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

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
Charles Krauthammer just dropped a bomb that will have Democrats running for cover.

Why did Obama not make this a TREATY that could not be changed by subsequent US administrations?

LOL - I'd love to tell you why, but you will have to understand how laws are made in the USA and who approves the US entering treaties.

At the same time, we have a treaty/charter with the UN, that is the law of the land, contrary to what conservatives claim.
As a party to these kinds of negotiations, as a result of that already existing agreement, I think it has more weight than you are asserting.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

What you liberals fail to realize is this was the first step of a nine point plan lol, I'm sure there will be some exploding heads in the near future.

Step 2
A call to “defund” the UN’s climate body (UNFCCC), which receives around US$4 million a year from the US government.

The CEI sees this as simple: under US law the government should not fund UN agencies which grant Palestine full membership as a state, which the UNFCCC did in 2015.

Barack Obama’s administration got round this by arguing the UNFCCC – which stands for UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – is a treaty not a UN agency.

The CEI disagrees, citing its staffing levels and the fact it hosts conferences every year.

“Just as Congress cut off funds to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) when the ‘State of Palestine’ joined that organization in 2011, so now it should terminate funding for the UNFCCC and its related bodies, such as the Green Climate Fund

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

How far do you take that?

When you clicked "reply," did that slow my Internet access down by 0.0001s? Quite possibly.

When you drive a car, the demand for gasoline you create raises my cost.

Have you ever bought the last can of something in a grocery store? You realize that impacted the ability of the next customer to buy it, right?

Point is, everything we do, every move we make affects someone else in some way. Even if that effect is too small to be measured, it is there. How far do we go?

People fighting against environmental protection are actually harming society, other people.

Only if those regulations are appropriate. Otherwise, those fighting for inappropriate regulations are unnecessarily restricting the freedom of others.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. If it didn't exist, neither would life on the planet. It does not exist, even with the admitted increase over the last century, in sufficient levels to cause health concerns nor does it exist in sufficient levels to create the warming effect that is touted as fact but only dubiously proven.

There are thousands of actual pollutants being pumped into our atmosphere, and on those I will agree with you. But not on carbon dioxide.

Whether an action should be taken, especially at a legal or regulatory level, is relative to the level of environmental risk or damage.

Agreed. And since carbon dioxide poses no real risk to the environment at anywhere near current levels, any action to eliminate it (a physical impossibility, btw... unless you expect people to stop breathing) is not worth pursuing and certainly not worth $3B.

The best argument I've heard agains the Paris agreement is that it wouldn't actually achieve these ends. I am more interested in exploring that.

Really, that is the crux of the entire argument. The Paris Accord focuses on carbon dioxide, which is not the cause of the ills it claims to mitigate, and ignores much more pressing environmental matters. If I thought the situation was as desperate as some like to claim it is, I would be all for pumping tax money into it. But it won't work. Not only are its efforts unfair and inadequate, they're not even directed at the real problems!

TheRedneck

The thing is, at no point have any sustainable development practitioners stated that anyone will achieve zero impact or pollution, to your point about buying a can of soup, or driving a car. The whole point is as I said in an earlier post, balancing the "environmental checkbook." Society writ large with the population and industry we have, as well as energy use/capita or resource use/capita, necessitates a more balanced approach. This means trying to achieve moderate, sustainable use of resources per capita, not zero use.

The Paris Agreement refers to greenhouse gasses beyond C02, some of which are more impactful per amount, but less in quantity. What is your counter-evidence that those gases aren't contributing to climate change?

For example, frequently people will cite solar cycles. However, climate scientists already know about those, and having calculated the data on this, find a portion of the data that cannot be accounted for by natural cycles. This is the portion attributed to human activity.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

What you liberals fail to realize is this was the first step of a nine point plan lol, I'm sure there will be some exploding heads in the near future.

Step 2
A call to “defund” the UN’s climate body (UNFCCC), which receives around US$4 million a year from the US government.

The CEI sees this as simple: under US law the government should not fund UN agencies which grant Palestine full membership as a state, which the UNFCCC did in 2015.

Barack Obama’s administration got round this by arguing the UNFCCC – which stands for UN Framework Convention on Climate Change – is a treaty not a UN agency.

The CEI disagrees, citing its staffing levels and the fact it hosts conferences every year.

“Just as Congress cut off funds to the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) when the ‘State of Palestine’ joined that organization in 2011, so now it should terminate funding for the UNFCCC and its related bodies, such as the Green Climate Fund

A plan by Trump?

Also, who is this "CEI," and why do they have credibility?

