Trump says privately he will leave Paris climate agreement, and does!

[Roflmouth]

longhair youtuber knows more than 97% of the world's scientists.. that sounds plausible.

Which 97% of the "world's scientists" would those be? Go ahead and list them right here ----------->

 

[Commodus]

Which 97% of the "world's scientists" would those be? Go ahead and list them right here ----------->

You're seriously going to act as if he needs to prove it? Human-made climate change is a broadly accepted scientific reality based on fundamental things like the nature of carbon dioxide. You can accept it, or you can be wrong.

 

[Roflmouth]

You're seriously going to act as if he needs to prove it? Human-made climate change is a broadly accepted scientific reality based on fundamental things like the nature of carbon dioxide. You can accept it, or you can be wrong.

Hey, I'm just trying to find the source of his "97% of the world's scientists" lies. He didn't say "human-made climate change is a broadly accepted scientific reality."

 

[nathanddrews]

Good riddance, using climate change as a front for global wealth distribution. The actual long term impact of the Paris agreement was so miniscule as to be laughable even under "worst case scenario" shortfalls, but relied upon many trillions of US tax dollars to shoulder the brunt of international complacency. I think Trump actually made the right call here, however, let's use that $100B+ annual donation to advocate and build next-gen nuclear instead - something will actually generate all the "green" energy we could ever want.

And the 97% of scientists never said anything about throwing trillions of dollars into a global climate ponzi scheme.

 

[boomerang]

So we can control the climate of the planet but controlling our borders is impossible. Sounds legit.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

So we can control the climate of the planet but controlling our borders is impossible. Sounds legit.

Is there somewhere you attend to learn how to be this stupid? Honest question.

 

[boomerang]

I think Trump actually made the right call here

Nothing is official yet. But should he decide we'll stay (announcement is supposed to be at 3 PM), I'm looking forward to the usual leftist suspects fawning all over him for making the right decision, etc.

 

[K1052]

I think Trump actually made the right call here, however, let's use that $100B+ annual donation to advocate and build next-gen nuclear instead - something will actually generate all the "green" energy we could ever want.

No, he didn't. Levelized cost of renewables is now dramatically lower than new nuclear on paper and by a mile in real life. Westinghouse just bankrupted itself (and possibly Toshiba too) trying to build Vogtle 3 & 4. Few, if any, new fission reactors will be built in the US from now on.

 

[0roo0roo]

Conservatives have no interest nor capability to be leaders anymore.

So I'd say no.

longhair youtuber knows more than 97% of the world's scientists.. that sounds plausible.

The length of his hair is irrelevant, he's simply correct.

A hundred trillion+ for basically nothing, because the left wants to pretend they are green.
"Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100"

There are things you can do to increase efficiency, but its not as "sexy"

But this is what happens when the goal is to just appear you are doing something, to score political points rather than actually basing your decisions on rational assessment of the facts.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

Which 97% of the "world's scientists" would those be? Go ahead and list them right here ----------->https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

 

[Paratus]

Hey, I'm just trying to find the source of his "97% of the world's scientists" lies. He didn't say "human-made climate change is a broadly accepted scientific reality."

To be specific it's 97% of peer reviewed climate papers that take a stance on the subject agree the bulk of warming is caused by human activity.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

Skeptical Science's 2013 'The Consensus Project'
Scientists need to back up their opinions with research and data that survive the peer-review process. A Skeptical Science peer-reviewed survey of all (over 12,000) peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' and 'global warming' published between 1991 and 2011 (Cook et al. 2013) found that over 97% of the papers taking a position on the subject agreed with the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of the project, the scientist authors were emailed and rated over 2,000 of their own papers. Once again, over 97% of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming agreed that humans are causing it.

Oreskes 2004 and Peiser
A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused (Oreskes 2004). 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way (focused on methods or paleoclimate analysis).

Benny Peiser, a climate contrarian, repeated Oreskes' surveyand claimed to have found 34 peer reviewed studies rejecting the consensus. However, an inspection of each of the 34 studies reveals most of them don't reject the consensus at all. The remaining articles in Peiser's list are editorials or letters, not peer-reviewed studies. Peiser has since retracted his criticism of Oreskes survey:

"Only [a] few abstracts explicitly reject or doubt the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) consensus which is why I have publicly withdrawn this point of my critique. [snip] I do not think anyone is questioning that we are in a period of global warming. Neither do I doubt that the overwhelming majority of climatologists is agreed that the current warming period is mostly due to human impact."

