So I am watching CNN repeat the mantra "this agreement is meant to decrease climate on the globe"

[Moonglow]

You ***** you defected from my question.

Once again how many of the 97% agree on how much man contributes to global warming?


It's an easy answer...

Is it

5%

20%

50%

85%


What is the number they agree on?

.

I didn't deflect anything I answered the question honestly be saying that it's an impossible question to answer, we're talking probabilities not absolute numbers. I even gave an analogy. But again you are deflecting. Why do you think POSSIBLE economic harm warrants a high degree of potential harm to future generations. Harm that ranges from severe storms at the very least, to possible mass extinction at it's highest range?

Like the hurricanes al promised us after Katrina?

Your ilk wants to bankrupt us from the something we can't control..

You are not using logic we are on this planet for a ride.

The way I see it there are only 2 reasons you aren't willing to answer what I ask.
-"I'm convinced I'm right so the scientific community can suck it."
To which I would say." Being convinced of something while most evidence suggests you're wrong is faith, and you can't argue with a religious person."
-" I don't care if I'm right, my future is the only one that matters, my children can suck it."
To which I would say. " you are selfish and irresponsible."
If there's a third option I don't know what it would be. So what is it?

Still posting babbling stuf and throwing a temper tantrum?

Again the paris accord does nothing except transfers wealth .

You don't want science.. That's not your goal.

It's a ruse..

.

Talking to yourself I see, insanity or just need a good man to talk to?

 

[forkup]

First you stop deflecting my question.

You ***** you defected from my question.

Once again how many of the 97% agree on how much man contributes to global warming?


It's an easy answer...

Is it

5%

20%

50%

85%


What is the number they agree on?

.

I didn't deflect anything I answered the question honestly be saying that it's an impossible question to answer, we're talking probabilities not absolute numbers. I even gave an analogy. But again you are deflecting. Why do you think POSSIBLE economic harm warrants a high degree of potential harm to future generations. Harm that ranges from severe storms at the very least, to possible mass extinction at it's highest range?

Like the hurricanes al promised us after Katrina?

Your ilk wants to bankrupt us from the something we can't control..

You are not using logic we are on this planet for a ride.

The way I see it there are only 2 reasons you aren't willing to answer what I ask.
-"I'm convinced I'm right so the scientific community can suck it."
To which I would say." Being convinced of something while most evidence suggests you're wrong is faith, and you can't argue with a religious person."
-" I don't care if I'm right, my future is the only one that matters, my children can suck it."
To which I would say. " you are selfish and irresponsible."
If there's a third option I don't know what it would be. So what is it?

Still posting babbling stuf and throwing a temper tantrum?

Again the paris accord does nothing except transfers wealth .

Lol I kind of expected you wouldn't have the intellectual honesty to answer my question. I wish you a good life bear. Thanks for at least keeping it polite.

 

[blastoff]

They cant predict the weather day by day so you know they are full of shit on their other forecasting.

Just because you missed the 70s ice age and the global famine that killed millions in the 80s-90s due to the man-made drought that destroyed worldwide crops and your house has survived the annual Katrina-like hurricanes since '05 that warming has caused, all the lefty kooks are full of shit? Got a link?

I was born in 1965 idiot..


All your doing is throwing a temper tantrum...

It's obvious.

Hey, dipshit. Just curious why in response to my facetious reply to someone else's post you think your birth year is at all germane? Also, not sure where you're (take note) coming from with the temper tantrum comment.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

So, I have heard this for the last couple of days. However, not ONCE has anyone SOLD this deal. Not once. No stats about how this will decrease climate change. No stats about why it's in the best interest for America to relinquish sovereignty. No explanation as to what other countries have been doing while America decreased their emissions by 19% from 2006 numbers.

The UN, global cabals and the like are not trusted to look after American interest because China has lead the way in undermining them for so long.

I agree that climate is rising, people can hypothesize why, but the bottom line is, this agreement is far too intrusive in the American system, while losing 6 million jobs! Bloody insane. Also, America has to pay nations like India to decrease their carbon emissions, who is excited about this great deal? So tempting...

Update: Rand Paul on CNN now, really putting holes in the climate change theory. Best line "predictions and models keep altering their estimations every couple of years because they are always so far off"

Another good point, "yes, I agree that man can be contributing to global warming, but we don't know how much is man contributed and how much is nature"

Finally, "it's not fair that Russia and other countries can increase their output while America is punished and loses jobs".

Kudos to Jake Tapper having the courage to have Rand Paul on. At least it is a counter argument for once.

