There's a Very Good Reason the U.S. Pulled out of the Paris Accord, Folks

I think pollution and climate change are two different things, although the two are commonly conflated. I have never been against reducing pollutants and being well aware of effects to the water supply, to our forests, to our wildlife, and air quality. But to suggest these things affect climate change I think is a very wild stretch of the imagination that requires a multitude of mental gymnastics to conclude with a straight face. We cannot control nature. Beyond that, what has remained consistent throughout the discussion of climate change, which was a name change by the way from "global warming," because there was a period of cooling and so that name didn't fit anymore. Now climate change is a universal toss around phrase to describe not just air temperature, but weather patterns. But here is the problem. There has never been proof of any of these things. Plus, we've only been documenting weather for 155 years. The Earth is billions of years old. We have not seen any change in the number or severity of tornadoes or hurricanes. Even if you consider that the hottest day of record was in July of 2024, the previous record was only a few degrees cooler in 1913 and the average global temperature hasn't really changed that much. But again, we've only been recording this stuff since 1870. Is 155 years of data on a planet billions of years old enough to conclude we are experiencing an anomaly? Not hardly. On top of that, what was the issue when dinosaurs existed when we were in what would be considered a "greenhouse state," and the climate was much warmer than it is now. How did the dinosaurs contribute to warmer climates and a greenhouse effect? They didn't of course. Climate has to do with many factors, but none of them are because of things we do on the planet or necessarily contribute to. It has to do with our distance from the sun and other factors, all of which are not in our control. What's funny to me is that when someone says, "We can reduce the global temperature by 1/10th of a degree," people believe that. Well, if we are so wise and smart we can do that, how come we haven't figured out how to stop a tornado or redirect a hurricane? Marketing. The idea that we have caused climate change and that we can affect it has been marketed, and people believe what has been marketed to them. THAT despite there being any proof the climate has actually changed in any significant way, and every single prediction ever made about what will happen by X time has ever happened. And beyond that, when the calendar ticks forward and something doesn't happen, they just add 12 years to their prediction date.

@rebelann We can agree to disagree. Everyone has their view, of course. The statistics tell a very different story and that's what I go by. The real data that says nothing has changed. But again, that's just me disagreeing, but in no way discounting your belief or assessment. Like I have said many times before, I care about the environment, and we all should be good stewards of it, regardless of the reason we choose to say it is important to do it. Climate change. Clean air and water. However we get to a better environment is what's important. BUT we also have to keep in mind that when we use the term "climate change" it's nothing more than a money grab. They want to TAX carbon emissions and they want to collect TAXES to support "remedies." It's not about the cause in that case. It's about the money, and unfortunately, we can't tax our way to a better environment and thus— When we talk about something like the Paris Accord or whether we should do it or not, we have to step back and see what the Paris Accord really is, what it's for, and what is ISN'T for. And what it ISN'T for is to do anything at all to actually address "climate change." Thus, that's the point I was making. All people hear are the words "climate change" and "Paris Accord," put the two together and think they actually are talking about the same thing. They're not. One CAN believe in climate change AND also understand that the Paris Accord has nothing to do with it. The problem is that many people are confused and think the two things are talking about the same thing, and so when a wise decision, such as the one Trump made, is made, they think it means Trump doesn't care about the environment. No. He just doesn't care about an Accord that does nothing at all to address a single environmental concern, and that's the difference.

Ahhh, Ok, I think I get it, but I could be wrong.

I appreciate that, and I try. I think part of the problem is that people generally only look at one part of a thing and don't bother to dig any further to fully grasp and understand what that thing is or what it means. They hear "climate change" and they hear, "here's this Accord that addresses it," and they immediately think, "well, here's a plan," or "here's a solution." They don't dig further into the details to understand it. And it's not just an Accord that this applies to. When Biden passed an infrastructure bill, it was just called an infrastructure bill. Did anyone know that only 18% of the entire bill was actually about infrastructure? No. Because few people took the time to read and understand the bill and the media wasn't going to tell anyone what was really in the bill. And to be fair, this applies to Trump as well, so it's not really about WHO has the idea, it's about what the idea actually is or what it aims to achieve. There's a lot not to like, for example, about the One Big Beautiful Bill. But that's the case any time you have what's called a "comprehensive bill." It goes through a series of negotiations and talks, and things get put in that have nothing to do with the initial aim of the bill because what is essentially being done are back room deals to get vote support on the House and Senate floors. "I don't want to vote for this," says one Congressman. The majority leader or Whip says, "What do you want?" "I want this thing." Boom, they put it in the bill and then the member offers his vote, but by the time these things reach the president's desk, it's completely outside the original idea of the bill and spends on things entirely unrelated to the bill. Anyway, I'm rambling now. lol

When it comes to the entire discussion of climate change, that's really what it comes down to anymore. It's about money. It's a way to justify grabbing money through legislation for things that, at the end of the day, really aren't about addressing any real environmental concerns at all. It's a way to create costly regulations and tax things, and a way to "redistribute" monies to certain organizations and companies aligned with their ideas of "climate change" issues. What we get at the end of the day aren't any real solutions, but at the same time, that's partly because there really isn't a problem to solve... Or one we CAN solve. But as I have said before about climate change, it's something that has been well "marketed" to create a consumer base of believers. I mean, even "climate change" itself, as a term, has been modified. For many years it was called "global warming." But then we had that period when the Earth was actually cooling. In order to maintain the narrative, they had to change the name, and then also change what was happening as a result of climate changes, such as now saying "weather patterns are impacted." And of course, climate change marketing has been helped by the 24-hour news cycle as well, putting a heightened "sense" of gloom and doom by more forcefully highlighting regular events like tornadoes and hurricanes and trying to impart a sense of higher frequency or strengthened severity of storms. We hear terms used like, "follow the science," as if 1) there is any science here and 2) that science is absolute. The REAL science is in the data, of course, which clearly shows there has been no significant change in global temperature nor have there been increases in storms or severity. But then, it's also important to note that we've only been generating said data since 1870, and arguments can be made that the way we gathered the data in 1870 up till now is very different, with many new technologies and other information to gather it. Climate change has really gotten to the point of becoming a religion. We can't see it, there is no proof of it, it is unverifiable, yet we believe it because we have faith in the belief it is true. For climate change believers, like Christians, there is only one answer despite numerous other possible answers in front of them, and their beliefs cannot be changed regardless of any real facts or data because their faith in it is so strong, they have closed their minds to anything and everything else that could provide a rational answer.