Trump Policies Sent U.S. Tumbling in a Climate Ranking

I remember when right-wingers denied global warming. Now they accept it, but deny the cause.

The next stage will be to accept the cause and then to claim that they've always believed that global warming is caused by us.
 
The same (type of) people that tell us anthropogenic CO2 is causing climate change are the same assholes who are telling us that decreasing ozone pollution by 10 parts per billion will reduce asthma deaths such that it will save the roughly $10 billion per year it will take to implement and meet this regulation.

2018-asthma-capitals-asthma-related-deaths-chart.png


They think it costs about $2.5 million for one person to die of asthma (assuming that eliminates all asthma related deaths)...

These same people ignore jet engine contrails and water vapor in the atmosphere.

The same people told us that the hole in the ozone layer at the South Pole would close if we banned CFC's. We did and the hole is still there, virtually unchanged.

Why the hell should any sane person listen to these zipperheaded fucksticks?
 
American Man said:
I remember when right-wingers denied global warming. Now they accept it, but deny the cause.

The next stage will be to accept the cause and then to claim that they've always believed that global warming is caused by us.
Click to expand...

Science is now completely corrupt, we get lied to all the time, they even went so far as to directly harm us this pandemic.

They dont give a fuck about us.
 
signalmankenneth said:
This is another reason to keep Trump or anything like him out of the white-house again too?!! I like clean air and water and really concerned about the droughts, forest fires, floods and heat waves!!? It not only here but world-wide too?!!

[FONT=&]For four years under President Donald Trump, the United States all but stopped trying to combat climate change at the federal level. Trump is no longer in office, but his presidency left the country far behind in a race that was already difficult to win.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]A new report from researchers at Yale and Columbia universities shows that the United States’ environmental performance has tumbled in relation to other countries — a reflection of the fact that, while the United States squandered nearly half a decade, many of its peers moved deliberately.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]But, underscoring the profound obstacles to cutting greenhouse gas emissions rapidly enough to prevent the worst effects of climate change, even that movement was insufficient. The report’s sobering bottom line is that, while almost every country has pledged by 2050 to reach net-zero emissions (the point where their activities no longer add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere), almost none are on track to do it.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The report, called the Environmental Performance Index, or EPI, found that, based on their trajectories from 2010 through 2019, only Denmark and Britain were on a sustainable path to eliminate emissions by midcentury.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]Namibia and Botswana appeared to be on track with caveats: They had stronger records than their peers in sub-Saharan Africa, but their emissions were minimal to begin with, and the researchers did not characterize their progress as sustainable because it was not clear that current policies would suffice as their economies develop.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]The 176 other nations in the report were poised to fall short of net-zero goals, some by large margins. China, India, the United States and Russia were on track to account for more than half of global emissions in 2050. But even countries like Germany that have enacted more comprehensive climate policies are not doing enough.
[/FONT]
[FONT=&]“We think this report’s going to be a wake-up call to a wide range of countries, a number of whom might have imagined themselves to be doing what they needed to do and not many of whom really are,” said Daniel C. Esty, the director of the Yale Center for Environmental Law and Policy, which produces the EPI every two years.

A United Nations report this year found that there is still time, but not much, for countries to change course and meet their targets. The case of the United States shows how gravely a few years of inaction can fling a country off course, steepening the slope of emissions reductions required to get back on.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-policies-sent-u-tumbling-115459618.html
[/FONT]
trump_climate_change_denial__steve_greenberg.jpg



climate28s.jpg
Click to expand...

Kenny, you and United Nations can blow it out your ass. Take your pissing and moaning to India and China.
 
"To dispute my assertions is to attack science".

Anti-Truth....not just a lie, but the exact opposite of the truth.
 
American Man said:
I remember when right-wingers denied global warming. Now they accept it, but deny the cause.

The next stage will be to accept the cause and then to claim that they've always believed that global warming is caused by us.
Click to expand...

Well, remember this: I am not a "right-winger" and I've always denied Gorebal Warming. That is, I deny the idiotic concept that anthropogenic CO2 is a major cause of climate change.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Well, remember this: I am not a "right-winger" and I've always denied Gorebal Warming. That is, I deny the idiotic concept that anthropogenic CO2 is a major cause of climate change.
Click to expand...

