Like us on Facebook


Follow us on Twitter





Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 360

Thread: Climate Change

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    6,704
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Saying the Paris Climate Accord is bad for America is a very ignorant take to have, under the provision of the accord each country sets their own standards for CO2 reduction. So we were free to choose literally any standards for reduction we wanted. If you are free to choose your entire policy and you complain it's bad for us, it's because of us and not the accord.

    As for the Bolded: literally no reputable scientist is saying that.
    So, in your opinion the Paris Accord is not bad for America, just what American self-imposed. Therefore, since the self-imposed restrictions are bad for America, it must follow that Obama was bad for America.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    eau claire, wi
    Posts
    4,348
    I think more meaningful conversations RE: climate change would be great. All it consists of today is "IF you dont think this way then you are a moron who hates science". I think the amount of people who refuse to acknowledge climate change is happening at all, and that mankind is partially responsible is actually very small.

    I would be more curious as to:

    -What in particular is mankind doing that is causing this? Obviously our advancements in manufacturing and transportation technology, but what else? and is the population of the world too dependent on these advancements at this point to ever really phase it out enough to make a difference? If we phase it out, how will costs of things change? How do we as a society adapt to the new way of life? Or can we at this point? Do we have a viable substitute at this point and how long until it can available nationwide? What are the repercussions of these new alternatives?

    -Is the population itself causing more damage than we thought just by existing? More people=more and bigger cities= forests etc being destroyed to make room. More people = more Co2 just by breathing.

    - How much of this progression is natural? Obviously not all of it, but some of it is. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old and has always been changing, will we always be stuck in an endless cycle of adapting to the environment of a changing planet?


    All this info might very well be out there, but I havent seen it.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    America
    Posts
    90,009
    Quote Originally Posted by jojo30 View Post
    I think more meaningful conversations RE: climate change would be great. All it consists of today is "IF you dont think this way then you are a moron who hates science". I think the amount of people who refuse to acknowledge climate change is happening at all, and that mankind is partially responsible is actually very small.

    I would be more curious as to:

    -What in particular is mankind doing that is causing this? Obviously our advancements in manufacturing and transportation technology, but what else? and is the population of the world too dependent on these advancements at this point to ever really phase it out enough to make a difference? If we phase it out, how will costs of things change? How do we as a society adapt to the new way of life? Or can we at this point? Do we have a viable substitute at this point and how long until it can available nationwide? What are the repercussions of these new alternatives?

    -Is the population itself causing more damage than we thought just by existing? More people=more and bigger cities= forests etc being destroyed to make room. More people = more Co2 just by breathing.

    - How much of this progression is natural? Obviously not all of it, but some of it is. The Earth is 4.5 billion years old and has always been changing, will we always be stuck in an endless cycle of adapting to the environment of a changing planet?


    All this info might very well be out there, but I havent seen it.
    How hard have you been looking? Because most of that info is on the first page of a Google search.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    29,509
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyi View Post
    So, in your opinion the Paris Accord is not bad for America, just what American self-imposed. Therefore, since the self-imposed restrictions are bad for America, it must follow that Obama was bad for America.
    Nowhere did I say I was of the belief the restrictions we self-imposed were bad for America. If you think Obama's restrictions were bad for America, I'm pointing out the stupidity of finding fault in an agreement where we as a country are free to impose our own restrictions by blaming the agreement for the restrictions we self-imposed.

    Rather than pulling out of the agreement, Trump could have re-negotiated or submitted different, less stringent restrictions he was acceptable with.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    6,704
    The biggest problem with the Paris Accord is that it is far too costly to the US and it's businesses and it is lopsided in the US contribution to the plan. Secondarily, it also gives up the US sovereignty to be regulated by an International body. Obama was a zealot and Climate Change was his religion, so he didn't mind having French and German overlords. He also didn't mind if China and India refused to play in the same sandbox and wouldn't have to meet the accord objectives until 2026 and 2030, respectively. He was also willing to overlook atrocities committed by other countries, as long as they agreed on Climate Change. He was also willing to bribe other countries by paying them $100 billion dollars per year, just to get them on board and he discounted the believe that it would cost the US economy $1 trillion per year for the rest of the century. For those kind of results, the US wouldn't need a costly war strapping our economy. In fact, the US wouldn't need to be attacked for external forces, since it was already being attacked by Obama.

