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

[EvilCat Breath]

It's carbon from the soil that has increased global warming.

We can stop the effects by migration and paying poor countries.

It's like the man who was telling women they had a disease that was killing them but his sperm was the cure.

 

[Marianne]

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.

The climate changes as a natural cycle of the earth so if it's going to change there isn't much you can do about it. As for conservation and keeping our earth clean and habitable that should be everyone's top agenda so not signing the Paris Agreement doesn't mean we live like pigs, It just means we don't accept a deal that doesn't have America's best interest at heart. Lets keep trying to develop and use clean energy,create less waste and decrease our carbon footprint. We should do this as good stewards of the earth, not as a result of some stupid paper agreement. We should want to do it because you shouldn't shit where you sleep. America has been a major leader in the past and should continue to do so in the future. Why do we need a piece of paper and a formal agreement to do what's right? We don't. Lets move ahead and make sure we are not responsible for further damage to the earth. Lets show the world how it's done.

 

[IsaacNewton]

To get all the nations on Earth to agree to anything is a feat nearly impossible on any issue. That this agreement was passed and agreed to by all the nations on Earth except two insigficants shows the entire human race understands the gravity of what is happening.

Except of course for a tiny minority of ignorants in the US.

The agreement was ultimately important for the future because the moment is quickly approaching when the entire human race WILL have to start turning off all it's coal-fired or oil-fired plants just to survive. The Paris Accord set the stage for world participation when real action is required.

That the United States, the supposed 'leader of the free world' has now broken it's agreement just speaks the most negative volumes of the weirdos in the US that voted for Lying Donald. America is the country putting the entire human population in jeopardy because a handful of uber-selfish lowlife wealthy people have brainwashed enough lemmings into unreality.

 

[2aguy]

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.

The climate changes as a natural cycle of the earth so if it's going to change there isn't much you can do about it. As for conservation and keeping our earth clean and habitable that should be everyone's top agenda so not signing the Paris Agreement doesn't mean we live like pigs, It just means we don't accept a deal that doesn't have America's best interest at heart. Lets keep trying to develop and use clean energy,create less waste and decrease our carbon footprint. We should do this as good stewards of the earth, not as a result of some stupid paper agreement. We should want to do it because you shouldn't shit where you sleep. America has been a major leader in the past and should continue to do so in the future. Why do we need a piece of paper and a formal agreement to do what's right? We don't. Lets move ahead and make sure we are not responsible for further damage to the earth. Lets show the world how it's done.

If you don't have that paper.....you can't be forced to send money to countries for not obeying their obligations to the treaty...I know, it doesn't make sense, unless you are a left winger, then that makes complete sense....

 

[2aguy]

To get all the nations on Earth to agree to anything is a feat nearly impossible on any issue. That this agreement was passed and agreed to by all the nations on Earth except two insigficants shows the entire human race understands the gravity of what is happening.

Except of course for a tiny minority of ignorants in the US.

The agreement was ultimately important for the future because the moment is quickly approaching when the entire human race WILL have to start turning off all it's coal-fired or oil-fired plants just to survive. The Paris Accord set the stage for world participation when real action is required.

That the United States, the supposed 'leader of the free world' has now broken it's agreement just speaks the most negative volumes of the weirdos in the US that voted for Lying Donald. America is the country putting the entire human population in jeopardy because a handful of uber-selfish lowlife wealthy people have brainwashed enough lemmings into unreality.

They were all going to get paid...of course they signed on.....and we were going to be the ones paying them....either through direct payments or by damaging our own industry and growth so that they could grow faster than us.....it was a scam on a world wide scale.....

The supporters of this are lucky they never met Bernie Maddof........

None of the actors were going to obey the treaty.......but they were sure going to cash the checks....

 

[2aguy]

To get all the nations on Earth to agree to anything is a feat nearly impossible on any issue. That this agreement was passed and agreed to by all the nations on Earth except two insigficants shows the entire human race understands the gravity of what is happening.

Except of course for a tiny minority of ignorants in the US.

The agreement was ultimately important for the future because the moment is quickly approaching when the entire human race WILL have to start turning off all it's coal-fired or oil-fired plants just to survive. The Paris Accord set the stage for world participation when real action is required.

That the United States, the supposed 'leader of the free world' has now broken it's agreement just speaks the most negative volumes of the weirdos in the US that voted for Lying Donald. America is the country putting the entire human population in jeopardy because a handful of uber-selfish lowlife wealthy people have brainwashed enough lemmings into unreality.

Here....Greg Gutfeld explains why the Paris treaty was fucking stupid.....he does it so well even you should be able to understand it........

 

[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.

Go Google it. I'm not your mother.