Just because the UN is supporting more rights for Palestine, after a pretty oppressive history via the Israelis, CEI claiming this is grounds for defunding UN agencies is laughable. Our leaders blind support for Israel is pathetic.

originally posted by: IAMTAT
It's official, folks.

Seconds ago, from the Rose Garden...President announced that the U.S. will pull out of the Paris Climate Accord.
President Trump feels it was a bad deal and will be bad for American jobs, the U.S. economy and will result in higher energy prices, while limiting the U.S. to act independently where it's own interests are concerned.

Always the great 'Deal-Maker'...today President Trump was a deal-breaker...but, Trump also announced a move to renegotiate a new deal which he considers more amenable to U.S. interests.
Time will tell.

As a major campaign promise...this was to be expected...and, today, President Trump made it official.
Obama signed the accord without U.S. Senate approval...and, today, President Trump, as he has done with so many of Obama's policies, rolled it back.

Nevertheless, it will be interesting to see how the other 'signed on' nations react...but there will most certainly be a lot of negative international blow back.


On the flip side...NYC's Mayor DiBlasio announced that his city will remain in the pact.

Worth a read for climate denial rebuttals. There is more on the site.
ossfoundation.us...

I can't speak to all of the points, but worth a read.

Myths vs. Facts: Global Warming
Myths vs. Facts in Global Warming: This news and analysis section addresses substance of arguments such as "global warming is a hoax", "global warming is a fiction", "global warming is created to make money for Al Gore". The main fallacy noted is that most arguments are facts out of context while others are simply false representations. When the facts pertaining to the arguments are viewed in context relevance becomes obvious. The data clearly indicates global warming is happening and is human caused. At this time in the natural cycle Earth should be slightly cooling on trend, leading into what would have been the next ice age. Instead Earth is warming. There is no valid evidence that can prove otherwise. False representations or facts out of context are not a proof of any kind, they are merely incorrect.
A REAL CLIMATE ASSESSMENT
Scientists dedicated to science. No exaggerations. No hype. Theses scientists work in the top science organizations around the world. They look at the arguments, the data, and the models and give an honest reasoned assessment of what we know, and what we need to learn.
A Real Climate Assessment -
Read More…

IMAGES/DOCS
Image/document section.
images/docs -
Read More…

1934 is the Hottest Year on Record
1934 IS THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD
Incorrect. The claim is based on the temperatures in the United States, not the global mean temperature.
1934 is the Hottest Year on Record -
Read More…

31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence".
31,000 SCIENTISTS SAY "NO CONVINCING EVIDENCE".
31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. What is the significance of these statistics?
31,000 scientists say "no convincing evidence". -
Read More…

40's to 70's cooling, CO2 rising?
40'S TO 70'S COOLING, CO2 RISING?
This is a fascinating denialist argument. If CO2 is rising, as it was in the 40's through the 70's, why would there be cooling?
40's to 70's cooling, CO2 rising? -
Read More…

Lord Christopher Monckton
LORD CHRISTOPHER MONCKTON
Rebuttal to Lord Monckton: Christopher Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. His bio includes receiving a diploma in journalism from the University College, Cardiff. He performed as a policy adviser for Margaret Thatcher. He has spent a great deal of energy lately attempting to establish himself as offering 'scientific' perspectives on human caused global warming. Rebuttal to Lord Monckton's arguments: his perspectives largely contain facts out of context, non sequitur and red herring arguments, as well as straw man constructions that are anything but scientifically sound when examined in context of the relevant science.
Lord Christopher Monckton -
Read More…

CO2 Lag
CO2 LAG
Does CO2 Lag behind warming and climate change in the natural cycle? Yes. Is it lagging today? No. CO2 normally lags in the natural cycle unless some abnormal perturbation occurs. If we were in the natural cycle, CO2 levels would be around 280ppm. We are now over 387ppm and therefore CO2 is now leading in our current warming scenario, above natural cycle.
CO2 Lag -
Read More…

CO2 IS PLANT FOOD
Another interesting myth because it sounds logical that if CO2 is good for plants, more CO2 must be better. Some scientists have already begun to look at this assumption. Initial examinations indicate that more might not be better when it comes to food and nutritive quality. The US department of agriculture and interested scientists will likely be looking more deeply at this question.
CO2 is Plant Food -
Read More…

CO2 is Not a Pollutant
CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT
That depends on whether it is generated from the natural system or from industrial waste. The dictionary is a good source for understanding words... Let's take a look at what Webster has to say.
CO2 is Not a Pollutant -
Read More…

