US declines to endorse Paris Climate agreement [merged threads]

[Jacque67 7,328]

So the WH line is the president pulled out of the treaty without discussing or considering whether climate change is real or not.

 

guess he had Kimberly on his mind...

 

pittsburgh not paris!!!

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

28 minutes ago, Jacque67 said:

So the WH line is the president pulled out of the treaty without discussing or considering whether climate change is real or not.

 

guess he had Kimberly on his mind...

 

pittsburgh not paris!!!

Guilfoyle suggested climate change wasn’t real because a zoo had snow in January. Guilfoyle quipped, “Oh, but I thought there was climate change,” after watching a video of a polar bear playing in snow at the Portland Zoo in January. [Fox News, The Five, 1/12/17]

Guilfoyle agreed that people criticizing climate deniers “have a lot in common with ISIS.” Fox co-host Greg Gutfeld lamented that climate change skeptics were facing pushback and claimed that people “are out trying to penalizes skeptics, adding that “they have a lot in common with ISIS.” Guilfoyle responded, “Yes. Exactly.” From the April 22, 2016, edition of The Five:

[Jacque67 7,328]

11 minutes ago, ccneat said:

Guilfoyle suggested climate change wasn’t real because a zoo had snow in January. Guilfoyle quipped, “Oh, but I thought there was climate change,” after watching a video of a polar bear playing in snow at the Portland Zoo in January. [Fox News, The Five, 1/12/17]

Guilfoyle agreed that people criticizing climate deniers “have a lot in common with ISIS.” Fox co-host Greg Gutfeld lamented that climate change skeptics were facing pushback and claimed that people “are out trying to penalizes skeptics, adding that “they have a lot in common with ISIS.” Guilfoyle responded, “Yes. Exactly.” From the April 22, 2016, edition of The Five:

Very intelligent person...

no wonder fox is now in third place 

"reducing admissions"!!!

 

 

[IAMX 3,055]

1 hour ago, Leon & Mylen said:

Lol, fair enough.  Just going with your suggested topic.

 

Probably is the wrong thread though.  Besides, I already debated it in another one, so I'm better off spending time with my wife now.

 

Goodnight folks, it's been fun.

 

Spend time with the wife???

 

[Tahoma 2,291]

2 hours ago, Leon & Mylen said:

Sorry this took a bit for me to respond, but in addition to the usual evening distractions, the author wasn't backing up his claims with any sources, so I had to do the research for him.

 

His first contention, that warming over the last 50 years or so has averaged only about half of what computerized climate models can explain can be traced to what is known as the Christy Graph.  This is a single graph produced a while back that was not published in a peer reviewed journal, and for good reason.  Data comparing the actual recorded weather data and the models were improperly aligned to on the graph to make it look like the models were off track.  Furthermore, only 3 sources of weather recording data were chosen, rather than the entire spectrum of recorded data (needed for more accurate averages), and, even with that, instead of ranges used, single points on the graph were plotted.  This kind of thing would have been blasted on any peer-reviewed article as ludicrously fallacious and incredibly misleading.  It would have been a complete joke.  More accurate graphs that include ALL data (and there are many) show that global surface temperatures, ocean temperatures, and rising sea levels are on par with the models as predicted and that arctic melting is actually faster than predicted. 

 

The above, by the way, was typical of what I would find in my research of the skeptics.

 

His second contention that it is not obvious that recent warming is entirely the fault of our CO2 admissions, is the same thing you, and many climate deniers say.  And you already know my answer to that:  It's not obvious to him because he is not a climatologist.  So I'm not going to dwell on this one.

 

His third contention, that the Paris efforts wil only revert .3 degrees warming can be traced to a narrow-eyed analysis of solely the CURRENT goals of all the countries in the pact.  Indeed, if we stuck with just those goals, we would still surpass the 2.0 degrees Celsius threshold climatologists warn us about.  The pact explicitly expresses this.  However, nowhere does the pact task nations to permanently abide by their current goals.  It is a commitment for more.  It requires a reconvening in 2020 with every nation needing to present loftier goals in reduction, with the cumulative goal, as also explicitly expressed in the pact, of reducing models to 2.0, then ultimately 1.5 in the future (the latter being an aspirational goal and not a binding figure).

 

His fourth and fifth contention have to do with economics and nothing to do with science, so I'll skip that.  I don't deny economic sacrifices need to be made.  But the sacrifices will pale compared to the eventual sacrifices made by all of us in the long run if we ignore the science.

 

His sixth contention, that CO2 benefits crops is a ridiculous argument in favor of CO2 rise, and completely ignorant of the damaging effects of rising CO2.  Nobody denies that plants like CO2.  So I'll skip this one, as only the idiots would latch on something like this.

 

There.  It was a pain to have to do all his research for him, let alone even respond to an obviously biased source, but at least I did so rather than dismiss it entirely based on the URL..

 

Not something you can exactly say.

Excellent synopsois!  +1

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

56 minutes ago, IAMX said:

 

Spend time with the wife???

 

Sounds rough a cote chez Bundy 

[Dashinka 24,109]

4 hours ago, Leon & Mylen said:

Gladly.

 

Why do Republicans consider family planning education and easy access to birth control as sinful

4 hours ago, Boiler said:

I did not know they did, but best to ask one I suppose. Why ask me?

 Damn those Republicans, they are just having too many kids!  Maybe that was another reason Hillary lost!