European leader’s refusal to negotiate the Paris Accord has left many environmentalists with misguided anger.
President Trump is no more at fault for leaving the Paris Accord than hypocritical European leaders. Moving to re-negotiate terms made under former President Obama was a very reasonable and precedent request.
Why would European leaders rather let the Earth be destroyed by President Trump than negotiate a smaller U.S. handout to save the planet? If global warming is true then any deal negotiated would still serve to benefit the planet, right.
It is no secret President Trump is not a part of the mainstream political establishments. But, is not being a part of the establishment enough to incite the wrath of the left?
In times like these it is extremely important to ask objective questions:
1) Why is President Trump the “villain”?
2) Why do European leaders hold no responsibility in this narrative?
3) Do global warming advocates actually believe their science?
There are numerous logical fallacies associated with the narratives peddled by mainstream media in connection to the Paris Accord.
More information available on the next page on what’s really going on with global warming and the Paris Accord
He’s not a scientist, he’s an engineer.
“What if” all of your partners of crime lived at your house!
Put some ice cubes in a glass of water and let them melt. Look, the water didn’t run over and spill over the top of the glass. How can that be?
That’s a$#%&!@*load of smoothies!
What if every MORON suddenly my got SMART! Neither will ever occur! (John)
What “if” my Uncle had balls – wouldn’t that make him my Aunt??
What if earth lost its orbit and fell into the abyss of space? You idiot. If!
The odds on that happening are about as good as your few brain cells formulating an abstract thought.. not going to happen.
We’ve been reliably keeping records since the 1850s roughly (and they were very spotty at that time) That’s what, 167 years? Considering Earth is estimated to be 4 to 5 billion years how can we draw the conclusion that we are of any consequence to what happens here? They are basing their research on .00003% of data. Not very scientific is it? And how do they explain the “Ice Age?”
Back in 1962, the Cold War was Hot, up until November when it was mentioned that if the Soviet Union were to unload the missile arsenal in Cuba, the resolution 180% destruction would put a lot of radioactive fallout into the atmosphere and the Soviet Union would be the recipient of most of it. To the extent hat heavy fallout results in short term death and light fallout long term death, the corollary result would be very severe winters across the planet. It wouldn’t really matter because the population of the US would already be dead, and the population of the Soviet Union dying.