Trump Withdraws from Paris Climate Accord

[Lilly]

Let's try to be rational shall we, Trump has not caused any catastrophic climate change (he's only been in office 7 months). Refusing the Paris Accords due to unfair allocation of responsibility doesn't mean we intend to go forth and pollute with impunity.

[GlitterRose]

Yes, let's be rational. That would be a nice change. 

[Raptor Witness]

 

 

[Raptor Witness]

My sincere advice to world investors is, given Donald Trump's arrogance about climate issues, short the reinsurance stocks, and use the funds that you make off those transactions to support the people in the devastated areas of the Caribbean. I would also focus on charities that are supportive of permanent relocation efforts to the Continental mainland, and outside of the United States.

I published these short list names on July 17, 2016, on Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/39998472@N00/

 

Edited September 17, 2017 by Raptor Witness

[aztek]

1 hour ago, Raptor Witness said:

My sincere advice to world investors is, given Donald Trump's arrogance about climate issues, short the reinsurance stocks, and use the funds that you make off those transactions to support the people in the devastated areas of the Caribbean. I would also focus on charities that are supportive of permanent relocation efforts to the Continental mainland, and outside of the United States.

I published these short list names on July 17, 2016, on Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/39998472@N00/

 

that is not investing,  what return can you expect, and how fast?

[DingoLingo]

On ‎7‎/‎09‎/‎2017 at 1:58 AM, aztek said:

pollution has little to do with climate change,  yes climate change (do not confuse with global warming  scam) is real and  natural, happened for as long as earth exists, has little to do with humans.   

yes.. and no.. yes climate change is real and natural and has happened for as long as the earth exists.. that is very true.. has little to do with humans.. no so much.. yes we have had a impact on the climate since the industrial revolution.. its fact.. ice cores.. coral cores.. hell even tree rings show it..

the question is.. how much of a impact have we had on it.. we have really only had a standardised measure to use on global temps since around the mid 1800's.. so its only 150 years old..yes we can look at ice cores so on and so forth.. to get a 'idea' of what it would have been..

is the earth getting warmer.. yes.. sorry but it is a fact that it is..

is it directly related to man.. maybe..

is it a mix of solar activity.. natural.. and man made.. <- this is where I lean towards

will it reverse itself in 100 years naturally.. I doubt it.. industry will continue to grow.. left at where we are now.. I seriously doubt it.. at our current rate we will take over the normal natural cycle..

can we do something about it.. yes we can.. well all know it.. the big one here is can we do it economically viable.. this is the big $ question.. we all like our cars.. our smart phones.. our modern day way of life.. because this is the area where industry makes the most of our carbon footprint.. its not mining.. or fishing.. or farming.. they are a small part of it.. its our want and need for the modern gadgets.. for the cars we drive.. the electricity we use every day.. the fridges to keep our beer cold.. can we give up some of that? doubtful.. I could give up a couple of things.. but not it all ..

Then you have the 'lets go totally solar' crowd.. hey brilliant idea.. love it.. but.. it takes more energy.. more rare earths.. to make the solar panels etc.. remember here that solar panels that are common on the market only convert say between 20 and 30 % of the light that touches it.. each year it improves.. so if you did solar today.. you would be getting at best 30% of the sunlight converted.. so its not really viable to do.. maybe when they can do it so it works at min of 50% that would be better..

or you can go with the solar farms that do not use photovoltaic cells (solar panels) and go with solar thermal.. yes.. now they work.. and they work well.. but they are not small..

wind.. same cost wise as solar..

geothermal.. not viable for everywhere in the world..

tidal.. again.. not good for all areas..

and the argument for and against will rage on for a long time..

 

did trump do right.. no.. to be honest no.. he should have looked at what changes could be made now and put America in the front runner for the technology .. we should have done the same here but our leaders don't want to (kinda getting a bit of a kick back from the mining companies)

[aztek]

Just now, DingoLingo said:

 

is it a mix of solar activity.. natural.. and man made.. <- this is where I lean towards

will it reverse itself in 100 years naturally.. I doubt it.. industry will continue to grow.. left at where we are now.. I seriously doubt it.. at our current rate we will take over the normal natural cycle..

