The Vatican, which under Pope Francis' insistence has strongly backed the Paris climate change deal, would see a U.S. exit as a slap in the face and a "disaster for everyone," a senior official said on Thursday.
At their meeting last month, the pope gave U.S. President Donald Trump a signed copy of his 2015 encyclical letter that called for protecting the environment from the effects of climate change and backed scientific evidence that it is caused by human activity.
Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin urged Trump in a separate meeting not to quit the Paris accord....
I should have added a couple of things. I ran into this article on the Drudge Report, and the comment on Trump is the only one that was in the article, which after reading the article which has the conclusion,
Matt McGrath wrote: Prof Glen Peters, from the Centre for International Climate Research, in Oslo, said: "The core part of Paris [is] the global stock-takes which are going to happen every five years, and after the stock-takes countries are meant to raise their ambition, but if you can't track progress sufficiently, which is the whole point of these stock-takes, you basically can't do anything.
"So, without good data as a basis, Paris essentially collapses. It just becomes a talkfest without much progress." [QUOTE]--[URL=http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40669449]]]Dodgy' greenhouse gas data threatens Paris accord[/URL]
Means that the Paris Accord is meaningless, President Trump, has no good reason to support it
Matt McGrath wrote: Potent, climate-warming gases are being emitted into the atmosphere but are not being recorded in official inventories, a BBC investigation has found....
Levels of some emissions from India and China are so uncertain that experts say their records are plus or minus 100%.
These flaws posed a bigger threat to the Paris climate agreement than US President Donald Trump's intention to withdraw, researchers told BBC Radio 4's Counting Carbon programme.
--[URL=http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40669449]]]Dodgy' greenhouse gas data threatens Paris accord[/URL]
Oh, my!
Air and soil pollution is a something of interest to me, Mike, and should be to others. As far as I can see Obama went overboard as far as pollution's of water went, but still it has to be paid attention to. You should like the above article.
Jim Lincoln wrote: I have emphasized the pollution problem not global warming, Most Nebraskans want warmer winters ---ah but not warmer summers. Anyone who has seen smog back in the 1970's in Los Angles are happy to have some control on that. Smog was man-made, Almost all pollution problems are, except when you live near an active volcano. So, I have never mentioned [URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis]]]http://tinyurl.com/ncxhr67 (Gaia hypothesis)[/URL] until now. In fact I've mentioned the Newsweek finally removed it. Anyway, [URL=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1781024/posts]]]http://tinyurl.com/ydcy8lau (The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975))[/URL] Besides why wouldn't things warm up before the Tribulation? [URL=http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Hitchcock-AnOverviewofPretribu.pdf]]]http://tinyurl.com/y77z7tm5 (An Overview of Pretribulational Arguments---PDF)[/URL] and of course, [URL=http://tinyurl.com/yc44c7ss]]]http://tinyurl.com/yc44c7ss (The Future Tribulation)[/URL]!
Deflections and links. The issue is global warming, which does not exist, and does not need international accord, paid for by us. Accord is for stop using coal here but continue in China. Why, Jim?
Jim, the antichrist himself would not stoop down to say such babble.
You are like a doctor, to whom a patient is brought to, he tells you that he has severe stomach issues, you then give him morphine, he feels better and then lo and behold his appendix bursts when he gets home.
You treat the symptoms and not the problem, do you understand the meaning of this?
I have emphasized the pollution problem not global warming, Most Nebraskans want warmer winters ---ah but not warmer summers.
Anyone who has seen smog back in the 1970's in Los Angles are happy to have some control on that. Smog was man-made, Almost all pollution problems are, except when you live near an active volcano.
So, I have never mentioned [URL=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaia_hypothesis]]]http://tinyurl.com/ncxhr67 (Gaia hypothesis)[/URL] until now. In fact I've mentioned the Newsweek finally removed it. Anyway, [URL=http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1781024/posts]]]http://tinyurl.com/ydcy8lau (The Cooling World (Newsweek, April 28, 1975))[/URL]
Besides why wouldn't things warm up before the Tribulation? [URL=http://www.pre-trib.org/data/pdf/Hitchcock-AnOverviewofPretribu.pdf]]]http://tinyurl.com/y77z7tm5 (An Overview of Pretribulational Arguments---PDF)[/URL] and of course, [URL=http://tinyurl.com/yc44c7ss]]]http://tinyurl.com/yc44c7ss (The Future Tribulation)[/URL]!
