Quizzes & Puzzles4 mins 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.
I've spent the last three-and-a-half years in active scientific research, ymb. In that time I've been wrong so many times I've lost count. I'm kind of used to the idea that I might be wrong by now.
So no. No I'm not too wrapped up to see that possibility here. Would you care to comment on the actual research and various other links I've posted instead?
So no. No I'm not too wrapped up to see that possibility here. Would you care to comment on the actual research and various other links I've posted instead?
It appears Trump may have done the climate change cause a favour.
http://
http://
Fear not, it sounds like most of the major cities and a few states like CA, TX and NY will continue to work towards Paris. They are the ones that matter and there is already robust targeting and trading going on - and in NOx etc they are way ahead of us in Europe. Trump is trumpeting to his coal voters, the impact will be minimal, virtually sterile that he is in this area.
Jim360 - “... even birdie... 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...”
Oh no you don't. Don't try and pull that fast one Jim.
It is for the alarmist camp (ie. you and others like you) to demonstrate, through the Popperian scientific method, that CO2 causes catastrophic climate change and/or catastrophic global warming. It is NOT for those of us who believe that catastrophic climate change and/or catastrophic global warming is simply not happening to demonstrate that it isn't happening.
This is the essence of the null hypothesis. Look it up. It's how science works. Hypothesis → Observe against reality → Confirm. If a single one of those fails, go back to the beginning, as your initial hypothesis is false.
The null hypothesis always holds sway in correctly done science since it dictates that the people making whatever claim they are making provide empirical, observable and repeatable evidence with which to support their claim.
In the case of CO2 induced dangerous global warming and/or climate change, no such evidence exists. Oh, there are computer models that show that the temperature of the Earth will go up due to an increase in atmospheric (man-made or otherwise) CO2 but not one of these models has ever been verified. And by verified, I mean 'verified' as in the scientific definition of the term. If you don't know what scientific model verification is then I urge you to look it up.
You will find that every single GCM (general circulation model) of climate is unverified. Ergo, they are unproven, hypothetical, hyperbolic, computer generated whimsy. If you program a GCM to be unduly receptive to additional atmospheric CO2, then don't be surprised when your model spews out hypothetical temperature increases as a result of increased atmospheric CO2. It proves absolutely nothing other than that your model gives you the results you want it to give you. A clear case of the logical fallacy of confirmation bias.
It's astonishing that people such as yourself are taken in by this utter tripe. Computer models that cannot hope to model the climate (due to infinitesimal and completely unknown parameters) are NOT and can never be the predictors of future climate. Since Chaos Theory reigns in the real world, thinking that even the cleverest people on Earth can predict the average temperature of this planet one hundred years into the future to an accuracy of one tenth of a degree Celsius is so stupid that it beggars belief that any sane person would entertain such a ludicrous idea.
Yet many do. And apparently you're one of them.
Please wake up and smell the coffee. The scare now known as, “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change [CACC]” and previously known as “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming [CAGW]”, is a scam. It has nothing to do with environmentalism nor global temperature control.
Oh no you don't. Don't try and pull that fast one Jim.
It is for the alarmist camp (ie. you and others like you) to demonstrate, through the Popperian scientific method, that CO2 causes catastrophic climate change and/or catastrophic global warming. It is NOT for those of us who believe that catastrophic climate change and/or catastrophic global warming is simply not happening to demonstrate that it isn't happening.
This is the essence of the null hypothesis. Look it up. It's how science works. Hypothesis → Observe against reality → Confirm. If a single one of those fails, go back to the beginning, as your initial hypothesis is false.
The null hypothesis always holds sway in correctly done science since it dictates that the people making whatever claim they are making provide empirical, observable and repeatable evidence with which to support their claim.
In the case of CO2 induced dangerous global warming and/or climate change, no such evidence exists. Oh, there are computer models that show that the temperature of the Earth will go up due to an increase in atmospheric (man-made or otherwise) CO2 but not one of these models has ever been verified. And by verified, I mean 'verified' as in the scientific definition of the term. If you don't know what scientific model verification is then I urge you to look it up.
You will find that every single GCM (general circulation model) of climate is unverified. Ergo, they are unproven, hypothetical, hyperbolic, computer generated whimsy. If you program a GCM to be unduly receptive to additional atmospheric CO2, then don't be surprised when your model spews out hypothetical temperature increases as a result of increased atmospheric CO2. It proves absolutely nothing other than that your model gives you the results you want it to give you. A clear case of the logical fallacy of confirmation bias.
