Countries say they will continue to pollute unless they are shown the money

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,565
152
63

CAJUNEER_rivals

Redshirt
May 29, 2001
72,872
44
0
Of course money is involved duh.
The point is not that money is involved. The point is it's all about money. Are you unaware of the history of African nations taking UN money for some noble cause only for it to go entirely to enrich the rulers or fund a war?

 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,565
152
63
Ok, you read it, but you don't seem to have understood it.
lol no I just don't agree with you two. My stance is that the Paris Agreement is about the nations of the world attempting to slow the increase in greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to reduce increasing planet temps and reduce climate change. That's not a great characterization of the mission statement but that's what I think that the Paris Agreement is all about.

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

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
46,692
1,764
113
lol no I just don't agree with you two. My stance is that the Paris Agreement is about the nations of the world attempting to slow the increase in greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to reduce increasing planet temps and reduce climate change. That's not a great characterization of the mission statement but that's what I think that the Paris Agreement is all about.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Agreement
Andddddddd, that's because you're a rube. Just another ideological zealot incapable of objective thought. Basically, you're the mark.
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
It's easy to be critical and comedic about the agreement, when you don't believe in the potential catastrophe that manmade climate change will bring.

When you do believe in those possible outcomes, the money really isn't such a bad thing IF it helps to reverse the trend. And this whole competitive mess is just sad, and just another example of how little the planet is cherished by man.

I really hope the deniers are right, cause the alternative sucks something serious
 

CAJUNEER_rivals

Redshirt
May 29, 2001
72,872
44
0
It's easy to be critical and comedic about the agreement, when you don't believe in the potential catastrophe that manmade climate change will bring.

When you do believe in those possible outcomes, the money really isn't such a bad thing IF it helps to reverse the trend. And this whole competitive mess is just sad, and just another example of how little the planet is cherish by man.

I really hope the deniers are right, cause the alternative sucks something serious
It's easy to be critical and comedic about the space aliens invading, when you don't believe in the potential catastrophe that Alien invasion will bring.

When you do believe in those possible outcomes, the money really isn't such a bad thing IF it helps to defend against the inevitable. And this whole competitive mess is just sad, and just another example of how little the planet is cherished by man.

I really hope the deniers are right, cause the alternative sucks something serious.
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,565
152
63
It's easy to be critical and comedic about the space aliens invading, when you don't believe in the potential catastrophe that Alien invasion will bring.

When you do believe in those possible outcomes, the money really isn't such a bad thing IF it helps to defend against the inevitable. And this whole competitive mess is just sad, and just another example of how little the planet is cherished by man.

I really hope the deniers are right, cause the alternative sucks something serious.
Deniers deny, that's what they do.
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
It's easy to be critical and comedic about the space aliens invading, when you don't believe in the potential catastrophe that Alien invasion will bring.

When you do believe in those possible outcomes, the money really isn't such a bad thing IF it helps to defend against the inevitable. And this whole competitive mess is just sad, and just another example of how little the planet is cherished by man.

I really hope the deniers are right, cause the alternative sucks something serious.
For a scientist, and someone who know first hand how work in the field makes all the difference in discovery, you sure discount a lot of scientific work by dedicated people.
 

CAJUNEER_rivals

Redshirt
May 29, 2001
72,872
44
0
For a scientist, and someone who know first hand how work in the field makes all the difference in discovery, you sure discount a lot of scientific work by dedicated people.
No, I discount catastrophe predictors and misinterpretation and misrepresentation of studies by zealots. There is very good evidence that the climate change is cyclical. But let's say the planet is warming primarily due to human carbon emissions causing a greenhouse effect. What catastrophes will result? Could a greenhouse effect levelize temperatures worldwide, reducing catastrophic weather events, making more land on the planet more suitable for farming?

We don't fully understand any of the factors causing climate change. We can't predict tomorrow with 100% accuracy. Further, we likely don't even know all the factors at this point. The Paris Agreement and most of these initiatives is less about climate change and more about centralized control.
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
No, I discount catastrophe predictors and misinterpretation and misrepresentation of studies by zealots. There is very good evidence that the climate change is cyclical. But let's say the planet is warming primarily due to human carbon emissions causing a greenhouse effect. What catastrophes will result? Could a greenhouse effect levelize temperatures worldwide, reducing catastrophic weather events, making more land on the planet more suitable for farming?

We don't fully understand any of the factors causing climate change. We can't predict tomorrow with 100% accuracy. Further, we likely don't even know all the factors at this point. The Paris Agreement and most of these initiatives is less about climate change and more about centralized control.
Cyclical climate change has not ever had the imbalance of man as a factor before. We are absolutely causing an imbalance in CO2, and you are correct....the results of which we cannot predict with certainty by looking back at past cyclical effects.