ClimateGate
CLIMATEGATE
The goal here is to provide a reasoned context and rebuttal regarding distorted views of the 'ClimateGate' emails. This is simply done by providing relevant context to statements of interest. The crime: A hacker illegally broke into a computer server at the University of East Anglia involving the Climate Research Unit (CRU). As always, context is key. Once the real context is understood, the emails make sense and the idea of conspiracy, scientific malfeasance, or fraud, is revealed to be unfounded.
ClimateGate -
Read More…

The Copenhagen Distraction
THE COPENHAGEN DISTRACTION
Rebuttal to Bjorn Lomborg on Global Warming: Bjørn Lomborg intentionally or unintentionally obfuscated the political will to mitigate climate change and certainly gained recognition and made money on his assertions. He put together his own conference and called it the Copenhagen Consensus. He wrote a book called 'The Skeptical Environmentalist ' for which the Denmark Ministry of Science found him guilty of 'scientific dishonesty'.
The Copenhagen Distraction -
Read More…

DENIALIST VS. SKEPTIC
Denialist vs. Skeptic: What's the difference? As usual, context is key: Those skeptical of established science are not skeptics, they are denialists. Science is skeptical by it's nature because science doubts opinions and science is not based on opinion or belief, it examines evidence and physics.
Denialist vs. Skeptic -
Read More…

The Denial Machine
THE DENIAL MACHINE
"The Denial Machine" was produced in 2006 but the denial machine behind the efforts to confuse the issue of human caused global warming started long before that. It's seeds were planted as far back as 1957 when Dr. Roger Revelle from Scripps Institute of Oceanography produced substantial work showing the implications and increased CO2 in the atmosphere. As the 'Keeling Curve' went up, the denial machine grew larger and more manipulative,

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Al Gore literally just said on Fox the Paris deal would not have solved global warming.

He went on to explain that it was basically just symbolic.

Is Al Gore an alt-right plant now?

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

1934 is the Hottest Year on Record
1934 IS THE HOTTEST YEAR ON RECORD
Incorrect. The claim is based on the temperatures in the United States, not the global mean temperature.

How would anyone even know what the global temp in 1934 was?
Not like there was a lot of coverage is there?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: yuppa

You got a link to anything on that technology? I would love to read up on it.

The more technical, the better.

TheRedneck

94 year old lithium battery inventor invents new battery

There ya go.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. What is the significance of these statistics?

The 97 percent consensus is nonsense. The following image is derived DIRECTLY from Cooks paper itself.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

The thing is, at no point have any sustainable development practitioners stated ...

No, they haven't. You did. That's why the reply was to you.

The Paris Agreement refers to greenhouse gasses beyond C02, some of which are more impactful per amount, but less in quantity. What is your counter-evidence that those gases aren't contributing to climate change?

That would depend on what these gases are. Everything I have read on the Paris Accord specifies carbon dioxide. If they're interested in other gases, those gases are quite far down the priority ladder.

And please don't try to put words in my mouth. It doesn't become you. I never said there were no greenhouse gases. There are many, including water vapor. I know you've got yourself all psyched up to refute talking points, but I don't do talking points. I'm a research engineer, which means I work with science on a daily basis... don't need no silly talking points.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

If you have any questions about particular point from that link, throw it out there and we can discuss. Note they say C02 is plant food and call it a myth.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

The thing is, at no point have any sustainable development practitioners stated ...

No, they haven't. You did. That's why the reply was to you.

The Paris Agreement refers to greenhouse gasses beyond C02, some of which are more impactful per amount, but less in quantity. What is your counter-evidence that those gases aren't contributing to climate change?

That would depend on what these gases are. Everything I have read on the Paris Accord specifies carbon dioxide. If they're interested in other gases, those gases are quite far down the priority ladder.

And please don't try to put words in my mouth. It doesn't become you. I never said there were no greenhouse gases. There are many, including water vapor. I know you've got yourself all psyched up to refute talking points, but I don't do talking points. I'm a research engineer, which means I work with science on a daily basis... don't need no silly talking points.

TheRedneck

Actually no I haven't ever stated zero impact is the goal, ever. Feel free to attempt to quote me. At every point on this thread I have been consistent regarding what sustainability is, balanced usage of resources. If you re-read all of my comments on this thread, that view should be readily apparent.

Also, I think you need to re-read my previous response. I merely pointed out that the Paris Agreement considers other gases than C02. I never stated that you said co2 is the only one. Don't put words in my mouth.

