Trump expected to withdraw from the Paris agreement

BobPatterson · Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:28 pm

Dutchy wrote:
So the choice is: a Copenhagen disaster or a Paris framework, you seems to prefer the Copenhagen disaster: taking no steps at all.

Not so. We can choose honesty, and take real actions toward solving a problem. I wrote:

"USA corporations, citizens, State and local governments, and NGOs will meet goals for greenhouse gas reductions no matter what Mr. Trump does during his short while in the White House"

While the United States (and some other countries) are working effectively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, many (perhaps even a majority) of the countries that signed the feel-good agreement will do little or nothing.

The "agreement" is a dishonest diplomatic sham. It is as dishonest and as shameful as are the climate change deniers such as Mr. Trump.

Your argument for creeping socialism to eventually produce an effective, workable, enforceable path forward is typical of ultra-left thinking. Lying your way forward may seem to you to be good policy.

I object.

BobPatterson · Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:34 pm

tommy1808 wrote:
But, but... Jesus is coming back soon. So there is no need to do anything about anything.....:!!!! And the Republican Messiah says it is a hoax.

I'm really impressed that an avowed atheist can be so devoted to religious iconography. I suspect that you are a closet Christian after all.

Dutchy · Wed Jun 14, 2017 6:57 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
So the choice is: a Copenhagen disaster or a Paris framework, you seems to prefer the Copenhagen disaster: taking no steps at all.

Not so. We can choose honesty, and take real actions toward solving a problem. I wrote:

"USA corporations, citizens, State and local governments, and NGOs will meet goals for greenhouse gas reductions no matter what Mr. Trump does during his short while in the White House"

While the United States (and some other countries) are working effectively to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, many (perhaps even a majority) of the countries that signed the feel-good agreement will do little or nothing.

The "agreement" is a dishonest diplomatic sham. It is as dishonest and as shameful as are the climate change deniers such as Mr. Trump.

Your argument for creeping socialism to eventually produce an effective, workable, enforceable path forward is typical of ultra-left thinking. Lying your way forward may seem to you to be good policy.

I object.

I object to your ad hominems, you are better than that, aren't you? Are you?
I object to your framing me, you don't know me, although you think you do, or you frame me into something, especially if you compare me to someone like Trump.
I object to your framing of the US and your way of thinking about the rest of the world, such Americanesk way, America isn't the center of the world anymore, learn to live with that.

Please restrain yourself to the content, not doing the ad hominem thing again.

1st: replacing coal with shale gas does look good at reducing greenhouse emissions, but not a long term solution, still fossil fuels. We need to reduce our greenhouse emissions by 95%. America (government) isn't working towards reducing the greenhouse gasses, the Trump administration is actually doing everything to increase it.

2nd: Climate change isn't a left or right issue, it is a problem which needs to be solved, solved right now.

3rd: I agree with you that the Paris agreement could have been much better if there were objective milestones per country and penalties if those milestones aren't reached. But that wasn't obtainable in Paris. So my analysis still stands: a failure like Copenhagen (with milestones and penalties) or Paris (the world (ok except Trump's America, Nicaragua (wanted milestones) and Syria) coming together and recognizing the problem and setting the ultimate limit).

4th: It isn't a feel-good agreement, it is the first step, look at the reaction of environmental groups, they share my views.

5th: Your internal logic again, or lack there of. First, you say the Paris agreement isn't doing anything so we need an agreement which we need to enforce the compliance if necessary, then you accuse me of having an "enforceable path" and say that with some disgust. Make up your mind, either have enforceable compliance or don't. You can't have it both ways.

windy95 · Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:29 pm

NoTime wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
I find it interesting that the lack of the USA in the Paris agreement is the end of the world per the Europeans. Yet they refuse to negotiate the USA's reentry.

Must not be that important.

Agreed. It was very telling that many of the European leaders immediately stated that there would be NO renegotiation of the treaty. If it's as important as many people want us to believe, then wouldn't you be willing to work hard (including renegotiating) to make sure the US is involved? And if it's NOT that important to have the US involved... then why all the wailing and cursing?

Exactly their reaction shows that it was about money and knocking down the US and not about the environment at all.

Dutchy · Wed Jun 14, 2017 7:52 pm

windy95 wrote:
NoTime wrote:
Varsity1 wrote:
I find it interesting that the lack of the USA in the Paris agreement is the end of the world per the Europeans. Yet they refuse to negotiate the USA's reentry.

Must not be that important.

Agreed. It was very telling that many of the European leaders immediately stated that there would be NO renegotiation of the treaty. If it's as important as many people want us to believe, then wouldn't you be willing to work hard (including renegotiating) to make sure the US is involved? And if it's NOT that important to have the US involved... then why all the wailing and cursing?

Exactly their reaction shows that it was about money and knocking down the US and not about the environment at all.

No, too important to give America a break to pollute more. Ever tried to broker a deal with 190plus people? Don't believe in the lies Mister Trump is spreading. Delegates were applauding because the world came together, not because everyone wanted to screw America. BTW for the biggest polluter, they supposed to be ranked 32nd by GDP to contribute to the fund, only 3bn and that even seems too much.

