I just finished watching David Muir and ABC Nightly News cover President Trump’s decision to not sign the Agreement and as usual the bias in their coverage was disgusting. By the way, 32% of their airtime this evening was about Trump while barely covering some extremely important events like the tragedy in Manila.
First of all, it was loaded with opinions by Democrats including the very liberal mayors of Boston and Pittsburgh, Marty Walsh and Bill Peduto. What about the many mayors who agreed with what President Trump did? Mainstream media integrity is truly an oxymoron.
They said the president of General Electric was upset about President Trump not signing the Agreement but didn’t mention that G.E. doesn’t need the Federal Government to require them to step up to the plate when it comes to their environmental policies. I'm a stockholder, I read about them every year. What does this say about him that he wants the government to force his company to do what he feels is right?
ABC News made a point of saying that we were among only two other countries (Nicaragua and Syria), that didn’t sign the Agreement yet didn’t mention that previous agreements were signed but not adhered to by countries like China, India, and Indonesia. Major global competitors of ours. The only countries who’ve shown a true desire to set and meet standards are coincidentally members of the G-8. Why don't we let the other 190 or so countries catch up, then we'll talk deal?
By the way, what exactly could Syria do to help a climate change initiative? Just who exactly would go in to ensure they were abiding by the Agreement? They better make sure they have a military escort and are wearing bullet proof vests. Do you see how ridiculous this is?
The Agreement itself has turned into political fodder just like the last one. We’d end up raising costs on some of our goods in the U.S. to do our part, while attempting to compete in a global economy. Of course our competitors were pushing hard for us to agree to their standards. We’d play by the rules, as usual, and they’d cheat, as usual.
When it comes to establishing standards to help the issue of climate change, cities and states can set their own if they wish. President Trump hasn’t prevented them from doing their perceived part by not signing the Agreement; although according to the liberal media you’d think this was the case.
Cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York have set their own standards and the Federal Government didn't get in their way. Have you ever asked yourself why coincidentally, the costs of living in places like these are so much higher than in average cities? Los Angeles has close access to products like cheese, meat, and produce so why do they costs so much more there than in a place like Charlotte, North Carolina where I live? Why are their utilities so much higher?
These liberal cities can do whatever they want as long as their citizens are willing to foot the bill. By the way, I've lived in Charlotte for around 28 years and I've never had a family member, friend, and/or neighbor that has moved to any of the cities I've mentioned above but I've met plenty of people that have moved from there. I wonder why? Rhetorical question. So tack on whatever regulations you like in the northeast, Charlotte will continue to enjoy the additional tax revenues from the citizens who used to live there.
Notice they aren’t mentioning the controversy regarding how much of a difference the changes would make towards addressing climate change. How can they accurately predict the Agreement’s impact on the world’s climate when economic growth is a major part of the equation. Economics isn't an exact science. Our economists are all over the board trying to figure out what's going to happen here in the U.S., so why in the world do the economists they have conducting their research for the Agreement believe they've got a handle on it especially on a global scale? They don't.
Do they assume all countries who sign the Agreement will abide by it in their projections? Not taking into consideration the countries who won’t follow through based on past experiences, means their calculations can't be statistically viable. You don't need to be a research analyst to figure this out.
China alone can completely negate the Agreement's predictions. For example, how about air quality in China around the time of the Olympics? The world got a great look at the real China. Do you think their signature on a document is going to force them into improving their negative climate impact when they’re the leading producer of goods? They aren’t even following laws regarding child labor. If China fails to live up to the standards set based on the huge impact they have on the problem, means we can throw the Agreement's claims out. How about covering this, mainstream media?
I'm just a poor farm boy who didn't attend an Ivy League University, but let me throw a little something out there and see what you think. Between our hayfield and cornfield was a line of trees. When I was hot from working in 90 degree temperatures and thirsty, I'd walk underneath the trees and cool off and drink some water. With a nice breeze the temperature could drop at least 15 degrees. The soles of my boots would start cooling down because of the much lower ground temperature. Now I'm not a climate change expert but I figured out that trees made a huge impact on temperatures.
