Sport1 min ago
Usa Rejects Paris Climate Deal
55 Answers
Good.
The Paris accord was nothing more than an agreement to pour billions of dollars into a massive pot (with virtually no oversight as to how it was spent) in a ludicrous and hyperbolic attempt to try and dial back the Earth's average temperature by 0.17 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.
Apart from the monstrously idiotic claim that the Earth's average temperature can be 'measured' to the accuracy of one hundredth of a degree (given that the poles reach temps of up to -60 degrees C and the equatorial regions reach temps of around +30 degrees C – and the rest of the world have temps everywhere in between these), the idea that man-made CO2 emissions are the driving factor behind global climate change are completely unfounded and not supported by any peer reviewed paper that I am aware of. Even the alarmist IPCC concluded that the likelihood of so-called (unproven) 'man-made' climate change being dangerous to humans was small.
And yet we are seeing the typical doom-mongers proclaiming that the USA exiting the Paris accord is essentially the End Of The World As We Know It.
The USA administration has seen thorough the lies. The real reason for the current CO2 scare is wealth redistribution. Nothing whatsoever to do with the 'environment' nor CO2. The quotes of these behind the scam are telling:
“Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?” - [Maurice Strong, arguably the founder of the current CO2 scare.]
“We cannot change the laws of nature. But we can change our economy. Climate change is our best chance to demand and build a better world.” [Naomi Klein, anti-capitalist]
I could go on and on. I often do.
Also, take a look here...
http://
… and see if any of these ring true in the reporting of this obnoxious scam that harms those on the lowest incomes the most.
The Paris accord was nothing more than an agreement to pour billions of dollars into a massive pot (with virtually no oversight as to how it was spent) in a ludicrous and hyperbolic attempt to try and dial back the Earth's average temperature by 0.17 degrees Celsius by the year 2100.
Apart from the monstrously idiotic claim that the Earth's average temperature can be 'measured' to the accuracy of one hundredth of a degree (given that the poles reach temps of up to -60 degrees C and the equatorial regions reach temps of around +30 degrees C – and the rest of the world have temps everywhere in between these), the idea that man-made CO2 emissions are the driving factor behind global climate change are completely unfounded and not supported by any peer reviewed paper that I am aware of. Even the alarmist IPCC concluded that the likelihood of so-called (unproven) 'man-made' climate change being dangerous to humans was small.
And yet we are seeing the typical doom-mongers proclaiming that the USA exiting the Paris accord is essentially the End Of The World As We Know It.
The USA administration has seen thorough the lies. The real reason for the current CO2 scare is wealth redistribution. Nothing whatsoever to do with the 'environment' nor CO2. The quotes of these behind the scam are telling:
“Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?” - [Maurice Strong, arguably the founder of the current CO2 scare.]
“We cannot change the laws of nature. But we can change our economy. Climate change is our best chance to demand and build a better world.” [Naomi Klein, anti-capitalist]
I could go on and on. I often do.
Also, take a look here...
http://
… and see if any of these ring true in the reporting of this obnoxious scam that harms those on the lowest incomes the most.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by birdie1971. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
One of the problems Climate Science has faced is that, because it's such an important political issue, it gets rather a lot more public exposure that most other Science. This could have been a great thing; unfortunately, it's tended to backfire rather. As the computing power behind modelling has improved, and the theoretical assumptions and inputs have evolved, the expected future picture has changed accordingly. Sometimes rather drastically. For example, one possible outcome of short-term global warming would be the melting of Arctic Sea ice, and also some glaciers in the northern hemisphere, that could end up dumping a lot of freshwater into the Arctic Sea and North Atlantic. So what, I hear you cry. So the idea is that this could disrupt the Gulf Stream, or other sea currents, that carry warm water to the north, and drive it southwards. If that happened, then it could drive the world into a partial Ice Age. Paradoxical, but actually quite plausible.
For anyone wanting to read more into this, the technical term is "thermohaline circulation". Apparently the latest studies show that this *is* actually being disrupted, but probably not enough after all for the dramatic "Ice Age" effect to take place.
In any other field, this would be just how science works. Someone proposes an idea, and over time that idea develops and evolves in the fresh of new and better evidence and modelling techniques. And it's still evolving: we don't yet totally understand how ocean currents work, because of course we don't. But because it played out in the public eye, people got the early (and exaggerated) story that this would lead to a new Ice Age, possibly quite soon, and lo and behold that hasn't happened because that was sensationalist garbage. But the idea behind it is not; and the study of these effects is vitally important.