But we can look at the effects occurring in the field and compare them to what we know of the past. That's being done, and I trust those in the field.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
46,692
1,764
113
The Paris Agreement and most of these initiatives is less about climate change and more about centralized control.
100% accurate, I would also add a leveling of the playing field between the haves and have nots from a country perspective.

The sad thing is that on the surface, it's a monumental achievement to have the world united in a common goal. The devil, like always is in the details. It's easy to sit and say "I don't care about the money", fine, that's not your decision. When it comes to economical impacts on our nation, it HAS to go through the Congress. This whole thing was a ******** sidestep of governmental process. You guys who just want the appearance of doing something meaningful without really doing anything, this is the deal for you.
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
100% accurate, I would also add a leveling of the playing field between the haves and have nots from a country perspective.

The sad thing is that on the surface, it's a monumental achievement to have the world united in a common goal. The devil, like always is in the details. It's easy to sit and say "I don't care about the money", fine, that's not your decision. When it comes to economical impacts on our nation, it HAS to go through the Congress. This whole thing was a ******** sidestep of governmental process. You guys who just want the appearance of doing something meaningful without really doing anything, this is the deal for you.
For me personally, I think a better agreement (one that was binding) should have been reached, but it had failed before. I'd love for the agreement to go through Congress, with actual debate and disclosure for the voters of the US to participate in and help decide. I'd totally agree with that process. That way the decision isn't left up to one man (Be it Obama or Trump). And you're right, I do just want to see something done. I have no idea how bad or benign the effects will be in our lifetime or our children's lifetime, but I am confident we will see an effect. For those that deal with drought, tornados, hurricanes, flooding and other extreme weather events that will probably increase in frequency, im concerned (America or anywhere else). For those suffering from cancer, heart disease, birthdefects, and other physical ailments that are caused by pollution, I'm concerned (America or anywhere else).

But I do understand the concern many have with the agreement here in the US. Although I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theory of a global control strategy of oppression, I understand the desire to protect against such a happening. And to those just simply concerned about putting bread on the table, I obviously understand the importance of that pressing need.

I'd like to see more coming together, and attempts to listen rather than belittle. That's the start in combating any of the above mentioned problems. On either side.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
46,692
1,764
113
For me personally, I think a better agreement (one that was binding) should have been reached, but it had failed before. I'd love for the agreement to go through Congress, with actual debate and disclosure for the voters of the US to participate in and help decide. I'd totally agree with that process. That way the decision isn't left up to one man (Be it Obama or Trump). And you're right, I do just want to see something done. I have no idea how bad or benign the effects will be in our lifetime or our children's lifetime, but I am confident we will see an effect. For those that deal with drought, tornados, hurricanes, flooding and other extreme weather events that will probably increase in frequency, im concerned (America or anywhere else). For those suffering from cancer, heart disease, birthdefects, and other physical ailments that are caused by pollution, I'm concerned (America or anywhere else).

But I do understand the concern many have with the agreement here in the US. Although I do not subscribe to the conspiracy theory of a global control strategy of oppression, I understand the desire to protect against such a happening. And to those just simply concerned about putting bread on the table, I obviously understand the importance of that pressing need.

I'd like to see more coming together, and attempts to listen rather than belittle. That's the start in combating any of the above mentioned problems. On either side.
Would probably help if those of us who want to follow our constitutional process, guard against foreign litigation on unachievable metrics, and protect the American worker/economy weren't labeled as "deniers".

I'm guessing that would be a good place to start.
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
Would probably help if those of us who want to follow our constitutional process, guard against foreign litigation on unachievable metrics, and protect the American worker/economy weren't labeled as "deniers".

I'm guessing that would be a good place to start.
If you don't deny that manmade climate change is occurring, sure. But to many, it seems nothing short of catastrophe will convince them of a problem.
 

DvlDog4WVU

All-Conference
Feb 2, 2008
46,692
1,764
113
If you don't deny that manmade climate change is occurring, sure. But to many, it seems nothing short of catastrophe will convince them of a problem.
I don't deny change is occurring, I don't deny that we have an impact. How much of it is random/naturally occurring? What are the true second and third order of effects? What impacts can we truly have?

You want me to support not throwing trash in the oceans? I support that. I support a lot of initiatives regarding being good stewards of our planet when it comes to polluting and continuing to clean up our nation. I do not support other countries having any say in our nation or our say in how they perform. Nor do I support stimulating their economy and nation to make changes.
 

