Obama Demonstrates That Trump Was Correct About China

Four years ago Donald Trump said that global warming is a scam intended to benefit the Chinese.

Screen Shot 2016-08-30 at 6.05.45 AM

The treaty which Obama made with China (and McConnell/Ryan refused to block) does exactly what Trump said it does. It requires the US to lower its CO2 emissions and authorizes China to increase its CO2 emissions until the year 2030.

Screen Shot 2016-08-30 at 6.00.36 AM-down

U.S.-China Joint Announcement on Climate Change | whitehouse.gov

China’s CO2 emissions are skyrocketing and will continue to do so for another 15 years.

CpJY5NkVIAAofUX

Climate Goals Pledged by China and the U.S. – The New York Times

The climate scam has nothing to do with climate. It is just one more way for Obama to hurt the US.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Obama Demonstrates That Trump Was Correct About China

  1. Andy DC says:

    Yes, the Democrats blame the US for anything bad they think is happening in the world (even if it isn’t happening). They thus put extra burden on the American taxpayer, while giving others a pass.

    We definitely need a President that will put American interests first.

    • Thomas Robbins says:

      You bet – this guy has never met a dictator he didn’t like, which should be no surprise since his mentor, before he became a “Community Organizer” (also known as shit disturber), and every word from his mouth shows his deep seated hatred for this nation. We are by far the most generous nation on earth and have saved the world from tyranny, helped countless people out of soul crushing poverty..but to the Dems, we are the root of all evil…

  2. We could err on the side of caution? Seriously. We need to paint the energy elephant shocking pink. It has a big “N” that reminds us that even if Obama is wrong supporting nuclear energy will save lives and rescue the oceans from too much acidity. If all American parties ignore science and engineering it doesn’t mean we should. Our planet is in for a serious setback by climate extremes. If you don’t agree you are a perfect example of the masses of people content to be in the dark living their few decades of occasional tolerable conditions. Coal is a big problem. There is more at risk than temperatures and weather. Think again.

    • tonyheller says:

      Utter nonsense, you are reciting unsupportable propaganda in support of an agenda. Your position has nothing to do with science.

      • Gail Combs says:

        He doesn’t even get ‘ocean Acidification’ correct. The OCEANS are BUFFERED!

        The oceans are highly buffered by calcium Ca++ (and magnesium Mg++) There is

        SEE: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2002/3/chemistry

        Calcium is the main cation in river water, followed by Na and Mg, then K.


        LECTURE NOTES

        Chpt 4: Major Ions of Seawater…. James Murray, Univ. Washington

        grams/Kilogram @ salinity S – 35.000%
        Na+ 10.781
        K+ 0.399
        Mg++ 1.284
        Ca++ 0.4119
        Sr++ 0.00794

        1. estuaries: The average composition of river water is given in Table 4-2 (from Langmuir, 1997). The concentrations are given in mg l-1 and can be compared with seawater concentrations. The main difference is that HCO3- is the main anion in river water and has a much higher concentration than Cl- (which is the lowest of the major anions in river water). Calcium is the main cation in river water, followed by Na and Mg, then K…..

        Ca has small (+ 0.5%) but systematic variations within the ocean. This has been known since the earliest analyses of seawater. Dittmar (1884) used precise analyses of 77 Challenger samples to show that the calcium/chloride ratio was higher in deep water then in surface waters.

        When the Ca increase was first discovered by Dittmar it was hypothesized to be due to dissolution of CaCO3 particles. Brewer et al. (1975) showed that the change in alkalinity with depth in the ocean (where Alkalinity ≈ HCO3- + 2 CO32-) was less than that expected for the change in Ca. Actually according to the CaCO3 solubility reaction (e.g. CaCO3(s) = Ca2+ + CO32-), the changes should follow the expression ∆Alkalinity = 2 ∆Ca. Calcium increases by 100-130 μM as deep water flows from the Atlantic to the Pacific (Fig. 4-1) but alkalinity only increases by 120-130 μM. As the calcium data are probably sound, Brewer et al.(1975) suggested that this was because the alkalinity was low due to titration by HNO3 produced by respiration of organic matter in the deep sea. The correct comparison should be of Ca with potential alkalinity which is the total alkalinity corrected for the NO3 produced….