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

Google AGW dissent.
Obama energy policy kept our economy in hole for most of seven years.
Higher energy prices drove all consumer goods prices up while wages stagnated. Our household lost $80,000. Empirical.
All in the name of a political socialist scam.

 

[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. 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.

Now go vet it for accuracy.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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?

Your priorities are backwards.
Does the risk of starvation and pestilence justify rich people stifling economies?

 

[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. 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.

Now go vet it for accuracy.

If something is in nature I will assume it's accurate. It's your job to proof otherwise. Then I will vet your sources. Isn't that how debating works?

 

[forkup]

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?

Your priorities are backwards.
Does the risk of starvation and pestilence justify rich people stifling economies?

Your sentence structure is ambiguous. Do you mean, that the economic damage of going green will create starvation, pestilence and stifle economies? Or do you mean that the risk of starvation and pestilence, justifies stifling economies? In either case, it all starts with your ability to proof going green even damages economies. Sweden: Decoupling GDP growth from CO2 emissions is possible In sweden GDP grew, while carbon emmisions shrunk dramaticilly. I already established that under Obama GDP grew while measures to reduce carbon emissions were implemented. The case of Green economy being constrictive to growth is sketchy at best.https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/...dEconomicGrowth-MGrubbBMullerLButler-2004.pdf If the second interpretation of your question is correct, my answer would be NO. The US is a member of the world. Although as a richer industrialised nation, the US is better equipped to deal with damage caused by the, (so you claim) potential climate change. The possible damage the rising sea levels alone will cause in the US severe economic damage. So the (potential) short term economic damage doesn't justify the long term economic damage, not even taking into account loss of life in poorer countries worse equipped to deal with the changes.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

Now go vet it for accuracy.

If something is in nature I will assume it's accurate. It's your job to proof otherwise. Then I will vet your sources. Isn't that how debating works?

What's this nature you refer to? It's on you to prove that.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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?

Your priorities are backwards.
Does the risk of starvation and pestilence justify rich people stifling economies?

Your sentence structure is ambiguous. Do you mean, that the economic damage of going green will create starvation, pestilence and stifle economies? Or do you mean that the risk of starvation and pestilence, justifies stifling economies? In either case, it all starts with your ability to proof going green even damages economies. Sweden: Decoupling GDP growth from CO2 emissions is possible In sweden GDP grew, while carbon emmisions shrunk dramaticilly. I already established that under Obama GDP grew while measures to reduce carbon emissions were implemented. The case of Green economy being constrictive to growth is sketchy at best.https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/...dEconomicGrowth-MGrubbBMullerLButler-2004.pdf If the second interpretation of your question is correct, my answer would be NO. The US is a member of the world. Although as a richer industrialised nation, the US is better equipped to deal with damage caused by the, (so you claim) potential climate change. The possible damage the rising sea levels alone will cause in the US severe economic damage. So the (potential) short term economic damage doesn't justify the long term economic damage, not even taking into account loss of life in poorer countries worse equipped to deal with the changes.

My sentence structure was clear.
Rich people, starting with obama, advocating for fossil fuel stifling have driven up all consumer goods prices against stagnant wages. That results in economic contraction. Third would dictators will not take that loss on the chin. They pass the cost on to the lowest rung and those people go from poverty to starvation.
Is that death worth the political agenda of AGW and your ostensible superior intellect?

 

[forkup]

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.

Now go vet it for accuracy.

If something is in nature I will assume it's accurate. It's your job to proof otherwise. Then I will vet your sources. Isn't that how debating works?

What's this nature you refer to? It's on you to prove that.

[12] Keeling, C. D., T. P. Whorf, M. Wahlen, and J. van der Plicht 1995, Interannual extremes in the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1980, Nature, 375, 666–670.
one of the sources in this article that prompted you asking me to check out my sources.
How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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.

No wonder the Dino s died the why they ran around farting, all the gas killed them off, or it could be they got together and became Progressives and formed a committee on how to find food, and starved to death.

 

[task0778]

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.

The climate changes as a natural cycle of the earth so if it's going to change there isn't much you can do about it. As for conservation and keeping our earth clean and habitable that should be everyone's top agenda so not signing the Paris Agreement doesn't mean we live like pigs, It just means we don't accept a deal that doesn't have America's best interest at heart. Lets keep trying to develop and use clean energy,create less waste and decrease our carbon footprint. We should do this as good stewards of the earth, not as a result of some stupid paper agreement. We should want to do it because you shouldn't shit where you sleep. America has been a major leader in the past and should continue to do so in the future. Why do we need a piece of paper and a formal agreement to do what's right? We don't. Lets move ahead and make sure we are not responsible for further damage to the earth. Lets show the world how it's done.