    On the other hand, it might prevent an 0.3 degree rise in the planet temperature, if the US did absolutely nothing, which is not going to be the case, since technological breakthroughs and green energy will automatically be implemented throughout U.S. businesses over time. So, close to $100 trillion dollars spent and no guarantees and enslaved to an agreement that we might not be able to do, versus using that money elsewhere and plodding along on our own with what is more reasonable and fair to do.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    eau claire, wi
    Posts
    4,348
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    How hard have you been looking? Because most of that info is on the first page of a Google search.
    Not hard enough I guess? Didn't realize they had factual answers to all my questions.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    29,509
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyi View Post
    The biggest problem with the Paris Accord is that it is far too costly to the US and it's businesses and it is lopsided in the US contribution to the plan. Secondarily, it also gives up the US sovereignty to be regulated by an International body. Obama was a zealot and Climate Change was his religion, so he didn't mind having French and German overlords. He also didn't mind if China and India refused to play in the same sandbox and wouldn't have to meet the accord objectives until 2026 and 2030, respectively. He was also willing to overlook atrocities committed by other countries, as long as they agreed on Climate Change. He was also willing to bribe other countries by paying them $100 billion dollars per year, just to get them on board and he discounted the believe that it would cost the US economy $1 trillion per year for the rest of the century. For those kind of results, the US wouldn't need a costly war strapping our economy. In fact, the US wouldn't need to be attacked for external forces, since it was already being attacked by Obama.

    On the other hand, it might prevent an 0.3 degree rise in the planet temperature, if the US did absolutely nothing, which is not going to be the case, since technological breakthroughs and green energy will automatically be implemented throughout U.S. businesses over time. So, close to $100 trillion dollars spent and no guarantees and enslaved to an agreement that we might not be able to do, versus using that money elsewhere and plodding along on our own with what is more reasonable and fair to do.
    First Bolded: where are you getting this number?

    Second Bolded: A bold claim considering we are going back to non-green energy sources such as coal.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    6,704
    Quote Originally Posted by valade16 View Post
    Nowhere did I say I was of the belief the restrictions we self-imposed were bad for America. If you think Obama's restrictions were bad for America, I'm pointing out the stupidity of finding fault in an agreement where we as a country are free to impose our own restrictions by blaming the agreement for the restrictions we self-imposed.

    Rather than pulling out of the agreement, Trump could have re-negotiated or submitted different, less stringent restrictions he was acceptable with.
    Except that France and Germany both stated that they would not allow a renegotiation.

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    13,992
    Quote Originally Posted by dbroncos78087 View Post
    How hard have you been looking? Because most of that info is on the first page of a Google search.
    When folks talk about the pussification of america they often talk about out work ethic. Well here is the perfect example, people just refuse to do the work to have a basic understanding of the situation. It's Hard.... Waaaaaaaa, It's complex, Waaaaaaaaa. They use big words, Waaaaaaa.

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    13,992
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyi View Post
    Except that France and Germany both stated that they would not allow a renegotiation.
    What are the consequences if we don't hit our targets?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Washington
    Posts
    29,509
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    What are the consequences if we don't hit our targets?
    So far as I know, absolutely nothing. It is a non-binding agreement.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    eau claire, wi
    Posts
    4,348
    Quote Originally Posted by flips333 View Post
    When folks talk about the pussification of america they often talk about out work ethic. Well here is the perfect example, people just refuse to do the work to have a basic understanding of the situation. It's Hard.... Waaaaaaaa, It's complex, Waaaaaaaaa. They use big words, Waaaaaaa.
    You know absolutely nothing about my work ethic nor my intelligence, sir.

