Looks like we're OUT of the Paris Accord.

[Fasglas]

"The United States will cease all implementation of the nonbinding Paris accord," Trump said, saying it would include ending the implementation of carbon reduction targets set under Obama and ending contributions to the United Nations' Green Climate Fund, which Trump said was "costing the United States a fortune."

Trump on Paris accord: 'We're getting out' - CNNPolitics.com (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/trump-paris-climate-decision/index.html)

:seasix:

[Shrike6]

Oh, thank God we're not buying into that swindle.

[mrvette]

Trump on Paris accord: 'We're getting out' - CNNPolitics.com (http://www.cnn.com/2017/06/01/politics/trump-paris-climate-decision/index.html)

:seasix:

:seasix::seasix::hurray::hurray::hurray::hurray::hurray::shots::cert::cert::datawiz::D

[Craig]

Looks like the Market likes it.

[NCC-1701]

:hurray::hurray::hurray::seasix:

[Cybercowboy]

Ask anyone who was adamantly for it what it actually entailed. They don't know, as you'll quickly find out. It was pushed by the globalists and giant international corporations. It was going to cost the average American taxpayer around $7000/year once implemented, and probably at least 1 million good paying jobs (probably a hell of a lot more than that) and would have resulted in hundreds of billions of dollars being dumped into a literal black hole. We're $20 trillion in debt, let's do something about that kthxbai.

(also this is one of the top four reasons I supported and voted for Trump, the other three being the Supreme Court, illegal immigration, and TPP.)

[Bill]

The best part is, the way he is flying through honoring his campaign promises, sooner or later he'll have to get around to locking up Hillary and Co.

[Dan Dlabay]

It's about time that we have a President that stands up to all the bs that the left is trying to ram down our throats.:cert:

[Will]

Ask anyone who was adamantly for it what it actually entailed. They don't know, as you'll quickly find out

Watched the head of Obama's council of economic advisors make an ASS of himself this AM on Fox Business.

Watched mayor of Miami Beach do the same tonight on Fox.

Clowns.

[vetteman9368]

I love breathing smog.

I love not subsidizing China to create it for the next 13 Years

[Craig]

Yeah, we should create it here instead. Good plan. :cert:

As I understand it, compliance would reduce our CO2 emissions by a nearly unrecordable ammount. The environmental impact is nearly nothing, while the economic impact is significant. It was a "feel good" effort.

[Kerrmudgeon]

And right from the place he said he's protecting.......:rofl:
Pittsburgh mayor vows to continue to follow Paris agreement for the future of his people......:thumbs:
https://ca.news.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEVipp3DBZBiYAMVEXFwx.?p=mayor%20of%20pittsburgh%20vows%20to%20continue%20paris%20accord&fr2=cosmos&.sep=&fr=yhs-avast-001

[vetteman9368]

Yeah, we should create it here instead. Good plan. :cert:

By what measure of fact do you assume we will go backwards to the smog plauged days of the 70's and 80's?

[vetteman9368]

And right from the place he said he's protecting.......:rofl:
Pittsburgh mayor vows to continue to follow Paris agreement for the future of his people......:thumbs:
https://ca.news.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEVipp3DBZBiYAMVEXFwx.?p=mayor%20of%20pittsburgh%20vows%20to%20continue%20paris%20accord&fr2=cosmos&.sep=&fr=yhs-avast-001

Well the city of Pittsburgh won't be footing the bill that the nation would have had to foot, so his argument is pointless. But here's a fun revelation. So we can have environmental improvement without federal or international involvement? Welcome to conservatism.

[Kerrmudgeon]

Well the city of Pittsburgh won't be footing the bill that the nation would have had to foot, so his argument is pointless. But here's a fun revelation. So we can have environmental improvement without federal or international involvement? Welcome to conservatism.

Time will tell. I hope that's true for your sake and that of your kids and grandkids. :yesnod:

[Milton Fox]

The smog is still there - you just cant see it anymore. :dance:

[OddBall]

Ask anyone who was adamantly for it what it actually entailed. They don't know, as you'll quickly find out. It was pushed by the globalists and giant international corporations. It was going to cost the average American taxpayer around $7000/year once implemented, and probably at least 1 million good paying jobs (probably a hell of a lot more than that) and would have resulted in hundreds of billions of dollars being dumped into a literal black hole. We're $20 trillion in debt, let's do something about that kthxbai.

(also this is one of the top four reasons I supported and voted for Trump, the other three being the Supreme Court, illegal immigration, and TPP.)

:iagree: Perzactly.

Kerry went on CBS predicting ridiculous doom and gloom. No wonder the public is so confused when the media spoon-feeds nothing but idiotic rhetoric to them.

[Bill]

Well the city of Pittsburgh won't be footing the bill that the nation would have had to foot, so his argument is pointless. But here's a fun revelation. So we can have environmental improvement without federal or international involvement? Welcome to conservatism.

Truth MOAB incoming!!!!!^^^^^^^^

[Bill]

And right from the place he said he's protecting.......:rofl:
Pittsburgh mayor vows to continue to follow Paris agreement for the future of his people......:thumbs:
https://ca.news.search.yahoo.com/search;_ylt=A0LEVipp3DBZBiYAMVEXFwx.?p=mayor%20of%20pittsburgh%20vows%20to%20continue%20paris%20accord&fr2=cosmos&.sep=&fr=yhs-avast-001

Will the mayor be cutting a big assed check for his people's share of what they "owe" to developing nations? Talk is great, but I want to see a copy of that check. Perhaps I shouldn't hold my breath?

[Bill]

Yeah, we should create it here instead. Good plan. :cert:

Choice A: Make widgets here, with tight environmental controls

Choice B: Make widgets in China, with virtually no environmental controls

Either way, people want widgets and will buy them. They are going to get made one way or another. What's your choice?

But it's not even really about that. It's about redistribution of wealth. Who writes the checks, who do the checks go to, and who writes the biggest checks?

[Thunder22]

There's nothing stopping American companies from reducing their carbon footprint without the Paris accord. If the only way they're going to put in the effort is because an accord was signed, then they're nothing more than children who only do what they're told.

