Excellent. Just because Donnie doesn't understand science, doesn't mean we roll back progress.
Science isn't always right. They still can't figure out how much carbon emissions are from humans vs the environment.
You're pretty clueless on that front. Go ahead, ask me what you'd like to know about which specific type of human-caused emissions, from which country: I'd be happy to point you to resources where you can educate yourself.
I'm not clueless at all. My whole thing is climate change has been happening for millions of years. The polar ice caps and glaciers are going to melt regardless of what humans do. The've melted off before and the ocean rose and the same thing is going to happen again. I totally agree that we as a world need to cut back on CO2 emissions but like I said previously, the Paris accord isn't the answer. It does nothing for the environment.
Your specific quote -- to which I was responding, and which you may wish to re-read since you yourself posted it -- was "They still can't figure out how much carbon emissions are from humans vs the environment. "
Don't change the subject.
I still stand by that comment. Sure, there are sensors all over the world that measure CO2 emissions, but there is no way to accurately measure CO2 emissions from the natural world because there are so many variables.
Do you see that you’re suggesting basically saying that atmospheric composition dominates all else with regard to surface temperatures!?
Nope, the Sun dominates all. That’d be why I said the exact opposite of what you’re claiming I said.
As to why Venus is hotter, do you know the gas that counts for 96% of the atmosphere of Venus?
Yes, it’s the same gas that accounts for 96% of the atmosphere of Mars. Please try to keep up. I’ve already said this shit. It’s hotter because it’s closer to the Sun, and it’s hotter than Mercury despite being further from the Sun because of its atmosphere. If Earth was as close to the Sun as Venus, it would not be as hot. If Earth was as far from the Sun as Mars, it would not be as cold. Venus is hotter because its atmospheric pressure is 90x that of Earth. Mars is colder because its atmospheric pressure is 90x less than Earth’s.
every known, tested, retested, vetted bit of data contradicts that.
You were already proven wrong many weeks ago. Just shut up about things you clearly don’t understand.
1) Yikes. Up is down, down is up in your world. Weird.
I’m guessing the numbers correlate with the three sections I multi quoted. In that case, this is how hard I will laugh at the first part.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Yeah, the Sun totally doesn’t drive climate on Earth. No way. Not the Sun. If that sucker disappeared, we’d be totally fine.
As for a reply to the third part, I have no fucking idea where the post is. Let me see if I can find it.
EDIT: Wow, that was easy. Had to use Google because Bing can’t search for strings, but I typed in one sentence and “forums.appleinsider.com” and got it instantly. Meanwhile I still can’t find it using this site’s search.
Excellent. Just because Donnie doesn't understand science, doesn't mean we roll back progress.
Science isn't always right. They still can't figure out how much carbon emissions are from humans vs the environment.
Oh good point.... if we don’t have EXACT answers- f the whole thing. Throw the whole world in the crapper.
I admire the cut of your jib sir!
On the contrary, your view would be we think we understand it so let's bankrupt our country. Then China just waits and takes over even more.
Lol, you're just about as dumb as they come, aren't you?! Lol, I guess time will tell... if, in a few years, literally all the other countries that stayed in the accord are taken over by China- I'll owe you an apology for not believing that coming together to agree to not destroy our planet was actually a nefarious Chinese plot for world domination!!!!!
If China were to become dominant in any way, it would be through taking the lead on the transition to a low-carbon economy, developing the expertise and technologies to give it every advantage in this area while the USA buries its head in the sand and tries to cling on to the fossil fuel era, while the rest of the world moves on without it.
Isn't this better than having the government dictate what we should do? Isn't this how a free market economy is supposed to work? Why does everyone insist that the government step in and "fix" everything when government can't ever seem to get anything right to begin with?
If combatting climate change is a good business decision, then businesses will step up and do what needs to be done, not because it's the right thing to do, but because it makes them (or saves them) money. If this is a bad business decision, then no amount of government regulation will persuade businesses to change their ways because the regulations will always have some unforeseen loophole that will be exploited by unscrupulous companies. And if you think Apple is above that kind of response, witness their avoidance of paying US taxes by keeping billions of dollars overseas. Many people would say this isn't fair, but it's a good business decision on Apple's part.