Boomboom521

Redshirt
Mar 14, 2014
20,115
6
0
I don't deny change is occurring, I don't deny that we have an impact. How much of it is random/naturally occurring? What are the true second and third order of effects? What impacts can we truly have?

You want me to support not throwing trash in the oceans? I support that. I support a lot of initiatives regarding being good stewards of our planet when it comes to polluting and continuing to clean up our nation. I do not support other countries having any say in our nation or our say in how they perform. Nor do I support stimulating their economy and nation to make changes.
well, that's a start.....and a legitimate stance that I respect. Although I have a more dire outlook, there's room allowed for common ground to be reached. And that's all advanced citizenship can really expect.
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,081
2,244
113
Oh my, call me names, well thought out post.
They hit it on the head. Liberals are the mark. It is an attempt to rip the American taxpayer off by liberal elites who hate the US. Taht money will enrich bad people.
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,081
2,244
113
No, I discount catastrophe predictors and misinterpretation and misrepresentation of studies by zealots. There is very good evidence that the climate change is cyclical. But let's say the planet is warming primarily due to human carbon emissions causing a greenhouse effect. What catastrophes will result? Could a greenhouse effect levelize temperatures worldwide, reducing catastrophic weather events, making more land on the planet more suitable for farming?

We don't fully understand any of the factors causing climate change. We can't predict tomorrow with 100% accuracy. Further, we likely don't even know all the factors at this point. The Paris Agreement and most of these initiatives is less about climate change and more about centralized control.
There is no proof that any of the so called climate change is going to be for the worse. There's the rub.
 

Airport

All-Conference
Dec 12, 2001
82,081
2,244
113
That's why every country on earth except two entered the agreement?

Solid logic.
That's because only one country was going to foot the bill and all those other countries had their hands out and were never going to do **** themselves.Most of the European countries are too damn cheap to even pay 2% for their own defense. Some of you on the left look at things and think only if, we on the right look at things and see how we are being used and get nothing in return for our form of government that has actually contributed to the good of mankind because of our ability to produce.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Of course money is involved duh, congrats on your ongoing education. You'll be dead in a few years so why should you care what happens to the climate and being a climate change denier, you think it's all made up rubbish anyways. Go back to sleep, nothing to see here.

This is how stupid you really are. So very stupid. I have acknowledged the planet has warmed slightly since we came out of the Little Ice Age. I have stated over and over again that scientists have not clue as to the degree man is responsible. I have correctly observed that all their climate models have been wrong and thus they are erring on the high side. I have stated we have had an 18 year+ hiatus with no warming. based on satellite data which is much more accurate than ground based measurements.

I have also stated long ago that Paris was all about a transfer of wealth. Libs on the board disputed that contention at the time. Now, we know it is fact. Paris in 80 years would reduce global warming by .2 degrees C at a cost of $100T. No one in their right mind would make that kind of investment particularly in light of the fact that the goals are voluntary and each country (China and India) can opt out anytime they want.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
lol no I just don't agree with you two. My stance is that the Paris Agreement is about the nations of the world attempting to slow the increase in greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to reduce increasing planet temps and reduce climate change. That's not a great characterization of the mission statement but that's what I think that the Paris Agreement is all about.

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

.2 degrees over 80 years. That is slowing the increase at a cost of $100T? That is a good deal? And it is voluntary meaning anyone can opt out an any time. What a stupid, stupid deal.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
It's easy to be critical and comedic about the agreement, when you don't believe in the potential catastrophe that manmade climate change will bring.

When you do believe in those possible outcomes, the money really isn't such a bad thing IF it helps to reverse the trend. And this whole competitive mess is just sad, and just another example of how little the planet is cherished by man.

I really hope the deniers are right, cause the alternative sucks something serious

Boom, is .2 degrees C one 80 years a reversal of the trend? And at a cost of $100T? On a voluntary basis meaning China and India can reneg anytime they want?
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
Cyclical climate change has not ever had the imbalance of man as a factor before. We are absolutely causing an imbalance in CO2, and you are correct....the results of which we cannot predict with certainty by looking back at past cyclical effects.

But we can look at the effects occurring in the field and compare them to what we know of the past. That's being done, and I trust those in the field.

Then why have we had more CO2 in the atmosphere than today with lower temperatures? What is the correlation?

Dr. Vincent Gray on historical carbon dioxide levels
Anthony Watts / June 4, 2013


NZCLIMATE TRUTH NEWSLETTER NO 312 JUNE 4th 2013

CARBON DIOXIDE

There are two gases in the earth’s atmosphere without which living organisms could not exist.

