The U.S. is now the only country not part of Paris climate agreement after Syria signs on

Kobie said:

Are you out of your goddamned mind? A cold day means climate change is fake?

Anyone -- without exception -- who claims that climate change is a hoax because it's cold today should be ignored into perpetuity.

Lemme guess -- these record-warm years are just fake news, weather and climate are the same thing, and Jesus will fix everything if you're wrong, yes?

Click to expand...

Anthropomorphic Climate Change based on CO2 is a scam to tax the very air you breath. Period. Note the word Anthropomorphic. There is climate change and always has been is just not for the most part man made, man slightly influenced possibly bordering on probably, man made.... that's horse****.

I didn't say anything about cold days or warm days, FYI.

PirateMk1 said:

Anthropomorphic Climate Change based on CO2 is a scam to tax the very air you breath. Period. Note the word Anthropomorphic. There is climate change and always has been is just not for the most part man made, man slightly influenced possibly bordering on probably, man made.... that's horse****.

Click to expand...

Anthropogenic, not morphic. If CC were anthropomorphized, it'd be a cartoon.

If CC is at all man caused, any percent, there are - by definition - anthropogenic factors. Anthropogenic does not mean 100% man made, it means man contributes to a cycle. All scientists are aware temperature has changed before.

PirateMk1 said:

Anthropomorphic Climate Change based on CO2 is a scam to tax the very air you breath. Period. Note the word Anthropomorphic. There is climate change and always has been is just not for the most part man made, man slightly influenced possibly bordering on probably, man made.... that's horse****.

I didn't say anything about cold days or warm days, FYI.

Click to expand...

1. I think we can dispense with the pedantry. We both know what I meant.

2. YOU said "Good for Trump" when he disputed ACC based on a cold snap. So don't backpedal now, science denier.

Kobie said:

1. I think we can dispense with the pedantry. We both know what I meant.

2. YOU said "Good for Trump" when he disputed ACC based on a cold snap. So don't backpedal now, science denier.

Click to expand...

The total ignorance from which he spews crap is obvious. Anthropomorphic climate change? Come on. That's someone who has never actually learned the science and, apparently, has no idea what anthropomorphize means.

It couldn't be any more apparent that he's hollering from the dark. Even he should see it. Hopefully he'll buy a used textbook or read a website that's not a CT blog.

ecofarm said:

Anthropogenic, not morphic. If CC were anthropomorphized, it'd be a cartoon.

If CC is at all man caused, any percent, there are - by definition - anthropogenic factors. Anthropogenic does not mean 100% man made, it means man contributes to a cycle.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the word correction and clarification. Theres always been climate change, that's what climate does. The problem I have with the AGW is with attempt to try to fix something that really isn't fixable by any means let alone by reasonable means, and further assuming the climate is broke. Its for all intents and purposes an attempt by policy to tax the air we breathe.

PirateMk1 said:

Theres always been climate change, that's what climate does.

Click to expand...

Do you think you're teaching someone? Do you think scientists don't know that? AGW does not mean 100% man caused. It means man is a factor. Do you deny that man is even the smallest factor? If you believe man has an affect or contributes to the change at all, then you believe AGW is real.

Kobie said:

1. I think we can dispense with the pedantry. We both know what I meant.

2. YOU said "Good for Trump" when he disputed ACC based on a cold snap. So don't backpedal now, science denier.

Click to expand...

Science denier? Your writing to a genuine bonifide rocket surgeon. I can literally bore you to death with my rocketry knowledge. Almost all the whining about how our climate is warming cooling or whatever is based on recent data attempting to make the current climate and CO2 a baseline. Far less than 10,000 years. We have been in a warming period for about that long and for the last 3+million years have been in an ongoing cycle of 100,000 year ice ages and 10,000 year warming periods which by the way our current climate is in the tail end of. CO2 which is a fraction of a percent of the volume of the earths atmospheres gas mix varies between 150ppm to over 8000ppm. I said all that to say this, We don't know if the climate is out of wack because we are well within historical norms. Until such time as the climate deviates from historical norms the only thing that can be done is speculate.

