Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump is expected to withdraw from the Paris climate agreement, two senior US officials familiar with his plans told CNN Wednesday, a major break from international partners that would isolate the United States in global efforts to curb global warming.

http://edition.cnn.com/2017/05/31/polit ... is-accord/

So after screwing America, he goes on to the rest of the world. This is the most profound measure he can take, in a very negative way. The United States of America is responsible for 16% of the emission of greenhouse gasses, with about 4% of the world's population. The second polluter in the world. The immediate effect will probably be that he will stop funding of a 100bn fund to combat the negative effects of climate change, so the people whom get affected will be screwed again. And the effect will probably be 0,1 degrees extra rice, while we need to stay clear of the 2 degrees, which is going to be difficult in itself. The effect of the extra 0,1degrees might be an extra rice of the sea levels in 2100 by 1meter, 1 --> 2 meters. So this will mean he puts the whole world in extra risk because of his narrow interest.

Can we sue him? We did it with the Dutch state in order to fulfill its pledges to combat climate change.

I see an EU carbon tax coming in the next 5 years.

Florida voted for him, so at least they lost the right to complain when they get wet feet...

The sane part of the world should start contemplating sanctions against those with crazy leaders.

Best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

So after screwing America, he goes on to the rest of the world. This is the most profound measure he can take, in a very negative way. The United States of America is responsible for 16% of the emission of greenhouse gasses, with about 4% of the world's population.

The U.S. is also responsible for 25% of the world's GDP. We are disproportionately cleaner and more productive than the rest of the world. We aren't the problem.

Dutchy wrote:

The immediate effect will probably be that he will stop funding of a 100bn fund to combat the negative effects of climate change, so the people whom get affected will be screwed again. And the effect will probably be 0,1 degrees extra rice, while we need to stay clear of the 2 degrees, which is going to be difficult in itself. The effect of the extra 0,1degrees might be an extra rice of the sea levels in 2100 by 1meter, 1 --> 2 meters

Good. There is no scientific evidence for this claim. So get your sticky fingers off my money.

DfwRevolution wrote:

The U.S. is also responsible for 25% of the world's GDP. We are disproportionately cleaner and more productive than the rest of the world. We aren't the problem.

Absolutely the U.S. is a big part of the problem. You can argue GDP all you want. If the U.S. is responsible for 16% of carbon emissions worldwide, then we have an enormous opportunity to reduce that number.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Good. There is no scientific evidence for this claim. So get your sticky fingers off my money.

There is never any "scientific evidence" with climate deniers. It's called epistemic closure. And it's not just your money. Our decisions today will affect my wallet as well as yours in years to come.

mbmbos wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

Good. There is no scientific evidence for this claim. So get your sticky fingers off my money.

There is never any "scientific evidence" with climate deniers. It's called epistemic closure. And it's not just your money. Our decisions today will affect my wallet as well as yours in years to come.

Evidence requires observation. No one can observe the future. You can model the future, but a model isn't evidence. There is no evidence that the Paris climate agreement is going to produce the promised outcome.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Evidence requires observation. No one can observe the future. You can model the future, but a model isn't evidence. There is no evidence that the Paris climate agreement is going to produce the promised outcome.

Boy that stiff requirement for evidence never stopped a GOP tax plan, even when the promised outcome has been proven to not work repeatedly throughout history.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Evidence requires observation. No one can observe the future. You can model the future, but a model isn't evidence. There is no evidence that the Paris climate agreement is going to produce the promised outcome.

That's an extremely narrow and manipulative angle on science. Science uses observations to form theories and predict the future. There is plenty of evidence regarding the source of carbon in our atmosphere and plenty of science behind these projections. Instead of grappling with the science of the matter, you merely move the goalposts.

mbmbos wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

Evidence requires observation. No one can observe the future. You can model the future, but a model isn't evidence. There is no evidence that the Paris climate agreement is going to produce the promised outcome.

That's an extremely narrow and manipulative angle on science. Science uses observations to form theories and predict the future. There is plenty of evidence regarding the source of carbon in our atmosphere and plenty of science behind these projections. Instead of grappling with the science of the matter, you merely move the goalposts.

Republicans don't do science. It's like math: a liberal konspirasee.

All along it was global warming. It was then changed to climate change. Why is that?

Someone should have told the orange wonder that envoronmental . proztectio is high tech. Huge amounts of Money can be made with that Technology. That makes America great gain. Puts America first, Excellent!

.-)
It's all a matter of how to tell it to the child.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So after screwing America, he goes on to the rest of the world. This is the most profound measure he can take, in a very negative way. The United States of America is responsible for 16% of the emission of greenhouse gasses, with about 4% of the world's population.

The U.S. is also responsible for 25% of the world's GDP. We are disproportionately cleaner and more productive than the rest of the world. We aren't the problem

In terms of CO2 emitted per USD GDP you are No. 80 on this planet. In Terms of CO2 per USD the Economy of Chad is 7 or 8 times more efficient than yours.

You are the problem.

best regards
Thomas

Dutchy wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So after screwing America, he goes on to the rest of the world. This is the most profound measure he can take, in a very negative way. The United States of America is responsible for 16% of the emission of greenhouse gasses, with about 4% of the world's population.

The U.S. is also responsible for 25% of the world's GDP. We are disproportionately cleaner and more productive than the rest of the world. We aren't the problem.

