Trump pulling out of Paris Climate Accord

[BuckToothMoron]

The fact is that anthropogenic climate change is a theory, a theory that is very popular among uninformed masses and scientist who make a living researching and writing about it. Making dramatic changes to our economic structure which will harm an already stressed and shrinking middle class is very reckless.

How would we ever survive (if we had to have cars that get 40 MPG and free power from the sun)?

Yes, because its that simple..

Well it's not going to get any easier if we don't get started. Norway is now 50% electric cars. 80% of their power is hydroelectric. Now they're a lot smaller than us; I get that. But it can be done.

Horseshit. Show me where you get this claim that 50% of the cares on the road in Norway are electric.

You're right, she made it up, or just lied. Come on Old Lady, you're better than that.
Electric car use by country - Wikipedia
Norway is the country with the highest market penetration per capita in the world, also the country with the largest plug-in electric segment market share of new car sales (29.1% in 2016), and in March 2014 Norway became the first country where over 1 in every 100 passenger cars on the roads is a plug-in electric vehicle. The segment's market penetration climbed to 3% in December 2015, and achieved 5% at the end of 2016.[9][10][1

 

[P@triot]

Boom! The left pollutes the Earth but demands "Global Warming" policies for one reason and one reason only - it redistributes wealth. They could give a shit about the planet.

 

[Billy_Bob]

I have no idea what you're talking about. If you've got a point, try again.

How convenient.

Judith Curry and her peers are part of the 97% consensus..

What? Assuming she even retains any legitimacy/credibility as a scientist, to say nothing of as a climate scientist of some stripe, Judith Curry is among the 3% not the 97%. The woman has given five different years as the point at which global warming stopped.

Forget the debate over whether there are indeed anthropogenic causes of it, that silly woman thought it had stopped happening, and thinks it stopped on five different occasions. That attestation is analogous to one's using the fact of being at a stoplight to support the assertion that they "stopped driving."

so dude, how many scientists make up that 97% number? you even know?

How about 75 out of 77. dude, too funny that you think those are the only scientists in the world. get out of the basement.

so dude, how many scientists make up that 97% number? you even know?

You know, you routinely ask questions the answers to which you are just too f*cking lazy to go find for yourself.

• 2012 -- James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.
  
• 2013 -- The prior analysis preceded subsequent analysis Powell performed in 2013. Powell in 2013 finished another such investigation, that time looking at peer-reviewed articles published between November 2012 and December 2013. And what did he observe?
  
  
  
  
  
  
• 2013 -- Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature -- Of the 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature published from 1991–2011 and that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming,' among the researchers who expressed a conclusion on the anthropogenic nature of global warming, 97.1 % of them (~4000) concurred that the global warming we currently observe and experience is anthropogenically caused.
  • It's worth noting that the authors of the paper linked just above later conducted an analysis of to determine "what's up" with the 2% to 3% (the range given due to non-integer nature of the "97%") of researchers who rejected the verity of anthropogenic global warming. Their "replication [of the work performed by the "dissenting" researchers] reveals a number of methodological flaws, and a pattern of common mistakes emerges that is not visible when looking at single isolated cases
• 2011 -- Structure of scientific opinion on climate change -- A 2011 paper from George Mason University published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, “The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change,” collected the opinions of scientists in the earth, space, atmospheric, oceanic or hydrological sciences. The 489 survey respondents -- representing nearly half of all those eligible according to the survey’s specific standards -- work in academia, government or industry, and are members of prominent professional organizations.
  
  The study’s key findings include:
  • 97% of the 489 scientists surveyed agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that “human-induced greenhouse warming” is now occurring.” Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.
  • “There was greater debate over the likelihood of substantial warming in the near future, with 56% seeing at least a 50-50 chance that temperatures will rise” 2 degrees Celsius over the next 50 to 100 years.
  • “When [survey participants were] asked to rate the effects on a ten-point scale from trivial (1) to catastrophic (10), the mean response was 6.6, with 41% seeing great danger (ratings of 8-10), 44% moderate danger (4-7), and 13% little danger.”
  • Though the expectation might be that scientists involved in industry would be more likely to have doubts about the validity of climate change, a statistical breakdown of the survey results showed that there was “no independent effect of industry employment on scientific attitudes toward climate change.”
• 2010 -- Expert credibility in climate change -- A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” analyzed the research patterns and scholarly citations of 1,372 climate scientists who publish in this field. Of these, 908 scientists had published 20 or more climate-related papers. The study’s authors, from Stanford University, the University of Toronto and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, examined public statements from groups of scientists that indicated they were either convinced or unconvinced by evidence of climate change, and matched these to the sample of scientists. Though the sample of scientists is not comprehensive, the study’s authors note, the criteria used likely yield the “strongest and most credentialed researchers” in both the unconvinced and unconvinced camps.
  