I'll try to touch on all the points, if I get any of them wrong please correct me.
Nobody has sold you on the paris accord because
-there are no stats on adhering to the climate accords will decrease climate change
It's hard to come up with stats for something that comes in the future. Neither is it all that easy to predict. you agree that climate is rising. It's an accepted fact in most of the scientific community that humans are the cause, and that that cause is carbon emissions. Agreeing to put less of those emissions in the air would have the effect of if not stopping at least slowing climate change which would be beneficial.
-It is a bad precedent letting the world tell us what to do.
The US is the only real superpower in the world. A position it acquired by being the only major power not ravished by conflict after WW2. A position it kept by being a trustworthy and generous ally and a bad enemy. The US will still be a bad enemy, but by reneging on deals it's creating a power vacuum. Vacuums get filled, thereby challenging America's position. It's all well and good to yell about the horribleness of globalisation, but know that it's trade that gives the US the ability to buy it's military. And know that being the worlds ONLY superpower is not a right.
-There is no info on what other countries are doing while we are making these sacrifices.
Plenty of information is available. And there is plenty of information saying that it's perfectly possible to both reduce emissions and grow GDP. Just one of these sources. Feel free to go trough the website.USA - Climate Action Tracker
-The international organisations aren't trustworthy to look after American interests.
Global warming is not an American issue. Like it says in the word, it's a global problem. And you don't challenge the fact that climate is changing.
- The US will lose jobs.
If I can't predict how much difference the Paris accords will make, how can you predict how many jobs it will cost? I'm sure it will cost jobs, but I'm equally sure it will create jobs to. What's the net effect?
-The predictions are always of so how do we know it's real.
There are no predictions the climate is stabilising, it's all a matter of how bad it's actually gonna get. If on the low end the predictions are talking about severe hurricanes and on the high end we're talking mass extinction, doing nothing is extremely irresponsible.
-We don't know how much man is responsible.
This is purely academical. The overwhelming majority of scientist agree that man is almost solely responsible for climate change the only place it's still really debated is the political arena, which should tell you all you need to know.
-it's not fair that other countries can increase their output. while we have to reduce it
The US has about 5 percent of the world's population but it has more than 14 percent of the world's total carbon emissions. That's not fair.List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia

Most scientists who agree that humans contribute don't necessarily agree that human behavior is the most significant driver. Many who believe man contributes disagree with the severity of the counter-measures being undertaken and what if any impact they have had or can have. There are serious climatologists who don't believe humans have any significant impact at all. AGW alarmists won't even discuss the issue with dissenters. That on its face makes AGW alarmist theory dubious.
GDP growth cannot happen under the current circumstances without an efficient replacement for fossil fuel. This has been empirically demonstrated as a direct result of Obama energy policy between 2009 and 2015.

-If you make blanket statements, sourcing it would be nice. Claiming that most scientists don't necessarily agree that human behavior is the most significant driver, seems very carefully worded. It makes it that if you can find 1 dissenting voice you have proven your point. Like I pointed out there is no real scientific debate going on anymore, about global warming and it's causes. There are undoubtedly still debates going on on the severity and the ability of people to reverse the damage already being done and maybe there are some that don't believe that humans did anything. On the other hand the reasoning that, oh we don't know IF it will work and we can find SOME scientists who are willing to go against the consensus so we don't need to do anything is ridiculous. We are talking a global disaster and a shadow of a doubt doesn't absolve anybody from it's responsibility.
-GDP in the US was growing from 2009 to 2015 lol a few months notwithstanding so what's the empirical proof are you talking about?United States GDP Growth Rate | 1947-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

Go Google it. I'm not your mother.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

So, I have heard this for the last couple of days. However, not ONCE has anyone SOLD this deal. Not once. No stats about how this will decrease climate change. No stats about why it's in the best interest for America to relinquish sovereignty. No explanation as to what other countries have been doing while America decreased their emissions by 19% from 2006 numbers.

The UN, global cabals and the like are not trusted to look after American interest because China has lead the way in undermining them for so long.

I agree that climate is rising, people can hypothesize why, but the bottom line is, this agreement is far too intrusive in the American system, while losing 6 million jobs! Bloody insane. Also, America has to pay nations like India to decrease their carbon emissions, who is excited about this great deal? So tempting...

Update: Rand Paul on CNN now, really putting holes in the climate change theory. Best line "predictions and models keep altering their estimations every couple of years because they are always so far off"

Another good point, "yes, I agree that man can be contributing to global warming, but we don't know how much is man contributed and how much is nature"

Finally, "it's not fair that Russia and other countries can increase their output while America is punished and loses jobs".

Kudos to Jake Tapper having the courage to have Rand Paul on. At least it is a counter argument for once.

