.

    Let the other guy save the planet.

  • avatar
    deanst

    “Watch what people do, not what they say” is the obvious thought for me. Nobody is forcing Ford to build gas guzzling pickups, nobody is forcing consumers to buy gas guzzling SUVs. If everyone really believed and acted on their stated fears of global warming, we wouldn’t even have a problem.

    (And I say this as someone who has 2 small cars, and 1 small house.)

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      See Soros, Gore, Damon, DiCraprio, et. al.!

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      The auto companies are forcing me to buy a gas-guzzling full-sized pickup if I want to buy an American Made pickup. Even the new mid-sizers are much taller and feel notably larger than their predecessors.

      You say nobody is forcing anybody to do anything? Ok… show me where I can buy a properly compact, BRAND NEW pickup truck in the US.

      • 0 avatar
        ToddAtlasF1

        You have less self determination than a house plant. Why do you want an American made anything? The rest of what you’ve written on this page about the US role in the world shows you’re either completely deranged or haven’t even a tenuous relationship with the truth. If you hate America as much as you’ve revealed in your recent comments, buy a Prius V and rip out the back seat. Actually, that wouldn’t be an act of hatred. That would be walking the walk. If you believe any of this BS any more than Obama and DeCaprio do, then live it. Don’t buy a truck. Don’t travel by plane. Don’t have kids. Grow your own food. Just STFU about it and do it. Of all the imbeciles crying and screaming about a treaty whose only impact was to steal from Americans, how many care enough about climate change dogma to actually change their own lives instead of appealing to their antichrists to do it for them?

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          @TA, I suggest you try actually reading what I wrote, because your attitude, right here, is exactly WHY Americans are reviled overseas. I’m not the one who hates America, though I’ve come to despise the self-centered fools who think we can just build a wall around our country and hide from the world. It simply cannot work.

          I am ‘walking the walk.’ I own an older mid-sized truck and I’m going to hang onto it either until it dies or until there is a suitable, and I don’t mean modern mid-sized, replacement for it from somebody. GM does build one. FCA does build one. They just refuse to bring them to the States.

          And interestingly, I don’t travel by plane unless it is absolutely necessary. I either drive or take the train whenever possible (and train is only remotely possible for some of the trips I want to take.) Why don’t I fly? I can’t stand the wait in the terminals; I can’t stand the crowding; I can’t stand the fact that we have to go through a personal search just to enter the concourse; the planes are packed so tightly you can hardly move–and on a five-hour flight or more that get decidedly uncomfortable and for me absolutely painful. Driving is easier, even if it is slower.

          And no. That AGREEMENT — it was NOT a treaty — does not just steal from Americans. I strongly suggest you read the bloomin’ thing instead of swallowing that dreck whole. Because believe me, if things keep going the way they are right now, we may not have a Land of the Free in a few years.

          • 0 avatar
            ToddAtlasF1

            If we agreed to submit to a one world government, as Obama did in his betrayal of the country, then the land of the free thing was on hiatus until Trump freed us anyway.

  • avatar
    dukeisduke

    Some are having a meltdown about this, but at the same time they say that the agreement doesn’t bind us to anything. If it’s not worth the paper it’s written on, what’s the big deal? Is it simply meaningless symbolism, like putting a (latest terror victim country name here) flag overlay on your Facebook profile pic?

    So far, all I can tell it does is encourage our government to send boatloads of our tax dollars to the UN and other corruptocratic organizations. Me, I’d like to see the UN exiled to the Hague, and the buildings imploded, to be replaced by a dog park.

  • avatar
    RHD

    Trump is a welcher.

    How many other treaties will he want to “renegotiate”?

    Maybe he thinks we got a raw deal in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, and should have been given more Mexican territory than what we got.

    It’s not likely he’ll want to re-do the Alaska Purchase, for fear of retaliation from his close friends, puppet-masters and co-conspirators in Moscow.

    • 0 avatar
      2manycars

      This was not a treaty since it was not ratified by the Senate. The President does not have the authority to unilaterally engage in a treaty with a foreign nation or nations. (See Article 2, Section 2, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution.) It was merely an Obama diktat which is why President Trump was able to undo it. Had this been a bona fide treaty he would not have the power to do so without the Senate.

      Climate change is a natural phenomenon. We have no power to put it under our control even if we could come design some ideal climate that would be deemed desirable. It’s all about money and power, as is normally the case in politics. This being the case I have no intention of lowering my carbon footprint no matter what agreements may be signed or what regulations are put in place.

    • 0 avatar
      28-Cars-Later

      I haven’t enjoyed the flip flopping of late, but how is one a welcher of something they didn’t implement or agree to in the first place?

    • 0 avatar
      Big Al from Oz

      RHD,
      At work I once gave a guy his yearly performance assessment.

      His scoring was quite low and he wanted to renegotiate his scoring. An outsider was required to assist during the renegotiation. The problem was the independent outsider did his own evaluation through researching this guys performance, which lowered his score.

      Trump better be careful. The US isn’t being screwed by other countries. As all countries seem to have similar issues with the manufacturing sector.

      Jobs are becoming more automated. Even China has lost 30 million manufacturing jobs in the past decade.

    • 0 avatar
      tnk479

      “How many other treaties will he want to “renegotiate”?”

      Trump will renegotiate any treaty that he judges to be hurting the country. I don’t agree with Trump all of the time but I sure as hell like his intentions. To all those saying “automation will kill jobs anyway” and “coal was declining anyway”, fine, okay, no doubt technology and markets change and some jobs decline and new ones are created. But why does the government have to exacerbate job losses for hard working people? Again, if it is going to happen *anyway* as you claim, then just let it happen.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        And the agreements, pacts and treaties that negatively impact other nations versis the US will recieve the same.

        The US will lose out. It appears the rest of the world so far is rejecting the direction Trump is heading in.

        This will equate to less trade with the US. Others will pick up the slack at the US’es expense.

        The US got to where it is by others, without others the US would be worse off.

  • avatar
    stingray65

    EUROPEAN ECO-Weenies: Please reconsider President Trump, we need the US in the Paris agreement to give it credibility, but remember it is just voluntary and we are flexible if things don’t work out. Just sign right here please.

    US ECO-Weenies: That SOB Trump has just killed the planet. I’m going to jump in my Gulfstream and fly to join the resistance in some sunny tropical paradise.

    Which one is it? It can’t be both.

  • avatar
    TW5

    Liberal journalists pissed and moaned for decades about American corporations taking over government and culture, and mooching corporate welfare from the US taxpayer. When corporations are literally about to use US taxpayer dollars to reorder the global economy, liberal journalists are all for it because Obama said it was okay.

    Besides the obvious hypocrisy, people who are for the Paris Climate Accord also fail to understand ecology and basic economics. The Hudson is polluted. We don’t need to sign an international agreement with China to clean it up. Paying poor countries for pollution in the Hudson actually gives us less funds to clean up the mess.

    Most of the people throwing a fit will be dead long before the forecasted end of our planet, as will their children. They were obviously expecting this agreement to do something for them during their lifetime.

  • avatar
    reclusive_in_nature

    Anyone else notice the exodus of wealthy climate change believers moving from their coastal homes to areas that would be minimally impacted (or even improved) by climate change?

    Yeah, me neither. Watch what they do, not what they say.

    • 0 avatar
      sgeffe

      Niiiiiice!

    • 0 avatar
      stingray65

      Yes you better buy all that prime coastal real estate now when it has become so cheap due to flood danger. When Trump gets impeached and President DiCaprio takes over and the flood waters retreat the prices will go back up for sure.

    • 0 avatar
      Lou_BC

      @reclusive_in_nature – I should be all for global warming. It will mean that my children will be a few 100 miles closer to ocean front property.

      Here is an interesting tidbit. Russia has markedly increased its military presence in the Arctic.

      Why?

      Ice free days have been increasing dramatically. If the ice caps do melt, it is open ocean and there are huge amounts of oil and gas in that region.

      • 0 avatar
        Zipster

        LOU:
        I greatly admire you for the long battle you have fought trying to instill some reality into people who will forever reject it. However, just like the fundamentalist Christians and the NRA, the Trump movement is a cult, Those people will remain adherents of the values of the cult and will continue to do so for the indefinite future. Some previous cults that illustrate the operative features of a cult, but in more dramatic fashion, at least for now, would include Charles Manson, the Symbionese Liberation Army, Jim Jones and Adolph Hitler.

        • 0 avatar
          tnk479

          Zipster, did this little childish rant make you feel better, at all???

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @Zipster – thank you.
          I know that the *true believers* will not change. My fear is that if one tires of the debate and gives up in frustration, there will be only one message for people to hear.
          The examples you cite are what can happen when a charismatic leader plays upon ones hopes, dreams, fears and insecurities.

