PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Anthony on May 31, 2017, 09:58:39 AM
-
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Donald Trump is expected to withdraw the United States from a landmark global climate agreement, a White House official said Wednesday, though Trump and aides were looking for "caveats in the language" related to the exit and had not made a final decision.
Leaving the deal would fulfill a central campaign pledge, but would anger international allies who spent years in difficult negotiations that produced an accord to reduce carbon emissions.
I know this is largely symbolic as China, Russia, and I think India are not on board with this agreement. However, I am glad Trump is fulfilling another campaign promise. More, and more people are over the entire man made climate change hoax. Even many leftists are giving up, and the ones that seem to be the most vehement supporters are the ones that would benefit fro more taxes, regulations, and "studies".
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TRUMP_CLIMATE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-05-31-09-01-31
-
It's not a conspiracy. We're dooming ourselves and there is no second chance. I wouldn't care if it was only going to take down the people not willing to make changes, but it takes the rest of us down with you.
-
It's not a conspiracy. We're dooming ourselves and there is no second chance. I wouldn't care if it was only going to take down the people not willing to make changes, but it takes the rest of us down with you.
Yeah, I have heard that before. As a kid in the 70's I bought into what my school was selling me on the Earth cooling due to the "Greenhouse" effect, and the obliteration of the ozone layer. Time magazine published the coming Ice Age on their cover. Guess what? Nothing happened. Now I see where our own government agencies like NOAA, and NASA used falsified data, or actually went back and "modified" data to support big government solutions to man made climate change. No thanks.
It seems Obama's inner circle is a little upset. Awwww, poor babies.
]“Malicious idiocy derived from willful ignorance motivated by avarice,” Obama’s former senior advisor Dan Pfeiffer wrote, reacting to the news.
“Have been in two European cities today. News is all Paris. Vibe is mournful,” wrote Obama’s former speechwriter Cody Keenan. “Feels like U.S. giving up 75 years of global leadership.”
Keenan also wrote that Trump would be “cursed and loathed” by future generations because of his decision.
Obama’s former National Security advisor Susan Rice also indicated her disappointment.
“The cumulative effect of Trump policies, capped by his foolish, tragic Paris decision = abdication of America’s global leadership,” she wrote. “Shame!”
“Trump destroying ability of any US President, including himself, to garner long term international commitments on anything,” wrote Jesse Lee, a former White House director of rapid response. “Make US word meaningless.”
“Literally every other major government and political party in the world believes this except for the US and GOP – a staggering disconnect,” former National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes lamented on Twitter.
He described White House economic advisor Gary Cohn and H.R. McMaster “complicit” in the acceleration of “the destruction of our planet.”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/05/31/crushed-obama-aides-react-to-trumps-decision-to-withdraw-from-paris-agreement/
-
Obama babbling utter bullshit is just noise now that he is completely irrelevant.
The mmgw lies and liars eilll never stop lying about it because it invloves less freedom, more governments standing on our throats and limited free speech, which is what the left is ALL ABOUT.
-
I'm glad he's pulling out of this. It doesn't do anything positive anyway, except force the U.S. to spend more taxpayer money. Besides, this should've gone through the Senate to begin with.
-
Now we need to amend the Clean Air, and Water Act to be more narrow so the next Democrat administration can't use the EPA to legislate in effect, and also punish political enemies. When farmers, and others can't use their own ponds, then something is amiss.
-
Now we need to amend the Clean Air, and Water Act to be more narrow so the next Democrat administration can't use the EPA to legislate in effect, and also punish political enemies. When farmers, and others can't use their own ponds, then something is amiss.
I agree but there are other priorities as well. Trump has yet to get a major legislative item signed into law. Tax reform or a (real) Obamacare repeal would be a great victory.
-
We're dooming ourselves and there is no second chance.
I don't know what you mean but if you're talking about climate change, I hardly think we're doomed. Man has been evolving through ice ages and warming spells far more extreme than what we have now, and then back and forth again, for eons and we not only survived but thrived.
-
I don't know what you mean but if you're talking about climate change, I hardly think we're doomed. Man has been evolving through ice ages and warming spells far more extreme than what we have now, and then back and forth again, for eons and we not only survived but thrived.
Yeah, even if one accepts that humans are causing climate change, the "doom" conclusion is simply not credible.
-
This is a case where I'm convinced you're wrong, but I hope you're right.
-
This is a case where I'm convinced you're wrong, but I hope you're right.
What lifestyle changes have you enacted in order to stop the damage?
-
There's no stopping the damage. Maybe slowing it some.
Like most things, nothing I do as an individual will have much of an impact, as it takes a collective effort. As for lifestyle changes, I've made very few. That's because I've always lived conservatively. Flying is the one thing I could quit that would contribute to the effort, but I'm not there yet.
