US declines to endorse Paris Climate agreement [merged threads]

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

11 hours ago, cyberfx1024 said:

No it was not binding, but it still called for the USA to give Billions of dollars a year to less developed countries to help them "emit less carbon while developing". 

 

10 hours ago, Boiler said:

The industries involved just  move elsewhere, problem solved?

[IAMX 3,055]

7 minutes ago, ccneat said:

 

That's great for them, and great we have a volunteer CEHST representative of a dozen or two corporations, they don't have issues with overhead implementing such policies, especially if they pour assets into the firms that profit from such policies. Small businesses, on the other hand, who employ far more people, and represent the vast majority of businesses, don't have that position. If these mega corporations are so generous they can always volunteer to cut their emissions and voluntarily pay emissions taxes without gutting competition (that hardly pollutes anyways) in the process. To someone well antiquated with business tactics, instead of superficial and easily-conned social justice motivation, is appeal to the left in one hand, profit and gut competition using government in the other. Not a good policy.

[Bugs 455]

5 hours ago, Bill & Katya said:

That is an interesting mass balance.  So what they are saying is that if we kept this negative balance and reduced the CO2 20Gtons every year, in a little less than 40 years the CO2 would be gone.  This is my issue with these models and so scientific theories, they are so far fetched and full of errors it is pathetic. As you stated, CO2 is a GHG, but do you know it is also plant food.  What would we do in 40 years if all the CO2 is gone?  Would these august scientistists set controls as to when to use CO2 emitting sources of energy?  Would we have to come up with CO2 generation complexes to spew out CO2 to keep some in the atmosphere?  The main point is that this total system is so complex, these scientists have little chance of actually being right.

 

 

When the earth cools, so does the CO2 output/absorption.

 

2 hours ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

So nature  emits 770 gigs tons and man accounts for 30.  Seems like we need to be pointing the finger at nature don't we.

 

Science warned of another ice age in the 70s. What changed.

 

If it's the hottest it has been in 100s of years , what caused it back then 

 

Is New York under water as Gore Predicted 

We bring it to a surplus.

 

As is the case today, the vast majority of scientists in the 1970s warned of warming.

 

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

 

Based on natural cycles, we were headed towards an ice age in 10,000 years.  But we changed that.

Edited June 2, 2017 by Leon & Mylen

[CaliCat 3,957]

11 minutes ago, Leon & Mylen said:

When the earth cools, so does the CO2 output/absorption.

 

We bring it to a surplus.

 

As is the case today, the vast majority of scientists in the 1970s warned of warming.

 

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

 

Based on natural cycles, we were headed towards an ice age in 10,000 years.  But we changed that.

 

 

The idea is that if things are already bad, why even care? Just let if get worse. Which incidentally is the same type of mentality that got Trump elected, so in a way it does make sense to the MOR/MDRs to not be bothered if the planet turns into an oven. 

[Tahoma 2,298]

Trump: "Today I stand strong with the great country of Syria!  But, I don't like Nicaragua.  Those rapists, murderers, and drug dealers wanted stricter climate rules."

[Bugs 455]

4 hours ago, CaliCat said:

 

 

The idea is that if things are already bad, why even care? Just let if get worse. Which incidentally is the same type of mentality that got Trump elected, so in a way it does make sense to the MOR/MDRs to not be bothered if the planet turns into an oven. 

What you are referring to is the dreaded +2.0 degrees Celsius anomaly threshold, after which it no longer becomes an issue of stopping warming, but an issue of how to deal with the consequences.  But we are not there yet. There is still time.  Yes, that time is short and the window is getting narrower.  We went from +1.0 degrees in 2000 to flirtation with +1.5 this year.  But the Paris accord aims to keep the buffer at 1.5, and, if everyone complies with the reduction goals, there is reasonable belief we can still attain that.  But if the world's #2 emitter and former #1 emitter drops out, then it makes it that much harder to avoid the catastrophe.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

Ps the stock market broke another record 

[Teddy B 17,252]

2 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Ps the stock market broke another record 

Thanks Obama!

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

This is a good article about why pulling out of the Paris Accord was a good thing.

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/17086/excellent-trump-5-reasons-trump-right-pull-out-ben-shapiro

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

21 minutes ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

Ps the stock market broke another record 

Unrelated...energy stocks at a 5 year low

[Dashinka 26,210]

5 hours ago, Leon & Mylen said:

When the earth cools, so does the CO2 output/absorption.

 

We bring it to a surplus.

 

As is the case today, the vast majority of scientists in the 1970s warned of warming.

 

https://skepticalscience.com/ice-age-predictions-in-1970s.htm

 

Based on natural cycles, we were headed towards an ice age in 10,000 years.  But we changed that.

So you are saying we are at some ideal temperature now and natural variation is only allowed to change +/- 2C?  What happens when it cools too much?  Is there a plan from all these scientists at that point?

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

This is a good article about why pulling out of the Paris Accord was a good thing.

 

http://www.dailywire.com/news/17086/excellent-trump-5-reasons-trump-right-pull-out-ben-shapiro

The article claims the treaty does not slow global warming. I am glad we all agree that climate change is a priority to f8x.

 

#whosdoingthepolluting?

[Dashinka 26,210]

52 minutes ago, Leon & Mylen said:

What you are referring to is the dreaded +2.0 degrees Celsius anomaly threshold, after which it no longer becomes an issue of stopping warming, but an issue of how to deal with the consequences.  But we are not there yet. There is still time.  Yes, that time is short and the window is getting narrower.  We went from +1.0 degrees in 2000 to flirtation with +1.5 this year.  But the Paris accord aims to keep the buffer at 1.5, and, if everyone complies with the reduction goals, there is reasonable belief we can still attain that.  But if the world's #2 emitter and former #1 emitter drops out, then it makes it that much harder to avoid the catastrophe.

So how did the Paris Agreement enforce all the pledges of reduction?

[Bugs 455]

17 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So you are saying we are at some ideal temperature now and natural variation is only allowed to change +/- 2C?  What happens when it cools too much?  Is there a plan from all these scientists at that point?

It isn't going to cool too much, let alone at all.  And no, we are not at an ideal temperature, it's too late for that as well.  And you would know this if you read any of the educational information and/or links I presented, so I won't regurgitate it again for you other than to say read up on it.

 

Bottom line, the Earth is warming at an alarming rate that will lead to globally catastrophic consequences over the next several decades and we are the cause of it.  

 

Unless we do something about it.

 

Now, you can do two things here.  Either throw your hands up and go down with the ship or be proactive in getting our government to take responsibility on the matter.

 

If you do the former, please, don't take the rest of us who are doing the latter with you down the abyss.  Just step aside let us lead and take initiative on this.  

 

I still want my child to have a happy life and believe it is still possible.

[Bugs 455]

17 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So how did the Paris Agreement enforce all the pledges of reduction?

It is not meant to be an enforceable code.  It was, and is, meant to be a mutual agreement among countries to self-enforce reductions and help each other out in doing so.  Anyone can pull out and anyone can choose not to follow its reduction guidelines.  We obviously chose to do this, much to the chagrin of every other nation willing to make the sacrifices in saving our planet.  Great, do we get a trophy now?