Can see the same people who bought homes in Puna (volcano).

I never owned a Beach house, but I owned better, a 45 foot sailboat.
A lot more work, but If you want to live on the water it can't be beat.
Plus if you don't like the government, just put up the sails and tell
them to EFF off.  Sadly I no longer have my boat, but I had years
of memories of Government free life.

I'd like to plant some nice tall trees in my yard. Problem is roots and some poison I laid down. I dont want roots to destroy my foundation and wall. Maybe fake tree? Anyone sell?

.

Then you're gullible. Just like they like you to be.

Maybe you're the one who is gullible to a not very good conspiracy theory.

I will stick with the science on this one, thank you.

Bullshit.  Which Liberal news channel fed you that line? Must have been programmed sometime after the meltdown over Trump pulling the US out of it.

Time mark 6:23 - Al Gore admits that if all targets are reached by every country in the Paris Accord (194 if we'd stayed), it still won't fix the Climate Change problem. Gore them obfuscates into a litany of wonderful progress China and others have made.  Progress?  If I'm painting a line around the circumference of the Globe knowing full well I'll never be able to do it, what "progress" am I making if I get 50%, 60% or more painted? It'll never be completed, therefore no amount can be labeled as "progress".  Progress means "closer to your goal".  A goal that can never be reached cannot be measured for progress. It's the antithesis of progress. it's futility.

Al Gore said nothing about the Accord not having teeth or being voluntary as a problem. It's all about "sending a message" (and making the people on the receiving end of the scam wealthier).

I don't listen to Al Gore.

I know from other sources that the Paris Accords had no teeth and were voluntary. Are you claiming that these statements are not accurate?

I don't listen to Al Gore.

I know from other sources that the Paris Accords had no teeth and were voluntary. Are you claiming that these statements are not accurate?

Since you're not providing sources to back up your claim, I can only assume you have none.

I don't listen to Al Gore.

I know from other sources that the Paris Accords had no teeth and were voluntary. Are you claiming that these statements are not accurate?

You might not think you listen to Al Gore, but the Climate Change BS you have been posting here started with him and is being regurgitated everywhere.

You're posting Al Gore's talking points whether you know it or not.  It doesn't;t take much time (for anyone who cares where they get their "science") to find out what Gore is putting out there.  Chances are, it's exactly what you're seeing wherever you get your info.

I rode my bike for 3 days this week and reduced my carbon footprint. What have you done?

I rode my bike for 3 days this week and reduced my carbon footprint. What have you done?

You realize riding a bike increases your respiration, which in turn produces more CO2?   

We need to rename Climate Change to "The Stopped Clock Crisis".

Then at least their predictions would be right twice a day -- a vast improvement over the current track record.

Since you're not providing sources to back up your claim, I can only assume you have none.

I did post a source, since you must have missed it I will post it again for you.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud

Note that this guy is an actual scientist and is in fact not Al Gore. Stop focusing on Al Gore as if he is some expert in the field. It is pretty obvious you are just trying to take the easy target instead of disproving the actual science on the matter.

I did post a source, since you must have missed it I will post it again for you.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud

Note that this guy is an actual scientist and is in fact not Al Gore. Stop focusing on Al Gore as if he is some expert in the field. It is pretty obvious you are just trying to take the easy target instead of disproving the actual science on the matter.

Nowhere in that article does the scientist you mentioned talk about "no teeth" or "involuntary". He said, AND I QUOTE:

But when he talks about the gathering of nearly 200 nations, his demeanour changes.

“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C
warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no
action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be
continued to be burned.”

The talks, intended to reach a new global deal on cutting carbon emissions beyond 2020, have spent much time and
energy on two major issues: whether the world should aim to contain the temperature rise to 1.5C or 2C above
preindustrial levels, and how much funding should be doled out by wealthy countries to developing nations that risk
being swamped by rising seas and bashed by escalating extreme weather events.