Complete and utter nonsense. You are the problem, as is the rest of the western world.

Your self-loathing of the western world is noted. Ironically, it will also have the opposite effect that you desire. The Paris Agreement merely requires a pledge from mega-polluters like India and China that their carbon emissions will peak in the 2030s! This will give India and China a structural economic advantage over the west in energy intensive industries like manufacturing. So, manufacturing will leave clean economies like the U.S. and EU and go to dirty economies like India and China, thus making everyone worse off.

Dutchy wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

The immediate effect will probably be that he will stop funding of a 100bn fund to combat the negative effects of climate change, so the people whom get affected will be screwed again. And the effect will probably be 0,1 degrees extra rice, while we need to stay clear of the 2 degrees, which is going to be difficult in itself. The effect of the extra 0,1degrees might be an extra rice of the sea levels in 2100 by 1meter, 1 --> 2 meters

Good. There is no scientific evidence for this claim. So get your sticky fingers off my money.

This info is from a scientist. You say f*ck you world, the world will say f*ck America. You pollute, you pay. The world does not owe you a living.

And how much of my money do you need this time?

MaverickM11 wrote:

Boy that stiff requirement for evidence never stopped a GOP tax plan, even when the promised outcome has been proven to not work repeatedly throughout history.

mbmbos wrote:

That's an extremely narrow and manipulative angle on science. Science uses observations to form theories and predict the future. There is plenty of evidence regarding the source of carbon in our atmosphere and plenty of science behind these projections. Instead of grappling with the science of the matter, you merely move the goalposts.

Huh. It's amazing how the plain, literal definition of scientific evidence becomes "stiff," "extremely narrow," and "manipulative" once you realize that you don't have any. Theories are not evidence. Projections are not evidence.

Now, that the climate is changing isn't in dispute. That man-made activity is a source of carbon in our atmosphere isn't in dispute. What is disputed is that the targets of the Paris agreement will have any meaningful impact on climate change. The claim that "doing X" will "produce Y" with "confidence Z" has not been substantiated. The target reductions were merely a bureaucratic construct to arrive at an agreement for the sake of having an agreement.

So let's recap:
- You want me to give a generational advantage to my economic rivals.
- You want me to pay taxes into a global fund not controlled by my government nor for the benefit of my community.
- You want me to increase the cost of virtually all goods and services used by my household and business.
- And you want me to surrender all that without any evidence it will do anything.

Nope. Not gonna happen.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Evidence requires observation. No one can observe the future. You can model the future, but a model isn't evidence. .

Oh boy. Like Trump, you have the bestest words, right. An hypothesis is correct if it explains the available data and is not proven wrong, yet it is in principle falsifiable., When it can be used to make predictions and those proof consistently correct, it is upgraded to theory, which mean nothing else but "As far as anyone can tell, that is a fact". Like the theory of Evolution, which is also a fact, hence the theory in the name.

So, the burden of proof is on you, you have to show that the climate change hypothesis is wrong. Science doesn´t have to proof that they can predict the future, which they can´t. At least not in the sense that you want, but since climate change didn´t just come up yesterday, there are plenty of past predictions you can check against observational data we have today.

best regards
Thomas

DfwRevolution wrote:

Now, that the climate is changing isn't in dispute. That man-made activity is a source of carbon in our atmosphere isn't in dispute. What is disputed is that the targets of the Paris agreement will have any meaningful impact on climate change. The claim that "doing X" will "produce Y" with "confidence Z" has not been substantiated. The target reductions were merely a bureaucratic construct to arrive at an agreement for the sake of having an agreement.

So let's recap:
- You want me to give a generational advantage to my economic rivals.
- You want me to pay taxes into a global fund not controlled by my government nor for the benefit of my community.
- You want me to increase the cost of virtually all goods and services used by my household and business.
- And you want me to surrender all that without any evidence it will do anything.

Nope. Not gonna happen.

Except that's not at all the argument being made. The GOP *should* be making the economic argument, but instead they're repeating absolute nonsense like 'global warming is a Chinese hoax', or 'I found a snowball so clearly climate change is a lie', or 'windmills are gonna suck up all the wind Jesus put on the planet'--all *actual* arguments *actual* Republicans have made. And those are some of the more intelligent observations.

tommy1808 wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

So after screwing America, he goes on to the rest of the world. This is the most profound measure he can take, in a very negative way. The United States of America is responsible for 16% of the emission of greenhouse gasses, with about 4% of the world's population.

The U.S. is also responsible for 25% of the world's GDP. We are disproportionately cleaner and more productive than the rest of the world. We aren't the problem

In terms of CO2 emitted per USD GDP you are No. 80 on this planet. In Terms of CO2 per USD the Economy of Chad is 7 or 8 times more efficient than yours.

You are the problem.

A straight ranking means little. Chad practically doesn't have an economy. And if you're going to hold Chad as an example, then they are also way more "efficient" than Europe. It's a meaningless statement.

Look at global aggregate. The global average is about $1,700 of GDP per ton of CO2. The U.S. produces about $2,300 per ton of CO2. My statement that we are "disproportionately cleaner and more productive" is objectively true.

Not the problem.

DfwRevolution wrote:

A straight ranking means little. Chad practically doesn't have an economy. And if you're going to hold Chad as an example,

So, now that you have been wrong, you change the metrics?

then they are also way more "efficient" than Europe..

strawman, i never said they are not.