DfwRevolution · Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:02 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Ever tried to broker a deal with 190plus people?

The Paris Agreement didn't broker anything. Countries set their own targets. China's target is to keep increasing their emissions for another generation. You are defending a farce.

Dutchy · Wed Jun 14, 2017 8:09 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Ever tried to broker a deal with 190plus people?

The Paris Agreement didn't broker anything. Countries set their own targets. China's target is to keep increasing their emissions for another generation. You are defending a farce.

Ok, fine, what is your proposal to combat climate change?

DIRECTFLT · Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:06 pm

ElPistolero wrote:
- 190 + countries think the situation is so serious, they overcome all kinds of disagreements to reach an agreement to TRY to do something about it on a voluntary basis.

Well... Here's Your Participation Trophy for Trying :trophy:

BobPatterson · Wed Jun 14, 2017 11:28 pm

Dutchy wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
The "agreement" is a dishonest diplomatic sham. It is as dishonest and as shameful as are the climate change deniers such as Mr. Trump.

Your argument for creeping socialism to eventually produce an effective, workable, enforceable path forward is typical of ultra-left thinking. Lying your way forward may seem to you to be good policy.

I object to your ad hominems, you are better than that, aren't you? Are you?
I object to your framing me, you don't know me, although you think you do, or you frame me into something, especially if you compare me to someone like Trump.
I object to your framing of the US and your way of thinking about the rest of the world, such Americanesk way, America isn't the center of the world anymore, learn to live with that.

Please restrain yourself to the content, not doing the ad hominem thing again.

5th: Your internal logic again, or lack there of. First, you say the Paris agreement isn't doing anything so we need an agreement which we need to enforce the compliance if necessary, then you accuse me of having an "enforceable path" and say that with some disgust. Make up your mind, either have enforceable compliance or don't. You can't have it both ways.

Dutchy, I am sorry that you did not fully understand what I wrote. There was nothing ad hominem about it. I did not compare you to Mr. Trump.

You argued for a multi-step process in which enforceable rules would, at some later date, be made part of the Paris Agreement.

I referred to this as "creeping socialism." by which means ultra-leftist Europeans ultimately achieve their hoped-for goals.

"Lying your way forward" again refers to what the creeping socialists are up to, and does not refer to you personally.

I have not accused you, personally, of anything.

BobPatterson · Thu Jun 15, 2017 12:46 am

Dutchy wrote:
2nd: Climate change isn't a left or right issue, it is a problem which needs to be solved, solved right now.

4th: It isn't a feel-good agreement, it is the first step, look at the reaction of environmental groups, they share my views.

(2). Nothing is going to be solved "right now". Impossible. Some countries (including the USA) will make significant improvement in reducing greenhouse gases during the next 10 years. I have no doubt that things will get worse in India and China. It will take more than one generation before the world, as a whole, addresses the most major problem -- growth in human population.

(4). I do not question the fact that environmental groups share your views, or vice versa. Birds of a feather, after all. I used to be one of the crazy environmentalists and thought we were saving the world on the first Earth Day.

BobPatterson · Thu Jun 15, 2017 4:21 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
- 190 + countries think the situation is so serious, they overcome all kinds of disagreements to reach an agreement to TRY to do something about it on a voluntary basis.

Well... Here's Your Participation Trophy for Trying

I wonder what the size of the carbon footprint was to bring the delegates and staffs of 190+ nations together so that they could discuss and argue and negotiate voluntary, changeable goals to try to reach.

salttee · Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:34 am

BobPatterson wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
... 190 countries think the situation is so serious..............

I wonder what the size of the carbon footprint was to bring the delegates and staffs of 190+ nations together so that they could discuss and argue and negotiate voluntary, changeable goals to try to reach.

It's the necessary effort to bring these representatives together. Questioning this expenditure is petty in the extreme.

It beggars belief that you would question this.

Dutchy · Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:46 am

salttee wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
... 190 countries think the situation is so serious..............

I wonder what the size of the carbon footprint was to bring the delegates and staffs of 190+ nations together so that they could discuss and argue and negotiate voluntary, changeable goals to try to reach.

It's the necessary effort to bring these representatives together. Questioning this expenditure is petty in the extreme.

It beggars belief that you would question this.

Indeed, if you focus on this, then you don't understand the problem.

Dutchy · Thu Jun 15, 2017 5:55 am

BobPatterson wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
2nd: Climate change isn't a left or right issue, it is a problem which needs to be solved, solved right now.

4th: It isn't a feel-good agreement, it is the first step, look at the reaction of environmental groups, they share my views.

(2). Nothing is going to be solved "right now". Impossible. Some countries (including the USA) will make significant improvement in reducing greenhouse gases during the next 10 years. I have no doubt that things will get worse in India and China. It will take more than one generation before the world, as a whole, addresses the most major problem -- growth in human population.

(4). I do not question the fact that environmental groups share your views, or vice versa. Birds of a feather, after all. I used to be one of the crazy environmentalists and thought we were saving the world on the first Earth Day.

