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

[forkup]

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.

I just did what you asked. This article is composed of 2 things, first of a lot of it is a character assassination for scientist implicated in"climategate", a scandal so big that it was debunked almost immediately, got nobody fired and was a hack of e-mails that were pulled out of context.Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia
The second thing it is composed of is repeating that 1000 scientist disagree with climate change, trying to cast doubt on the general consensus. There are 100000's of scientists. I never claimed the consensus was 100 percent. What the article lacks is a scientific, sourced counterargument. And lastly this is what rationalwiki says about the website Globalresearch - RationalWiki
Globalresearch is an anti-"Western" website that can't distinguish between serious analysis and discreditable junk — and so publishes both.

 

[2aguy]

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.

I just did what you asked. This article is composed of 2 things, first of a lot of it is a character assassination for scientist implicated in"climategate", a scandal so big that it was debunked almost immediately, got nobody fired and was a hack of e-mails that were pulled out of context.Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia
The second thing it is composed of is repeating that 1000 scientist disagree with climate change, trying to cast doubt on the general consensus. There are 100000's of scientists. I never claimed the consensus was 100 percent. What the article lacks is a scientific, sourced counterargument. And lastly this is what rationalwiki says about the website Globalresearch - RationalWiki
Globalresearch is an anti-"Western" website that can't distinguish between serious analysis and discreditable junk — and so publishes both.

The same investigators into Climate gate cleared Penn State in the child molesting case......the scientists in climate gate destroyed data and lied about the data......sell your crap somewher else...

 

[forkup]

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.

So you claim, you can't give me sources because we fracked and what I claimed happened is actually what would have happened if we wouldn't have fracked. Sounds convenient.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

So you claim, you can't give me sources because we fracked and what I claimed happened is actually what would have happened if we wouldn't have fracked. Sounds convenient.

Go look at oil prices between 2008 and 2015.
You're becoming another Monty Python Black Knight.

 

[forkup]

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.

So you claim, you can't give me sources because we fracked and what I claimed happened is actually what would have happened if we wouldn't have fracked. Sounds convenient.

Go look at oil prices between 2008 and 2015.
You're becoming another Monty Python Black Knight.

Oil prices went down, your point?

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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.

So you claim, you can't give me sources because we fracked and what I claimed happened is actually what would have happened if we wouldn't have fracked. Sounds convenient.

Go look at oil prices between 2008 and 2015.
You're becoming another Monty Python Black Knight.

Oil prices went down, your point?

They went way up. All a result of Obama AGW energy policy.
You're insane.
You have access to so much info yet you stick to the closeminded political propaganda of the left.

 

[forkup]

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.

So you claim, you can't give me sources because we fracked and what I claimed happened is actually what would have happened if we wouldn't have fracked. Sounds convenient.

Go look at oil prices between 2008 and 2015.
You're becoming another Monty Python Black Knight.

Oil prices went down, your point?

They went way up. All a result of Obama AGW energy policy.
You're insane.
You have access to so much info yet you stick to the closeminded political propaganda of the left.

Crude Oil Prices - 70 Year Historical Chart
Here you go. Can I ask you why you refuse to put up the places you get your info from? It's a small effort to copy paste the website?

 

[forkup]

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.

So you claim, you can't give me sources because we fracked and what I claimed happened is actually what would have happened if we wouldn't have fracked. Sounds convenient.

Go look at oil prices between 2008 and 2015.
You're becoming another Monty Python Black Knight.

Oil prices went down, your point?

They went way up. All a result of Obama AGW energy policy.
You're insane.
You have access to so much info yet you stick to the closeminded political propaganda of the left.

You know who presided over the largest increase in oil prices. GW Bush, was that because of his energy policy? My point is pointing to a single economic indice in an attempt to make a broad statement is kind of stupid. Oil prices are directly linked to economic activity, international politics, supply, demand and many more parameters. If you tell me Obama's energy policies caused oil prices to go up during his terms, you have to point to a study, something that is verifiable.

 

[usmbguest5318]

"this agreement is meant to decrease climate on the globe"

Is that literally how someone put it? If so, who, pray tell?

One hopes their remarks contained enough supplemental context so that audience members could unequivocally tell the speaker didn't mean what they said as they said it. I don't care how climatologically uninformed one is, even the most dimwitted of souls should know that for as almost as long as there has been planet Earth, there has been climate; thus they should know, or at least reason, that the notion of increasing and decreasing climate is absurd unless and until the Earth begins losing it atmosphere.

Edit:

I don't know of one person who has described the Paris Climate Agreement as a means for "decreasing climate on the globe," to say nothing of there being a "mantra" to that effect.​