The thing about our argument is that if it turns out that you're right we all get to throw a party and hoot and holler. But if you're wrong...
-
This should answer a few questions on MMGW.
-
I think man might be contributing a tiny percent but the major cause of climate shift is solar activity. I don't dispute that a large and fast temperature change can have devastating results. We saw that with the Little Ice Age. But man adjusts and especially when it warms, actually thrives. If sea levels rise a lot, yes some land will be flooded, and crops won't grow where they did before, and so on. But also, more land will become available for agriculture, and types of crops will change, and all this will cause upheaval in the economy, because our political and economic borders are all associated with a more or less stable climate at the moment.
But people who fear climate change seem to have the idea that somehow we are due it to remain static forever. And if it weren't for man it WOULD remain static, at least for the next few centuries. People don't seem very aware of the impact of climate change in the past, how great it was and how it could not possibly have been caused by man. So we can DEFINITELY expect climate change whether man's got anything to do with it or not. And we can definitely expect disasters from it especially if it occurs quickly.
But the question is whether our science knows enough about it to accurately predict it and the answer to that is a resounding NO.
Therefore when you design economic and political policy based on these wild guesses, because that's what they are at best, (at worst they are deliberately manipulated for political and monetary gain) you impose undue burden on society for little and uncertain benefit. The economic and social harm done to people in the name of "green" policy is far worse than any damage yet seen by any climate change.
There are certain "green" efforts that I'm on board with, but they have nothing to do with climate change. For example I don't like that we're dumping all this garbage into the Pacific. By "we" I mean China by the way, but the U.S. ships trash to China so we're also to blame. We do need to develop better ways to handle trash as the population of the world explodes.
But to force Americans to pay through the nose for a host of regulations just to lower their "carbon footprint" or worst of all, give money to other countries for the sake of climate change agreements, it's just one more big wealth transfer scheme and as always, burdens the middle class and benefits wealthy politicians and complicit private parties.
For you liberals who don't yet grasp why Trump won the election, this is another clue; middle America is sick of being raped up the ass by you and the whole climate change lie is one big part of it. Stop watching your liberal side of the movie screen for once and open your mind a little to the many scientists who are calling out this thing for what it is: A big artificial construct based on very shaky foundation. When you dig into the truth a little there is NO proof man is causing climate change and very little way to predict what temps will be like in the future. We could as easily be heading for another ice age as a warming spell, and all our efforts to cool things will end up going in the wrong direction. Far better to let people adjust with the natural market place to changes as mother nature brings them. It's as crazy to think we can STOP climate change as it is to think we cause it.
-
It's not a conspiracy. We're dooming ourselves and there is no second chance. I wouldn't care if it was only going to take down the people not willing to make changes, but it takes the rest of us down with you.
Better get your winter coats ready. More change is coming, but not in the direction you think it will. The source of the science behind this is NASA, who predicts a light solar cycle and a colder earth.
http://www.newsmax.com/Headline/dark-winter-cold-global-cooling/2014/11/16/id/607672/
This is why people question the hockey stick graphs. The actual science isn't supporting the conclusion of rising temperature anymore.
-
There's no stopping the damage. Maybe slowing it some.
Like most things, nothing I do as an individual will have much of an impact, as it takes a collective effort. As for lifestyle changes, I've made very few. That's because I've always lived conservatively. Flying is the one thing I could quit that would contribute to the effort, but I'm not there yet.
The thing about our argument is that if it turns out that you're right we all get to throw a party and hoot and holler. But if you're wrong...
If things are so dire, why should we sign on to something that allows India and China to keep right polluting? I would venture to say we have the strictest regulations of any country. Why not just ask India and China to meet what we're doing?
-
This entire hoax is designed to take the US down several notches.
-
Bottom line - it's an unratified treaty. It isn't enforceable anyway, so why should we confuse the issue with any notion that the US is a member to it. There are already a number of European countries who believe the US is on board, so better to let them know earlier than later.
-
Liberals LOVE anything that is bad for America, because liberals have achieved so little other than a few amazing people and suffer insane jealousy directed against those who do succeed.
It really is that simple.
-
Take the financial incentives out of Climate Change and watch how many drop it like a hot potato.
It's nothing but a financial scam.
-
Bottom line - it's an unratified treaty. It isn't enforceable anyway, so why should we confuse the issue with any notion that the US is a member to it. There are already a number of European countries who believe the US is on board, so better to let them know earlier than later.
Might want to check this out.......
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/05/31/because-of-the-treaty-on-treaties-trump-must-withdraw-from-the-paris-agreement/
-
Meltdowns are now in progress.............
-
I hope it starts warming up now, been too cold lately.
-
This is going to be fun. Weren't some of these Democrats against it before they were for it.