Look at global aggregate. The global average is about $1,700 of GDP per ton of CO2. The U.S. produces about $2,300 per ton of CO2.
My statement that we are "disproportionately cleaner and more productive" is objectively true.

dis·pro·por·tion·ate·ly
ˌdisprəˈpôrSH(ə)nətlē/
adverb
to an extent that is too large or too small in comparison with something else.

disproportionate is objectively wrong. Being just about ~30% more efficient than the average barely qualifies as too much to compare with the others. If that is "disporportionate", you need to invent new words for the EU, Korea or Japan

Not the problem.

Of course you are not *THE* Problem, China is much more of a problem. But your claim is like "Crack is the problem, Heroin is fine".....

best regards
Thomas

FTMCPIUS wrote:

All along it was global warming. It was then changed to climate change. Why is that?

Because it is more accurate. And it was not "all along". I see you appear to follow and believe in "fake news". (Remember "global cooling" in the 70's? Science is all about looking at what is happening and formulating hypothesis based on what is observed. Science by its very nature is supposed to change and adjust and correct itself. It is odd how many people are unable to understand that. Ever heard of Newtonian Physics? How about Einsteinian, aka: Special Relativity? Science changes, only unthinking people do not understand that things can and do change.) Of course I am sure you are open to the changes.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Evidence requires observation. No one can observe the future. You can model the future, but a model isn't evidence.

Wow, where the heck did you come up with that beauty? You are literally saying there is no justification to plan for anything, ever. You can NEVER observe "the future", it is not knowable (because such knowledge would affect what you do today which then affects the the future, etc), you have just set an impossible criteria. "Models" are built off past observation and intended to extrapolate hypothesis into a future concept that is then observed to see "what will happen/what can happen".

Investments,jobs and careers, what you want to do today. Can't do it because it is useless since by your words, its not "evidence" ("I plan on having a good day today, I'll go to work, then go to a dinner and a movie with my family afterwards. My past experiences with this have indicated I will have fun!" Nope, useless, can't expect that, the "model" isn't evidence, so one should do nothing or at least plan on having a terrible time....) Wow. crazy. Evidence is always based on the past (even current information becomes the past immediately thereafter), and everyone with a plan builds from the past to what they believe is the best path forward. We all always "model the past to guide us in the future".

Seriously, look at what you are saying, what you wrote (you may have meant something else but you misstated it completely then).

Tugg

Ah, yes... the good old excuse.

The boat is sinking, but we don't know that sticking the rag in the hole will stop the leak, so why bother, let's just sit there and listen to the band playing instead.

Funny how the (R)s defending this move always seem to brandish the same slogans, such as saving jobs, freeing the economy and not taking money from 'them'.
Yet for all the populist appeal of the black-faced coal miner, there are more jobs created in the US within the clean energy industry than in the fossil fuel industry. more valuable jobs too.
They cite the lack of scientific 'evidence' (probably expecting that scientists can predict the future?), while providing absolutely no shred of evidence themselves regarding the mechanisms by which rejecting the deal will create jobs, make energy cheaper and free the economy. I suppose 'don't touch my money' is a simplistic enough slogan to appeal to the basal Trump aficionado. Damn the complex long term macroeconomic and geopolitical aspect of the deal, that's for nerds.

Don't clean/sustainable energy industries employ people in the US? If I remember correctly, they do. In fact they employ many times more than the coal industry, for instance. Yet it seems very important to this administration to save the coal jobs... Is it because they are cutting the funds to all the government programs that would allow to workers to reconvert from their inevitably disappearing industry? Or maybe it's just the lobbies...

Has it occurred to any of them that sustainable energies are on the rise regardless of how much they love coal, oil and gas? Are they happy with allowing the rest of the World, most notably China, lead the pack while sticking to obsolete technologies and industries?
Do they know where most of the fossil fuel reserves are and who controls their output? Not that this administration and the corporations whose interests it defends would be averse to dealing with countries like Saudi Arabia or Russia of course, which, interestingly enough, is the only other nation to have pulled out of the deal.
Meh... energy independence is for schmucks...

Is anyone taking into account the cost of increasingly frequent severe weather events associated to climate change? Or do we let the people of New Orleans on their own next time?

But hey, look at all that money the lobbies are giving them... and as long as you can fool the masses with simplistic slogans... Which can't be too hard, when dealing with a crowd which would rather believe in a 2000 year old folk tale than what the overwhelming majority of the 21st century scientific community has to say.

Welcome to the idiocracy.

I hope we do withdraw.

The U.S. leaving only backs up the March executive order already signed that unwinds many restrictive Obama administration rules that puts a ton of limitations on US companies, raised the cost, and decreases job opportunities in entire industries.

Paris treaty is nothing more than huge financial redistribution from the first world to developing world. First world bears all the cost today, while developing world has no obligations and gets a free pass until 2030.

Like every previous major climate change initiative (remember Kyoto 1997), Paris is doomed to fail. The agreement was nothing more than a desperate political "feel good" ploy by politicians out on a misguide green crusade.

DfwRevolution wrote:

mbmbos wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

Good. There is no scientific evidence for this claim. So get your sticky fingers off my money.

