19

Out of Paris Accord

Posted by $ Abaco 6 years, 10 months ago to Government
77 comments | Share | Flag

This is the right move. In my work these kinds of agreements have manifested themselves in all kinds of hairbrained schemes and employed all kinds of "sustainability" snake oil salesmen. It's taken our A&E away from engineering an into the realm of emotion and malarkey.
SOURCE URL: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_CLIMATE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-05-31-09-01-31


Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • 13
    Posted by Temlakos 6 years, 10 months ago
    The entire Framework Agreement on Climate Change, to which the Paris Summit was yet another "Conference of Parties," has its basis in fraud. "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick of adding in the real temps to the [proxy] data series...to hide the decline." That's clear evidence of fraud. That broke before COP-15 in Denmark. And when the delegates got to that conference in 140 business jets, and rented 1200 chauffeured limousines--meaning every limo on the entire continent!--that should have told everybody they were lying.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • 11
    Posted by ProfChuck 6 years, 10 months ago
    While some are skeptical of the scientific authenticity of AGW its value as a political tool is beyond question. AGW is the collectivists dream. It provides justification for wealth redistribution on a global scale and anyone that argues against it can readily be accused of treason against the planet. AGW works not because it is real but because it is believed.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 10 months ago
      "AGW is the collectivists dream."
      I agree collectivists exploit AGW. You think AGW is wrong. Suppose for a moment that some shocking new evidence appeared that showed you you were wrong and something similar to AGW is happening and it will be costly to humans. Would you accept it, or would be inclined to ignore it since hardcore collectivism is worse than AGW?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by ProfChuck 6 years, 10 months ago
        As a scientist I am convinced by demonstrable facts. The science of AGW is far from complete and is certainly far from being settled as some would asert. As a result I am skeptical of claims that cannot be verified by observation or experimentation. The biosphere is extraordinarily complex consisting of millions of interacting actions and responses. One way to view it is to consider it to be a fantastically complex servomechanism with billions of active elements interacting in mostly unknown ways. Such a system cannot be modeled with a static algorithm. Long term climate forecasting has proven to be singularly unproductive as predictions of 100 ft sea level rise and total melting of the polar icecaps have failed to come about. In the event that some magical process were to provide irrefutable evidence of anthropogenic climate change I would, of course, want to study it. But I don't believe in magic and am reluctant to wait for that kind of miracle.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Dobrien 6 years, 10 months ago
          You can observe, the manipulation of data to show higher temperature readings than the satellite instruments record and ground stations moved to heat islands and in the ocean sensors where the data is altered.
          As a scientist I would love your opinion on the effects of the Grand Solar Minimum that the sun has entered into and our greatly weakened electromagnetic shield allowing cosmic rays to enter the atmosphere.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ProfChuck 6 years, 10 months ago
            the problem is that the relationship between solar activity and the Earth's magnetosphere is not well understood. Because our magnetic field plays an important roll in shielding us us from charged particles in the solar wind It is a subject of intense study as would be expected but we still have much to learn. It is even difficult to separate cause from effect so the relationship between the Earth's magnetic field and ionized particles in the Solar wind are difficult to model. As it turns out, cosmic rays and solar wind particles are two different phenomena. Cosmic rays appear to be of extragalactic origin while solar wind particles are locally generated.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Dobrien 6 years, 10 months ago
              Thank you for your thoughtful reply. Yes that is true they are very different sources.
              An electromagnetic field (also EMF or EM field) is a physical field produced by electrically charged objects. It affects the behavior of charged objects in the vicinity of the field. The electromagnetic field extends indefinitely throughout space and describes the electromagnetic interaction. (Description not for you but other readers)
              As cosmic rays that enter our atmosphere due to the weakened shield they create a increase in clouds .they have increased by 12% since 2015 and are expected to increase 17% more this year. Solar winds have been compressing our atmosphere due to the weak shield and have altered the jet stream as well as caused a shift in the intertropical convergence zone. Sunspots and solar flaring on an active sun energize our EMF.
              Solar flares occur when a positive spot and a negative spot arc to connect and then snap off.
              A good view of this is available on suspicious observers daily space weather report 2-4mins on average.http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/
              No doubt you've heard of the recently named aurora phenomena "Steve" it is also evidence of a weak EMF . I will edit to add after this reply is pushed.http://www.space.com/36583-new-aurora-featur...

