Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Grand Vol]

Very apt description:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...e-change-agreement-all-hat-and-no-cattle.html

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt defended the Trump administration's decision to withdraw from the 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change Monday night, dismissing the accord as "all hat and no cattle."

"India didn’t have to take any steps in the agreement to reduce [carbon dioxide] emissions until they received $2.5 trillion in aid," Pruitt said. "China didn’t have to take any steps until the year 2030."

Meanwhile, Pruitt added, the U.S. would have seen "up to 400,000 jobs lost under the Paris Agreement and $2.5 trillion of [GDP] over ten years while China and India take no steps."

"From 2000 to 2014, we reduced our [carbon dioxide] footprint by over 18 percent, but yet the previous administration went to Paris and was apologetic," he said.

 

[tumscalcium]

Very apt description:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...e-change-agreement-all-hat-and-no-cattle.html

It was a ridiculous thing and we weren't even technically "In" it anyway.

 

[n_huffhines]

None of Trump's climate crazy talk, however, justifies the liberal hysteria over America's imminent withdrawal from the Paris agreement.

This accord was never going to save the planet — and hence, dumping it won't doom the Earth. If anything, it might trigger a search for realistic and workable fixes that don't involve putting the entire human race on an energy diet.

A big part of President Obama's climate action plan was to cut emissions from the transportation sector, which accounts for about a quarter of America's greenhouse gases. To achieve that goal he doubled the CAFE (Corporate Average Fuel Economy) standards for automakers from 25.5 miles per gallon in 2010 to 54.5 mpg by 2025.

This is and always was a huge scam.

CAFE requires car companies to lower the fuel economy not of each car model, but the average across their entire fleet. Furthermore, the reductions count against the vehicles manufactured, not those sold. So given that the popularity of gas-guzzling vehicles, such as SUVs, continues to rise in the face of falling fuel prices, what are car companies, especially American ones for whom SUVs are top sellers, doing? Essentially, they manufacture battery-powered and hybrid vehicles that don't sell so that they can meet their CAFE requirements to produce SUVs that do. It's like buying indulgences from the EPA to commit sins against the environment.

To the extent that America meets its emissions reduction targets, it won't be because of artificial mandates by government regulators, but technologies that organically emerge in energy markets. For example, the fracking revolution — that no bureaucrat saw coming and that the government actively stymied — has allowed America to switch from coal to natural gas for electricity generation. Natural gas emits only half as much carbon dioxide as coal — and it's also cheaper. That's why it did not have to be jammed down consumers' throats through mandates and subsidies.

http://reason.com/archives/2017/06/06/paris-climate-agreement-wasnt-going-to-s

 

[Weezy]

Paris Climate agreement. I think it's ironic that it's the Paris agreement. Afterall, France is enacting policies that will without question increase carbon emissions.

France is one of two countries that decarbonized their grid without primarily hydro, and they did it with nuclear. Now the socialists and environmentalists want to get rid of nuclear. It's all a big ****ing joke. I wouldn't be surprised if all these politicians are heavily invested in natural gas. Afterall, when you build out wind and solar...you are really building out natural gas since it's the only load follower.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Paris Climate agreement. I think it's ironic that it's the Paris agreement. Afterall, France is enacting policies that will without question increase carbon emissions.

France is one of two countries that decarbonized their grid without primarily hydro, and they did it with nuclear. Now the socialists and environmentalists want to get rid of nuclear. It's all a big ****ing joke. I wouldn't be surprised if all these politicians are heavily invested in natural gas. Afterall, when you build out wind and solar...you are really building out natural gas since it's the only load follower.

Truth.

My problem with climate change is that we are wasting money chasing the problem. The cause of climate change is irrelevant.
(I believe the climate changes based on nature and mans impact is minimal at best)
Here's the rub....people think they can change what is happening to the climate. I believe there's nothing we can do to change what is happening. So in my world we stop wasting time and money on things that won't make a difference and start investing in a way to survive the changes that are coming.
I would also like to see real studies on the changes that are coming free from politics. It would help to actually know what is coming. The guys doing the studies now don't get anything right and have been caught cooking the books.

What I would like to see is a paradigm shift on how we approach climate change.


That's never going to happen

 

[BigOrangeTrain]

Truth.

My problem with climate change is that we are wasting money chasing the problem. The cause of climate change is irrelevant.
(I believe the climate changes based on nature and mans impact is minimal at best)
Here's the rub....people think they can change what is happening to the climate. I believe there's nothing we can do to change what is happening. So in my world we stop wasting time and money on things that won't make a difference and start investing in a way to survive the changes that are coming.
I would also like to see real studies on the changes that are coming free from politics. It would help to actually know what is coming. The guys doing the studies now don't get anything right and have been caught cooking the books.