To be clear: human activities are damaging the planet, and could have potentially severe, and certainly not negligible, effects in the future. We don't yet know -- we cannot yet know -- what those effects will be with any certainty. The Earth is just too complicated for that. This shouldn't be a reason to wait and see what the damage we're going to cause is. Nor should any overhyped, sensationalist reporting be allowed to detract from the basic point. Sadly, it does, and sadly people put short-term national interests ahead of long-term global ones, time and time again. ymb is half-right: Paris wasn't by any stretch the perfect agreement. But it was a start.
* * * * *
See, for example, https:/
For anyone wanting to read more into this, the technical term is "thermohaline circulation". Apparently the latest studies show that this *is* actually being disrupted, but probably not enough after all for the dramatic "Ice Age" effect to take place.
In any other field, this would be just how science works. Someone proposes an idea, and over time that idea develops and evolves in the fresh of new and better evidence and modelling techniques. And it's still evolving: we don't yet totally understand how ocean currents work, because of course we don't. But because it played out in the public eye, people got the early (and exaggerated) story that this would lead to a new Ice Age, possibly quite soon, and lo and behold that hasn't happened because that was sensationalist garbage. But the idea behind it is not; and the study of these effects is vitally important.
To be clear: human activities are damaging the planet, and could have potentially severe, and certainly not negligible, effects in the future. We don't yet know -- we cannot yet know -- what those effects will be with any certainty. The Earth is just too complicated for that. This shouldn't be a reason to wait and see what the damage we're going to cause is. Nor should any overhyped, sensationalist reporting be allowed to detract from the basic point. Sadly, it does, and sadly people put short-term national interests ahead of long-term global ones, time and time again. ymb is half-right: Paris wasn't by any stretch the perfect agreement. But it was a start.
* * * * *
See, for example, https:/
There are days when your heart sinks as you read some posts....then someone posts and you think....thank god.....there are people who do understand climate change.....who understand the science behind it and can post in a really knowledgeable and articulate way that makes interesting reading....
Well said indeed, Jim......more like you would be....bliss....x
Well said indeed, Jim......more like you would be....bliss....x
Thanks gness. Unfortunately, the people who *need* to read and understand the sceince rarely seem to be that bothered trying.
Heck, even birdie, who comes across as at least having tried to engage with the subject, still ends up posting porkies that show how superficial his own research has clearly been. For example, the statement "... the idea that man-made CO2 emissions are the driving factor behind global climate change are completely unfounded and not supported by any peer reviewed paper that I am aware of" is only true if he hasn't bothered to look. Name any position you can think of under the sun: there's a peer-reviewed paper to support that position. Guaranteed to be (although the other point of this is that "peer-reviewed" isn't all it's cracked up to be, necessarily -- you still have to treat the paper on its own merits and judge for yourself. A better measure is how well-cited the paper is, although even that's not perfect).
But I digress. Trump's deal isn't scientifically-motivated, as he has shown time again that he doesn't understand the science -- and other Republicans likewise. They can raise objections that *sound* scientific from time to time, but each such objection can generally be refuted within ten minutes if you can be bothered.
It's important to separate predicting the future consequences from understanding the present causes. Allowing the uncertainty of the future to destroy your trust in the present is just an awful mistake.
Heck, even birdie, who comes across as at least having tried to engage with the subject, still ends up posting porkies that show how superficial his own research has clearly been. For example, the statement "... the idea that man-made CO2 emissions are the driving factor behind global climate change are completely unfounded and not supported by any peer reviewed paper that I am aware of" is only true if he hasn't bothered to look. Name any position you can think of under the sun: there's a peer-reviewed paper to support that position. Guaranteed to be (although the other point of this is that "peer-reviewed" isn't all it's cracked up to be, necessarily -- you still have to treat the paper on its own merits and judge for yourself. A better measure is how well-cited the paper is, although even that's not perfect).
But I digress. Trump's deal isn't scientifically-motivated, as he has shown time again that he doesn't understand the science -- and other Republicans likewise. They can raise objections that *sound* scientific from time to time, but each such objection can generally be refuted within ten minutes if you can be bothered.
It's important to separate predicting the future consequences from understanding the present causes. Allowing the uncertainty of the future to destroy your trust in the present is just an awful mistake.