              I would encourage you to also look into Wal Thonhill's work on the Electric universe.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 10 months ago
          "The science of AGW is far from complete"
          Right, but I'm saying hypothetically, what if there were shocking new evidence that doesn't exist now. Are you saying it's unknowable? Are you saying that the final consequences are so undesirable that, as a scientist, you'll start with a desirable conclusion and find evidence to fit it? I don't think you're saying that.

          My only point is if even for a moment you think, "no that's too undesirable, let me look at it again," that's a warning sign in science.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by ProfChuck 6 years, 10 months ago
            As the Ferengi in bar said "I don't speak hypothetical". Let's assume that through some sort of cosmic revelation I was made aware that all of the apocalyptic prognostications of the AGW acolytes were actually coming to pass. Should my response be "Let the incompetent politicians deal with this."? I don't think so. They have a long history of only making things worse. While AGW provides opportunities to the political class it provides a challenge to the scientists and engineers that must actually find solutions. The politicians only stifle their efforts.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • -1
              Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 10 months ago
              ""I don't speak hypothetical".
              That's a critical-thinking warning sign.

              "all of the apocalyptic prognostications of the AGW acolytes "
              No, no, I said costly, not "apocalyptic", so your hypothetical scenario is different from mine.

              " it provides a challenge to the scientists and engineers that must actually find solutions"
              Yes. That's probably true for my hypothetical scenario (which I believe is really happening) and yours.
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • Posted by ProfChuck 6 years, 10 months ago
                I am still a member of the scientific community and, while retired, maintain many contacts. My background is theoretical physics and astronomy and as part of my work as an astronomer I have studied planetary atmospheres. Venus, Mars, Jupiter, Saturn, the other gas giants and Earth of course provide vast areas of study. I have been involved in designing computer models of atmospheric dynamics and have used one of NASA's supercomputers to run these models. The results are not particularly encouraging. Climate dynamics, and worse yet biosphere dynamics are chaotic systems. By I mean that analysis of these systems involves the use of recursive algorithms that are inherently mathematically chaotic. Such systems are extremely sensitive to even slight variations in input parameters. For example, a variation in atmospheric albedo of less than 1 percent can produce outputs that include 40 foot sea level rise or a 10 foot drop over the next 50 years. Using data from 30 and 50 years ago we ran projections for the year 2000 and got results that varied from complete polar ice cap melt to a new ice age. Obviously such results are worse than useless because they provide a tempting opportunity for cherry picking the data to satisfy an agenda. I suspect that is what is taking place in the AGW community and there are many other scientists that share my concern. As a result I am somewhat loathe to engage in hypothetical discussions that are based on questionable data especially those that have been selected to reinforce a particular perspective
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • -1
                  Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 10 months ago
                  Astronomer is sort of a dream job. It's rare people who can do it as a paid job. I also love theoretical physics, although it goes way over my head. If I actually had to dig into the math, I would struggle, and maybe I wouldn't love it anymore.

                  Regarding your claim that climate is difficult to model, I expect there will be new discoveries that radically change our understanding how human activities affect the environment.

                  "cherry picking the data to satisfy an agenda"
                  That's precisely what I think is happening. No one likes the answer we're getting, and someone of us are tempted to start with the desirable conclusion and look for evidence to support it.

                  "the AGW community"
                  I think I understand what you mean, but defining a field by one of its politically unpopular findings sounds as silly as calling biologists the "evolution community" or food scientists the "GMO community".