-
This is going to be fun. Weren't some of these Democrats against it before they were for it.
Trump should come out tomorrow in favor of gun control, just so we can watch the liberals start to defend the second amendment. ;D
-
https://news.grabien.com/story-10-dumbest-reactions-trump-quitting-paris-climate-accord
-
There's so many people with different agendas it's hard to know what to believe.
-
Might want to check this out.......
https://www.rushlimbaugh.com/daily/2017/05/31/because-of-the-treaty-on-treaties-trump-must-withdraw-from-the-paris-agreement/
Might want to check this out...Article 2 section 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
This is how the US expresses consent. Until 2/3 of the Senate concurs, the opinion of one man is irrelevant to consent. He has the same authority as you and I do to consent to treaties until the Senate agrees.
Bottom line, we were never a part of it.
-
There's so many people with different agendas it's hard to know what to believe.
When it comes to MMGW, follow the money. Then it becomes very clear.
-
When it comes to MMGW, follow the money. Then it becomes very clear.
Once it became obvious who was driving it and how they were going to profit, I knew that it is a scam. The "science", I immediately discarded.
-
Once it became obvious who was driving it and how they were going to profit, I knew that it is a scam. The "science", I immediately discarded.
When people were selling carbon credits, I knew it was a huge scam.
Elon Musk, huge hypocrite!
Musk, the CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, took to Twitter to announce that he would be departing from all future presidential councils in protest of President Trump’s decision to pull the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Accord. He assured his followers that global warming is real and that leaving the Paris accords is “not good” for America or the world.
Hours later, Cruz mocked Musk’s outrage, pointing out that he regularly travels around the country in his own private jet. If the billionaire CEO was so dedicated to reducing the world’s carbon output, Cruz snarked, he would choose to fly commercial planes rather than private ones.
http://www.breitbart.com/tech/2017/06/02/elon-musk-private-jet-ted-cruz/
-
When people were selling carbon credits, I knew it was a huge scam.
Exactly.
-
-
CEOs of some major companies are upset about the pullout, also believing that man-made climate change is real and that we need to be proactive in this area. CEOs of Dana, Dow Chemical, Pacific Gas and Electric, DuPont, Proctor and Gamble, General Electric, Cargill, Johnson&Johnson, CocaCola, Unilever and dozens of others. I'm sorry you guys think it's a scam. I'm just glad that there are some people with influence who don't feel that way.
-
I'm sorry you guys who think it is real don't unplug and quit using energy in your lives. With the number of people who believe in MMGW, if you all unplugged, per your own data you would make a huge impact quickly. Put your money where your mouth is, lead by example.
-
CEOs of some major companies are upset about the pullout, also believing that man-made climate change is real and that we need to be proactive in this area. CEOs of Dana, Dow Chemical, Pacific Gas and Electric, DuPont, Proctor and Gamble, General Electric, Cargill, Johnson&Johnson, CocaCola, Unilever and dozens of others. I'm sorry you guys think it's a scam. I'm just glad that there are some people with influence who don't feel that way.
Most larger corporations are run by Liberal/Progressives, and are the most PC organizations on earth. The truth is that no one really knows if man's industrialization is causing any changes to a very, very dynamic thing like climate, and weather. Also, the fact that historical temperature data was changed after the fact tells me that the entire thing IS a scam designed for more income, and wealth re-distribution by government.
Maybe those that believe in MMGW should alter their lifestyles to reflect their beliefs.
-
CEOs of some major companies are upset about the pullout, also believing that man-made climate change is real and that we need to be proactive in this area. CEOs of Dana, Dow Chemical, Pacific Gas and Electric, DuPont, Proctor and Gamble, General Electric, Cargill, Johnson&Johnson, CocaCola, Unilever and dozens of others. I'm sorry you guys think it's a scam. I'm just glad that there are some people with influence who don't feel that way.
And you can't see why they are upset? Again, follow the money.
-
CEOs of some major companies are upset about the pullout, also believing that man-made climate change is real and that we need to be proactive in this area. CEOs of Dana, Dow Chemical, Pacific Gas and Electric, DuPont, Proctor and Gamble, General Electric, Cargill, Johnson&Johnson, CocaCola, Unilever and dozens of others. I'm sorry you guys think it's a scam. I'm just glad that there are some people with influence who don't feel that way.
I don't think it's a scam, I think it's not proven and there are people for whom "saving the planet" has a romantic appeal. That' great if it ends there, but once they start impacting other people's lives in order to accomplish your feel good goal then we have a problem. They probably don't realize it, but they are literally choosing to impact misery on others in order to make themselves feel good. I am sure they don't look at it that way because nobody ... ok, few exceptions ... wants to make others unhappy, we aren't genetically wired that way.
