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.