It's astonishing that people such as yourself are taken in by this utter tripe. Computer models that cannot hope to model the climate (due to infinitesimal and completely unknown parameters) are NOT and can never be the predictors of future climate. Since Chaos Theory reigns in the real world, thinking that even the cleverest people on Earth can predict the average temperature of this planet one hundred years into the future to an accuracy of one tenth of a degree Celsius is so stupid that it beggars belief that any sane person would entertain such a ludicrous idea.
Yet many do. And apparently you're one of them.
Please wake up and smell the coffee. The scare now known as, “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change [CACC]” and previously known as “Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming [CAGW]”, is a scam. It has nothing to do with environmentalism nor global temperature control.
Jim360 - “... Excess CO2 emissions are a pollutant...”
No they are not. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.
You and I exhale CO2 every time we take a breath. Plants, when they are not photosynthesising, produce CO2. Commercial plant growers pump CO2 into their greenhouses to promote plant growth – it works; they get greater yields than when they don't pump CO2 in.
The Earth is becoming greener due to increased atmospheric CO2. This from NASA:
https:/
Please can you explain to me why you think that CO2 is a “pollutant”?
No they are not. CO2 is NOT a pollutant.
You and I exhale CO2 every time we take a breath. Plants, when they are not photosynthesising, produce CO2. Commercial plant growers pump CO2 into their greenhouses to promote plant growth – it works; they get greater yields than when they don't pump CO2 in.
The Earth is becoming greener due to increased atmospheric CO2. This from NASA:
https:/
Please can you explain to me why you think that CO2 is a “pollutant”?
I don't need you to tell me how science works, birdie. I certainly don't need lecturing about null hypotheses. As for the "Co2 is a pollutant" thing -- call it a jocular redefinition in light of ymb's post earlier. Excess C02 has adverse effects when introduced, which is one definition of a pollutant, although I'll accept that the definition isn't really accurate.
For the rest of it -- well, if you are going to shift the burden of proof on to me it certainly gets you out of having to address in detail any of the links I've posted or the references I gave, doesn't it? In one sense you are correct, although I'm intrigued where you draw the line on standards of proof. Is it, by any chance, further than something you don't want to believe has reached?
One thing I would like to make clear: I don't, personally, use the word "catastrophic" to describe Climate Change. If you've read my previous on the subject you'll see that this is a consistent position I hold. A human contribution to Climate Change drivers is real, as should be plain for all to see; the scale of it, and the consequences, are open to dispute and will remain so -- so I will always hesitate to describe them as necessarily catastrophic. The potential is there, certainly, for severe effects, but it's always possible that the Earth will manage to self-correct this. At the very least, though, it has to be seen as a reckless gamble to rely on that.
The fact is that human activity has ruined the planet in a host of other ways even before you get to C02 emissions. I wish I could understand why this one is so hard to accept. Or perhaps it's from the same school of thought as people who turn a blind eye to the rest of the damage we've done, and are still doing.
The rest of your post could have come straight out of the US House Committee minutes, filled with people who don't know what they're talking about either.
For the rest of it -- well, if you are going to shift the burden of proof on to me it certainly gets you out of having to address in detail any of the links I've posted or the references I gave, doesn't it? In one sense you are correct, although I'm intrigued where you draw the line on standards of proof. Is it, by any chance, further than something you don't want to believe has reached?
One thing I would like to make clear: I don't, personally, use the word "catastrophic" to describe Climate Change. If you've read my previous on the subject you'll see that this is a consistent position I hold. A human contribution to Climate Change drivers is real, as should be plain for all to see; the scale of it, and the consequences, are open to dispute and will remain so -- so I will always hesitate to describe them as necessarily catastrophic. The potential is there, certainly, for severe effects, but it's always possible that the Earth will manage to self-correct this. At the very least, though, it has to be seen as a reckless gamble to rely on that.
The fact is that human activity has ruined the planet in a host of other ways even before you get to C02 emissions. I wish I could understand why this one is so hard to accept. Or perhaps it's from the same school of thought as people who turn a blind eye to the rest of the damage we've done, and are still doing.
The rest of your post could have come straight out of the US House Committee minutes, filled with people who don't know what they're talking about either.
