The Paris Agreement has been talked about for the last week now. And Trump got bashed by most mainstream media outlets. But he is right. The Paris Agreement is useless. Even if climate-change is as man-made as globalists say. Because the enforcement in the US is not needed, since it was signed on an executive order by Barack Obama and since there are no repercussions contained in the agreement itself if countries fail the goals of the agreement. Why would anyone care about this wasted piece of paper?
Never been to Australia, but would love to get down there someday. When I do, I'll look you up!
@ben again I used the enter button to start a new paragraph. I must stop doing that.
@ben, Wow that's quite a reply. Your assumption is right, I'm a broke ass bastard living payday to payday getting nothing from said people. If you live in Melbourne Australia I would like to sit and chat with you over a beer or redbull while knocking balls around on the pool table. I care not for argument, prefer debate, and you sound like a reasonable person. I will take a day or two to reply proper to your reply. The Easter Island scenario is interesting, but....
@Trouble: I've been thinking for the past few days about how to effectively respond to this thread.
I watched about 1/2 of one of the videos. Diligently wrote down notes on names and concepts referenced within with the intent to research and share the standard counter-arguments.
But that's not going to make any impact. It's not like there's some magic chart or graph out there that I'm going to show you, that's going to change the way you see the topic of climate change, and I've seen the charts and the graphs the climate denial movement has submitted, and they have had a similarly harmless effect on my views.
I wonder if there is not some sort of evolutionary biological strategy in play that we are unwitting (unwilling?) participants in. One of the lines I often hear climate change deniers goes something along the lines of "climate change alarmists are like lemmings - just marching off the cliff to their collective doom".
What if that were true? What if an intelligent species was so caught up in a predictive fear of a certain outcome that the whole species acted in a single way to avoid the disaster? For instance, what if a community of intelligent animals lived on an island and suddenly, through their study of their environment, perceived that if they continued to cut down the trees on the island, that eventually the island's ecosystem would collapse, and the whole colony would die.
So after further study and much debate, most of the members of the community agree they must stop harvesting the wood, even though harvesting that wood had been an important part of their subsistence living for centuries.
But what if they were wrong? What if the community can survive just fine if the trees run out? What if the trees might not actually be running out at all? What if the Stoppers succeed in their efforts to stop harvesting this vital resource anyways?
Everyone stops cutting down the trees, their huts fall into disrepair, children of larger families are unable to build new strong homes for their own families given the new rules. Then, through some unforeseen turn of events, the winters become extraordinarily harsh. Cold rains and snows sweep across the island, and it’s residents foolishly stick to their dogmatic rule to preserve the trees, despite their real and clear need. Fires become banned, because lighting fires can cause trees to catch fire, and the trees must be preserved at all costs because, the lemmings insist, they are vital to their survival. The colony vanishes in a short number of years completely, unable to recover from the initial brutal winters. By the time they recognize the error of their ways, their population has dropped to levels too low to survive, and they all die of a freak outburst of chicken pox.
That is one possible outcome that could happen. In this contrived example, it is not the probable outcome. Most of the island trusts the collective wisdom of its best minds that the actual outcome is that through preserved the trees and the forest, the island will actually prosper. That new building materials can be acquired, and that through keeping the forests intact, and actually nurturing them, the colony will preserve and enhance the wildlife that remains on the island, increasing its access to food and medicine. Buildings are made from stone and mud instead of wood, and actually end up being stronger than before. New fuels are discovered for their fires that burn hotter, and cleaner, actually allowing them to cook their food indoors where they previously couldn’t, staying warm in the cold months.
Again, a completely contrived example. But, in the beginning, how things will end up is not known. So, if I were Nature, I would consider taking out an insurance policy. No matter how convincing an argument is, I would never let every one of my life forms follow a leader off of a cliff, even if it seems like there is a safe path down the cliff to the beach below. I might say “10 - 15% of any population should always take the counter-position, and go the opposite way instead.” Thereby ensuring that in the chance that the prevailing argument is just wrong, through some miscalculation or misjudgment, I don’t lose the whole population, but instead, have a large enough surviving remainder to continue my evolutionary journey.