Oxygen is the most abundant, 21% by volume, but without carbon dioxide, which is currently only about 0.04 percent (400ppm) by volume, both the oxygen itself, and most living organisms on earth could not exist at all.

This happened when the more complex of the two living cells (called “eukaryote”) evolved a process called a “chloroplast” some 3 billion years ago, which utilized a chemical called chlorophyll to capture energy from the sun and convert carbon dioxide and nitrogen into a range of chemical compounds and structural polymers by photosynthesis. These substances provide all the food required by the organisms not endowed with a chloroplast organelle in their cells.

This process also produced all of the oxygen in the atmosphere

The relative proportions of carbon dioxide and oxygen have varied very widely over the geological ages.






It will be seen that there is no correlation whatsoever between carbon dioxide concentration and the temperature at the earth’s surface.

During the latter part of the Carboniferous, the Permian and the first half of the Triassic period, 250-320 million years ago, carbon dioxide concentration was half what it is today but the temperature was 10ºC higher than today . Oxygen in the atmosphere fluctuated from 15 to 35% during this period

From the Cretaceous to the Eocene 35 to 100 million years ago, a high temperature went with declining carbon dioxide.

The theory that carbon dioxide concentration is related to the temperature of the earth’s surface is therefore wrong.

The growth of plants in the Carboniferous caused a reduction in atmospheric oxygen and carbon dioxide, forming the basis for large deposits of dead plants and other organisms. Plant debris became the basis for peat and coal., smaller organisms provided oil and gas, both after millions of years of applied heat and pressure from geological change; mountain building, erosion, deposition of sediments, volcanic eruptions, rises and fall of sea level and movement of continents. Marine organisms used carbon dioxide to build shells and coral polyps and these became the basis of limestone rocks

The idea promulgated by the IPCC that the energy received from the sun is instantly “balanced” by an equal amount returned to space, implies a dead world, from the beginning with no place for the vital role of carbon dioxide in forming the present atmosphere or for the development or maintenance of living organisms, or their ability to store energy or release it.

Increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide caused by return to the atmosphere of some of the gas that was once there promotes the growth of forests, the yield of agricultural crops and the fish, molluscs and coral polyps in the ocean.

Increase of Carbon Dioxide is thus wholly beneficial to “the environment” There is no evidence that it causes harm.

Cheers

Vincent Gray

Wellington, New Zealand
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,565
152
63
This is how stupid you really are. So very stupid. I have acknowledged the planet has warmed slightly since we came out of the Little Ice Age. I have stated over and over again that scientists have not clue as to the degree man is responsible. I have correctly observed that all their climate models have been wrong and thus they are erring on the high side. I have stated we have had an 18 year+ hiatus with no warming. based on satellite data which is much more accurate than ground based measurements.

I have also stated long ago that Paris was all about a transfer of wealth. Libs on the board disputed that contention at the time. Now, we know it is fact. Paris in 80 years would reduce global warming by .2 degrees C at a cost of $100T. No one in their right mind would make that kind of investment particularly in light of the fact that the goals are voluntary and each country (China and India) can opt out anytime they want.
The thing is that no one cares what a know-nothing like yourself says.
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,565
152
63
.2 degrees over 80 years. That is slowing the increase at a cost of $100T? That is a good deal? And it is voluntary meaning anyone can opt out an any time. What a stupid, stupid deal.
Relax, we're out of it (at least for now) so save your meaningless analysis.
 
Sep 6, 2013
27,594
120
0
I have stated we have had an 18 year+ hiatus with no warming. based on satellite data which is much more accurate than ground based measurements.

You're wrong, twice in one post.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

You're not a scientist; don't even attempt to act like one.
 

WVPATX

Freshman
Jan 27, 2005
28,197
91
38
That's why every country on earth except two entered the agreement?

Solid logic.

Because American front loads our anti fossil fuel efforts, reducing our competitiveness and we provide the bulk of the funds to developing countries. Germany does not want the U.S. to have a massive competitive advantage on electricity costs. We capitulated and gave them everything they wanted. Less productivity. Less competitiveness. A great deal of money. And the deal is purely voluntary, they can get out at any time. Who wouldn't sign on if the U.S. is going to be brought down by the agreement?
 

moe

Sophomore
May 29, 2001
32,565
152
63
We were fully 1/3 of the 10 billion. Who do you think makes up the other 90 billion per year?
Any fundraising has goals that may or may not be reached. I was just showing Airhead that there's more than one country contributing.