It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BREAKING: U.S. O-U-T of Paris Climate Accord

page: 33
74
<< 30  31  32    34 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 09:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

From you link:

From 1880 to 2012, average global temperature increased by 0.85°C. To put this into perspective, for each 1 degree of temperature increase, grain yields decline by about 5 per cent. Maize, wheat and other major crops have experienced significant yield reductions at the global level of 40 megatonnes per year between 1981 and 2002 due to a warmer climate.
Data does not support this. I am assuming that once again the IPCC is relying upon semi empirical models that project both into the past and into the future. I simply don't trust their models, they have failed way too many times. It's as if they have a projection and make a model that shows what they want it to show. We'll not ever know as they will not release the code for the models. Science is about repeatability and reproducibility, yet they keep their models secret?




posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


I think you need to read the sustainable development goals, which are intersecting with the climate agreements. It covers all of this. You have to take the climate agreements in tandem with the SDGs and 2030 UN agenda.

Also, part of addressing the pollution in developing countries involves strategies ranging from actual development aid to sustainable tech transfer and financing for development.

The problem with that approach is two-fold.

Firstly, it is not possible to set goals for others. Those are demands, not goals. Goals are personal, self-determined, and worthwhile, by definition.

Secondly, no one knows what technology will bring, and what will be required in order to advance it. Oftentimes a regulation designed to reduce emissions in one area will have the effect of stifling research in another. Example (from another thread): abandoning reduced sulfur because accomplishing that goal will produce a little more carbon dioxide.

Authority is a poor way to motivate people, and we need motivation. Cooperation and rewards for success will go much, much farther than financial punishment and threats, especially when the latter come from those far removed from the average person's reality.

TheRedneck


Except, these goals were done with substantial local, regional, national, and international consultations. It was painstaking in that sense. Quite literally, these goals/agreements involved the most civic and stakeholder engagement ever, internationally speaking. As in, representatives not just from governments but virtually every major business, non-profit, etc. Then there were civil society groups. There were surveys in all kinds of communities.

I'd suggest reading more on it rather than assuming.



posted on Jun, 6 2017 @ 10:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: Quetzalcoatl14

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


I think you need to read the sustainable development goals, which are intersecting with the climate agreements. It covers all of this. You have to take the climate agreements in tandem with the SDGs and 2030 UN agenda.

Also, part of addressing the pollution in developing countries involves strategies ranging from actual development aid to sustainable tech transfer and financing for development.

The problem with that approach is two-fold.

Firstly, it is not possible to set goals for others. Those are demands, not goals. Goals are personal, self-determined, and worthwhile, by definition.

Secondly, no one knows what technology will bring, and what will be required in order to advance it. Oftentimes a regulation designed to reduce emissions in one area will have the effect of stifling research in another. Example (from another thread): abandoning reduced sulfur because accomplishing that goal will produce a little more carbon dioxide.

Authority is a poor way to motivate people, and we need motivation. Cooperation and rewards for success will go much, much farther than financial punishment and threats, especially when the latter come from those far removed from the average person's reality.

TheRedneck


Except, these goals were done with substantial local, regional, national, and international consultations. It was painstaking in that sense. Quite literally, these goals/agreements involved the most civic and stakeholder engagement ever, internationally speaking. As in, representatives not just from governments but virtually every major business, non-profit, etc. Then there were civil society groups. There were surveys in all kinds of communities.

I'd suggest reading more on it rather than assuming.


Yes, painstaking work with a previous administration that didn't care about the damage it would do to its home nation. Painstaking work by a group of people who didn't see a problem with China polluting for another 13 years.

Yeah, no thanks.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

USA be getting out of that UNFCCC sometime in the near future. It's a great step forward to free itself from UN oversight. The NWO don't fly with me, or many other people. Trump is taking charge and dismantling what Baraq put in place, and I hope he does it well enough that it can never be setup like that again. It's a direct threat to the sovereignty of any nation that participates.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 01:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14


Except, these goals were done with substantial local, regional, national, and international consultations. It was painstaking in that sense. Quite literally, these goals/agreements involved the most civic and stakeholder engagement ever, internationally speaking. As in, representatives not just from governments but virtually every major business, non-profit, etc. Then there were civil society groups. There were surveys in all kinds of communities.

No one ever asked me, nor did anyone ever ask anyone I know, their opinion on these 'goals'.

That is sufficient to declare them demands instead of goals, and sufficient to state that the input was insufficient. Their goals are not mine, and the only way I will submit to regulations like those specified for carbon dioxide emissions is by force of law. That is not cooperation; it is conquest.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 09:43 AM
link   
I'm confident you aren't well briefed on the comprehensive, evidence based nature of the sustainable development goals nor the 50 year history of global development leading up to them. So to me it sounds like prejudice prior to sincere investigation. You guys aren't communicating as if you are already highly knowledgeable on them.