There is never any "scientific evidence" with climate deniers. It's called epistemic closure. And it's not just your money. Our decisions today will affect my wallet as well as yours in years to come.

Evidence requires observation. No one can observe the future. You can model the future, but a model isn't evidence. There is no evidence that the Paris climate agreement is going to produce the promised outcome.

Clearly you have no idea how science and the scientific method work.

DfwRevolution wrote:

Evidence requires observation. No one can observe the future. You can model the future, but a model isn't evidence. There is no evidence that the Paris climate agreement is going to produce the promised outcome.

Dude, others have made the required responses, but it has to be said..you're in the running for the Darwin Award. I'm glad I don't fly jets designed by people like you. That model tells me I'd be dead with 100% accuracy.

DfwRevolution wrote:

mbmbos wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

Good. There is no scientific evidence for this claim. So get your sticky fingers off my money.

There is never any "scientific evidence" with climate deniers. It's called epistemic closure. And it's not just your money. Our decisions today will affect my wallet as well as yours in years to come.

Evidence requires observation. No one can observe the future. You can model the future, but a model isn't evidence. There is no evidence that the Paris climate agreement is going to produce the promised outcome.

Observations have been made. The predictions are not just a leap of faith. A rise in average global temperature has been measured and observed, and predictions range from guessing what impact changing everything would have, and what impact doing nothing would have. The consensus is not whether the climate will change (heat up on average), but by how much. That's not good news.

NASA, whose word I believe holds a lot of clout, monitor the planet closely and summarise the issue as thus:

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Here's some light reading from the National Centres for Environmental Information:

-Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.
Some extreme weather and climate events have increased in recent decades, and new and stronger evidence confirms that some of these increases are related to human activities.

-Human-induced climate change is projected to continue, and it will accelerate significantly if global emissions of heat-trapping gases continue to increase.

-Impacts related to climate change are already evident in many sectors and are expected to become increasingly disruptive across the nation throughout this century and beyond.

-Climate change threatens human health and well-being in many ways, including through more extreme weather events and wildfire, decreased air quality, and diseases transmitted by insects, food, and water.

-Infrastructure is being damaged by sea level rise, heavy downpours, and extreme heat; damages are projected to increase with continued climate change.

-Water quality and water supply reliability are jeopardized by climate change in a variety of ways that affect ecosystems and livelihoods.

-Climate disruptions to agriculture have been increasing and are projected to become more severe over this century.

-Climate change poses particular threats to Indigenous Peoples’ health, wellbeing, and ways of life.

-Ecosystems and the benefits they provide to society are being affected by climate change. The capacity of ecosystems to buffer the impacts of extreme events like fires, floods, and severe storms is being overwhelmed.

-Ocean waters are becoming warmer and more acidic, broadly affecting ocean circulation, chemistry, ecosystems, and marine life.

-Planning for adaptation (to address and prepare for impacts) and mitigation (to reduce future climate change, for example by cutting emissions) is becoming more widespread, but current implementation efforts are insufficient to avoid increasingly negative social, environmental, and economic consequences.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-inform ... ariability

That's just the United States. Is all of that a conspiracy? Are the observations of existing events all wrong? If so, why?



And the mother organisation the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration is also worth a look at.

I found the report on climate for April 2017 to be interesting:

The average temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 53.8°F, 2.7°F above the 20th century average during the month of April. This was the 11th warmest April on record for the Lower 48 and warmest April since 2012. Much-above-average temperatures spanned the East, with record warmth in the Mid-Atlantic and Ohio Valley. The year-to-date average temperature for the contiguous U.S. was 43.7°F, 4.5°F above average. This was the second warmest January-April, behind the record of 44.7°F set in 2012.

The April precipitation total was 3.43 inches, 0.91 inch above the 20th century average, making it the second wettest April in the 123-year period of record. Much-above-average precipitation fell across the Northwest, Central Plains, Mid-Mississippi Valley, Great Lakes, and Mid-Atlantic. The year-to-date contiguous U.S. precipitation total was 11.46 inches, 1.99 inches above average. This was the fifth wettest January–April on record and wettest since 1998. Based on the U.S. Drought Monitor, 5.0 percent of the contiguous U.S. was in drought, the smallest drought footprint reported by the U.S. Drought Monitor since its inception in 2000.

This monthly summary is part of the suite of climate information services NOAA provides to government, business, academia, and the public to support informed decision-making.

http://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/national-climate-201704

Bear in mind I got all that from a quick Google search.

LAXintl wrote:

...unwinds many restrictive Obama administration rules that puts a ton of limitations on US companies, raised the cost, and decreases job opportunities in entire industries.

Dear god, not again. And who, pray tell, does the government work for? Citizens perhaps? Furthermore there is no credible evidence said restrictions have depressed the economy one whit. As a matter of fact, a majority of economists argue the opposite is true - cleaning up the environment is good for the economy. You might be interested to know this wasn't just President Obama who did this but a massive constituency of voters who pressed for said regulations. I think many, if not a majority, of U.S. citizens would rather our country not be wasteful, vandalizing pigs. Even if you were to completely dispel climate change (not going to happen) why would you poop where you live?

LAXintl wrote:

Paris treaty is nothing more than huge financial redistribution from the first world to developing world. First world bears all the cost today, while developing world has no obligations and gets a free pass until 2030.

