Hahahaha.
And one for the road - Hahahaha. 
Fuckin’ drink.
Neither can many other documentaries or news shows or other media presentations on complicated grown-up topics. If you, doorhinge, actually knew anything about science documentary programs at a level any more advanced than Sid the Science Kid and similar PBSKids products, this would not be seeming like such a big deal to you.
To reasonable adults, there’s nothing untoward or suspect in the fact that a documentary on science and science policy that was not created as an educational product for schoolchildren requires additional contextual information to make it appropriate for classroom use.
As you keep giving me additional opportunities to point out, doorhinge, An Inconvenient Truth is widely recognized and court-approved as a high-quality, scientifically supported documentary on an important scientific topic. But it is not a children’s movie, and the fact that it needs additional educational context to make it a suitable teaching tool for children does not in any way discredit it.
Of course you weren’t aware. You also weren’t aware of where Greenland is located. I’m sure you’re also not aware of where the sun goes at night. We understand.
I said “almost 200 countries”. Every country in the world that matters, basically. Here are the specific numbers – ordinarily I would say “welcome to actual facts”, but I realize that for some reason you’re banned from the world of facts and knowledge, and you have my sympathies:
UNFCCC COP21 had:
196 participating nations with 23,107 national representatives
2 observer states
36 United Nations Secretariat units and bodies
20 specialized agencies and related organizations
71 intergovernmental organizations
1,109 non-governmental organizations
1,366 media
Who cares?
Also, as a stand alone product, the movie can and is often shown in German high schools.
Look, you sub-literate moron, you’re the one implying that there aren’t nearly 200 countries and that people are making up facts about the COP21 agreement. Rather than take the 5 seconds to not make yourself look like an ass, you’re implying that easily verifiable statements are being made up whole-cloth.
(post shortened, emphasis added)
I haven’t seen Neil Armstrong’s footprints on the moon, but I think we landed a man on the moon. I’ve never been to New York City, but I’m fairly sure it exists. I have yet to see evidence that doorhinge is anything but a sub-literate ten year old.
Apparently, you do. That’s why you responded.
Hahahaha. I asked a question. I was requesting clarification. You chose to piss in your Underoos. Meanwhile -
*U.N. wants world leaders to sign climate deal on April 22
By EDITH M. LEDERER Politics Dec. 15, 2015
UNITED NATIONS — U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said Monday he is inviting world leaders to the United Nations on April 22 — Earth Day — to sign the landmark agreement to tackle climate change that was reached in Paris.
Ban told reporters he wants leaders of the nearly 200 countries that approved the deal on Saturday to come to U.N. headquarters on the day it opens for signature “because this will be the first-ever universal climate change agreement.”
…Janos Pasztor, the assistant secretary-general on climate change, said the plans submitted by 188 countries to address climate change represent “a firm floor” for future action, noting that all countries are required to submit updated plans every five year which must be “no less ambitious.”
After countries sign the agreement, at least 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of global emissions must ratify it before it can take effect. Pasztor said the goal is to have the agreement take effect in 2020.*
The original stories say the COP21 deal is legally binding. If the agreement still requires 55 countries (28%?) to ratify it before it takes effect, how is it legally binding?
(post shortened)
WOW! I wonder how big of a carbon footprint a group that large would produce?
About equal to six seconds of the U.S. freeway system.
Don’t worry, guys. The National Review published an honest global temperature graph, showing that there is no increase.
It is entirely not dishonest to change the Y axis to one that shows from -10 to 110 degrees change in order to show no change over time.
One more example of the utter ignorance of doorhinge.
Fails third grade geography.
Hormones still developing? You act like a child trying to imitate grown-up humor.
The fourth grade is discussing the fact that the original COP21-is-successful stories that claim the deal is now legally binding. However, if the agreement still requires 55 countries (28%?) to ratify it before it takes effect, how is it legally binding?
Again, you’re stripping out the context. It’s actually “After countries sign the agreement, at least 55 countries representing at least 55 percent of global emissions must ratify it before it can take effect.” That’s addressing the countries deemed to be most responsible for global emission, presumably the biggest and most populous. Not all countries pollute equally. Wouldn’t you think China most likely pollutes more than Lichtenstein? They’re looking for enough of the biggest players to get in line if they can’t get everybody.
Plus, the article is just a summary of the agreement. It doesn’t provide all the fine details. “Legally binding” just means enough participants will have agreed to the plan. Nitpicking how the math doesn’t work out doesn’t mean it’s all fake, or whatever the point is you’re trying to make.
(post shortened)
If the COP agreement requires ratification before it takes effect, then it’s not currently “legally binding”. Or is it?
UN math is always interesting. It requires 55 member nations to agree but not just any 55 member nations. If you know how the math actually works out, I’d love to hear it.
Sigh!!
Some of the details are complicated, and we still haven’t been able to teach you where Greenland is located or how the sun warms the earth, so conveying any kind of subtlety or nuance about this agreement would be a lot like trying to explain it to a cat. I suggest you just take it for granted that everyone’s agreed to a deal and not stress your little brain over it.
For the record, though, if I was trying to explain it to a reasonably intelligent cat or any ordinary dog, I would describe the process as a series of iterations. The fact that the participating nations have already ratified the UNFCCC process itself makes the COP21 agreement already a significant one. It sets objectives and benchmarks that provide a basis for assessing a nation’s conformance and thus peer pressure from the international community. More formally, the agreement goes into effect in 2020 and to be declared actually in effect it requires the formal ratification of at least 55 nations at the UN by (I believe) April of next year. President Obama has already stated that such ratification is an executive action and not a Congressional one, as Congress has already ratified US participation in the UNFCCC. So that ratification isn’t in doubt. The final element in this iteration is that specific monetary commitments made to other nations on behalf of the UNFCCC (as opposed to emissions commitments) will, as always, require Congressional budget approval.
I notice that you changed the subject rather than owning up to your ignorance of the number of nations in the world.
Again, what is your point in hanging on to conflicting (to you) details? Do you think that invalidates the whole purpose of controlling global emissions? The COP determined that 55 nations (28% of the word’s nations) are responsible for 55% of the world’s pollution. They’re essentially hoping to get those 55 nations to join in the cause. That’s just a goal. “Legally binding” just means they have enough signatures. It’s not like the UN can take police action if any nation falls short of the COP’s standards, in case you’re worrying about one-world government.
The UN’s trying to get the nations of the world to understand that climate change can negatively affect the planet’s environment and result in epic disasters that can’t be controlled. The math involved is just estimates and goals. It doesn’t invalidate their efforts or make the whole thing false if the math doesn’t conform to your liking.
In the meantime, surface water worldwide is warming faster than either the atmosphere or the oceans, and faster than previously projected.
This means algal blooms, already a problem, are getting worse. Native fish stocks, already suffering, are declining faster.