Watching twitter and instagram the last 24 hours has been hilarious with the celebrities crying and moaning about the environment, meanwhile if you scroll through their earlier posts, there are a multitude of pics of them on their private planes. You just can't make this shit up.


Did the morons on the left ever stop and think why Germany/Italy/France are saying they won't renegotiate the accord? Because the current accord is good for THEM! Not for the US! Why would they re-negotiate a deal that they have the upper hand in lol

[VatorMan]

There's nothing stopping American companies from reducing their carbon footprint without the Paris accord. If the only way they're going to put in the effort is because an accord was signed, then they're nothing more than children who only do what they're told.

Watching twitter and instagram the last 24 hours has been hilarious with the celebrities crying and moaning about the environment, meanwhile if you scroll through their earlier posts, there are a multitude of pics of them on their private planes. You just can't make this shit up.


Did the morons on the left ever stop and think why Germany/Italy/France are saying they won't renegotiate the accord? Because the current accord is good for THEM! Not for the US! Why would they re-negotiate a deal that they have the upper hand in lol

Exactly. All these companies crying foul- NO ONE is stopping them from spending their profits on clean energy. They only do it when it make business sense. I.E. a huge .Gov rebate or tax exemption. Hilarious that the two in this thread are 2 of the worst polluters. One owns a mid year Corvette and the other building a track specific non smogged car.

Hypocrisy at its finest.

[boracayjohnny]

Meanwhile, Third World countries shit on the environment without a care. How many Third World countries are there? Way more than enough to offset some douchebag, self entitled ass driving his/her Prius and "Saving" the environment

[6spdC6]

Second BIG win for DT.

Glad he could see through that liberal man made global warming bullshit. Over the course of history we have had both warming and cooling cycles, nothing is going to stop that.

That is a big win and getting in a decent person that believes in the constitution as written on the SCOTUS is a very big win also.

[DAB]

watching Fox this morning and Geraldo is on talking about this. he states that 10 years ago he went solar at his home, cost him $50,000, and after 10 years it's paid off.

i call BS.

he'd have to have a monthly electric bill of about $416 for that to be true.

we have a modest 2200+ SF house, and our monthly electric bill runs about $130.

so keep talking Jerry, i'm not buying what you are saying.

if solar was such a great deal, every warehouse would have panels all over their roofs. they don't.

[boracayjohnny]

watching Fox this morning and Geraldo is on talking about this. he states that 10 years ago he went solar at his home, cost him $50,000, and after 10 years it's paid off.

i call BS.

he'd have to have a monthly electric bill of about $416 for that to be true.

we have a modest 2200+ SF house, and our monthly electric bill runs about $130.

so keep talking Jerry, i'm not buying what you are saying.

if solar was such a great deal, every warehouse would have panels all over their roofs. they don't.

Hey now big boy, you can't do as others say and then not follow their own advice. How dare you not follow the sheeple.

[Thunder22]

The Paris Climate Agreement Won't Change the Climate - YouTube

Good video on the subject

[VatorMan]

watching Fox this morning and Geraldo is on talking about this. he states that 10 years ago he went solar at his home, cost him $50,000, and after 10 years it's paid off.

i call BS.

he'd have to have a monthly electric bill of about $416 for that to be true.

we have a modest 2200+ SF house, and our monthly electric bill runs about $130.

so keep talking Jerry, i'm not buying what you are saying.

if solar was such a great deal, every warehouse would have panels all over their roofs. they don't.


It's possible. What he didn't tell you is that $50K was the OTD price and how much of a .Gov or utility subsidy he got. Plus the price of electricity makes a huge difference. Here in MD, I'm paying .08 KWH while you might pay .04 KWH or less in the midwest. In Hawaii, our sister site pays .44 KWH and we are working to build a PV field big enough to run the site day and night.
Here at NIST, we are going to build a 5 MGW array and the payback is 15 years @ .10 a KWH. So, PV makes sense in certain places, no sense in most, and 0 sense if there's no .Gov or utility subsidy.

[Bill]

watching Fox this morning and Geraldo is on talking about this. he states that 10 years ago he went solar at his home, cost him $50,000, and after 10 years it's paid off.

i call BS.

he'd have to have a monthly electric bill of about $416 for that to be true.

we have a modest 2200+ SF house, and our monthly electric bill runs about $130.

so keep talking Jerry, i'm not buying what you are saying.

if solar was such a great deal, every warehouse would have panels all over their roofs. they don't.


This^^^^^^^^^^

[78SA]

The Paris Accord isn't responsible for how much smog has decreased in LA and other cities. Those places did it on their own without needing some money drain from other countries.

[Bill]

Yeah, screw the planet!

https://i.redd.it/hqxm4b92291z.jpg

[vetteman9368]

Yeah, those scientists are just making it up. :slap:

I hope you have no kids and don't live near the coast.

Whatever. The Paris accord was worthless from the outset.

[Bill]

It's possible. What he didn't tell you is that $50K was the OTD price and how much of a .Gov or utility subsidy he got. Plus the price of electricity makes a huge difference. Here in MD, I'm paying .08 KWH while you might pay .04 KWH or less in the midwest. In Hawaii, our sister site pays .44 KWH and we are working to build a PV field big enough to run the site day and night.
Here at NIST, we are going to build a 5 MGW array and the payback is 15 years @ .10 a KWH. So, PV makes sense in certain places, no sense in most, and 0 sense if there's no .Gov or utility subsidy.

I live in Sunny, ridiculously hot and humid Houston, where solar would actually make sense, producing power during the peak demand of Houston's blistering Summers. Every few years, I look at the cost of a solar system for the house and......it doesn't make financial sense. I'm glad the option is there, though.....it keeps the power companies honest. They just have to keep their power prices low enough that consumers don't go solar en masse.

[Fasglas]

Of course, there is a LOT of concern with DT pulling out of the Accord.

Why? Simple, really. The spigot has been shut off. No more AMERICAN dollars.

http://www.acting-man.com/blog/media/2015/06/Liquidity.jpg

[JRD77VET]

Yeah, screw the planet!

Or how about if the other countries finance their own reductions in pollutants?