If that is the case with us, no charts, no graphs, no intellectual arguments will sway you. Certainly, it seems to be the case. I’m going to make the wild assumption that you are not personally being paid by the Koch brothers, or Exxon, or the Heartland Institute, just as I am not being paid by George Soros, Richard Branson, or Tesla. I’ll just wave at you in the distance, as I head down the side of the cliff on the route we’ve plotted, and you head across the plains, in search of new homes.
@ben Forgiven, honesty and an open mind, points for the virtues. I'm now thinking I read your earlier thread with the wrong frame of mind. All belled up now, thanks.
@Trouble, there is a little bell icon in the top that will let you subscribe to the thread. Otherwise, when I explicitly mention you, you should also get an email. I'll take a look at the videos. I hope you'll forgive me for not committing to watching 2 hours of what I will probably end up considering propaganda funded by the fossil fuel industry, but I promise I will take enough of a look to get a sense of the actors, and check out their credentials.
@ben Well I'm an ass for ASSUMING you were going to yell something back in argument. 10 points to you for saying "yes" Here are two links. this first one is a 40 minute interview https://youtu.be/WCU6bzRypZ4 both mention other knowledgeable people you can google to read and confirm their qualifications. the second is an hour and forty minutes long https://youtu.be/DrWznOFq38s. I will have to search out more I have heard from that have good arguments against the current religion of Climate Change, Global Warming. But I had these close at hand. I'm new to this site, expected a notification for a response. My bad. I will check back.
@ben Well I'm an ass for ASSUMING you were going to yell something back in argument.
Or do you want me to link some CLIMATE scientists who are pointing out the errors in the modeling that says "Your all going to die if you don't give us Billions of dollars to save the planet"
ben, I'm going to assume your reply wasn't a petulant response, and you are now looking at the effects of the moving axis of the earth (not influenced by CO2) on our weather and how the planets orbit is not a true circle but changes as earth is influenced by other large planets in our solar system (not CO2) Also the advantage more CO2 gives plants, making them less dependent on water enabling more growth in more regions than at present. Or do you want me to link some CLIMATE scientists who are pointing out the errors in the modeling that says "Your all going to die if you don't give us Billions of dollars to save the planet" (appeal to emotion fallacy). Maybe you are just pondering on why such things are not talked about in the do or die scenario? Could it be that give us money can not be used to change these effects, so we don't want to talk about them? But It's not about money or power through control, Is It? What do they say about assumption being the mother of all F%#$ U&*s?
David Archibald is a climate "skeptic" who has been CEO of multiple oil and mineral exploration companies operating in Australia, and currently is part of the scientific advisory panel for the Australian Climate Science Coalition (ACSC) - a group of Australian fake skeptics which also includes Bob Carter, John McLean, David Evans, and Ian Plimer. Archibald is a major proponent of the "it's the sun" myth, and from time to time will publish a paper in Energy&Environment (the controversial journal which publishes "skeptic" research which is too erroneous to meet the standards in standard peer-reviewed journals), claiming that a decline in solar activity will lead to substantial cooling over the next few decades. - https://www.skepticalscience.com/david-archibald-exaggerates-solar-influence-on-future-climate-change.html
100%? Seriously? 2+2 doesn't = 5 mate. How bout we use the scientific method before we use the "all the scientists said so" line. A good place to start (as with main stream media) is with the question "what are they not telling me? I have an inquiring mind, and once you start thinking about all that plays a part in the weather, you will find many thing are not spoken about in the climate change community. Of course you know what air is comprised of, and you know how plants make food and grow and the cycles of the sun and the elliptic orbit of the earth and how the axis of the earth moving from 22 and a half degrees - 24 degrees over a cycle of (pop quiz, how many years?) has a huge effect on our changing weather (climate) or are you not being given the whole story, the full picture. I sound like an ass giving you a hard time, If you know how I can avoid that please let me know. Or mutter here comes trouble and run away from the logic of reasoning with imperial evidence. 1 of many places you could start to look outside of the box at is - https://nextgrandminimum.wordpress.com/category/solar/
so you are saying you don't see any value in collective goal setting?
