Question for the board
- Thread starter WVPATX
- Start date
Announces intention to drop out, "negotiates" during our dropping out phrase, eventually re-ups and announces huge win for Americans, with little to no proof.
Why do you assume that CO2 is bad? Many scientists both agree and disagree. We breathe out CO2. Historic warming and cooling going back thousands of years show no correlation.
I would focus on real pollution and clean water. Get back to basics.
Showing from 200 to 11000 years ago, the subsequent graph is based on ice core data, readily visible in files hosted on the servers of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C:
Source:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2 TemperatureSince10700 BP with CO2 from EPICA DomeC.gif
A lack of correlation between temperatures (in the above from a Greenland ice core) and atmospheric CO2 becomes very apparent at that timescale and level of detail.
Don't know if its good or bad. My comment was more about public perception and good politics. I think you know what game needs to be played.Why do you assume that CO2 is bad? Many scientists both agree and disagree. We breathe out CO2. Historic warming and cooling going back thousands of years show no correlation.
I would focus on real pollution and clean water. Get back to basics.
Showing from 200 to 11000 years ago, the subsequent graph is based on ice core data, readily visible in files hosted on the servers of the U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): GISP 2 and EPICA Dome C:
Source:
http://www.climate4you.com/images/GISP2 TemperatureSince10700 BP with CO2 from EPICA DomeC.gif
A lack of correlation between temperatures (in the above from a Greenland ice core) and atmospheric CO2 becomes very apparent at that timescale and level of detail.
I think it Trump were to say something like:
1. We withdraw from Paris because it is not fair, balanced and leaves it up to each country to decide what to do. This hurts U.S. competitiveness against countries like China and India.
2. We will continue our research into climate science but from a balanced perspective. Science is all about skepticism. We will return to that mantra.
3. We will continue our efforts to combat pollution of the air and water.
4. We will continue to find ways to make fossil fuels even cleaner with new investments in research and development.
5. All of these actions will improve our environment while not hurting U.S. job creation or our economy.
If it leaves it up to each country to decide what to do then why does it matter if we stay in it?
That is a fair point. Obama made very strong concessions as to what America would do and what targets it would meet. We could be like China and say we won't do anything or make any commitments until 2030.
But Trump promised an exit from this accord during the race and will probably not back out on it now (although he could take your course of action and stay in it but gut it). He could also make it a treaty and send it for a vote to the Senate where it would die a swift, painful death.