        • 0 avatar

          That’s an outrageous slur against fundamentalist Christians to say that they are akin to Manson, Jim Jones and Hitler.

          I actually have some professional experience dealing with destructive cults. I was a staff member with Jews For Judaism. With the possible exception of some small charismatic churches, the vast body of evangelical Christianity has little in common with destructive cults. Your antifa friends are closer to cultists than Christians.

          I’m quite sure that you would never call Islam a cult, well, at least publicly with your name attached to the statement.

          • 0 avatar
            Zipster

            Ronnie:

            Not being actively involved in violent acts does not totally absolve one of responsibility. I am certain that you have had many debates about the culpability of those who stood by while the Holocaust was transpiring, perhaps even about those fundamentalist Christians who are so concerned about the welfare of the fetus, but quickly turn to their other core concerns like gays when the fetus is born.
            What makes these people so “deplorable” is not just one issue like Climate Change, but a whole core of beliefs that usually accompany them like racism, rejection of international cooperation and a fervent desire to be doped if it corresponds with their core beliefs. Steve Bannon is their moral compass and people like him are willing to take them further…and further down that road.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            The cultists, no matter the religion, are the “fundamentalists”. They’re the ones who tend to take Holy statements out of context and say they mean something totally different from when they’re read as part of the original whole. I’ve seen this most prolifically done by people claiming to be Christian and most specifically by those you call Evangelical. It was the Evangelicals that really started pushing the ‘Fire and Brimstone’ punishments for those who didn’t follow their ‘teachings.’

            Christianity is not supposed to be Fire and Brimstone. Christianity is supposed to be honor, caring, supporting and yes, GIVING to those in need. This doesn’t mean giving your money away, outside of your tithe to God but rather finding ways to help people who are in worse shape than yourself. Clothe the naked, as it were, even if its with your own cast-off rags. If they lack work, give them work and pay them fairly for the task performed. If they lack a home, help them find a home or support a shelter that gives them a sense of permanence.

            Christianity is not hate; Christianity is love. Zealotry and extremism is hate.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          You left out the KKK, Zippy.

  • avatar
    Master Baiter

    Virtue signaling.

    The Paris agreement wasn’t binding anyway. And if it was good deal, why not pass it through Congress like the Constitution says? Answer: Even many Democrats could not have supported it.

    Deals like this that drive up energy prices don’t hurt big, global companies. They hurt small companies, so of course the CEOs of large companies support them.
    .
    .

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    Whether climate change is real or not doesn’t matter. Why not try and reduce unwanted emissions?

    I do think climate change is occurring, but how we manage it is a problem for scientist. Fnckwits like Trump are not qualified.

    Many comments above is filled with quackery, by people who are justifying their fear of the unknown with somw laughable paradigms.

    The Paris accord has little to do with a carbon tax or the world again supressing the USA. What bullsh!t.

    Let’s face it. Trump is unsuitable and incapable of leading the US let alone the free world in the direction needed. This is just another naail in the desyruction of a great nation.

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      If the American middle class was not the fattened cow walking into the slaughter house, why are so many people losing their marbles? Climate change will not effect these old people in their lifetimes, and they all know they can’t actually promise climate stability or lower sea levels. They were obviously hoping for financial and political gain during their own lifetime.

      This is an economic problem, not an ecological problem. Climate scientists need to be silent so the commercial and behavioral sciences can go to work. Some of the best soft scientists are in the US. We will be fine without the Paris Disagreement.

      • 0 avatar
        Vulpine

        @TW5: I am one of those “old people” now and I have personally seen how things have changed over the years. More, I had the luck to experience the direct effects of just ONE way we can make a difference–but it’s one that the vast majority of travelers won’t want to accept. Five days of no commercial air traffic made for some of the most beautiful late-summer weather I had ever experienced in my life. For being on the Atlantic coast, for those five days I experienced weather more characteristic of mid-autumn with cooler days and notably lower humidity. Moreover, for that five day period EVERY weather forecast for temperatures was high by no less than five degrees F because outside of the lack of aircraft there were no atmospheric changes that would indicate a drop in temperature; no cold fronts, no clouds, nothing else different from previously-predicted forecasts.

        There are those who insist that aviation cannot have that kind of effect but I would like them to show me what else could have caused these notable changes from ‘normal’, especially when they reverted to ‘normal’ within about a day of resuming flights. Logic is the science of cause and effect. I saw the effect and deduced the cause. The resumption of flights so closely correlated to the resumption of ‘typical’ weather confirmed the logic. Now, prove to me that I am wrong.

        • 0 avatar
          TW5

          @Vulpine

          Delusion is not a matter of correct or incorrect, and the only people who can convince you of the fact are mental health professionals.

          The only thing you’ve witnessed during your life time is the reversal of many impending ecological disasters. Reductions in smog, water pollution, and oceanic pollution in the United States, closing of the hole in the ozone, and two natural gas revolutions that that have drastically reduced the rate of CO2 emissions. Optimistic and placid are the only personality traits your age should warrant.

          Whatever weather improvements you believed you witnessed during 9/11 can be directed to Elon Musk, Leo Dicaprio, and all of the eco-warriors who fly around on their private jets.

          In case you are not aware, public mass air transit is actually more efficient than driving from a CO2 emissions standpoint. Though I’m not sure how you could be unaware of this fact and the DOT study behind it, since you are so well educated on these subjects.

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            As I said before, TW5, CO2 is not the only greenhouse pollutant we’re putting into our atmosphere. There is another that is much more prevalent simply because it is natural AND already exists in gaseous form in the upper atmosphere. But when we change its state from gas to liquid or gas to solid, that change triggers an atmospheric shift that starts reflecting heat back down to the surface and makes the air more humid. And “mass air transit” is the means by which that gas becomes a solid in the upper atmosphere.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      Remember when the US walked away from Kyoto? Oh the humanity! Wailing and gnashing! “US tells planet to fk off and die!” Ahhhh, it burns!!!

      What happened after that? Fracking and horizontal drilling, which the watermelons have resisted with every fiber of their hemp. Result? Abundant and cheap natural gas, which watermelons resisted…you get the idea. The US is one of the only countries that met or exceeded the targets set up by Kyoto. Most other countries…not so much. China and India? Forget it. No one even tried to slow them down.

      Even Germany is building new clean coal plants to replace their perfectly safe nuclear plants that a hysterical Merkel ordered shuttered. So…taking nuclear off line and replacing it with coal. Sounds like you are really committed, Angela, or should be.

      If the rest of the world had any clue what the fk they were doing, it would make sense to join them. As it stands, they are just greedy, stupid politicians and bureaucrats eager, as always, to accumulate power and parasitically suck down other people’s money.

      Americans, led by the evil, greedy, private sector, are doing a much better job and are already one of the most energy-efficient nations on earth. Thanks to private ownership of mineral rights, and greedy capitalists, North America will soon also be energy self-sufficient and a major exporter as well. Bring on the prosperity, president Trump, we are hungry for it. It’s about fking time.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        thelaine,
        Oh bullsh!t with your pro Trump paranoid crap. Is your last name Bannon?

        The truth is the US emits far more pollution per capita than China, or for that matter most any nation that has manufacturing.

        Man, you pro Trumpers are classic selfish fools.

        • 0 avatar
          TW5

          @ Big Al from Oz

          Per capita is irrelevant. You are only pointing out that most Chinese are still destitute, despite the economic miracle of the last 40 years.

          Emissions per GDP is relevant, and the US is competitive with the rest of the G20. Given Europes track record of achieving virtually nothing with extensive regulation, the US will be superior in a few more generations, if we continue on our own way.

          At which point the EU and UN will invent a new religion to pilfer the US.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Exactly.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            TW5,
            Its only irrelevant because it doesn’t suit you.

            Why should you be given different privileges. Are you that selfish and arrogant?

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            Life consumes a great deal of resources. Productive people are a more privileged class, hence CO2 per GDP, which gives an advantage to all developed nations.

            That’s life. I’m sorry if it doesn’t suit you. Poverty is not a virtue, and it should not be rewarded. CO2 per capita is only relevant in undeveloped economies where imputed domestic income doesn’t show up in GDP statistics.

  • avatar
    markf

    This is why Trump was elected, to tell global elitists to F Off. That fact that EVERY major lefty news outlet, moron celebrity and SJW TTAC commenters went immediately apoplectic proves he made the correct decision….