Tim Cook et al. believe that following the provisions of the Paris accord is good for the bottom line, either through goodwill or increased sales/decreased costs. If the CEOs of these companies truly thought that their companies would go out of business by doing this, they wouldn't do it. It's that simple.
I rather my elected officials handle climate change because they will be accountable if they don't act to protect our world. A corporation only seeks profits for it's share holders and the rest of us can do nothing about it. This nonsense that "free market" will solve our problems and take care of the greater good is complete nonsense. The free market often leads to abuse of the system, concentration of wealth, and has ill affects on society at large. We all benefit from regulations. You cannot drive a car without a license that proves you are capable, drug companies must prove their products are not dangerous, restaurants must prove they a sanitary kitchen, safely stored food, etc... Something as big as the environment should not be left in the hands of capitalist. Apple and many other companies have been leading the move to clean energy which is great but trust me for every Apple there are how many companies with their eye on the bottom line and nothing else. I would suspect that people that have an interest in technology also have some interest in other sciences so I am often baffled by the endless amount of "antl-scicence" comments post here, unless I am naive and underestimate troll behavior.
I rather my elected officials handle environmentalism because they will be accountable if they don’t act to protect our world.
Fixed.
You cannot drive a car without a license that proves you are capable
You obviously haven’t met many drivers...
drug companies must prove their products are not dangerous
To government organizations who have been proven to collude with them.
Something as big as the environment should not be left in the hands of capitalist.
Nor the government.
If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than mankind? – Frederic Bastiat
Excellent. Just because Donnie doesn't understand science, doesn't mean we roll back progress.
Science isn't always right. They still can't figure out how much carbon emissions are from humans vs the environment.
Oh good point.... if we don’t have EXACT answers- f the whole thing. Throw the whole world in the crapper.
I admire the cut of your jib sir!
On the contrary, your view would be we think we understand it so let's bankrupt our country. Then China just waits and takes over even more.
Lol, you're just about as dumb as they come, aren't you?! Lol, I guess time will tell... if, in a few years, literally all the other countries that stayed in the accord are taken over by China- I'll owe you an apology for not believing that coming together to agree to not destroy our planet was actually a nefarious Chinese plot for world domination!!!!!
If China were to become dominant in any way, it would be through taking the lead on the transition to a low-carbon economy, developing the expertise and technologies to give it every advantage in this area while the USA buries its head in the sand and tries to cling on to the fossil fuel era, while the rest of the world moves on without it.
China has and will continue to make gains via stealing from the work of other countries inventors and their IP.
Who's the 'they' in that statement? The folks that write right wing blogs? If you actually did some genuine research you'd find 'they' the scientists of the world actually have a very accurate handle on this.
Keep drinking the Kool Aid dude. If scientists did have a handle on this, why have their predictions consistently failed? Why do there models not work?
I rather my elected officials handle climate change because they will be accountable if they don't act to protect our world. A corporation only seeks profits for it's share holders and the rest of us can do nothing about it. This nonsense that "free market" will solve our problems and take care of the greater good is complete nonsense. The free market often leads to abuse of the system, concentration of wealth, and has ill affects on society at large. We all benefit from regulations. You cannot drive a car without a license that proves you are capable, drug companies must prove their products are not dangerous, restaurants must prove they a sanitary kitchen, safely stored food, etc... Something as big as the environment should not be left in the hands of capitalist. Apple and many other companies have been leading the move to clean energy which is great but trust me for every Apple there are how many companies with their eye on the bottom line and nothing else. I would suspect that people that have an interest in technology also have some interest in other sciences so I am often baffled by the endless amount of "antl-scicence" comments post here, unless I am naive and underestimate troll behavior.
That statement alone is the most ignorant think I've ever read on the internet, period.
Excellent. Just because Donnie doesn't understand science, doesn't mean we roll back progress.
Science isn't always right. They still can't figure out how much carbon emissions are from humans vs the environment.