I don't think that it can be argued that when you force others to curtail their agenda and follow yours, you are not inflicting at least a little misery and not impacting their happiness.
-
There is a HUGE profit potential in MMGW. OwlGore has already made $million$ promoting this fallacy, and others have caught on.
Take the profit potential out of it and then see how many will be onboard.
-
All of these celebrities who are crying their hearts out are fucking hypocrites.
They live in multiple mega mansions (using enough energy to power multitudes of homes), they have pristine lawns (using thousands of gallons of water and pesticides), have multiple large SUV's that devour gas, fly around in large business jets that seat only a few and burn thousands and thousands of gallons of kerosene. And don't forget their mega yacht vacations, on yachts that burn diesel fuel at rates that will make your head spin.
Lead by example. If they suddenly sold off the mansions and got a 2000 sq ft home in the 'burbs, bought an electric or hybrid car, flew coach on the airlines and took a vacation on Carnival Cruise lines then I may listen.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4566030/Arnold-Schwarzenegger-celebrities-Trump-climate-protest.html
-
So let me get this stright....You want the world to go green, yet you then waste resources to light up your monuments? ???
https://www.yahoo.com/news/buildings-shine-green-protest-trumps-paris-decision-134822108.html
-
So let me get this stright....You want the world to go green, yet you then waste resources to light up your monuments? ???
https://www.yahoo.com/news/buildings-shine-green-protest-trumps-paris-decision-134822108.html
Unlike most Americans, Europeans love to be "governed". So, this is another way for their ruling masters to further govern them. I find it disappointing, but that's why America was created in the first place.
From my local "newspaper's" website. (Liberal/Progressive RAG)
So does Bill Peduto, who's the current mayor of Pittsburgh and who said just minutes after Trump cited his concern for the citizens of the Steel City that "we will follow the guidelines of the Paris Agreement for our people, our economy & future." (So did Philadelphia's Mayor Kenney, who like scores of other mayors and local leaders has vowed to reduce carbon pollution regardless of the callous indifference in Trump's Washington.) Donald Trump is a dangerous ignoramus, whose only justification for a policy that poses serious and unacceptable risks for our children and grandchildren is a) he's doing the opposite of whatever Barack Obama did and b) his insane nationalist advisers like Steve Bannon (who never really lost clout after all) are convinced this plays well with that certain sector of the electorate that hates "pointy-headed" scientists, etc.
This is a dark day for the planet — darker than the streets of Pittsburgh at high noon in 1946. The president of the United States — in a job that many once called "the leader of the free world," hard as that is to believe now — rejecting the best science on our climate is both the logical conclusion of 50 years of GOP know-nothingism and a moment where it's not at all trite to say that common sense has been trumped by evil self-interest.
http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Trump-to-Pittsburgh-Drop-dead-Again.html
The author of this article writes at least one, or more columns per day bashing Trump. This website, like many others around the country publish 2 - 4 anti Trump articles per day.
-
CEOs of some major companies are upset about the pullout, also believing that man-made climate change is real and that we need to be proactive in this area. CEOs of Dana, Dow Chemical, Pacific Gas and Electric, DuPont, Proctor and Gamble, General Electric, Cargill, Johnson&Johnson, CocaCola, Unilever and dozens of others. I'm sorry you guys think it's a scam. I'm just glad that there are some people with influence who don't feel that way.
When do you plan on erecting your windmill so you can power your home?
-
When do you plan on erecting your windmill so you can power your home?
No, no, no. The answer has GOT to be another big government agency, or agency expansion to administer all the taxes, fees, and Cap, and Trade schemes! Come on, get with the program! ;D
-
Might want to check this out...Article 2 section 2: He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur;
https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript (https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript)
This is how the US expresses consent. Until 2/3 of the Senate concurs, the opinion of one man is irrelevant to consent. He has the same authority as you and I do to consent to treaties until the Senate agrees.
Bottom line, we were never a part of it.
Except it isn't a Treaty it is an Accord and Obama used that loophole to believe he could sign it. Since he controlled the executive branch he just got his folks to write regulations to make it so. We used to write laws with specifics in them, now we leave it up unelected bureaucrats to set the specifics.
-
The result will be to push this out to the local level. We've seen it already with the jack ass in charge of NY City. If a city or state feels inclined to impose certain standards, they will.
-
The result will be to push this out to the local level. We've seen it already with the jack ass in charge of NY City. If a city or state feels inclined to impose certain standards, they will.
In my state (Commonwealth) the mayors of both Pittsburgh, and Philly have said they will follow the Paris Treaty. ::)
Just another reason why I won't live in a big city. They are all run by Democrats.
-
The result will be to push this out to the local level. We've seen it already with the jack ass in charge of NY City. If a city or state feels inclined to impose certain standards, they will.
