Only US and few castanet posters

[maryjane48]

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/201 ... 51878933=1

Even syria is on board now . I would say the consensus is the majority of humans on earth know,the science that says yes humans do makexa,impact in the rate in warming

[gman313]

https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/11/syria-to-join-paris-climate-agreement-leaves-united-states-isolated-spd/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fb20171107news-syriaclimate&utm_campaign=Content&sf151878933=1

Even syria is on board now . I would say the consensus is the majority of humans on earth know,the science that says yes humans do makexa,impact in the rate in warming

agreed

what is interesting though is despite withdrawing the us got closer to targets than Canada ever did

[jimmy4321]

I think for many it's cheaper to await divine intervention.

[Dizzy1]

Sure we make an impact on our climate - but to the extreme extent of doom and gloom the trendy group claims - sorry, I don't agree with that.

[Verum]

Sure we make an impact on our climate - but to the extreme extent of doom and gloom the trendy group claims - sorry, I don't agree with that.

You don't have to agree with it for it to be true. Do you honestly think you know better than the vast majority of scientists who have dedicated their lives to understanding this?

[Glacier]

Sure we make an impact on our climate - but to the extreme extent of doom and gloom the trendy group claims - sorry, I don't agree with that.

You don't have to agree with it for it to be true. Do you honestly think you know better than the vast majority of scientists who have dedicated their lives to understanding this?

Here we go again. The vast majority of scientists do not thing human caused warming will be catastrophic.

[Omnitheo]

So trillions of dollars lost and mass human migrations aren’t considered a catastrophe?

[Verum]

Here we go again. The vast majority of scientists do not thing human caused warming will be catastrophic.

I didn't say they did but the vast majority of scientists aren't experts in this field, so I don't know why one would take their opinions into account. You don't ask a paediatrician if your Grandfather's dementia medication is likely to have side effects, do you?

It is certainly true that the vast majority of reputable climatologists do believe that man made climate change will be significantly disruptive. The only groups who claim that this consensus doesn't exist tend to be right-wing alternative-fact media. Can you can provide one significant professional body of climatologists, who disagree that man made climate change will be significant in effect and at the same time was not primarily formed to deny the significance of man made climate change? It is trivial to find such bodies who do assert that man made climate change is both real and will have significantly effect.

[Glacier]

So trillions of dollars lost and mass human migrations aren’t considered a catastrophe?

No. We need mass immigration to keep the Canadian economy going. If you are one of these conspiracy theory kooks who thinks, ISIS was caused by climate change, well, there's no hope reasoning with you. If you think there will be future mass migration, okay, that's a good conversation to be had, but the solutions are not as black and white as think they are are. It's best to use cost-benefit analysis to solve these types of problems.

[Glacier]

I didn't say they did but the vast majority of scientists aren't experts in this field, so I don't know why one would take their opinions into account. You don't ask a paediatrician if your Grandfather's dementia medication is likely to have side effects, do you?

It is certainly true that the vast majority of reputable climatologists do believe that man made climate change will be significantly disruptive. The only groups who claim that this consensus doesn't exist tend to be right-wing alternative-fact media. Can you can provide one significant professional body of climatologists, who disagree that man made climate change will be significant in effect and at the same time was not primarily formed to deny the significance of man made climate change? It is trivial to find such bodies who do assert that man made climate change is both real and will have significantly effect.

I do not know the polling data of climatologists, so I can't see for sure what they think. There is some polling data on meteorologists, and they seem to be quite mixed in their views.

Given the fact, we don't know what percentage of experts say way, we can only use logic and reason and science to figure out how to deal to deal with the warming.

You keep using the appeal to authority fallacy and the red herring. When a pediatrician says your child has cancer, that's a serious diagnosis, which is why people will often get a second opinion. Treating someone for cancer they don't have is bad, and it happens from time to time.

