US declines to endorse Paris Climate agreement [merged threads]

[Dashinka 24,109]

2 minutes ago, Leon & Mylen said:

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.

Is it responsible to saddle our children and grandchildren with economic debt in something that cannot be proven?  This whole "the world will end" caterwauling is just tiresome.  No one said all work on improving efficiency and increasing technology to better use energy was ending, just that the US was not going to be saddled in an unfair non binding agreement with no means to measure anything based on dubious science and incomplete models.

[Dashinka 24,109]

1 minute ago, Leon & Mylen said:

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?

Yep, those agreements always work.  

[Bugs 455]

29 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Is it responsible to saddle our children and grandchildren with economic debt in something that cannot be proven?  This whole "the world will end" caterwauling is just tiresome.  No one said all work on improving efficiency and increasing technology to better use energy was ending, just that the US was not going to be saddled in an unfair non binding agreement with no means to measure anything based on dubious science and incomplete models.

Unfair?

 

Okay, let's talk about being fair.  Was it fair for us to get a head start on the rest of the world during the entire 20th century with unfettered and unregulated CO2 emission in our zeal towards political-economic might at the expense of everyone else who is now, and undoubtedly in the near future, suffering the consequences of such unbridled environmental recklessness?  And, on top of that, having the gall afterwards to say that any agreement to reduce carbon emissions needs to equate to equal or more sacrifice on everyone ELSE's part, including the disadvantaged who did not, and never will, get the benefit of unregulated irresponsibility to get to where we are?  I think, based on the above, we DO need to pay more than our share on this.  But no, America comes first.  How incredibly arrogant, if you ask me.

 

Something that cannot be proven?

 

Look, if you don't want to read the massive amounts of evidence that is already out there, and continuing to build up, to educate yourself on the matter, then, please, for the love of humanity, don't presume to know more than the experts on the matter with your ignorance.  Or you can stop listening to Grandpa, Pastor Joe, Rush Limbaugh, or your corporate lapdog GOP representative, and listen to the people who have done all the actual research on the matter.  Besides, even if you are not convinced, wouldn't it be prudent and responsible to NOT do something that has a chance of very well being detrimental, JUST IN CASE IT IS?  Would you continue eating the food that an expert (in this case, a doctor) said may be the cause of your severe allergic reaction, because the further testing is not yet complete on the matter?  I don't know about you, but I would certainly abstain from such until I can be sure either way.  Your logic says one should just keep on eating the food, even if it ends up killing the person later.  Then his family and friends can stand around at his funeral saying, "What an idiot.  He should have known better."  So, once America brazenly leads the way towards +2.0 Celsius, and we witness rising sea levels, uninhabitable equatorial regions, Sahara like droughts, massive famine, disease, relocation, and increased violence, history will likely look at our leaders and those who voted them in the same.

 

Do you want to be viewed as an idiot in the history books? 

 

Not me.

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2017 by Leon & Mylen

[Dashinka 24,109]

3 minutes ago, Leon & Mylen said:

Unfair?

 

Okay, let's talk about being fair.  Was it fair for us to get a head start on the rest of the world during the entire 20th century with unfettered and unregulated CO2 emission in our zeal towards political-economic might at the expense of everyone else who is now, and undoubtedly in the near future, suffering the consequences of such unbridled environmental recklessness?  And, on top of that, having the gall afterwards to say that any agreement to reduce carbon emissions needs to equate to equal or more sacrifice on everyone ELSE's part, including the disadvantaged who did not, and never will, get the benefit of unregulated irresponsibility to get to where we are?  I think, based on the above, we DO need to pay more than our share on this.  But no, America comes first.  How incredibly arrogant, if you ask me.

 

Something that cannot be proven?