What I would like to see is a paradigm shift on how we approach climate change.


That's never going to happen

I feel the exact same way. Stop the madness and money wasting and start focusing on how to survive. Also, stop making it about politics. Climate change should not be about politics at all.

 

[Grand Vol]

Wait! Do you mean the States have this right to do such things without having to be told to do so by the Federal Government?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-law-committing-to-paris-climate-accord.html

The governor of Hawaii on Tuesday signed a bill that aligns the state’s carbon emissions with the Paris climate accord.

Gov. David Ige signed the bill that calls on documenting sea level rise and set strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

“Many of the greatest challenges of our day hit us first, and that means that we also need to be first when it comes to creating solutions,” Mr. Ige, a Democrat, said, according to The New York Times. “We are the testing grounds — as an island state, we are especially aware of the limits of our natural environment.”

OMG! To think the States are actually doing something for themselves! How daft!

 

[golfballs]

First New Coal Mine of Trump Era Opens in Pennsylvania

 

[FLVOL_79]

First New Coal Mine of Trump Era Opens in Pennsylvania

So sad. How many people have died since Trump pulled out the treaty? How many children will die because of this new coal mine!

rraaAAAGGEEEE!!!

 

[InVOLuntary]

So sad. How many people have died since Trump pulled out the treaty? How many children will die because of this new coal mine!

rraaAAAGGEEEE!!!

I thought it was especially hot yesterday. I knew something was up.

 

[LouderVol]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-40239693

the Chinese not meeting their own regulations? Shocking I tell you, shocking.

The findings appear to confirm suspicions that companies ignore strict environmental protection policies and that officials do not enforce them, correspondents say.

Inspections found that more than 13,000 companies had failed to meet environmental standards

 

[ShowSomePride]

I don't really see how cities or states can reasonably contribute to the Paris Agreement? What, they're going to send large amounts of funds to developing countries around the world? That isn't going to happen. If they mean to take their own action against reducing emissions or being more energy efficient then that's fantastic but that has nothing to do with the Paris Agreement really.

Seems more of an attention grab or round-a-bout way of saying "hey we are concerned about climate change" that also allows for a shot at Trump.

 

[golfballs]

Global Warming Study Cancelled Because of ‘Unprecedented’ Ice

Naturally, scientists blame the heavy ice on global warming climate change

 

[AirVol]

I have yet to see a butterfly since this Paris agreement.

Thanks Trump.

 

[allvol123]

https://www.theverge.com/2017/6/19/15829674/climate-change-coffee-ethiopia1

You could read this and literally believe an 8 year old wrote it.

She is probably a millennial.

 

[AM64]

One recent set of news articles highlighted by Google was about temperature drops during an eclipse. As I recall, one article was talking about a 17F drop with the max decrease a couple of minutes after the eclipse - giving rise to the supposition that surface heat reflection has a tremendous impact on air temps.

Guess what that's been replaced with a new WaPo hit piece on how man is killing the climate and about the tremendous newly occurring heat waves. Just to be sure I had my numbers approximately correct, I did a search and popped up a NASA piece about temperature drops during a solar eclipse complete with a temp plot vs solar eclipse state during a 2001 total eclipse in Zambia.

According to the article (https://eclipse2017.nasa.gov/temperature-change-during-totality):

"The Moon's shadow is cool, literally! When it swept by Lusaka, Zambia, on June 21, 2001 the air temperature dropped nearly 5 degrees F. This graph shows a series of measurements made by NASA astronomer Mitzi Adams during the total solar eclipse using a Thermochron Temperature Logger."

The interesting thing is that the graph shows a 10F drop. Imprecise and novel data handling is why a lot of us in the scientific community question the climate change religion/mafia. And if air temps are so demonstrably linked to reflected ground radiation, then why is the discussion on man cause contribution to greenhouse gasses than on deforestation and rapidly increasing heat islands/pest-holes (otherwise know as cities) and on solar activity?

 

[Weezy]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile...nergy-national-academy-matt-jacobson.amp.html

The conclusion of the critique is damning: Professor Jacobson relied on “invalid modeling tools,” committed “modeling errors” and made “implausible and inadequately supported assumptions,” the scholars wrote. “Our paper is pretty devastating,” said Varun Sivaram from the Council on Foreign Relations, a co-author of the new critique.

This paper was clearly flawed, yet it made it to publication and policy discussion. That's why the cult of climate science is not science. That's why the marches are just political hackery.