Oh please, Bob, really, you are going to argue like this? Ok, let me praise your genius inside. Of course, you are brilliant, of course nothing is going to be solved right now, thanks for opening my eyes. Do you know what it takes to subscribe to the Paris agreement: for The Netherlands: reduction (1990 is the baseline) of 20% in 2020 (EU regulations), 47% reduction in 2030, 95% reduction in 2050. Like I have said before, America is replacing fossil fuel, with fossil fuels, not the way forward, you claim to be an environmentalist and you praise America for this, you shouldnot if you are one.

And there you go again (4), a closet ad hominem, I suspect you don't even know it anymore.

Dutchy · Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:09 am

BobPatterson wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
The "agreement" is a dishonest diplomatic sham. It is as dishonest and as shameful as are the climate change deniers such as Mr. Trump.

Your argument for creeping socialism to eventually produce an effective, workable, enforceable path forward is typical of ultra-left thinking. Lying your way forward may seem to you to be good policy.

I object to your ad hominems, you are better than that, aren't you? Are you?
I object to your framing me, you don't know me, although you think you do, or you frame me into something, especially if you compare me to someone like Trump.
I object to your framing of the US and your way of thinking about the rest of the world, such Americanesk way, America isn't the center of the world anymore, learn to live with that.

Please restrain yourself to the content, not doing the ad hominem thing again.

5th: Your internal logic again, or lack there of. First, you say the Paris agreement isn't doing anything so we need an agreement which we need to enforce the compliance if necessary, then you accuse me of having an "enforceable path" and say that with some disgust. Make up your mind, either have enforceable compliance or don't. You can't have it both ways.

Dutchy, I am sorry that you did not fully understand what I wrote. There was nothing ad hominem about it. I did not compare you to Mr. Trump.

You argued for a multi-step process in which enforceable rules would, at some later date, be made part of the Paris Agreement.

I referred to this as "creeping socialism." by which means ultra-leftist Europeans ultimately achieve their hoped-for goals.

"Lying your way forward" again refers to what the creeping socialists are up to, and does not refer to you personally.

I have not accused you, personally, of anything.

There you go another ad hominem. Really you are sorry that I don't understand you? First thing of communication: if you communicate something and you don't get understood, you are at fault, not the receiver, Bob.

And still, with this "explanation", let me take it seriously:
- What or who is a "creeping socialist"?
- Whom is lying?
- What is the lie?
- What is the ultimate goal of the creeping socialist?
- What does the ultra-leftist Europeans want, what are their goals?
- So you don't see me as a leftist European?

"You argued for a multi-step process in which enforceable rules would, at some later date, be made part of the Paris Agreement." I don't argue that, that is fact, that is the Paris-agreement.

So.........

Now, let's address the elephant in the room. You trash the Paris agreement, you say it is not worth the paper on which it is written. You do subscribe to the view of human-induced climate change and the urgent need to do something about it. What is the alternative? Especially you seem to praise American individuals, American companies, American local and state government to reach these non-existing Paris goals.
And a Paris-agreement with hard set goals which limit the greenhouse gasses aren't achievable, see Copenhagen, so in real life, what is an achievable alternative to Paris?

DIRECTFLT · Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:13 am

salttee wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
I wonder what the size of the carbon footprint was to bring the delegates and staffs of 190+ nations together so that they could discuss and argue and negotiate voluntary, changeable goals to try to reach.

It's the necessary effort to bring these representatives together. Questioning this expenditure is petty in the extreme.

It beggars belief that you would question this.

Yes, salttee, I do question what faulty Scientific assumptions the Climate Change "beggars" actually believe in.

Dutchy · Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:31 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
salttee wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
I wonder what the size of the carbon footprint was to bring the delegates and staffs of 190+ nations together so that they could discuss and argue and negotiate voluntary, changeable goals to try to reach.

It's the necessary effort to bring these representatives together. Questioning this expenditure is petty in the extreme.

It beggars belief that you would question this.

Yes, salttee, I do question what faulty Scientific assumptions the Climate Change "beggars" actually believe in.

That is fine, I am not going to invest time into that. Just like I am not going to try to convince "flat earthers", believe what you want to believe if you decide not to believe in facts, so be it, facts aren't up for debate.

salttee · Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:32 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
I do question what faulty Scientific assumptions the Climate Change "beggars" actually believe in.

Could you put that in comprehensible English?

94717 · Thu Jun 15, 2017 10:53 am

The question is not the Paris agreement to be or not to be.

When the agreements was defined around 2010 with the negotiations in Copenhagen the world looked very different at 2025 compared to the 2025 vision we have today.

Even major oil companies start talking about that not peak oil will be reached 2025 but peak oil demand will be reached 2025.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/get-ready- ... 1495419061

Expensive oil fields in north sea and Canada will be the first ones stop producing not because of the oil fields is dry but of prouction costs.

This will change a lot of the world economy. Economies like Northern Europe will withing 1,5 generations - 40 years see a stop of oil usage.

Oil producers like Norway, Canada first will stop production and later on ME. How will ME change post oil?