                  "I am somewhat loathe to engage in hypothetical discussions that are based on questionable data"
                  I think you're saying you don't want it taken out of context, with people remembering what you said but forgetting it was premised on something not true. It's like if someone asked me to suppose hypothetically, contrary to our current understanding, that dark-skinned people had mental capacity than light-skinned people. I'd be cautious about talking about it for obvious reasons, but my scientific mind would be interested in a finding that completely upends our understanding of the origin of humankind. It's bad if I find myself saying that I want racial equality so badly that I will reject any finding that contradicts my desired answer as being motivated by racism.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                  • Posted by ProfChuck 6 years, 10 months ago
                    I am not sure how this drifted into racism but my experience is filled with so many counter examples that prejudice based on race or ethnicity is just strupid. I have worked with people from all over the world and have never had reason to judge based on race or country or origin.
                    Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                    • Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 10 months ago
                      " I have worked with people from all over the world and have never had reason to judge based on race or country or origin."
                      Maybe it was too remote an example. I was trying to think of an example of some unlikely discovery that I wouldn't want to entertain even hypothetically because I don't like the ramifications.

                      I agree with everything you said about racism being stupid.
                      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by GaryL 6 years, 10 months ago
    All of these "Agreements", trade, global warming, NATO and the like play upon the wealth of the US. With 20 Trillion in debt that sure does not make the US wealthy at all.
    Just as Trump said in the campaign, If you want the protections of the US military then pay the bill. China holds a lot of our debt yet they are not mandated to comply with the Paris Accord until 2030 and a lot of other major polluters have similar off sets for compliance. Dump it now!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Herb7734 6 years, 10 months ago
    Finally! We have a President that has the courage to say no to an accord that exists for no other reason than to enrich certain countries at the expense of the USA. It has little to do with the environment, but it is clearly a scam that causes heads of states to say to one another, "Can you believe those suckers in America? They must be run by children if they believe the crap we're shoveling to them."
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Dobrien 6 years, 10 months ago
      I have learned a good lesson in the last year. I decided at that time to support Trump as previously I thought he was just another RINO.
      I did not like that he was the choice vs the evil hag.
      IMHO he is the best President in my soon to be 60 years. He has made good or attempted to make good on almost all his campaign promises. I think he is courageous, honest and interested in America's well being. Listening to the looters hysteria about dropping this unfair stupid agreement confirms my opinion.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ TomB666 6 years, 10 months ago
    The 'business leaders' who want to stay in the pact see it being profitable for them. They will get government subsidies and plenty of make-work, all at our expense. Extra profit means bigger bonuses for the brass :-( I'd bet half of them don't even believe in it, but they see the benefit to the bottom line.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by DrZarkov99 6 years, 10 months ago
    The Paris accord is a waste of effort. It has no penalties for countries that fail to meet their goals, and no enforcement of payments the wealthy countries are supposed to be making to developing nations. It is not a treaty because Obama knew that such a treaty would be rejected by the Senate.

    The effects of enforcing the agreed changes would have little actual effect on the climate, with reductions in the rate of temperature projected (even by the optimists) at numbers I would declare to be in the measurement noise. The economic effects on the U.S. would be draconian, with crippling damage to both domestic and international trade.

    Declare a sincere effort by the U.S. to improve technology to reduce the price of "clean energy," and offer to assist others with accountable development programs, but don't sign up to changes unachievable without crippling effect.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 10 months ago
      Correct. The Democrats like Hillary Clinton are all wailing about how the United States should honor its agreements while patently ignoring that the President has no authority to negotiate binding treaties or agreements which are not subject to Senate approval. And since the Senate was never given the deal to approve or disapprove, it remains in limbo until such action is taken. It also means that any subsequent President may simply override his predecessor's agreement.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by ohiocrossroads 6 years, 10 months ago
    I listened to Trump's speech live, and gave a cheer and a fist pump when he said he is pulling out of the climate agreement.

    Then I wanted to play Richard Halley's Concerto of Deliverance in celebration.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by OrlandoGator 6 years, 10 months ago
    Obummer had no business signing the Paris Accord. He did not have approval from Congress to sign it. I am so glad that our great President trump pulled us out of it. We don't need to be giving up any control of our country to other countries.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fosterj717 6 years, 10 months ago
    The idiots (sorry, our previous administration) negotiated (if that is how you would like to term it) this horrible agreement that does absolutely nothing other than provide billions of US dollars and losses of millions of jobs for nothing. China gets to increase its Carbon footprint and we get to subsidize every banana republic in sight! Trump did exactly the right (and sane) thing by rejecting and then offering to "negotiate" a more sane and effective agreement!.