 

 

did trump do right.. no.. to be honest no.. he should have looked at what changes could be made now and put America in the front runner for the technology .. we should have done the same here but our leaders don't want to (kinda getting a bit of a kick back from the mining companies)

our industry also changes, 100 years ago it was a lot more polluting and toxic than now. even 50 years ago. so return to normal is very likely. accord of not we do improve , some countries faster some slower.  in fact i strongly believe it is about profit not tech. if it cuts into profits, no one cares about environment.

accord has nothing to do with actual tech, it is all about money. nothing else, it sure is mascaraed as something with environment in mind, but i do not buy it for a second. we have plenty of agencies doing environmental control in usa. we do not need to pay china or india so they do more to stop polluting, i'd argue for sanctions and fines, for not doing it, not giving them money. 

[aztek]

The UN Admits That The Paris Climate Deal Was A Fraud

Global Hot Air: Here's a United Nations climate report that environmentalists probably don't want anybody to read. It says that even if every country abides by the grand promises they made last year in Paris to reduce greenhouse gases, the planet would still be "doomed." When President Obama hitched America to the Paris accords in 2016, he declared that it was "the moment that we finally decided to save our planet." And when Trump pulled out of the deal this year, he was berated by legions of environmentalists for killing it. But it turns out that the Paris accord was little more than a sham that will do nothing to "save the planet."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/702f1555-b5e6-3924-a6fc-2dc4b8934bdf/ss_the-un-admits-that-the-paris.html

[toast]

Quote

The Trump administration released a dire scientific report Friday detailing the growing threats of climate change. The report stands in stark contrast to the administration’s efforts to downplay humans’ role in global warming, withdraw from an international climate accord and reverse Obama-era policies aimed at curbing U.S. greenhouse-gas output.

The White House did not seek to prevent the release of the government’s National Climate Assessment, which is mandated by law, despite the fact that its findings sharply contradict the administration’s policies. The report affirms that climate change is driven almost entirely by human action, warns of potential sea-level rise as high as eight feet by the year 2100, and enumerates climate-related damage across the United States that is already occurring as a result of 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit of global warming since 1900.

WaPo

#45 twitter rant pending (20:30 UTC NOV03)

[RavenHawk]

On 11/3/2017 at 2:32 PM, toast said:

The report affirms that climate change is driven almost entirely by human action

Common sense tells one that this is bogus.  Climate change has been cycling long before Man existed.  It’s normal for sea level to rise and fall.  Why refute something that refutes itself?  We’ve been in a warming period since about 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age.  Looking at prior periods, most seem to last several hundred years.  My guess is that the current warming trend will end in the next 200 years.

[Farmer77]

On 11/3/2017 at 11:06 AM, aztek said:

The UN Admits That The Paris Climate Deal Was A Fraud

Global Hot Air: Here's a United Nations climate report that environmentalists probably don't want anybody to read. It says that even if every country abides by the grand promises they made last year in Paris to reduce greenhouse gases, the planet would still be "doomed." When President Obama hitched America to the Paris accords in 2016, he declared that it was "the moment that we finally decided to save our planet." And when Trump pulled out of the deal this year, he was berated by legions of environmentalists for killing it. But it turns out that the Paris accord was little more than a sham that will do nothing to "save the planet."

https://www.yahoo.com/news/m/702f1555-b5e6-3924-a6fc-2dc4b8934bdf/ss_the-un-admits-that-the-paris.html

LOL thats some serious spin in that editorial. 

 

[AnchorSteam]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

LOL thats some serious spin in that editorial. 

 

Oh, really?

 

Quote

 

But this is a fantasy. The list of what would need to be done by 2020 — a little over two years from now — includes: Boosting renewable energy's share to 30%. Pushing electric cars to 15% of new car sales, up from less than 1% today. Doubling mass transit use. Cutting air travel CO2 emissions by 20%. And coming up with $1 trillion for "climate action."

Oh, and coal-fired power plants would have to be phased out worldwide, starting now.

According to the report, "phasing out coal consumption … is an indispensable condition for achieving international climate change targets." That means putting a halt to any new coal plants while starting to phase out the ones currently in use.

Good luck with that. There are currently 273 gigawatts of coal capacity under construction around the world, and another 570 gigawatts in the pipeline, the UN says. That would represent a 42% increase in global energy production from coal. Does anyone really think developing countries who need coal as a cheap source of fuel to grow their economies will suddenly call it quits?

So, does this mean the planet is doomed? Hardly. As we have noted in this space many times, all those forecasts of global catastrophe are based on computer models that have been unreliable predictors of warming. And all of the horror stories assume the worst.