Dutchy · Thu Jun 15, 2017 6:49 pm

olle wrote:
The question is not the Paris agreement to be or not to be.

When the agreements was defined around 2010 with the negotiations in Copenhagen the world looked very different at 2025 compared to the 2025 vision we have today.

Even major oil companies start talking about that not peak oil will be reached 2025 but peak oil demand will be reached 2025.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/get-ready- ... 1495419061

Expensive oil fields in north sea and Canada will be the first ones stop producing not because of the oil fields is dry but of prouction costs.

This will change a lot of the world economy. Economies like Northern Europe will withing 1,5 generations - 40 years see a stop of oil usage.

Oil producers like Norway, Canada first will stop production and later on ME. How will ME change post oil?

Oil companies are dinosaurs, they will not survive, next 20 years is change or die for them. The carbon-bubble, 70% of the known oil reserve needs to stay below ground, is real. At the latest stockholders meeting there was a motion on the floor, it simply said, dear directors how is Shell going to implement the Paris agreement. The directors declined to answer or even think about it, the majority of the stock-holders agreed with the CEO. The world changes and Shell needs to change or they are out, as simple as that.

Norway is interesting, they are quite green - no more fossil fuel cars can be sold after 2025 - but indeed their wealth is someone derived from oil. But they are a wealthy nation with a good educated population, so they will survive. Hopefully in 2025, 95% reduction of fossil fuel use. Canada the same, a good stable nation which can and will make the transition.

The Middle East is also an interesting region to watch. Some countries are trying to make the transition, Saudi Arabia for instance, will sell part of their national oil company and invest in other parts of the economy to diversify, Dubai has changed already, not much oil / gas there and very wealthy.

BobPatterson · Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:11 pm

Dutchy wrote:
And a Paris-agreement with hard set goals which limit the greenhouse gasses aren't achievable, see Copenhagen, so in real life, what is an achievable alternative to Paris?

Try renegotiating the "agreement' in the form of an actual treaty, and you might find out. Whatever goals (enforceable, rationally achievable), are ultimately agreed to, they will almost surely not (in my opinion) be enough to stop global warming and climate change before disaster strikes. We are already too late.

I have stated previously my opinion that we cannot stop the loss of at least the ice fields in the northern hemisphere. All of them. I have no idea how much loss in Antarctica is similarly unavoidable. It is time to seriously plan for evacuating/relocating huge populations from coastal regions. Good places to begin the planning include New Orleans and much of Denmark and the Netherlands. They are going to be submerged by a minimum of 20-30 feet of water, and possibly much, much more.

My estimate is of course mere hypothesis and not currently backed by consensus among scientists.

This does not mean that we should do nothing about severely reducing the use of fossil fuels and limiting the discharge of greenhouse gases. Of course we should and must do whatever we realistically can do. I don't think 95% reductions are realistically doable. I don't think the immense building projects required to relocate hundreds of millions of people can be accomplished without use of fossil fuel energy.

An equally pressing problem (perhaps even more pressing) is the need to totally stop the growth in human population and to reduce the number of people on this planet. Little or nothing is being done about it. I am unable to offer solutions.

Dutchy · Thu Jun 15, 2017 8:30 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
And a Paris-agreement with hard set goals which limit the greenhouse gasses aren't achievable, see Copenhagen, so in real life, what is an achievable alternative to Paris?

Try renegotiating the "agreement' in the form of an actual treaty, and you might find out. Whatever goals (enforceable, rationally achievable), are ultimately agreed to, they will almost surely not (in my opinion) be enough to stop global warming and climate change before disaster strikes. We are already too late.

I have stated previously my opinion that we cannot stop the loss of at least the ice fields in the northern hemisphere. All of them. I have no idea how much loss in Antarctica is similarly unavoidable. It is time to seriously plan for evacuating/relocating huge populations from coastal regions. Good places to begin the planning include New Orleans and much of Denmark and the Netherlands. They are going to be submerged by a minimum of 20-30 feet of water, and possibly much, much more.

My estimate is of course mere hypothesis and not currently backed by consensus among scientists.

This does not mean that we should do nothing about severely reducing the use of fossil fuels and limiting the discharge of greenhouse gases. Of course we should and must do whatever we realistically can do. I don't think 95% reductions are realistically doable. I don't think the immense building projects required to relocate hundreds of millions of people can be accomplished without use of fossil fuel energy.

An equally pressing problem (perhaps even more pressing) is the need to totally stop the growth in human population and to reduce the number of people on this planet. Little or nothing is being done about it. I am unable to offer solutions.

That is quite a defeatist attitude, and since you are a man which has reached an age which we can safely say you have had half of your life behind you. So you probably will not be around in 2050 or 2100 (nor will I at the latter year) and will not see the full effect of this. I attitude is, let's try to avoid the worst.

As for the growth of Human population, did you know, since 2000, the number of birth hasn't been increasing anymore? Yes, the population will grow, probably to 10bn give or take, but that is due to people growing up, not because the number of birth are increasing.

A very good documentary about this, I highly recommend it, it changed my mind about this problem: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FACK2knC08E

Africa is the exception, there the population growth is still exploding.