This is how it should be. It should be cities and states and private companies investing money and making whatever changes they wish. If the residents of the city and state don't want their money being spent that way, then they can vote for other people. If this had gone to the Senate and been ratified by them, then it would've been legal.
-
The German media is just as classy as ours. >:(
‘F*** you!’ Donald Trump blasted in German media after pulling out of Paris climate deal
DONALD Trump's decision to pull out of the Paris climate deal has not gone down well in Germany, if this tabloid’s choice of words is anything to go by.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/world/812190/donald-trump-paris-climate-deal-agreement-speech-germany-angela-merkel-emmanuel-macron
-
Okay, my first post on Pilot Spin.
There are aspects of the climate science "consensus" that are solid and there are aspects that are not.
We can say with high confidence that the greenhouse effect is real. The mechanisms of radiative transfer in the atmosphere are well understood. For a real-world example you need only look at Venus, which is hotter than Mercury despite being almost twice as far from the Sun.
We can say with high confidence that human-caused CO2 emissions have caused an increase in surface temperatures. How much? And what fraction of the recent warming has been man made vs. due to "natural" causes? That we cannot say with any confidence. It is probably higher than 10%. It might be as high as 75%, but we simply don't know. We are still coming out of the Little Ice Age, and large jumps in temperature have been the rule after cooling events during the Holocene. What we've seen so far is probably more pronounced than would have occurred without our GHG emissions, but by how much is unclear.
Another area where the uncertainty is unacceptably high is, how much will the surface temperature warm if we increase the CO2 level by x %? Let x be 100 - that's the definition of "climate sensitivity". The estimates for the equilibrium climate sensitivity (ECS) range anywhere from 1.5 C to over 6 C, a factor of over 4. Trying to establish limits to emission in order to keep the warming below 2 C without knowing the ECS to within better than a factor of 4 (or the transient climate response, if you're only interested in limiting the temperature during the present century) is totally daft.
Considering that we don't know how much our current level of emissions will eventually impact the climate, and given that we can't (at this point) predict the effects of all of the natural forcings that will contribute to climate change in the near future, I think the Paris accords were premature. Whether pulling out unilaterally makes sense in view of the geopolitical ramifications - I just don't know, that part makes me very nervous; we've just alienated most of the EU and given Russia and China a chance to shine and look like good world community citizens at our expense. But from the standpoint of science, what is really needed is more study, facilitated by a system of peer review, and especially a network of professional "peer pressure" - that is not partial to a predetermined outcome. (And that's a subject for a whole 'nother essay. Judith Curry has written extensively about the current state of peer review in climate science, and generally as well.)
Unfortunately, this is where the Trump administration shows its true colors - the cuts in science funding, especially climate science funding, in the proposed FY '18 budget are clearly what we do not need at this time. Scott Pruitt gave exactly the correct answer when asked whether he agreed that humans are the main cause of the recent warming - we are a cause, but the uncertainty in how much warming we've caused is too large to say with any confidence that we are the main cause. But does it make sense to cut the budget for the science that could answer that question? Given the possible magnitude of that warming in the future, I think it's clear it does not, unless you really believe the whole thing is a hoax.
I think activist climate scientists bear some of the responsibility for this debacle, by announcing conclusions prematurely and by hiding behind a shaky consensus argument, and most importantly (IMO) by de-emphasizing the very large uncertainties in their projections. I'm not surprised that a lot of people think AGW is a hoax. But I would hope that the people we elect to high government office are better informed than that.
-
the cuts in science funding, especially climate science funding, in the proposed FY '18 budget are clearly what we do not need at this time. Scott Pruitt gave exactly the correct answer when asked whether he agreed that humans are the main cause of the recent warming - we are a cause, but the uncertainty in how much warming we've caused is too large to say with any confidence that we are the main cause. But does it make sense to cut the budget for the science that could answer that question?
Depends, will the funding and studies truly be independent, or will they be to justify a desired outcome?
-
Depends, will the funding and studies truly be independent, or will they be to justify a desired outcome?
Not sure what you mean by the funding part. Obviously I agree that the studies need to be independent and unbiased.
-
The mmgw cult is back in their headlines....''these are the same people who swear that IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO secure the border, and claim that an unborn child is not human, but demand we believe they can control the weather on the entire planet.
Get a life, parasites and stop stealing from the taxpayers.
-
Depends, will the funding and studies truly be independent, or will they be to justify a desired outcome?
I have no problem with further studies if they are truly independent, and objective. When you hear some scientists say that there can be NO MORE debate, or that the "science is settled", that is when I get very skeptical. Also, I get skeptical when the solution is more big government, and more taxes, fees, surcharges, etc. Energy is our life's blood. To artificially increase the cost will have huge, negative economic impacts, and that is exactly what the government solutions are intended to do.