    Let's see how this plays out! I'm sure it will be far superior to the garbage that Obama and John Kerry "negotiated"!
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 6 years, 10 months ago
    The earth is in no danger of too much heat or too much carbon for the next 100 years, (new estimates on the effects of Grand Solar Minimum, weakened magnetic shields and magnetic poles moving toward each other)

    What we WILL be short on is FOOOOOD! Better start growing it indoors cause the weather will be unpredictable. (see the crop losses due to cold at ADAPT 2030 on youtube) these reports are documented and can be verified.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Dobrien 6 years, 10 months ago
      Bingo, All gulchers should educate themselves about The Grand Solar Minimum. In addition to Adapt2030, the suspicious observer site offers excellent solar info as well as daily solar news.
      http://www.suspicious0bservers.org/.
      Another source to use would be The thunderbolts project from David Talbot and Wal Thornhill.
      Thank you Carl for passing on this urgent info to me.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by fivedollargold 6 years, 10 months ago
    MC wrote SOF about the time the infamous "hockey stick" temperature graph was published in Discover. Fivedollargold saw that graph and thought it suspicious, expecting a retraction. It never came. Years later, when asked for his raw data, hockey stick guy claimed he "lost it." Released emails from East Anglia University show how the climate scammers played the game. Settled science = BS. Follow the money.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 6 years, 10 months ago
    I keep hearing from the chuckle patch that the sky is falling because of this decision for the US to extract itself from the Paris accord. Those people, Terry McAuliffe, John Kerry, etc, are certifying that withdrawing was 100% the right thing to do. When has anything that the left or the RINOs done over the last decade been in America's best interest? Its high time that America forceably pushed the world's ravenous money gluttons off the teat of its success and restored its fiscal responsibility to its people.

    If the paris accord was so helpful why was China and India except from a coal burning and mining reductions but we're not?
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Owlsrayne 6 years, 9 months ago
    Trump should have added in his speech on removing the US from the Paris accords is the rest of the world "to pound salt & plant more trees, a lot more Trees!"
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by Lucky 6 years, 10 months ago
    I hope it is ok for me, not a US citizen, to comment on US politics if I type small-
    3 cheers for Trump!
    Now if he does the same for the UN, he qualifies as the best world leader this century.

    Abaco posted 2 days ago when it was rumor, now it has happened.
    The shock/horror/dismay from the Eco-fascist moochers is up to standard.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ jbrenner 6 years, 10 months ago
    The pressure that the rest of the world put on the USA to stay in the Paris Accords was this era's "Sanction of the Victim" moment. I am glad that Trump would not give them such sanction.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
  • -7
    Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 10 months ago
    Simply ignoring the problem is very close to allowing theft. I am unclear that the Paris Accord is best approach, but simply ignoring the problem is criminal. Their excuse is based on emotion and malarkey, but that's not the cause. The cause is people not wanting to pay for the costs they incur on others and then using any rationalization they can come up with to justify it. It's disgraceful.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • 12
      Posted by freedomforall 6 years, 10 months ago
      No, CG, the looting liars who brainwashed you into feeling global warming is a problem that man created and can fix by giving politicians control over everything are disgraceful.
      The problem is not being ignored. It isn't proven to be a problem requiring any action.
      The Paris accord is theft by looters at gunpoint.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Dobrien 6 years, 10 months ago
      "Simply ignoring the problem is criminal "
      There is no problem it is a manufactured fear to tax and take down economic growth.
      The IPCC's game is up, the planet is not warming the sea ice is growing and Greenlands ice build is massive.
      Greenhouse gases comprise 2% of the Earths atmosphere just 3.62% of that 2% is co2 .
      And 3.4% of the co2 is caused by man or just .117% of the greenhouse gases. That is an absolutely minuscule amount of the whole atmosphere somewhere around 1000th of a percent.
      The pause in global warming caused the controllers to change the term to climate change.
      Data has been adjusted or manipulated to show a temp increase for years just recently caught are the countries of Australia And Switzeland.
      You would be wise to look up Grand Solar Minimum that we have just entered. We are going to rapidly cool starting now and sourcing food will be the most important thing you will spend your time and money on in the coming next few years this is already Impacting global food crops. Did you know the US lost 40% of its wheat crop three weeks ago as a blizzard in Kansas dumped three feet of snow and many farmers seeds were washed away with the floods and storms in Missouri Illinois Arkansas and others. Cosmic rays have increased 13% in the last two years and are to increase 17% this year. Cosmic rays cause clouds to form which in turn create an albido effect reflecting sun from warming the ground. The other nasty weather effect from the GSM is the increase in Volcanos that discharge particles
      That also block the sun.
      Simply ignoring this warning is dangerous to your families future well being.
      If you want to educate yourself instead of parroting the complicite media start at Adapt2030 David DuByne and check all his sources and do your own homework.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by freedomforall 6 years, 10 months ago
        But government has to "do something" about this climate change, and ruining the economy is the only action that government can do. Government is awesome, dude.