Oh good point.... if we don’t have EXACT answers- f the whole thing. Throw the whole world in the crapper.
I admire the cut of your jib sir!
On the contrary, your view would be we think we understand it so let's bankrupt our country. Then China just waits and takes over even more.
Lol, I guess time will tell... if, in a few years, literally all the other countries that stayed in the accord are taken over by China- I'll owe you an apology for not believing that coming together to agree to not destroy our planet was actually a nefarious Chinese plot for world domination!!!!!
If China achieve 'world domination' it will be because they take the lead in developing the expertise and technologies required to make the most of the low-carbon economy that the world is transitioning to, while the US (thanks to Trump) buries its head in the sand and attempts to cling on to the fossil fuel era of the 1900s in which it prospered. Hopefully companies like Apple et. al. should keep the country out of the dark ages.
PS Apologies if this is a duplicate, my first post never seemed to materialise.
Incorrect. Free market solutions mean customers decide with their purses and wallets what kind of world they want to live in. Less control and imposition from Washington will mean people must be more individually AND VOLUNTARILY "collectively" responsible. In principle, businesses and organizations banding together to voluntarily support environmental goals is commendable, but this is a Mike Bloomberg thing and no human being does anything without self-interest being served first, especially a politician!
Incorrect. "Free market solutions" are prone to market failure when there are externalities. Econ 101. Look it up.
We have massive market failures, including bubbles, price distortions, currency devaluation, improper valuation of labor, taxpayer funded bailouts, etc. and that is ALL directly attributable to politics and imposed regulations NOT free market principles.
What does the fact that markets can fail because of politics have to do with the fact that markets can fail because of externalities (and public goods)? Perhaps you're not understanding the point about externalities in this context? Or the "commons problem"?
Happy to explain further if needed.
When companies or markets fail in a free market, there is no backstop to prevent it, no taxpayers on the hook to subsidize it. It goes away. When government causes the failures due to poorly crafted and/or crony-favoring legislation, guess who is ultimately "responsible" for the fallout? Certainly not the Washingtonians. The politicians skate on, while taxpayers get the shaft.
As to the "tragedy of the commons" issue you referenced, it simply doesn't exist. When resources exceed a price customers are willing to pay for them, demand lessens or alternatives are created. Here are just a few sources addressing this:
History is riddled with predictions of the imminent demise of many natural resources and they have never come true, except in the case of very rare animals. Alternatives are ALWAYS available. In fact, currently rare animals should be farmed instead of protected with the currently ineffective laws they are allegedly "protected" by in most cases. Laws that make rare animals even "rarer" only drive up the underground market prices for them.
The Paris accord is nothing more than words and little action. There is no enforcement of the agreement and you know countries are going to cheat. It's a money pit for the USA. Wealthy nations agreed to pay $100 billion a year to poorer nations and you know which country will be paying the most. The USA of course. The bottom line is the Paris accord does nothing for the environment. People need to realize globalist politics aren't going to solve environmental problems.
Yes, it is non binding. Every country set their own goals. So Trump can set the goals below the ground to match his style.
But why withdrawal it? It is a very bad example. Even North Korean sigh up the agreement. So US is even worse than Kim's little country? Also, it just make the rest of the world look down on Trump even more if it is not bad enough.
The last thing is, since 1900 which country is the most prosperous, industrialized and polluted in the world? Isn't it the United States of American, the country of capitalist? Isn't a little pay back to the poor countries is reasonable? US make the money and the rest of the world suffered. Is it not unfair? Also, US is not the only rich country in the world in case you forget.
The more I read into the climate change issue the more ridiculous the "accepted" claims seem. The fact that CO2 increases trail temp rises is undisputed, and they may even lag up to 1,400 years. In this article..
..some scientists attempted to debunk this theory by examining CO2 diffusion through ice over time. However, instead of debunking the theory, as this article (misleadingly) implies, they reinforced that it is true, albeit with a decrease in estimated lag time to 200 years. Obviously, however, if CO2 is such a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2 should be leading global warming, not lagging behind it.* However, the theory that CO2 causes warming and thus leads warming trends, seemingly disproven by this accepted scientific evidence, is what all the current climate models are based on! It's really absurd.
