This is why germany and france are upset the US is leaving the Paris agreement.

It might be something cynical, but I doubt it. I think leaders are concerned about the climate, and want to appear like their "doing something."

The science is so bogus, though. The stated goal is to keep global temperatures from going up more than 2 degrees, but there is really nothing in there to back up that any action they want to take would accomplish that. They talk about it like it's a cake recipe or something...just add water, and we keep the temps down.

The real science is that its dubious if we could even effect temps if the entire globe gave up fossil fuels altogether, which will simply not happen in the near future. Even then, it is basically consensus that any discernible change in the atmosphere or w/ temperatures could take centuries.

But no one even talks about that. It's just accepted that the accord would keep increases below 2 degrees.
 
tsuke said:
https://www.greenclimate.fund/docum...dges.pdf/eef538d3-2987-4659-8c7c-5566ed6afd19

This is just the start as the UN and developing countries are screaming for more money.

Funny how climate change is so important to germany yet their commitment is 1/3 of the US.

As a developing country chinas commitment is 0. They get to take money instead.

Notice how the new climate alliance of states are silent as to how much they will contribute to this?
Click to expand...

"The facts are that while the United States is the largest contributor in absolute dollars, on a per capita basis, the U.S. pledge ranks 11th among the 45 contributing countries, and as a fraction of gross domestic product, the United States ranks 32nd. Every country with an official pledge has made a contribution, and nearly all have already paid a larger share of their total pledge than the United States"

https://www.washingtonpost.com/post...as-no-idea-what-it-is/?utm_term=.404e8d59a85a

And the real irony is that eight years ago he fully supported such

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...sparaged-it/?tid=a_inl&utm_term=.0bee7b0eb68c
 
Thing1 said:
It might be something cynical, but I doubt it. I think leaders are concerned about the climate, and want to appear like their "doing something."

The science is so bogus, though. The stated goal is to keep global temperatures from going up more than 2 degrees, but there is really nothing in there to back up that any action they want to take would accomplish that. They talk about it like it's a cake recipe or something...just add water, and we keep the temps down.

The real science is that its dubious if we could even effect temps if the entire globe gave up fossil fuels altogether, which will simply not happen in the near future. Even then, it is basically consensus that any discernible change in the atmosphere or w/ temperatures could take centuries.

But no one even talks about that. It's just accepted that the accord would keep increases below 2 degrees.
Click to expand...

So your conclusion then is to totally ignore that which man has accelerated (global warming), and to just keep on the path which led to the escalation, doesn't make sense
 
Trump's handshake thing is such a "intimidation 101" tactic. I'm surprised leaders aren't better prepared for it at this point. It's like the ol' "don't be the first one to stop the handshake" thing.

I'm sure he thinks it's genius.
 
Thing1 said:
It might be something cynical, but I doubt it. I think leaders are concerned about the climate, and want to appear like their "doing something."

The science is so bogus, though. The stated goal is to keep global temperatures from going up more than 2 degrees, but there is really nothing in there to back up that any action they want to take would accomplish that. They talk about it like it's a cake recipe or something...just add water, and we keep the temps down.

The real science is that its dubious if we could even effect temps if the entire globe gave up fossil fuels altogether, which will simply not happen in the near future. Even then, it is basically consensus that any discernible change in the atmosphere or w/ temperatures could take centuries.

But no one even talks about that. It's just accepted that the accord would keep increases below 2 degrees.
Click to expand...

no they are not. The developing countries are in this purely for the money. Pakistan sent in a one page document as their comittment saying they would reduce sometime in the future. A document without numbers is supposed to provide their target. India and CHina have both said they will continue pollution until 2030 and then at that point make an effort to reduce it. The other countries arent that far off from this.
 
Thing1 said:
It might be something cynical, but I doubt it. I think leaders are concerned about the climate, and want to appear like their "doing something."

The science is so bogus, though. The stated goal is to keep global temperatures from going up more than 2 degrees, but there is really nothing in there to back up that any action they want to take would accomplish that. They talk about it like it's a cake recipe or something...just add water, and we keep the temps down.

The real science is that its dubious if we could even effect temps if the entire globe gave up fossil fuels altogether, which will simply not happen in the near future. Even then, it is basically consensus that any discernible change in the atmosphere or w/ temperatures could take centuries.