        The long residence time of Sr in the ocean could suggest that its concentration does not vary over Quaternary time scales, but in fact the best estimates of the modern Sr budget suggest that it is far from steady state (Schlanger, 1988). And in fact large changes (up to 12%) in Sr/Ca in planktonic foraminifera have been observed over the past 150 ka (glacial/interglacial time scales) suggesting that Sr/Ca was higher during glacial maxima (Stoll et al., 1999). This variability reflects changes in sea level, river fluxes and carbonate accumulation rates.

      • Gail Combs says:

        test

      • Gail Combs says:

        He got ocean acidification wrong too. The oceans are buffered so the pH hardly changes.

        The oceans are highly buffered by calcium Ca++ (and magnesium Mg++) There is

        SEE: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2002/3/chemistry

        Calcium is the main cation in river water, followed by Na and Mg, then K.


        LECTURE NOTES

        Chpt 4: Major Ions of Seawater…. James Murray, Univ. Washington

        grams/Kilogram @ salinity S – 35.000%
        Na+ 10.781
        K+ 0.399
        Mg++ 1.284
        Ca++ 0.4119
        Sr++ 0.00794

        1. estuaries: The average composition of river water is given in Table 4-2 (from Langmuir, 1997). The concentrations are given in mg l-1 and can be compared with seawater concentrations. The main difference is that HCO3- is the main anion in river water and has a much higher concentration than Cl- (which is the lowest of the major anions in river water). Calcium is the main cation in river water, followed by Na and Mg, then K…..

        Ca has small (+ 0.5%) but systematic variations within the ocean. This has been known since the earliest analyses of seawater. Dittmar (1884) used precise analyses of 77 Challenger samples to show that the calcium/chloride ratio was higher in deep water then in surface waters.

        When the Ca increase was first discovered by Dittmar it was hypothesized to be due to dissolution of CaCO3 particles. Brewer et al. (1975) showed that the change in alkalinity with depth in the ocean (where Alkalinity ≈ HCO3- + 2 CO32-) was less than that expected for the change in Ca. Actually according to the CaCO3 solubility reaction (e.g. CaCO3(s) = Ca2+ + CO32-), the changes should follow the expression ∆Alkalinity = 2 ∆Ca. Calcium increases by 100-130 μM as deep water flows from the Atlantic to the Pacific (Fig. 4-1) but alkalinity only increases by 120-130 μM. As the calcium data are probably sound, Brewer et al.(1975) suggested that this was because the alkalinity was low due to titration by HNO3 produced by respiration of organic matter in the deep sea. The correct comparison should be of Ca with potential alkalinity which is the total alkalinity corrected for the NO3 produced….

        The long residence time of Sr in the ocean could suggest that its concentration does not vary over Quaternary time scales, but in fact the best estimates of the modern Sr budget suggest that it is far from steady state (Schlanger, 1988). And in fact large changes (up to 12%) in Sr/Ca in planktonic foraminifera have been observed over the past 150 ka (glacial/interglacial time scales) suggesting that Sr/Ca was higher during glacial maxima (Stoll et al., 1999). This variability reflects changes in sea level, river fluxes and carbonate accumulation rates.

      • Gail Combs says:

        The oceans are highly buffered by calcium Ca++ (and magnesium Mg++) There is

        SEE: http://www.advancedaquarist.com/2002/3/chemistry

        Calcium is the main cation in river water, followed by Na and Mg, then K.

        LECTURE NOTES
        Chpt 4: Major Ions of Seawater…. James Murray, Univ. Washington

        grams/Kilogram @ salinity S – 35.000%
        Na+ 10.781
        K+ 0.399
        Mg++ 1.284
        Ca++ 0.4119
        Sr++ 0.00794

        1. estuaries: The average composition of river water is given in Table 4-2 (from Langmuir, 1997). The concentrations are given in mg l-1 and can be compared with seawater concentrations. The main difference is that HCO3- is the main anion in river water and has a much higher concentration than Cl- (which is the lowest of the major anions in river water). Calcium is the main cation in river water, followed by Na and Mg, then K…..

        Ca has small (+ 0.5%) but systematic variations within the ocean. This has been known since the earliest analyses of seawater. Dittmar (1884) used precise analyses of 77 Challenger samples to show that the calcium/chloride ratio was higher in deep water then in surface waters.