I got no problem with this, but let's do what we can in a cost effective way that produces results. Which we've been doing for the past 25 years or so. The Paris Agreement was not cost effective and it will not produce the results that so much money should get us. IMHO, the PA was never intended to address GW, it was political grandstanding with the real goal of wealth redistribution. Mostly from us to a lot of countries that don't like us. Well fuck that.

 

[Indeependent]

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?


.

Dr. Frank N Stein...allows blame it on a Jew.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

Now go vet it for accuracy.

If something is in nature I will assume it's accurate. It's your job to proof otherwise. Then I will vet your sources. Isn't that how debating works?

What's this nature you refer to? It's on you to prove that.

[12] Keeling, C. D., T. P. Whorf, M. Wahlen, and J. van der Plicht 1995, Interannual extremes in the rate of rise of atmospheric carbon dioxide since 1980, Nature, 375, 666–670.
one of the sources in this article that prompted you asking me to check out my sources.
How Do We Know that Humans Are the Major Cause of Global Warming?

What's the root word of the 'I' in IPCC?
Google 'AGW dissent' for balance.

 

[forkup]

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?

Your priorities are backwards.
Does the risk of starvation and pestilence justify rich people stifling economies?

Your sentence structure is ambiguous. Do you mean, that the economic damage of going green will create starvation, pestilence and stifle economies? Or do you mean that the risk of starvation and pestilence, justifies stifling economies? In either case, it all starts with your ability to proof going green even damages economies. Sweden: Decoupling GDP growth from CO2 emissions is possible In sweden GDP grew, while carbon emmisions shrunk dramaticilly. I already established that under Obama GDP grew while measures to reduce carbon emissions were implemented. The case of Green economy being constrictive to growth is sketchy at best.https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/...dEconomicGrowth-MGrubbBMullerLButler-2004.pdf If the second interpretation of your question is correct, my answer would be NO. The US is a member of the world. Although as a richer industrialised nation, the US is better equipped to deal with damage caused by the, (so you claim) potential climate change. The possible damage the rising sea levels alone will cause in the US severe economic damage. So the (potential) short term economic damage doesn't justify the long term economic damage, not even taking into account loss of life in poorer countries worse equipped to deal with the changes.

My sentence structure was clear.
Rich people, starting with obama, advocating for fossil fuel stifling have driven up all consumer goods prices against stagnant wages. That results in economic contraction. Third would dictators will not take that loss on the chin. They pass the cost on to the lowest rung and those people go from poverty to starvation.
Is that death worth the political agenda of AGW and your ostensible superior intellect?

Third world countries have no problem meeting the Paris accords since they have no industrialization to speak of. China's economy is booming despite making huge investments in Clean energy. Proof that consumer goods are rising, wages are stagnating and that Obama's investments into clean energy are responsible. Not for nothing I've provided sources for most of what I say, please repay the courtesy.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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?

Your priorities are backwards.
Does the risk of starvation and pestilence justify rich people stifling economies?

Your sentence structure is ambiguous. Do you mean, that the economic damage of going green will create starvation, pestilence and stifle economies? Or do you mean that the risk of starvation and pestilence, justifies stifling economies? In either case, it all starts with your ability to proof going green even damages economies. Sweden: Decoupling GDP growth from CO2 emissions is possible In sweden GDP grew, while carbon emmisions shrunk dramaticilly. I already established that under Obama GDP grew while measures to reduce carbon emissions were implemented. The case of Green economy being constrictive to growth is sketchy at best.https://www.oxfordenergy.org/wpcms/...dEconomicGrowth-MGrubbBMullerLButler-2004.pdf If the second interpretation of your question is correct, my answer would be NO. The US is a member of the world. Although as a richer industrialised nation, the US is better equipped to deal with damage caused by the, (so you claim) potential climate change. The possible damage the rising sea levels alone will cause in the US severe economic damage. So the (potential) short term economic damage doesn't justify the long term economic damage, not even taking into account loss of life in poorer countries worse equipped to deal with the changes.

My sentence structure was clear.
Rich people, starting with obama, advocating for fossil fuel stifling have driven up all consumer goods prices against stagnant wages. That results in economic contraction. Third would dictators will not take that loss on the chin. They pass the cost on to the lowest rung and those people go from poverty to starvation.
Is that death worth the political agenda of AGW and your ostensible superior intellect?

Third world countries have no problem meeting the Paris accords since they have no industrialization to speak of. China's economy is booming despite making huge investments in Clean energy. Proof that consumer goods are rising, wages are stagnating and that Obama's investments into clean energy are responsible. Not for nothing I've provided sources for most of what I say, please repay the courtesy.

I'm not talking about Paris. I'm talking about Obama energy policy, reimposing drilling restrictions upon entering office and driving the price of energy through the roof. For most of seven years. Fracking beyond Obama's control brought temporary relief.