PirateMk1 said:

Until such time as the climate deviates from historical norms the only thing that can be done is speculate.

Click to expand...

That's so stupid and so completely ignorant of science.

PirateMk1 said:

Science denier? Your writing to a genuine bonifide rocket surgeon. I can literally bore you to death with my rocketry knowledge. Almost all the whining about how our climate is warming cooling or whatever is based on recent data attempting to make the current climate and CO2 a baseline. Far less than 10,000 years. We have been in a warming period for about that long and for the last 3+million years have been in an ongoing cycle of 100,000 year ice ages and 10,000 year warming periods which by the way our current climate is in the tail end of. CO2 which is a fraction of a percent of the volume of the earths atmospheres gas mix varies between 150ppm to over 8000ppm. I said all that to say this, We don't know if the climate is out of wack because we are well within historical norms. Until such time as the climate deviates from historical norms the only thing that can be done is speculate.

Click to expand...

And I'm an electrical engineer that designs radars. Do either of our non-related jobs qualify us to make scientific claims about environmental science?

If you're actually a studied academic in your field you'd realize people can't just walk off the street, read a few blogs then declare the entire scientific community in your field a hoax. As mich as you value your feelings and opinions they don't outweigh the science and expert consensus.

ecofarm said:

Do you think you're teaching someone? Do you think scientists don't know that? AGW does not mean 100% man caused. It means man is a factor. Do you deny that man is even the smallest factor? If you believe man has an affect or contributes to the change at all, then you believe AGW is real.

Click to expand...

Ahh no. Man is a factor yes. That does not mean that AGW is real because the extent of that factor has yet to be determined and further requires a long precision data set we just don't have to determine how large said effect would be compared to other factors and whether there is a counteracting effect to mans effects. By historical standards of the last 3+million years we are well within historical norms.

Angelus said:

The U.S. is now the only country not part of Paris climate agreement after Syria signs on

The United States is now the only country on Earth that's declined to be a part of the Paris climate agreement, after Syria announced Tuesday it would join the landmark 2015 pact. In an address to delegates at a global climate meeting in Bonn, Germany, Syria’s deputy minister of local administration and environment, M. Wadah Katmawi, said his country would join the Paris deal “as soon as possible.”

“Syria’s announcement that it will join the Paris agreement leaves President Trump in not-so-splendid isolation as a result of his irresponsible and ignorant decision to withdraw the United States from the most comprehensive effort ever to confront the mounting climate crisis," said Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists. The U.S. is the second-largest carbon dioxide-emitting nation on the planet after China, according to the European Commission.

It's official. The rest of the world - every nation in the world - believes in science. We believe in unsubstantiated claims by large donors to our government. So the US has fallen behind in technology and innovation - we alone can't figure out alternatives because our Republican controlled legislature have swallowed the kool-aid from Trump.

Trump - "NBC News just called it the great freeze - coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?"

It's for idiots like Trump who have no idea of the difference between climate and weather that the term has been changed to Climate Change.

We have become a rogue nation that willfully ignores the 98% of scientists with evidence of what is happening to the earth, because it's bad for business. Our govt pretends those coal mining jobs are coming back when it's pretty clear that machines will be doing any work and not people. The rest of the first world countries will be experimenting with cutting edge technology, while we close our eyes and cover our ears - singing Nyah Nyah.

We have become a nation that officially supports opinion over evidence - a nation where people believe they can have their own facts. Our scientists are moving to other countries - the brain drain here is going to have a lasting impact on our technology. America is no longer a super power - we have become a laughing stock.

Click to expand...

While arguing that it probably is not smart to be outside the club, the membership of dictatorships, desolate regions pleading for help or the EU desperately looking for a raison d'être is not a good way to argue this.