 

Look, if you don't want to read the massive amounts of evidence that is already out there, and continuing to build up, to educate yourself on the matter, then, please, for the love of humanity, don't presume to know more than the experts on the matter with your ignorance.  Or you can stop listening to Grandpa, Pastor Joe, Rush Limbaugh, or your corporate lapdog GOP representative, and listen to the people who have done all the actual research on the matter.  Besides, even if you are not convinced, wouldn't it be prudent and responsible to NOT do something that has a chance of very well being detrimental, JUST IN CASE IT IS?  Would you continue eating the food that an expert (in this case, a doctor) said may be the cause of your severe allergic reaction, because the further testing is not yet convincingly complete on the matter?  I don't know about you, but I would certainly abstain from such until I can be sure either way.  Your logic says one should just keep on eating the food, even if it ends up killing the person later.  Then his family and friends can stand around at his funeral saying, "What an idiot.  He should have known better."  So, once America brazenly leads the way towards +2.0 Celsius, and we witness rising sea levels, uninhabitable equatorial regions, Sahara like droughts, massive famine, disease, relocation, and increased violence, history will likely look at our leaders and those who voted them in the same.

 

Do you want to be viewed as an idiot in the history books? 

 

Not me.

 

 

 

So I take it the science is settled?  Maybe you should read both sides and actually dive into the models and the simplifying assumptions they use (like ignoring natural variation or solar impacts).  I have.  Maybe you should look at all these items labeled as "green" and do a full cradle to grave sustainability study.  Yes, the US grew, but it wasn't due to some unfair advantage that it had compared to other countries, it was the result of hard work.  All the other countries were under the same regulatory environment at that time.  Were mistakes made?  Sure, and when identified, they were corrected, technology was increased, and efficiency was improved.    Has CO2 levels varied over the years? Yes.  Has climate changed over the years?  Yes.  Is today or even 20 years ago the most ideal climate for the planet?  Who knows, certainly not you, nor any of these climate scientists.  This whole business of Paris is a joke that is essentially a Kumbaya moment.  Estimates are it would have an almost negligible impact to global temperatures compared to continuing down the path of free market technology advances and efficiency gains, and might only be measured if your thermometer is accurate to two or three decimal points.

 

http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises

[Bugs 455]

2 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

So I take it the science is settled?  Maybe you should read both sides and actually dive into the models and the simplifying assumptions they use (like ignoring natural variation or solar impacts).  I have.  Maybe you should look at all these items labeled as "green" and do a full cradle to grave sustainability study.  Yes, the US grew, but it wasn't due to some unfair advantage that it had compared to other countries, it was the result of hard work.  All the other countries were under the same regulatory environment at that time.  Were mistakes made?  Sure, and when identified, they were corrected, technology was increased, and efficiency was improved.    Has CO2 levels varied over the years? Yes.  Has climate changed over the years?  Yes.  Is today or even 20 years ago the most ideal climate for the planet?  Who knows, certainly not you, nor any of these climate scientists.  This whole business of Paris is a joke that is essentially a Kumbaya moment.  Estimates are it would have an almost negligible impact to global temperatures compared to continuing down the path of free market technology advances and efficiency gains, and might only be measured if your thermometer is accurate to two or three decimal points.

 

http://www.lomborg.com/press-release-research-reveals-negligible-impact-of-paris-climate-promises

 

I have read both sides, as well as examined the evidence and data, wisely chosing to accept the conclusions  of 97% of the authoritative experts on the matter rather than the other 3%.  And if you examined all the evidence as well you would understand why.

[Dashinka 24,109]

8 minutes ago, Leon & Mylen said:

 

I have read both sides, as well as examined the evidence and data, wisely chosing to accept the conclusions  of 97% of the authoritative experts on the matter rather than the other 3%.  And if you examined all the evidence as well you would understand why.

Now it is only 97% of those that are currently publishing and also specifically call themselves climate scientists.  I realize we are supposed to believe them no questions asked, but I tend to be more skeptical when it comes to this.  That doesn't mean I don't do my part, just that I don't believe all these august scientists (the 97%) have purely altruistic purposes.

 

So if you delved into the models and read both sides, how do you reconcile the inaccuracy of the models?

[Bugs 455]

38 minutes ago, Bill & Katya said:

Now it is only 97% of those that are currently publishing and also specifically call themselves climate scientists.  I realize we are supposed to believe them no questions asked, but I tend to be more skeptical when it comes to this.  That doesn't mean I don't do my part, just that I don't believe all these august scientists (the 97%) have purely altruistic purposes.

 

So if you delved into the models and read both sides, how do you reconcile the inaccuracy of the models?

