Trump pulls out of Paris Agreement -

by AFRIKANMAN 47 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Anony Mous

  The problem is there is no real consensus on global warming. The pro-GW people pull out data from the last 1000 years which indeed shows a significant trend upwards. The anti-GW people pull out data from the last 2M years which shows that this is just a cycle.

  The fact is that earth has been warmer and is currently still recovering from a very recent ice age (we're still at -3 degrees from the time humans initially came on the scene).

  The fact is that we'll lose a bunch of real estate (even business centers like NYC) when the glaciers melt and a lot of animals will die, a thing that has been happening for millions of years in cycles of ~100k years - Earth is overdue by several thousand years for a meteor impact, Yellowstone erupting and a bunch of other 'life-ending' events. Life in itself probably won't end, apex predators (like humans and polar bears) will and no, we have no technological solution yet, regardless of our energy consumption.

  The question is whether we should engineer the environment to support more and more people living in greater 'wealth' and comfort without changing anything about where or how we live? Should we try to artificially cool the earth to optimal conditions? Should we plan on rebuilding Wall Street somewhere else, build huge dams or just let it drown?

  And what does the Paris accords have to do with it: absolutely nothing - they set the limit to 2 degrees above Pre-Industrial temperatures (we're currently somewhere between 0.5 and 1 degree depending on the study and measurements) and allow nations to buy out their carbon consumption instead of reduce it with the hopes that poorer nations would not buy carbon with the money but invest it in much more expensive renewables - we all know how that goes, you can spend $1 on heating 1 home or 3 homes, which will your government pick?
• 

  WhatshallIcallmyself

  "The problem is there is no real consensus on global warming." - Anony Mous

  Define consensus. I hear this a lot and it is generally from people who think science is decided by consensus.
  

  "The pro-GW people pull out data from the last 1000 years which indeed shows a significant trend upwards. The anti-GW people pull out data from the last 2M years which shows that this is just a cycle." - Anony Mous

  It is the rate of increase that is a problem, not so much the fact of temperature rise. By analysing our atmosphere we can work out where the carbon has come from and prove that the carbon is coming from us burning fossil fuels. By analysing the composition of the atmosphere over periods of thousands of years we can work out what was happening many years in the past and contrast that with today. Long story short, the evidence is there that this is an unnaturally fast rate of increase and the reason is the release of carbon from the geosphere (carbon that was taken into the rocks over millions of years is being released far faster than it can be put back in).

  "The fact is that earth has been warmer and is currently still recovering from a very recent ice age (we're still at -3 degrees from the time humans initially came on the scene)." - Anony Mous

  It's the rate of increase that is the danger... Our ecosystems have adapted to our current climate conditions over hundreds of thousands of years. If you change those conditions in a few decades then the biosphere cannot adapt quickly enough and we face mass extinctions. It is the rate of change that is the danger. It is the rate of change that is now troubling our world. It is the one thing that Conspiracy theorists never mention...
• 

  Brokeback Watchtower

  Here's some helpful information on the Paris Accord, I think if you click on it and read more, you might come to the conclusion that Trump's points him out to be a total and very dangerous moron:

  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement

  The Paris Agreement (French: Accord de Paris), or Paris climate accord and Paris climate agreement, is an agreement within the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) dealing with greenhouse gas emissions mitigation, adaptation and finance starting in the year 2020. The language of the agreement was negotiated by representatives of 195 countries at the 21st Conference of the Parties of the UNFCCC in Paris and adopted by consensus on 12 December 2015.[3][4] As of June 2017, 195 UNFCCC members have signed the agreement, 148 of which have ratified it.[1]

  In the Paris Agreement, each country determines its own contribution it should make in order to mitigate global warming.[5] There is no mechanism to force[6] a country to set a specific target by a specific date.[7]

  Aims

  The aim of the convention is described in Article 2, "enhancing the implementation" of the UNFCCC through:[8]

  "(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;

  (b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;

  (c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development."

  Countries furthermore aim to reach "global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible". The agreement has been described as an incentive for and driver of fossil fuel divestment.[9][10]

  The Paris deal is the world's first comprehensive climate agreement.[11]

  
  
• 

  Brokeback Watchtower

  Making "America Great Again" by an egomaniac President? Can that be interpreted by an narcissist world view and be close to what Trump actually meant? I mean what makes America great anyway? Hard to nail down any concrete definition.
  
• 

  Anony Mous

  @Whatshallicallmyself: science isn't decided by consensus it's decided by proof. Even the rate you claim that is alarming is part of the cycle. Look at the graphs to see what I mean: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Temperature_record#/media/File%3AFive_Myr_Climate_Change.png

  Is it a problem: perhaps, the fact is that scientists (not science communicators or science journalists) have very little clue. It is probably an extinction event, it's probably at least partially a human problem although we are now emitting far less toxic stuff than the 1950s and the trends aren't changing. I am highly skeptical of anyone claiming any certainty on the matter, the science is too young and too few data points exist to make predictions.

  What I do know is that politicians won't fix it. No amount of accords and taxes is going to do things, people globally need to want to keep each other alive for that to happen, history proves that isn't the case and modern trends towards religious ideals certainly isn't helping. In that sense I think Trump is right, it's a useless piece of paper that will only cost the US without bringing about true change.
• 

  hothabanero

  wow liberals are going apeshit about this today at the march. it is just ridiculous. it was a stupid deal that didn't do any good anyway.
• 

  nelim

  Anony Mous, so you would only be convinced when things have already gone wrong? In those graphs you can see we're already at 0, record maximum.
• 

  nonjwspouse

  http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html

  It's not the fact climate is changing, of course it is. It always has, and always will. It has changed very fast before and caused extinctions. This is scientifically known.
  

  It is that man is not capable of globally changing the climate either way, and especially that man is not capable of stopping the warming cycle with political fundraising, and putting more burden on productive taxpaying citizens! That is a political extortion using fear.