do you disagree about issue or course of action?
and, what is reason for withdrawing if it is so useless? oh there are only positive reasons for reaffirming.
haha nonsense? like 100% consensus of peer reviewed scientists?
you believe in science when you climb aboard an airplane. why stop now?
nonsense. an interesting word to use when going up against the overwhelming collective sense of humanity.
@CryingLibralLaughing If it's so useless, why stay in it? Trump has made pretty clear that he is willing to repeal any legislation he deems unnecessary. He applies the same logic to international agreements. And it is a logic that I have sympathies for. Why stick to something that is useless anyway? Someone has to put an end to nonsense like this.
@MindingFreedom Because this "little piece of paper" represents an agreement by 148 different parties. When was the last time you were able to agree on what to watch on NetFlix or RedBox with anyone else but yourself? Much less get your entire block to agree to go to the gym to work out regularly and lose a few pounds. There has been much talk of this so-called "Economic Disadavantage" - yet ironically, even more talk about the toothless nature of the /non-binding/ agreement. If it's so useless, why take the political firestorm of withdrawing? Just to appease the base? Even the Mayor of Pittsburgh, coal country, thinks the agreement is a good idea.
and yes, i know that further down the line, there are (non-binding) measures to establish a green economic development fund. my understanding is that the US obligation in the fund is about $1bn annually. we give 6 times that to Israel every year. given that we have been the biggest polluter for most of the 20th century, and those developing countries did not contribute, as you point out, and the fact that our emissions enabled us to become the super-power that we (still, for now at least) are, spending 0.00025% of our annual budget to help developing countries develop clean energy infrastructure in joint effort with other developed nations is both reasonable and appropriate.
when we are working with a $4 trillion budget, spending $15 million to help mitigate a crisis as serious to American well-being as the scientific community tells us climate change will be seems a pretty small cost to bear: http://fortune.com/2017/06/02/bloomberg-trump-paris-agreement-funding-un/
how much money are we talking about?
Which regulations are you thinking the Paris Accord has? It's another globalist "Help these poor countries" agenda in the guise of climate change at the expense of the American people, and I specify American because everyone knows America will just end up footing the bill on this one too.
Legally binding or not, pulling out of the agreement will allow the US to ignore regulations and basically do whatever it wants without repercussions. It's just not going to help promote a cleaner future no matter how you look at it
The Paris Agreement includes more than just "making a pledge to reduce our carbon footprint". It includes pledges to pay third-world countries money to go greener - countries, that don't even have a significant carbon footprint. It also has no enforcement plans for any countries. It's not legally binding, there is no penalty if the pledge is not fulfilled. No need to stay in a contract that is not even worth the paper it's written on. Donald Trump is a businessman. I'm pretty sure he is against any contract that is basically useless.
Gotcha. How does making a pledge to reduce our carbon footprint hurt us?
@ben Exactly like @MindingFreedom said.
She never said that reducing the carbon footprint will cost the US more than it benefits them. She said the pledges from the Paris Agreement do. That's a big difference.
@RoamingMillennial how do you arrive at the conclusion that reducing our carbon footprint will cost us more than benefit us? International agreements are as much about getting every player on the team to commit together to a plan for our collective nations to have a planet with clean air and water.
It's kind of like a football team - every player on the team commits to standards for practice, health, training, and so forth. If the strongest player on the team skipped practice, what kind of example would that leadership set for the rest of the team?
I agree. The Paris Accord as it stands is ineffective and, if the US were to uphold its pledges, it would costs the US more than it would benefit the environment. The US doesn't need these international agreements if it wants to reduce its emissions.