        (sarcasm)
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ Olduglycarl 6 years, 10 months ago
          I get the sarcasm, but let's think of "what government could do"; it could be honest? (sar) after all, as a superior once told me before he left the company, "Your people will only be as good as you allow them to be". I knew what he meant; he was a consument sharer of knowledge, always stood back, and watched us use that knowledge to make the best product ever.

          Instead of action, regulations and lies, Why couldn't government just tell the truth and maybe suggest some of the things we could do together, things entrepreneurs could work on...I guess that's way to simple a concept for non-conscious, parasitical humanoids to grasp.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 6 years, 10 months ago
      You repeatedly, and I mean repeatedly, speak of the problems in vague and non-specific terms. You give no facts, no estimates of temperature rise, no comments about benefits. It's always "You are denying the problem".

      There is no fraking problem. There's a theory, and not a very good one at that.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -7
        Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 10 months ago
        "There is no fraking problem. "
        I consider this pure avoidance of reality.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 10 months ago
          People don't generally take points here just for disagreement, but if you make a case and then fail to back it up, you're going to get dinged...
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 10 months ago
            "you're going to get dinged"
            I could hire an Alvah Scarret to run things by or get advice from Peter Keating's mother if I sought approval. I don't though. The extreme claim of denying science needs to be backed up. I find it beyond absurd.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by $ blarman 6 years, 10 months ago
              The problem is that there isn't any real science to back up the man-made climate change argument. Their own models predicted catastrophic warming over the past 20 years. What did we actually see? Zero temperature increases. If the model fails to accurately predict future events (especially when its not even close), doesn't that make you question the model - not the events? They were making these same arguments in the 70's but in reverse - warning about an impending Ice Age. They're like the boy who cried wolf: they have zero credibility. Instead of claiming they are doing "science", they need to show that the models reasonably match the expected with the actual. When a hypothesis gets tested and the results don't match the expectations, a real scientist realizes that the hypothesis is invalid and reviews it. They don't try to manipulate the data to get the results they want (See East Anglia).
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Mitch 6 years, 10 months ago
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -5
        Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 10 months ago
        I"what if the Climate Change theory is based on invalid data?"
        It blows my mind people fall for that.

        The funny thing is we may find surprising new data that reveals things being more in line with what we all wish were true. It would be exciting for scientists, and good news for everyone wanting to live an affluent life, basically everyone. But it won't mean wishful thinking is reasonable.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • 11
          Posted by Temlakos 6 years, 10 months ago
          "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick...to hide the decline." I read the Climate-gate Archive. Hell, I'm the guy who broke it out of the blogosphere and into the realm of semi-pro journalism! I had The Wall Street Journal linking to my story about that archive.

          Sadly, the site where my article appeared went belly-up, and someone sanitized everything I wrote from the Wayback Machine. I still don't know how they pulled that trick.

          But I have the Archive. I have Phil Jones' incriminating e-mail. I have Kevin Trenberth's e-mail saying, "We cannot show a warming trend and it is a travesty that we can't." And I have the data which I charted, and found that it didn't make a hockey stick. And Michael Mann knew it.