They can put THEIR money where their mouth is. :yesnod:

[Bill]

https://imgur.com/0H0Hxij

[Kevin_73]

The result of Trump pulling out of the Paris accord will absolutely be higher temperatures globally...
The steam coming off the heads of all the liberals in the world will probably raise global temperatures by several degrees:willy:

[OddBall]

And the ones without money, what should they do? Oh, right, keep polluting.

If they don't have any money, they aren't producing. If they aren't producing, they aren't polluting.

If they are producing, then they have enough money to manage their own pollutants.

[6spdC6]

Yeah, those scientists are just making it up. :slap:

I hope you have no kids and don't live near the coast.

More bullshit by the tag team of Waco & Kerrmudgeon If you people understand history and climate even a little bit, you see their are periods of intense heat and cool.

By the way those are "your scientists" you quote. There are many others out there that have different opinions. Watching you guys it's sort of a version of the Ancient Aliens and all the drawn out drama that subject produces!:rofl:

A good bet I have seen much more weather than you tag teamers have.

At age 71 I have 2 adult sons in their 40s & grandchildren and I rather enjoy living in the mountains of upstate NY rather in the ultra liberal infested coastal areas.

[Bill]

https://i.redd.it/pdm7h95ahc1z.jpg

[69camfrk]

Man is but a speck on this planet. The sun is responsible for periods of heating and cooling. Numbers have been getting fudged for years, and the whole global warming, cooling, climate change, or whatever it is this week is a bunch of bunk. It's called the damn weather....:yesnod:

[Cybercowboy]

Guys, it's over. North Korea is for the Paris Accords. You know how much they care about the environment, amirite?

Anyway, there are 90-something mayors and governors who have proclaimed that they will adhere to the guidelines on their own. OK, cool. But why only start now? You mean they have been polluting and stuff and only after Trump pulled out of this agreement they are going to step up and clean their act up, so that by doing so they can (by their own thinking) flip Trump the bird? Well, here's the thing. This is what Trump and his supporters want for America. Individuals and local leaders taking personal responsibility and innovating without Uncle Sam forcing them to do X, Y, or Z. Imagine that!

Also, just a little FYI. Seven of the top ten cities in America with the worst particulate air pollution are in California. Just, you know, pointing that out...

[OddBall]

Wouldn't it be nice if it were that simple?

That's not an argument.

[6spdC6]

Guys, it's over. North Korea is for the Paris Accords. You know how much they care about the environment, amirite?

Anyway, there are 90-something mayors and governors who have proclaimed that they will adhere to the guidelines on their own. OK, cool. But why only start now? You mean they have been polluting and stuff and only after Trump pulled out of this agreement they are going to step up and clean their act up, so that by doing so they can (by their own thinking) flip Trump the bird? Well, here's the thing. This is what Trump and his supporters want for America. Individuals and local leaders taking personal responsibility and innovating without Uncle Sam forcing them to do X, Y, or Z. Imagine that!

Also, just a little FYI. Seven of the top ten cities in America with the worst particulate air pollution are in California. Just, you know, pointing that out...

Well out idiot gov Andy "Safe Act" Cuomo is planning to run for POTUS next time. He is going way over the top to show to "his" people how much of a good liberal he is. So this global warming bullshit is made to order for him, + Also I do not think there is much love lost between Cuomo and Trump, both being NYC people!

He learned well from that other big mouth idiot from our state Chuck Schumer and is shooting off his mouth on anything he can. He aslo has groups that pollute the state with "Thanks To Cuomo" messages on TV on how good a job he is doing as governor.

Funny they never mention about all the shady things he is doing, but slowly a lot of his bullshit is becoming known and investigations starting to produce results. (possible indictment in future):hurray:

[VatorMan]

Guys, it's over. North Korea is for the Paris Accords. You know how much they care about the environment, amirite?

Anyway, there are 90-something mayors and governors who have proclaimed that they will adhere to the guidelines on their own. OK, cool. But why only start now? You mean they have been polluting and stuff and only after Trump pulled out of this agreement they are going to step up and clean their act up, so that by doing so they can (by their own thinking) flip Trump the bird? Well, here's the thing. This is what Trump and his supporters want for America. Individuals and local leaders taking personal responsibility and innovating without Uncle Sam forcing them to do X, Y, or Z. Imagine that!

Also, just a little FYI. Seven of the top ten cities in America with the worst particulate air pollution are in California. Just, you know, pointing that out...

:iagree: amazing how just a small guesture has worked to make individuals put their money where their mouth is. Even Bloomberg is covering the US's part for a few million. Trump wins again ! Making people that care about the environment actually DO something. There is a couple of people on here that could learn a thing or two about that.

[Bill]

Guys, it's over. North Korea is for the Paris Accords. You know how much they care about the environment, amirite?

Anyway, there are 90-something mayors and governors who have proclaimed that they will adhere to the guidelines on their own. OK, cool. But why only start now? You mean they have been polluting and stuff and only after Trump pulled out of this agreement they are going to step up and clean their act up, so that by doing so they can (by their own thinking) flip Trump the bird? Well, here's the thing. This is what Trump and his supporters want for America. Individuals and local leaders taking personal responsibility and innovating without Uncle Sam forcing them to do X, Y, or Z. Imagine that!

Also, just a little FYI. Seven of the top ten cities in America with the worst particulate air pollution are in California. Just, you know, pointing that out...

Shooting ICBMs into the ocean is N. Korea's way of fighting climate change.

[Bill]

:iagree: amazing how just a small guesture has worked to make individuals put their money where their mouth is. Even Bloomberg is covering the US's part for a few million. Trump wins again ! Making people that care about the environment actually DO something. There is a couple of people on here that could learn a thing or two about that.

WTF? I hate an overbearing federal government and support states' rights and individual liberty now!

I'll be waiting to see if Pittsburgh and all those other cities levy a special tax assessment to pay their fair share to the climate change fund.

[vetteman9368]

<- not a liberal, but not a science denying luddite. :cert:

Then you should know that the Paris deal was bad for the US and only marginally effective at its most optimistic.

[Millenium Vette]

The Paris Accord was all about the money, The Obama Legacy and advancing liberal bullshit politics, nothing more. If all the governments of the world really wanted to accomplish something to clean up the environment, they would put together an accord to ban all volcanoes.