My client has locations in the UK where half the energy costs are to address "man made climate change". It is crazy.
Welcome Azure! Glad you are here! :)
-
I have no problem with further studies if they are truly independent, and objective. When you hear some scientists say that there can be NO MORE debate, or that the "science is settled", that is when I get very skeptical. Also, I get skeptical when the solution is more big government, and more taxes, fees, surcharges, etc. Energy is our life's blood. To artificially increase the cost will have huge, negative economic impacts, and that is exactly what the government solutions are intended to do.
My client has locations in the UK where half the energy costs are to address "man made climate change". It is crazy.
Welcome Azure! Glad you are here! :)
If there was a genuine true concern about MMGW, then remove any way for anyone to profit from it and see how far it goes.
Follow the money.
-
If there was a genuine true concern about MMGW, then remove any way for anyone to profit from it and see how far it goes.
Follow the money.
Oh, I agree. Ask the Solyndra folks how that worked out, and people like Al Gore who make money from speaking about it. I believe he also owned a firm that sold carbon credits. The other part is the intended, and continued growth of government. This was another way the liberal/progressive (Dems) could get away with more government, higher taxes, fees, etc, and of course more government employees to administer all of it.
-
Oh, I agree. Ask the Solyndra folks how that worked out, and people like Al Gore who make money from speaking about it. I believe he also owned a firm that sold carbon credits. The other part is the intended, and continued growth of government. This was another way the liberal/progressive (Dems) could get away with more government, higher taxes, fees, etc, and of course more government employees to administer all of it.
Don't forget wealth redistribution. In order to "protect" the less fortunate the government will have to issue "credits" to them via the IRS and other modes.
-
If there was a genuine true concern about MMGW, then remove any way for anyone to profit from it and see how far it goes.
Follow the money.
No matter who is doing the studying or what is being studied someone will be profiting and the studies will be influenced. There's just no way around it. Azure nailed it in his first post. I'm already biased because I do believe we're having an unreversible, negative impact on the Earth. But the part I have to admit is that I have no idea how much of an impact or what the consequences will be. Which is why I say this is a situation that I'd rather be safe than sorry.
Even if we agreed to NOTHING, I think Trump should be part of a group to at least study and address the issue.
-
Even if we agreed to NOTHING, I think Trump should be part of a group to at least study and address the issue.
If by "nothing" you mean the Paris agreement, then that's not the case. If that's not what you meant, disregard.
As for Trump being part of the study, he can make adjustments to his budget but it's Congress that ultimately will pass the legislation thus determining the actual funding levels for the research. Trump did the right thing by pulling out seeing as how it didn't go through the Senate first.
-
No matter who is doing the studying or what is being studied someone will be profiting and the studies will be influenced. There's just no way around it.
It's far more than that. Look at all the schemes, such as "carbon credits" and government subsidizing "green programs". Also look at the industries that will reap reward by having government backing and regulation to require people to use their services. There is a huge financial gain to this which taints it. Again, take away the parts that allow people to profit from this and you will see it fold like a cheap lawn chair.
Azure nailed it in his first post. I'm already biased because I do believe we're having an unreversible, negative impact on the Earth. But the part I have to admit is that I have no idea how much of an impact or what the consequences will be. Which is why I say this is a situation that I'd rather be safe than sorry.
And what about the people that see this for what it is, yet another financial scam?
And you are "concerned" about the impact. How old are you? Are you planning on being around for the next thousand years? The harsh reality is you or anyone reading this today will be around to see any noticeable change. In the time frame of climate change (the real climate change) that the earth evolves through it will take thousands of years to have any great impact.
Even if we agreed to NOTHING, I think Trump should be part of a group to at least study and address the issue.
The President is concerned with putting Americans first, job growth, strengthening our borders and securing our country as well as growing the economy, he's made that very clear.
The previous occupant of the WH didn't have a clue on economic matters, security, foreign relations or anything that benefited Americans, so he ran around hobnobbing with celebrities and talking about MMGW.
If Europe is so concerned as they pretend to be about MMGW let them pay for it. Those bastards don't have a problem having the US pay for things they should pay for. It's time for them to step up to the plate.
-
Okay, my first post on Pilot Spin.
There are aspects of the climate science "consensus" that are solid and there are aspects that are not.
<snip>
Good post!
Welcome to the board. I'm sure you will find it "entertaining"! ;)
-
Okay, my first post on Pilot Spin.
<snip>
Hi, Azure. I remember you from POA. As I recall, you're able to speak with some authority on this issue.
-
Hi, Azure. I remember you from POA. As I recall, you're able to speak with some authority on this issue.