 

That ain't spin, that's the facts, Jack.

 

And the reason this came out is because all the rest of the world is looking for a way out of this mess, since robbing the USA is no longer going to happen. THAT was the only reason they went in on this in the first place. 

[Farmer77]

14 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

Oh, really?

 

That ain't spin, that's the facts, Jack.

 

And the reason this came out is because all the rest of the world is looking for a way out of this mess, since robbing the USA is no longer going to happen. THAT was the only reason they went in on this in the first place. 

No its not fact that the UN admitted the Paris accord was a fraud. Jesus the title itself is spin , its an editorial article. 

 

18 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

Does anyone really think developing countries who need coal as a cheap source of fuel to grow their economies will suddenly call it quits?

Yes with the proper incentives. 

Since the author of the editorial didnt bother to include any links here is what I think he's referring to....you'll note no mention of fraud, just the need to do more for the environment

UN sees 'worrying' gap between Paris climate pledges and emissions cuts needed 

Quote

31 October 2017 – Pledges made under the Paris Agreement are only a third of what is required by 2030 to avoid the worst impacts of climate change, pointing to the urgent need to boost efforts by both government and non-government actors, the United Nations environment wing said on Tuesday.

 

[RavenHawk]

7 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Yes with the proper incentives.

And what would those be – mind to elaborate?

[Farmer77]

3 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

And what would those be – mind to elaborate?

Infrastructure investments from the global community would be a great place to start, specifically in renewable resources of course

[RavenHawk]

5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Infrastructure investments from the global community would be a great place to start, specifically in renewable resources of course

Like what?

[Farmer77]

Just now, RavenHawk said:

Like what?

Straight quid pro quo, you stop using coal and in exchange we build you solar/wind/tidal power plants. We can even do a little economic hitman action and throw in some cash up front with the fine print giving us legal control of their resources if they renege on the deal 

[AnchorSteam]

5 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

Straight quid pro quo, you stop using coal and in exchange we build you solar/wind/tidal power plants. We can even do a little economic hitman action and throw in some cash up front with the fine print giving us legal control of their resources if they renege on the deal 

So, crushing poverty for the West (who as you say must pay for everything for everyone) and shiny toys for the 3rd World that they probably won't keep working once they realize that keeping it up will cost them 10 times as much as the coal did.

I believe this is your fondest desire; crush the guts right out of the Capitalist West, bankrupt the world economy, and force them to accept Saint Marx so that they can have a morsel to eat and a tarpaper shack to hide from the rain in... except that it will fail just as it has in Venezuela.

I mean this in the most literal sense, I don't think you can be a Socialist unless you see humanity as a problem, a dangerous swarm of talking monkeys who are incapable of knowing what is best for themselves unless YOU and the Herrenvolk like you control every aspect of our lives.

Screw that crap, you will have to kill me to make me bend to your will, you will never force me to kneel to you r New World Order, I would rather die on my feet. 

[Farmer77]

Just now, AnchorSteam said:

So, crushing poverty for the West (who as you say must pay for everything for everyone) and shiny toys for the 3rd World that they probably won't keep working once they realize that keeping it up will cost them 10 times as much as the coal did.

We spent 314 million dollars dropping the MOAB (ONE BOMB)  and the secret service has spent almost 7 million in protecting Maralago already this year, there are countless other examples of our wastefulness . Its about priorities, re-prioritize our lives and no "crushing poverty" is necessary 

3 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

I believe this is your fondest desire; crush the guts right out of the Capitalist West, bankrupt the world economy, and force them to accept Saint Marx so that they can have a morsel to eat and a tarpaper shack to hide from the rain in... except that it will fail just as it has in Venezuela.

Yikes man,  Why would I want that? Im pretty comfy making a damn good salary in my air conditioned home office watching TV via the internet on my 4 computer screen setup. Not everyone who disagrees with you is a marxist savage. 

5 minutes ago, AnchorSteam said:

mean this in the most literal sense, I don't think you can be a Socialist unless you see humanity as a problem, a dangerous swarm of talking monkeys who are incapable of knowing what is best for themselves unless YOU and the Herrenvolk like you control every aspect of our lives.

Screw that crap, you will have to kill me to make me bend to your will, you will never force me to kneel to you r New World Order, I would rather die on my feet. 