[Kerrmudgeon]

BTW, for you nay sayers....it's not the change that's new to the climate, it's the speed that it's happening. Never before in recorded history has the earth seen the climate change so fast. THAT is the difference.

But it doesn't matter what logic says, you can't have a logical discussion with most around here........you guys probably still think the earth is flat too. :leaving:

[JRD77VET]

BTW, for you nay sayers....it's not the change that's new to the climate, it's the speed that it's happening. Never before in recorded history has the earth seen the climate change so fast. THAT is the difference.

But it doesn't matter what logic says, you can't have a logical discussion with most around here........you guys probably still think the earth is flat too. :leaving:

Any of the scientists who didn't 100% agree with the govt position of climate change were threatened with loss of funding. ( basically follow the line or find yourself ostracized :yesnod: )

We are in a time of increased solar activity. That has a bigger bearing on climate change than man's intervention.

Percentage wise, how long is the "recorded history" you mention versus the age of the earth?

[Craig]

<- not a liberal, but not a science denying luddite. :cert:

Throwing labels...great.

[Kerrmudgeon]

Percentage wise, how long is the "recorded history" you mention versus the age of the earth?

The history of the earth doesn't have to be written down. Nature is it's own historian. Look at ancient tree rings, layers of rock laid down over millennia, Ice cores samples, and also the fact that the change is happening so fast that the flora and fona haven't been able to adapt quick enough to keep from perishing. Song birds have dwindled from the 60s to just 62% of their numbers. Polar bears are starving to death from the fast melting ice flows. The bees that pollinate our food crops have been decimated. They haven't had time to adapt. Evolution takes thousands of years, and we have screwed that all up.:sad:

So you just keep your head in the sand.....without massive change the end is closer that you think.:sad:

[Craig]

My credentials: I work in government funded science.

I'm open to be convinced otherwise, I'd like to hear why I should believe you; what's the detail of your credentials?

[JRD77VET]

Why didn't you use the entire reply including increased solar activity we are in?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Do humans have an impact? Yes they do.

It comes down to I'm tired of being "cried wolf" to for decades on end.

They blew smoke up my ass a few too many times for me to believe everything they say now.

Let's pick on Al Gore for a minute. He's crying about excessive energy consumption and saving the planet. When they posted his electric usage for his house, one month of his use would power my house for about 18 months.

I'm just tired of "do what I say while I do what I want"

[Millenium Vette]

Is this supposed to be a serious reply? Banning volcanoes? Yeah, let's just keep destroying the only planet we know of that will support human life. Good plan, thanks for playing. Let's just blame Obama and pretend nothing we do matters.

Are you asking if I was serious about banning volcanoes? No David, I was not. The point I was trying to make regarding volcanoes is that man is not the only polluter on earth. I am also not claiming that nothing we do matters. What I am saying is that politics and money are big motivators for much of the Paris Accord.

[Craig]

As I see it: "nearly 100% of 'climate change scientists' believe in man made climate change". I believe that 1) their conclusions are self serving, and 2) as an engineer, I need to hear from someone I believe has credibility, by my standards, before I'm ready to accept their conclusions. When I ask for that I'm labeled a "denier". When faced with that counter argument, the argument becomes even less credible; even if it does come from a huge majority of journalists and politicians and movie stars...who have absolutely no scientific or engineering background or credibility.

[Craig]

When the scientists who present opposing data aren't attacked, personally and publicly, then I might consider the credibility of the climate scientists, who, by the way, were warning of a coming ice age in the 80s.

[Millenium Vette]

I wasn't implying you were being serious, I was trying to make a point. I failed at that, I guess. :rofl:

No, man isn't the only polluter...but we're the only ones that have changed the course of the climate in the past century or so. There are no other new factors.

It was before your time, but nature did change the climate when Mt. St. Helens blew in 1980. :cert:

[Millenium Vette]

Nothing, and I repeat, nothing, has produced the level of change we've seen recently, naturally, with the exception of extinction-level events. I don't know about you, but I'd rather not live to see one of them.

How about some specifics and maybe a link or two?

[Millenium Vette]

It's an easy Google.

I'm more interested in reading sources you find credible rather than whatever Google throws up. :cert:

[OddBall]

No, it's not. It wasn't meant to be. Emerging nations don't have the capital to support themselves and do it in an environmentally friendly way.


Yes they do. If they are producing, they are profiting. If they aren't profiting, then they aren't producing. If they are producing and not profiting, then they have a management problem. They can take care of themselves if they want to, they just have to want to. Throwing our money at them is only going to increase corruption and dependency, and fix no problems.



It was a gentleman's agreement to do the right thing. The percentage of the budget it would have taken is minuscule.


100 billion per year ain't minuscule.

[mrvette]

I grew older in Monkey Co. Faryland, right in the center of NIH and NIST out in G'burg, used to live next door to NIST, and NIH, and got news, I NOT impressed with the general level of .gov workers.....they get paid to generate paperwork that no one reads and it's on a MASSIVE scale.....

funny thing is, that whole area/region is liberal as hell, most of the 'educations'/degrees being in liberal farts, not hard science....and so you know what gang makes the decisions on the upper level......

another comic act is.....in the middle of that uber liberal region lies TWO atomic reactors, and if the libs knew it, they would have a COW......one is on NIH campus, the other is on NIST campus......

:lol::lol::dance:

[mrvette]

And you arrived at that number how?

Simple, gimme the money and I do my own shopping....ok??


:seasix::hurray:

[Millenium Vette]

I could dig and find some for you, if you're really interested.

MIT has come out saying that Trump completely misrepresented their work: Trump misunderstood MIT climate research, university officials say | Reuters (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-climatechange-trump-mit-idUSKBN18S6L0?utm_campaign=trueAnthem%3A+Trending+Content&utm_content=5930abb104d30123a0683425&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook)

I would really appreciate it if you would do that Dave. I do keep an open mind and with you being a scientist, I would trust your recommendations more than Google. :cert:

[Hoog]

I'd like to see definitive research showing that CO2 induced radiative forcing increases directly correlate to temperature increase, after filtering out the effects of other greenhouse gasses, water vapor, and solar forcing. That isn't too much to ask...is it?

Statements like "97% agree on climate change" are meaningless. Agree on what? That we're pumping some amount of CO2 into the atmosphere? Ok, great.

