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

[forkup]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[MisterBeale]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The only reason you believe there is no longer any real scientific debate going on about the cause and degree to which civilization is contributing to long term weather trends is because you are only exposed to CFR, RIIA and other associated media content.

If you looked beyond the western funded round table establishment, you would find, humanity is busy trying to understand the truth about our place in the universe.

 

[Wyatt earp]

View attachment 130241

Holy fuck the propaganda machine is out in full force..

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


What scientists would those be?


.

 

[forkup]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


What scientists would those be?


.

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

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


What scientists would those be?


.

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

Who would those scientists be?


And what do they agree on?

Does humans contribute :

5%

25%

50%

75%


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


I will wait..


.

 

[WillowTree]

See? Obammie did an end run around congress! Signed this agreement, never got it ratified into a treaty and Trump is smart enough to know shit when he smells it! This is nothing more than obama's way of sending American taxpayer wealth to Africa!

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


What scientists would those be?


.

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

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




.

 

[forkup]

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

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

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

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


What scientists would those be?


.

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

Who would those scientists be?


And what do they agree on?

Does humans contribute :

5%

25%

50%

75%


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


I will wait..


.

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

 

[shockedcanadian]

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

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

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

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


What scientists would those be?


.

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

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




.

Interesting post to listen to a counter argument, good post bear.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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

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

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


What scientists would those be?


.

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

Who would those scientists be?


And what do they agree on?

Does humans contribute :

5%

25%

50%

75%


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


I will wait..


.

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

It's not a sneaky question, it was Obama's mantra claiming 97% of scientists agree..


Once again Judith Curry and company is part of the 97%

Yet your side call them deniers...

Again why is that?


.

 

[forkup]

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

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


What scientists would those be?


.

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

Who would those scientists be?


And what do they agree on?

Does humans contribute :

5%

25%

50%

75%


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


I will wait..


.

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

It's not a sneaky question, it was Obama's mantra claiming 97% of scientists agree..


Once again Judith Curry and company is part of the 97%

Yet your side call them deniers...

Again why is that?


.

The straw man argument again. Look not everybody agrees on everything so we are absolved of having to take action. This is my reply

But I know it's all some horrible conspiracy. At least that's what people like you claim. The lack of anything that substantiates your claims is not proof of you being wrong, but rather that "truth" is being suppressed. Easy enough to square away in your head I guess. Also something future generations might regret. Look at it like this. I'm wrong and it means the economy reshuffled to accommodate clean energy when it wasn't necessary. You're wrong, well I guess Arizona having beach front property isn't all bad.

 

[forkup]

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

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


What scientists would those be?


.

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

Who would those scientists be?


And what do they agree on?

Does humans contribute :

5%

25%

50%

75%


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


I will wait..


.

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

It's not a sneaky question, it was Obama's mantra claiming 97% of scientists agree..


Once again Judith Curry and company is part of the 97%

Yet your side call them deniers...

Again why is that?


.

She seems to deny humans had a hand in global warming, seem to me that's why she's called a denier. Just a guess.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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


What scientists would those be?


.

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

Who would those scientists be?


And what do they agree on?

Does humans contribute :

5%

25%

50%

75%


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


I will wait..


.

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

It's not a sneaky question, it was Obama's mantra claiming 97% of scientists agree..


Once again Judith Curry and company is part of the 97%

Yet your side call them deniers...

Again why is that?


.

She seems to deny humans had a hand in global warming, seem to me that's why she's called a denier. Just a guess.

When did she say that ?

Again propaganda tool who doesn't have a clue on this subject, when did she ever say that?


Give me a fucking link.

.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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


What scientists would those be?


.

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

Who would those scientists be?


And what do they agree on?

Does humans contribute :

5%

25%

50%

75%


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


I will wait..


.

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

It's not a sneaky question, it was Obama's mantra claiming 97% of scientists agree..


Once again Judith Curry and company is part of the 97%

Yet your side call them deniers...

Again why is that?


.

The straw man argument again. Look not everybody agrees on everything so we are absolved of having to take action. This is my reply

But I know it's all some horrible conspiracy. At least that's what people like you claim. The lack of anything that substantiates your claims is not proof of you being wrong, but rather that "truth" is being suppressed. Easy enough to square away in your head I guess. Also something future generations might regret. Look at it like this. I'm wrong and it means the economy reshuffled to accommodate clean energy when it wasn't necessary. You're wrong, well I guess Arizona having beach front property isn't all bad.

So your in the crowd that thinks money grows on trees?

At what cost in money and jobs?

We all know why the left is upset, because it's personal to you..Trump used science you used politcs

We just don't know.

.

 

[forkup]

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

Who would those scientists be?


And what do they agree on?

Does humans contribute :

5%

25%

50%

75%


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


I will wait..


.

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

It's not a sneaky question, it was Obama's mantra claiming 97% of scientists agree..


Once again Judith Curry and company is part of the 97%

Yet your side call them deniers...

Again why is that?


.

She seems to deny humans had a hand in global warming, seem to me that's why she's called a denier. Just a guess.

When did she say that ?

Again propaganda tool who doesn't have a clue on this subject, when did she ever say that?


Give me a fucking link.

.