Once again, dear god! Where do you get this stuff? This is the stuff of extreme paranoia. Everything you don't agree with must be part of a nefarious conspiracy of some sort?

tommy1808 wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:

A straight ranking means little. Chad practically doesn't have an economy. And if you're going to hold Chad as an example,

So, now that you have been wrong, you change the metrics?

I haven't changed any metrics. My original claim is valid. The U.S. economic output is disproportionately greater than it's share of CO2 emissions.

Francoflier wrote:

The boat is sinking,

We don't know that.

Francoflier wrote:

Are they happy with allowing the rest of the World, most notably China, lead the pack while sticking to obsolete technologies and industries?

China is no clean energy leader. They mass produce coal-fired power plants.

Francoflier wrote:

Meh... energy independence is for schmucks...

Not only is the U.S. energy independent - have been for years - we are an energy exporter. And that's good for Americans and the world.

Tugger wrote:

DfwRevolution wrote:
Evidence requires observation. No one can observe the future. You can model the future, but a model isn't evidence.

Wow, where the heck did you come up with that beauty? You are literally saying there is no justification to plan for anything, ever. You can NEVER observe "the future", it is not knowable (because such knowledge would affect what you do today which then affects the the future, etc), you have just set an impossible criteria. "Models" are built off past observation and intended to extrapolate hypothesis into a future concept that is then observed to see "what will happen/what can happen".

Investments,jobs and careers, what you want to do today

Great. Make all the plans you want for your investments, jobs, and careers. No one should claim those a scientific endeavors. Every investment prospectus I read contains a safe harbor disclosure.

And that's precisely my point here. The global warming doomsday crowd is so totally convinced that their actions are justified by science that they twist into all sorts of logical contortions at the notion that forward-looking models aren't scientific and instead they are just speculations based on observed trends and human assumptions, no different than an investment bank or stock broker. It crumbles their worldview that they lack the authority they crave.

DfwRevolution wrote:

And that's precisely my point here. The global warming doomsday crowd is so totally convinced that their actions are justified by science that they twist into all sorts of logical contortions at the notion that forward-looking models aren't scientific and instead they are just speculations based on observed trends and human assumptions, no different than an investment bank or stock broker. It crumbles their worldview that they lack the authority they crave.

Exactly, if the global warming doomsdayers really believe the garbage they spew, that CO2 is bad for the environment, why don't they stop producing CO2 themselves, and do us all a favor and end their lives? Oh wait, its because they're using the whole thing as a wealth redistribution scheme, championed by Al "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" "I Invented The Internet" Gore.

"Elections have consequences." I recall another politician using that phrase prior to unleashing some controversial decisions. I would imagine Trump could use the exact same line. Goose and Gander, after all.

Anyhow...

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

...

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

Paris Agreement - Senate Should Reject It

Satellite-based observations cast enormous shadows on the entire theory of so-called global warming. As former NASA scientist and climatologist Roy Spencer and atmosphericist John Christy document each month, readings from space-based gauges show that Earth’s average temperature peaked in early 1998 and stayed well below that high until an early 2016 spike, from which temperatures soon tumbled anew. These data — untainted by exhaust fans and even barbecue grills that affect federal, land-based measurement stations — refute the allegedly inexorable and menacing warming trend that gives Al Gore and his followers the vapors.

Plus...

There is NO linkage between temps and co2 in the known geological history of the earth. So, before we go burning trillions of dollars, how about we come up with some valid reasons why THIS time might be different. That'll be pretty hard to do, since existing models have, by and large, performed horribly thus far.

I think everyone agrees that we should strive to reduce our carbon emissions and other forms of pollution. But the Paris agreement is not the way to do it - for a large number of reasons. Dfw has already highlighted some of them, one of the most important ones being that we would be kneecapping our own children's economic future. And for what? A peer reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg found that even if every nation fulfilled each and every promise in the Paris agreement by 2030 (which we all know will never happen... countries will cheat), the total temperature reduction would be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100. An MIT climate scientist says that believing c02 controls the climate is akin to believing in magic.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

...if the global warming doomsdayers really believe the garbage they spew, that CO2 is bad for the environment, why don't they stop producing CO2 themselves, and do us all a favor and end their lives? Oh wait, its because they're using the whole thing as a wealth redistribution scheme, championed by Al "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" "I Invented The Internet" Gore.

Talk about a straw man! As a whole the "global warming doomsdayers," as you call them, do indeed practice what they preach with regard to reducing their carbon footprint. Why would you imply otherwise? And why the hateful comment about them ending their lives?

And again with this weird global conspiracy nonsense about wealth redistribution. Where are you getting this nonsense? Any evidence whatsoever?

mbmbos wrote:

DiamondFlyer wrote:

...if the global warming doomsdayers really believe the garbage they spew, that CO2 is bad for the environment, why don't they stop producing CO2 themselves, and do us all a favor and end their lives? Oh wait, its because they're using the whole thing as a wealth redistribution scheme, championed by Al "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" "I Invented The Internet" Gore.

Talk about a straw man! As a whole the "global warming doomsdayers," as you call them, do indeed practice what they preach with regard to reducing their carbon footprint. Why would you imply otherwise? And why the hateful comment about them ending their lives?