Just another idiot denying science, then. Got it. Did you learn this from your "peach tree dish"?
 
Easily, and by far, the most vital issue of the 21st century. None of the other stuff we argue about will matter a bit if we don't save this planet.

Hate to say it, but we probably won't. It's become too political, and too many refuse to acknowledge what is happening.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, I learned it studying actual science, unlike you who simply believes whatever bullshit some asshole with a degree or two tells you.
Click to expand...

Oh. I see. So you poured over raw data -- the same raw data that's public domain -- and came to a different conclusion than real scientists.

Huh. So the men and women who are schooled in this stuff and who actually know how to evaluate the data, and who independently come to the same conclusion time and time again, are somehow missing something that only you can see in the data. Maybe you ought to submit your paper for publication. (Of course, you'll tell us, you can't because those pesky journal editors are conspiring to suppress what you see in the data, or whatever.)

Seriously. Nobody wants this shit to be true. If you could show that that scientific consensus is wrong on this, you would probably win the Nobel Prize, and I'm not exaggerating. It would be welcome news for humanity.

Let me put it this way. If you get bloodwork and your doctor determines you have some kind of horrible disease, you might be inclined to seek another opinion. Fair enough. But if the next nine doctors you visit give the same diagnosis, you probably have the disease, right?

Right.

So when our instruments spit out very specific numbers about the climate over time, and the numbers paints a specific picture that scientists around the world see independently of each other, it stands to reason that what they're seeing is actually there.
 
BartenderElite said:
Yeah...who needs a climate, anyway? Who needs clean air, or clean water?
Click to expand...

what we don't need is another lib'rul's fantasy based on no facts.......as I recall we were all supposed to be dead by 1980.....and 1990.....and the Millenium......and 2010......and 2020.....not a single prediction by a lib'rul scientist has ever come true.......
 
American Man said:
So the men and women who are schooled in this stuff and who actually know how to evaluate the data, and who independently come to the same conclusion time and time again, are somehow missing something that only you can see in the data. .
Click to expand...

to be fair, they have been for the last fifty years......why should now be any different?......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
what we don't need is another lib'rul's fantasy based on no facts.......as I recall we were all supposed to be dead by 1980.....and 1990.....and the Millenium......and 2010......and 2020.....not a single prediction by a lib'rul scientist has ever come true.......
Click to expand...

Oh, really?

Reefs are dying, we've lost a huge amount of habitat, more droughts & stronger storms, less clean air, more polluted water, increased melting at the poles, increased sea levels...oh, and we're in the middle of a mass extinction event.

Yeah. Just a bunch of fearmongers.
 
American Man said:
Oh. I see. So you poured over raw data -- the same raw data that's public domain -- and came to a different conclusion than real scientists.

Huh. So the men and women who are schooled in this stuff and who actually know how to evaluate the data, and who independently come to the same conclusion time and time again, are somehow missing something that only you can see in the data. Maybe you ought to submit your paper for publication. (Of course, you'll tell us, you can't because those pesky journal editors are conspiring to suppress what you see in the data, or whatever.)

Seriously. Nobody wants this shit to be true. If you could show that that scientific consensus is wrong on this, you would probably win the Nobel Prize, and I'm not exaggerating. It would be welcome news for humanity.

Let me put it this way. If you get bloodwork and your doctor determines you have some kind of horrible disease, you might be inclined to seek another opinion. Fair enough. But if the next nine doctors you visit give the same diagnosis, you probably have the disease, right?

Right.

So when our instruments spit out very specific numbers about the climate over time, and the numbers paints a specific picture that scientists around the world see independently of each other, it stands to reason that what they're seeing is actually there.
Click to expand...

Bad analogy. It's more like a bunch of "scientists" are mostly paid money to study 'climate change' and to find out whether CO2 is causing it or not. These "scientists" then "discover" that CO2 is doing this because that will get them more funding to continue studying CO2. It's as much a sham as it is a business.

If suddenly the money were on studying aircraft contrails and whether these caused Gorebal Warming, they would become the new hot topic because that's were the money is.

One proof of this being a scam is that those perpetrating it haven't been able to win lawsuits brought against those denying the supposed research those supporting it have been doing. For all intents, all you are doing is making an argument from repetition and little more using an appeal to authority as its basis.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top