BobPatterson · Thu Jun 15, 2017 10:18 pm

Dutchy wrote:
That is quite a defeatist attitude......

You confuse being realistic with being defeatist.

DIRECTFLT · Thu Jun 15, 2017 10:28 pm

Dutchy wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:
salttee wrote:

It's the necessary effort to bring these representatives together. Questioning this expenditure is petty in the extreme.

It beggars belief that you would question this.

Yes, salttee, I do question what faulty Scientific assumptions the Climate Change "beggars" actually believe in.

That is fine, I am not going to invest time into that. Just like I am not going to try to convince "flat earthers", believe what you want to believe if you decide not to believe in facts, so be it, facts aren't up for debate.

All "facts" are subject to "interpretation". The assumptions drawn from data points are subject to interpretation. But you say, "I want my assumptions to be taken as fact, and for there to be no debate about that." Fine, I won't attempt to enlighten you in your position, which you and others hold religiously, no matter how you or others may insist that they have no "religion".

In the end, it's your "religion" against my "religion" regarding Climate "Science".

I don't deny data points exist. I do have a different interpretation of those data points than you do. Galileo was out-voted by the authorities and experts of his day, that the earth was not the center of the universe. Being out-voted does not make a statement of belief correct.

BobPatterson · Thu Jun 15, 2017 11:48 pm

Dutchy wrote:
........ facts aren't up for debate.

They are if you are a scientist. When facts are not open to questioning and possible refutation, you leave the realm of logical science and enter the realm of religious doctrine.

BobPatterson · Fri Jun 16, 2017 5:03 am

salttee wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
ElPistolero wrote:
... 190 countries think the situation is so serious..............

I wonder what the size of the carbon footprint was to bring the delegates and staffs of 190+ nations together so that they could discuss and argue and negotiate voluntary, changeable goals to try to reach.

It's the necessary effort to bring these representatives together. Questioning this expenditure is petty in the extreme.

It beggars belief that you would question this.

They could be brought together on Skype. Not good enough for "diplomats".
They could send in their lists of voluntary, maybe-we-will, maybe-we-won't targets and goals by email.

Dutchy · Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:06 am

DIRECTFLT wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
DIRECTFLT wrote:

Yes, salttee, I do question what faulty Scientific assumptions the Climate Change "beggars" actually believe in.

That is fine, I am not going to invest time into that. Just like I am not going to try to convince "flat earthers", believe what you want to believe if you decide not to believe in facts, so be it, facts aren't up for debate.

All "facts" are subject to "interpretation". The assumptions drawn from data points are subject to interpretation. But you say, "I want my assumptions to be taken as fact, and for there to be no debate about that." Fine, I won't attempt to enlighten you in your position, which you and others hold religiously, no matter how you or others may insist that they have no "religion".

In the end, it's your "religion" against my "religion" regarding Climate "Science".

I don't deny data points exist. I do have a different interpretation of those data points than you do. Galileo was out-voted by the authorities and experts of his day, that the earth was not the center of the universe. Being out-voted does not make a statement of belief correct.

Yes, all facts are subject to interpretation, 97% of all climate scientist did this and they agree. I am not qualified to do this, so I listen to experts. I confidently say that you aren't qualified to do this. I could sweet talk it, but this is the bottom line. So no point to listen to your opinion and no point in debating this with you.

This debate has been done: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxEGHW6Lbu8

Dutchy · Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:09 am

BobPatterson wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
That is quite a defeatist attitude......

You confuse being realistic with being defeatist.

Taken a situation seriously, which you say you are, but not taking the appropriate action is a defeatist attitude in mine book.

Dutchy · Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:15 am

The EU is picking up the bill which America refuse to pay: http://www.nu.nl/klimaat/4772232/europa ... seren.html

The IPCC can continue to do its good work.

The second time that Dutch politicians acted to combat an act of the American president. Europe is taking its responsibility, which the current Amrican politics lag. You're welcome.

tommy1808 · Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:18 am

BobPatterson wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
That is quite a defeatist attitude......

You confuse being realistic with being defeatist.

Considering that China is reaching its Peak CO2 emission 14 years earlier than the agreement requires them too, you are definitely being defeatist.

best regards
Thomas

seahawk · Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:21 am

Dutchy wrote:
The EU is picking up the bill which America refuse to pay: http://www.nu.nl/klimaat/4772232/europa ... seren.html

The IPCC can continue to do its good work.

The second time that Dutch politicians acted to combat an act of the American president. Europe is taking its responsibility, which the current Amrican politics lag. You're welcome.

Only if the EU survives long enough. Which seems questionable with the Brexit and the Poles having enough of the EU too.

Dutchy · Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:24 am

And you are welcome: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... erdam.html

Dutchy · Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:30 am

seahawk wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
The EU is picking up the bill which America refuse to pay: http://www.nu.nl/klimaat/4772232/europa ... seren.html

The IPCC can continue to do its good work.

The second time that Dutch politicians acted to combat an act of the American president. Europe is taking its responsibility, which the current American politics lag. You're welcome.