  The study’s findings include:
  • About 97% of the group with the most expertise -- the 908 climate scientists with 20 or more papers published -- are convinced by the evidence of anthropogenically caused climate change.
  • Those who are unconvinced by the evidence make up “only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200.”
  • Overall, researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise 80% the group that is unconvinced, as opposed to less than 10% of the group that is convinced by the evidence: This indicates that the bulk of [unconvinced] researchers on the most prominent multi-signatory statements about climate change are also the researchers having the least exposure to the elements and effects of climate change and the least experience analyzing the matter.

Having now answered your question, do not again ask me questions for which you are just too damned indolent to answer yourself and in turn use the information you obtain from having sought the answer(s) to form a cogent comment or argument.

As I stated earlier, climate warming is not the issue. However, that man caused it is what is in contention.

And the entirety of my post has to do with the validity and veracity of anthropogenically effected global warming. You'd possibly know that were you to have actually read it and/or the linked content. I write "possibly" because if you did indeed fully read my post, reading comprehension and poor communication skills are more likely why, respectively, you don't know so and/or responded to me as though I didn't post content about the nature and extent of support among climate scientists with regard to the verity of anthropogenically caused warming.

Nothing you have posted, even remotely, resembles scientific evidence. There is no quantification of mans impact. Nor is there any scientific studies where the evidence, methods, and outcomes could be reproduced with any reliability.

Where is your Quantifiable, Repeatable, empirical evidence verified science? Where are the studies showing how all other impacts are identified and calculated into your modeling? How did that model parallel empirical evidence and the projections match?

NONE of your posted information contains this.

 

[P@triot]

48 million pounds of fucking garbage from left-wing nitwits who were protesting under the guise that they "care" about the planet and that a freaking pipeline somehow destroys the planet.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Most Americans Support Staying in the Paris Agreement

Majorities of Americans in Every State Support Participation in the Paris Agreement - Yale Program on Climate Change Communication

yeah and hitlery was to be president. stop making a fool of yourself. I'm tired of watching.

I'm amazed anyone still trusts polling in politics

Polling? They actually think Pelosi is smart enough to run their lives for them. How damn stupid do you have to be to think this government official is thinking about you? She can't even order fucking dinner but the left thinks she should run her healthcare and job prospects. You have to be a special kind of stupid to want more government in your life.

 

[basquebromance]

He even capitalized "Science!" as if it were a deity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Even the Austrian born Arnold gets what the American born trump does not.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

He even capitalized "Science!" as if it were a deity.

If he knew how science worked he and Bill wouldn't be the laughing stock they are.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Even the Austrian born Arnold gets what the American born trump does not.

Now that's the fucking guy I was waiting to hear from. Fucking genius he is.

 

[charwin95]

What do you mean giving up economic growth?
Like what? Can you give us an example?

You didn't read the report on lost jobs, and 3 trillion dollars of economic loss, this accord would have set is back?

Consequences of Paris Protocol: Devastating Economic Costs, Essentially Zero Environmental Benefits

$3 trillions? Really? Coming from heritage.org? You've got to be kidding me. Did you really read your link or you just cherry pick? An ultra right wing hard right media also an anti Obama which is about worthless. Give me something else.

Literally what you are saying that ALL the CEOs, businesses, 195 countries including China the worst polluters are wrong? But ignorant Trump is correct.

Give me an exact example of ------- Devastating Economic Cost and Lost --------- Like what? Like what business?

Hey, I'll beleive Heritage ahead of ANY source you'll produce. If don't wish to believe, that is your problem, not mine. The facts remain, this Paris thing was NEVER about climate but about the transfer of American wealth to a world organization along with our giving up sovereignty.

I support what Trump did for this and other reasons. I don't actually have to justify them to you.

You did not even answer any of my questions. Why?

Meaning your link is nothing but anti Obama.
What is that supposed to represent? but bogus and full of crap.

I don't have to produce anything. You have to prove why you think pulling out from this climate accord is good for America? Not me.
I have the CEOs, businesses and around the globe that supports me. The whole world is furious and kicking our ass because of your god.

And YES you need to justify what you are talking about because followers like you don't even know what these means to the whole world.

Go read it. It is NOT anti-Obama, it is a group of people who follow a conservative philosophy. Your answers are in their report and it explains pretty closely why I think its a good thing to pull out of the Paris accords. As for what it means to the whole world, why should their greed affect Me?

