<sigh> Now that you have degraded the conversation to using bad language, I will exit this conversation.

I gave you the data. You can choose to apply it to your heart's content. Just be aware that wanting to believe something to be true does not make that something true.

So what part of going back 150 years in time are you in favor of dimwit.

Sounds like a Republican debate in here.

You are right on the money.

I like money.

I like money too. That's why I worked for it.

An earlier mention was made, 'Fossil-fuel-based industries are subsidized as well."

Actually, there are no such things as oil company subsidies.  The US government cuts no checks to the oil companies.  There are no appropriations, or programs established to subsidize oil companies.

What are misleadingly called "subsidies," or "corporate welfare," are really provisions in the tax code which apply to all businesses, to a certain degree.

American Thinker (2011) wrote:

Domestic manufacturing tax deduction — $1.7 B. This is a tax deduction given to every manufacturer in the US. Per CNN, it was “designed to keep factories in the United States.” If that deduction were eliminated for oil companies only, it would mean singling out oil companies from all other manufacturers.

Percentage depletion allowance — $1 B. Any industry can write down a portion of the cost of its capital equipment as part of the cost of doing business. Right now, oil in the ground is treated as capital equipment. Again, this “subsidy” amounts to how the cost of doing business is defined. All companies get it, not just oil companies.

Foreign tax credit — $850 million. Companies get credit for taxes they pay to other countries. All companies get this “subsidy,” not just oil companies. Should a company pay tax on tax? Should only oil companies pay tax on tax?

Intangible drilling costs — $780 million. According to CNN, “[a]ll industries get to write off the costs of doing business, but they must take it over the life of an investment. The oil industry gets to take the drilling credit in the first year.” Among these four tax “breaks,” this smallest one was the only one that treated oil companies differently.

http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2011/05/about_those_oil_subsidies.html

  The Paris Agreement is a great deal......for the Global Elite, because it tightens the noose around the economies of the developed countries and gives them even more control over the world's populations.  Even worse, it's always "just the beginning" with those bassturds.  Never an ending in sight to the screws being put to the world.

This is absolutely hilarious!!

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/kerry-says-paris-agreement-crafted-to-avoid-congress/article/2578256

Kerry says Paris agreement crafted to avoid Congress

Secretary of State John Kerry said Sunday the climate agreement reached this week in Paris did not contain any enforcement provisions because Congress would not have approved them.

"It doesn't have mandatory targets for reduction and it doesn't have an enforcement, compliance mechanism," Kerry said during an interview on "Fox News Sunday...."

Kerry also said he hopes the climate agreement will send "a very powerful message to the marketplace" about where they should place their energy investments.

Critics have said the climate deal's lack of enforceable requirements could render it useless given the fact that countries will face no punishment for breaking the agreement.

"There's mandatory reporting," Kerry said. "That reporting will be used by one country to measure against another."

That's it?  All the brouhaha was to "send a message to the markets"???'

The message received was that Obama, Kerry & Company are bunglers and snake oil salesmen.

What about dem driverless cars tho?

Why do your earlier accounts, fake_2 and fake_3 have cheater badges?

LOLZ ... because I reported you, that's why, neeraj!  Now go away, little boy.

Here is an extract of an article published by the FT, which will enlight you about the US leadership:

"While the climate deal certainly represents a remarkable piece of international co-operation, it will face many hurdles before it comes into force. As its many critics point out, the provisions of the Paris accord may well prove inadequate to the task of slowing climate change, even if they are observed.

These weaknesses in the agreement matter because the contest between nationalists and internationalists is playing out all over the world. Climate change is a particularly vexing issue for nationalists since it clearly can only be tackled by global action. That is one reason why many nationalists choose to pretend that global warming is simply not happening.

In the US, Republican nationalists such as Donald Trump and Ted Cruz will queue up to denounce the climate agreement. Mr Trump will attack the fact that richer nations will pay developing countries to cut emissions and will probably cackle that he could use his dealmaking skills to make the Chinese and Indians pay. (Just like the Mexicans will pay for a wall along the border.)

Barack Obama’s swift insistence that the climate deal represented a triumph for US leadership was an attempt to pre-empt these criticisms.

It is true that an earlier US-Chinese agreement laid the groundwork for the Paris deal. Nonetheless, the US president’s words will have sounded gratingly self-centred to non-American ears. But Mr Obama’s statement has to be understood in the US context, where the president is routinely accused, even by his own side, of weakness on the international stage.

The “weak Obama” argument sounds particularly persuasive if you measure leadership by numbers of bombs dropped. In reality, the climate change accord brings to an end a year of landmark breakthroughs in international diplomacy by the Obama administration. As well as the climate agreement, this year has brought a diplomatic pact on Iran’s nuclear programme, a major trade accord in the form of the Trans-Pacific Partnership and the reopening of US diplomatic relations with Cuba. All four of these achievements have been many years in the making.

The immense patience, the spirit of compromise, the attention to detail and tolerance for boredom involved in making these deals represents a stark contrast with the taste for violent or simplistic solutions visible on the American right, where Mr Trump’s promise to exclude all Muslims from the US has been matched by Mr Cruz’s pledge to drop so many bombs on the Middle East that he will make the desert glow."

FT = Financial Times

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/e9039db8-a247-11e5-bc70-7ff6d4fd203a.html#axzz3uK4TLxmY

Is a "contract" or "compact" which in unenforceable on its face, of any value?

The grand "climate change deal" is inspid baby food.

It still rightly shows great leadership from the US. The deal isn't perfect by any mean but it is a step in the right direction.

It isn't even a deal.  It is an exercise in cheerleading.

Drugs and alcohol.

Yes, they "fueled" the convention in Paris.

To call the Paris Accord anythng but a bad joke, and to trumpet it as a "legally binding agreement," requires the willing suspension of disbelief.

Even if someone thinks the agreement isn't binding for the USA, don't be mistaken that other countries would run away from their responsibility. There's more than just dropping bombs and cheering for Israel to set a good example and I'm happy to know there's plenty of people sharing this thought in the USA.

it's not binding in the usa because the republicans in congress would never ratify it if it was.  america would never agree to anything binding because these right wing deniers would have their head explode over it.

http://legalinsurrection.com/2015/12/global-warning-paris-climate-change-accord-is-a-bureaucratic-boondoggle/

Global Warning: Paris climate change accord is a bureaucratic boondoggle

The accord is so preposterous that even the “godfather of climate science”, former NASA scientist James Hansen is ripping the deal apart before the ink is dry:

“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

…[A]ccording to Hansen, the international jamboree is pointless unless greenhouse gas emissions aren’t taxed across the board. He argues that only this will force down emissions quickly enough to avoid the worst ravages of climate change.

But that would get in the way of the real purpose of the pact: Wealth redistribution.