Before you panic - read it for yourself! It took me two days to actually find it. Here is what you need to know first...
- This is still led by the UN responsible for the IPCC report.
- There are many sources that have already proven effectively that concensus (a non-scientific factor) is no where near 97% on anthropogenic causes of climate change
- But even without concensus, if you are worried about human responsibility toward respectifully taking care of the planet, you should by now in your grown up life know that all 'causes are not equal' and some might be straight up scandelous
- If you are going to back something, you better darn well know what you are backing. You cannot just claim that "it's for a good cause" if the group running the cause is already known for agnotological violations in ethics. The "cause" might be good, but the effort might still be a scam.
Let's jump 54 pages into the accord documents are see what it says about the nature of this agreement...
In the response to the "threat of climate change" in the context of "efforts to erase poverty." It is worth noting that of over 11,000 papers written by the creme de la creme of scientists who are climate change proponents (people who are "believers" as they would have themselves known) less than 1% agree about the "threat of climate change."
Said another way, even if you are a scientist who believes the climate is changing, and that humans are responsible for up to half of the .7 degrees C of climate increase since the industrial revolution (know that this is what this is all about - not a 200 degree planet or a 100 foot oceanic rise - all proven fiction and non of that backed by anyone other than the speculations of Al Gore) 99% of those "climate change believers" have published or agreed that it is a "threat."
But let's assume climate change is a threat. Will the Paris Agreement help? According to a group of expert scientific anthropogenic climate change believers the negotiated self-governed goals will not help achieve the larger goal of restricting CO2 to 2 degrees C above industrial revolution era levels. Read that again: even if we hit our national goals for the Paris Accord, we won't hit the single primary goal.
In addition to that, the Us (under President Obama) promised to contribute a starting investment of $3 billion to the "cause." Do you still remember the cause? Was it reducing CO2? Nope, not that cause. It was fighting world poverty... via the UN.
According to Forbes magazine, which is famous for watching the movement in money scandles, claims this is part of "…a commitment to near-term and long-term climate financing for the least developed countries amounting to near $30 billion for the period 2010-2012, and $100 billion annually by 2020."
But what about just the U.S.? Even if not long ago there were an uncountable number of scandles where 3rd world government were stealing world poverty and world starvation philanthropic aid resources in a manner where they never got to their well-intentioned destinations, what is guiding this massive investment in this cause within the U.S. itself? After all, once the U.S. invests it's disproportionate billions into 3rd world non-industrialized globalwarming provention (as outlined in article 2 of the Paris Accord, highlighting the fact that two out of three factors are about spending money and not holding back human CO2) how do we spend our money wisely in order to hit our primary accord goal? So far, accord to Forbes, our government has an incredibly bad track record on financing useless studies that have almost nothing to do with climate change research, but that somehow attached the phrase "in the context of climate change" to its proposal. How will giving that money to the UN now suddenly be a better choice?
To recap, Paris Accord individual national determined contribution (NDC) goals do not add up enough to even achieve the first goal, and the fight against poverty (aka redistribution of wealth) has an historical blight in terms of the nations poised to benefit the most having historical ethics issues when it comes to international aid trafficing, not to mention the completely disproportionate investment requirement agreed to by previous presidents who knowingly wouldn't have to be around to honor them. Forget the fact that the UN Climate Conference publicly celebrated China for proactively and forceably "aborting" future Co2 poluters (talk about a war on women: hundreds of millions of female babies were aborted in China since 1979).
I am all for supporting a good cause. I just feel like the Paris Accord is yet another shady and vague scheme scandelously validated "in the context of Climate Change."