If she says in her testimony, the link to which you so graciously provided there are a number of things scientists don't have explanations for, while at the same time not mentioning that the nature of science is such, that it is not uncommon that some things aren't immediately or even ever fully explained, you are giving people like you ammunition to try to muddy the waters. Which at this point is the only thing you can do, since as I said the science is pretty well established. You will naturally be considered as part of your subculture, a.e a denier.

 

[forkup]

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

Who would those scientists be?


And what do they agree on?

Does humans contribute :

5%

25%

50%

75%


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


I will wait..


.

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

It's not a sneaky question, it was Obama's mantra claiming 97% of scientists agree..


Once again Judith Curry and company is part of the 97%

Yet your side call them deniers...

Again why is that?


.

The straw man argument again. Look not everybody agrees on everything so we are absolved of having to take action. This is my reply

But I know it's all some horrible conspiracy. At least that's what people like you claim. The lack of anything that substantiates your claims is not proof of you being wrong, but rather that "truth" is being suppressed. Easy enough to square away in your head I guess. Also something future generations might regret. Look at it like this. I'm wrong and it means the economy reshuffled to accommodate clean energy when it wasn't necessary. You're wrong, well I guess Arizona having beach front property isn't all bad.

So your in the crowd that thinks money grows on trees?

At what cost in money and jobs?

We all know why the left is upset, because it's personal to you..Trump used science you used politcs

We just don't know.

.

What science? I gave you just one of my sources you give me yours. Ever heard of Low probability, high consequence? I use it at my job. It comes down to in my line of work stuff not just going wrong but going horribly wrong. The way we tackle it is by putting in as many redundancies as possible. It's time consuming and expensive but since the alternative is a giant explosion it is deemed necessary. The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous consequence is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money? Something of which the economical impact is still under debate btw.

 

[dannyboys]

The more I hear about this "Accord", the more I am convinced this is just one big welfare payment to other countries. A redistribution of cash and jobs to other countries, for the benefit of global investors.

Wow, what a fraud. Thank God Trump didn't give in to this bs "deal". Some deal. The EU and China can shove it up their behinds.

PRESIDENT TRUMP!!!!!! promised to stop the US AKA TAXPAYER!!!! sending billions of dollars to tiny countries with ZERO carbon footprints so their 'leaders' could pocket most of the money and spend the rest buying wind turbines and solar panels from China and India.
For Christ sake China 'agreed' to maybe have a look at the deal in about thirty years from now. India claimed they couldn't read english but handed out free curry diner coupons at the Indian restaurant down the street from the five star hotel where their contingent of forty had been staying for almost a month.............the bill was handed to John Kerry to give to BONOBO's gov. to pay.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Who would those scientists be?


And what do they agree on?

Does humans contribute :

5%

25%

50%

75%


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


I will wait..


.

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

It's not a sneaky question, it was Obama's mantra claiming 97% of scientists agree..


Once again Judith Curry and company is part of the 97%

Yet your side call them deniers...

Again why is that?


.

The straw man argument again. Look not everybody agrees on everything so we are absolved of having to take action. This is my reply

But I know it's all some horrible conspiracy. At least that's what people like you claim. The lack of anything that substantiates your claims is not proof of you being wrong, but rather that "truth" is being suppressed. Easy enough to square away in your head I guess. Also something future generations might regret. Look at it like this. I'm wrong and it means the economy reshuffled to accommodate clean energy when it wasn't necessary. You're wrong, well I guess Arizona having beach front property isn't all bad.

So your in the crowd that thinks money grows on trees?

At what cost in money and jobs?

We all know why the left is upset, because it's personal to you..Trump used science you used politcs

We just don't know.

.

What science? I gave you just one of my sources you give me yours. Ever heard of Low probability, high risk? I use it at my job. It comes down to in my line of work stuff not just going wrong but going horribly wrong. The way we tackle it is by putting in as many redundancies as possible. It's time consuming and expensive but since the alternative is a giant explosion it is deemed necessary. The worst case scenarios of global warming are biblical and on the low end it's disastrous. Most scientist who know what they're talking about agree that it's happening, so your solution to a High probability, Humongous risk is doing nothing, because you can't afford the money? Something of which the economical impact is still under debate btw.

I did post my sources... You want to post man is the primary cause we have been hearing it for a 100 years..all you are saying to me is you don't know..



.

 

[Wyatt earp]

The more I hear about this "Accord", the more I am convinced this is just one big welfare payment to other countries. A redistribution of cash and jobs to other countries, for the benefit of global investors.

Wow, what a fraud. Thank God Trump didn't give in to this bs "deal". Some deal. The EU and China can shove it up their behinds.

PRESIDENT TRUMP!!!!!! promised to stop the US AKA TAXPAYER!!!! sending billions of dollars to tiny countries with ZERO carbon footprints so their 'leaders' could pocket most of the money and spend the rest buying wind turbines and solar panels from China and India.
For Christ sake China 'agreed' to maybe have a look at the deal in about thirty years from now. India claimed they couldn't read english but handed out free curry diner coupons at the Indian restaurant down the street from the five star hotel where their contingent of forty had been staying for almost a month.............the bill was handed to John Kerry to give to BONOBO's gov. to pay.

So you saying China became capitalist?


Doesn't that hurt you deep inside?


.