1. You did not answer any of my questions. If you don't mind can you answer my questions?
2. It's been proven that climate change is real.
3. What greed are you talking about?
4. You are telling me that 195 countries, scientist, businesses, CEOs ------- and the rest of the world is wrong. That Trump is right? NO Trump is very wrong. He think this is a hoax.
Bottom line he did this unthinkable, unimaginable and dumb move because of dying industry----- the coal.

Trump and your explanation from pulling out of the accord is NOT acceptable.

 

[idb]

The Paris Accord is only one way that Trump is withdrawing the US from global relevance.

Heavens, no! Do you mean more of our money will be spent here in the United States? Fewer social parasites will be flying around the world staying in luxury hotels in exotic locales on our dime? Egads!

I guess it does!
That's certainly one way to look at it I suppose.

 

[idb]

The Paris Accord committed the US to nothing.
Trump doesn't even understand how it works.
No surprise there of course.

If it was worthless why all the fuss?

Did I say it was worthless?

Yep. Have a grownup explain your words to you.

No point putting your name forward then.

You make no sense at all. Somehow you went downhill when you were snake shit low to start with.

Genius!

 

[idb]

The Paris Accord committed the US to nothing.
Trump doesn't even understand how it works.
No surprise there of course.

so what was the point?

Sorry...you're right...that was a bit complicated....that means "difficult"...damn...I mean "hard"...shit...ummmm..."duuuu-uuuuhh".

 

[charwin95]

Since when do we care about what "Germany and France" think?

It's not only France and Germany------- Its the whole world laughing at us because we are going backwards.
The whole world is sacrificing for the sake of one Planet A and the future. There is no planet B.

 

[pismoe]

Trump is doing excellent . Plus he is or did get rid of mrobama 'cuber' / cuba normalization or is going to .

 

[charwin95]

If we let trump get away with all his bs America will soon lose it's leadership position in the world

He was hired to do a job and now he's doing it. What do you mean "get away" with? He's not getting away with anything. This is what we want him to do.

What job? By making is like a fool to the rest of the world?
Can you explain what is the benefit from pulling out of this climate accord?

We are becoming the loser of the free world because of ignorance.

 

[Flopper]

The Paris Accord committed the US to nothing.
Trump doesn't even understand how it works.
No surprise there of course.

so what was the point?

Sorry...you're right...that was a bit complicated....that means "difficult"...damn...I mean "hard"...shit...ummmm..."duuuu-uuuuhh".

They tried to explain it to him but he just didn't get. Trump has not filled the position of Science and Technology Adviser to the President and is not likely to. After all he knows all he needs to know about science. He saw Star Wars and said it was a terrible movie.

 

[charwin95]

.


The funniest thing about it the left can't blame it on big oil like ExxonMobil, they are against Trump pulling out


Lmfao




.

Nope. The only person to blame is Trump himself. What an ignorant old man he is turning out to be.

what is the plan to stop the earth from warming? got anything? If you got nothing, then that is the reason.

The Earth has been warming and cooling for 4.5 Billion years......it is a pretty established plan. What in God's name is your fucking point?

Wrong Buuuud. This doesn't exist 5 years ago. So you're telling us that this is a hoax?

 

[pismoe]

Even the Austrian born Arnold gets what the American born trump does not.

------------------------------------------- on 'arnold' , thats because he is a FOREIGNER and will ALWAYS be a foreigner Sur !!

 

[charwin95]

Win is a relative term, many feel the opposite about his actions with this Paris deal. Since we can't officially withdraw until 2020, It will make for an interesting campaign season.

Why do you think we have to wait four years to pull out of something that was never approved?

Because our president and leader made a promise through this accord. Just as Trump aims to make some bilateral trade agreements with other countries, it would be outright irresponsible for new leadership that may come into power in 2020 to not honor his agreements... It weakens trust and the value that our government has when making agreements with foreign powers. Do you really not see that?

Too bad. If other countries don't realize that we can do that with our electoral system, then they shouldn't be making deals with us in the first place. When we change leadership, we do so to change policies as well as the leadership. Trump did a great thing today, and I hope he continues doing greater things in the future. We'll run our country our way because that's why we vote in the first place.

That's a dangerous precedent you're setting. I don't wanna hear you bitching in 5 years when the New Democratic president rolls back on Trumps agreements. I'll still be voicing my opposition to it if they do so in the same way Trump is going about it. There is an art to diplomacy that Trump needs serious lessons in.

What diplomacy? He has every right to do what he did. Just because the Commie before him wanted other countries to tell us how to run ours, doesn't mean he has to agree with it because of DumBama. We don't owe anybody anything---get it?

Coming from a racist point of view. Now tell me what is your credibility making this kind of worthless rebuttal?