I'll try to touch on all the points, if I get any of them wrong please correct me.
Nobody has sold you on the paris accord because
-there are no stats on adhering to the climate accords will decrease climate change
It's hard to come up with stats for something that comes in the future. Neither is it all that easy to predict. you agree that climate is rising. It's an accepted fact in most of the scientific community that humans are the cause, and that that cause is carbon emissions. Agreeing to put less of those emissions in the air would have the effect of if not stopping at least slowing climate change which would be beneficial.
-It is a bad precedent letting the world tell us what to do.
The US is the only real superpower in the world. A position it acquired by being the only major power not ravished by conflict after WW2. A position it kept by being a trustworthy and generous ally and a bad enemy. The US will still be a bad enemy, but by reneging on deals it's creating a power vacuum. Vacuums get filled, thereby challenging America's position. It's all well and good to yell about the horribleness of globalisation, but know that it's trade that gives the US the ability to buy it's military. And know that being the worlds ONLY superpower is not a right.
-There is no info on what other countries are doing while we are making these sacrifices.
Plenty of information is available. And there is plenty of information saying that it's perfectly possible to both reduce emissions and grow GDP. Just one of these sources. Feel free to go trough the website.USA - Climate Action Tracker
-The international organisations aren't trustworthy to look after American interests.
Global warming is not an American issue. Like it says in the word, it's a global problem. And you don't challenge the fact that climate is changing.
- The US will lose jobs.
If I can't predict how much difference the Paris accords will make, how can you predict how many jobs it will cost? I'm sure it will cost jobs, but I'm equally sure it will create jobs to. What's the net effect?
-The predictions are always of so how do we know it's real.
There are no predictions the climate is stabilising, it's all a matter of how bad it's actually gonna get. If on the low end the predictions are talking about severe hurricanes and on the high end we're talking mass extinction, doing nothing is extremely irresponsible.
-We don't know how much man is responsible.
This is purely academical. The overwhelming majority of scientist agree that man is almost solely responsible for climate change the only place it's still really debated is the political arena, which should tell you all you need to know.
-it's not fair that other countries can increase their output. while we have to reduce it
The US has about 5 percent of the world's population but it has more than 14 percent of the world's total carbon emissions. That's not fair.List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia

Most scientists who agree that humans contribute don't necessarily agree that human behavior is the most significant driver. Many who believe man contributes disagree with the severity of the counter-measures being undertaken and what if any impact they have had or can have. There are serious climatologists who don't believe humans have any significant impact at all. AGW alarmists won't even discuss the issue with dissenters. That on its face makes AGW alarmist theory dubious.
GDP growth cannot happen under the current circumstances without an efficient replacement for fossil fuel. This has been empirically demonstrated as a direct result of Obama energy policy between 2009 and 2015.

-If you make blanket statements, sourcing it would be nice. Claiming that most scientists don't necessarily agree that human behavior is the most significant driver, seems very carefully worded. It makes it that if you can find 1 dissenting voice you have proven your point. Like I pointed out there is no real scientific debate going on anymore, about global warming and it's causes. There are undoubtedly still debates going on on the severity and the ability of people to reverse the damage already being done and maybe there are some that don't believe that humans did anything. On the other hand the reasoning that, oh we don't know IF it will work and we can find SOME scientists who are willing to go against the consensus so we don't need to do anything is ridiculous. We are talking a global disaster and a shadow of a doubt doesn't absolve anybody from it's responsibility.
-GDP in the US was growing from 2009 to 2015 lol a few months notwithstanding so what's the empirical proof are you talking about?United States GDP Growth Rate | 1947-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

So since you know your trying to tell us scientist say humans are 100% responsible?


What scientists would those be?


.

Point to my sentence where I said I know humans are 100 responsible. I know that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree humans are by far the biggest contributors to global warming. As to who those scientist are. How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?. There's a list of sources a mile long on the bottom. From scientists from Cambridge, Oak ridge and peer reviewed articles in magazines as nature. But I know it's all some horrible conspiracy. At least that's what people like you claim. The lack of anything that substantiates your claims is not proof of you being wrong, but rather that "truth" is being suppressed. Easy enough to square away in your head I guess. Also something future generations might regret. Look at it like this. I'm wrong and it means the economy reshuffled to accommodate clean energy when it wasn't necessary. You're wrong, well I guess Arizona having beach front property isn't all bad.

