Incidentally, that is Angela Merkel’s stance as well. That’s why she immediately called the Chinese to invest into alternative energy sources to jointly corner the market.
EU (Germany to a large extent) and China will be making loads of money selling technlogy to the Americans.
Many US business leaders understand this - that’s why they were pushing for remaining in the Paris deal - but I mean what do Elon Musk, Tim Cook and all those CEOs know?
King Coal baby!
I can’t say I blame her. That’s the future of the energy market and could be a hyuggggge source of the 3% GDP growth Trump needs.
http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
That’s a link to Cook’s rebuttal as I don’t know how to do the fancy cool thing you do with the articles and such. Emphasis mine. Scafetta seems to have fallen out of favor sometime in the last 3-5 years as he seems to have taken some liberties to make stuff fit on his curve/model “Extreme Curve Fitting” is what it was called.
The consensus that humans are causing recent global warming is shared by 90%–100% of publishing climate scientists according to six independent studies by co-authors of this paper. Those results are consistent with the 97% consensus reported by Cook et al (Environ. Res. Lett. 8 024024) based on 11 944 abstracts of research papers, of which 4014 took a position on the cause of recent global warming. A survey of authors of those papers (N = 2412 papers) also supported a 97% consensus. Tol (2016 Environ. Res. Lett. 11 048001) comes to a different conclusion using results from surveys of non-experts such as economic geologists and a self-selected group of those who reject the consensus. We demonstrate that this outcome is not unexpected because the level of consensus correlates with expertise in climate science. At one point, Tol also reduces the apparent consensus by assuming that abstracts that do not explicitly state the cause of global warming (‘no position’) represent non-endorsement, an approach that if applied elsewhere would reject consensus on well-established theories such as plate tectonics. We examine the available studies and conclude that the finding of 97% consensus in published climate research is robust and consistent with other surveys of climate scientists and peer-reviewed studies.
So Trump pulls out of the Paris climate agreement. Yet one more conservative move from President Trump. It sort of makes those who doubted that he would govern as a conservative look pretty silly.
As I have said repeatedly don’t vote for the man/woman vote for the party. Whatever is said during a campaign contrary to what the party wants (either party) will usually (not always) be reversed. The candidate needs the party as much. or more than the party needs the candidate.
Look for more conservative moves from President Trump. Again, not all of them will be conservative and aligned with the party, just the overwhelming majority.
To be fair making a decision that’s bad for American businesses and the future of our economy is normally a Democrat move.
I like it when you are wrong most of the time. It is even more fun because of your utmost confidence.
Please continue…
You mean like when “MOST” of Bush’s cabinet were non political appointments, come to find out 19/21 were from the public/political sector?
Another factor that often overlooked is that Trump is too old to grasp this. [quote=“zeb1, post:786, topic:229190”]
So Trump pulls out of the Paris climate agreement. Yet one more conservative move from President Trump. It sort of makes those who doubted that he would govern as a conservative look pretty silly.
[/quote]
Shouldn’t “conservative” be synonymous with “pro-business”? These names do not sound like a bunch of leftists SJW, to use your favorite terms…
On Thursday morning, major firms including Adobe, Apple, Facebook, Google, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Intel, Microsoft and Salesforce paid for a full-page ad in both The New York Times and The Wall Street Journal urging Trump to keep the U.S. in the Paris climate agreement.
Apple CEO Tim Cook and Tesla CEO Elon Musk were among the business leaders to personally call the White House in a last-ditch effort to keep the U.S. in the agreement, The Wall Street Journal reported.
Musk took to Twitter to warn that if Trump elects to drop the U.S. from the climate deal, he will step down from his positions on White House advisory councils. Musk has earned significant criticism for his decision to stay on the councils in the past but has argued that it’s “important” to have a role in shaping discourse at the White House.
Musk and Cook were only the initial wave in calls from the technology industry for Trump to keep the U.S. in the agreement.
IBM reaffirmed its support of the Paris climate deal on Thursday.
Oh gosh no. Come to find out you are wrong AGAIN. I don’t know which Bush you are talking about but neither had such a ratio.
Here you go:
Well… It doesn’t surprise me a whole lot that Musk and Cook are against leaving the deal since both are in the alternative energy business (Apple might still just be talking about it, I can’t remember).
You mean like claiming Hillary Clinton being elected would mean your taxes going up by 5%?
That’s what she said during the campaign. But then again you might be right she is quite the liar.
Now this was surprising. But I guess Bannon knows better…
No, that’s what you said in PWI a day or two ago. Tell us why your taxes would, in fact, be 5% higher had Clinton won with a Republican-controlled Congress. I look forward to the explanation.
Do you know anything about S corps? I don’t mean that sarcastically but unless there is direct involvement most people do not understand how they work. The income that is generated by an S corp is considered direct income to the owner of the S Corp. Therefore, I would be hit with a 4% or 5% income tax hike…possible even more.
I didn’t like that much.
Would you?
The departure from the Paris accord was mostly theatre for Trump. It was far more a political optics move than a substantive one. He’s down in the news cycle, and needed to get some adoring fans re-adoring him. He’s not listening to businesses much.
That would be such an interesting link if it wasn’t wrong. Actually look up all of Bush’s cabinet members like I did and you’ll find your error. 19/21 of Bush’s cabinet members had political jobs prior to the cabinet jobs.
Don’t trust sources if you’re not willing to fact check them.
My sources are correct.
Keep telling yourself that. Just don’t do any research like I did, it’ll really confuse your predetermined notion.
Ignorance is bliss.
This is either a complete dodge or you’re woefully ignorant of basic civics. The mechanics of S Corp taxation are irrelevant.
You said had Hillary won you’d be paying 5% more in taxes - that means current tax law would have to change to tack on the extra 5% from what it currently is. Even if Hillary had won, the Republicans control Congress, where such a tax law revision would have to start and be passed for a President Hillary to sign.
So, tell me how that happens because Hillary got elected.