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    The effects of Global Warming can be debated, but there is also the question of leadership. A leader does not just terminate their involvement in an agreement without first trying to discuss and renegotiate the agreement. Also a leader needs to have a thick skin and not react to every slight whether perceived or real. Whether you voted for Trump or not he is our President and he should conduct himself as such and not. A President or any Leader should not react until they think about the consequences of their actions. The automobile industry as most other industry needs to have stable policies and a clear vision of what policies will be in order to plan for future products. Anything that a President does can be changed by a future President making any future product planning more difficult and increasing costs. Before any decision is made both the pros and cons and consequences of a change need to be considered. This applies to any leader whether the leader is liberal, moderate, or conservative and regardless of party affiliation. It is easy to react to a situation and say or tweet the first thing that comes to mind but it takes more skill to think before reacting.

    • 0 avatar
      thelaine

      If Obama had submitted the agreement to the Senate, it would have been soundly rejected. It was just a giant money transfer from American taxpayers into the sewer of foreign bureaucracies. A billion dollars of tax money has already been wasted, with many, many billions more pledged. It was criminal. Good on ya Trump. Somebody is finally looking out for the American worker.

  • avatar
    Big Al from Oz

    I can’t believe the belief some have regarding the US.

    How can there be so many arrogant ill informed people in a supposed modern nation?

    How many of you believe that the rest of the world is out to screw the US.

    Is the US filled with totally insecure people who want to believe this crap I’m reading.

    Wow, you voted a d!ckhead as your leader and now you’ll pay the price.

    Putting global warming aside, every nation is more or less encountering the same problems as the US.

    The US isn’t the only country on this planet.

    If Trump continues offending and bullying others the US will lose friends and allies.

    The US needs these “others” to maintain its stanard of living.

    How fncking stupid can some of you be?

    • 0 avatar
      markf

      If it’s “friends and allies” like you then we are better off without you.

      Tell us how you really feel.

      The rest of the world looks at Uncle Sam like Uncle Sugar. Trump is 100% right on NATO, they contribute almost nothing, money, equipment, soldiers. That treaty is totally useless and we pay 90%+ of the bill in both blood and treasure. The only 2 reliable US Allies are the UK and Australia……

      You might want to see a doctor about getting treatment for your Trump derangement syndrome.

      • 0 avatar
        thelaine

        The best thing about Trump is how he drives the lefties batsh*t. After 8 long years of President Carter II, it is like a fresh spring rain.

        • 0 avatar
          JimZ

          If anyone wants a window into why politics in the US is such a toxic cesspool, look at this post above by thelaine.

          This person believes the President’s job is to drive people of a different ideology “batsh*t.”

          If that doesn’t say it all, I don’t know what does.

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            “This person believes the President’s job is to drive people of a different ideology “batsh*t.”

            If that doesn’t say it all, I don’t know what does.”

            He never said it was Trump’s job. Read his actual words.

            It’s a beautiful extra, I agree. Watching Liberal heads explode of nothing but hyperbole.

            As I type this the air is apparently becoming so polluted and the earth heating so fast we shall be dead within minutes….

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            It’s only “toxic” when the right fights back. When they roll over, there is peace and harmony.

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            “It’s only “toxic” when the right fights back. When they roll over, there is peace and harmony.”

            True that. For 8 years politics wasn’t “toxic” of course now the Libs are out of power it is “toxic” again

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        markf,
        There are many who want to immigrate to the US.

        But your comment is an over reach and overstated.

        Every wealthy nation is confronted with this problem. Like I stated the US IS not the only nation with the problems you encounter.

        Your comment illustrates how narrow minded and arrogant you are.

        I think the US has issues, I also think its biggest issue are the fearful and ignorant people such as yourself.

        • 0 avatar
          markf

          “Your comment illustrates how narrow minded and arrogant you are.”

          This is why Trump was elected and why he will be reelected. Plenty of folks in America think like you, “my candidate didn’t win” so Trump voters (and Bush and Romney and McCain and every Republican in history) are all “fearful and ignorant” Which really means you are just mad we are not Liberals.

      • 0 avatar
        ect

        markf, I find it very telling that, while posters like myself and Lou_BC offer up real data to support our positions, you, thelaine, TW25 and the other Trumpkins offer up no data at all – only mindless vitriol and prejudice.

        Sad. Very sad.

        • 0 avatar
          markf

          “only mindless vitriol and prejudice”

          OK, Mr. Data cite one example of something prejudicial I have said.

          • 0 avatar
            ect

            markf, prejudice is the expression of opinion based on preconceived notions that are not supported by reason or data. You express strong opinions, but you never support anything you say with actual data.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @thelaine – “passive-aggressive”, by definition, no.

        • 0 avatar
          thelaine

          I find it sad that you need to be spoon-fed, ect. The Paris Accords did nothing to save the planet. It did, however, transfer a billion taxpayer dollars from US taxpayers to the UN Climate Fund, with billions more to come. You were for that. The president was against it. I agree with the president on this one.

          You can look it up. Try Google. It is a popular search engine for accessing information available on the internet. It is run by your fellow leftists, so you will be putting money in their pockets while you benefit from the world of information they provide.

          Obama admin gave a billion dollars of US taxpayers money – which taxpayers earned by working like dogs and then were forced to give to the government – to the UN Climate fund, which many people think is a yuuge waste. Much more was pledged. Many people think the money could be better spent at home, or, better yet, returned to the taxpayers. That is an opinion. What data do you need to comprehend that? Can you not find the information you need to comprehend this argument without having it brought to your table with the wine list?

          The US walked away from the Kyoto treaty, if you recall (you can look this up on Google if you are too young to recall) and the left went around the bend, just as you folks are doing now. End of the world! Literally, bro. End of the world. Church of Climatology, Al Ron Gore, build an arc, fire and ice Armageddon type rhetoric. (Yet here we are.)

          Nevertheless, the fracking revolution, which occurred due to evil capitalism, and the resulting natural gas bonanza meant that the US reduced “carbon emissions” without binding themselves to a totally unnecessary and costly treaty. The US senate was never going to pass that one either. You can look that up. That is pretty much what I have asserted. What “data” do you need to be fed in order to comprehend that? It is not lack of data, but a contrary belief system that is confusing you.

          Where is the “mindless vitriol?” Where is the “prejudice.” Those are really vitriolic assertions. Can YOU back up YOUR mindless vitriol with data? Do you understand sarcasm, wit, rhetoric, or humor or is all strong opposing opinion frightening to you?

          Here is some mindful vitriol: If you need to be spoon fed facts like a toddler eating breakfast, it is no wonder you are a leftist. (Sorry to call you a leftist, but it rarely fails to infuriate leftists and since you have made accusations of your own, you have it coming.) Do some independent thinking and do your own research. Here is a hint: do research outside your normal leftist baby blanket sources.

          Get different opinions, supported by different interpretations of the “data.” There is an unlimited amount of data, and you have to be able to analyze it yourself without your head exploding or succumbing to the desire to scurry back to a safe space.

          A clever sophist can easily fashion an entire argument from data that will support any position he chooses (sexist grammar formulation) with airtight facts. He just has to leave out or mischaracterize the data he doesn’t doesn’t like.

          It is the biggest leftist conceit of all that they are forming their opinions based on the data, like Mr. Spock, and that they are neutral truth investigators, and that they go where the facts lead them, and that their ideological opponents are irrational. This is nothing but moral narcissism.

          For my entire life the left harped on the undeniable scientific facts regarding “peak oil.” CRISIS!!! People who would not sign on were science deniers. I am not hearing that so much right now.

          There are plenty of irrational people on all sides, and hypocrisy is as plentiful as hydrocarbons, but conservative philosophy is grounded the same “data set” as “progressive” ideology. That is where the real work begins. You have to think for yourself.

          You may eventually form an opinion contrary to your hive, although I doubt it. God help you if that happens. The hive don’t play that. THAT is sad. Bigly sad. Yuuugely sad.

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            Oh yes, the settled science of “Peak Oil” been hearing about peak oil for 50 years now. Funny how so much “settled science” eventually becomes unsettled……

          • 0 avatar
            ect

            thelaine – boy, you sure have a lot of time on your hands.

            I have 3 university degrees and spent many years as a C-suite executive in global companies. There are areas where I believe IU have considerable expertise. Environmental sciences is not one of them.

            So, when climate scientists who do have advanced degrees and considerable expertise in their field arrive at a consensus that human activity (the crap we’re spewing into the air), by itself, is raising the average temperature of the planet and that this will have devastating consequences for the planet and our species if we do not take action to at least reduce greenhouse gas emissions, I respect their expertise.

            You and your ilk see the same science, decide that it’s not what you want to be true, and simply deny that it could possibly be right. That’s consistent with the OED definition of prejudice.

            Anyway, I have better things to do than than offer rational thought to people who have an aversion to it. Over and out.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            There are many educated and intelligent fools ect. Many of them run our colleges and universities, for example, and award degrees to other fools.

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            “I have 3 university degrees” Translation: “Shut up I am credentialed!”