Angelus said:

The U.S. is now the only country not part of Paris climate agreement after Syria signs on

The United States is now the only country on Earth that's declined to be a part of the Paris climate agreement, after Syria announced Tuesday it would join the landmark 2015 pact. In an address to delegates at a global climate meeting in Bonn, Germany, Syria’s deputy minister of local administration and environment, M. Wadah Katmawi, said his country would join the Paris deal “as soon as possible.”

“Syria’s announcement that it will join the Paris agreement leaves President Trump in not-so-splendid isolation as a result of his irresponsible and ignorant decision to withdraw the United States from the most comprehensive effort ever to confront the mounting climate crisis," said Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists. The U.S. is the second-largest carbon dioxide-emitting nation on the planet after China, according to the European Commission.

It's official. The rest of the world - every nation in the world - believes in science. We believe in unsubstantiated claims by large donors to our government. So the US has fallen behind in technology and innovation - we alone can't figure out alternatives because our Republican controlled legislature have swallowed the kool-aid from Trump.

Trump - "NBC News just called it the great freeze - coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?"

It's for idiots like Trump who have no idea of the difference between climate and weather that the term has been changed to Climate Change.

We have become a rogue nation that willfully ignores the 98% of scientists with evidence of what is happening to the earth, because it's bad for business. Our govt pretends those coal mining jobs are coming back when it's pretty clear that machines will be doing any work and not people. The rest of the first world countries will be experimenting with cutting edge technology, while we close our eyes and cover our ears - singing Nyah Nyah.

We have become a nation that officially supports opinion over evidence - a nation where people believe they can have their own facts. Our scientists are moving to other countries - the brain drain here is going to have a lasting impact on our technology. America is no longer a super power - we have become a laughing stock.

Click to expand...

On a related note, Macron dis-invited Trump from the December Paris Summit.

Essentially - others will set the agenda, as we withdraw from the world.

RabidAlpaca said:

And I'm an electrical engineer that designs radars. Do either of our non-related jobs qualify us to make scientific claims about environmental science?

If you're actually a studied academic in your field you'd realize people can't just walk off the street, read a few blogs then declare the entire scientific community in your field a hoax. As mich as you value your feelings and opinions they don't outweigh the science and expert consensus.

Click to expand...

I have had to do a lot of statistics in my profession and actually tought it for a short while. When the climate debate was getting going I checked the data being used to argue climate warming and its anthropogenic cause. Those "proofs" were falsely applied statistics.

I have done statistics because I my main degrees were in economics. Applying that training to the Stern Review indicated a strong bias in the choice of assumptions and methods deployed to argue the socioeconomic impact and feasibility of a rapid traverse to a low carbon economy.

So, yes. There are good reasons to doubt the climate change based demands on policy.
This does not mean that there is nothing in the beliefs in man made climate change. But the cause was poorly argued by overstatement, fales arguments and understatement of the impact on social groups of rash economic changes.

Chomsky said:

On a related note, Macron dis-invited Trump from the December Paris Summit.

Essentially - others will set the agenda, as we withdraw from the world.

Click to expand...

That is the reason the "withdrawal" in its present form makes me nervous. But it was inevitable that the US must correct the imbalance in its share of the costs for global public goods. It is the method of renegotiation that has its risks. Obama's methods hadn't worked. So the American voter chose a President that promised a different negotiations strategy. We did this as an electorate eyes wide shut.

trouble13 said:

Serious question. Can you cite one prediction they have made that can be verified as accurate?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

PirateMk1 said:

Thanks for the word correction and clarification. Theres always been climate change, that's what climate does. The problem I have with the AGW is with attempt to try to fix something that really isn't fixable by any means let alone by reasonable means, and further assuming the climate is broke. Its for all intents and purposes an attempt by policy to tax the air we breathe.

Click to expand...