 

[BartW]

Three questions:

Why do we need to pay $1 into this organization? We don’t
Why can't we set our own guidelines for reduced emissions? We already did
If China is all that gall darn excited about doing there part, why are they exempt until 2030? They’re not

To expand:

1. The money from the GCF goes to both mitigation and adaptation. Regarding the former, as a whole the planet will get more bang for its buck in reducing emissions if we focus on getting developing economies off coal asap. It costs more money for the US to cut a gigaton of carbon pollution in the US because we’ve already come a long way in reducing our emissions. There are diminishing returns.

Regarding the latter, climate change resiliency is quite expensive. Miami spends hundreds of millions of dollars pumping water out of the city into the bay. Relocating communities is very expensive. The federal govt just spent $50 million relocating a community of 100 people or so from SE Louisiana because their island is no more. Likewise many small Alaskan communities have already voted to relocate from their disappearing homes and are asking for millions and millions of dollars. CNN ran a piece on Tangier Island in the Chesapeake Bay last week. How much do you think it will cost to relocate an entire country’s population? Or to build ever larger pumps and seawalls around the world's hundreds of millions of coastal population?

Considering the US is responsible for more greenhouse gas emissions than any other country, we’d be getting off easy by simply redirecting a few $billion of foreign aid from one fund to another. On a per capita basis we haven’t contributed nearly as much to the GCF as other countries who have contributed far less to the climate change problem.

And again, all of this is voluntary. We should contribute to the funds, but we don’t need to. We could still stay in the PCA. It would still be shameful, but not as shameful as pulling out altogether.

2. We did set our own guidelines for reduced emissions. Trump could change them and remain a part of the PCA if he wanted to. The narrative that Europe and China are imposing emissions regulations on us is utter hogwash. We set our own goals and achieve them however we choose.

3. China is somewhere between a developing and developed economy. There are still millions without access to electricity. Their emissions were skyrocketing before Paris and they’ve already slowed that down considerably due to both international and domestic pressure (and an economic slowdown). They pledged to decrease their emissions 60 to 65% per unit of GDP, peak their emissions, and have 20% of their power sourced from alternative energy by 2030. They’ve also committed to a goal of 40-45% reduction per unit GDP and 15% alternative energy by 2020. China’s coal consumption has dropped for 3 straight years after probably peaking in 2013. They’ve cancelled numerous coal plants. Their overall emissions growth was flat last year. Over the past two years China has invested about $210 billion in alternative energy while the US has invested about $120 billion. China’s 5-year plan for 2016-2020 includes investing $360 billion in alternative energy. They are also developing a cap-and-trade system (pioneered by the Reagan administration!) to help them achieve their emissions reductions goals. To say they are exempt or doing nothing until 2030 is 100% false.

 

[BartW]

IPCC was created in 1988. If you read what I said they either said those things were going to happen or people in their organization said, aka before ICCP was created.

Now use google or get the f### out of here.

Oh..here you go https://www.ipcc.ch/

And go on with your examples because they literally prove NOTHING. Show me a natural disaster that took massive amounts of human life directly related to climate change. Don't work too hard I already know the answer..you can't.

Lol I ask him for a specific citation from the ‘IPPC’ (misspelled again) and I get a link to the home website. What a joke.

 

[BartW]

He's getting cities and States to buy into the treaty without having the Federal Government shove their nose into it. From my link earlier:

Crazy talk! Political decisions being kept at a lower level without the big government having to get involved?

Say it ain't so!

Wait! Do you mean the States have this right to do such things without having to be told to do so by the Federal Government?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...s-law-committing-to-paris-climate-accord.html

OMG! To think the States are actually doing something for themselves! How daft!

Hooray for climate action and hooray for states rights, but the same argument you guys try to make about China works against you here. Hawaii could have 100% alternative energy but it wouldn’t make a dent in US emissions if Texas, which emits twice as much greenhouse gases as the next biggest emitter, California, continues business as usual.

It's called "facts." Little too much for some on here.

Truth be told, I'm surprised Bart made it this long before posting. Still waiting on some form of reference to the tobacco lobby getting hold of Trump in some way.

Just for you:

Mike Pence, Donald Trump's VP pick: 'Smoking doesn't kill'

Donald Trump's new running mate, Indiana Gov. Mike Pence, holds a few unconventional views, according to The New York Times.
"Time for a quick reality check. Despite the hysteria from the political class and the media, smoking doesn't kill," he wrote on his old Mike Pence for Congress website in 1998, BuzzFeed first reported more than a year ago.