            “So, when climate scientists who do have advanced degrees and considerable expertise in their field arrive at a consensus that human activity (the crap we’re spewing into the air), by itself, is raising the average temperature of the planet and that this will have devastating consequences for the planet and our species if we do not take action to at least reduce greenhouse gas emissions, I respect their expertise.”

            And the experts who counter them? The experts who disagree? The experts who called out the data manipulation (East Angelica) Do you respect them or ignore them because they do not fit in your worldview?

            “You and your ilk see the same science, decide that it’s not what you want to be true, and simply deny that it could possibly be right. That’s consistent with the OED definition of prejudice.”

            No, it’s not prejudice, it’s common sense. Like Peak Oil I have been hearing the dire warning for 40 years (back when it was “Global Cooling”) I have seen multiple “we only have X years to save the Earth” predictions come and pas without incident.

            It’s all nonsense, a scam cooked up to exert ever more control on people, that is what the Left does. The Government grows, our freedom shrinks, that’s the plan.

            There were once alligators at the North pole, Wyoming used to be a tropical rain forest? Was that done by man? Do you DENY natural climate variation?

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “There were once alligators at the North pole, Wyoming used to be a tropical rain forest? Was that done by man? Do you DENY natural climate variation?”

            Let me answer your question with another question: How long did it take for the climate to go from what you just described to the next ice age where glaciation covered the majority of this continent? How long did it take to go to the next hot period?

            Yes, the climate does change and enough cycles have been discovered by geologists and climate scientists to gain an approximate RATE of change. Our current rate of change has flown off the scale from previous cycles and that rate started rising, oh so coincidentally, with the advent of the Industrial Age of man. That rate has continued to accelerate and all these climate conferences are trying to do is determine Why and ask, “How do we slow or halt that unnatural rise?” I highly doubt we will totally stop this current sudden increase in climactic heat but even if we can slow it, we might give nature a chance to recover before it destroys human society.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            “I have 3 university degrees” Translation: “Shut up I am credentialed!”

            Those who have higher levels of education are more familiar with the scientific process are usually trained to use “critical thinking”. Debate tends to be more centered around the exchange of facts.

            Those who do not have higher levels of education tend to use “common sense”. In the realm of climate change and increasing C02 levels, the effects aren’t readily apparent. The selective dissemination of information makes them more easily swayed since emotions drive their decision making. Conformational bias i.e. latching onto information that aligns with their emotional beliefs are the norm.

            “And the experts who counter them? The experts who disagree? The experts who called out the data manipulation (East Angelica) Do you respect them or ignore them because they do not fit in your worldview?”

            In relation to climate change, 4% of the scientific community has a dissenting view.

            Ask oceanographers about the acidification of the world’s oceans. They aren’t climatologists/climate change scientists but are concerned about rising C02 levels. Ask them about rising ocean surface temperatures.

            One ALSO needs to look at corroborating evidence of climate change.

            Where is your primary evidence that it is *NOT* a problem?
            Where is your primary evidence that it is *NOT* anthropomorphic?
            I’d also like to see corroborating evidence to back those primary sources of evidence.

            That is how *logical* discourse works.

            I eagerly await your factual evidence.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            The debate over what used to be called “catastrophic anthropogenic global warming” and is now called “climate change” is not even relevant to the Paris agreement.

            Regardless, the agreement is rubbish and just milks US taxpayers and suppresses the US economy. The US has reduced its CO2 emissions as a byproduct of capitalism and by rejecting foreign demands for cash and economic restrictions. Have a look at how much Germans (and Californians) pay for electricity. Not good. Very bad. Losers.

          • 0 avatar

            “I have 3 university degrees and spent many years as a C-suite executive in global companies.”

            Have you created anything?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @thelaine – why don’t you answer my questions.

            Per capita the USA is #2 in the world in C02 emissions. China is #1.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            And you didn’t answer my question, Lou. When did the Aussies become such snotty, hypocritical as*holes? Actually, to be fair, I didn’t ask you that before. It just struck me now. I’m starting to prefer outwardly polite but passive-aggressive Canadians, I think.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Do you know what “anthropomorphic” means, Lou? Because you wrote it in your post.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @thelaine – meant to say anthropogenic. My bad with anthropomorphic. And yes, I do know what it means.

            Ironically, you say it is rather human of #meincovfefefailedpotus to incorrectly use “covfefe”.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Actually Lou, it was funny. I knew you knew and that it was a simple mistake. I just imagined anthropomorphic global warming and laughed.

            As for your other comment, you are confusing me with someone else. I never said what you are asserting, nor would I. I do not follow politicians as if they were leaders or great people. You are projecting. It disgusted me to see the worship of ObamaJesus by so many. The left is pathetic and eager to roll over and show their bellies to charismatics who pitch redistribution. I favor small government because I want to give as little power to politicians as possible.

            Politicians are just ambitious people. Sometimes you agree with them on policy, like when they withdraw from some ridiculous “Climate” agreement with witless, failing Europeans and obnoxious Australians. Trump also provides a bonus in that he drives the left crazy. It is amusing to see if you find leftists repulsive

            Still, he is just a guy. I do not care about him one way or another. I do not think he is special. He is a man who had the ego to think he could be president and went for it, just like the rest of them. I would prefer never to see him or speak to him, or any of these politicians. They are in it for themselves, which is fine, but I don’t pretend otherwise. They are all the same – power hungry. Small government good. Big government bad. See that?

            I confess a reverence for Lincoln. Washington really was an exceptional man as well. As for the rest, not so much. The leftists are always eager to fall under the spell of guys like Obama, Castro and Hugo Chavez, who promise utopia. The New York Times was over the moon about Stalin, even after millions had been killed. Not me.
            I am not a utopian and I do not follow politicians. You made that up.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            Actually Lou, it was funny. I knew you knew and that it was a simple mistake. I just imagined anthropomorphic global warming and laughed.

            As for your other comment, you are confusing me with someone else. I never said what you are asserting, nor would I. I do not follow politicians as if they were leaders or great people. You are projecting. It disgusted me to see the worship of ObamaJesus by so many. The left is pathetic and eager to roll over and show their bellies to charismatics who pitch redistribution. I favor small government because I want to give as little power to politicians as possible.

            Politicians are just ambitious people. Sometimes you agree with them on policy, like when they withdraw from some ridiculous “Climate” agreement with witless, failing Europeans and obnoxious Australians. Trump also provides a bonus in that he drives the left crazy. It is amusing to see if you find leftists repulsive

            Still, he is just a guy. I do not care about him one way or another. I do not think he is special. He is a man who had the ego to think he could be president and went for it, just like the rest of them. I would prefer never to see him or speak to him, or any of these politicians. They are in it for themselves, which is fine, but I don’t pretend otherwise. They are all the same – power hungry. Small government good. Big government bad. See that?

            I confess a reverence for Lincoln. Washington really was an exceptional man as well. As for the rest, not so much. The leftists are always eager to fall under the spell of guys like Obama, Castro and Hugo Chavez, who promise utopia. The New York Times was over the moon about Stalin, even after millions had been killed. Not me.

            I am not a utopian and I do not follow politicians. You made that up.

      • 0 avatar
        RobertRyan

        @markf
        ” Rest of the World” real,y does not wring it’s hands over what the US does. They are more concerned about issues closer to home that affect them. If a US action affects them directly, then different matter.

        • 0 avatar
          markf

          “@markf
          ” Rest of the World” real,y does not wring it’s hands over what the US does. They are more concerned about issues closer to home that affect them. If a US action affects them directly, then different matter.”

          You got an Aussie and a Canuck who feel otherwise……

        • 0 avatar
          markf

          “Those who do not have higher levels of education tend to use “common sense”. In the realm of climate change and increasing C02 levels, the effects aren’t readily apparent. The selective dissemination of information makes them more easily swayed since emotions drive their decision making. Conformational bias i.e. latching onto information that aligns with their emotional beliefs are the norm.”

          Translation:”I am credentialed and therefore smarter so shut up. You simpletons are incapable of understanding the nuances of the Gloal Warming Scam”

          “And the experts who counter them? The experts who disagree? The experts who called out the data manipulation (East Angelica) Do you respect them or ignore them because they do not fit in your worldview?”

          “In relation to climate change, 4% of the scientific community has a dissenting view.”

          So science is now conducted based on majority vote? What was the percentage of scientists who believed the Earth was the center of the universe when Galileo was on trial?

          The fact that alarmist use the ridiculous “9x% of scientist agree” show the science is NOT settled and those numbers are spew in an attempt to shut up non-believers.

          You gotta be pretty ignorant and arrogant to believe a bunch of bureaucrats change the global climate and control the very heavens…..

          Here is my evidence, 40+ years of insane, ridiculous, WRONG climate predictions:

          “The 1975 Newsweek article entitled “The Cooling World,” which claimed Earth’s temperature had been plunging for decades due to humanity’s activities, opens as follows:

          There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. ”

          “A new ice age and worldwide starvation: In the 1960s and ’70s, top mainstream media outlets, such as Newsweek above, hyped the imminent global-cooling apocalypse. Even as late as the early 1980s, prominent voices still warned of potential doomsday scenarios owing to man-made cooling, ranging from mass starvation caused by cooling-induced crop failures to another “Ice Age” that would kill most of mankind.

          Among the top global-cooling theorists were Obama’s current “science czar” John Holdren and Paul Ehrlich, the author of Population Bomb, which predicted mass starvation worldwide. In the 1971 textbook Global Ecology, the duo warned that overpopulation and pollution would produce a new ice age, claiming that human activities are “said to be responsible for the present world cooling trend.” The pair fingered “jet exhausts” and “man-made changes in the reflectivity of the earth’s surface through urbanization, deforestation, and the enlargement of deserts” as potential triggers for his new ice age. They worried that the man-made cooling might produce an “outward slumping in the Antarctic ice cap” and “generate a tidal wave of proportions unprecedented in recorded history.”

          Holdren predicted that a billion people would die in “carbon-dioxide induced famines” as part of a new “Ice Age” by the year 2020.”

          “Global warming — temperature predictions: Perhaps nowhere has the stunning failure of climate predictions been better illustrated than in the “climate models” used by the UN. The UN climate bureaucracy, known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), produces periodic reports on “climate science” — often dubbed the “Bible” of climatology. In its latest iteration, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the UN featured 73 computer models and their predictions. All of them “predicted” varying degrees of increased warming as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased.

          The problem is that every single model was wrong — by a lot. Not only did temperatures not rise by as much as the models predicted, they have failed to rise at all since around 1996, according to data collected by five official temperature data­sets. Based just on the laws of probability, a monkey rolling the dice would have done far better at predicting future temperatures than the UN’s models. That suggests deliberate fraud is likely at work.”

          “The end of snow: The IPCC has also hyped snowless winters. In its 2001 report, it claimed “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.” Again, though, the climate refused to cooperate. The latest data from Rutgers’ Global Snow Lab showed an all-time new record high in autumn snow cover across the northern hemisphere in 2014, when more than 22 million square kilometers were covered.

          And according to data from the National Operational Hydrologic Remote Sensing Center cited by meteorologist Mike Mogil, “U.S. snow cover on the morning of Dec. 1, 2015 is the highest on record for this day of the year.” In all, 38.7 percent of the United States was covered in snow, surpassing the previous record — 36.5 percent — set in 2006. Worldwide, similar trends have been observed. Global Snow Lab data also shows Eurasian autumn snow cover has grown by 50 percent since records began in 1979.

          After their predictions were proven wrong, alarmists claimed global warming was actually to blame for the record cold and snow across America and beyond. Seriously. Among the “experts” making that argument was former cooling zealot Holdren, Obama’s science czar: “A growing body of evidence suggests that the kind of extreme cold being experienced by much of the United States as we speak is a pattern we can expect to see with increasing frequency, as global warming continues.”

          “The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be fleeing those areas. However, not only did the areas in question fail to produce a single “climate refugee,” by 2010, population levels for those regions were still soaring. In many cases, the areas that were supposed to be producing waves of “climate refugees” and becoming uninhabitable turned out to be some of the fastest-growing places on Earth.”

          https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22289-climate-alarmists-have-been-wrong-about-virtually-everything

          But this time it’s different, right?

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @markf –
            “Translation:”I am credentialed and therefore smarter so shut up. You simpletons are incapable of understanding the nuances of the Gloal Warming Scam””

            Nope – if all you do is your typical “anger and hostility” song and dance, it is a short step to assuming that you do not level of education to engage in the process of critical thinking.

            “Gloal Warming Scam”
            I won’t make fun of that comment since it is obviously a typo.

            ““A new ice age and worldwide starvation: In the 1960s and ’70s, top mainstream media outlets, such as Newsweek above, hyped the imminent global-cooling apocalypse.”

            That turned out to be the media misinterpreting the information released and hyped that misinformation.
            Care to cite the actual study in question?
            The “right” loves to cite that example over and over and over and over again.

            ““The end of snow: The IPCC has also hyped snowless winters. In its 2001 report, it claimed “milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms.”

            Again, care to cite that study?
            Milder winters have the opposite effect. You don’t get heavy snowfalls in exceptionally cold weather.

            @MarkF – all you have done is mined data from sources that confirm your beliefs. Each quote you have posted when “searched” takes me to a right wing site.

            That is “confirmational bias” at its finest (or worst).

            I’ve said this before, people don’t seek the truth, they seek validation of their beliefs.

            Your very long post just confirmed this comment:
            “Those who do not have higher levels of education tend to use “common sense”. In the realm of climate change and increasing C02 levels, the effects aren’t readily apparent. The selective dissemination of information makes them more easily swayed since emotions drive their decision making. Conformational bias i.e. latching onto information that aligns with their emotional beliefs are the norm.”

            Care to try again?

          • 0 avatar
            28-Cars-Later

            I got yo credentials right here.

            MASTER OF ASSHATTERY
            SCHOOL OF HARD KNOCKS
            CLASS OF 1999

          • 0 avatar
            Vulpine

            “So science is now conducted based on majority vote? What was the percentage of scientists who believed the Earth was the center of the universe when Galileo was on trial?”
            —- Those weren’t scientists, that was the Church–specifically the Roman Catholic Church–that put Galileo on trial. The Church at the time was absolutely anti-science; they saw it as witchcraft, alchemy and other sorts of satanism.

            As to the 2015 snow data, well, picking one year out of thirty five is cherry picking at its finest. One year is not a trend and the climate concerns are following the trends, not single events. I’m not calling the data false; I just want to see how it compares to the years before it and if the years after show similar numbers. Show me the trend.

            And yes, global warming CAN contribute to extremes in weather–you’re adding energy to the atmosphere and the more energy you add, the more violent it becomes. We’ve seen this in the US as massive flooding events recently where we didn’t used to see these kinds of floods. Houston, Texas, for instance, is not noted for having monsoon-like rains dumping a foot of rain onto it in the course of 24 hours; in snow terms that’s like 120″ of snow in one day. Those kinds of storms in both rain and snow are uncharacteristic for some of the places in which they’re happening.

            No, I’ll admit that we as consumers and they as scientists don’t know everything; but what they DO know is incontrovertible UNLESS you can present hard proofs that they’ve made a mistake.

            As for “climate refugees”, we are seeing them, they just haven’t been carrying that label. These “climate refugees” are people trying to escape war and hardship that is being waged in the name of religion but has much more to do with survival. Many of these war areas are shown to us by people fighting in the area, both on “our” side and theirs. The land, essentially, is desert. They don’t know science, they simply want to survive. Those lands today either don’t have enough water or they suddenly have too much water. Water, either way, is killing them because of the extreme shifts they’ve been experiencing.

            No, you can’t look and any one thing and say, “This proves climate change is false.” You have to look at the global effects where some places are recording record heat while others record cold. You have to look at where snow is falling vs where it isn’t. And more, you have to compare them to historical evidence and researched through geology and the other Earth sciences. No one class of scientist is saying, “The sky is falling”; the many different schools of science are saying, “conditions are unnatural–different from what they’ve been for as long as we’ve been able to determine through our studies.” A slow climate shift over tens of thousands of years is natural; a shift such as we’re experiencing today over the course of a mere 300 years that just happens to be coincidental to us using coal as fuel (and later oil) is not natural.

            Can I say coal and oil are the specific causes? Maybe, up to a point. The burning of them has put things into our air that has had an obvious, if unrecognized by some, effect. But that coal and oil wouldn’t be burning as it is without human effort, so we are the ultimate cause. Can we ultimately stop the rise? That depends on where we are in the cycle and whether or not we have fast-forwarded the overall cycle, which is a possibility. SOME of those scientists say we have already passed the point of no return and the best we can do is try to slow its progress. Others say if we can stop the man-made part of the problem, the Earth would, shall we say, clear its throat and fall back to normal. But I don’t see any scientists saying, “this sudden shift in overall global temperatures is natural.” Those who are saying that are the skeptics and the deniers that WE are the cause.

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      @Big Al: What many Americans don’t know and don’t want to believe is that most foreign nations believe the US is out to screw them; and Trump’s withdrawal from Paris has pretty much proven it to them. Yes, even as long ago as 30 years, I witnessed first hand how people around the world look on the US as an arrogant bully. It’s no wonder some ‘lesser’ countries openly hate us for that arrogance.

      I don’t know when, but I feel the time is coming when the US will be considered the new Nazi stronghold.

      • 0 avatar
        markf

        I have spent 15 years living in 3 different countries and the first question I always get asked is “can you help me get a Visa” I guess that equals hatred.

        “I don’t know when, but I feel the time is coming when the US will be considered the new Nazi stronghold.”

        Yes, we are minutes away from sending Jews, Gays and other “undesirables” to the death camps. Are you just trolling or do you honestly not realize how stupid you comment is?

      • 0 avatar
        markf

        “@Big Al: What many Americans don’t know and don’t want to believe is that most foreign nations believe the US is out to screw them”

        Yes, like we screwed Europe twice last century by bailing them out of both World Wars.

        Americans are MEAN!

        • 0 avatar
          Big Al from Oz

          markf,
          The US, Australia, Canada and NZ were the countries the expended lots of resources rebuilding Europe and Japan.

          And we did it for money, not love.

          • 0 avatar
            thelaine

            True. Australians are so greedy they are selling China coal as fast as they can rip it out of the ground. China has developed an appetite for prosperity and the Aussies have stepped up. Nobody wants to be poor, cold and hungry. That’s why the Chinese burn Australian coal.

            Carbon dioxide emissions caused by individuals, communities and nations are closely correlated with wealth. It has been this way since the industrial revolution, which is responsible for a truly miraculous improvement in worldwide living standards.

            The debate over global warming is really moot. People all over the world are burning hydrocarbons as fast as they can, and for a very good reason. They don’t want to be poor. Kyoto changed nothing. Paris changes nothing. It is virtue-signalling theater.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          And there, again, is proof of American conceit. That is EXACTLY the attitude we tend to show people when we visit their country:
          • Ha! We saved your assets! You owe us!
          • Ha! We beat your sorry…!

          Now, I’ll grant that not ALL American do this, but enough do that it causes problems. Then we have corporate America like the oil companies that do their worst to suck all those nations’ raw materials like oil, minerals, whatever at the lowest prices they can get away with, just as Long Island was purchased from its residents for what was essentially worthless strings of beads. And yes, if you listen to those people, they do feel like we Americans are screwing them.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        @Vulpine- I haven’t spent much time abroad but the animosity towards the USA is very real. It was worse close to large U S bases. My wife and I were always told to make sure we were easily identified as Canadians. Ironically,we once were cornered by an incredibly loud and obnoxious fellow who thought we were Americans pretending to be Canadians to get better respect from the locals. That fellow turned out to be an American.

        • 0 avatar
          Vulpine

          Thank you, Lou. And as you can see from the comments above, Americans don’t want to believe it.

          I’m one of those ‘quiet’ Americans. I don’t go out lording it over everybody else; I really want to learn about the land and its culture. But that’s really hard to do when everybody thinks you have an ulterior motive.

          • 0 avatar
            markf

            “Nope. You just proved American conceit.”

            Yes, denying “the time is coming when the US will be considered the new Nazi stronghold”
            is the height of conceit.

            You two are paranoid. 14 years overseas , 9 in the Middle East and I never had any issues.

            What you two call “lording over” the rest of us call cultural confidence

          • 0 avatar

            “I’m one of those ‘quiet’ Americans. I don’t go out lording it over everybody else;”

            Funny, from here it looks like you put yourself on a pedestal compared to those filled with “American conceipt”.

            It was DeGaulle, a Frenchman, who said that his country had no friends, only interests. Have you ever spoken of French conceipt?

            As an aside, I find it perplexing that the USofA is considered the font of all things bad in the world and Britain is considered to have exploited its colonies, yet France gets a pass for it’s own colonialism and Belgium’s genocide in the Congo is never mentioned. Japanese racism towards gaijin is tolerated and just about every other Asian ethnicity isn’t thrilled about the Chinese.

            Sorry, I’m a Jew who knows something about world history and I won’t hear America belittled by Europeans and those who look to Europe as some kind of moral example. You leftists worry about America becoming a Nazi state but admire the very culture that cultivated and birthed Nazism, Fascism and Communism, socialist movements that murdered scores of millions of people.

            Racism and slavery have been universal behaviors. There are no groups of human beings who don’t act like human beings.

            To quote my Buddhist professor of eastern religions, Lewis Lancaster, “I’ve been all around the world and compared to Europeans, Asians and Africans, Americans are rank amateurs at racism.”

      • 0 avatar
        markf

        “Care to try again?”

        No need to. Your cult like belief in Global Warming does not allow you open your mind.

        When the high Priests are climate alarmism are correct about ONE of their grave warnings then I’ll take them seriously……

        From notoriously “Right Wing” CBS news quoting High Priest Gore:

        “And politicians and corporations have been ignoring the issue for decades, to the point that unless drastic measures to reduce greenhouse gases are taken within the next 10 years, the world will reach a point of no return, Gore said.

        He sees the situation as “a true planetary emergency.”

        http://www.cbsnews.com/news/2006-al-gore-does-sundance/

        So we reached the “point of no return” last year. The Earth is now dead?

        The Global Warming congregation has been wrong on every single prediction, every time we are told this is the “last chance” and every time the Earth and science laugh in your face.

        Go sell your indulgences some place else…….

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      @Big Al

      We didn’t reach superpower status by modeling the US after the post-modern inferiority-complex of social democracy. In fact, our way of life has more or less been achieved by telling the rest of the OECD to go to hell, which Trump has thankfully done again.

      You have nothing to offer. You cannot guarantee superior climate or superior economic conditions for anyone. Your friendship is apparently fickle and based upon increasingly complicated conditions. Furthermore, you don’t understand that many nations, China most of all, will simply cheat the Paris Accord if it gets in their way. We have to make it economically unprofitable for them to do so, which doesn’t involve the feckless UN or EU imposing penalties. They will never do it.

      The international community is obsessed with telling the US what to do. It’s not going to happen, especially not when the United States is running huge trade deficits to prop up dozens of national economies, particularly those in the EU who are too lazy to meet their NATO obligations.

      We don’t do international groupthink or kumbaya. It doesn’t fix anything.

      • 0 avatar
        Lou_BC

        “It’s not going to happen, especially not when the United States is running huge trade deficits to prop up dozens of national economies, particularly those in the EU who are too lazy to meet their NATO obligations.”

        @TW5 -Since you are parroting #meincovfefefailedpotus propaganda please explain the following:
        1. Various way to measure trade imbalances?
        2. Various ways to offset trade imbalances?
        3. Why do you view trade imbalances are inherently bad?

        Please explain how countries are *too lazy* to meet their NATO obligations?
        Please explain why the USA has military bases all over the world?
        Please compare and contrast USA militarization of the globe to that of the former British Empire?

        I eagerly await your response.

        • 0 avatar
          TW5

          1. I’m not sure what you mean? Are you talking about BoP vs. goods/services. It probably doesn’t matter based upon the questions you asked, I don’t think you really know what you’re talking about.

          2. Currency devaluation is the natural offset. When we demand more foreign currency to purchase goods and services, exchange rates should change, unless the US represents are particularly wonderful investment opportunity, in which case offsetting capital flows will thwart currency adjustments. Based upon the subprime mortgage meltdown, the imbalance in real estate investment, high US corporate taxes, US global taxation, and the generally high volatility in the US economy; foreign investors are forcing money into the United States as a means of hedging against the currency manipulation policy adopted by their governments.

          3. Trade imbalances are inherently bad in the long run because they annihilate the working classes and create oligarchs within the capitalist classes. Eventually this imbalance will destroy the underlying marketplace. Rather than liberalize, reform, and deregulate; wealthy oligarchs would prefer to pay higher taxes, which consolidates their control of capital, regulation, and society in general ala Europe.

          4. Germany and France are too lazy to meet their NATO obligations is self-explanatory. They don’t buy equipment from the US, and they are too lazy to design their own equipment. They spend half of their NATO obligation, and they embrace a fundamentally obtuse and inflexible understanding of NATO’s mission, which they claim is solely to avoid direct military conflict with the USSR. As a result, Putin can prop up rogue states around the world, and screw around with NATO, yet the socialist peaceniks claim DJT is the Russian because they don’t want to buy American military equipment. It would be humorous if it weren’t so pathetic.

          5&6. We have military bases all over the world as a result of WWII, not as a result of attempting to colonize the globe. If you are unfamiliar with the difference, you’ll need to enroll in a university.

        • 0 avatar
          Lou_BC

          @TW5 – well said.

          Nice to see someone not be a parrot of #meincovfefefailedpotus.

          Care to do the same with climate change?

          Where is your evidence that it is *NOT* a problem?
          Where is your evidence that it is *NOT* anthropogenic?

          That is what I like to see. Logical discourse.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @ Lou_BC

            I’m in my right mind, and in the right regarding climate science. The issue is not the verity of their claims. The issue is that the climate science community cannot guarantee that the genie can be put back into the bottle, and they rarely have economic or sociological expertise. They can’t stabilize the climate. They can’t reduce the atmospheric concentration of CO2, particularly since so little is man-made emissions. They don’t understand that apocalyptic tales tend to make behavior less flexible or less predictable, if change does occur. Yet they keep flapping their gums and demanding more public funds.

            It doesn’t matter whether they offer good information or bad information, they are utterly inept and mostly irrelevant. Only politicians, who believe in the power of fictitious narratives, support climate change alarmism, mainly because a politicians’ only objective is beating up on political opponents.

            Maybe you can understand the problem in a religious context. If you saw a bunch of clergy on a street corner preaching fire and brimstone and final judgment, and passing a hat for collection money to save the universe, you probably wouldn’t be compelled. Furthermore, you would never assume (even if they were right about the demise of culture and society) that they can make effective policy recommendations about ending global poverty or hunger. You’d never ask them about international tax policy or entitlements to bring about socioeconomic and behavioral changes. Why? Because the odds are clergy are totally unqualified to address the relevant secular issues.

            Yet, you’d still see hundreds of people gathered around the preachers on the street corner, throwing money in the hat, and demanding other people repent so we can all be saved. These true-believers are the same people who listen to climate science regarding global pollution, though the cause of global pollution is far beyond the expertise of the average climate scientist. Climate scientists know they are inept in policy sciences so they only care that you believe them and validate their opinion.

            If you think climate science is worth you time and money, that’s your prerogative, but don’t interfere with the soft sciences that actually deal with negative externalities and human behavior. Don’t let the government use climate science as a new religion to seize control of the masses.

          • 0 avatar
            Lou_BC

            @TW5 – that is an interesting take on the climate debate. That is exactly what is needed.
            Well thought out opinions.
            Those are comments/opinions that I respect.

            Up until this point, all I have heard is name calling and put downs. We need to move away from that and have these sort of exchanges.
            If both sides were to ditch the put-downs and disrespectful comments, the chasm that exists politically might close and we’d actually see government “by the people and for the people”.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Australia sure helped Japan, Korea, China, etc. AND most importantly the US and world.

        Without us I would think the resources needed for rapidly expanding economies would be more expensive, which means our global impact went and made it cheaper to all nations.

        Since Australia’s influence on many commodities is high, we even made your life in America cheaper via cheap Japanese (60s & 70s), Korean (80s & 90s) and Chinese imports, cheaper commodities at home (USA) from beef to wheat, coal for energy, cheap iron and aluminium for cars, construction and on and on.

        Australia even fights side by side with the US and Australia IMPORTS 5 times more from the US than the US imports from Australia.

        Maybe Australia should have a Trumpesque episode and declare the US currency cheating protectionist, like Trump does to any country he doesn’t like.

        Why don’t you Trumptards lobby Trump and declare it is not fair that Australia buys 5 times more than we do from them?

        Because you Trump supporters are weak and fearful, slimmy like the role Danny De Vito plays in Romancing the Stone.

        Weak, whining, fearful people.

        Why?

        Because you need to compete now on a more level playing field as the economic advantage the US gained after WWII dwindles.

        You are trying to set the rules ….. and not many are listening. Not like the old days and you must change.

        How significant will the Big 3 be in a couple of decades?

        Chrysler is lost. GM pulled out of the EU. Even GMH doesn’t manufacture. US auto manufacturers influence in Japan is disappearing.

        • 0 avatar
          TW5

          @ Big Al

          We know Australia’s contributions to the energy market before climatology attempted to usurp the free exchange of goods/services. After climatology, all of the natural resources will be supplied in a manner dictated by unelected international officials who will interpret and execute multi-lateral agreements like the Paris Accord.

          Regarding the US economy and middle class, you have no idea what you are talking about. After WWII, we were spending 10%-12% of our GDP on nothing but technological advancements and manufacturing economies of scale. Our performance was so far beyond the means of other countries that it began driving them away, specifically Western European countries who bunkered themselves behind the protectionist EU.

          The US changed its leadership strategy from performance to empathy and welfare. Instead of flying to the moon and funding STEM via DARPA, GI bill, NASA, etc., we started behaving like defeated European social democracies. We dismantled the military industrial complex, which was actually funding the middle class and eliminating poverty at a fastest rate in our history. We started transferring all of our industrial might into the most ineffective entitlements ever conceived, while selling generations of working class Americans to the student loan and mortgage industries.

          The US middle class is falling apart, and we’ve blown $20T propping it up because the global economy depends on selling American consumers roughly $700B more goods, services, and financial futures than they purchase from the US economy.

          We’ve put the developed world on welfare, and they’ve put our filthy rich capitalist class on welfare, but our middle class can’t afford the bill for this exchange of pleasantries. The EU won’t change anything because America is a mean place with low taxes and lots of guns, and we don’t act like bicurious beta-males who let the feds tell them when to pee. The Chinese, on the other hand, realize the United States government has gone full retard, and we don’t deserve our wealth because we let incompetent social democrats conquer the US Department of Treasury. China conspires to keep exploiting the US because we are weak, and the EU agrees to work with China because Euros think we are fat, dumb classical liberals who need to be reformed. Meanwhile, we also keep Japan on welfare because we need a counterbalance to Chinese aggression in NE Asia.

          The people who voted for Trump want to compete, like we did 40 years ago, not cooperate in multilateral trade deals that seek to make our enslavement more comfortable. The US is achieving a small fraction of what it could achieve. Half of the blame resides with us for letting our idiot left-wing control the budget, and the other half of the blame resides with the international community, whose main accomplishment in the post-war era is the rip-off of the US working class.

          • 0 avatar
            Big Al from Oz

            TW5,
            You seem to omit much of why the US was in an extraordinary prominent position. Europe needed to rebuild after 2 wars.

            The only way Europeans (and Japan) could rebuild was by allowing their governments to manage the rebuilding. The governments were also backing borrowed money from the lucky “4”, (US, Oz, NZ and Canada).

            Much of the resources came from the lucky 4 as well. This placed us in a position of great influence.

            European Big Government is a direct result of the wars.

            Now The EU and Japan rebuilt 30 years ago not only do they compete, but all of us are investing in lesser developed economies to expand our interests.

            Your above story is just that. A story that is not based on reality.

            The US is reacting to increased competition, excuses of how the US is giving away its economy is fanciful.

            The US needs to learn to play with others more and more. Its global influence is slowly eroding. This is fact.

            The US can lead and increase influence, but with the distorted views of many on how the US gave all to the world and the world owes the US really highlights how the US has lost its way.

          • 0 avatar
            TW5

            @ Big Al

            Your analysis is the sort of lazy, fatalistic response I’d expect from a public school teacher.

            The world was in global depression prior to WWII. Germany managed to pull itself out of depression, seemingly overnight, to become the most powerful country on earth. And they did it with a new form of economic technocracy coordinated by federal authorities and central bankers in Germany.

            The US observed their methods, and a confluence of events allowed us to copy and exceed what the Germans created. First, we received a huge portfolio of military technology from Britain in return for becoming the allied manufacturing base for the Western Theatre of combat. Second, Japan attacked, which gave federal authorities the right to seize control and double the size of the federal government. Third, we helped the best scientific talent in Germany and the Soviet Union defect to the United States.

            Europe never returned to economic technocracy. Instead, they went the opposite direction. They became nations of peasants living on a jointly-owned communes. The United States continued policies of economic technocracy until the early-70s when Americans lost their nerve during Vietnam, and their lack of resolve was exploited by two of the most Machiavellian figures in the history of US politics (LBJ, Nixon).

            Just as the United States was losing its nerve, and turning into a nation of deficit-spending entitlement-loving nitwits, China was preparing to execute Germany’s strategy (combined with mercantilism) under the reforms of Deng Xiaoping.

            That’s where we stand today. The United States is still being sabotaged by the dumbest lefties since the Bolsheviks, which we hid for 30 years with aggressive deficit spending. After 40 years of trying, China can’t kick it’s addiction to mercantilism, which effectively means that the entire world is dependent upon the United States consumer, who is fueled by deficit spending and represented by the dumbest bureaucrats to ever acquire power since the Bolsheviks.

            This is the ugly reality that Trump leveraged to win the election. I have no idea if he can defeat all of the enemies within, and help America fulfill its economic role in the world, but he was the only person who even cared. If he pulled out of a bad deal, pushed by our former clown-in-chief w/o the consent of the US Senate, people need to respect it and move on.

    • 0 avatar
      waywardboi

      Your going to find out how “stupid” some of us can be…….wait for it! You had to ask that silly question BigAl? We voted a man in like Drump…..what further proof do you need?

  • avatar
    zip89123

    Want to clear the air? Quit breeding, and free birth control & condoms for everyone. The bottom line is more people = more pollution. Sadly, the latter goes against common sense which the Republican party lacks, and I sway to the side of the elephant.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    @Big Al–I agree some what with your assessment about Trump and the US but I do not see what Trump is doing will be permanent. The US is more likely to elect a Democrat for President in 4 to 8 years and then everything Trump did will be reversed. My concern is with the back and forth in policy depending on which political party is in power. An inconsistent policy and the extreme changes cause uncertainty and that can damage the business environment especially the Global part which the US has become more dependent on. We are not isolated. Also concerned about how Trump acts in the presence of our allies especially when he refused to shake Merkles hand, when he pushed aside one of the leaders in a photo op, and when he constantly tweets about World leaders and everything else. We are quickly using up our goodwill and credibility as a nation. Trump has not risen to the position of the Presidency and acts the same way as he did in the Apprentice and every where else. This is not to say that I completely disagree with everything Trump stands for but when one acts in an uncouth manner and tweets about everything including Arnold not having as good a ratings on the Apprentice then it is hard to have any respect for him. As in regards to the auto industry it is a multinational industry and long term will be harmed if not part of the Global economy. I am not saying a President should go along with everything Europe or the rest of the World does but alienating other countries will do us more harm than good.

    As for Congress voting for the Paris Accord Congress cannot pass a budget nor agree on anything unless it pertains to increasing their pay. Congress for the most part is a non-functioning entity that continually fights among themselves. Congress is childlike in their demeanor and now we have a President with the same demeanor.

    • 0 avatar
      TonyJZX

      This is an amazing thread about American exceptionalism.

      Also people dont seem to realise its going to be 2020 before this thing is unwound so while many people cheerleading this extraordinary decision, it may not even end up happening.

      You will also note that many govt. bodies in the US have risen to this announcement I suppose as a show of states rights. When there’s a decision Washington makes that certain states dont like then the state has to right to do its own thing.

      More than one state has decided follow Paris much like some states have decided to move to single payer.

      In fact the catchphrase “Pittsburgh not Paris” is a perfect example. Pittsburgh decided to go with Paris ironically.

      • 0 avatar
        Big Al from Oz

        Tony,
        I do think you are correct regarding American Exceptionalism.

        I also believe the Era of this Exceptionalism is being challenged. Even Britannia went through its golden age and it took several generations or so before the Brits came to term with the changes.

        The US is entering the beginning of the wind back phase. There are still enough people around who remember the 20th Century and how the US owned it.

        The biggest impact on Britannia was the US mastered mass production. Great Britan (and Europe) had all the technology, but the US out competed.

        I think the US needs to confront competition differently and not lock horns. Protectionism (and associated wars) was the reason why Europe played second fiddle through much of the 20th Century after owning the 18th and 19th Century.

        American Exceptionalism was assisted greatly by the European disfunction. Now Trump wants to emulate the worst part of the older European model. Protectionism.

        Oddly, most EU nations want to globalise more as they see the mutual benefits to be had.

        So, American Exceptionalism never really occurred. It is an ideal for the nostalgic, the dreamers.

  • avatar
    markf

    “As for Congress voting for the Paris Accord Congress cannot pass a budget nor agree on anything unless it pertains to increasing their pay.”

    The Senate ratifies treaties and for 6 years of obama’s term the Dems controlled the Senate. It was never submitted cause it would never have passed, they all know it’s a terrible deal for the US but as an “agreement” the US does nothing but send money to India and China. Perfect virtue signalling

  • avatar
    jcisne

    I think Trump is right in abandoning the Paris Accord. I’ve been to Paris several times and I’ve never, ever seen an Accord there. In fact, I saw very few Hondas, only a couple of Civic hatchbacks, but not a single Accord.

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Trump would never be caught in an Accord, maybe a Bentley or Rolls but never an Accord. Trump would consider it his Civic duty to revoke all old Passports as he saw Fit while he tweets from a Ridgeline in his own Odyssey.

  • avatar

    I bet a lot of the technology the US would use to combat global warming would come from China anyway. Remember, all those solar panel companies created during the Obama administration. Well, just about all of them outsourced their manufacturing to China. On the international solar panel manufacturing list the US is batting .200 (2 out of ten).

    The Top 10 List of Residential Solar Panel Manufacturers

    Also notable is the fact that not every company that made the IHS list has a significant share of the US residential solar power market.

    Table: Best Solar Panel Manufacturers 2015 – Global ranking by volume, US market share & EnergySage quality ranking

    2015 RANK COMPANY CHANGE FROM 2014* ENERGYSAGE QUALITY RANKING HEADQUARTERS
    1 Trina Solar – Standard China
    2 JA Solar ↑3 Standard China
    3 Hanwha Q Cells ↑6 Standard South Korea
    4 Canadian Solar ↓1 N/A Canada
    5 First Solar ↑3 Standard USA
    6 Jinko Solar -↑ Standard China
    7 Yingli Solar -↑ Standard China
    8 Motech Solar -↑ N/A Taiwan
    9 NeoSolar -↑ Standard Taiwan
    10 SunPower – Premium USA

    • 0 avatar
      TW5

      That’s because our government, which once spent a huge chunk of the budget on technological innovation via DOD, DOT, NASA, and other middle class manufacturing based bureaucracies, not spends a lion’s share of the budget on pensions for wealthy seniors, Medicare/Medicaid benefits for wealthy seniors, Welfare for people who would be better off if they received workfare, and onerous business taxes. The states have equally counterproductive policies.

      It’s sort of miraculous that any major company develops technology or manufacturing operations in the United States when our government is openly hostile towards its own middle class.

  • avatar
    285exp

    All those virtuous corporations are still free to reduce their carbon footprint, aren’t they? If it’s so important, why do they need the Paris Accord to force them to do it?

  • avatar
    Jeff S

    Would the Federal Government restrict US based corporations from adopting the Paris Accord provisions if they were more restrictive than the US standards? If not then Ford and GM along with big oil could just adopt the the standards implemented by the Paris Accord. Will the Federal Government be able to force California to adopt less stringent pollution and efficiency standards? If so then I could see where the corporations and California would have a better case against Trump leaving the Paris Accord. I can understand why multinational corporations want standards because it is easier and less expensive over the long run to comply with 1 set of agreed standards than have to adjust to different standards for each country. Many US companies have gone Metric despite the US government not adopting metric. As long as there is a choice but if a corporation is required to met less stringent standards that are Federal then this is a whole different matter and for California it could be a matter of states rights.

    • 0 avatar
      285exp

      If California wants to impose emission standards on vehicles sold there that are higher than those of the rest of the states, they’re free to do so, just like they have been doing. There’s no reason that the Feds would prevent US based corporations from adopting more restrictive standards, only less restrictive ones, and since California already has one of the most restrictive standards in the world, I doubt it has much of an effect at all. The Feds aren’t going to tell them that they have to pollute more, only that they can.

      I don’t think the Paris Accords specify what auto emission standards are anyway, how the countries reduce their carbon output is up to them.

  • avatar
    markf

    “If [Trump] had known that destroying the planet was going to send the left and the media crazy to this degree, he’d have done it a lot earlier,” Steyn said to host Neil Cavuto.

    “It’s cartoon science. That’s why they like it, because it’s simple and it appeals to them,” he added later. “These people are invested in a cartoon idea of science that actually thinks that if you get all of the clever people around the table, they can set the global thermostat for the year 2100 and the planet is going to comply with that.”

    Mark Steyn

    • 0 avatar
      Vulpine

      “These people are invested in a cartoon idea of science that actually thinks that if you get all of the clever people around the table, they can set the global thermostat for the year 2100 and the planet is going to comply with that.”

      The sarcasm is heavy with this one.

  • avatar
    TR4

    It seems to me that a major result of the Kyoto and Paris agreements was Europe moving to Diesel powered automobiles to reduce carbon footprint. That worked out well, NOT!

Read all comments

Back to TopLeave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent Comments

  • Old_WRX: slavuta, “you don’t understand how similar USA [today] and USSR feel to me.” I know I...
  • mcs: “That massive amount of stuff tacked on all over the car is required for truly autonomous driving.”...
  • chicklet: Yes sir! “Studies show” 98% of journalists are hard left. They have a right to be, and they...
  • chicklet: Journalists can write about whatever they want, isn’t that what America is all about? Now, the snarky...
  • HotPotato: That massive amount of stuff tacked on all over the car is required for truly autonomous driving. Bear...

New Car Research

Get a Free Dealer Quote

Who We Are

  • Matthew Guy
  • Timothy Cain
  • Adam Tonge
  • Bozi Tatarevic
  • Chris Tonn
  • Corey Lewis
  • Mark Baruth
  • Ronnie Schreiber