The number of true climate scientists that agree that the forcing exists may be 97%+, but the number that agree any quantification of CO2 forcing is much lower. I remember reading that CO2 is approximately 30% of the total radiative forcing caused by greenhouse gasses....which altogether are only 1/2 of what solar provides.

So, ~10% of all forcing is caused by CO2, of which some smaller percentage is contributable to human activities. Cutting back CO2 by an even smaller amount is going to cause the seas to only rise 1.4 inches in the next 100 years rather than 1.9 if we do nothing?

I'm not going to lose too much sleep over that.

Politicians wanting to throw a metric ass ton of hard earned money at the "problem" with no guarantee of any positive outcome bothers me much worse.

[DAB]

that metric ton of my and your money ends up in someone's hands.....

[Olustee bus]

The Paris Accord was all about the money, The Obama Legacy and advancing liberal bullshit politics, nothing more. If all the governments of the world really wanted to accomplish something to clean up the environment, they would put together an accord to ban all volcanoes.

or farting livestock and herds of wild animals. :yesnod:

[Kerrmudgeon]

You want a real shock?.....your gas garden equipment is KILLING you! :D


Types of pollution emitted by gas lawn mowers...

Lawn mowers produce several types of pollutants, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons, ozone precursors, and carbon dioxide.

One type of pollutant emitted by lawn mowers is polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). These are classified as probable carcinogens by the CDC. Testing found that operating a typical gasoline mower with a four-cycle engine produced as much PAH as driving a modern car about 150 km or about 95 miles. This means that unless you drive more than 95 mph, your mower actually produces more pollution per hour than your car!

Another source claims that operating a gas mower for one hour will produce the same pollution as driving a car 1300 miles.

Yet another source claims the figure is about 3400 miles of car travel per hour of mower use.

In an hour's mowing, twenty-six different PAHs were found in the exhaust of the mowers, including 100microgrammes of benzo[a]pyrenes, which have been mentioned as a carcinogen in cigarette smoke. Other chemicals emitted include half a kilogram of carbon monoxide and several grams of methane, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxide and smoke particles.

Another pollutant caused disproportionately by gas-powered lawn equipment is ozone. Hydrocarbons from mowers react with nitrogen oxides in the presence of sunlight to produce ozone. Since lawn mowing occurs during the summer months, it exacerbates the already high levels of ground-level ozone present in the summer. Ozone irritates the lining of the lungs and aggravates asthma and other respiratory conditions. Ozone is the principal pollutant that causes "Red Alert" warnings about air quality in the summer.

An EPA study found that approximately 9 percent of some types of air pollutants nationwide come from lawn and garden equipment small engines. In metropolitan areas, the concentration of lawns causes this percentage to increase, in some instances to 33%.

The author of one pollution study had this to say: "Using a catalyst would help prevent most emissions from small engines. Of course, people could also use an electrical powered lawn mower instead."

In Britain, more than 70% of lawn mowers sold are electric.

The concern about toxic pollutants emitted by gas mowers is heightened due to the concentrations experienced by the operator.:ack:

Government programs offering deep discounts on electric mowers in exchange for the "surrender" of a gas mower are springing up all over the country.

Source: "Types of pollution emitted by gas lawn mowers," Lawn Mower Pollution: http://greengrasscutters.com.hosting.domaindirect.com/id7.html [accessed on May 9, 2008].

[04 commemorative]

I don't use any of them on the beach :seasix:

[Hoog]

There are no guarantees in anything. I can't comment on the numbers you posted, could you provide your sources though?

Comes from various articles I've read over the years. I admit I'm really not chasing the information anymore, and more recent data may paint a somewhat different picture.

[Craig]

You want a real shock?.....your gas garden equipment is KILLING you! :D

Water will kill you...if you try to breath too much of it...

[Craig]

Can you provide some evidence that this happens? :confused5:

Not counting celebrities, who are useless blowhards.

The silencing of global warming critics - tribunedigital-chicagotribune (http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2014-05-21/opinion/ct-perspec-climate-0521-20140521_1_climate-scientists-climate-change-climate-debate)

Fired for ‘Diverging’ on Climate: Progressive Professor?s fellowship*‘terminated’ after WSJ OpEd calling global warming ‘unproved science’ | Climate Depot (http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/06/12/fired-for-diverging-on-climate-progressive-professors-fellowship-terminated-after-wsj-oped-calling-global-warming-unproved-science/)

Scientist fired for becoming climate change skeptic | Climategate Book (http://www.theclimategatebook.com/scientist-fired-for-becoming-climate-change-skeptic/)

Was This University Professor Fired for Global Warming Skepticism? – TheBlaze (http://www.theblaze.com/news/2012/06/20/was-this-university-professor-fired-for-global-warming-skepticism/)

Obama Admin Fired Top Scientist to Advance Climate Change Plans (http://freebeacon.com/politics/congress-obama-admin-fired-top-scientist-advance-climate-change-plans/)

[6spdC6]

Then perhaps, like with most things, people should start ignoring celebrities.

Well on this I most certainly can agree with you!---:cert:

[Hoog]

Credibility issues such as? :confused5:
IIRC...They've been accused of manipulating data.

[Craig]

Nice clickbait headlines there.

Food for thought (and yes, it's Wiki, but there are numerous sources): Climate change denial - Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial)

You asked for references. My main point in this issue is that when researchers go beyond giving you data, and start telling you what to think...and not think, they become marketers, and they lose credibility as scientists; and when they lose that credibility, so does their research.

YMMV

[Craig]

So basically...when scientists become bad scientists, they get fired? :confused5:

Depends. If they're just questioning the data and results, that doesn't make them bad, there should be room for opposing opinion.