You do realize that a conversation about the environment has devolved into a full on rage fueled rant on your part right? Not everyone who is concerned about the environment is a scheming socialist , in fact I would argue the VAST majority arent. 

[toast]

5 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Common sense tells one that this is bogus.  Climate change has been cycling long before Man existed.  It’s normal for sea level to rise and fall.  Why refute something that refutes itself?  We’ve been in a warming period since about 1850, the end of the Little Ice Age.  Looking at prior periods, most seem to last several hundred years.  My guess is that the current warming trend will end in the next 200 years.

Your common sense failed as the evaluation is based on the analysis of ca. 1.100 related scientific studies and your crystal ball ("my guess is that the current warming trend will end in the next 200 years") is an opinion only and not of relevance to the subject. But, such kind of thinking and argumentation is a general problem in politics somehow, especially in your country at these times. Events and/or processes that will or may influence the peoples lifes and the future of a country/population to the bad must be evaluated by appropriate boards and by people who are experts in the related fields and not by an estate agent surrounded by a gang of corrupt claques.

[+Noteverythingisaconspiracy]

2 hours ago, AnchorSteam said:

So, crushing poverty for the West (who as you say must pay for everything for everyone) and shiny toys for the 3rd World that they probably won't keep working once they realize that keeping it up will cost them 10 times as much as the coal did.

I believe this is your fondest desire; crush the guts right out of the Capitalist West, bankrupt the world economy, and force them to accept Saint Marx so that they can have a morsel to eat and a tarpaper shack to hide from the rain in... except that it will fail just as it has in Venezuela.

I mean this in the most literal sense, I don't think you can be a Socialist unless you see humanity as a problem, a dangerous swarm of talking monkeys who are incapable of knowing what is best for themselves unless YOU and the Herrenvolk like you control every aspect of our lives.

Screw that crap, you will have to kill me to make me bend to your will, you will never force me to kneel to you r New World Order, I would rather die on my feet. 

Atleast you are not using hyperbole to make your point. 

It must be so easy to live in a black and white world like yours, "I am allways right and everybody who disagrees with me are evil commies". 

 

[RavenHawk]

9 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

Straight quid pro quo, you stop using coal and in exchange we build you solar/wind/tidal power plants. We can even do a little economic hitman action and throw in some cash up front with the fine print giving us legal control of their resources if they renege on the deal 

Good, I wanted a solid example.  AS just touched on some of the problems but I hope to expand on them.  For one, how many nations is this going to have to be done for?  A hundred?  More?  There isn’t that much wealth and much of it would be squandered.    Where is the money going to come from?  Are you willing to cashout your 401K and sell your home to help bankroll this?  I know I’m not.  Wealth is a renewable resource but not if it is wasted.  I don’t want to sacrifice my 1^st world nation in becoming a 3^rd world nation so that other 3^rd world nations can remain 3^rd world.  Usually those that control wealth are better custodians of it than you or someone else.

 

The reason the third world nations are poor is because they can’t exploit their own resources.  That doesn’t change overnight.  What is so interesting that a lot of people don’t like the idea of us being the world’s policeman.  But they have no problem with us being the world’s nanny, but being the world’s nanny leads to colonization in the old sense.  We can’t just go in and build a solar power plant(s) and walk away.  It requires funding and expertise to operate and maintain.  Once we setup shop, we’re going to want to stay and control it to recoup the costs and make sure the locals don’t destroy it.  We’ve seen this pattern before with the British Raj and later with British Petroleum (and many other places).  This means an expenditure of our blood and treasure to protect it.  This means getting embroiled in local power struggles (more than we really want).  Every time a dictator falls the infrastructure and resources become dilapidated.  Instead of repeating the process of deposing unfriendly despots and setting up friendly regimes of select nations, we’ll have to do it for all of them.  Remember, this is nation building.  We’ve already established that we don’t like this.

 

But to impose this will requires increasing the production and use of coal and oil for our military.  Russia and China aren’t going to stand for that.  We would de-facto become the world’s policeman once again.  We would be using more fossil fuels than if we didn’t do this in the first place.  But there would be one extra kink.  Instead of providing relative peace so that a nation can evolve on its own, we’ll have to now impose our will on it to force it to do what we think should be right, which is just Socialism.  And this will lead to wars.  Socialism is based on the premise that Mankind is bad for the planet and must be whipped into submission.  The US must be brought low, then every nation can become a 3^rd world nation with no wealth and we would have to rely on burning coal.  But that would be expensive, so we would have to chop down trees and burn them which will be even worse for the environment.  This is just unsustainable.

 

The bottom line is that fossil fuels are here to stay until we can provide an alternative energy source that is cheap, efficient, and reliable (my crystal ball says in about 200 years).  That’s not something you impose.  The market drives the desirability of it.  Then these 3^rd world nations will seek it on their own.  Your utopia is going to backfire because you never took the nature of Man into consideration.  You just had some feel good fantasy.  There is no magic bullet and Anthropomorphic Climate Change is a created boogeyman to allow Globalization and One World Government to enslave Man.  You never considered the consequences did you?  When you try to find solutions, you need to carry the thought all the way out to its conclusion.  You just stop halfway when you get something that sounds good.  This is the typical mindset of the Left and this is what gets us into trouble.

[RavenHawk]

8 hours ago, toast said:

Your common sense failed as the evaluation is based on the analysis of ca. 1.100 related scientific studies and your crystal ball ("my guess is that the current warming trend will end in the next 200 years") is an opinion only

I forget who it is, but one poster here uses Einstein’s quote “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” in their signature.  Science is not an opinion poll.  When you say that a consensus of scientists agrees with ACC, they have given up on establishing it as fact.  They cannot find the proof they need to do so.  Besides, much of their funding comes from sources that desire to find correlations between evil Man and the climate.  Scientists aren’t about to bite the hand that feeds them.  But anyway, ice cores and ocean sediment cores are one thing that disproves ACC.  You don’t need anything else.  You can show me a million articles supporting ACC.  I've got at least 1 that disproves it.  That's all that is needed.  Sorry my dear friend but my common sense has not failed.  And my prediction is just that.  It is a prediction based on observation.  It is perhaps more accurate than the existing computer models because I know I am not infallible, computers don’t.  It could only be 50 years or perhaps 300 more years but we are just generations from the peak.  It’s not rocket science and it’s not politics unlike the IPCC.  At that point, they will start to say “but we were wrong, we didn’t mean to say global warming.  It’s global cooling that will destroy Man.”    

 

and not of relevance to the subject. But, such kind of thinking and argumentation is a general problem in politics somehow, especially in your country at these times.

Boy, that’s a mouth full for you.  Why isn’t it of relevance?  You’re just spouting words because you have no counter.  The only politics I see is the pushing of ACC.  The only thing more politically motivated is the hatred of Trump and this nation. 

 

Events and/or processes that will or may influence the peoples lifes and the future of a country/population to the bad must be evaluated by appropriate boards and by people who are experts in the related fields and not by an estate agent surrounded by a gang of corrupt claques.

I agree 100%.  That’s why this push for ACC must be cut back before it harms everyone.  The more political ACC becomes the more they will try to push that only people in certain fields can understand the science.  All it takes is common sense to debunk the high and mighty.

[Farmer77]

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

Where is the money going to come from?  Are you willing to cashout your 401K and sell your home to help bankroll this?

No but im sure as hell willing to cut the DOD budget by 100 billion or so . Thats what I was saying to AnchorSteam, its about priorities. 

 

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

There is no magic bullet and Anthropomorphic Climate Change is a created boogeyman to allow Globalization and One World Government to enslave Man. 

My position is a little different than most in this conversation. I dont give a **** about global warming. Not even one iota. I care about the health of the environment period. Hell I wish EVERYONE would quit using the climate change label. By using that label it gives ignorant people a political ideology to hide behind rather than forcing them to admit they just dont want to make things better. 

4 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

You never considered the consequences did you?  When you try to find solutions, you need to carry the thought all the way out to its conclusion.  You just stop halfway when you get something that sounds good.  This is the typical mindset of the Left and this is what gets us into trouble.

Actually yeah I did. You will note I mentioned in one of my original responses that the global community should ensure contracts are in place in which these nations hand over their natural resource rights as a result of violating the agreements in place. There are options, there are solutions there are work arounds.  Just because I thought about consequences and came up with a different answer than you doesnt mean they havent been thought about. 

[Michelle]

12 minutes ago, Farmer77 said:

No but im sure as hell willing to cut the DOD budget by 100 billion or so . Thats what I was saying to AnchorSteam, its about priorities.

Do you realize how much of the DOD budget goes to international humanitarian, disaster, and civic aid? Or the VA? Those are facts best known before advocating cutting finances to any department.