Of course neither of you bothered to click on the link from NASA, because then you would have to argue facts instead of opinion

Hawkeye10 said:

As the global economy crashes everyone will abandon it, so this hardly matters.

Click to expand...

The main driving forces will never abandon it. However, they have not done, what they promised. Possibly they will in the future. But the cap and trade system the Europeans put im place was never really used other than as a subsidy for exports and large emitors and the agreement in it the eu reached yesterday is at best an alibi.

Praxas said:

It’s a non binding agreement in the first place but then honest people know that unlike trumptard supporters who are liars to the core.

Click to expand...

Then why bother. So you "feel good"?

Nickyjo said:

We have already dealt with your car, as it pollutes less than earlier models. But what is the problem with taking steps to address the problem? We have dealt with smog, with acid rain, with the ozone hole, and things have gotten better. What do skeptics suggest we do given the evidence? The most recent government report suggests we do something. Oil companies seem to recognize the problem. Reportedly the Pentagon considers the phenomenon an issue of strategic concern. As I understand it, the only political party in the developed world that denies what everyone else seems to accept is a portion of the GOP.

Even assuming the science the entire world seems to accept is wrong, what do we lose by curbing emissions?

Click to expand...

We don't need to be part of an non binding agreement to do that.

Praxas said:

It’s a non binding agreement in the first place but.....well read my previous reply it applies to all trumptard supporters.

Click to expand...

Are you sure that it is not binding? I would have to reread it, but I thought it was binding but vague and without enforcement features. In other words a feel good fudge of the normal EU standard. Trump was certainly right that it is a bad treaty and an embarrassment to the Obama administration. It is a good example of the kind of contract one should prevent. Was it smart to exit? Not once it had been signed by so many. But staying in should have been used to block more damage being done.

After Xi sent Obama to the corner and declared there will be no penalties for his country polluting the earth, the accord was useless and remains so.

Angelus said:

The U.S. is now the only country not part of Paris climate agreement after Syria signs on

The United States is now the only country on Earth that's declined to be a part of the Paris climate agreement, after Syria announced Tuesday it would join the landmark 2015 pact. In an address to delegates at a global climate meeting in Bonn, Germany, Syria’s deputy minister of local administration and environment, M. Wadah Katmawi, said his country would join the Paris deal “as soon as possible.”

“Syria’s announcement that it will join the Paris agreement leaves President Trump in not-so-splendid isolation as a result of his irresponsible and ignorant decision to withdraw the United States from the most comprehensive effort ever to confront the mounting climate crisis," said Alden Meyer, of the Union of Concerned Scientists. The U.S. is the second-largest carbon dioxide-emitting nation on the planet after China, according to the European Commission.

It's official. The rest of the world - every nation in the world - believes in science. We believe in unsubstantiated claims by large donors to our government. So the US has fallen behind in technology and innovation - we alone can't figure out alternatives because our Republican controlled legislature have swallowed the kool-aid from Trump.

Trump - "NBC News just called it the great freeze - coldest weather in years. Is our country still spending money on the GLOBAL WARMING HOAX?"

It's for idiots like Trump who have no idea of the difference between climate and weather that the term has been changed to Climate Change.

We have become a rogue nation that willfully ignores the 98% of scientists with evidence of what is happening to the earth, because it's bad for business. Our govt pretends those coal mining jobs are coming back when it's pretty clear that machines will be doing any work and not people. The rest of the first world countries will be experimenting with cutting edge technology, while we close our eyes and cover our ears - singing Nyah Nyah.

We have become a nation that officially supports opinion over evidence - a nation where people believe they can have their own facts. Our scientists are moving to other countries - the brain drain here is going to have a lasting impact on our technology. America is no longer a super power - we have become a laughing stock.

Click to expand...