Thanks, but in the interest of full disclosure, I'm not a climate researcher. I decided against that path because the field is so politicized, and because it's very hard for someone starting out in it to do (and publish) truly independent work. I just have a working knowledge of the basic physics and try to keep up with the field as much as possible. But there's a huge amount that I don't know, and probably a lot of good work that has slipped my attention. Always trying to learn more!
-
And you are "concerned" about the impact. How old are you? Are you planning on being around for the next thousand years? The harsh reality is you or anyone reading this today will be around to see any noticeable change. In the time frame of climate change (the real climate change) that the earth evolves through it will take thousands of years to have any great impact.
Well, no. There is a temperature response on the multi-decadal time scale to changes in GHG concentrations, it's called the Transient Climate Response or TCR. Of course we have only fairly crude estimates of the TCR, but we definitely can't say with any confidence that no one living today will see any noticeable change. In fact, it's very possible (not certain, but possible) that we already have.
Beyond that, do you really feel that we should not care about the world we leave for our descendants? I certainly don't want to leave this Earth a worse place to live than I came into it. If I knew for certain that GHG emissions were going to make the surface of this planet unlivable for humans 500 years from now but have no noticeable effect during my lifetime, I'd be ethically bankrupt if I argued for business as usual. As it is I think we know enough to be very concerned.
Maybe I misread your paragraph and you're not saying that at all. If so, apologies!
-
Well, no. There is a temperature response on the multi-decadal time scale to changes in GHG concentrations, it's called the Transient Climate Response or TCR. Of course we have only fairly crude estimates of the TCR, but we definitely can't say with any confidence that no one living today will see any noticeable change. In fact, it's very possible (not certain, but possible) that we already have.
Beyond that, do you really feel that we should not care about the world we leave for our descendants? I certainly don't want to leave this Earth a worse place to live than I came into it. If I knew for certain that GHG emissions were going to make the surface of this planet unlivable for humans 500 years from now but have no noticeable effect during my lifetime, I'd be ethically bankrupt if I argued for business as usual. As it is I think we know enough to be very concerned.
Maybe I misread your paragraph and you're not saying that at all. If so, apologies!
I haven't seen any real notable changes in my lifetime and I seriously doubt I'll see any before I'm gone. As humans we are only on this earth for a brief moment.
As far as to what happens 500 years from now? Everyone here will be dead and gone. The succeeding generations will deal with their situation as it comes, just as they have done for the preceding few thousand years.
I'm not buying into the bullshit of MMGW. Like I keep saying, just follow the money. Remove the financial incentives and you'll find no one except some academic types will even care.
-
Okay, my first post on Pilot Spin.
Welcome to the Spin Zone.
-
CEOs of some major companies are upset about the pullout, also believing that man-made climate change is real and that we need to be proactive in this area. CEOs of Dana, Dow Chemical, Pacific Gas and Electric, DuPont, Proctor and Gamble, General Electric, Cargill, Johnson&Johnson, CocaCola, Unilever and dozens of others. I'm sorry you guys think it's a scam. I'm just glad that there are some people with influence who don't feel that way.
They are worried about boycotts and other shitty leftist tactics, not signalling their "virtues". Open your brain...
-
This pretty much says it.....
"There is mass hysteria around the world. Like everyone at the table when they realize that the person that was going to pick up the tab just left the restaurant."
-- Jackie Bales
-
Great article with lots of facts: Exiting the Mad Hatter’s climate tea party by Paul Driessen.
" Right now, fossil fuels provide 80% of all the energy consumed in the USA – reliably and affordably, from relatively small land areas. Wind and solar account for 2% of overall energy needs, expensively and intermittently, from facilities across millions of acres. Biofuels provide 3% – mostly from corn grown on nearly 40 million acres. About 3% comes from hydroelectric, 3% from wood and trash, 9% from nuclear.
Kentucky, Ohio, West Virginia and other states that generate electricity with our abundant coal and natural gas pay 8 to 10 cents per kilowatt-hour. California, Connecticut, New York and other states that impose wind, solar and anti-fossil fuel mandates pay 15 to 18 cents. Families in closely allied ultra-green Euro countries pay an average of 26 US cents per kWh, but 36 cents in Germany, 37 cents in Denmark.
EU manufacturers are already warning that these prices could send companies, factories, jobs and CO2 emissions to China and other non-Euro countries. EU electricity prices have skyrocketed 55% since 2005; 40% of UK households are cutting back on food and other essentials, to pay for electricity; a tenth of all EU families now live in green energy poverty. Elderly people are dying because they can’t afford heat!
The Paris treaty would have done the same to the United States, and worse.
No wonder Japan (26c/KWH) and Germany (36c/KWH) are building automobile plants in South Carolina (9.6c/KWH)..."
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/02/exiting-the-mad-hatters-climate-tea-party/ (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/02/exiting-the-mad-hatters-climate-tea-party/)
-
There is great poverty in the EU because of creaping and sometimes racing socialism.