But no one even talks about that. It's just accepted that the accord would keep increases below 2 degrees.
Click to expand...

also if its purely about climate change then you dont need the US in this. We are not even the largest polluter in the world and as i recall we are trending down anyway while china and india are trending up.

Unless of course they need to bleed us white for the bribe money.
 
archives said:
So your conclusion then is to totally ignore that which man has accelerated (global warming), and to just keep on the path which led to the escalation, doesn't make sense
Click to expand...

I'd like to take better care of the environment - but to argue that any action we take at this point will affect global temperatures is completely ignorant of the science. There are a LOT of great reasons to switch to both domestic sources and alternatives - including both national security and pollution. But "stopping climate change?"

It's a bogus argument. Read the science on it. Even AGW scientists say that if the world went cold turkey on emissions, it would take centuries for any discernible change.
 
fyi this climate fund is just one source of income for the total 100 billion. There are other things as well that the US is paying.
 
tsuke said:
https://www.greenclimate.fund/docum...dges.pdf/eef538d3-2987-4659-8c7c-5566ed6afd19

This is just the start as the UN and developing countries are screaming for more money.

Funny how climate change is so important to germany yet their commitment is 1/3 of the US.

As a developing country chinas commitment is 0. They get to take money instead.

Notice how the new climate alliance of states are silent as to how much they will contribute to this?
Click to expand...

Our GDP is over 5x that of Germany. Looks like they were more than pulling their own.
 
Thing1 said:
It might be something cynical, but I doubt it. I think leaders are concerned about the climate, and want to appear like their "doing something."

The science is so bogus, though. The stated goal is to keep global temperatures from going up more than 2 degrees, but there is really nothing in there to back up that any action they want to take would accomplish that. They talk about it like it's a cake recipe or something...just add water, and we keep the temps down.

The real science is that its dubious if we could even effect temps if the entire globe gave up fossil fuels altogether, which will simply not happen in the near future. Even then, it is basically consensus that any discernible change in the atmosphere or w/ temperatures could take centuries.

But no one even talks about that. It's just accepted that the accord would keep increases below 2 degrees.
Click to expand...

You'll have to check with the DC Milagro, who recently posted 3 articles that indicated there would be a DECREASE in temps if goals were met.
 
domer76 said:
Our GDP is over 5x that of Germany. Looks like they were more than pulling their own.
Click to expand...

the question is why we have to be comitted to this. If the germans think this is a priority then let them fill in what the fund says the US should.
 
The US GDP is like 4-5 times larger than the German one. They were actually paying in disproportionately compared to the US.

Maybe electoral votes should be apportioned according to GDP?
 
domer76 said:
You'll have to check with the DC Milagro, who recently posted 3 articles that indicated there would be a DECREASE in temps if goals were met.
Click to expand...

I'll check that, but I sincerely doubt it unless it's onto some secret that most of the scientific community isn't privy too yet. A 40% reduction in emissions by 2030 - even if that could be achieved - won't make any difference at all. It's almost a child-like understanding of how global warming works.
 
Last edited:
Thing1 said:
I'll check that, but I sincerely doubt it unless he's onto some secret that most of the scientific community isn't privy too yet. A 40% reduction in emissions by 2030 - even if that could be achieved - won't make any difference at all. It's almost a child-like understanding of how global warming works.
Click to expand...

The year for that goal is 2100
 
domer76 said:
The year for that goal is 2100
Click to expand...

They had 2030 on the Wikipedia page this past week - but honestly, 2100 is even worse. How can people possibly think that a 40% reduction in emissions 80+ years from now will make ANY difference whatsoever?

Again - most who study this have concluded that even if we went cold turkey, TODAY, it would take centuries before there was any difference.
 
tsuke said:
https://www.greenclimate.fund/docum...dges.pdf/eef538d3-2987-4659-8c7c-5566ed6afd19

This is just the start as the UN and developing countries are screaming for more money.

Funny how climate change is so important to germany yet their commitment is 1/3 of the US.

As a developing country chinas commitment is 0. They get to take money instead.

Notice how the new climate alliance of states are silent as to how much they will contribute to this?
Click to expand...

This is what Germany thinks of trump.

091455zw022tc3gxppdp90.jpg
 
archives said:
So your conclusion then is to totally ignore that which man has accelerated (global warming), and to just keep on the path which led to the escalation, doesn't make sense
Click to expand...

Which part of overestimated climate sensitivity don't you understand?
The anthropogenic signal is a third of what the models assume. You probably never even looked at the details.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top