[Kerrmudgeon]

The first thing in school they taught us about statistics and research was that the results always reflect on who was paying for said research. :thumbs:

[99 pewtercoupe]

The first thing in school they taught us about statistics and research was that the results always reflect on who was paying for said research. :thumbs:

Kind of goes along with an old saying I heard years ago and keep on the white board in my office
"Statistics are like political prisoners, if you torture them enough they will confess to anything". :dance:

[Rob]

The first thing in school they taught us about statistics and research was that the results always reflect on who was paying for said research. :thumbs:

I was a math major, one of my professors taught us "Numbers don't lie, but you can always lie with numbers"

:seasix:

[Bill]

http://i.imgur.com/9Qlfqlf.jpg

[Bill]

So we're going to post memes that are 100% untrue, now? :confused5:

The agreement didn't require China or India to do anything different for over a decade, meaning that they would be free to continue polluting with reckless abandon. Somewhere I saw that it's actually possible to see a cloud of pollution over China from space. Not sure if that's true, but I have seen pictures of Beijing, and it doesn't look anything like I have seen in the US.

[04 commemorative]

Don't know enough about it to talk with intelligence so I am sitting back hopefully to learn more.

[OddBall]

And you arrived at that number how?

That was misleading, my bad.

The Green Climate Fund is targeting 100 billion per year by 2020.

So far to date the US has paid 1.5 billion into it, and no one else has. Obama pledged 3 billion and we may be stuck having to pay it.

And the US monetary contributions were expected to be the highest, twice that of the next contributor; Japan.

Also China, Russia and India are not contributors, and are considered "Emerging industrial nations". We are already borrowing money from China, so basically we'd be borrowing money from China so that we could give money to China. No wonder the Chinese are squint-eyed from all that laughing they are doing.

So, to meet the goal of 100 billion by 2020, and by the contribution pattern established so far by the pledging nations, we'd be pretty much taking it up the ass.

Not even going to get into the no-accountability of the funds issue. We all know the UN's less-than-steller track record there.

The ROI is shit too. No one can guarantee that even with all mechanisms in place, that there'd be more than a .05% change by the end of the century.


Signing that agreement was monumentally stupid. I think everyone agrees that keeping the environment clean is just simply a good idea on it's own. But each nation can do it's own part, we don't need to pay the rest of the world to wipe their own asses.

[JRD77VET]

IIRC...They've been accused of manipulating data.

Guilty until proven innocent, huh.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17500-u-s-agencies-accused-of-fudging-data-to-show-global-warming

Click the link itself to access the links at the bottom of the article

Tuesday, 28 January 2014
U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming
Written by Alex Newman


font size decrease font size increase font size Print Email
U.S. Agencies Accused of Fudging Data to Show Global Warming
Multiple U.S. government bureaucracies including NOAA, NASA, and the Department of Energy are again being accused of inappropriately manipulating temperature data — or “adjusting” it, as officials at the agencies implicated in the scandal put it — to show global warming. While the accusations are not new, the latest scandal, sparked by an in-depth analysis of the data by independent analyst Steven Goddard at Real Science, relies on official records to suggest that federal agencies have been fudging temperature measurements to make past decades seem colder and recent years appear warmer.

Numerous scientists and experts confirmed Goddard’s explosive findings, but in separate responses to The New American, both NOAA and NASA attempted to downplay the significance of the accusations. The major problems identified by Goddard in the temperature records of federal bureaucracies relate to the U.S. Historical Climatology Network (USHCN), the official data-set covering the continental United States. While the agencies admit the records are adjusted, Goddard and multiple scientists suggested that biased methodology was used to adjust the data to show an unjustified and “spurious” warming trend.

“Bottom line is there is clearly a huge error in the USHCN adjustments which has added a non-existent one degree hockey stick warming to the official US temperature record, and I now know just where to look for it in their code,” Goddard wrote. “NOAA made a big deal about 2012 blowing away all temperature records, but the temperature they reported is the result of a huge error. This affects all NOAA and NASA U.S. temperature graphs, and is part of the cause of this famous shift.” Citing satellite data, Goddard also said that by 2008, U.S. temperatures had cooled down below 1980s and 90s levels.

The “adjustment” schemes in the official U.S. dataset are so drastic, according to Goddard’s analysis, that they managed to “turn a 90 year cooling trend into a warming trend,” he said, suggesting that there may be a “software bug” at work. “Bottom line is that the [NOAA National Climatic Data Center] U.S. temperature record is completely broken, and meaningless,” Goddard concluded. “Adjustments that used to go flat after 1990 now go up exponentially. Adjustments which are documented as positive are implemented as negative.”

Respected climatologist and NASA scientist Dr. Roy Spencer actually showed evidence of what Goddard described as early as April of 2012, saying that “virtually all of the USHCN warming since 1973 appears to be the result of adjustments NOAA has made to the data.” Commenting on the latest findings, Dr. Spencer said that his own examination of the data and corrections to account for urban heat island (UHI) effects “support Steve’s contention that there’s something funny going on in the USHCN data.” He also called the NOAA methodology for adjusting the data “opaque” and said he believes it is prone to serious errors.

“Clearly, adjustments to surface temperature data are at least as large as the global warming signal being sought” (emphasis in original), concluded Dr. Spencer, who served as senior scientist for climate studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center before leaving to work at the University of Alabama in Huntsville. “Until a transparent analysis of the USHCN methodology is carried out, and alternative methods and temperature datasets are tested, I can’t bring myself to believe any U.S. government pronouncements regarding record warm temperatures.”

In its latest newsletter, the Science and Environmental Policy Project highlighted Goddard’s findings on “spurious warming” in the official U.S. temperature record, noting that elements of the data manipulation have been reported previously by other experts. “All this makes announcements of a certain year being the X hottest in the historic record highly questionable,” the organization said, echoing remarks by other scientists. “Once a dataset is compromised, can its integrity be restored?”

Climatologists Patrick Michaels and Paul “Chip” Knappenberger at the Cato Institute's Center for the Study of Science, meanwhile, drew attention to the problems in an article arguing that 2013 was “another nail in the coffin” for catastrophic man-made global warming theories. “Please be advised that this history has been repeatedly ‘revised’ to either make temperatures colder in the earlier years or warmer at the end,” they wrote. “Not one ‘adjustment’ has the opposite effect, a clear contravention of logic and probability.”

“It’s a fact that if you just take all the thousands of fairly evenly-spaced ‘official’ weather stations around the country and average them up since 1895, that you won’t get much of a warming trend at all,” the respected climate scientists continued. “Consequently a major and ongoing federal effort has been to try and cram these numbers into the box imposed by the theory that gives the government the most power — i.e., strong global warming.”