Try vetting your own sources just for fun.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

I'll try to touch on all the points, if I get any of them wrong please correct me.
Nobody has sold you on the paris accord because
-there are no stats on adhering to the climate accords will decrease climate change
It's hard to come up with stats for something that comes in the future. Neither is it all that easy to predict. you agree that climate is rising. It's an accepted fact in most of the scientific community that humans are the cause, and that that cause is carbon emissions. Agreeing to put less of those emissions in the air would have the effect of if not stopping at least slowing climate change which would be beneficial.
-It is a bad precedent letting the world tell us what to do.
The US is the only real superpower in the world. A position it acquired by being the only major power not ravished by conflict after WW2. A position it kept by being a trustworthy and generous ally and a bad enemy. The US will still be a bad enemy, but by reneging on deals it's creating a power vacuum. Vacuums get filled, thereby challenging America's position. It's all well and good to yell about the horribleness of globalisation, but know that it's trade that gives the US the ability to buy it's military. And know that being the worlds ONLY superpower is not a right.
-There is no info on what other countries are doing while we are making these sacrifices.
Plenty of information is available. And there is plenty of information saying that it's perfectly possible to both reduce emissions and grow GDP. Just one of these sources. Feel free to go trough the website.USA - Climate Action Tracker
-The international organisations aren't trustworthy to look after American interests.
Global warming is not an American issue. Like it says in the word, it's a global problem. And you don't challenge the fact that climate is changing.
- The US will lose jobs.
If I can't predict how much difference the Paris accords will make, how can you predict how many jobs it will cost? I'm sure it will cost jobs, but I'm equally sure it will create jobs to. What's the net effect?
-The predictions are always of so how do we know it's real.
There are no predictions the climate is stabilising, it's all a matter of how bad it's actually gonna get. If on the low end the predictions are talking about severe hurricanes and on the high end we're talking mass extinction, doing nothing is extremely irresponsible.
-We don't know how much man is responsible.
This is purely academical. The overwhelming majority of scientist agree that man is almost solely responsible for climate change the only place it's still really debated is the political arena, which should tell you all you need to know.
-it's not fair that other countries can increase their output. while we have to reduce it
The US has about 5 percent of the world's population but it has more than 14 percent of the world's total carbon emissions. That's not fair.List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia

Most scientists who agree that humans contribute don't necessarily agree that human behavior is the most significant driver. Many who believe man contributes disagree with the severity of the counter-measures being undertaken and what if any impact they have had or can have. There are serious climatologists who don't believe humans have any significant impact at all. AGW alarmists won't even discuss the issue with dissenters. That on its face makes AGW alarmist theory dubious.
GDP growth cannot happen under the current circumstances without an efficient replacement for fossil fuel. This has been empirically demonstrated as a direct result of Obama energy policy between 2009 and 2015.

-If you make blanket statements, sourcing it would be nice. Claiming that most scientists don't necessarily agree that human behavior is the most significant driver, seems very carefully worded. It makes it that if you can find 1 dissenting voice you have proven your point. Like I pointed out there is no real scientific debate going on anymore, about global warming and it's causes. There are undoubtedly still debates going on on the severity and the ability of people to reverse the damage already being done and maybe there are some that don't believe that humans did anything. On the other hand the reasoning that, oh we don't know IF it will work and we can find SOME scientists who are willing to go against the consensus so we don't need to do anything is ridiculous. We are talking a global disaster and a shadow of a doubt doesn't absolve anybody from it's responsibility.
-GDP in the US was growing from 2009 to 2015 lol a few months notwithstanding so what's the empirical proof are you talking about?United States GDP Growth Rate | 1947-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

So since you know your trying to tell us scientist say humans are 100% responsible?


What scientists would those be?


.

Point to my sentence where I said I know humans are 100 responsible. I know that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree humans are by far the biggest contributors to global warming. As to who those scientist are. How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?. There's a list of sources a mile long on the bottom. From scientists from Cambridge, Oak ridge and peer reviewed articles in magazines as nature. But I know it's all some horrible conspiracy.

Once again when someone can go to Congress and take on Judith Curry and slam her down I will listen ( she is part of the 97% yet people call her a denier)




.

Don't forget Richard Lindzen. My atmospherics scientist neighbor who is funded by gov subsidies says his AGW buddies call him Dick. But they won't debate him.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Most scientists who agree that humans contribute don't necessarily agree that human behavior is the most significant driver. Many who believe man contributes disagree with the severity of the counter-measures being undertaken and what if any impact they have had or can have. There are serious climatologists who don't believe humans have any significant impact at all. AGW alarmists won't even discuss the issue with dissenters. That on its face makes AGW alarmist theory dubious.
GDP growth cannot happen under the current circumstances without an efficient replacement for fossil fuel. This has been empirically demonstrated as a direct result of Obama energy policy between 2009 and 2015.