    I was simply bringing up conversation points that I would like to see discussed more broadly that I personally haven't seen talked about beyond the point of opinion or speculation. Definitely makes me a *****. Or is the term "snowflake " these days? Thats what all the cool kids are saying. Ill try not to melt and add to the rising water level.

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    6,704
    Part of the Agreement includes a Green Climate Fund.

    Per Wikipedia "In early March 2016, the Obama administration gave a $500 million grant to the "Green Climate Fund" as "the first chunk of a $3 billion commitment made at the Paris climate talks"

    Also, the withdrawal doesn't even take effect yet

    "Withdrawal from Agreement

    Main article: United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement

    Article 28 of the agreement enables parties to withdraw from the agreement after sending withdrawal notifications to the depositary three years after the agreement goes into force in that country, and the withdrawal is effective one year after the depositary is notified.

    On 1 June 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the agreement.[73] In accordance with Article 28, as the agreement entered into force in the United States on 4 November 2016, the earliest possible effective withdrawal date for the United States is 4 November 2020."

    Also:

    "Enhanced transparency framework

    While each Party's NDC is not legally binding, the Parties are legally bound to have their progress tracked by technical expert review to assess achievement toward the NDC, and to determine ways to strengthen ambition Article 13 of the Paris Agreement articulates an "enhanced transparency framework for action and support" that establishes harmonized monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) requirements. Thus, both developed and developing nations must report every two years on their mitigation efforts, and all parties will be subject to both technical and peer review. "

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    13,992
    Quote Originally Posted by jojo30 View Post
    You know absolutely nothing about my work ethic nor my intelligence, sir.

    I was simply bringing up conversation points that I would like to see discussed more broadly that I personally haven't seen talked about beyond the point of opinion or speculation. Definitely makes me a *****. Or is the term "snowflake " these days? Thats what all the cool kids are saying. Ill try not to melt and add to the rising water level.
    I'm not specifically referring to you, sorry if it came off that way.... but rather the hypocrisy I see in a society that is consistently unwilling to do the work while deriding others for being as you put it "snowflakes."

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    born and raised on the south side of Chicago.
    Posts
    13,992
    Quote Originally Posted by johnnyi View Post
    Part of the Agreement includes a Green Climate Fund.

    Per Wikipedia "In early March 2016, the Obama administration gave a $500 million grant to the "Green Climate Fund" as "the first chunk of a $3 billion commitment made at the Paris climate talks"

    Also, the withdrawal doesn't even take effect yet

    "Withdrawal from Agreement

    Main article: United States withdrawal from the Paris Agreement

    Article 28 of the agreement enables parties to withdraw from the agreement after sending withdrawal notifications to the depositary three years after the agreement goes into force in that country, and the withdrawal is effective one year after the depositary is notified.

    On 1 June 2017, U.S. President Donald Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the agreement.[73] In accordance with Article 28, as the agreement entered into force in the United States on 4 November 2016, the earliest possible effective withdrawal date for the United States is 4 November 2020."

    Also:

    "Enhanced transparency framework

    While each Party's NDC is not legally binding, the Parties are legally bound to have their progress tracked by technical expert review to assess achievement toward the NDC, and to determine ways to strengthen ambition Article 13 of the Paris Agreement articulates an "enhanced transparency framework for action and support" that establishes harmonized monitoring, reporting, and verification (MRV) requirements. Thus, both developed and developing nations must report every two years on their mitigation efforts, and all parties will be subject to both technical and peer review. "
    What are the consequence if we don't give them our money or don't meet the targets? Basically there are none, save some shaming. So how can a deal be so bad for us if we don't have to follow it?

    Quote Originally Posted by MrPoon
    man with hair like fire can destroy souls with a twitch of his thighs.

Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •