The Paris agreement is so historic and meaningful that Warmists are going to continue spreading awareness
(LA Times) Even as it became clear that a historic climate agreement could be reached in France, activists were organizing protests deep into next year, some liberal political leaders were pledging to go beyond whatever goals the agreement might yield and diplomats, scientists and consultants were planning the next global summit.
In the final days of COP21, as the 21st Conference of Parties came to be called, a hashtag briefly came to life on Twitter: #COP22.
That would be the 22nd Conference of Parties, scheduled for next November in Morocco. (snip)
While many questions remain about the agreement — Will it truly help solve the problem? Will nations honor their commitments? Will investors move away from fossil fuels? — it appears to include at least one guarantee: The century ahead will be filled with more conflict, progress, protests, ambition and intransigence about climate change.
And more conferences.
Huh. Sounds more like a political movement rather than anything based on science. I’d be impressed if these climactivists were pushing others to walk the talk, and doing so themselves.
Moroco?
How about Winnipeg in February?
All animals are equal….
It’s always projection with conservatives. The Denier right has never had a cogent scientific argument and have only been pushing a political agenda.
Science clearly shows the Earth to be warming from CO2 we’re adding to the atmosphere. But science and facts do not change the trajectory, only political will does that. It’s a political movement based on science. What is your political Denialism based on?
“Science clearly shows….” No, nothing is clear about any of this. Can we ending the billions in funding? Of course not.
Just because you refuse to understand or cannot understand the evidence doesn’t refute it.
Unfortunately for the Deniosphere the momentum has shifted.
Guitar carver are you suggesting that the carbon footprint made by the delegates is in someway a significant number within our total carbon pollution problem?
Oil went to 35$ a barrel this week it will go under 30 when Iran pumps are turned on
No one is willing to finance the construction of new coal powered electric plants in the USA
Power generation will be decentralized in the future, governments and corporations are losing their control
I am totally supportive of the liberals going beyond the commitments they’ve made . . . as long as they do so themselves. If they want to set their thermostats at 55º F in the winter and eschew air conditioning in the summer, go for it! If they want to give up their limos and SUVs, then hey, I support them completely.
Once we see them doing this stuff themselves, then perhaps we can have some confidence that they take their own words seriously.
As for COP22 in Morocco, I have exactly one relatively new term for them: videoconference!
They are all such great, modern, edumacated in science experts, so much so that they think they have the right to tell the rest of us how to live our lives, that they must have heard about that new-fangled videoconferencing technology (something which has existed for at least fifteen years now!).
Let them show how concerned they are by staying in their offices and doing the whole thing by videoconference.
john,
Well john, if you think that 40,000 people producing a carbon footprint in a week equal to the carbon footprint of 58k people in a year doesn’t show a problem in this, there is nothing that anyone can say.
I know you didn’t read and or comprehend the article, but there is more:
I guess you don’t see a problem in that either. By the way, the organizers cut down 900 mature trees to build a hall in which to meet. The organizers said they replaced each tree with a new one. See if you can figure out whether a mature tree or a sapling does more for the planet. Get back to me on that one, okay?
So now you are happy that a state that sponsors terrorism is going to make more money from oil?
Of course not. When the government changes regulations on a whim, no one can afford to build a brand new plant that the government will say cannot be operated a year from now even if the plant was built within the law at the time.
Of course I guess you missed that the rest of the world is continuing to build new coal fired plants.
You are against coal. You are against nukes. You are only for the falsely named “renewable” energy sources which cannot and will not meet demand for power which continues to rise.
But not building plants and creating energy has real consequences:
The 40,000 number is people that will die above and beyond those who would have died “normally.”
The number one cause of the deaths is not being able to heat homes and residences. So called “green” sources of energy cannot produce enough relatively inexpensive energy to keep people alive. That is due to the very regulations you support.
Are you happy with the blood on your hands john?
This is a very curious statement from you. We know that you don’t have solar panels or win turbines on your home (or under the bridge.) So once again we see you thinking it is a good idea that other people do what you will not.
Furthermore, just the other day, you said you were for bigger government with more control over people’s lives. Not you are touting the loss of government control.
Which is it john?