I can't believe it.

I can't believe I started a controversial thread over 24 hours ago either. Which one is that?

I can believe, however, that you'd come out and support the orange chump.

 

You want me to say something about this?

Ok, the Paris climate deal might not be more than a 'friendly meet-up-for-a-pint' agreement as btiw2 says - I dunno - but it does carry huge weight. Each participating country might not be legally bound to it - I dunno - but to walk away after agreeing would be at the very least a very difficult ethical decision, and would invite the rightful derision of the rest of the world (as we have found out). So, whether legally-binding or no, it certainly has a lot of peer pressure behind it.

So why did Trump do what he did? It seems a crazy decision, especially as I understand that the USofA is half-way to meeting its targets already. And they are in any case 'bound' by its requirements until after the next Pres election. And that the individual states can seemingly decide individually whether to comply or not - and many have made clear they are.

I dunno - I am confused by it.

At least two simplistic and obvious possible reasons come easily to mind, tho' (and both adjectives apply when we are talking 'Trump'); one is that he can pretend again to be carrying out his campaign promises (although he has failed to do so on the other main issues...) so that his hard core of supporters - both over there and on this very forum... - have some decent w**k**g material. And the other reason is a typical fit of pique following his humiliating world tour - almost especially the snub by Macron. (Macron is French. Paris is in Texa..., no, France. Ergo I will 'SHOW THEM!')

Could Trump be that juvenile?

I'll let you answer that one, Filly.


What is 'ronic is how the only guy to pull out of the agreement is himself named after a greenhouse gas.

 

Nice to see USA has decreased its co2 emissions by 450m tonnes.

A good dent in its estimated 5 billion plus figures.

So good to see other countries standing up against this irrelevant emissions thing. Syria and Nicuaragua now the USA.

Only the headlines and the basic graph is available on this link unless you pay for more, but I think it conveys enough in the graph (even if it is not fully to scale)

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/06/02/did-us-get-bad-deal-paris-climate-agreement/


And some of Trumps claims about it exposed


https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ump-speech-paris-climate-agreement/102399674/


Now you dont have to support him or not, but you do have to stand on 1 side of the fence or the other. Is climate change happening? Are emissions at least a part of the problem?

And then ask, does Trump care, and is pulling out of the deal "to support the coal miners" etc, likely to decrease or increase their emissions?

An inspiring act by the leader of the western world, or a simple backward step, for the purposes of "keeping his electoral promises " ?

Lets now see who sides with him? 1 by 1, surely even his hardened supporters over here must be thinking something?

 

I wasnt surprised either.

 

I can't see the point of countries strangling their industries with "green" taxes and spoiling their countryside with windmills and solar farms when man made greenhouse gases are negligible compared with natural emissions. One good eruption from a volcano wipes out the emission savings by the UK over many years. Volcanos are erupting all the time worldwide and that's only one natural cause, variations in our orbit from circular to elliptical (Milankovich cycles) cause huge variations in global warming. There are other factors too and the only one that's under control of earth inhabitants is population control.

Donald is on the right track

 

Good old Donald huh?

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...s-human-co2-emissions-are-too-tiny-to-matter/

https://skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm


And even if man made emissions make little difference, does that mean its not worth limiting?

 

You sure about that? The word "anthropocene" ring any bells?

 

Tell you what:

You assume I'll post geophys data showing the CO2 released by a volcano, all volcanoes (on land and under the sea), man made CO2 emissions and targets, for the U.K. and globally.

You assume I'll do the maths for you and show, once again, you can't perform simple arthmetic and your claim is a joke.

I'll assume you don't need data as your beliefs are just you repeating nonsense you read on the web like a gullible parrot.

And I'll assume that you don't care about "numbers" (and when did maths and physics become a political opinion anyway?) and you will just repeat your assertion without evidence.

It's faster for everyone that way.

Oh, and Milankovitch cycles, those cycles that are measured using kiloyears? Don't make me pull out the calculus and apply it to decayears (hint, deca- is much smaller that kilo-). You know I'll do it.