Steve I think you missed the point, Jim is promoting to, "Protect the Earth" along with millions of others no doubt, I think even Bill Nye promotes this thinking. Perhaps you've heard the old slogan, "Give a hoot, don't pollute"
To adopt a Gaia Hypothesis thinking is not good, at all, it's called idolatry,as a Christian, I need to concern and examine myself to see if I'm being a good steward of what God has given me, and a person with integrity.
One of the things I hate...like really get upset at is littering, it makes my eyes red and I wonder how people can act like animals, but even then, I must have mercy and compassion on them, because I don't know what they're going through.
"Donald Trump can relax and maybe he can even give a little money to it of his own to make his daughter happy who supported the Paris Accords. " So Jim Lincoln it is not okay for Trump to have questionable dealings, but it IS okay for Obama, Hitlery, and the Democrats to have more than questionable dealings? Talk about your double standards....
Connor7 wrote: As far as Jim's statement to protect earth...that is a pagan statement, it's a pagan idea, we are to steward what God has given us, protecting the earth is exactly in line with the Gaia hypothesis... Some proponents of the Gaia hypothesis say that Gaia is not some cuddly, friendly planet, but a planet that will be void of people. I'll give you quotes if you want. As far as pollution in India, I know of...three missionaries to India, and a church in India that is facing persecution, you should be more concerned about the church than pollution, and India kicked out Compassion International, which was saving their citizens, and India has laws against eating the plethora of cows over there.
The law is broken up into two parts: first, our obligations to GOD, and the second our obligations to our Neighbor. If someone legitimately believes their obligation to care for the earth is a duty to their neighbor, I understand. A good example was when Hebrews needed to give their land rest every 7 years. But TODAY I find most down deep don't give a hoot about the environment and have ulterior motives in their pro climate agenda
As far as Jim's statement to protect earth...that is a pagan statement, it's a pagan idea, we are to steward what God has given us, protecting the earth is exactly in line with the Gaia hypothesis... Some proponents of the Gaia hypothesis say that Gaia is not some cuddly, friendly planet, but a planet that will be void of people. I'll give you quotes if you want.
As far as pollution in India, I know of...three missionaries to India, and a church in India that is facing persecution, you should be more concerned about the church than pollution, and India kicked out Compassion International, which was saving their citizens, and India has laws against eating the plethora of cows over there.
So I would be real skeptical about people dying of pollution, when many, many other things could have contributed greatly to the cause of death. As far as China...And this could apply to India as well, but what else could you expect from a nation that has forsaken God? It doesn't have proper dominion over the earth.
Mike wrote: In Bloomberg's case, it may be a matter of anti-American initiative. But if the man wants to spend his money on non-existent problems like global warming, let him. Liberals are famous for wasting money, usually other people's. I'm all for him wasting his own.
One great thing, Mike, it won't be my money, but you might see it extra taxes I believe the state of New York has signed onto this. Ivanka will probably support it so her father Donald might chip in a few bucks.
Jim Lincoln wrote: ---[URL=http://tinyurl.com/yb529xhj]]]http://tinyurl.com/yb529xhj (Michael Bloomberg offers to foot U.S. cost of Paris Agreement)[/URL] Mike of New York, not to worry , good old private American initiative is going to take place. Donald Trump can relax and maybe he can even give a little money to it of his own to make his daughter happy who supported the Paris Accords.
In Bloomberg's case, it may be a matter of anti-American initiative. But if the man wants to spend his money on non-existent problems like global warming, let him. Liberals are famous for wasting money, usually other people's. I'm all for him wasting his own.
Andrew Wyrich wrote: Bloomberg’s charitable organization has offered to make up the $15 million that the United Nations will lose after President Donald Trump announced that the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord.
Bloomberg is rallying representatives from cities, states, and companies to help meet America’s greenhouse gas emissions requirements despite Trump’s decision, according to various media reports.
The group—which currently includes 30 mayors, three governors, more than 100 businesses, and 80 university presidents—is negotiating with the U.N. to have its submission accepted among other nations as part of the climate deal, according to the New York Times.