I believe he's referring to things like:

Obama Used Private Jet, Helicopter, and 14 Cars During Climate Change Event

Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe

Leonardo DiCaprio Calls Out Climate-Change Skeptics, Proceeds to Fly Everywhere on Private Jets

Top 7 Climate Change Hypocrites

The list goes on and on. Plus, if everyone that claimed to truly believe in the dire consequences of climate change decided to actually follow through on their beliefs, then my guess is that air travel, worldwide, would see a noticeable slump.

PanHAM wrote:

Someone should have told the orange wonder that envoronmental . proztectio is high tech. Huge amounts of Money can be made with that Technology. That makes America great gain. Puts America first, Excellent!

.-)
It's all a matter of how to tell it to the child.

It was done like that, doesn't matter.......

DfwRevolution wrote:

[
And that's precisely my point here. The global warming doomsday crowd is so totally convinced that their actions are justified by science that they twist into all sorts of logical contortions at the notion that forward-looking models aren't scientific and instead they are just speculations based on observed trends and human assumptions, no different than an investment bank or stock broker. It crumbles their worldview that they lack the authority they crave.

Look at NASA's website. Can you honestly tell me that what they have observed so far is wrong? They're not the only ones.

DiamondFlyer wrote:

Exactly, if the global warming doomsdayers really believe the garbage they spew, that CO2 is bad for the environment, why don't they stop producing CO2 themselves, and do us all a favor and end their lives? Oh wait, its because they're using the whole thing as a wealth redistribution scheme, championed by Al "Do As I Say, Not As I Do" "I Invented The Internet" Gore.

Hard to just stop producing CO2, because many comforts that people in the modern world have produce it, alongside methane which is also a greenhouse gas.

Can you supply any evidence that the wealth is being distributed to poorer regions/countries?

Pleasant suggestion that people who think Climate Change is real should kill themselves.

NoTime wrote:

"Elections have consequences." I recall another politician using that phrase prior to unleashing some controversial decisions. I would imagine Trump could use the exact same line. Goose and Gander, after all.

Anyhow...

Updated NASA Data: Global Warming Not Causing Any Polar Ice Retreat

Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979. Since the end of 2012, moreover, total polar ice extent has largely remained above the post-1979 average. The updated data contradict one of the most frequently asserted global warming claims – that global warming is causing the polar ice caps to recede.

...

Now, in May 2015, the updated NASA data show polar sea ice is approximately 5 percent above the post-1979 average.

Paris Agreement - Senate Should Reject It

Satellite-based observations cast enormous shadows on the entire theory of so-called global warming. As former NASA scientist and climatologist Roy Spencer and atmosphericist John Christy document each month, readings from space-based gauges show that Earth’s average temperature peaked in early 1998 and stayed well below that high until an early 2016 spike, from which temperatures soon tumbled anew. These data — untainted by exhaust fans and even barbecue grills that affect federal, land-based measurement stations — refute the allegedly inexorable and menacing warming trend that gives Al Gore and his followers the vapors.

Plus...

There is NO linkage between temps and co2 in the known geological history of the earth. So, before we go burning trillions of dollars, how about we come up with some valid reasons why THIS time might be different. That'll be pretty hard to do, since existing models have, by and large, performed horribly thus far.

I think everyone agrees that we should strive to reduce our carbon emissions and other forms of pollution. But the Paris agreement is not the way to do it - for a large number of reasons. Dfw has already highlighted some of them, one of the most important ones being that we would be kneecapping our own children's economic future. And for what? A peer reviewed paper by Dr. Bjorn Lomborg found that even if every nation fulfilled each and every promise in the Paris agreement by 2030 (which we all know will never happen... countries will cheat), the total temperature reduction would be 0.048°C (0.086°F) by 2100. An MIT climate scientist says that believing c02 controls the climate is akin to believing in magic.

http://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/

The data I've got from NASA's own website seems to disagree with you. I'd put NASA's own website a shade above Forbes when it comes to reliability, there's room to spin a rhetoric. TO be honest I'm not sure where they got their figures, NASA's data gives 7.19 million sq km of Arctic Sea Ice in 1979, and in 2016 it was 4.72 million sq km.

Why this time might be different? We don't have any record of there being this much CO2 in the atmosphere at once. It's unknown territory. But what's already evident is that some natural hazards have been happening at an increased rate. More storms in places, more drought in others, for example.

Dutchy wrote:

Can we sue him? We did it with the Dutch state in order to fulfill its pledges to combat climate change.

No. Because as we discussed the other day, the US doesn't recognize the jurisdiction of international courts

But, back on topic, as I wrote in the NATO topic the other day, I don't like it when the United States reneges on a treaty or obligation to which an administration, past or present, has agreed. Of course, a caveat there is that some treaties naturally come to the end of their natural lives, at which time it is necessary to withdraw.

Legally however, Trump stands in good stead here. President Obama did not submit the treaty for Senate ratification (probably because he knew it would fail), so Trump would be correct to argue that the proper processes have not been followed with regards to the Paris Treaty. One way he might avoid a messy and prolonged exit from the Treaty could be to send it to the Senate for "ratification", where it will fail, and exit immediately by claiming that the USA was never legally part of it in the first place.