Doran 2009
Subsequent research has confirmed this result. A survey of 3146 earth scientists asked the question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009). More than 90% of participants had Ph.D.s, and 7% had master’s degrees. Overall, 82% of the scientists answered yes. However, what are most interesting are responses compared to the level of expertise in climate science. Of scientists who were non-climatologists and didn't publish research, 77% answered yes. In contrast, 97.5% of climatologists who actively publish research on climate change responded yes. As the level of active research and specialization in climate science increases, so does agreement that humans are significantly changing global temperatures.

Figure 1: Response to the survey question "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" (Doran 2009)General public data come from a 2008 Gallup poll.

Most striking is the divide between expert climate scientists (97.4%) and the general public (58%). The paper concludes:

"It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes. The challenge, rather, appears to be how to effectively communicate this fact to policy makers and to a public that continues to mistakenly perceive debate among scientists."

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Hey, I'm just trying to find the source of his "97% of the world's scientists" lies. He didn't say "human-made climate change is a broadly accepted scientific reality."

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt

To save you some time, you will only want to review the peer reviewed papers that actually make a determination on cause. Reviewing all 12,000 papers might be too time consuming.

 

[K1052]

CNN reporting that Trump has informed congress he intends to withdraw.

I wonder what he'll say when other countries start pricing our carbon output into the trade agreements he wants to rip up and redo.

 

[fskimospy]

The length of his hair is irrelevant, he's simply correct.

A hundred trillion+ for basically nothing, because the left wants to pretend they are green.
"Statistician: UN climate treaty will cost $100 trillion – To Have No Impact – Postpone warming by less than four years by 2100"

There are things you can do to increase efficiency, but its not as "sexy"

But this is what happens when the goal is to just appear you are doing something, to score political points rather than actually basing your decisions on rational assessment of the facts.

That's the thing though, we ARE basing our decisions on a rational assessment of the facts. You're basing them off of youtube videos that tell you what you want to hear.

So I decided to look up the work of Bjorn Lomborg, the person whose work that youtube video is presumably about. Shockingly enough he has a long history of extreme scientific dishonesty and a total lack of expertise in the issue he's opining about. If you're rationally assessing the facts, you would be extraordinarily foolish to trust this person as he's already been outed as a dishonest source. For example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Skeptical_Environmentalist#Accusations_of_scientific_dishonesty

On January 6, 2003, a mixed DCSD ruling was released, in which the Committees decided that The Skeptical Environmentalist was scientifically dishonest, but Lomborg was innocent of wrongdoing due to a lack of expertise in the relevant fields:[25]
"Objectively speaking, the publication of the work under consideration is deemed to fall within the concept of scientific dishonesty. ...In view of the subjective requirements made in terms of intent or gross negligence, however, Lomborg's publication cannot fall within the bounds of this characterization. Conversely, the publication is deemed clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice."
The DCSD cited The Skeptical Environmentalist for:

• Fabrication of data;
• Selective discarding of unwanted results (selective citation);
• Deliberately misleading use of statistical methods;
• Distorted interpretation of conclusions;
• Plagiarism;
• Deliberate misinterpretation of others' results.

You see that? The book was viewed as filled with lies, but because Lomborg was so incompetent they decided not to go after him further. That's the guy you're citing as a source, lol. Note that this ruling was eventually set aside over procedural issues but not because the book was found to be honest. You can read more about his poor attempts at scientific work in a book called 'The Lomborg Deception'.

Since your source has been shown to have engaged in at best extremely poor reasoning and at worst willful deception I imagine you will now no longer base your opinion on his work. Is this correct? (lol, of course it isn't)

 

[Paratus]

Good riddance, using climate change as a front for global wealth distribution. The actual long term impact of the Paris agreement was so miniscule as to be laughable even under "worst case scenario" shortfalls, but relied upon many trillions of US tax dollars to shoulder the brunt of international complacency. I think Trump actually made the right call here, however, let's use that $100B+ annual donation to advocate and build next-gen nuclear instead - something will actually generate all the "green" energy we could ever want.

And the 97% of scientists never said anything about throwing trillions of dollars into a global climate ponzi scheme.

The point of the agreement was to provide a framework to reduce emissions. The current targets won't get there but they are what is politically possible for each country at the current time. The framework provides for continual reporting and pressure to make improvements in emissions targets.

