Climate Change

[sturg33]

LINK: Climate Alarmists Have Been Wrong About Virtually Everything

Pretty fun little history of all the catastrophic predictions of the world coming to an end...I particularly like this quote:

Global warming — temperature predictions: Perhaps nowhere has the stunning failure of climate predictions been better illustrated than in the “climate models” used by the UN. The UN climate bureaucracy, known as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), produces periodic reports on “climate science” — often dubbed the “Bible” of climatology. In its latest iteration, the Fifth Assessment Report (AR5), the UN featured 73 computer models and their predictions. All of them “predicted” varying degrees of increased warming as atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide (CO2) increased.

The problem is that every single model was wrong — by a lot. Not only did temperatures not rise by as much as the models predicted, they have failed to rise at all since around 1996, according to data collected by five official temperature data*sets. Based just on the laws of probability, a monkey rolling the dice would have done far better at predicting future temperatures than the UN’s models. That suggests deliberate fraud is likely at work.

This is not to say that climate change isn't a thing... it most certainly is. But the government has tried to scare us ****less for decades, and the solution is ALWAYS to tax us and take more control over our lives to "solve" the problem.

[sturg33]

This document is a treaty in international law. It has 100% of the legal attributes of a treaty. If you examine the UN website all the reporting on this accord treats it as a treaty.

Under our Constitution, treaties must be ratified by the United States Senate.

Obama claimed to have unilaterally ratified the treaty. He had no such power.

The United States is not legitimately a party to this treaty. Thus, President Trump is not withdrawing from the Paris Accords. A nation must be a party to withdraw.

President Trump is simply giving the world notice that this act of Obama acting as a dictator was not valid.

The fact that Obama refused to send it to the Senate is all the evidence you need to know that it is an unwise treaty. If it was good for America, it could get ratified.

In all of the hyperbole, the person who acted irresponsibly is the one who circumvented the Constitution and attempted to impose international control over this country all by himself.

[thethe]

LINK: Climate Alarmists Have Been Wrong About Virtually Everything

Pretty fun little history of all the catastrophic predictions of the world coming to an end...I particularly like this quote:




This is not to say that climate change isn't a thing... it most certainly is. But the government has tried to scare us ****less for decades, and the solution is ALWAYS to tax us and take more control over our lives to "solve" the problem.

DING DING DING!

[thethe]

This document is a treaty in international law. It has 100% of the legal attributes of a treaty. If you examine the UN website all the reporting on this accord treats it as a treaty.

Under our Constitution, treaties must be ratified by the United States Senate.

Obama claimed to have unilaterally ratified the treaty. He had no such power.

The United States is not legitimately a party to this treaty. Thus, President Trump is not withdrawing from the Paris Accords. A nation must be a party to withdraw.

President Trump is simply giving the world notice that this act of Obama acting as a dictator was not valid.

The fact that Obama refused to send it to the Senate is all the evidence you need to know that it is an unwise treaty. If it was good for America, it could get ratified.

In all of the hyperbole, the person who acted irresponsibly is the one who circumvented the Constitution and attempted to impose international control over this country all by himself.

Obama overreached in many situations. Part 9f the plan to strengthen and centralize governmen.

[zitothebrave]

I glanced at the article, and realized the general issue immediately. THese people don't grasp the facts. Whenever someone leads off talking about how scientists in the 70s freaked out about global cooling, they're done.


There's a very clear trend since the industrial revolution.

Correct there's an issue with alarmists. But that's an issue in every aspect of the world. Heck an alarmist came on here and went "ding ding ding" But he'll be the one freaking about the problem of islam because of a handful of attacks which make up a greatly insignificant part of the world and it's general tragedies.

Again, there is irrefutable evidence that climate change is happening. THere is some debate as far as to what extent humans are involved, but you can't deny it. If you do you just don't believe in the facts at all.

Again, **** article and generally a **** argument.

[sturg33]

I glanced at the article, and realized the general issue immediately. THese people don't grasp the facts. Whenever someone leads off talking about how scientists in the 70s freaked out about global cooling, they're done.

uhhhhh... it literally quotes publications from that time period:

The 1975 Newsweek article entitled “The Cooling World,” which claimed Earth’s temperature had been plunging for decades due to humanity’s activities, opens as follows:

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production — with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas — parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia — where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

The evidence in support of these predictions has now begun to accumulate so massively that meteor*ologists are hard-pressed to keep up with it. In England, farmers have seen their growing season decline by about two weeks since 1950, with a resultant overall loss in grain production estimated at up to 100,000 tons annually.