NoTime wrote:

I believe he's referring to things like:

Obama Used Private Jet, Helicopter, and 14 Cars During Climate Change Event

Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe

Leonardo DiCaprio Calls Out Climate-Change Skeptics, Proceeds to Fly Everywhere on Private Jets

Top 7 Climate Change Hypocrites

The list goes on and on. Plus, if everyone that claimed to truly believe in the dire consequences of climate change decided to actually follow through on their beliefs, then my guess is that air travel, worldwide, would see a noticeable slump.

And all of this is anecdotal and doesn't speak to the millions who have made efforts to reduce carbon use. His argument - people should practice what they preach - remains unsupported and is rancid deflection with regard to the issue.

As for where we stand now with regard to carbon output, well, we have seen significant reduction, particularly in light of increasing population and GDP. We need to do better. But a lot of "doing better" requires organized, civic-scale efforts to reduce consumption. For example, not everyone can walk to work in lieu of not having energy efficient public transportation.

mbmbos wrote:

NoTime wrote:

I believe he's referring to things like:

Obama Used Private Jet, Helicopter, and 14 Cars During Climate Change Event

Gore isn't quite as green as he's led the world to believe

Leonardo DiCaprio Calls Out Climate-Change Skeptics, Proceeds to Fly Everywhere on Private Jets

Top 7 Climate Change Hypocrites

The list goes on and on. Plus, if everyone that claimed to truly believe in the dire consequences of climate change decided to actually follow through on their beliefs, then my guess is that air travel, worldwide, would see a noticeable slump.

And all of this is anecdotal and doesn't speak to the millions who have made efforts to reduce carbon use. His argument - people should practice what they preach - remains unsupported and is rancid deflection with regard to the issue.

As for where we stand now with regard to carbon output, well, we have seen significant reduction, particularly in light of increasing population and GDP. We need to do better. But a lot of "doing better" requires organized, civic-scale efforts to reduce consumption. For example, not everyone can walk to work in lieu of not having energy efficient public transportation.

We need to honor the Paris agreement, 2050 fossil free, 2025 30% reduction 1990 levels. We need to get as close to the 1,5degrees rice as possible. In the next 15 years the climate for the next 200years is being determite.

tommy1808 wrote:

In terms of CO2 emitted per USD GDP you are No. 80 on this planet. In Terms of CO2 per USD the Economy of Chad is 7 or 8 times more efficient than yours.

Is it your thesis that the economies of the world should devolve to the standards of Chad?

How does Germany compare by the metric you are using here?

MrHMSH wrote:

Why this time might be different? We don't have any record of there being this much CO2 in the atmosphere at once.

There were plenty of times in earth's past when co2 was much higher than it is today, upwards of 4000ppm in some instances... and yet there was no "runaway" greenhouse effect then.

It's unknown territory. But what's already evident is that some natural hazards have been happening at an increased rate. More storms in places, more drought in others, for example.

Sure, some natural hazards have been happening more often... but others have not. (In the US, for instance, there have been far fewer tornados and hurricanes over the last few years.) The draught that was supposed to be permanent in California is now gone. It was blamed on climate change when it was there. And then, climate change was blamed for making it go away. To be completely honest, this is what really gets me - global warming / climate change folks try to have it both ways. Record floods? That's climate change. Record droughts? Climate change. No more snow? Climate change. A lot more snow? Climate change. Lack of sleep? Climate change. Shrinking sheep? Climate change. Longer days? Climate change. Shorter days? Climate change. (... and there are a ton more.) And, I'm not even talking about droughts in some places and floods in others. I'm talking about people blaming climate change for two opposite outcomes in the same place.

Simply blaming EVERYTHING on climate change is no way to win people to your cause.

Dutchy wrote:

We need to honor the Paris agreement, 2050 fossil free, 2025 30% reduction 1990 levels. We need to get as close to the 1,5degrees rice as possible. In the next 15 years the climate for the next 200years is being determite.

What really is needed it a World TREATY on Climate Change, not a sneaky "agreement".

Such a TREATY ought to have achievable goals.

"Fossil Free" in 2050 is not achievable.

What is also needed is sane discourse. Yours is not sane, neither in your profanity, however masked, nor in your personal declaration of war against the United States.

Bury your hatred. Then let's talk to each other.

Why talk to The US ? You just proved it is a waste of time and money...

NoTime wrote:

There were plenty of times in earth's past when co2 was much higher than it is today, upwards of 4000ppm in some instances... and yet there was no "runaway" greenhouse effect then.

OK fair point, there have been times where CO2 has been higher, I made the mistake of looking at the graph that only goes up to 400,000 years ago, not millions. BUT, there would have been a lot of impacts from that higher CO2. I'll revise my statement, we haven't known this level of CO2 in human history, recorded and non-recorded.

Sure, some natural hazards have been happening more often... but others have not. (In the US, for instance, there have been far fewer tornados and hurricanes over the last few years.) The draught that was supposed to be permanent in California is now gone. It was blamed on climate change when it was there. And then, climate change was blamed for making it go away. To be completely honest, this is what really gets me - global warming / climate change folks try to have it both ways. Record floods? That's climate change. Record droughts? Climate change. No more snow? Climate change. A lot more snow? Climate change. Lack of sleep? Climate change. Shrinking sheep? Climate change. Longer days? Climate change. Shorter days? Climate change. (... and there are a ton more.) And, I'm not even talking about droughts in some places and floods in others. I'm talking about people blaming climate change for two opposite outcomes in the same place.

Simply blaming EVERYTHING on climate change is no way to win people to your cause.