The New American reached out to the agencies involved in the scandal for answers about the allegations. “There is no doubt that NOAA's temperature record is scientifically sound and reliable,” NOAA claimed in an official statement, despite the fact that there are many well-documented doubts. “To ensure accuracy of the record, scientists use peer-reviewed methods to account for all potential inaccuracies in the temperature readings such as changes in station location, instrumentation replacement and urban heat effects.”

When asked in a follow-up whether the findings suggesting that the data “adjustments” had turned a cooling trend into warming or whether there were any inaccuracies in Goddard’s analysis, the agency did not respond. “Scientists also have other ways of confirming warming using many other independent measurements such as declining lake and river ice and snow cover extent, and increasing temperatures as measured from satellites and weather balloons and others,” the NOAA statement added.

As The New American has reported extensively in recent months, despite NOAA’s claims, its own data show that Antarctic sea-ice coverage hit record levels again in 2013. Sea-ice coverage globally on Dec. 31, 2013, meanwhile, was the highest since records began. Finally, snow coverage for the Northern Hemisphere last year was the fourth highest on record, according to data from Rutgers University’s Global Snow Lab. NOAA did not respond to subsequent requests for comment on the issues.

Separately, Deputy Director Gavin Schmidt at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies told The New American that the agency is “committed to producing as accurate an analysis as possible and any errors or corrections in the source data are fixed as soon as practical as they are discovered.” Schmidt also said that the issues raised by Goddard were “not particularly convincing — just pointing out that something changes is not the same as demonstrating that it has changed because of an error.”

“Specific issues with this dataset are more productively addressed to the NOAA team that puts it together,” Schmidt said, adding that other datasets supported global warming as well. “More broadly, it is important to note that this claim is associated solely with the U.S. and globally these issues are of minor importance (even if verified).... As we stressed in our press briefing, exact rankings of specific years globally are sensitive to different analysis methods and source data, but long term trends are clear in multiple, independently verified and independently processed data sets.”

Even if the controversial “adjustments” of the U.S. temperature record criticized by numerous experts are accepted as legitimate, countless scientists said this month that the latest data from U.S. government bureaucracies confirmed again that “global warming” has been on so-called “pause” for some 17 years — and counting. All 73 United Nations climate models predicted significant warming over the same period. The record high Antarctic sea-ice coverage confirmed again this month by NASA and NOAA, surpassing the previous records set the year before, also defied alarmist forecasts of shrinking polar ice.

The findings highlighted by Goddard and other experts bring to mind the infamous “Climategate” scandal, too. In a series of explosive leaked e-mails, many of the leading “climate scientists” behind the UN-backed theories on alleged man-made global warming were exposed conspiring to “hide the decline” in temperatures to further what was referred to as the “cause.” The documents also showed, among other revelations, that the alarmists were plotting to silence scientists who dissented from their controversial theory.

In the end, Climategate led to what many analysts still suggest may have been the beginning of the end for the effort to impose global carbon taxes on humanity. Since then, the climate models behind the alarmism have become increasingly discredited as the predictions failed to materialize. Indeed, as The New American has been reporting in recent months, experts say 2013 was potentially the most devastating year so far for proponents of catastrophic man-made global-warming theories, with reality increasingly at odds with the models and predictions.

It remains to be seen whether the latest allegations by Goddard and others of improper U.S. government temperature-data manipulation will serve to hasten what analysts say is the ongoing implosion of global-warming alarmism. At this point, however, a growing number of climate experts and scientists around the world are forecasting a period of potentially dangerous global cooling in the years and decades ahead.

Alex Newman is a correspondent for The New American, covering economics, science, politics, and more. He can be reached at [email protected].

Related articles:

NASA Data: Global Warming Still on “Pause,” Sea Ice Hit Record

Global Warming Alarmists, Looking Ridiculous, Double Down

Global Warming Alarmism Melting as Record Cold Sweeps Nation

Global Warming Alarmists Stuck in Antarctic Sea Ice

Climate Theories Crumble as Data and Experts Suggest Global Cooling

Al Gore Forecasted “Ice-Free” Arctic by 2013; Ice Cover Expands 50%

Top Scientists Slam and Ridicule UN IPCC Climate Report

UN Carbon Regime Would Devastate Humanity

“Climate Science” in Shambles: Real Scientists Battle UN Agenda

Global-warming Alarmism Dying a Slow Death

Obama & Allies Tell UN to Cover for Lack of Global Warming

Global Climate Warming Stopped 15 Years Ago, UK Met Office Admits

Climategate

[OddBall]

I agree with Craig as well, being labeled "Climate Deniers" is nothing less than a bullying tactic with anyone that is skeptical. That alone raises concern over the data.

No one 'denies' the climate. What people have a problem with is the vitriol that is received for even scrutinizing the data. Al Gore started the whole mess by sneering out his "Inconvenient Truth" horseshit. All his predictions fell flatly on their faces and by consequence only increased the skepticism of climate change. You've also got that dipshit Bill Nye out there slinging his nonsense around with as much contempt as he can muster. And now the MSM is just out-n-out promoting hysteria.
This is what turns people off, and after enough of it the climate crusaders may not have a crusade anymore.

[JRD77VET]

I agree with Craig as well, being labeled "Climate Deniers" is nothing less than a bullying tactic with anyone that is skeptical. That alone raises concern over the data.

No one 'denies' the climate. What people have a problem with is the vitriol that is received for even scrutinizing the data. Al Gore started the whole mess by sneering out his "Inconvenient Truth" horseshit. All his predictions fell flatly on their faces and by consequence only increased the skepticism of climate change. You've also got that dipshit Bill Nye out there slinging his nonsense around with as much contempt as he can muster. And now the MSM is just out-n-out promoting hysteria.
This is what turns people off, and after enough of it the climate crusaders may not have a crusade anymore.

:iagree: Hence my comment earlier about crying wolf too many times.

[JRD77VET]

So still...accusations, no evidence?


NOAA changed data and then when caught, changed it back.