Now, if you have warming by CO2, etc. and the consequences are bad, you need to make sure you're right, and most importantly, that the solutions actually fix the problem. We do this all the time in the real world. You have highway 97 through the Okanagan. Now, we could save a shiiite ton of CO2 by putting in overpasses instead of traffic lights, but we don't do it. Why? Because there's only so much money to go around, and thus the government thinks there's matter ways of cutting pollution like building Site C to power electric cars... no, wait, leftists hate Site C.

So anyway, it does matter how catastrophic the end result will be and how painful the solutions will be. The cure is worse than the disease, it's better to not take the medicine, and instead look for a better cure. That's what we have with warming right now. Engineers should be involved in solving the problems with cost-benefit analysis. If you spend $100,000,000,000 to slow warming by 0.0001C, but you could spend a quarter of that building dikes to save people who will be flooded anyway since no proposed solution to date would actually stop warming. All proposed solutions cost lots of money, and instead of stopping warming merely delay it by a marginal amount.

Syria is on board for spending hundreds of billions of dollars to delay warming by a few months by the year 2100. Okay, but they will still have to spend money to do as Holland has done, and build dikes anyway.

BTW, I am pro-getting off fossil fuels ASAP (that's why I support the evil Site C that's about to be cancelled). I'm pro-cutting emissions much harder than we are doing. I think international agreements that no one ever follows are useless in that regard. I've heard that the federal government is looking at improving emissions of vehicles in Canada, and that's a good thing. Global warming or not, the stuff coming out of your tailpipe is toxic, and a health hazard. I just don't support fearmongering and speculating and lying to get people to cut emissions.

PS. Despite all the doom and gloom put forward by alarmists, emissions are being cut big time. This has very little to do with climate accords. If the evil Site C gets built such that electricity rates remain low, cutting will continue to increase.

[Omnitheo]

So trillions of dollars lost and mass human migrations aren’t considered a catastrophe?

No. We need mass immigration to keep the Canadian economy going. If you are one of these conspiracy theory kooks who thinks, ISIS was caused by climate change, well, there's no hope reasoning with you. If you think there will be future mass migration, okay, that's a good conversation to be had, but the solutions are not as black and white as think they are are. It's best to use cost-benefit analysis to solve these types of problems.

The US Military are conspiracy theorists? They’ve identified climate change as being the largest destabilizing force globally. Not just leading to groups like ISIL, but other large scale military conflicts across Asia and Africa.

But I’m not just talking about people moving from new deserts, I’m talking about mass exodi from coastal cities. Florida. Hundreds of millions of people who’s homes will be underwater without extensive government intervention, far beyond what the Netherlands have done.

[Ka-El]

Briefly: ISIL rose to military power as a result of the actions of Bashar al-Assad, and facilitated by then US president, George W Bush. When Bashar al-Assad used gas attacks on his own people for the second time (during the Arab Spring), this time the people didn’t just subvert to his will and revolted. In response, Bashar al-Assad released a large number of militants who were being held in prison, and these militants gave birth to ISIL, and created two enemies for the people who were revolting against the dictatorship. Bashar al-Assad probably didn’t anticipate the Iraq war coming to an end and Americans withdrawing, and I think we can also presume he did not expect ISIL to sweep into Iraq after the American withdrawal and proceed to supply and arm themselves with all the American weapons, trucks, armor, etc. left behind, and recruit for their army.

I'm not denying climate change nor its potential destabilizing effect, but I don’t know where climate change fits into this.

[Glacier]

I'm not denying climate change nor its potential destabilizing effect, but I don’t know where climate change fits into this.

Exactly. The US government is trying to blame climate change for their own screw ups.

[Omnitheo]

https://www.defense.gov/News/Article/Article/612710/

WASHINGTON, July 29, 2015 — Global climate change will aggravate problems such as poverty, social tensions, environmental degradation, ineffectual leadership and weak political institutions that threaten stability in a number of countries, according to a report the Defense Department sent to Congress yesterday.

[The Green Barbarian]

Even syria is on board now .

LOL - maybe instead endorsing spending billions on a fairy tale, they could start looking after the millions of refugees they have. What a joke.