The problem with the Paris deal was Obama set up the deal so the USA would become the deep pockets for the rest of the world. That was a bad deal for the US, even if Obama and his cronies got golden parachutes. In that deal, China and India get to pollute, while USA gets to sacrifice to make up the difference. What a deal! This was a bad deal, which only benefitted leftist middlemen, not the average American middle class citizens.

The Paris debacle was also slated to reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion, and result in an average shortfall of nearly 400,000 jobs by 2035. Of the 400,000 jobs lost, an estimated 200,000 would have been in the manufacturing sector. Meaning Americans would also have seen the costs of consumer goods such as electronics, paper products, and apparel increase, inevitably taking more out of household income.

Click to expand...

Trump wants a better deal and knows he has to void the old deal, before he can start again. He would prefer we get the same deal as China and India. Nobody on the left is complaining about those deals. Why not get the better deal. If Trump can get China's and/or India's deal, we get to roll back environmental regulations a decade, and we also get to built hundreds of new coal plants. Plus, we don't have to spend hardly anything that will cripple the economy. Too make this work out, in terms of the bottom line of the Paris deal, maybe Europe and the rest of the world, can take over America's old deal and pay the makeup tab. The Democrats can set up a charity and pay the extra. Everyone is happy. We can call this Paris 2.0. If he gets Paris 2.0, Trump can then get credit for caring about the weather.

Trump is all about the deal. He is not an idealist. Both parties don't like him fully because he is not an idealists in terms of either party; half a brain. Trump wants to get the best deal, the any fantasy can offer, so the fantasy makes better economic sense. His approach is like having a child with no talent, who think they want to be singer. The practical and compassionate father will not spend all the family income, on the best singing teachers, due to being hooked into the fantasy. Instead practical compassionate will provide support, but in a reasonable manner, until the child wakes up from the fantasy.

Angelus said:

Of course neither of you bothered to click on the link from NASA, because then you would have to argue facts instead of opinion

Click to expand...

Is this some sort of deflection on your part. I asked you a direct question and your completely avoiding it. The overwhelming scientific community that you all like to hang your hat on has an overwhelming credability problem when nothing they have predicted in the past has happened nor can they show any verifiable evidence that what they are guessing is resonsible for the conditions that they think we should be alarmed about.

So again i ask you to answer my question and then tell me what facts you think im trying to avoid argueing.

If you intend on presenting suppositions as facts i can do that too.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

trouble13 said:

Is this some sort of deflection on your part. I asked you a direct question and your completely avoiding it. The overwhelming scientific community that you all like to hang your hat on has an overwhelming credability problem when nothing they have predicted in the past has happened nor can they show any verifiable evidence that what they are guessing is resonsible for the conditions that they think we should be alarmed about.

So again i ask you to answer my question and then tell me what facts you think im trying to avoid argueing.

If you intend on presenting suppositions as facts i can do that too.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

98% of scientists world wide agree that climate change is occurring, and that various forms of pollution are responsible at least in part. I posted an article from NASA that details climate change effects. If that's deflection, and you don't agree with scientists world wide, then you are operating on opinion and have elevated yours into a persona set of facts. This is wat my OP is all about - thank you for proving my point.

Climate change: How do we know?

Do you even know what the scientific method is?

trouble13 said:

Serious question. Can you cite one prediction they have made that can be verified as accurate?

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

Click to expand...

Not acquainted with the science enough to judge, but they have said there would be more extreme weather, and that appears to be the case. I assume that as time goes on they will keep altering and refining their analysis, which is what I assume scientists do. Who knows, if the evidence changes, they may change their recommendations. Meanwhile nothing wrong with taking steps to diminish the problem as we have with other environmental problems.

holbritter said:

We don't need to be part of an non binding agreement to do that.

Click to expand...

We are a sovereign nation that chooses to be part part of a world community that addresses problems affecting all or most of us. Sone agreements we make are binding, some are not. A nation that seeks to lead the world, that has set up international institutions, cannot command respect if it ignores that community it was key in creating