We already spend ~$350B on fossil fuel subsidies. Why don't we use that for next gen nuclear, onsite intermittent energy storage technology for renewables, and adaption efforts that are already required.

Seceding our leadership role will not only impact the cost of adaption for us but negatively impact our political standing and American manufacturing of renewables.

 

[K1052]

The point of the agreement was to provide a framework to reduce emissions. The current targets won't get there but they are what is politically possible for each country at the current time. The framework provides for continual reporting and pressure to make improvements in emissions targets.

We already spend ~$350B on fossil fuel subsidies. Why don't we use that for next gen nuclear, onsite intermittent energy storage technology for renewables, and adaption efforts that are already required.

Seceding our leadership role will not only impact the cost of adaption for us but negatively impact our political standing and American manufacturing of renewables.

Worse for fossil fuel interests this could trigger even more aggressive RPS in many states and ZEV requirements/subsidies. Also since they are often multinationals doing business with the rest of the world could get a lot more problematic.

 

[Pens1566]

So we join Nicaragua and Syria as the only countries not supporting the agreement. Sounds about right.

 

[K1052]

So we join Nicaragua and Syria as the only countries not supporting the agreement. Sounds about right.

Nicaragua didn't join because they thought it was insufficiently aggressive. They're supposed to hit 90% renewable energy by 2020.

 

[Paratus]

Worse for fossil fuel interests this could trigger even more aggressive RPS in many states and ZEV requirements/subsidies. Also since they are often multinationals doing business with the rest of the world could get a lot more problematic.

Yup.
It'll end up hurting us more than any short term benefit of which I have yet to hear articulated.

It'll be a lot of American manufacturing that takes the brunt too.

So we join Nicaragua and Syria as the only countries not supporting the agreement. Sounds about right.

It's really just Syria. If I remember correctly Nicaragua didn't join because the agreement didn't go far enough.

 

[agent00f]

To be specific it's 97% of peer reviewed climate papers that take a stance on the subject agree the bulk of warming is caused by human activity.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm

http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/media/erl460291datafile.txt

To save you some time, you will only want to review the peer reviewed papers that actually make a determination on cause. Reviewing all 12,000 papers might be too time consuming.

As a preview of how this'll play out, roflmouth & ooroo sorts will predictably ignore/dismiss any such scientific evidence only to keep "asking the questions" in the future because that's just what degenerates do. Then Jaskalas, Hayabusa Rider or other BothSiders will somehow try to blame this on libtards in order to further enable their kin. Of course some number of said libtards like wolfe9998 will take that seriously because why would degenerates & co play a dishonest political game?

That's basically the american political ecosystem in a nutshell.

 

[[DHT]Osiris]

As a preview of how this'll play out, roflmouth & ooroo sorts will predictably ignore/dismiss any such scientific evidence only to keep "asking the questions" in the future because that's just what degenerates do. Then Jaskalas, Hayabusa Rider & co will somehow try to blame this on libtards in order to further enable their kin. Of course some number of said libtards like wolfe9998 will take that seriously because why would degenerates & co play a dishonest political game?

That's basically the american political ecosystem in a nutshell.

Don't forget hammering the issue into something in some way caused by 'Liberals/democrats' attempting to make government bigger/create more taxes/line more pockets.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

As expected Trump is a buffoon. The accords aren't strictly necessary of course but it would require an honest effort on our part and there's nothing like honest on the US side.

 

[K1052]

As expected Trump is a buffoon. The accords aren't strictly necessary of course but it would require an honest effort on our part and there's nothing like honest on the US side.

A few years of pandering just to his hardcore base should do sweet things for US stature and our economy. 5% GDP growth here we come.

 

[woolfe9998]

As a preview of how this'll play out, roflmouth & ooroo sorts will predictably ignore/dismiss any such scientific evidence only to keep "asking the questions" in the future because that's just what degenerates do. Then Jaskalas, Hayabusa Rider or other BothSiders will somehow try to blame this on libtards in order to further enable their kin. Of course some number of said libtards like wolfe9998 will take that seriously because why would degenerates & co play a dishonest political game?

That's basically the american political ecosystem in a nutshell.

And you exist at the absolute rock bottom of that ecosystem. A man without a damn clue about anything or anyone, who thinks he knows better than everyone else. You're an embarrassment to the human race.

 

[Thebobo]

So embarrassing watching Trump speak, I mourn for our children.

RIP Earth