I am actually a very moderate, reasonable person. I wouldn't attempt to use a personalized argument from authority via your job. I am a former science teacher, and now a research/data scientist, which just like your claim means little in a vacuum.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. What is the significance of these statistics?

The 97 percent consensus is nonsense. The following image is derived DIRECTLY from Cooks paper itself.

Thank you for posting this. The 97% myth needs to die. The people perpetuating it are deliberately misleading people. Anyone with an open mind you explain it to realizes they've been had. The data is right there in his "study". People just don't read it, they read a synopsis of it written by some media hack with an agenda who interprets the data the way he wants.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

31,000 scientists reject global warming and say "no convincing evidence" that humans can or will cause global warming? But polls show that of scientists working in the field of climate science, and publishing papers on the topic: 97% of the climate scientists surveyed believe “global average temperatures have increased” during the past century; and 97% think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures. What is the significance of these statistics?

The 97 percent consensus is nonsense. The following image is derived DIRECTLY from Cooks paper itself.

I can believe that point. Here is actually a good article from Forbes on that.

www.forbes.com...

However, just as this article points out, that shouldn't be a hill to die on for either side.

originally posted by: face23785
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Al Gore literally just said on Fox the Paris deal would not have solved global warming.

He went on to explain that it was basically just symbolic.

Is Al Gore an alt-right plant now?

No, I posted that website as a collection of common skeptic claims, and then an attempt at rebuttals. I'm not claiming the rebuttals are all correct.

The Paris Deal however should be seen in the long line of negotiations, as the actual negotiators have said, that it wasn't the end point.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

Pick a point from your link and lets discuss one of them further.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

It gets at the core of the issue though. There is a fair amount of data that shows the climate is changing, however how much humans contribute to it and how much we can do to stop it simply isn't known yet. Since we don't know that for sure, there's no rationale behind making drastic destructive changes to our infrastructure and economies to try to fix it.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

I wasn't responding to anything you posted. I was merely pointing out the people that are freaking out that the US just killed the planet by pulling out of that deal were just contradicted by Al Gore.

originally posted by: D8Tee
a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

If you have any questions about particular point from that link, throw it out there and we can discuss. Note they say C02 is plant food and call it a myth.

I put it up as a convenient list of claims and counter-claims, as it appears to cover a good portion of the list. I am familiar with most of them. That way maybe some of us on this thread can have a starting point, and then add to the list.

a reply to: Quetzalcoatl14

This is a more thorough critique of the Cook paper and is spot on.

First a little bit about John Cook, he has a PhD in Cognitive Psychology and is involved with the IPCC.
His paper has been quoted by Obama and the President of the Sierra Club. I don't think either of them two had read the paper past it's headline. Anyways here's the critique of the paper, and it is accurate.


The Cook study gave papers a numeric rating. Rating #1 was "explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as >50%". Out of 12,464 papers considered, only 65 papers were in this category (note: this was just based on study participants reading the abstracts, not the full paper).

Based on that statistic alone, one could defend the claim that one half of one percent of papers on AGW clearly claim humans are the chief cause of it. That headline finding would be "less than one percent of expert papers explicitly agree that global warming is anthropogenic."

But maybe it's not fair to include the "no position" papers. Let's exclude those. In that case, the headline finding is "1.5% (65/4215) of expert papers that took some position on global warming explicitly agree that global warming is anthropogenic."

The full list of endorsement categories were as follows:

Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as >50% (65 articles)
Explicitly endorses but does not quantify or minimize (934 articles)
Implicitly endorses AGW without minimizing it (2934 articles)
No position (8269 articles)
Implicitly minimizes or rejects AGW (53 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW but does not quantify (15 articles)
Explicitly minimizes or rejects AGW as less than 50% (10 articles)
If we sum the rejection categories 5-7 together, there were 78 articles rejecting AGW, versus only 65 explicitly supporting the consensus. So another defensible headline finding is: "More articles implicitly or explicitly reject AGW than claim more than half of AGW is anthropogenic."

Or we could look at JUST the papers that give an explicit numeric percentage estimate. Comparing category 1 with category 7, we get this defensible headline: "87% of scientific articles that give a percentage estimate claim more than half of warming is anthropogenic". (though it would be important to note the actual number of articles in that case isn't much of a sample: 65 for versus 10 against).

Or if we want to rescue the original Cook number, that can be accomplished by adding a few caveats. Like so: "97% of articles on global warming that take a position on the matter either implicitly or explicitly endorse that human activity is causing some global warming"

Since the vast majority (98.5%) of these papers don't quantify how much warming, that's about as far as we can go.