-If you make blanket statements, sourcing it would be nice. Claiming that most scientists don't necessarily agree that human behavior is the most significant driver, seems very carefully worded. It makes it that if you can find 1 dissenting voice you have proven your point. Like I pointed out there is no real scientific debate going on anymore, about global warming and it's causes. There are undoubtedly still debates going on on the severity and the ability of people to reverse the damage already being done and maybe there are some that don't believe that humans did anything. On the other hand the reasoning that, oh we don't know IF it will work and we can find SOME scientists who are willing to go against the consensus so we don't need to do anything is ridiculous. We are talking a global disaster and a shadow of a doubt doesn't absolve anybody from it's responsibility.
-GDP in the US was growing from 2009 to 2015 lol a few months notwithstanding so what's the empirical proof are you talking about?United States GDP Growth Rate | 1947-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

So since you know your trying to tell us scientist say humans are 100% responsible?


What scientists would those be?


.

Point to my sentence where I said I know humans are 100 responsible. I know that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree humans are by far the biggest contributors to global warming. As to who those scientist are. How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?. There's a list of sources a mile long on the bottom. From scientists from Cambridge, Oak ridge and peer reviewed articles in magazines as nature. But I know it's all some horrible conspiracy.

Who would those scientists be?


And what do they agree on?

Does humans contribute :

5%

25%

50%

75%


Tell us what percentage does all those 97% of scientists agree on..


I will wait..


.

Sneaky question. also a dishonest one, trying to get a firm number on something like this is folly. Most Scientist agreeing that it is happening should give you pause. The fact that they can't quantify it sufficiently to your liking is a strawman argument. If I see a beach I can say with confidence there are billions of grains of sand there. If you then claim. Well you can't say exactly how many there are, so my assertion that it's only 2 grains of sand is equally valid, is simply false.

But you rely on selective experts. There goes your credibility.

 

[forkup]

So, I have heard this for the last couple of days. However, not ONCE has anyone SOLD this deal. Not once. No stats about how this will decrease climate change. No stats about why it's in the best interest for America to relinquish sovereignty. No explanation as to what other countries have been doing while America decreased their emissions by 19% from 2006 numbers.

The UN, global cabals and the like are not trusted to look after American interest because China has lead the way in undermining them for so long.

I agree that climate is rising, people can hypothesize why, but the bottom line is, this agreement is far too intrusive in the American system, while losing 6 million jobs! Bloody insane. Also, America has to pay nations like India to decrease their carbon emissions, who is excited about this great deal? So tempting...

Update: Rand Paul on CNN now, really putting holes in the climate change theory. Best line "predictions and models keep altering their estimations every couple of years because they are always so far off"

Another good point, "yes, I agree that man can be contributing to global warming, but we don't know how much is man contributed and how much is nature"

Finally, "it's not fair that Russia and other countries can increase their output while America is punished and loses jobs".

Kudos to Jake Tapper having the courage to have Rand Paul on. At least it is a counter argument for once.

I'll try to touch on all the points, if I get any of them wrong please correct me.
Nobody has sold you on the paris accord because
-there are no stats on adhering to the climate accords will decrease climate change
It's hard to come up with stats for something that comes in the future. Neither is it all that easy to predict. you agree that climate is rising. It's an accepted fact in most of the scientific community that humans are the cause, and that that cause is carbon emissions. Agreeing to put less of those emissions in the air would have the effect of if not stopping at least slowing climate change which would be beneficial.
-It is a bad precedent letting the world tell us what to do.
The US is the only real superpower in the world. A position it acquired by being the only major power not ravished by conflict after WW2. A position it kept by being a trustworthy and generous ally and a bad enemy. The US will still be a bad enemy, but by reneging on deals it's creating a power vacuum. Vacuums get filled, thereby challenging America's position. It's all well and good to yell about the horribleness of globalisation, but know that it's trade that gives the US the ability to buy it's military. And know that being the worlds ONLY superpower is not a right.
-There is no info on what other countries are doing while we are making these sacrifices.
Plenty of information is available. And there is plenty of information saying that it's perfectly possible to both reduce emissions and grow GDP. Just one of these sources. Feel free to go trough the website.USA - Climate Action Tracker
-The international organisations aren't trustworthy to look after American interests.
Global warming is not an American issue. Like it says in the word, it's a global problem. And you don't challenge the fact that climate is changing.
- The US will lose jobs.
If I can't predict how much difference the Paris accords will make, how can you predict how many jobs it will cost? I'm sure it will cost jobs, but I'm equally sure it will create jobs to. What's the net effect?
-The predictions are always of so how do we know it's real.
There are no predictions the climate is stabilising, it's all a matter of how bad it's actually gonna get. If on the low end the predictions are talking about severe hurricanes and on the high end we're talking mass extinction, doing nothing is extremely irresponsible.
-We don't know how much man is responsible.
This is purely academical. The overwhelming majority of scientist agree that man is almost solely responsible for climate change the only place it's still really debated is the political arena, which should tell you all you need to know.
-it's not fair that other countries can increase their output. while we have to reduce it
The US has about 5 percent of the world's population but it has more than 14 percent of the world's total carbon emissions. That's not fair.List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia

Most scientists who agree that humans contribute don't necessarily agree that human behavior is the most significant driver. Many who believe man contributes disagree with the severity of the counter-measures being undertaken and what if any impact they have had or can have. There are serious climatologists who don't believe humans have any significant impact at all. AGW alarmists won't even discuss the issue with dissenters. That on its face makes AGW alarmist theory dubious.
GDP growth cannot happen under the current circumstances without an efficient replacement for fossil fuel. This has been empirically demonstrated as a direct result of Obama energy policy between 2009 and 2015.

-If you make blanket statements, sourcing it would be nice. Claiming that most scientists don't necessarily agree that human behavior is the most significant driver, seems very carefully worded. It makes it that if you can find 1 dissenting voice you have proven your point. Like I pointed out there is no real scientific debate going on anymore, about global warming and it's causes. There are undoubtedly still debates going on on the severity and the ability of people to reverse the damage already being done and maybe there are some that don't believe that humans did anything. On the other hand the reasoning that, oh we don't know IF it will work and we can find SOME scientists who are willing to go against the consensus so we don't need to do anything is ridiculous. We are talking a global disaster and a shadow of a doubt doesn't absolve anybody from it's responsibility.
-GDP in the US was growing from 2009 to 2015 lol a few months notwithstanding so what's the empirical proof are you talking about?United States GDP Growth Rate | 1947-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

Go Google it. I'm not your mother.

Go Google it. I'm not your mother.

I did. This was the first article I came up with under keywords. how, climate, change.

 

[forkup]

I'll try to touch on all the points, if I get any of them wrong please correct me.
Nobody has sold you on the paris accord because
-there are no stats on adhering to the climate accords will decrease climate change
It's hard to come up with stats for something that comes in the future. Neither is it all that easy to predict. you agree that climate is rising. It's an accepted fact in most of the scientific community that humans are the cause, and that that cause is carbon emissions. Agreeing to put less of those emissions in the air would have the effect of if not stopping at least slowing climate change which would be beneficial.
-It is a bad precedent letting the world tell us what to do.
The US is the only real superpower in the world. A position it acquired by being the only major power not ravished by conflict after WW2. A position it kept by being a trustworthy and generous ally and a bad enemy. The US will still be a bad enemy, but by reneging on deals it's creating a power vacuum. Vacuums get filled, thereby challenging America's position. It's all well and good to yell about the horribleness of globalisation, but know that it's trade that gives the US the ability to buy it's military. And know that being the worlds ONLY superpower is not a right.
-There is no info on what other countries are doing while we are making these sacrifices.
Plenty of information is available. And there is plenty of information saying that it's perfectly possible to both reduce emissions and grow GDP. Just one of these sources. Feel free to go trough the website.USA - Climate Action Tracker
-The international organisations aren't trustworthy to look after American interests.
Global warming is not an American issue. Like it says in the word, it's a global problem. And you don't challenge the fact that climate is changing.
- The US will lose jobs.
If I can't predict how much difference the Paris accords will make, how can you predict how many jobs it will cost? I'm sure it will cost jobs, but I'm equally sure it will create jobs to. What's the net effect?
-The predictions are always of so how do we know it's real.
There are no predictions the climate is stabilising, it's all a matter of how bad it's actually gonna get. If on the low end the predictions are talking about severe hurricanes and on the high end we're talking mass extinction, doing nothing is extremely irresponsible.
-We don't know how much man is responsible.
This is purely academical. The overwhelming majority of scientist agree that man is almost solely responsible for climate change the only place it's still really debated is the political arena, which should tell you all you need to know.
-it's not fair that other countries can increase their output. while we have to reduce it
The US has about 5 percent of the world's population but it has more than 14 percent of the world's total carbon emissions. That's not fair.List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions - Wikipedia

Most scientists who agree that humans contribute don't necessarily agree that human behavior is the most significant driver. Many who believe man contributes disagree with the severity of the counter-measures being undertaken and what if any impact they have had or can have. There are serious climatologists who don't believe humans have any significant impact at all. AGW alarmists won't even discuss the issue with dissenters. That on its face makes AGW alarmist theory dubious.
GDP growth cannot happen under the current circumstances without an efficient replacement for fossil fuel. This has been empirically demonstrated as a direct result of Obama energy policy between 2009 and 2015.