Is not so much the truth of climate change it's the unfair and weighted deal that is actually the thing Trump is against.
In all likelihood he probably does harbour some thoughts of 'it not real' but he has a lot of intelligent people in his team so does know the truth of it. But any leader who walks blindly into a deal that gives opposing nations not only the upper hand but the he upper arm, leg and torso is the numpty.
If some people could distinguish that then the future of the Paris Accord could include the US.
In all likelihood he probably does harbour some thoughts of 'it not real' but he has a lot of intelligent people in his team so does know the truth of it. But any leader who walks blindly into a deal that gives opposing nations not only the upper hand but the he upper arm, leg and torso is the numpty.
If some people could distinguish that then the future of the Paris Accord could include the US.
-- answer removed --
-- answer removed --
//There are days when your heart sinks as you read some posts....then someone posts and you think....thank god.....there are people who do understand climate change.//
You mean "Thank God there are people that agree with me"
I have spent some time over the years looking at it, I just dont buy into it lock stock and barrel.
For me we should be tackling pollution. Pollution can be proved, we know beyond doubt it is harmful and is even visible. By tackling pollution the world would probably indirectly be achieving what the Global Warming crowd want anyway.
You mean "Thank God there are people that agree with me"
I have spent some time over the years looking at it, I just dont buy into it lock stock and barrel.
For me we should be tackling pollution. Pollution can be proved, we know beyond doubt it is harmful and is even visible. By tackling pollution the world would probably indirectly be achieving what the Global Warming crowd want anyway.
"It's estimated that [volcanoes] put over 90% of CO2 emissions into the Earths atmosphere. "
This is false -- but as I've argued elsewhere, even if it were true it's essentially irrelevant. What matters isn't the gross CO2 output but the *net* output; and humans are disrupting that. (see https:/
"There are also astronomical considerations, e.g. the Earths varying orbit in relation to the Sun, and vice versa..."
I'm not sure what "vice versa" means here, since the Sun doesn't orbit the Earth, but that aside this is true but misleading. The three cycles of interest take place over timescales of tens of thousands of years (specifically 40, 60 and 100 thousand), so aren't really relevant over the timescale of centuries we're looking at for human effects. (http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm )
"The Earth has been in existence for billions of years and has gone through many climate changes. It will continue to do that"
Also true, also misleading. Since, as you go on to say, humans are around for only a short period of time, why should we be fussed about what will happen in a hundred million years, or more? We should be focused on looking after the planet as best we can now.
"...humans presence is infinitesimal and, in my opinion, will not effect the Earths climate."
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but since it's based on misinformation and falsehoods, I'd strongly suggest you do more research before sticking to that opinion.
This is false -- but as I've argued elsewhere, even if it were true it's essentially irrelevant. What matters isn't the gross CO2 output but the *net* output; and humans are disrupting that. (see https:/
"There are also astronomical considerations, e.g. the Earths varying orbit in relation to the Sun, and vice versa..."
I'm not sure what "vice versa" means here, since the Sun doesn't orbit the Earth, but that aside this is true but misleading. The three cycles of interest take place over timescales of tens of thousands of years (specifically 40, 60 and 100 thousand), so aren't really relevant over the timescale of centuries we're looking at for human effects. (http://www.indiana.edu/~geol105/images/gaia_chapter_4/milankovitch.htm )
"The Earth has been in existence for billions of years and has gone through many climate changes. It will continue to do that"
Also true, also misleading. Since, as you go on to say, humans are around for only a short period of time, why should we be fussed about what will happen in a hundred million years, or more? We should be focused on looking after the planet as best we can now.
"...humans presence is infinitesimal and, in my opinion, will not effect the Earths climate."
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but since it's based on misinformation and falsehoods, I'd strongly suggest you do more research before sticking to that opinion.
And I think that is where the problem lies.
Clearly deforestation, burning fossils fuels and the like will increase CO2. But is it in sufficient quantities to make a real impact? Depending on how you make the calculation, usually based on your favoured outcome, you will get differing answers.
Like I say, the answer is to tackle pollution, there is no argument there.
Clearly deforestation, burning fossils fuels and the like will increase CO2. But is it in sufficient quantities to make a real impact? Depending on how you make the calculation, usually based on your favoured outcome, you will get differing answers.
Like I say, the answer is to tackle pollution, there is no argument there.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.