Only if the EU survives long enough. Which seems questionable with the Brexit and the Poles having enough of the EU too.

The Poles fat up with the EU? That would have been big news, if true. That is a questionable statement: http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/15/pos ... xit-00-00/

11% are in favor of a Polix: http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/15/pos ... xit-00-01/

With France having elected themselves a pro-EU president and parliament and Germany set to re-elect Merkel, there is a good basis to reform the EU into a more effective unity. That is Trump's biggest accomplishment, unify the EU.

JJJ · Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:24 am

Dutchy wrote:
seahawk wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
The EU is picking up the bill which America refuse to pay: http://www.nu.nl/klimaat/4772232/europa ... seren.html

The IPCC can continue to do its good work.

The second time that Dutch politicians acted to combat an act of the American president. Europe is taking its responsibility, which the current American politics lag. You're welcome.

Only if the EU survives long enough. Which seems questionable with the Brexit and the Poles having enough of the EU too.

The Poles fat up with the EU? That would have been big news, if true. That is a questionable statement: http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/15/pos ... xit-00-00/

11% are in favor of a Polix: http://www.pewglobal.org/2017/06/15/pos ... xit-00-01/

With France having elected themselves a pro-EU president and parliament and Germany set to re-elect Merkel, there is a good basis to reform the EU into a more effective unity. That is Trump's biggest accomplishment, unify the EU.

seahawk · Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:42 am

Wait till they get no more money from the EU or have to take in refugees by the thousands...

Dutchy · Fri Jun 16, 2017 1:23 pm

seahawk wrote:
Wait till they get no more money from the EU or have to take in refugees by the thousands...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=92NdfSeOLA0

BobPatterson · Fri Jun 16, 2017 6:09 pm

Dutchy wrote:
The EU is picking up the bill which America refuse to pay: http://www.nu.nl/klimaat/4772232/europa ... seren.html

The IPCC can continue to do its good work.

The second time that Dutch politicians acted to combat an act of the American president. Europe is taking its responsibility, which the current Amrican politics lag. You're welcome.

The USA population and GDP is roughly 20 times that of the Netherlands.

Why should the USA have been assessed 30x (thirty times) the payment to the IPCC that the Netherlands was assessed?

Dutchy · Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:26 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
The EU is picking up the bill which America refuse to pay: http://www.nu.nl/klimaat/4772232/europa ... seren.html

The IPCC can continue to do its good work.

The second time that Dutch politicians acted to combat an act of the American president. Europe is taking its responsibility, which the current Amrican politics lag. You're welcome.

The USA population and GDP is roughly 20 times that of the Netherlands.

Why should the USA have been assessed 30x (thirty times) the payment to the IPCC that the Netherlands was assessed?

"The IPCC receives funding through the IPCC Trust Fund, established in 1989 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Costs of the Secretary and of housing the secretariat are provided by the WMO, while UNEP meets the cost of the Depute Secretary. Annual cash contributions to the Trust Fund are made by the WMO, by UNEP, and by IPCC Members; the scale of payments is determined by the IPCC Panel, which is also responsible for considering and adopting by consensus the annual budget. The organization is required to comply with the Financial Regulations and Rules of the WMO.[23]"

So, the way? Don't know, neither do you. I can't find the numbers you seem to have, could you provide them, please? And furthermore adopting by consensus, so America agreed, don't know why.

And so you decide not to react to the fact America also pulled out of this, you decide not to react to the fact some EU members are picking up the bill. Just again innuendos, just again framing, just again looking back.........

Try to have some more substance next try.

aviationaware · Fri Jun 16, 2017 7:56 pm

Dutchy wrote:
The IPCC can continue to do its good work.

What good work? Putting out models year after year that fail to predict the future, again year after year, but at the same time keep up the myth that 97% of scientists believe climate change is manmade?

Or do you mean that part of their work where they redact their reports so heavily that all opinions dissenting with their desired conclusion miraculously vanish on the way from the drafts to the final version?

The IPCC is a joke band of con artists.

Dutchy · Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:10 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
The IPCC can continue to do its good work.

What good work? Putting out models year after year that fail to predict the future, again year after year, but at the same time keep up the myth that 97% of scientists believe climate change is manmade?

Or do you mean that part of their work where they redact their reports so heavily that all opinions dissenting with their desired conclusion miraculously vanish on the way from the drafts to the final version?

The IPCC is a joke band of con artists.

Don't expect a serious reply if you can't contribute something real............

DfwRevolution · Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:31 pm

Dutchy wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Ever tried to broker a deal with 190plus people?

The Paris Agreement didn't broker anything. Countries set their own targets. China's target is to keep increasing their emissions for another generation. You are defending a farce.

Ok, fine, what is your proposal to combat climate change?

Keep calm and carry on.

Dutchy · Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:34 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:

The Paris Agreement didn't broker anything. Countries set their own targets. China's target is to keep increasing their emissions for another generation. You are defending a farce.

Ok, fine, what is your proposal to combat climate change?

Keep calm and carry on.

Translation: Do nothing and keep polluting.