In the US however is quite a small sample size, large though the country may be. It doesn't mean somewhere else isn't having far worse conditions than normal.

One thing to note is that climate change does mean we will be getting more extremes, and yes, that can mean it happening in the same place. The simple explanation for a place experiencing record rain and then record drought is that the source of the wet weather is wetter and the source of the dry weather is drier. Weather conditions move about, and generally an imbalance in one place leads to imbalance in another. In the UK for example, wet, warmer conditions generally come up from the Caribbean, but drier, colder conditions come from the Russian/Eurasian tundra. Is it implausible that the Caribbean is having wetter weather and the tundra drier weather? No, so not implausible that they cause record conditions either way in the UK.

People blaming literally everything on climate change are clearly wrong, but then a lot of things are definitely attributable to it. At a worldwide level it's definitely responsible for increased droughts and increased floods in different areas.

Fossil free is the future. Wind and photovoltaics is already cheaper than coal and nuclear and is still declining.

Pure economics. Trump cannot change economic reality.

http://thehill.com/policy/energy-enviro ... imate-deal

I think we're done here.

BobPatterson wrote:

Dutchy wrote:

We need to honor the Paris agreement, 2050 fossil free, 2025 30% reduction 1990 levels. We need to get as close to the 1,5degrees rice as possible. In the next 15 years the climate for the next 200years is being determite.

What really is needed it a World TREATY on Climate Change, not a sneaky "agreement".

Such a TREATY ought to have achievable goals.

"Fossil Free" in 2050 is not achievable.

What is also needed is sane discourse. Yours is not sane, neither in your profanity, however masked, nor in your personal declaration of war against the United States.

Bury your hatred. Then let's talk to each other.

Okey, okey, okey. Were to begin with you.
World treaty? I am not going to argue with you on the word "treaty", if the Paris agreement is legally binding or not, it is very much morally binding and a huge stap in the right direction.

Fossil free 2050 is needed, it is a must to save our way of life, not to be overwhelmed with climatrefugee, you think there are a lot of Mexicans in the US, or in Europe alot of Africans? You aint see nothing yet. The alternative is a much higher risk to a 2 meter rice of the sea level. You say my discourse is not sane, well it is not mine, it is the position of people whom have studied the subject.

And last, that is very funny, I don't hate anybody and I don't hate the US.

The environment is close to my hard, and I do invest - voluntarily and in business - my time and money in doing my bit to help the energywende. So I put my money where my mouth is. The Paris agreement was hard fought and all 192 countries did their bit to close this deal and then have a complete idiot in the US simply says "no" to this, because he can't grasp the concept and doesn't listen to the people who do. Well, what do you want me to say to the ney-sayers, what do you want me to say about this historic failure, what do you want me to say to people whom don't give a f*ck except for their narrow interest?

Yes, I am angry at this person whom happens to be president because in a real sense he is putting my country in real danger, he is putting the lives at risk of 100millions of people at risk, and (but that is up to you) puts America at a disadvantage. I am angry at the people who let him do this.

But Bob, I don't know how old you are, but remember the stand you take here, and think about it in 20 years time.

BTW listing to the speech of mr Trump, and it is very very funny if it wasn't so sad and catastrophic for the world. Living totally in a parallel world.

Sorry stopped listening to this idiot. The US has lost any claim to the leader of the free world, I hope Europe will take its place and make the energiewende fast, very fast, leave America behind, just leave them, they just made themselves irrelevant in this discussion (except some state like California).

BobPatterson wrote:

What is also needed is sane discourse. Yours is not sane, neither in your profanity, however masked, nor in your personal declaration of war against the United States.

Bury your hatred. Then let's talk to each other.

Oh please, talk about over-the-top rhetoric. And his responses have been quite reasonable.

Instead of commenting on style you might want to stick with something substantive.

I wonder why 100.000 obsolete jobs in the Rust Belt are more important than 300.000 new jobs in Texas and California.

This was a horrible decision by Amerikan idiots that will have terrible repercussions.

25% of the worlds GDP and 16% of the worlds carbon emissions.

The world has freeloaded on the USA long enough.

If Europe is so great why don't they 'take the lead' starting with sending billions in 'development aid' to India like the treaty requires? You have nearly 70% more citizens than we do.

Varsity guess what that is EXACTLY what Europe will do now. Creating thousands of modern new jobs in Europe instead of the US. You just said goodbye to be the leader of new developments.

So now that Trump has officially said that we are joining the two banana republics who are not part of the Paris Agreement we can start looking at actions by other countries who want to leverage Dumb Donald's decision. Look for trade being at the top of the list where countries might require certain standards for US goods to be imported. Salesmen and women in non-US countries are going to love Trump.

Until this after only two countries ( Syria and Nicaragua) had failed to join. Now there are 3 who are out of this responsible organization, Three sorry ass leaders and one of them is ours. Pathetic.

salttee wrote:

Varsity1 wrote:

25% of the worlds GDP and 16% of the worlds carbon emissions.

The world has freeloaded on the USA long enough.

If Europe is so great why don't they 'take the lead' starting with sending billions in 'development aid' to India like the treaty requires? You have nearly 70% more citizens than we do.

You hate Europe but are fine with Saudi Arabia.

Go figure.

Unlike the EU's, the Saudi's checks don't bounce.