He warned his readers that the Food and Drug Administration's tobacco regulation is an action of "big government," and that a government large "enough to go after smokers is big enough to go after you," Pence said on his website, according to BuzzFeed

Boy doesn’t that rhetoric sound familiar :whistling:

Very apt description:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...e-change-agreement-all-hat-and-no-cattle.html

When did India ask for and receive $2.5 trillion? Lol. I already discussed China above. India is even more ambitious. Despite having less than half of the emissions of the US, despite having only 1/10th of the emissions per capita vs. the US, despite hardly contributing to the problem compared to the US over the last 200 years, despite still having hundreds of millions of citizens without access to electricity, they are planning to reach their target of 40% renewable energy before their target date of 2030 submitted under the PCA. Unlike China they are applying to receive $ from the GCF instead of paying in, sure, but there is no way they’re getting $2.5 trillion lol. The entire fund so far has only raised $13 billion. Scott Pruitt is a fossil fuel shill and complete embarrassment to the (now ironically named) Environmental Protection Agency. These chicken little economic gloom and doom prognostications are as trite as your states’ rights soapbox and Pence’s anti-environmental rhetoric. And his numbers are as made up as the supposed boom in coal jobs:

Pruitt make several misleading and inaccurate statements during his tour of the television networks. The EPA chief’s biggest fib was probably his statement, made on multiple shows on Sunday, that the coal industry has grown by 50,000 job over the last few months.

No data exists from government or industry sources to back up the claim that the industry has seen such a dramatic surge in coal mining jobs over this time period. In fact, the average number of coal mining jobs increased by only 586, or about 1.1 percent during the first three months of 2017, according to a report from S&P Global Market Intelligence, citing data from the U.S. Mine Safety and Health Administration.

Here’s another crucial piece of data that appears to undermine Pruitt’s statement that the coal industry has grown by 50,000 jobs since the end of 2016: The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics calculates there are currently a total of 51,000 jobs in the coal mining industry, almost equal to the number of employees Pruitt stated the industry had grown by over the last few months.

On Meet the Press, former Vice President Al Gore explained that the loss of coal jobs started with the mechanization of the coal industry decades ago. Furthermore, over the past half-dozen years, natural gas started to displace the use of coal for power generation, he said.

“Promising to re-create the 19th century is not a visionary strategy for a successful 21st century,” Gore stated.

“Dead wrong,” Pruitt said in response to Gore’s comments in his appearance on Meet the Press. The numbers show “exactly the opposite,” with almost 50,000 jobs added in the coal sector since the fourth quarter of 2016, he claimed. “In the month of May alone, almost 7,000 jobs,” the EPA chief said.

 

[FLVOL69]

@

 

[BartW]

https://www.google.com/amp/s/mobile...nergy-national-academy-matt-jacobson.amp.html

Fake News! Failing New York Times!

This paper was clearly flawed, yet it made it to publication and policy discussion. That's why the cult of climate science is not science. That's why the marches are just political hackery.

Holy non sequitur, Batman!

You realize the authors of the critique are themselves climate scientists, right? This is how science works. Publication is not the be-all end-all; it is the beginning. Once an idea is in the public sphere the entire scientific community has the opportunity to take a fine comb to it. That's why this global conspiracy theory is so damn nutty.

The irony is the GOP and this administration have constantly cited debunked research (most of which was published in sham journals), or they’ve misinterpreted and misrepresented good research, or they just 100% pull **** out of their asses. And here you are attacking scientists. SAD!

 

[McDad]

Bart man Returns.

 

[Weezy]

Holy non sequitur, Batman!

You realize the authors of the critique are themselves climate scientists, right? This is how science works. Publication is not the be-all end-all; it is the beginning. Once an idea is in the public sphere the entire scientific community has the opportunity to take a fine comb to it. That's why this global conspiracy theory is damn so nutty.

The irony is the GOP and this administration have constantly cited debunked research (most of which was published in sham journals), or they’ve misinterpreted and misrepresented good research, or they just 100% pull **** out of their asses. And here you are attacking scientists. SAD!

The cult of climate scientists. The science hacks like Jacobson, the celebs like DiCaprio and Ruffalo, the politicians like Sanders and Gore. These are the people the Democratic party and major publications parade out.

This article was written by reasonable minds. But let's be real, this will be ignored. And crackpots will keep pushing wind and solar at all costs. Countries like France and Germany, leaders of this accord will increase emissions by shutting down nuclear.

If the left was serious they'd be pushing for the carbon tax and dividend plan. But it's quite obvious that any plan that isn't solar and wind, is a no go. Follow the money, and I'm sure it leads to natural gas. You know, the real winner.

 

[Weezy]

Also, from a political standpoint. America needs to be concerned with a Europe and South Korea heavily dependent on natural gas from Russia.