DfwRevolution · Fri Jun 16, 2017 8:44 pm

Dutchy wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:
Dutchy wrote:

Ok, fine, what is your proposal to combat climate change?

Keep calm and carry on.

Translation: Do nothing and keep polluting.

And that is a totally rational course of action.

Dutchy · Fri Jun 16, 2017 9:07 pm

DfwRevolution wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
DfwRevolution wrote:

Keep calm and carry on.

Translation: Do nothing and keep polluting.

And that is a totally rational course of action.

According to whom?

BobPatterson · Fri Jun 16, 2017 11:38 pm

Dutchy wrote:
BobPatterson wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
The EU is picking up the bill which America refuse to pay: http://www.nu.nl/klimaat/4772232/europa ... seren.html

The IPCC can continue to do its good work.

The second time that Dutch politicians acted to combat an act of the American president. Europe is taking its responsibility, which the current Amrican politics lag. You're welcome.

The USA population and GDP is roughly 20 times that of the Netherlands.

Why should the USA have been assessed 30x (thirty times) the payment to the IPCC that the Netherlands was assessed?

"The IPCC receives funding through the IPCC Trust Fund, established in 1989 by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), Costs of the Secretary and of housing the secretariat are provided by the WMO, while UNEP meets the cost of the Depute Secretary. Annual cash contributions to the Trust Fund are made by the WMO, by UNEP, and by IPCC Members; the scale of payments is determined by the IPCC Panel, which is also responsible for considering and adopting by consensus the annual budget. The organization is required to comply with the Financial Regulations and Rules of the WMO.[23]"

So, the way? Don't know, neither do you. I can't find the numbers you seem to have, could you provide them, please? And furthermore adopting by consensus, so America agreed, don't know why.

And so you decide not to react to the fact America also pulled out of this, you decide not to react to the fact some EU members are picking up the bill. Just again innuendos, just again framing, just again looking back.........

Try to have some more substance next try.

Sigh...... innuendos, framing........ you react in a very silly manner when you are challenged to think.

From Dutch source that you posted:

"Netherlands doubled its donation to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) to 100,000 euros. Dijksma ask other EU countries to do the same. Germany has already committed, she says."

So, Netherlands was donating 50m Euros per year.

From several sources (amounts varied) it appears that the USA has been donating about $1.5 million per year. I am unable to find a precise amount.:

U. S. to Kill Funding for IPCC? (2011)

President's 2012 budget includes $13 million

https://judithcurry.com/2011/02/19/u-s- ... -the-ipcc/

-----------------------------

Proposed Funding Cuts (2011)

America is to cut off all funding to the United Nations climate science panel under sweeping Republican budget cuts that seek to gut spending on environmental protection.
The funding ban to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) – stripping $2.3m (£1.31m) from an international organisation that relies heavily on volunteer scientists

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... imate-ipcc

-----------------------------

March 2017 News Item

The administration has already declared its intent to axe America’s €4 million (US$4.3m) annual contribution to the UN climate body’s core budget. That represents a 15% chunk out of the organisation’s income, as it grapples with a heavy workload to implement the 2015 Paris Agreement.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/0 ... ng-threat/

------------------------------

U.S. Taxpayers Cover Nearly Half.............(Jan, 2012)

In a Nov. 17, 2011 report, “International Climate Change Assessments: Federal Agencies Should Improve Reporting and Oversight of U.S. Funding,” the GAO found that the State Department provided $19 million for administrative and other expenses, while the United States Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) provided $12.1 million in technical support through the U.S. National Science Foundation (NSF), averaging an annual $3.1 million to the IPCC over 10 years -- $31.1 million so far.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/us- ... ming-panel

-------------------------------

Dec. 2016 article

Contributing $5m over the past five years, the US is the biggest backer of the IPCC. While the Republicans don’t explicitly threaten to end that, their hostility does not bode well.

http://www.climatechangenews.com/2016/1 ... dget-raid/

Dutchy · Sat Jun 17, 2017 7:31 am

BobPatterson wrote:
Sigh...... innuendos, framing........ you react in a very silly manner when you are challenged to think.

So what am I to think about? That America used to pick a large chunk of the bill to the UN? Yes, I know, so no challenge there. That the Netherlands could and should do more? I agree, so no challenge there. I have no problem to be critical about Dutch / EU policies.

This isn't the point. The point of this thread is the America is withdrawing from the Paris agreement and how the world should react to it. Things in the past are water under the bridge, not relevant.

These things are showing that the rest of the world are willing to step in where America is leaving a void. The 2bn that Trump isn't willing to contribute to the Green Climate Fund should be filled in the same way, let EU-countries come up with the 2bn.

tommy1808 · Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:23 pm

aviationaware wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
The IPCC can continue to do its good work.

What good work? Putting out models year after year that fail to predict the future, again year after year, but at the same time keep up the myth that 97% of scientists believe climate change is manmade?

Exept of course that statement is nonsense. They are, if anything, to conservative on the optimistic side of things.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ou-thought

Best regards
Thomas

BobPatterson · Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:43 pm

Dutchy wrote:
Things in the past are water under the bridge, not relevant.