        When the Ca increase was first discovered by Dittmar it was hypothesized to be due to dissolution of CaCO3 particles. Brewer et al. (1975) showed that the change in alkalinity with depth in the ocean (where Alkalinity ≈ HCO3- + 2 CO32-) was less than that expected for the change in Ca. Actually according to the CaCO3 solubility reaction (e.g. CaCO3(s) = Ca2+ + CO32-), the changes should follow the expression ∆Alkalinity = 2 ∆Ca. Calcium increases by 100-130 μM as deep water flows from the Atlantic to the Pacific (Fig. 4-1) but alkalinity only increases by 120-130 μM. As the calcium data are probably sound, Brewer et al.(1975) suggested that this was because the alkalinity was low due to titration by HNO3 produced by respiration of organic matter in the deep sea. The correct comparison should be of Ca with potential alkalinity which is the total alkalinity corrected for the NO3 produced….

        The long residence time of Sr in the ocean could suggest that its concentration does not vary over Quaternary time scales, but in fact the best estimates of the modern Sr budget suggest that it is far from steady state (Schlanger, 1988). And in fact large changes (up to 12%) in Sr/Ca in planktonic foraminifera have been observed over the past 150 ka (glacial/interglacial time scales) suggesting that Sr/Ca was higher during glacial maxima (Stoll et al., 1999). This variability reflects changes in sea level, river fluxes and carbonate accumulation rates.

        (wwwDOT)ocean.washington.edu/courses/oc400/Lecture_Notes/CHPT4.pdf

      • Gail Combs says:

        GRRrrrr, Word pest is tossing my comments on ocean buffering.

    • gator69 says:

      All alarmist claims of doom are based upon models (including ocean acidification, which is a physical impossibility).

      According to the NOAA State of the Climate 2008 report, climate computer model simulations show that if observations find that the globe has not warmed for periods of 15 years or more, the climate models predicting man-made warming from CO2 will be falsified at a confidence level of 95%:

      “Near-zero and even negative trends are common for intervals of a decade or less in the simulations, due to the model’s internal climate variability. The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.”

      http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf

      (Page 24, Middle column, above)

      According to Phil Jones, there has been no statistically significant warming since 1995 [16 years, 3 months ago]. Ergo, the climate models have already been falsified at the 95% confidence level and it’s time to revert to the null hypothesis that man made CO2 is not causing global warming.

      He further admitted that in the last 15 years there had been no ‘statistically significant’ warming, although he argued this was a blip rather than the long-term trend.

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

      We are now well past 18 years and counting. How can alarmists continue to back these models when the models are contradicted by new information?

      Cogintive dissonant much Rick?

      • Colorado Wellington says:
      • Jason Calley says:

        Hey Rick Maltese! Minor point here… Festinger may have popularized the idea of cognitive dissonance but he did not introduce the concept. Mathematician and philosopher, P.D. Ouspensky wrote extensively on the phenomenon back during the period between the first and second world wars. He, in turn, picked up the idea from his teacher, Russian mystic G.I. Gurdjieff.

        By the way, you will find quite a few people here support developing nuclear power — maybe not in the ways it has been done in the past, but there are many very practical and safe designs available today if the politicians would let them be built.

        • Glad some here support nuclear energy. The article of course is total nonsense. How could a president be so diabolical and why to want to bring down the U.S. That would require unravelling a very complicated difficult to prove conspiracy. It is much easier to support why we need nuclear energy.

          In a nut shell it’s about energy density. Wind and solar require too much additional infrastructure to mimic a reliable grid and being intermittent and not working most of the time they can’t pretend to be a real world solution. For example they rely on natural gas. Natural gas only needs to leak at a rate of 4% to make them as bad as coal regarding CO2 emissions. Also battery storage is a bandaid and proves that they need rare earth resources that would be exhausted before half the chore was accomplished. I think wind and solar are only good for remote areas. They are more headaches than they are worth and only give the illusion that they are environment savers.

          What is missing in the discussion is that the actual idea that global warming and CO2 causing it are possible hoaxes. If the moderation accepts the skeptics point of view then the discussion is doomed. That makes the purpose of the website highly suspicious.

    • RAH says:

      Give us the examples of “climate extremes” scientifically attributable to human caused climate change that have or are currently happening. You can’t just go around throwing such accusations and expect to be taken seriously by thinking people without pointing to confirmed examples of that which you claim is happening. If, your claims are all about what is going to happen, with no observed evidence in nature that they are or will, then your nothing more than either a snake oil salesman or the duped customer in the crowd turned advocate.