---[URL=http://tinyurl.com/yb529xhj]]]http://tinyurl.com/yb529xhj (Michael Bloomberg offers to foot U.S. cost of Paris Agreement)[/URL]
Mike of New York, not to worry , good old private American initiative is going to take place. Donald Trump can relax and maybe he can even give a little money to it of his own to make his daughter happy who supported the Paris Accords.
sale of indulgences includes forgiveness for the sins of people who are already dead. That is evident in this passage from a sermon by John Tetzel, the monk who sold indulgences in Germany and inspired Martin Luther's protest in 1517.
Don't you hear the voices of your dead parents and other relatives crying out, "Have mercy on us, for we suffer great punishment and pain. From this, you could release us with a few alms . . . We have created you, fed you, cared for you and left you our temporal goods. Why do you treat us so cruelly and leave us to suffer in the flames, when it takes only a little to save us? [Source: Die Reformation in Augenzeugen Berichten, edited by Helmar Junghaus (Dusseldorf: Karl Rauch Verlag, 1967), 44.]
By an indulgence for your jet & mansions - you are already a "death dealer " to the earth - but pay ALGORE & co. and all is forgiven. So Vatacanishy AlGore cried on FOX today about need for solar jobs - a major polluter of the planet. And moron Fox host gives no push back to Algore's indulgences song. "Mother Nature like a nature hike thru the book of Revelation" But Wallace moron let the "bible" hype slide by
Note TetzelGore fat off indulgences loves "electric vehicles"- Ugh?? Solar powered?? Teltzel2
Jim Lincoln wrote: ---[URL=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40147749 ]]]http://tinyurl.com/ycvf9enn (Trump 'does believe in climate change', as US ambassador to UN)[/URL]
From the link: "The World Meteorological Organisation said that, in the worst scenario, the US pullout could add 0.3C to global temperatures by the end of the century."
What a load of buffalo chips. The US has been reducing that which is called carbon emissions for years already. Their real concern of the "world" is the US won't be in it to pay for those polluters who don't want to clean up their own act, or who, under the Paris accord, are allowed to continue polluting by subsidizing them.
BBC wrote: US President Donald Trump "believes the climate is changing and he believes pollutants are part of the equation," says the US ambassador to the UN.
He know "the US has to be responsible for it and that's what we're going to do," said Nikki Haley.
---[URL=http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40147749 ]]]http://tinyurl.com/ycvf9enn (Trump 'does believe in climate change', as US ambassador to UN)[/URL]
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- No, Mike, they know they're living on one small ball called earth, and they are willing to work together to protect it. However, as I think I pointed out, China and India having so many people killed by polluted air means they can certainly kill two birds with one stone, even though they aren't all that excited calling global warming a bird. You really should have read, ---
No Jim, the whole thing is a farce. There is no global warming. The seas aren't rising. More CO2 would be good for growing things. There is no scientific consensus. The Earth doesn't need saving. It's on a schedule for a remake, anyway. We don't need greedy corporate and political, um, leaders flying fuel guzzling jets to far away places to discuss how to save the planet from truck driving cowboys in Wyoming. Jim, we are not only not on the same page, we aren't in the same book.
Penny, I have to say I did find it interesting I don't believe I ever saw Media Bias Check go out of its way to put a site into two different categories!
No, Mike, they know they're living on one small ball called earth, and they are willing to work together to protect it. However, as I think I pointed out, China and India having so many people killed by polluted air means they can certainly kill two birds with one stone, even though they aren't all that excited calling global warming a bird.
You really should have read, [URL=http://tinyurl.com/ya8qoswv]]]http://tinyurl.com/ya8qoswv (States step into void left by exit from Paris climate accord)[/URL]. What Trump did wasn't much different from what Bush did in rejecting the Kyoto Agreement negotiated by Bad Billy Clinton. I think Bush may have handled it a bit differently So, the article was fairly even-handed. Now of course if you watch that Shields and Brooks episode that followed that article -- you probably be quite unhappy -- if you're a Trump fan.
So, Blue States are finding it profitable in dumping coal and going with natural gas and expanding their renewable energy sources -- getting to same results as the Red States even though for differently stated reasons.
COMMENTS 
locked 
System Notice