They are very relevant if one is to learn from mistakes. All of the world's communities need to learn from them, including the USA.

As long as the world (or most of it) clings to failed UN and EU diplomatic lunacy, ineffective programs run by diplomatic bureaucrats will continue without end.

While browsing for IPCC budget data (very difficult to find) I stumbled across a budget planning proposal (I'm sorry I did not record the URL for it) in which a several page list of planned meetings was given for a single year.

Each meeting listed a number of "journeys', each of which was costed out at 4,000 Euros per person/journey. A typical meeting in Bonn might be shown as 10 or 15 staff persons attending for several days or a week. There was another column showing other expenses for that event.

The point is that a great deal of money is required for these diplomatic bureaucrats to sit around, talking and dining, in comfortable surroundings.

And all that this planning results in is voluntary goals, changeable at will, with no penalties for failing to meet measurable standards.

Oh, and richer nations are expected to pay for poorer nations to also attend these meetings so that they will not feel that they are being left out of these diplomatic/bureaucratic affairs.

Go to the IPCC website and try to find useful information. Have fun wading through the morass of links to tables, graphs and data that are identified only by sequential numbers with no descriptions. The diplomatic bureaucrats (hundreds of them) do not want to make it easy for you to uncover their wonderfully expensive scam in which they are supposedly supporting volunteer scientists.

Dutchy · Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:55 pm

BobPatterson wrote:
Dutchy wrote:
Things in the past are water under the bridge, not relevant.

They are very relevant if one is to learn from mistakes. All of the world's communities need to learn from them, including the USA.

As long as the world (or most of it) clings to failed UN and EU diplomatic lunacy, ineffective programs run by diplomatic bureaucrats will continue without end.

While browsing for IPCC budget data (very difficult to find) I stumbled across a budget planning proposal (I'm sorry I did not record the URL for it) in which a several page list of planned meetings was given for a single year.

Each meeting listed a number of "journeys', each of which was costed out at 4,000 Euros per person/journey. A typical meeting in Bonn might be shown as 10 or 15 staff persons attending for several days or a week. There was another column showing other expenses for that event.

The point is that a great deal of money is required for these diplomatic bureaucrats to sit around, talking and dining, in comfortable surroundings.

And all that this planning results in is voluntary goals, changeable at will, with no penalties for failing to meet measurable standards.

Oh, and richer nations are expected to pay for poorer nations to also attend these meetings so that they will not feel that they are being left out of these diplomatic/bureaucratic affairs.

Go to the IPCC website and try to find useful information. Have fun wading through the morass of links to tables, graphs and data that are identified only by sequential numbers with no descriptions. The diplomatic bureaucrats (hundreds of them) do not want to make it easy for you to uncover their wonderfully expensive scam in which they are supposedly supporting volunteer scientists.

Again, Bob, I agree with you, lots of expenses, lots of comfortable surroundings, some friends of mine are diplomates. But what is your point? To be more precise, what is the alternative, how can we reach the goal, I guess we are sharing if you subscribe to the point of view that we must do something to combat the worst effects of climate change, if diplomacy isn't the answer?

And you didn't answer the question of what you have me challenged to think about?

aviationaware · Sat Jun 17, 2017 6:59 pm

tommy1808 wrote:

Exept of course that statement is nonsense. They are, if anything, to conservative on the optimistic side of things.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ou-thought

Best regards
Thomas

Congratulations, you picked the one model that worked for a bit (coincidence that it stopped at 2010?). Even IPCC scientists sometimes have lapses and speak the truth: http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/fns-klim ... r/67024928

Oh, and don't expect me to skim the web for graphs that are convenient to my view of the matter. I leave that to mindless zealots like you.

Dutchy wrote:
Again, Bob, I agree with you, lots of expenses, lots of comfortable surroundings, some friends of mine are diplomates. But what is your point? To be more precise, what is the alternative, how can we reach the goal, I guess we are sharing if you subscribe to the point of view that we must do something to combat the worst effects of climate change, if diplomacy isn't the answer?

How about actually starting to do things, instead of just talking about it forever when it's perfectly clear that it is absolutely impossible to reach a consensus? The Paris Accord is no agreement, it is just a charade with zero effect. Which is why the US quitting makes zero difference.

What would make a difference, would be if we just started acting on it every man (as in country) for himself.

The sea levels will rise, whether diplomats come to an agreement in a fancy hotel or not. When that happens, would you rather have spent millions on accommodating them in those hotels or would you rather see those millions invested in flood control?

This entire CO2 nonsense is the single biggest misallocation of resources in the history of the world, and it's not becoming any better by people like you incessantly arguing how bad CO2 is and how it has to stop.

A look at only the last 1,000 years alone shows massive climate changes that humans had zero influence over. So what guarantee do we have that even IF we stop our CO2 emissions (never going to happen) the current climate change stops? It's absolutely mind-bogglingly naive to assume that.

Even if humans are responsible for our current climate change, or even only the larger part of it, it is beyond presumptuous to assume that we could manage a concerted human effort to stop it. The people who seriously believe that are out of their minds.

Who is online

Popular Searches On Airliners.net