*A simple, logical explanation is that increased temps historically have caused a diffusion of CO2 out of the oceans and into the atmosphere, which would explain the lag.
In addition, champions of the conventional 'wisdom' of climate change are ridiculous in their alarmism. Even more ridiculous and ignorant than that republican that brought in the snowball to disprove global warming, al gore himself, a couple days ago, in an interview said, as evidence of climate change: (I'm paraphrasing from memory) "we don't even need the data, nature is telling us the climate is changing every day, there's apocalyptic weather events all the time!" And yes, he used the word "apocalyptic". And yes, even NOAA data shows that hurricanes are decreasing, except for large hurricanes which will ("probably", defined as >66% chance) increase 2-11% in 60-80 years (as if they can accurately predict that far).
If there's a legitimate rebuttal to any of my points,** I'd be interested to hear it.
**Rebuttals other than: "we don't know the whole story." If we don't know the whole story, why are we preparing to spend trillions of dollars to decrease levels of airborne plant food! (Which, of course, as we all know, makes up a meager 0.04% of the atmosphere.)
From my understanding of the climate change issue is that we don't know enough about the problem to devise a reasonable plan to stop any negative outcome:
I read a little article written by a climate scientist (his name escapes me now); He basically laid out what we know on a scale of certainty. and it went like this:
1) Is the climate changing: Absolutely 2) Is SOME of that change man-made: Probably 3) How much is man made: Vague 4) What are the realistic dangers to humans: Not Sure 5) What realistic plan can we undertake to actually completely/mostly solve this issue: Completely Unknown.
So for all of this concern over climate change we don't really have anymore than "token" proposals that exist only to give the appearance of doing something but have little to no chance of actually solving the issue.
A theoretical example that I heard was this:
"Lets solve global warming!!!" (and avoid the rising sea levels, harsher weather, droughts, and hurricanes, etc) We can spend about 7-10 TRILLION dollars and replace every land based vehicle in the US with a hybrid (assuming we could source enough lithium salts to manufacture this amount of vehicles); Would that simply solve the issue? No more climate change? No rising Sea levels? No droughts? NO! it would have almost no long term effect on the negative dangers listed above. BUT 7 trillion $ goes a very looooooong way toward building seawalls to protect low-lying cities, and levies to defend against hurricanes, and desalinization plants to deal with fresh water shortages, and aqueducts to feed water to farm land, etc.... And as an added bonus, deferring this spending allows us to only spend as needed in case the predicted dangers don't materialize, as opposed to spending now on what is little more than a gamble on a gamble (a gamble that the predicted dangers actually appear as predicted and that our plan to stem these dangers actually works....)
From my understanding, the Paris accord is simply another "token" gesture, simply expensive virtue signaling that will have almost no real effect on the climate long term.
Ever wondered why the inside of a car on a sunny day is significantly hotter than the outside? That's basically the science.
Yeah, it’s why Venus is hotter than Mercury, despite being further from the Sun. This topic is also why Mars is colder than Venus, despite having the exact same atmospheric composition.
CO2 is doing nothing to the temperature of Earth and hasn’t since ~120 PPM.
Well that isn't really true mars barely has an atmosphere it is off earth and Venus atmosphere s by a couple orders of magnitude. That said the distance from the sun is also off by orders of magnitude.
CO2 lags temperature rise when temperature rise (due to changes in amount and distribution of solar insolation via the Milankovitch cycle) is driving the system. The released CO2 accelerates the warming until solar insolation decreases enough to stop driving that cycle.
You can drive the system with insolation or CO2. We've never before had a mechanism for driving the system with CO2. Now we do.
There's a comment in that entry that bears quoting and may encapsulate your thinking here...
"Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them".
Because it’s predicated on a complete lie, probably.
Even North Korean sigh up the agreement.
Why would we want to be part of something with which they agree?
So US is even worse than Kim's little country?
You realize the fallacy here, right? You’re just being facetious, yes?
