It's 2C, not 2F. And there's nothing there about 100 years.
How are we supposed to take your argument seriously, when you don't even know the facts of the agreement?
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
How are we supposed to take your argument seriously, when you don't even know the facts of the agreement?
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
Europe doesn't dictate what we do. In fact, the US voluntarily determined it's own commitments to the Paris accord. And in a lot of ways, we dictate what Europe does, through our commitment to our allies, NATO, and in providing a small amount of foreign aid to less advantaged but well meaning countries. Trump's foreign policy angle is jeopardizing our leadership to this long held alliance such that in the future, we may find our influence greatly reduced as the rest of the former allied west forgets about us and goes their own way. In the long run, this will hurt America and reduce our influence in the world (this is why Russia is suddenly happy with us), all so we don't have to pay a small amount of money to do the right thing.
You are correct, that the 97% of scientists statistic is misleading. The real fact is that the consensus about climate change is NOT 97%, it is above 99.94% :
Home | Science and Global Warming
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
Actually, I think that was one of his better posts. If it stings more than others, it's because there was some truth behind it.
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
Be careful. It sounds like you want to ride the success train while completely ignoring any responsibility for negative consequences along the way. That is not a sensible way to live.
What he said was also not un-American. In fact, it might be more un-American to insinuate that he is un-American. America has long been a balanced blend of liberal and conservative viewpoints, one of it's great strengths, and to classify half the country as un-American is un-American.
Climate change is a big deal because it has global impact. A terrorist cutting off your head is very localized impact, unless we reach a point where there are machete wielding terrorists on every street corner. But even then, if they are dealt with, the problem is quickly abated. Climate change has immense inertia. If we wait until the effects are plainly obvious, it will take decades or longer to reverse the problem, if we can reverse it at all, and the effects could be truly devastating. The risks are very much on par with head chopping terrorists.
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
You are probably not going to get far with this argument either. I've already donated many hundreds of dollars this year to organizations addressing climate change. It's also why I bought a Tesla. If I cared nothing for climate change, I would probably still be driving a Mustang GT.
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
another head banger
That's ridiculous and you know it. If you go back in time, you can go back basically to infinity, which means all science is meaningless, because the timeframe, regardless of what it is, compared to infinity approaches zero percent. Congratulations, you just invalidated all science in the history of mankind. Or maybe it's just bad argument.
Have you read it? If so how much? The temperature difference is a irrelevant other than it is a very small amount, tomato versus tomatoe, it's still nonsense. Neither you nor I could ever prove it in our lifetimes. Can you tell me what the weather is going to be like next week? With 100% accuracy?
Because study 10 is the one, often cited study that incorrectly concluded the 97% data. He has more detailed paper refuting it, you can read a bit more detail on the page:
Method | James Lawrence Powell
You can download the full paper from which the figure was taken and the paper explains the exclusion.
Predicting the weather at a specific time and location is very difficult, because it depends on large number of chaotic processes and millions of variables. However, the climate is a large scale average of global weather over long time, which is much easier to predict. To understand this, compare it to predicting the value of a dice roll: it can be anything from 1 to 6, very difficult to predict. However, predicting how many times you will roll a 6 out of a million tries is much easier, it is an elementary probability problem and you have a very good chance to get a fairly accurate prediction compared to the actual experimental result. This is statistics 101.
Some people on this forum don't believe in statistics because, after all, 99% of human history was before statistics were "invented" by European elites.
Although I understand the point you are trying to make, I don't think statistics are the issue. It's the fact that we don't have enough data or understanding regarding how planets change on a global scale. We're dealing with a few hundred years of observation for a process that happens on a billions of years scale.
What you're asking is much worse than predicting the weather next week. It's like predicting the weather, with all of those chaotic processes, plus planetary orbits, plus solar expansion, going on for 100 years instead of .001 years. That's 100,000x more complex for the math majors.
You can't predict who will win an election, or the weather 2 days from now, but you can predict the weather in 100 years down to 1/10 of a degree? OK I totally believe you! And a minuscule change in temperature is going to kill all life on this planet? And we should spend $200 trillion on this theory over the course of a 100 years? OK great idea! I'm fine with it as long as you pay for it!
Last edited:
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
1. Explain 200T
2. Count up the costs of AGW, fossil fuels, pollution, and oil resource wars for the next 100 years
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
We have more than enough data to know a LOT about AGW. For example, we know with very high certainty that the current models of global warming may well underestimate the peril, since it is uncertain when the permafrost methane deposits tipping point will be. There is no rosy scenario.
It would be nice to know more, but your choice for president is gutting American planetary science.
Nothing has been proven yet, but there is strong evidence that he is quite probably guilty of obstruction of justice and it could go much further. The investigations into his business affairs as well as other activities he has done as president are turning up a lot of irregularities.
I think that a large number of people around him are going away for a long time. If Trump was involved in any of their crimes, all they need to do to save their own skin is flip on him. It's quite possible that somebody already has flipped, but the investigators are making completely sure they have an airtight case. The FBI and Mueller are being very careful to ensure the case against anyone who is guilty in this is airtight.
When Nixon was going to be impeached, the crime that started it all happened in June 1972 and the House Judiciary Committee didn't start impeachment hearings until May 1974, it took another 2 1/2 months to get the articles out of Committee. These things take a lot of time.
Whether or not the Republican majority has the cajones to actually do anything is still an open question. If public pressure continues to increase, they might act to save their jobs ahead of the midterms. If not, a lot of them might lose their jobs.
If Trump doesn't die of a heart attack from his bad diet and the stress, odds are well above zero he will die in prison.
I think it was quoted in this video as 100 trillion but I saw the 200 trillion number perhaps on Fox news, for whatever that's worth. The cost over 100 years of the Paris agreement. I switch every few minutes between the two news networks.
SageBrush
REJECT Fascism
The US agreed to $3B a year, or $300B over 100 years. So Faux News is off by less than a thousand fold. No wonder they are your preferred news source.
I'm waiting for you to estimate the costs of business as usual.
Dont twist my words. I am not for giving our sovereignty to other nations. I am for pro-open borders when it doesnt mean anything. I am for a secure border, but a stupid wall is not the answer. I am not for creating a country of people who cower in the corner afraid of their own shadow.
My question is why wouldnt you want a world peaceful enough and successful enough that you could freely travel, could freely work. That doesnt mean a one world government or anything like that. What are you afraid of? People that are different then you?
The elite are not funding this. The elite I mentioned are not left. The elite I mentioned and shown in opensecrets are not left, but far right and far libertarian. Soro's is the rights boogieman because he helped form a couple liberal bent media organizations. You know sorta like Murdoch did with his media empire including Fox News and the Wall Street Journal. My anti-Trump sentiment is because he is a lying sexist bigot, who has verbally admitted to sexual assault, who has admitted predatory behavior to young girls, who is just stupid, has no interest in learning, and someone who would have been more successful had he just put his money in stock index funds. Trump has no saving grace, no decent or interesting policies and encourages hatred and encouraging fear.
- Status
Similar threads