But, according to Hansen, the international jamboree is pointless unless greenhouse gas emissions are taxed across
the board. He argues that only this will force down emissions quickly enough to avoid the worst ravages of climate change.

Your characterization:

I don't listen to Al Gore.

I know from other sources that the Paris Accords had no teeth and were voluntary. Are you claiming that these statements are not accurate?

, and citation to support it, are rejected.

Nowhere in that article does the scientist you mentioned talk about "no teeth" or "involuntary".

I was paraphrasing. I believe the article supports what I paraphrased it.

The Paris accords did not have any consequences if a country didn't stick the the goal they set - In other words it had no teeth.

my bike takes up less space than a single driver in a sedan.
I don't need no stinking accords.

I was paraphrasing. I believe the article supports what I paraphrased it.

The Paris accords did not have any consequences if a country didn't stick the the goal they set - In other words it had no teeth.

No "accord" is going to have punitive measures for failing to achieve results. The scientist NEVER eluded to what you're claiming. He's simply saying fossil fuels are bad, and we (any "accord") need to TAX fossil fuels to a level that forces everyone to stop using them. Period.

None of that applies to needing "teeth" to force compliance by participating nations.

We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years

As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.

You're out of gas (pun intended).

I just recycled about 2 lbs of cardboard and a bag of cans & bottles found from co workers trash cans
I don't need no stinking accords

No "accord" is going to have punitive measures for failing to achieve results. The scientist NEVER eluded to what you're claiming. He's simply saying fossil fuels are bad, and we (any "accord") need to TAX fossil fuels to a level that forces everyone to stop using them. Period.

None of that applies to needing "teeth" to force compliance by participating nations.

You're out of gas (pun intended).

Sigh, yes, a tax would be part of an enforcement mechanism. The Paris accords lack teeth, I don't know why you are quibbling with this, are you suggesting that the Paris Accords have enforcement powers (teeth)? If not then you are just arguing to argue.

The initial agreement didn't have enforcement. Groups tried to add enforcement but it never passed. The 2 degree mark was never going to be attainable without enforcement. All your argument really does is support the position that we need the Paris Accords but to a greater degree and with enforcement capabilities.  Of course they will miss their mark when no one participates.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anderscorr/2016/12/01/expect-climate-catastrophe-paris-agreement-lacks-enforcement/#3efb97153313

Sigh, yes, a tax would be part of an enforcement mechanism. The Paris accords lack teeth, I don't know why you are quibbling with this, are you suggesting that the Paris Accords have enforcement powers (teeth)? If not then you are just arguing to argue.

The initial agreement didn't have enforcement. Groups tried to add enforcement but it never passed. The 2 degree mark was never going to be attainable without enforcement. All your argument really does is support the position that we need the Paris Accords but to a greater degree and with enforcement capabilities.  Of course they will miss their mark when no one participates.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anderscorr/2016/12/01/expect-climate-catastrophe-paris-agreement-lacks-enforcement/#3efb97153313

Wrong.  A tax is to raise the price of fossil fuels to IMPLEMENT the accord objectives. Nobody is being taxed FOR NOT ACIEVEING targets.

You really are obtuse -- or just trolling.

Sigh, yes, a tax would be part of an enforcement mechanism. The Paris accords lack teeth, I don't know why you are quibbling with this, are you suggesting that the Paris Accords have enforcement powers (teeth)? If not then you are just arguing to argue.

The initial agreement didn't have enforcement. Groups tried to add enforcement but it never passed. The 2 degree mark was never going to be attainable without enforcement. All your argument really does is support the position that we need the Paris Accords but to a greater degree and with enforcement capabilities.  Of course they will miss their mark when no one participates.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/anderscorr/2016/12/01/expect-climate-catastrophe-paris-agreement-lacks-enforcement/#3efb97153313

Your Forbes citation -- is that written by one of your "scientists?"

Well, he does have a PhD -- in GOVERNMENT!!  LOL!

He's not even close to being a scientist.

You're so off base.   

This is what happens when you just post random Google results  with headlines you think support your OPINION.