There is no federal prohibition against individuals, communities, companies or states taking steps to reduce adverse climate impacts. To me, the decision revolves around whether the feds should dictate national behaviors on this subject. So, stop the incessant Trump-bashing and get on with doing things that are good for the environment. If you require some government to tell you what to do, that may be a bigger problem of dependency.

Due to repeated violations of our Terms of Use, comments from this poster are automatically removed. Why?

In the 50s it was global cooling they worried about now it's global warming. Oh wait a minute, winters are too cold, need to call it climate change now. Yes, the climate changes, ever since day one and it will change whether man is on it or not.

@ Thomas, The communist manifesto is that the people are stupid and the select few can only make the rules. Sadly that's the liberal/gay way too.

Thanks for at least putting the homophobia and Red Scare nonsense front and center. Makes it clear to everyone reading just how deranged you are.

Thankfully, our fantastic governor Jerry Brown and the governors of Washington and New York will be leading the way yet again, in the face of the sad denialists. Go California!

'Dozens rally against...'

Well that's a massive protest that warrants a story.

Regarding climate change: The genie is out of the bottle and the amounts of money required to bend the curve even by a few decades is stupendous, and will not ultimately make a difference. the planet has always gone through climate cycles and this time it is no different. Furthermore, there are numerous variables that we simply don't understand that impact the progression of climate change, as well as variables that are random e.g. A Tambora or Krakatoa type volcanic eruption.

Frankly we have been living in an unusually temperate time period and the fact that it is now changing - be it by our own hand, external variables, or a combination of the two - Is not at all surprising

So rather than waste money trying to stop the inevitable how about spending that money on more pressing global needs, as well as planning for the mitigation of the inevitable? This is not to say that we shouldn't fight pollution, or pursue alternate energy sources - both are important and valuable; however the current single minded obsession with reversing the process is not rational nor will it ultimately be successful

"Well that's a massive protest that warrants a story. "

Welcome! Must be your fist day here. Yep, that many people getting together to protest anything will garner a story around here every single time.

Sometimes the minority opinion makes a difference though. The minority opinion won the last presidential election so you cannot dismiss it entirely. Your minority opinion on global warming may make a difference too. You never know.

@DBaPR

At one point a minority thought the earth was round and revolved around the sun. Eventually the majority came around. So one can hope.

Yes, they all finally listened to the scientists and realized the scientists were right. That's was the crucial moment, when such a vast majority of scientists and scientific studies proved the claim of roundness, the doubters could no longer make their case logically. Then there was nothing but truth.

Yes, I know there are those on the left and right who care deeply about their political perspectives . . . I get the tension between national mandates and state rights, but in this case we have to accept that "We the People" (meaning the good ol' US of A) have contributed the most towards global warming. This is a global issue, which requires a higher standard of thinking, accountability and problem solving. By not moving forward with the accord, our national leader fails to understand the importance of the world's future. If you're proud to stand with Syria and Nicaragua as the other hold out's . . . holy cow.

At one point scientists believed the earth was flat and the center of the universe. Scientists have always made claims that turn out later to be false. A real scientist always keeps an open mind about what he doesn't know and is always willing to update or change his mind about what he thinks is true. Unfortunately , the record for environmental scientists predicting economic disaster is poor. And unfortunately these claims have been pushed to support political agendas.

@thiughts, can you provide a source for the statement that the US has contributed more? I haven't heard this statistic, curious to know how it was determined.

In the old days, scientists debated with one another, and knowledge slowly evolved. Now, fundamentally scientific matters are discussed by the lay public and the media, there are innumerable "talking heads", political posturing, and polarizing animosity between individuals. What happened?

classic. posters ask for facts and the discussion gets shut down. Classic. I too would like to see facts on the US being the biggest contributor to global warming. I have a feeling i'm not going to see any....because it's NOT TRUE.