How would the trillions of dollars be transferred? I'm not asking to be argumentative, I really don't know.

 

You like most didn't actually read the paris accord. I like that you are asking rather than railing against our getting out of it.

The transfer from industrial countries was to a lot of third world countries because we are the ones that pollute the most. Therefore that means we must make recompense to these other countries by helping them develop cleaner energies, conservation or farming. This was going to cost the taxpayer TENS OF BILLIONS of dollars to help with water conservation in places like Morocco or pay for farmers to tackle extreme weather in Sri Lanka.

Those were actual earmarks for the paris accord. We are 20 TRILLION in debt with many domestic problems that are in trouble and under funded yet we are going to send money to countries that don't even like us and this is a good deal for the American taxpayers?

 

Well done analysis. We have become so addicted to globalization and foreign interdependency as a western society (see the EU and epic failures of it,) that when a country *gasp* looks out for its own interests, you know, how a government's first responsibility is (shocker) to its own people, the new age generation criticizes it as arrogant/elitist/nationalistic/bad/etc. Plus It was Trump's idea so it must be bad.

There is nothing wrong with forging alliances and diplomacy, it is necessary, but at the end of the day, governments (any government) should put the interest of its own citizens above others. This is not to say "fxxx" the rest of the world, but history and every sane political scientist has proven that the nation state is the ultimate and most effective form of governance in the international arena.

 

...for now. And don't get me wrong. I completely agree. But I see a globalist new world order waiting in the wings every time I see this climate change BS rear its head. Is climate changing? Yes. Does the sun have heat/cool cycles? Yes. Is man causing all of this? NO!

 

Yes. Human beings are causing climate change. The evidence is overwhelming and publicly available.

 

In this day of news-and-fact-shopping, there are -- alas -- no absolute facts. The scientific consensus is an evil plot to install a one-world government and take everyone's guns away.

 

No there is not.

 

So, there was no change in the climate before humans? Otherwise how do you know it is humans when the climate has been changing for millions of years? Can you please show us where this overwhelming evidence is that show definitively how much humans are causing the climate to change.

 

Almost missed the sarcasm here.

Nice.

 

The problem with the climate change issue is like asking a coworker if they smell A LOT of smoke.... like the building is on fire smoke.

Climate change has occurred naturally: ice ages and rain forests impinging on North America either of which will cause huge changes to food supply. We KNOW these events will happen again, and they may be aggravated by human activity. We need to act on the assumption IT WILL HAPPEN and develop plans to grow wet and drought resistant plants. At the same time, we do need to determine which human activities cause the most change (in North America forests converted to pasture or grain farms are high on the list and something we need to feed the peopl) and decide how to modify them.

Something is happening. What is the extent? Unknown. But to argue that we may be at the threshold of radical climate change is like arguing who drop the match that set the home we stand in ablaze.