-If you make blanket statements, sourcing it would be nice. Claiming that most scientists don't necessarily agree that human behavior is the most significant driver, seems very carefully worded. It makes it that if you can find 1 dissenting voice you have proven your point. Like I pointed out there is no real scientific debate going on anymore, about global warming and it's causes. There are undoubtedly still debates going on on the severity and the ability of people to reverse the damage already being done and maybe there are some that don't believe that humans did anything. On the other hand the reasoning that, oh we don't know IF it will work and we can find SOME scientists who are willing to go against the consensus so we don't need to do anything is ridiculous. We are talking a global disaster and a shadow of a doubt doesn't absolve anybody from it's responsibility.
-GDP in the US was growing from 2009 to 2015 lol a few months notwithstanding so what's the empirical proof are you talking about?United States GDP Growth Rate | 1947-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

So since you know your trying to tell us scientist say humans are 100% responsible?


What scientists would those be?


.

Point to my sentence where I said I know humans are 100 responsible. I know that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree humans are by far the biggest contributors to global warming. As to who those scientist are. How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?. There's a list of sources a mile long on the bottom. From scientists from Cambridge, Oak ridge and peer reviewed articles in magazines as nature. But I know it's all some horrible conspiracy. At least that's what people like you claim. The lack of anything that substantiates your claims is not proof of you being wrong, but rather that "truth" is being suppressed. Easy enough to square away in your head I guess. Also something future generations might regret. Look at it like this. I'm wrong and it means the economy reshuffled to accommodate clean energy when it wasn't necessary. You're wrong, well I guess Arizona having beach front property isn't all bad.

Try vetting your own sources just for fun.

Well I read the article, saw the bottom and saw Cambridge, Oak ridge, and nature. Not exactly a guy posting shit behind a computer like we are.

 

[forkup]

-If you make blanket statements, sourcing it would be nice. Claiming that most scientists don't necessarily agree that human behavior is the most significant driver, seems very carefully worded. It makes it that if you can find 1 dissenting voice you have proven your point. Like I pointed out there is no real scientific debate going on anymore, about global warming and it's causes. There are undoubtedly still debates going on on the severity and the ability of people to reverse the damage already being done and maybe there are some that don't believe that humans did anything. On the other hand the reasoning that, oh we don't know IF it will work and we can find SOME scientists who are willing to go against the consensus so we don't need to do anything is ridiculous. We are talking a global disaster and a shadow of a doubt doesn't absolve anybody from it's responsibility.
-GDP in the US was growing from 2009 to 2015 lol a few months notwithstanding so what's the empirical proof are you talking about?United States GDP Growth Rate | 1947-2017 | Data | Chart | Calendar

So since you know your trying to tell us scientist say humans are 100% responsible?


What scientists would those be?


.

Point to my sentence where I said I know humans are 100 responsible. I know that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree humans are by far the biggest contributors to global warming. As to who those scientist are. How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?. There's a list of sources a mile long on the bottom. From scientists from Cambridge, Oak ridge and peer reviewed articles in magazines as nature. But I know it's all some horrible conspiracy.

Who would those scientists be?


And what do they agree on?

Does humans contribute :

5%

25%

50%

75%


Tell us what percentage does all those 97% of scientists agree on..


I will wait..


.

Sneaky question. also a dishonest one, trying to get a firm number on something like this is folly. Most Scientist agreeing that it is happening should give you pause. The fact that they can't quantify it sufficiently to your liking is a strawman argument. If I see a beach I can say with confidence there are billions of grains of sand there. If you then claim. Well you can't say exactly how many there are, so my assertion that it's only 2 grains of sand is equally valid, is simply false.

But you rely on selective experts. There goes your credibility.

You know what's selective you arguing against only part of my posts. I'll ask you the same thing as Bear. If the science like you claim is truly inconclusive, does that warrant taking the risk of global catastrophe, for short term economic gain?

 

[Political Junky]

Scientists dispute the 'tiny, tiny' impact of Paris deal - BBC News

Scientists dispute the 'tiny, tiny' impact of Paris deal

Climate scientists have taken issue with some of the research used by President Trump to bolster his case for withdrawal from the Paris agreement.

The President argued that even if the accord was fully implemented it would only have a "tiny, tiny" impact.

But researchers have told BBC News that the President was "cherry picking in the extreme" in his use of the facts.

They say that the Paris deal could make the difference between tolerable and dangerous levels of warming.