NOAA quietly revises website after getting caught in global warming lie, admitting 1936 was hotter than 2012 - NaturalNews.com (http://www.naturalnews.com/045808_global_warming_fraud_data_manipulation_NOAA.html)

edit to add

They are "cherry picking" weather stations to meet the data THEY want
NEW Evidence: Climate Change Scientists Are Manipulating Data
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/rec.equestrian/aAvMGFX7BiY/lM_Se8d8IPQJ

[OddBall]

I'm not sure where you're getting any of your numbers, but they don't have a factual base.

Green Climate Fund - Wikipedia

The objective of the Green Climate Fund is to "support projects, programmes, policies and other activities in developing country Parties using thematic funding windows".[1] It is intended that the Green Climate Fund be the centrepiece of efforts to raise Climate Finance under the UNFCCC, and raise $100 billion a year by 2020.

Sources for the 1.5 billion already donated is all over the web. Any of the major news networks have it. Fox will put it out front there so that you can see it though.


There you go listening to celebrities again...

They are the ones driving the divide with their labeling. And like it or not, they are going to get the most attention. They are constantly in the public eye. They are going to be the talking heads on the news and talk shows, and they are the ones most likely to be revered by the snowflake generation.

[JRD77VET]

Hey Waco

I do realise we have to take care of the earth both for our own well being and for future generations.

I'm 57 years old and am sick and tired of hearing the sky is falling from the govt for decades on end. Crying wolf.

While it is true something needs to be done, all the hype burned everybody out and they tuned it out. Plus hearing how data was cooked to reach the end they wanted didn't help their cause at all.

Jeff

[JRD77VET]

Accusations aren't proof. Mistakes happen, it's science.

I'm no egghead that thinks we need to change everything, but pulling out of the only global agreement to keep the planet in good shape was stupid, especially considering it wasn't even a binding contract of any sort.

I can't find the article I read on Sunday morning ( on Yahoo ) but it was saying how it would have been a bad financial deal for the US and benefitted everyone else. No wonder the EU is pissed off we pulled out.

We have enough of our tax money going to all corners of the world without getting into a deal that puts us at a disadvantage.

[JRD77VET]

We're the biggest polluters, so it makes sense that we would pay more. Yet, our contribution is nowhere near the highest relative to our GDP...

China and India are the top two
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/02/which-country-has-the-worst-air-pollution/

looking at other sites,China still number one, US is second and India third.
https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-01-14/dirty-deeds-worlds-biggest-polluters-country

[Craig]

We're the biggest polluters, so it makes sense that we would pay more. Yet, our contribution is nowhere near the highest relative to our GDP...

China is the biggest polluter by a factor of almost 200 percent. No BS here, just curious, what is your interest in this issue?

[OddBall]

D
So now goals are requirements, and only we get screwed by them? No, sorry, that's not how it works.

...and we're off to the labeling races yet again. Celebrities, in general, don't speak for the science.

Now you are just being dismissive.


Accusations aren't proof. Mistakes happen, it's science.

I'm no egghead that thinks we need to change everything, but pulling out of the only global agreement to keep the planet in good shape was stupid, especially considering it wasn't even a binding contract of any sort.


Then how is it stupid to pull out of a contract that doesn't even exist. So far the only hard commitment shown to the kumbaya agreement has been from the US. All the other nations are just talking feel good shit and doing nothing.

We're the biggest polluters, so it makes sense that we would pay more. Yet, our contribution is nowhere near the highest relative to our GDP...

We are not the biggest polluters.
Our contribution is the only contribution at this point.

[JRD77VET]

How about we look at the most polluted countries in the world

Mapped: The world's most polluted countries (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/maps-and-graphics/most-polluted-countries/)

maybe they should get their shit together first :yesnod:

[mrvette]

This 'emissions' crap is a scam for making a lazy living at public expense....period, end of discussion.....

the entire concept of applying the fixes for a local problem, like the strange wind patterns of the LA basin/smog.....to the entire planet is just way in hell too far fetched, and of course one volcano blow out equals ALL of our emissions since the industrial revolution??

Nah, it's a scam......

:issues::sleep:

[Will]

This thread shows the problem with the debate over the Paris agreement and criticism of Trump's withdrawal.

The veracity of claims made about man-made climate change, claims about the extent of the damage it will cause, claims about the accuracy of models, etc. have nothing to do with whether or not the Paris agreement was a good pact and whether or not Trump made the right decision.

Trump did thing X, and people are arguing over thing Y.

(1) The existence of anthropogenic global warming; and
(2) exiting the Paris Climate Accord being a good decision;

are not mutually exclusive.

[Cybercowboy]

So we're going to post memes that are 100% untrue, now? :confused5:

Why not? You do it every single time you quote the 97% number. You know, 97% of scientists say the warming we've had since the little ice age is mainly caused by the increase in CO2 and mankind is the biggest source of this warming.

Here's how an MIT climate scientist puts it: (http://dailycaller.com/2016/02/16/propoganda-top-mit-climate-scientist-trashes-97-consensus-claim/)

“It is propaganda. So all scientists agree it’s probably warmer now than it was at the end of the Little Ice Age. Almost all Scientists agree that if you add CO2, you will have some warming. Maybe very little warming.”

“But it is propaganda to translate that into it is dangerous and we must reduce CO2.”

And as Dr. David Legates, a geology professor at the University of Delaware and the study’s lead author, says of the 97% study he was part of:

“It is astonishing that any journal could have published a paper claiming a 97% climate consensus when on the authors’ own analysis the true consensus was well below 1%.”

If you are confused by this, that's because it's been purposely made confusing. Legates' study looked at over ten of thousand climate papers, finding that only 41 out of 11,944 supported the most common "CO2-driven man-made climate change" mantra. Cook then took that study and turned it on its ear, and came up with the 97% number that MIT climate scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen calls pure propaganda. And guess which study Barack Obama used as a reason to impose draconian regulations on US energy producers? Take a wild f'ing guess.

[Cybercowboy]

Pretty sure I haven't​ cited or quoted that number, but okay. I also never claimed manmade CO2 was the largest contributor either.

Post 57 and others inferred otherwise, plus I has memories. You are very much on the 'settled science' side.

[Bill]

https://i.redd.it/6vkralu4o42z.jpg

[Fasglas]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tm33tTS2iZc/SxNNFIgLvQI/AAAAAAAABzs/N-IjnHyIM2o/s400/thumb_Cartoon_-_Climate_Science.png