          Those guys are all guilty of dry-labbing. So absolutely anything anybody says to suggest global warming, is suspect.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Temlakos 6 years, 10 months ago
      There is no problem. There is a tissue of lies. "I've just completed Mike's Nature trick...to hide the decline" says it all. 140 business jets and 1200 chauffeured limousines say they don't even believe it themselves. Why do you believe it?
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Mitch 6 years, 10 months ago
      CG, I’m earnestly anticipating your response to my original post; no response to valid questions is capitulation on your part….
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ 6 years, 10 months ago
      Mitch is talking sense here. Are there issues regarding development, manufacturing and the environment? I certainly think so - and I'm pretty deeply involved. But, what I've seen over the past decade is regulation stacked on regulation for no good reason. Heck...I've even consulted in the drafting of some of that regulation and found that arguments based on anything other than the desire to manage other people fell on deaf ears. It's a strange mindset driving this bus now.

      I remember speaking with a high-ranking EPA official and hearing him spout complete falsehoods. That really bothered me, because he'd been given the authority to drive the bus...He was a total bullsh&%er. And, to add insult to injury he said something including how we need to "save the children"...Just total crap. I wanted to pull his tie until he turned purple...
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
    • Posted by Mitch 6 years, 10 months ago
      What problem?
      Who is ignoring said problem?
      Can you quantify the problem (with accurate data)?
      How are people unwilling to pay for the effects of this problem on others?
      How is this disgraceful?

      I’m truly asking these questions as I’m not positive about your post, it’s unclear as to your position.

      Climate change is the only scientific theory in history that has gone from theory to “law” without question and without peer validation. The scientific method encourages debate, climate change is not open for debate. The Paris Accord, from what I have heard (unsubstantiated) is a simple vehicle to redistribute US tax payer’s wealth to the rest of the world.

      Kick it to the curb along with the BS regulations from the EPA.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Comment hidden by post owner or admin, or due to low comment or member score. View Comment
      • -5
        Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 10 months ago
        "What problem?"
        Human activities causing/accelerating global warming

        "Who is ignoring said problem?"
        Some, not all, of the people supporting backing out of agreements to limit emissions

        "Can you quantify the problem (with accurate data)?"
        Yes, we can quantify it. No, the data is not that accurate. If we had accurate data, we could calculate exactly how much global warming caused by our activities cost others. My understanding is we have a good idea but not a high degree of certainty of the numbers.

        Even if we had accurate data how much particular emissions drive global warming and how much global warming will cost people, we'd have to adjust for return on investment. For example an activity that makes a million dollars now but costs two million in 50 years is still a net gain because that one million could grow at 3% over 50 years and be worth 4 million.

        All that is to say, no, accurate data is hard to come by.

        "How are people unwilling to pay for the effects of this problem on others?" "How is this disgraceful?"
        This is an ancient human behavior. It's similar to asking why to people steal.
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Dobrien 6 years, 10 months ago
          We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
          Timothy Wirth,
          President of the UN Foundation

          ”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
          Christine Stewart,
          former Canadian Minister of the Environment
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
          • Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 10 months ago
            Naomi Klein wrote a whole book full of crap like that. She basically comes out and says she wants to use it to sell socialism. These people exploiting reality are worse than people denying it.
            Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
            • Posted by Dobrien 6 years, 10 months ago
              These are quotes from the proponents of your brainwashed beliefs. You spout off again and again about Deniers and how it should be criminal and you back up your claim with nothing."Simply ignoring the problem is criminal "
              There is no problem it is a manufactured fear to tax and take down economic growth.
              The IPCC's game is up, the planet is not warming the sea ice is growing and Greenlands ice build is massive.
              Greenhouse gases comprise 2% of the Earths atmosphere just 3.62% of that 2% is co2 .
              And 3.4% of the co2 is caused by man or just .117% of the greenhouse gases. That is an absolutely minuscule amount of the whole atmosphere somewhere around 1000th of a percent.
              The pause in global warming caused the controllers to change the term to climate change.
              Data has been adjusted or manipulated to show a temp increase for years just recently caught are the countries of Australia And Switzeland.
              You would be wise to look up Grand Solar Minimum that we have just entered. We are going to rapidly cool starting now and sourcing food will be the most important thing you will spend your time and money on in the coming next few years this is already Impacting global food crops. Did you know the US lost 40% of its wheat crop three weeks ago as a blizzard in Kansas dumped three feet of snow and many farmers seeds were washed away with the floods and storms in Missouri Illinois Arkansas and others. Cosmic rays have increased 13% in the last two years and are to increase 17% this year. Cosmic rays cause clouds to form which in turn create an albido effect reflecting sun from warming the ground. The other nasty weather effect from the GSM is the increase in Volcanos that discharge particles
              That also block the sun.
              Simply ignoring this warning is dangerous to your families future well being.
              If you want to educate yourself instead of parroting the complicite media start at Adapt2030 David DuByne and check all his sources and do your own homework. Why don't you respond to this?
              Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
              • -2
                Posted by CircuitGuy 6 years, 10 months ago
                "These are quotes from the proponents of your brainwashed beliefs"
                Not my beliefs, unless at some point after a third of the way into the book, where I stopped reading, Klein took it all back.