You're welcome to your opinions on the aesthetics of windmills though. Personal taste isn't on the periodic table.

 

Huh huh huh. DA made a fart joke.

Just a shame Fred Trump didn't pull out. Eh, eh?

And before I go:
Donald Trump walks into a bar....
And lowers it.

 

Once upon a time - around 15 years ago - I was a bit like you, although a more informed version. I was then a m-m climate-change sceptic, but I backed this up with a dose of reasoned cynicism, such as the diss'ing Hanson's hockey-stick graph (see - I even remember the name without having to look it up - such was my disparaging of these self-indulgent 'scientists'), the fact of the 'medieval warm period', the leaking of emails from Cambridge etc. Each time the mmgw 'experts' were questioned on their science or methods or found wanting, I felt I was more and more on the right tracks.

Dammit, I have since had to accept the overwhelming evidence in support of mmgw and - even if it were not 'true' - I am still pleased about the development of renewables. Why? Becuase it reduces our reliance on Russia and the ME for fossil fuels. Why? Because it's a developing industry - and that provides a boost to the economy and work for, er, workers.

Why? Because the funds available can help communities directly; I am PROUD that my own wee Island has the largest community-owned windfarm in the UK (and I personally know all the peeps who organised it), which is ploughing all that money straight in to the community, rather than stuffing the pockets of large multi-nationals.

If there's a wind farm going up near you, make sure it's community-owned - or else the community will lose out, and a few rich bar stewards will get richer.

There - I've gorn off-topic again.

 

Sadly, I stole the fart joke.

Yours, however, is awesome.

And I BET you made it up yourself.

Don't disappoint me, now...

 

Bar joke's not mine. Soz.
I think lots of people found the Fred one. Can't remember if I did too. Let's assume not.

 

I don't assume anything. You appear to be a person of some intellect, so I thought you'd know better than to assume things.
When it comes to numbers, I can agree with you that numbers only back up opinions (or otherwise) but the purpose of discussion is to exchange opinions.
Whatever you think about "global warming" or the latest buzzword "climate change" it's not going to change things. If we are to spend loads of money on renewables, lets think laterally and maybe spend it on adapting to the inevitable climate change instead of spending it of fatuous projects such as cutting down trees to make wood pellets, then shipping them thousands of miles to burn. Lets think twice before we expend thousands of kilowatt hours of energy building wind mills and transmitting electricity over miles of lines. Let's think again before we create more CO2 in our efforts to chase ineffective "renewables".
By the way, you don't need calculus to convert kiloyears to decayears, just multiply by 100 (there's 100 decayears in one kiloyear, deca means 10, kilo means 1000)

 

Renewables are a no brainer.
There's 'free' energy in abundance just waiting to be converted into power.

However, to trumpet things like wind farms, in their current form, betrays a certain lack of concern for the reality of the situation.
Which hinges around the words, rare earth.

The extraction of rare earth metals can hardly be classed as green. It's environmentally disastrous.

 

Whilst I agree with the overriding sentiment of the claim, you surely aren't expecting us to believe that the data you rely on is anything other than the nonsense that you've found on the Web?

Or are we just relying on the ad populum fallacy,

 

Let's hope you never meet, DA, in the flesh, so to speak.

Unless you're into that kind of thing, that is.

 

Absolutely right!
Good man.

I claim that this can be shown with nothing more than a period table, a scientific calculator, high school science and reasonable assumptions.

Don't believe anyone. DIY science.

 

Climate change is the latest buzzword?
The IPCC was founded in 1988, nearly three decades ago, go on, guess what the CC at the end of IPCC stands for.

So... have we got to the point where you accept this is a "thing"? CO2 heats the earth and we release a lot of it by burning stuff?

If so, then fine, that's all I was defending. I'm not an eco warrior, I just hate science denialism. I have no idea what to do about it. I like fossils fuels. I think they're great.