Just like everywhere else socialism has been imposed, people suffer and politicians steal.
The mmgw scam is just another opportunity for shit like al gore to steal and lie.
The weather channel was gunning up hysteria that Florida was one degree above 'normal' in May claiming it is due to global warming, without pointing out that the ending drought meant little cloud cover and even less cooling from rain.
The entire mmgw industry is a tax and steal scam.
-
Pure evidence that we are not seeing a long term significant warming trend. Between fudged numbers, dubious assumptions in "analyses", and the politicization of the issue, we are getting fleeced.
According to Forbes columnist Larry Bell,
So, has anyone stopped to ask . . . how much has the globe actually warmed?the ripple effect of global warming initiatives actually costs Americans $1.75 trillion . . . every year.
That's three times larger than the entire U.S. federal budget deficit.
Well, we asked, and what we found was striking.
According to NASA’s own data via Remote Sensing Systems(RSS), the world has warmed a mere .36 degrees Fahrenheit over the last 35 years (they started measuring the data in 1979).
http://www.newsmax.com/MKTNews/global-warming-hoax-facts/2014/10/17/id/601458/
-
Follow the Money.
-
IIRC, and IF all of the participants in the fake Paris imitative lived up to their part of the bargain, which is truly delusional, then the sum total of all that wasted money and economic heartache MIGHT reduce the temperature .03% of one degree in 100 years.
None of the qualifiers would / could be depended upon as Iran, India and Russia will do what they have done since they signed on to the fake treaty - nothing.
It is just another in a long line of scams aimed at looting the US treasury and allowing liars and criminals to make off with the money. The people whining about the US walking away are about as uninformed as the people who think eating tacos is cultural appropriation. Their lying to themselves and everyone else.
-
IIRC, and IF all of the participants in the fake Paris imitative lived up to their part of the bargain, which is truly delusional, then the sum total of all that wasted money and economic heartache MIGHT reduce the temperature .03% of one degree in 100 years.
None of the qualifiers would / could be depended upon as Iran, India and Russia will do what they have done since they signed on to the fake treaty - nothing.
The problem is that we could do EVERYTHING the alarmists want us to do, and the NATURAL cycle of the Earth, along with huge natural events like Volcanoes could wipe out any temperature reduction. Plus, maybe we should be trying to stop warming. Cooling may be the issue, and again mostly and likely controlled by natural events.
So let's keep energy costs from getting out of control. OK?
-
The earth is now expected to be in a cooling cycle. Decreased solar activity is expected to cause the earth to cool.
My problem with the alarmist predictions is that they don't have the science to back it up. They have theories and models, all of which prove the point they were trying to make before they had the theories and models.
Climates change. Man probably influences it because we exist. However, because the theories and models try so hard to get straight to the point that man is ruining/about to ruin the planet, they really are useless in answering the question of "how much do we influence".
-
The earth is now expected to be in a cooling cycle. Decreased solar activity is expected to cause the earth to cool.
My problem with the alarmist predictions is that they don't have the science to back it up. They have theories and models, all of which prove the point they were trying to make before they had the theories and models.
Climates change. Man probably influences it because we exist. However, because the theories and models try so hard to get straight to the point that man is ruining/about to ruin the planet, they really are useless in answering the question of "how much do we influence".
Theories bflyn, Theories, with a capital T, lol.
-
Well, actually the Earth has been in a cooling cycle for at least the last 5000 years. Most of the latter history of the Holocene has been a downward trend ever since the Holocene Climate Optimum, with brief warmups and fairly major cold periods interspersed throughout. Everything else being equal, the end result will be the next glacial phase of the current Ice Age, though no one can say for sure when that will happen. But yes, there are indications that we may be headed for another Maunder Minimum-like period such as occurred at the height of the LIA. If this happens and IF warming continues, that would be additional evidence for AGW. (I say IF, of course, because we don't know for sure yet that the trend in solar activity will last beyond the current solar cycle).
The only problem with the theories and models is they have limited resolution and physics, due to computational limitations as well as our limited knowledge of the details of solar activity more than 300 years ago or so. The models themselves don't try to conclude anything about our ruining the planet. I don't think they're designed to do that. Some of the scientists that run them and interpret the results have an agenda, unfortunately. IMO they hurt the cause of science more than ignorant politicians like Trump.
-
Ignorance is progressives turning climate care into a religion to go along with abortion and homosexuality.
-
The local weather can't be forecast with any degree of certainty a couple of hours out.
How do the "scientists" predict what will happen in 10 years?
-
The local weather can't be forecast with any degree of certainty a couple of hours out.
How do the "scientists" predict what will happen in 10 years?
But, the hockey stick graph says we've warmed so much already it has got to continue along that (fictitious) path! ::)