                I consider the rest of what you're saying in the realm of inexpensive homeopathy working but being suppressed by the medical establishment, GMOs being dangerous, aliens visiting earth but the gov't hiding it.
                Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
                • Posted by Dobrien 6 years, 10 months ago
                  Historical evidence supports my claim. Science supports my evidence.Your response is ad hoc nonsense. Low sunspot activity is part of the Suns cycle. The grand solar minimum is upon us and you choose to ignore it at your own peril.
                  Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by Eyecu2 6 years, 10 months ago
          There is no accurate data ......BECAUSE IT IS ALL A HOAX TO REDISTRIBUTE WEALTH!

          A single volcanic eruption dumps more greenhouse gases into the atmosphere than man has created throughout our ENRITE history.
          https://www.skepticalscience.com/volc...
          https://www.volcanodiscovery.com/volc...
          Looking back over the fossil record we can prove that the climate has changed MANY times and for the vast majority of those changes man kind didn't exist. Why did the climate change then if man wasn't there to cause it? BTW have you read recent studies that show that there is MORE ice in Antarctica today than there was 30 years ago? https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/...
          Have you read studies showing that there is MORE arable land today than there was 40 years ago? http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/A...
          More ice and more arable land...Think about that those two things are both contradictory to what the CC people claim and they are seemingly contradictory to each other.

          The chicken little's of the world love to scream that the sky is falling. I myself tend to look up and verify things for myself don't be too ashamed that you have bought into a bill of goods sold by the Looters. The vast majority of the world believes the BS also. You are only at fault if you refuse to open your eyes and see how WRONG YOUR ARE!
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ jbrenner 6 years, 10 months ago
      Please read State of Fear, particularly pages 498 to 503 of the paperback version, by the late Michael Crichton, who, until he did the research for this novel, believed in global warming,
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by Dobrien 6 years, 10 months ago
      ”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
      Stephen Schneider,
      Stanford Professor of Climatology,
      Lead author of many IPCC reports
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by jimjamesjames 6 years, 10 months ago
      "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary". H. L. Mencken
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mgarbizo1 6 years, 10 months ago
      Identifying a problem is the first step. Can you look at this link and give me your thoughts on it? It shows comparison graphs using the thermal data available today.
      https://lectrikdog.wordpress.com/2016...

      I also want to say that we create energy from what resources we gather from the earth, and that energy can be pointed to the cause of creating and sustaining so much human life, from drinkable water, ease of travel, and controlling facility temperatures in freezing and tropical climates that would otherwise be too difficult to sustain human life without A/C or Heating elements. And we will continue to create new forms of energy from the resources at our disposal to continue the survival and thriving of human life. I choose to consider these benefits of having energy as opposed to not having it due to restrictions that others may place against these cheap forms of energy to prosper just so man-made greenhouse gases can reverse directions. The graph is interesting because it shows what temperatures and weather patterns were like thousands of years ago, frankly, I'm not sure we could survive those temperature swings and weather patterns (all having occurred without man made greenhouse gases) even with technology as it is today.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo