Trump and the Paris Accord

[f/22]

Considering Trump's campaign stance on Climate Change as well as America First, I find it interesting that CAPP didn’t change their 'Paris Accord myth appeasing propaganda' while they seemed to be worried about Trump not approving the Keystone XL project.

I think (if Trump knows anything at all about CAPP's website) he may have been laughing up his sleeve over those rubes in Canada pretending to acknowledge Climate Change while he gets to import our products for 'Merica's export back to our Near East and others, and to stockpile it for his energy security. Still, I'm surprised he didn't seem to use CAPP's public stance on Climate Change as threat towards making a deal for a discount. But then maybe the steel thing and supplying the pipe . . ..

[Jlabute]

Ooooh, a meme!
That's not what I said, Omnitheo, but if that's all you choose to see, well, whatever.

Omnitheo is conflating two things to twist the truth into his own worldview. 90% of scientists say the earth is warming, but the Paris Accord has very little to do with what 90% of scientists say about AGW. The Paris Accord is a political agreement hashed out by politicians, not scientists. The truth is that the science shows that if the Paris Accord is followed, it will delay warming by a mere 8 months by the year 2100 at a cost of $100,000,000,000,000. It's actually quite reasonable to be a believer in climate change and against the Paris Accord.

I agree.

The hysterical fits coming from the supporters of the Paris accord can safely be ignored because Trump has put his finger on the key reasons why the US will reject it. First off, it was signed under an executive order by Obama and not ratified by the Senate. This invalidates the agreement and makes it non-binding on individual States. Putting it to a vote in the Senate would have the same effect.
 
The Paris accord is just one of a series going back to the Kyoto Protocol specifying how much each nation had to reduce its CO2 emissions. Only Western nations began trying to reduce those emissions at great cost while countries such as China and India were given a pass until they had “caught up” in development, but they have been the largest emitters ever since. Trump saw this as a direct attack on the US economy and said no more. He has been cancelling Obama’s executive orders connected with the manmade global warming fraud, freed the energy sector to get busy drilling for more gas and oil and removed the restrictions on coal mining. Subsidies for renewable energy development are also being cut along with payments to the UN’s “green” slush fund.

https://www.thegwpf.com/energy-cost-is- ... te-policy/

An investigation has restarted into the corruption of science within NOAA, NASA and the EPA that saw systematic adjustments to historical climate data to cool the past and warm the present, all to support the failed IPCC climate models. Mr. Trump should now revisit the EPA’s CO2 endangerment finding and have that repealed because it is the basis for all of Obama’s anti-CO2 executive orders

[Poindexter]

The chances of dying from terrorism is a 1 in 36 million yet the US spends an estimated $100 billion per year.

The US has already spent a total of 11 trillion so they could take the fight to terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The US contribution to the Green Fund everyone is whining about is 1 billion to date, with possibly an additional 2 billion to follow. Given the chance that 90% of the climate scientists are going to be right is far better than 1 in 36 million, wouldn't this be a relatively cheap and well spent investment to keep the population safe?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/201 ... .html?_r=0
http://money.cnn.com/2015/11/16/news/ec ... index.html

[rustled]

Mm hm. Follow the money.
https://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2016 ... gy-future/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... solar-wind
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-c ... SKBN12X0WA
There's gold in them thar "greener" hills. Taxpayer-subsidized gold, no less!
Pretty simple. Savvy businesses see opportunities and reap the profits. Their decisions are around how to invest, when to divest, when it's time to diversify or die. Having all their eggs in one basket isn't something they can afford to do.

Savvy businesses recognize branding opportunities when they see them. Remember Mother Nature's gasoline? Tell the customers what they want to hear, and people make choices based on emotion will pick you over your competition. Pretty sure they figure Trump understands the business and marketing around "green" energy.

You do realize businesses finding profit opportunities in climate change has zero bearing on the fact that it's occurring? Those are 2 completely separate issues. What matters is the science (even if it's too complicated for the layperson to understand) and that matter has been thoroughly studied and settled among the scientific community.

"You do realize"? Good grief.

I was answering a specific question, cordially asked by another poster. Nothing to do with what you've decided to make of it, any more than Omnitheo's conspiracy theory meme.

Why you have to try to turn my response into a black and white argument about whether or not climate change exists and whether or not the science is settled is beyond me.

[Omnitheo]

By all means, if you want to make this about me go ahead, but thankfully climate science does not depend on my ability to make an argument. You reject my occam's razer meme, but only because you miss the point of it. Your argument is that there's money to be made in reneweable energy. Well yeah, true, it's employing tens of thousands of Americans. But there's also money to be made in the fossil fuel sector by rejecting claims of CO2 affecting our atmosphere. There's vested interest for them to protect their sector by controlling a monopoly on energy and continuing to sell fossil fuels rather than have consumers make a choice for alternatives. It's the same thing with auto company lobbyists that want to prevent tesla from selling directly to the public. This is the purpose of the occams razer "meme". What's more likely, the green energy sector has convinced the vast majority of independent scientists across the globe to collaborate on a conspiracy to sell solar panels. Or the fossil fuel sector has paid a few to try and sow doubt and submit non-peer reviewed counter arguments in the opinion section of newspapers?


If your argument is simply that businesses will try and take advantage of scientific findings to sell a product, well it's a pretty weak argument. I guess the findings of sugar and obesity are just a conspiracy by bottled water companies to get their products in vending machines and undercut the HFCS industry? The science against CFC's affecting the ozone was a conspiracy to subsidize alternative aerosols?

I repeatedly see you make the same statement about "at what cost?" Why spend money on R&D for alternative energy? Why incentivize the fossil fuel industry to come up with cleaner alternatives by threatening their profits if they don't? There are...what did you say 7000 Canadians? Who were somehow arbitrarily affected by this? Well why don't I see you bringing such passion, such debate skills to the discussion of military spending? Of trillions of dollars to develop weapons that science and evidence have shown only leads to greater economic burdens?

There is a trend I see amongst the climate change denial posts, and that is an inability to see the greater picture.

[rustled]

Too funny. You're still banging on about conspiracies!

I'll bet there's a meme for people who see conspiracy theories where none exist.

I've made no argument here, that's your cuppa. I've simply shared an observation about business folk following predictable patterns with someone who asked me, specifically, what I made of something specific.

Let me break it down for you: They're just doing what savvy business folk do, acting on opportunity. Full stop.

You wanna make that into a conspiracy theory? Fill your boots. JLives wants to make that into an "argument" about settled science? She can fill hers. Honestly, what's with you two? (I could come up with a lot of competing hypotheses for your behaviour (bias, lack of reading comprehension, the need to pick a fight with other posters no matter what she posts), but as Occam's Razor suggests, I'll go with the one requiring the fewest assumptions.)

Now, how about y'all get off pretending my post was about something else and get ?

[JLives]

I'm not arguing with you Rustled. I'm informing you that you're wrong. There isn't another "side" to consider that climate change is occuring. It is occurring. Even if it's not "simple science". My view is not based on arrogance but on facts. I don't understand why you are attempting to try to debate settled science?

That's what's with me. You think you have some inside view that scientists aren't understanding. THAT is arrogance.

[rustled]

I'm not arguing with you Rustled. I'm informing you that you're wrong. There isn't another "side" to consider that climate change is occuring. It is occurring. Even if it's not "simple science". My view is not based on arrogance but on facts. I don't understand why you are attempting to try to debate settled science?

That's what's with me. You think you have some inside view that scientists aren't understanding. THAT is arrogance.

Pretty sure I hadn't even gone there, though. Just in case, I went back to check:

Considering Trump's campaign stance on Climate Change as well as America First, I find it interesting that CAPP didn’t change their 'Paris Accord myth appeasing propaganda' while they seemed to be worried about Trump not approving the Keystone XL project.

Mm hm. Follow the money.
https://www.albertaoilmagazine.com/2016 ... gy-future/
https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... solar-wind
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-c ... SKBN12X0WA
There's gold in them thar "greener" hills. Taxpayer-subsidized gold, no less!
Pretty simple. Savvy businesses see opportunities and reap the profits. Their decisions are around how to invest, when to divest, when it's time to diversify or die. Having all their eggs in one basket isn't something they can afford to do.

Savvy businesses recognize branding opportunities when they see them. Remember Mother Nature's gasoline? Tell the customers what they want to hear, and people make choices based on emotion will pick you over your competition. Pretty sure they figure Trump understands the business and marketing around "green" energy.

Nope. Nada. Nothing in that post is about taking a side and attempting to debate settled science.

Guess it's an eye-of-the-beholder, see-what-you-wanna-see kind of thing, huh?

It's clear we won't be discussing the subject matter that actually is contained in my post (how weird is that?) so how's about we get

[maryjane48]

I'm not arguing with you Rustled. I'm informing you that you're wrong. There isn't another "side" to consider that climate change is occuring. It is occurring. Even if it's not "simple science". My view is not based on arrogance but on facts. I don't understand why you are attempting to try to debate settled science?

That's what's with me. You think you have some inside view that scientists aren't understanding. THAT is arrogance.

it much easier explained than that . greed. they know whats going on but it interfers with making a buck . it is as simple as that. because the only other explanation is mental illness

[Ranger66]

The question of climate change happening is resolved and the science behind it is clear. Some people select models and / or theories that failed and claim it is just a hoax to make money. In science some theories (empirical observations) are disproved and science moves on, if someone uses the untested theory to make money that is not an issue of science but an issue of unprofessional conduct and being gullible. Science can be complex and the more variables there are the more complex. Einstein could not explain the kinetic gas theory to a six year old but used it to build a model to show that it has predictive and verifiable power. What is understandable to one person is a complete blank to the next, not based on intelligence but your knowledge/experience. In the end pulling out of the Paris Accord means nothing other than to demonstrate a lack of understanding.

[Glacier]

The question of climate change happening is resolved and the science behind it is clear.

According the IPCC models, the Paris Accord accomplishes almost nothing at a very high price. The US will have to spend 100s of trillions to slow down warming by 8 months by the year 2100. That's what the science says.

[Ranger66]

That is a drop in the bucket, calculate how many 100’s trillions of dollars the US has made getting to this point. The sooner we get started the better off our grandchildren will be.

[Glacier]

That is a drop in the bucket, calculate how many 100’s trillions of dollars the US has made getting to this point. The sooner we get started the better off our grandchildren will be.

Not really. If we drive our children into a lower quality of life by spending their money to not even improve the climate, it's a horrible investment. It's foolish to spend huge amounts of money for almost no return. "doing something is better than nothing" is the dumbest reasoning ever invented. First we much ask, "does the something make things better or worse?" and further, "Is there a better and most cost effective approach to solving the problem?"

[maryjane48]

lol. no return ? the world going green no matter what . its where the money is going to be made . 2018 the gop will lose control then the changes that trump messed up will be fixed and you can go back to enjoying life instead of listening to the likes of bill oreilly

[The Green Barbarian]

That is a drop in the bucket, calculate how many 100’s trillions of dollars the US has made getting to this point. The sooner we get started the better off our grandchildren will be.

This is just so much sanctimonious nonsense. Our grandchildren won't be better off bankrupting them in the name of fairy tales and spooky bed-time stories.