 

It turned out the vast majority of those scientists who are skeptical were not actually practicing climate scientists, but experts in other fields, and did not publish in peer reviewed abstracts (the vetting process used for surviving error and misinformation), and 90% were funded by right-side think tanks, so it was hard to take most of them seriously, but I tried.  Nobody actually had their own set of data and graphs from their own research that contradicted that which is provided by the other 97%.  The best just pointed to margin of error variabilities in that data already and used that to say what you are saying, that we cannot be sure.

 

That's not to say that some researchers did not actually try to do the testing themselves in order to put out convincing contradictory evidence and data.  They did, but only ended up replicating the data the 97% came up with, and adding to their ever growing body of evidence. The very first chart I posted several pages back was actually from one instance of this.

 

https://front.moveon.org/republicans-trying-to-disprove-global-warming-actually-prove-the-opposite/?rc=fb.fan#.WTHRkYVlCaM

 

 

 

Edited June 2, 2017 by Leon & Mylen

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

1 hour ago, Bill & Katya said:

Is it responsible to saddle our children and grandchildren with economic debt in something that cannot be proven?  This whole "the world will end" caterwauling is just tiresome.  No one said all work on improving efficiency and increasing technology to better use energy was ending, just that the US was not going to be saddled in an unfair non binding agreement with no means to measure anything based on dubious science and incomplete models.

But it proves I care, and it feels good. 

[Tahoma 2,291]

Trump: "Saw a recent interview with that guy who thought another ice age was coming.  Great guy!!!  Said climate science has taken a quantum leap forward since the '70's.  Said global warming is a serious problem.  But I don't care.  My job-approval numbers suck, and I needed to throw some red meat to my shrinking base before I lost them too."

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

2 hours ago, Leon & Mylen said:

Unfair?

 

Okay, let's talk about being fair.  Was it fair for us to get a head start on the rest of the world during the entire 20th century with unfettered and unregulated CO2 emission in our zeal towards political-economic might at the expense of everyone else who is now, and undoubtedly in the near future, suffering the consequences of such unbridled environmental recklessness?  And, on top of that, having the gall afterwards to say that any agreement to reduce carbon emissions needs to equate to equal or more sacrifice on everyone ELSE's part, including the disadvantaged who did not, and never will, get the benefit of unregulated irresponsibility to get to where we are?  I think, based on the above, we DO need to pay more than our share on this.  But no, America comes first.  How incredibly arrogant, if you ask me.

 

Ok, if you don't like living in this country because we are so unfair for being a developed country then kindly walk across the border and live in Mexico. Better yet why not just move to the Philippines? I didn't like any accord that was on the table because it called for giving $100 Billion a year from developed countries to less developed countries. Also it has in the Paris Accord that China can keep producing unheard of amount CO2 emissions and it keep going up until 2030 because "China is still a developing country". 

 

The American People DO AND SHOULD COME FIRST!!!!! The last 8 years has been your time that Americans have had to bow down to the rest of the world,Obama wanted us to accept any agreement which hurt the American People and our QOL. I am sorry but I love my QOL and I will not give it up for some person in a 3rd world corrupt country can get $.50 more an hour. You say you have kids while why don't you look them in the eyes and tell them that you want your family to do with less to give it to someone else who wants to kill/convert your family. I am sorry but I was raised with these CORE PRINCIPLES which is: God, Family, and Country. 

 

We need to pay our fair share, what does that mean? I constantly hear Liberals talking about how well off people need to pay their fair share for everything. Sorry I pay enough in taxes and I do not want to pay anymore at all. You are one of the people that voted for that stupid Prop. 30 that was supposed to go the schools here in California. When in reality after it passed and the state got the money it went everywhere else but the schools. It was sad that even the soon to be Governor Gavin Newsom straight out and said that the money went to pensions and not the schools. 

 

No one is stopping you from moving to some other country so why don't you do it?

Edited June 2, 2017 by cyberfx1024

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 hour ago, Leon & Mylen said:

 

It turned out the vast majority of those scientists who are skeptical were not actually practicing climate scientists, but experts in other fields, and did not publish in peer reviewed abstracts (the vetting process used for surviving error and misinformation), and 90% were funded by right-side think tanks, so it was hard to take most of them seriously, but I tried.  Nobody actually had their own set of data and graphs from their own research that contradicted that which is provided by the other 97%.  The best just pointed to margin of error variabilities in that data already and used that to say what you are saying, that we cannot be sure.