    • T M says:

      You forgot the note indicating sarcasm

  3. gator69 says:

    Elect Hillary! The Clintons never gave in to the Chinese…

    A scientist at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has provided information that seriously contradicts Clinton administration claims that nuclear secrets obtained by China were solely the result of espionage during the late 1980’s.

    A nuclear weapons scientist, who has sought anonymity “to keep my position and keep supporting my family,” has informed NewsMax.com that the Clinton administration has, in fact, aggressively sought to provide China with some of the nation’s most closely guarded nuclear weapons technology.

    “It seems like every day there are more and more Chinese at Livermore,” he stated. The scientist said the administration had facilitated the transfer of laser technology employed in the process of making nuclear weapons-grade plutonium.

    “Early in the 1980’s a process was developed at Lawrence Livermore for producing weapons-grade plutonium,” the scientist explained, revealing for the first time details of a U.S. government project then considered the government’s most important.

    This concern for security for the weapons enriching laser process, however, quickly faded during the Clinton administration.

    During the Clinton administration’s first year, China began making overtures to gain access to Livermore’s weapons-grade enriching process.

    For years the work at Livermore had been a prime target for Chinese espionage. In 1988, the FBI’s Chief of Counterintelligence, Harry Godfrey III, told the Los Angeles Times that China was “the most active foreign power” seeking America’s military secrets. Godfrey said Livermore National Laboratory was among China’s main targets.

    Garberson said that the rules at Livermore “remain by law: no transfer of classified technology to Russia and China” is permitted, and said he was familiar enough with programs there to know that no technologies had been reclassified to allow for Commerce Department officials to sell the technology abroad.

    The Clinton administration had reset long-standing policies relating to technology transfers. By March of 1994, the administration had abolished the COCOM system that had safeguarded technology transfers from Western countries to East Bloc or communist nations.

    Later the White House took the key decision-making powers over technology transfers from the State and Defense Departments and gave them to the Commerce Department.

    These changes greatly expedited sales of U.S. technology, including supercomputers once prohibited for sale to communist countries and useful in developing nuclear weapons.

    When the Justice Department began a grand jury probe of this apparent illegal transfer, President Clinton quickly reclassified the technology and approved its transfer, effectively undermining the Justice Department’s case against Loral.

    http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/940025/posts

    • Thomas Robbins says:

      She, is Obama 2 – the improved version, of dismantling any semblance of this nation… for her own self interests… she is mentally Ill, and I believe O’bummer is as well – malignant narcissist the whole lot.

      • gator69 says:

        They are defintitely mentally ill. It is impossible to be a leftist and not have a serious mental deficiency and/or defect.

        Example: Denying transgenders access to whichever public bathroom suits their immediate need is abhorent, yet snuffing out the life of a child is everyone’s right.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          To be a leftist requires the ability to not suffer from cognitive dissonance. I have detected this possibly genetic mental “advantage” in every single leftist I’ve ever encountered.

  4. gator69 says:

    Johnny “Jihad” Kerry has spoken from on high…

    During Secretary of State John Kerry’s first official visit to Bangladesh, he met with top Bangladeshi government officials and held a press conference at the Edward M. Kennedy Center in Dhaka. In light of recent terror attacks in that country, Kerry addressed the problem of terrorism, including root causes and how the terrorists spread their message. The secretary said that the media could “do us all a service” by reducing coverage of terror attacks

    “Remember this: No country is immune from terrorism. It’s easy to terrorize. Government and law enforcement have to be correct 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days a year. But if you decide one day you’re going to be a terrorist and you’re willing to kill yourself, you can go out and kill some people. You can make some noise. Perhaps the media would do us all a service if they didn’t cover it quite as much. People wouldn’t know what’s going on.”

    Yep, we need more democrats in high office.

    • Adam Oakeley says:

      I love those quotes Gator69. It’s worked for climate gate and hillary’s health, so no surprise the DNC is calling for their press hounds to suppress news of terror attacks.

      In that vein, I *love* what Google News does with climate scare “news”. Anybody tried Google’s news “personalization” to filter out nonsense? It’s amazing what “news” sources Google dredges up to ensure you see headlines that conform to the global scaring mantra.

    • Jason Calley says:

      When it comes to terrorism, the Powers That Be are in a bit of a quandary. News about terrorism is great because it keeps the cattle frightened and easily controled. On the other hand, too much discussion of terrorism might inspire actual thought about it. Good ranchers don’t want the cattle discussing anything about where the rancher’s steak dinner might be coming from.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.