With this in mind, what about the impact of development around the world because of population growth? I was surrounded by forest when I moved into my current home 20 years ago now there's new development all around me. I bet at least 30% of the trees are now gone and replaced by commercial buildings and housing developments. Do you think that the average ground temperature in my little part of the world hasn't risen at least a little?
A comparison of thermal imaging clearly shows the problem pockets around the world and guess what...countries with the greatest population growths are the ones impacting climate change the most along with countries lacking conservation standards like what happened to the rain forest.
The fact remains, liberals are saying that President Trump is on a "scorch the earth" campaign using scare tactics galore when the primary contributor to rising temperatures is the cutting down of trees for new development. Let's face it, this reality isn't good for politicians who are always looking for ways to fire up their constituents and continue enjoying their lavish lifestyles in D.C. This is why there's such a tragic truth to the negative impact of low information voters on America's success.
I'm not going to go into a lot of detail because this article is long enough but not only did my family contribute to global warming because we cleared trees to plant crops but since we also did our best to help our community we owned a small herd of cattle which provided milk and meat. Like all cattle around the world, ours put out methane gas. This doesn't hurt carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere but there's not a scientist in the world who won't tell you that Methane is 23 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas. I guess the Paris Agreement didn't want to address one of the real major causes of "global warming" because it is a political black hole.
Have you asked yourself just how many of those speaking against Trump not signing the Agreement, have actually read the Agreement? Do they know what the current global temperature is and how they measure it? Do they know the technology that was used in the 1800's to measure global temperatures and how it compares to the devices we're using today to where we have an accurate assessment for variations ? Please let this question sink in. How Do they know how countries will be audited and held accountable for following through on their commitments? Do they know how many fines were levied on other countries and were actually paid during the previous Agreement? I’m going to go out on a limb and say that it’s highly unlikely so why are they speaking out against Trump not signing the Agreement? What credibility do they have regarding this topic?
The bottom line is the liberal media is hurting our country by pushing a political narrative versus covering the Agreement in a fair and balanced manner. They try to make President Trump look like an idiot regarding this topic (he's done a good enough job of this on his own in how he's handled other situations so no piling on is necessary), when there are legitimate reasons for why he made the decision he did, which I might add, was part of his election platform.
These liberals remind me of the kid who cried "wolf!" They're shouting non-stop over every issue and slowly but surely more and more voters are tuning out their screams. Just in the last two months, I've heard political pundits plus Pelosi and Schumer say that Trump's budget, healthcare plan, and now his decision on the Climate Agreement will kill children. Pelosi was acting like she was in tears yesterday while quoting the Bible making Trump sound like the devil in not caring about mankind. Save the bad acting Pelosi because it's not working. Proof? Look at what's happened in the House and Senate over the last eight years then of course the Presidential Election. I know they think they're so much smarter than us deplorables but in this case they sure don't get it.
Around 22 million viewers watch ABC, CBS, and NBC’s nightly news broadcasts and are being influenced by their content. Their problem is they still think people believe everything they’re saying when the polls proved otherwise. The mainstream media gets livid when the term "fake news" is mentioned and maybe it isn't an accurate term but I promise you the term "manufactured news" fits because their coverage of President Trump not signing the Agreement is beyond outrageous.
If you're a liberal and are demonizing President Trump for his decision ask yourself if you know all the facts? Do you know the answers to questions I posed above because you sure aren't getting them by watching the national news. Are you doing everything you can to help the problem before pointing your fingers at others? What size car do you drive? How big of a house do you live in? Are you responsible with your utility usage?
For those of you demonizing Trump why don't you quit being part of the problem and become part of the solution. If you're really "all in" on helping your fellow man, stop eating beef and start planting trees. As for me, I'm selfish and plan on eating burgers on the grill tonight but I will be sitting on my patio in the shade of a huge tree I planted 20 years ago. You're welcome.
First of all, it was loaded with opinions by Democrats including the very liberal mayors of Boston and Pittsburgh, Marty Walsh and Bill Peduto. What about the many mayors who agreed with what President Trump did? Mainstream media integrity is truly an oxymoron.
They said the president of General Electric was upset about President Trump not signing the Agreement but didn’t mention that G.E. doesn’t need the Federal Government to require them to step up to the plate when it comes to their environmental policies. I'm a stockholder, I read about them every year. What does this say about him that he wants the government to force his company to do what he feels is right?
ABC News made a point of saying that we were among only two other countries (Nicaragua and Syria), that didn’t sign the Agreement yet didn’t mention that previous agreements were signed but not adhered to by countries like China, India, and Indonesia. Major global competitors of ours. The only countries who’ve shown a true desire to set and meet standards are coincidentally members of the G-8. Why don't we let the other 190 or so countries catch up, then we'll talk deal?
By the way, what exactly could Syria do to help a climate change initiative? Just who exactly would go in to ensure they were abiding by the Agreement? They better make sure they have a military escort and are wearing bullet proof vests. Do you see how ridiculous this is?
The Agreement itself has turned into political fodder just like the last one. We’d end up raising costs on some of our goods in the U.S. to do our part, while attempting to compete in a global economy. Of course our competitors were pushing hard for us to agree to their standards. We’d play by the rules, as usual, and they’d cheat, as usual.
When it comes to establishing standards to help the issue of climate change, cities and states can set their own if they wish. President Trump hasn’t prevented them from doing their perceived part by not signing the Agreement; although according to the liberal media you’d think this was the case.
Cities like Chicago, Los Angeles, and New York have set their own standards and the Federal Government didn't get in their way. Have you ever asked yourself why coincidentally, the costs of living in places like these are so much higher than in average cities? Los Angeles has close access to products like cheese, meat, and produce so why do they costs so much more there than in a place like Charlotte, North Carolina where I live? Why are their utilities so much higher?
These liberal cities can do whatever they want as long as their citizens are willing to foot the bill. By the way, I've lived in Charlotte for around 28 years and I've never had a family member, friend, and/or neighbor that has moved to any of the cities I've mentioned above but I've met plenty of people that have moved from there. I wonder why? Rhetorical question. So tack on whatever regulations you like in the northeast, Charlotte will continue to enjoy the additional tax revenues from the citizens who used to live there.
Notice they aren’t mentioning the controversy regarding how much of a difference the changes would make towards addressing climate change. How can they accurately predict the Agreement’s impact on the world’s climate when economic growth is a major part of the equation. Economics isn't an exact science. Our economists are all over the board trying to figure out what's going to happen here in the U.S., so why in the world do the economists they have conducting their research for the Agreement believe they've got a handle on it especially on a global scale? They don't.
Do they assume all countries who sign the Agreement will abide by it in their projections? Not taking into consideration the countries who won’t follow through based on past experiences, means their calculations can't be statistically viable. You don't need to be a research analyst to figure this out.
China alone can completely negate the Agreement's predictions. For example, how about air quality in China around the time of the Olympics? The world got a great look at the real China. Do you think their signature on a document is going to force them into improving their negative climate impact when they’re the leading producer of goods? They aren’t even following laws regarding child labor. If China fails to live up to the standards set based on the huge impact they have on the problem, means we can throw the Agreement's claims out. How about covering this, mainstream media?
I'm just a poor farm boy who didn't attend an Ivy League University, but let me throw a little something out there and see what you think. Between our hayfield and cornfield was a line of trees. When I was hot from working in 90 degree temperatures and thirsty, I'd walk underneath the trees and cool off and drink some water. With a nice breeze the temperature could drop at least 15 degrees. The soles of my boots would start cooling down because of the much lower ground temperature. Now I'm not a climate change expert but I figured out that trees made a huge impact on temperatures.
With this in mind, what about the impact of development around the world because of population growth? I was surrounded by forest when I moved into my current home 20 years ago now there's new development all around me. I bet at least 30% of the trees are now gone and replaced by commercial buildings and housing developments. Do you think that the average ground temperature in my little part of the world hasn't risen at least a little?
A comparison of thermal imaging clearly shows the problem pockets around the world and guess what...countries with the greatest population growths are the ones impacting climate change the most along with countries lacking conservation standards like what happened to the rain forest.
The fact remains, liberals are saying that President Trump is on a "scorch the earth" campaign using scare tactics galore when the primary contributor to rising temperatures is the cutting down of trees for new development. Let's face it, this reality isn't good for politicians who are always looking for ways to fire up their constituents and continue enjoying their lavish lifestyles in D.C. This is why there's such a tragic truth to the negative impact of low information voters on America's success.
I'm not going to go into a lot of detail because this article is long enough but not only did my family contribute to global warming because we cleared trees to plant crops but since we also did our best to help our community we owned a small herd of cattle which provided milk and meat. Like all cattle around the world, ours put out methane gas. This doesn't hurt carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere but there's not a scientist in the world who won't tell you that Methane is 23 times more potent as a heat-trapping gas. I guess the Paris Agreement didn't want to address one of the real major causes of "global warming" because it is a political black hole.
Have you asked yourself just how many of those speaking against Trump not signing the Agreement, have actually read the Agreement? Do they know what the current global temperature is and how they measure it? Do they know the technology that was used in the 1800's to measure global temperatures and how it compares to the devices we're using today to where we have an accurate assessment for variations ? Please let this question sink in. How Do they know how countries will be audited and held accountable for following through on their commitments? Do they know how many fines were levied on other countries and were actually paid during the previous Agreement? I’m going to go out on a limb and say that it’s highly unlikely so why are they speaking out against Trump not signing the Agreement? What credibility do they have regarding this topic?
The bottom line is the liberal media is hurting our country by pushing a political narrative versus covering the Agreement in a fair and balanced manner. They try to make President Trump look like an idiot regarding this topic (he's done a good enough job of this on his own in how he's handled other situations so no piling on is necessary), when there are legitimate reasons for why he made the decision he did, which I might add, was part of his election platform.
These liberals remind me of the kid who cried "wolf!" They're shouting non-stop over every issue and slowly but surely more and more voters are tuning out their screams. Just in the last two months, I've heard political pundits plus Pelosi and Schumer say that Trump's budget, healthcare plan, and now his decision on the Climate Agreement will kill children. Pelosi was acting like she was in tears yesterday while quoting the Bible making Trump sound like the devil in not caring about mankind. Save the bad acting Pelosi because it's not working. Proof? Look at what's happened in the House and Senate over the last eight years then of course the Presidential Election. I know they think they're so much smarter than us deplorables but in this case they sure don't get it.
Around 22 million viewers watch ABC, CBS, and NBC’s nightly news broadcasts and are being influenced by their content. Their problem is they still think people believe everything they’re saying when the polls proved otherwise. The mainstream media gets livid when the term "fake news" is mentioned and maybe it isn't an accurate term but I promise you the term "manufactured news" fits because their coverage of President Trump not signing the Agreement is beyond outrageous.
If you're a liberal and are demonizing President Trump for his decision ask yourself if you know all the facts? Do you know the answers to questions I posed above because you sure aren't getting them by watching the national news. Are you doing everything you can to help the problem before pointing your fingers at others? What size car do you drive? How big of a house do you live in? Are you responsible with your utility usage?
For those of you demonizing Trump why don't you quit being part of the problem and become part of the solution. If you're really "all in" on helping your fellow man, stop eating beef and start planting trees. As for me, I'm selfish and plan on eating burgers on the grill tonight but I will be sitting on my patio in the shade of a huge tree I planted 20 years ago. You're welcome.
RSS Feed