 

That's not to say that some researchers did not actually try to do the testing themselves in order to put out convincing contradictory evidence and data.  They did, but only ended up replicating the data the 97% came up with, and adding to their ever growing body of evidence. The very first chart I posted several pages back was actually from one instance of this.

 

https://front.moveon.org/republicans-trying-to-disprove-global-warming-actually-prove-the-opposite/?rc=fb.fan#.WTHRkYVlCaM

 

 

 

Just like Bill Nye right? He is a Mechanical Engineer but he is putting his self out there like he has an official Phd in Science, when in reality it's only an Honorary Doctorate. 

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

4 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Ok, if you don't like living in this country because we are so unfair for being a developed country then kindly walk across the border and live in Mexico, better yet why not just move to the Philippines. I didn't like any accord that was on the table because it called for giving $100 Billion a year from developed countries to less developed countries. Also it has in the Paris Accord that China can keep producing unheard of CO2 emissions and keep going up until 2030 because "China is still a developing country". 

 

The American People DO SHOULD COME FIRST!!!!! The last 8 years has been your time that Americans have to bow down to the rest of the world and Obama wanted us to accept any agreement which hurt the American People and our QOL. I am sorry but I love my QOL and I will not give it up for some person in a 3rd world corrupt country can get $.50 more an hour. You say you have kids while why don't you look them in the eyes and tell them that you want your family to do with less to give it to someone else who wants to kill/convert your family. I am sorry but I was raised with these CORE PRINCIPLES which is: God, Family, and Country. 

 

We need to pay our fair share, what does that mean? I constantly hear Liberals talking about how well off people need to pay their fair share for everything. Sorry I pay enough in taxes and I do not want to pay anymore at all. You are one of the people that voted for that stupid Prop. 30 that was supposed to go the schools here in California. When in reality after it passed and the state got the money it went everywhere else but the schools. It was sad that even the soon to be Governor Gavin Newsom straight out and said that the money went to pensions and not the schools. 

 

No one is stopping you from moving to some other country so why don't you do it?

I know you have been to the Phillipines. Talking about air quality.  Trump said when he ran . No more unfair deals for America. First politician I can remember, who is guilty of trying to keep his promises 

[Bugs 455]

4 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Just like Bill Nye right? He is a Mechanical Engineer but he is putting his self out there like he has an official Phd in Science, when in reality it's only an Honorary Doctorate. 

 

No, Bill Nye is not a climatologist.

[Cyberfx1024 7,980]

1 minute ago, Nature Boy Flair said:

I know you have been to the Phillipines. Talking about air quality.  Trump said when he ran . No more unfair deals for America. First politician I can remember, who is guilty of trying to keep his promises 

That's why I stay out of Manila when I can and just go straight to Davao. 

[Bugs 455]

9 minutes ago, cyberfx1024 said:

Ok, if you don't like living in this country because we are so unfair for being a developed country then kindly walk across the border and live in Mexico, better yet why not just move to the Philippines. I didn't like any accord that was on the table because it called for giving $100 Billion a year from developed countries to less developed countries. Also it has in the Paris Accord that China can keep producing unheard of CO2 emissions and keep going up until 2030 because "China is still a developing country". 

 

The American People DO SHOULD COME FIRST!!!!! The last 8 years has been your time that Americans have to bow down to the rest of the world and Obama wanted us to accept any agreement which hurt the American People and our QOL. I am sorry but I love my QOL and I will not give it up for some person in a 3rd world corrupt country can get $.50 more an hour. You say you have kids while why don't you look them in the eyes and tell them that you want your family to do with less to give it to someone else who wants to kill/convert your family. I am sorry but I was raised with these CORE PRINCIPLES which is: God, Family, and Country. 

 

We need to pay our fair share, what does that mean? I constantly hear Liberals talking about how well off people need to pay their fair share for everything. Sorry I pay enough in taxes and I do not want to pay anymore at all. You are one of the people that voted for that stupid Prop. 30 that was supposed to go the schools here in California. When in reality after it passed and the state got the money it went everywhere else but the schools. It was sad that even the soon to be Governor Gavin Newsom straight out and said that the money went to pensions and not the schools. 

 

No one is stopping you from moving to some other country so why don't you do it?

I certainly do not want to move.  In fact, I want to change things for the better here.