Also, it just make the rest of the world look down on Trump even more if it is not bad enough.
Fuck the world. We are a sovereign nation of a specific group of people and we do what the fuck we want. I thought the world couldn’t shut up about the US meddling in their affairs. Now you’re telling me that they’re upset we don’t want to destroy our borders and become part of a global federalized government? Gee. Almost as though someone’s creating a narrative here on purpose or something…
The last thing is, since 1900 which country is the most prosperous, industrialized and polluted in the world?
First two, USA; last one, China.
Isn't a little pay back to the poor countries is reasonable?
No. Fuck you. You didn’t do the work. You didn’t fight for the nation. You didn’t build it. You weren’t part of it. You deserve nothing from those who were. You may get our charity, but you will only get that when our fucking draconian and unconstitutional taxes are destroyed. We’re the most charitable on Earth. Entire regions of the world depend solely on our assistance and give us nothing in return.
We’re getting impatient with that. Particularly when our own people are now starving and homeless. Screams of hypocrisy. And don’t you know, the jealous rest of the world loves to call us out on that.
I read a little article written by a climate scientist (his name escapes me now); He basically laid out what we know on a scale of certainty. and it went like this: 1) Is the climate changing: Absolutely 2) Is SOME of that change man-made: Probably 3) How much is man made: Vague 4) What are the realistic dangers to humans: Not Sure 5) What realistic plan can we undertake to actually completely/mostly solve this issue: Completely Unknown.
Exactly!
1) Demonstrate “climate change” is real. No problem there! There is plenty of geological evidence that the Earth has been much warmer for most of its existence. The Jurassic period, for example, was quite a bit warmer than today. In fact, there have only been a few colder times in Earth’s history compared to today. And ‘climate’, in the strictest sense, changes daily. 2) Demonstrate that “climate change” is manmade. This is tougher, since we already know for a fact that the Earth has been through far warmer periods before man ever showed up. Indeed, evidence is mounting that an increase in CO2 is causing less extreme weather, not more. 3) Demonstrate that any changes, regardless of origin, happening now are man-reversible. Good luck with that. 4) Demonstrate that they can be reversed, primarily, by crippling the American economy in particular, while nations like China and India continue polluting the planet at record rates. And that’s where you lose your audience.
I’m sorry, I’m going to need to ask you for a real source. “GENETIC FALLACY!” The site was created by a cartoonist. “APPEAL TO AUTHORITY!” Who deletes and censors all postings by all persons–climatologists included–who do not agree with his site’s proven false, scientifically preposterous conclusions.
CO2 lags temperature rise when temperature rise (due to changes in amount and distribution of solar insolation via the Milankovitch cycle) is driving the system. The released CO2 accelerates the warming until solar insolation decreases enough to stop driving that cycle.
You can drive the system with insolation or CO2. We've never before had a mechanism for driving the system with CO2. Now we do.
There's a comment in that entry that bears quoting and may encapsulate your thinking here...
"Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them".
Thank you for your reply.
Edited to retract my initial response, was reading the wrong link. Planning to review and respond, but might need to wait until tomorrow.
Comments
2) Read and learn: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1987AREPS..15..171P
3) Um... what?!
See two key tables below, from the paper referenced in 2:
(I am out for much of the rest of the day; will respond later this evening to your replies, if any).
I already know that. Now you read.
https://www.scribd.com/document/337186053/180-Years-of-Atmospheric-CO2-Gas-Analysis-by-Chemical-Methods
https://www.scribd.com/document/337186048/Atmospheric-CO2-Aerosols
https://www.scribd.com/document/337186171/Falsification-of-the-Atmospheric-CO2-Greenhouse-Effects-Within-the-Frame-of-Physics
https://www.scribd.com/document/332096737/Falsification-Summary
I’m guessing the numbers correlate with the three sections I multi quoted. In that case, this is how hard I will laugh at the first part.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Yeah, the Sun totally doesn’t drive climate on Earth. No way. Not the Sun. If that sucker disappeared, we’d be totally fine.As for a reply to the third part, I have no fucking idea where the post is. Let me see if I can find it.