As they say on ATS, deny ignorance.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

If I am walking across my yard and see a roughly cylindrically shaped object moving in a serpentine fashion, I do not research it. I know it's a snake. That is the extent of information I need at that point. I compare it's markings with the few poisonous species that are indigenous, and if there's a match, I kill it.

I do not need to identify the exact species, the probable age, estimate the length, or determine its destination. Those things become moot to me when I make the determination that it is a snake and possibly dangerous.

Thus far, I have pointed out to you that any 'goals' are in reality demands on the population by definition. I have pointed out that the primary goal is to reduce carbon dioxide; other gases are mentioned, but only secondary to carbon dioxide. I have explained that the regulations imposed are unfairly targeted, potentially damaging to actual pollution solutions, and admittedly impotent to solving the stated problem.

I need no further evidence to dismiss the Paris Accord as a bad thing that should be avoided. There is nothing in the 'goals' that could possibly reverse that decision. There may be wonderful ideas in there, fantastic dreams of a veritable utopia, but the implementation is flawed and impotent.

There is widespread agreement on traditional pollution concerns. There is no widespread agreement on the claimed dangers of carbon dioxide. There are proven and operational methods to curb traditional pollution. There are no accepted methods outside of taxes to curb carbon dioxide production (actually, there are technologies available to remove carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, but they are regularly downplayed).

In the same speech where Trump officially removed the US from the Paris Accord, he also stated a willingness to revisit the issue if a fairer and more pragmatic approach were put forward. I agree. It's just not worth $3,000,000,000.00 and a promise of more to come in order for a bunch of diplomats and bureaucrats to feel good about themselves while ignoring actual solutions. It's just not.

Done. No further investigation needed. It's probably a poison snake. Kill it.

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   
I don't believe CO2 causes global warming. But it is a scientific fact CO2 is bad for animals. That's why animals must quickly expel CO2 from their bodies. More CO2 harms people. That's a fact. It has nothing to do with climate.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 10:56 AM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

CO2 (Carbon Dioxide): Health Effects, Uses and Benefits

Common 8-hour safe limit: 5000 ppmv, 12,5 times current levels.

Dangerous levels: 40,000+ ppmv, 100+ times current levels.

www.kane.co.uk...

TheRedneck



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

The higher the concentration, the more harmful. Humans evolved when CO2 was between 180 and 280 between ice age and interglacial. Now it is 410, much higher than the range humans are naturally adapted to.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TheRedneck

Sounds like you don't understand the concept of representative government or are just being purposefully obtuse.

I'm sure nobody asks you when streets should be swept, what route the trash collectors should follow or how much a starting clerk down at city hall makes, etc.

You must be besides yourself that they are pushing all that on you in the form of taxes or it is just fake outrage.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 12:28 PM
link   
On a related note, Trump has proposed using solar panels to power the wall. Now, by liberal logic, anyone who opposes the wall hates the environment and is a climate denier. #win



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 01:37 PM
link   
a reply to: face23785

Yep. it's a get rich scheme that is working beyond the dreams of avarice.

I loved how Gore is "charismatic" in that article. I've seen broken bricks with more charisma than that huckster.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 03:17 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

180 ppm = Ecosystem C02 starvation, it isn't a wonderful time to be alive on planet earth.



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 08:54 PM
link   
a reply to: allsee4eye

Is that why our population exploded (and our lifespans increased) when levels got closer to (and beyond) that 300 ppmv mark?

TheRedneck

edit on 6/7/2017 by TheRedneck because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 7 2017 @ 09:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: allsee4eye
a reply to: TheRedneck

The higher the concentration, the more harmful. Humans evolved when CO2 was between 180 and 280 between ice age and interglacial. Now it is 410, much higher than the range humans are naturally adapted to.

How is it harmful? Physiologically? or Environmentally?



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 06:45 AM
link   
Save enviroment



posted on Jun, 8 2017 @ 01:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: MariaLuis
Save enviroment


Build the wall! It's gonna have solar panels!



posted on Jun, 9 2017 @ 10:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: face23785
On a related note, Trump has proposed using solar panels to power the wall. Now, by liberal logic, anyone who opposes the wall hates the environment and is a climate denier. #win


Hell, they can put turbines on it and some geothermal wells while they're at it.



posted on Jun, 11 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: face23785
On a related note, Trump has proposed using solar panels to power the wall. Now, by liberal logic, anyone who opposes the wall hates the environment and is a climate denier. #win


Hell, they can put turbines on it and some geothermal wells while they're at it.


No turbines. Turbines kill birds. I'm no murderer.







 
74
<< 30  31  32    34 >>

log in

join