While much of his statement on withdrawal was concerned with the negative economic impact of being part of the Paris agreement, the President also mentioned the negligible impact that the deal would have on temperatures.

"It is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree … Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100," he said during his lengthy explanation.

"Tiny, tiny amount."
<more>

 

[Wyatt earp]

So since you know your trying to tell us scientist say humans are 100% responsible?


What scientists would those be?


.

Point to my sentence where I said I know humans are 100 responsible. I know that the overwhelming majority of scientists agree humans are by far the biggest contributors to global warming. As to who those scientist are. How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?. There's a list of sources a mile long on the bottom. From scientists from Cambridge, Oak ridge and peer reviewed articles in magazines as nature. But I know it's all some horrible conspiracy.

Who would those scientists be?


And what do they agree on?

Does humans contribute :

5%

25%

50%

75%


Tell us what percentage does all those 97% of scientists agree on..


I will wait..


.

Sneaky question. also a dishonest one, trying to get a firm number on something like this is folly. Most Scientist agreeing that it is happening should give you pause. The fact that they can't quantify it sufficiently to your liking is a strawman argument. If I see a beach I can say with confidence there are billions of grains of sand there. If you then claim. Well you can't say exactly how many there are, so my assertion that it's only 2 grains of sand is equally valid, is simply false.

But you rely on selective experts. There goes your credibility.

You know what's selective you arguing against only part of my posts. I'll ask you the same thing as Bear. If the science like you claim is truly inconclusive, does that warrant taking the risk of global catastrophe, for short term economic gain?

There is no global catastrophe. God damn .

 

[Wyatt earp]

Scientists dispute the 'tiny, tiny' impact of Paris deal - BBC News

Scientists dispute the 'tiny, tiny' impact of Paris deal

Climate scientists have taken issue with some of the research used by President Trump to bolster his case for withdrawal from the Paris agreement.

The President argued that even if the accord was fully implemented it would only have a "tiny, tiny" impact.

But researchers have told BBC News that the President was "cherry picking in the extreme" in his use of the facts.

They say that the Paris deal could make the difference between tolerable and dangerous levels of warming.

While much of his statement on withdrawal was concerned with the negative economic impact of being part of the Paris agreement, the President also mentioned the negligible impact that the deal would have on temperatures.

"It is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree … Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100," he said during his lengthy explanation.

"Tiny, tiny amount."
<more>

To bad it's past the point of return, we all going to die


Climate change escalating so fast it is 'beyond point of no return'


.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

View attachment 130241

#INPEACH?

 

[Iceweasel]

If the science like you claim is truly inconclusive, does that warrant taking the risk of global catastrophe, for short term economic gain?

It's like talking to Moonies. We are down to 1990s pollution levels, been decreasing the last 14 years or so. Technology makes cleaner production possible, we do it and we share the knowledge. How the hell do you arrive at us not doing our job?

 

[BlueGin]

They cant predict the weather day by day so you know they are full of shit on their other forecasting.

They cant even predict when and where tornados and earth quakes will hit. Liberals are full of shit.

 

[Wyatt earp]

They cant predict the weather day by day so you know they are full of shit on their other forecasting.

They cant even predict when and where tornados and earth quakes will hit. Liberals are full of shit.

Hell they can't even tell us what the weather will be like next Sunday..


Remember a long long long time ago in the year 2000 they couldn't tell us the weather after 3 days?

 

[BlueGin]

They cant predict the weather day by day so you know they are full of shit on their other forecasting.

They cant even predict when and where tornados and earth quakes will hit. Liberals are full of shit.

Hell they can't even tell us what the weather will be like next Sunday..


Remember a long long long time ago in the year 2000 they couldn't tell us the weather after 3 days?

Yep. Took my umbrella to the fair due to their predictions of 89% chance of rain. Not a cloud in the sky all day...even got a sunburn.

Yeah...okay....

Da Libs are gonna save us all from the climate....not.

 

[Wyatt earp]

They cant predict the weather day by day so you know they are full of shit on their other forecasting.

They cant even predict when and where tornados and earth quakes will hit. Liberals are full of shit.

Hell they can't even tell us what the weather will be like next Sunday..


Remember a long long long time ago in the year 2000 they couldn't tell us the weather after 3 days?

Yep. Took my umbrella to the fair due to their predictions of 89% chance of rain. Not a cloud in the sky all day...even got a sunburn.

Yeah...okay....

Da Libs are gonna save us all from the climate....not.

^^^

Gotta love girls..





.

 

[MindWars]

Climate Change (aka Global Warming) =globalist UN scheme to tax USA & redistribute income to UN HIERARCHY & dictator while China India laugh

This about sums it up too :