-- answer removed --
Of course there are natural fluctuations. That doesn't mean that there can't be an extra signal on top of that background.
For the record: yes, Antarctic sea Ice is currently growing; yes the ozone hole is decreasing (having increased massively due to CFCs, an effect that I don't think can be remotely in dispute); I'm not sure that you are right about the Arctic, though. I think it's growing in some areas locally but shrinking overall. Globally, sea Ice is on the decline.
But if you are expecting the same thing to happen everywhere, and pointing to the fact that it is not as a sign that Climate Change isn't happening, then that's a gross misunderstanding of how Climate works. Of course it's not uniform.
For the record: yes, Antarctic sea Ice is currently growing; yes the ozone hole is decreasing (having increased massively due to CFCs, an effect that I don't think can be remotely in dispute); I'm not sure that you are right about the Arctic, though. I think it's growing in some areas locally but shrinking overall. Globally, sea Ice is on the decline.
But if you are expecting the same thing to happen everywhere, and pointing to the fact that it is not as a sign that Climate Change isn't happening, then that's a gross misunderstanding of how Climate works. Of course it's not uniform.
To all the people on this thread who believe that man-made CO2 is causing irreversible and catastrophic (or even dangerous) climate change:
Show me a link to ONE peer reviewed paper that shows a demonstrable correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and an increase in global temperature. Describe to me how anthropogenic CO2 affects the climate over and above background emissions. Show me the sensitivity. Give me the number.
Even the IPCC can't do so. Even they have stopped putting a figure on it. Why? Because they don't know.
Show me a link to ONE peer reviewed paper that shows a demonstrable correlation between anthropogenic CO2 and an increase in global temperature. Describe to me how anthropogenic CO2 affects the climate over and above background emissions. Show me the sensitivity. Give me the number.
Even the IPCC can't do so. Even they have stopped putting a figure on it. Why? Because they don't know.
I provided four such links on page one. You responded to exactly none of them.
And I've already explained to you how Human activities can drive climate change above natural cycles: (a) by disrupting such cycles through, eg, massive deforestation, or increasing populations of particularly greenhouse gas-emitting species such as cows and rice; (b) because natural emission scales are often exaggerated anyway, so the disparity isn't nearly as great as some sceptics make out; and (c) because even *if* human activity is only a fraction of natural activity, then you also have to account for "carbon sinks", and then you have a situation where the absolute balance is rather less important than the relative one.
Also, while I'm thinking about it, (d) the standards sceptics tend to impose on scientific studies are impossible to reach when they don't want to believe the conclusions, and terribly lax otherwise. At this point, the uncertainties in the present situation (ie that human activity is having an appreciable impact on the climate, and the planet in general, in several ways) are about the usual size one would expect for such a complex system, so it doesn't matter than we don't "know" the number(s) you're asking for precisely. That's different from future predictions, that will always be vulnerable to much larger uncertainties.
It should be enough to know, though, that (a) human activities are unsustainable in the long-term and damaging in the short-term, and (b) that therefore we should seek to change our behaviours and activities to mitigate the risks.
And I've already explained to you how Human activities can drive climate change above natural cycles: (a) by disrupting such cycles through, eg, massive deforestation, or increasing populations of particularly greenhouse gas-emitting species such as cows and rice; (b) because natural emission scales are often exaggerated anyway, so the disparity isn't nearly as great as some sceptics make out; and (c) because even *if* human activity is only a fraction of natural activity, then you also have to account for "carbon sinks", and then you have a situation where the absolute balance is rather less important than the relative one.
Also, while I'm thinking about it, (d) the standards sceptics tend to impose on scientific studies are impossible to reach when they don't want to believe the conclusions, and terribly lax otherwise. At this point, the uncertainties in the present situation (ie that human activity is having an appreciable impact on the climate, and the planet in general, in several ways) are about the usual size one would expect for such a complex system, so it doesn't matter than we don't "know" the number(s) you're asking for precisely. That's different from future predictions, that will always be vulnerable to much larger uncertainties.
It should be enough to know, though, that (a) human activities are unsustainable in the long-term and damaging in the short-term, and (b) that therefore we should seek to change our behaviours and activities to mitigate the risks.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles6 mins ago
ChatterBank7 mins ago
Film, Media & TV18 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
News36 mins ago
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.