EDIT: Wow, that was easy. Had to use Google because Bing can’t search for strings, but I typed in one sentence and “forums.appleinsider.com” and got it instantly. Meanwhile I still can’t find it using this site’s search.
https://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/199393/apple-sticking-with-climate-change-fight-despite-trump-administration-regulation-loosening/p3
Posts 45 and 47, as well as the quoted part of post 52.
You obviously haven’t met many drivers...
To government organizations who have been proven to collude with them.
Nor the government.
If the natural tendencies of mankind are so bad that it is not safe to permit people to be free, how is it that the tendencies of these organizers are always good? Do not the legislators and their appointed agents also belong to the human race? Or do they believe that they themselves are made of a finer clay than mankind?
– Frederic Bastiat
That statement alone is the most ignorant think I've ever read on the internet, period.
As to the "tragedy of the commons" issue you referenced, it simply doesn't exist. When resources exceed a price customers are willing to pay for them, demand lessens or alternatives are created. Here are just a few sources addressing this:
http://tomwoods.com/ep-548-privatize-the-ocean/
And this is just a good e-book for skeptics to read in general: http://tomwoods.com/d/14questions.pdf
History is riddled with predictions of the imminent demise of many natural resources and they have never come true, except in the case of very rare animals. Alternatives are ALWAYS available. In fact, currently rare animals should be farmed instead of protected with the currently ineffective laws they are allegedly "protected" by in most cases. Laws that make rare animals even "rarer" only drive up the underground market prices for them.
But why withdrawal it? It is a very bad example. Even North Korean sigh up the agreement. So US is even worse than Kim's little country? Also, it just make the rest of the world look down on Trump even more if it is not bad enough.
The last thing is, since 1900 which country is the most prosperous, industrialized and polluted in the world? Isn't it the United States of American, the country of capitalist? Isn't a little pay back to the poor countries is reasonable? US make the money and the rest of the world suffered. Is it not unfair? Also, US is not the only rich country in the world in case you forget.
The more I read into the climate change issue the more ridiculous the "accepted" claims seem. The fact that CO2 increases trail temp rises is undisputed, and they may even lag up to 1,400 years. In this article..
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ice-core-data-help-solve/
..some scientists attempted to debunk this theory by examining CO2 diffusion through ice over time. However, instead of debunking the theory, as this article (misleadingly) implies, they reinforced that it is true, albeit with a decrease in estimated lag time to 200 years. Obviously, however, if CO2 is such a powerful greenhouse gas, CO2 should be leading global warming, not lagging behind it.* However, the theory that CO2 causes warming and thus leads warming trends, seemingly disproven by this accepted scientific evidence, is what all the current climate models are based on! It's really absurd.
*A simple, logical explanation is that increased temps historically have caused a diffusion of CO2 out of the oceans and into the atmosphere, which would explain the lag.
In addition, champions of the conventional 'wisdom' of climate change are ridiculous in their alarmism. Even more ridiculous and ignorant than that republican that brought in the snowball to disprove global warming, al gore himself, a couple days ago, in an interview said, as evidence of climate change: (I'm paraphrasing from memory) "we don't even need the data, nature is telling us the climate is changing every day, there's apocalyptic weather events all the time!" And yes, he used the word "apocalyptic". And yes, even NOAA data shows that hurricanes are decreasing, except for large hurricanes which will ("probably", defined as >66% chance) increase 2-11% in 60-80 years (as if they can accurately predict that far).
If there's a legitimate rebuttal to any of my points,** I'd be interested to hear it.
**Rebuttals other than: "we don't know the whole story." If we don't know the whole story, why are we preparing to spend trillions of dollars to decrease levels of airborne plant food! (Which, of course, as we all know, makes up a meager 0.04% of the atmosphere.)
I read a little article written by a climate scientist (his name escapes me now); He basically laid out what we know on a scale of certainty. and it went like this:
1) Is the climate changing: Absolutely
2) Is SOME of that change man-made: Probably
3) How much is man made: Vague
4) What are the realistic dangers to humans: Not Sure
5) What realistic plan can we undertake to actually completely/mostly solve this issue: Completely Unknown.
So for all of this concern over climate change we don't really have anymore than "token" proposals that exist only to give the appearance of doing something but have little to no chance of actually solving the issue.
A theoretical example that I heard was this:
"Lets solve global warming!!!" (and avoid the rising sea levels, harsher weather, droughts, and hurricanes, etc)
We can spend about 7-10 TRILLION dollars and replace every land based vehicle in the US with a hybrid (assuming we could source enough lithium salts to manufacture this amount of vehicles); Would that simply solve the issue? No more climate change? No rising Sea levels? No droughts? NO! it would have almost no long term effect on the negative dangers listed above. BUT 7 trillion $ goes a very looooooong way toward building seawalls to protect low-lying cities, and levies to defend against hurricanes, and desalinization plants to deal with fresh water shortages, and aqueducts to feed water to farm land, etc.... And as an added bonus, deferring this spending allows us to only spend as needed in case the predicted dangers don't materialize, as opposed to spending now on what is little more than a gamble on a gamble (a gamble that the predicted dangers actually appear as predicted and that our plan to stem these dangers actually works....)
From my understanding, the Paris accord is simply another "token" gesture, simply expensive virtue signaling that will have almost no real effect on the climate long term.
CO2 lags temperature rise when temperature rise (due to changes in amount and distribution of solar insolation via the Milankovitch cycle) is driving the system. The released CO2 accelerates the warming until solar insolation decreases enough to stop driving that cycle.
You can drive the system with insolation or CO2. We've never before had a mechanism for driving the system with CO2. Now we do.
There's a comment in that entry that bears quoting and may encapsulate your thinking here...
"Chickens do not lay eggs, because they have been observed to hatch from them".
I am sure your assertion comes as news to a lot of fisherman around the world.
Why would we want to be part of something with which they agree?
You realize the fallacy here, right? You’re just being facetious, yes?
Fuck the world. We are a sovereign nation of a specific group of people and we do what the fuck we want. I thought the world couldn’t shut up about the US meddling in their affairs. Now you’re telling me that they’re upset we don’t want to destroy our borders and become part of a global federalized government? Gee. Almost as though someone’s creating a narrative here on purpose or something…
First two, USA; last one, China.
No. Fuck you. You didn’t do the work. You didn’t fight for the nation. You didn’t build it. You weren’t part of it. You deserve nothing from those who were. You may get our charity, but you will only get that when our fucking draconian and unconstitutional taxes are destroyed. We’re the most charitable on Earth. Entire regions of the world depend solely on our assistance and give us nothing in return.
We’re getting impatient with that. Particularly when our own people are now starving and homeless. Screams of hypocrisy. And don’t you know, the jealous rest of the world loves to call us out on that.
Exactly!
1) Demonstrate “climate change” is real.
No problem there! There is plenty of geological evidence that the Earth has been much warmer for most of its existence. The Jurassic period, for example, was quite a bit warmer than today. In fact, there have only been a few colder times in Earth’s history compared to today. And ‘climate’, in the strictest sense, changes daily.
2) Demonstrate that “climate change” is manmade.
This is tougher, since we already know for a fact that the Earth has been through far warmer periods before man ever showed up. Indeed, evidence is mounting that an increase in CO2 is causing less extreme weather, not more.
3) Demonstrate that any changes, regardless of origin, happening now are man-reversible.
Good luck with that.
4) Demonstrate that they can be reversed, primarily, by crippling the American economy in particular, while nations like China and India continue polluting the planet at record rates.
And that’s where you lose your audience. I’m sorry, I’m going to need to ask you for a real source.
“GENETIC FALLACY!”
The site was created by a cartoonist.
“APPEAL TO AUTHORITY!”
Who deletes and censors all postings by all persons–climatologists included–who do not agree with his site’s proven false, scientifically preposterous conclusions.
Edited to retract my initial response, was reading the wrong link. Planning to review and respond, but might need to wait until tomorrow.
Fish is just food? Yikes. Look up the word 'ecosystem'.