The article quotes dire statistics from the National Academy of Sciences, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Center for Climatic and Environmental Assessment, Columbia University, and the University of Wisconsin at Madison to indicate how dire the global cooling was, and would be.

[zitothebrave]

This document is a treaty in international law. It has 100% of the legal attributes of a treaty. If you examine the UN website all the reporting on this accord treats it as a treaty.

Under our Constitution, treaties must be ratified by the United States Senate.

Obama claimed to have unilaterally ratified the treaty. He had no such power.

The United States is not legitimately a party to this treaty. Thus, President Trump is not withdrawing from the Paris Accords. A nation must be a party to withdraw.

President Trump is simply giving the world notice that this act of Obama acting as a dictator was not valid.

The fact that Obama refused to send it to the Senate is all the evidence you need to know that it is an unwise treaty. If it was good for America, it could get ratified.

In all of the hyperbole, the person who acted irresponsibly is the one who circumvented the Constitution and attempted to impose international control over this country all by himself.

What are you talking about? Paris Agreement is not a treaty. There's no consequences for breaking it. Aside from shame. Calling this a treaty would basically mean that the US could never join any UN resolution because they're treaties. Which is obtuse at best.

"President Trump is simply giving the world notice that this act of Obama acting as a dictator was not valid."

Then maybe he should have said that, rather than talk about how emissions weren't a problem and this wouldn't do any good. If he walked on the stage and said "we left the Paris Agreement because it's a treaty and it wasn't ratified by the Senate" that would be one thing. But he didn't. So you (like Breitbart) are giving him credit for something he didn't do.

If you need evidence, go here
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press...climate-accord

Control+F type in treaty see how many hits you get.

So again, what's more likely is that this isn't a treaty, and the Alt-Right is feeding libertarians a ****load of lies in hopes of appeasing the Don to them.

[zitothebrave]

uhhhhh... it literally quotes publications from that time period

uhhhhh, bad science from 40 years ago doesn't make science bad now.

Those were people who looked at things in a microchasm. Again look at my nice large graph I posted. It spells it out as clear as day.

[thethe]

I glanced at the article, and realized the general issue immediately. THese people don't grasp the facts. Whenever someone leads off talking about how scientists in the 70s freaked out about global cooling, they're done.


There's a very clear trend since the industrial revolution.

Correct there's an issue with alarmists. But that's an issue in every aspect of the world. Heck an alarmist came on here and went "ding ding ding" But he'll be the one freaking about the problem of islam because of a handful of attacks which make up a greatly insignificant part of the world and it's general tragedies.

Again, there is irrefutable evidence that climate change is happening. THere is some debate as far as to what extent humans are involved, but you can't deny it. If you do you just don't believe in the facts at all.

Again, **** article and generally a **** argument.

It's unfortunate that you think I said that in relation to whether climate change is real or not.

[zitothebrave]

It's unfortunate that you think I said that in relation to whether climate change is real or not.

[sturg33]

uhhhhh, bad science from 40 years ago doesn't make science bad now.

Those were people who looked at things in a microchasm. Again look at my nice large graph I posted. It spells it out as clear as day.

I think you missed the entire point... not surprisingly.

The point was that scientists have been wrong for years. it started with cooling in the the 70's... and has since shifted to warming, which if you kept reading, you would have seen how frequently and how widely they have missed the mark.

But... feel free to try to change the subject into "denying climate change"... which I made a specific point in the OP about.

It's not my fault the science community has continued to be wrong in their predictions. It would be our fault if we took it as gospel going forward, considering their track record.

[sturg33]

It's unfortunate that you think I said that in relation to whether climate change is real or not.

He clearly didn't read anything

[goldfly]

California Just Signed A New Climate Change Agreement With China



The rebellion is in full swing, and it seems the Paris agreement was the catalyst.

First came the Climate Alliance, a bipartisan group of Governors determined to uphold the pact despite the actions of the Executive Branch. Then came “We Are Still In,” a coalition of US states, businesses, and cities – representing one-third of the American population – that told the UN that they are still abiding by Paris.

Now, Governor Jerry Brown of California, one of the co-chairs of the Climate Alliance, has taken this one shocking step further. During his current tour of China, and shortly before meeting with President Xi Jinping, he signed an agreement with China that would see the rising superpower and the Golden State work together on cutting their greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions over time.

From renewable energy technologies to zero-emission vehicles, from low carbon infrastructures to electricity efficiency savings, both China and California will work closely together. A working group of top-level officials from both sides will continually plot ways to cooperate on climate measures and to zero in on initiatives that will help both countries cut their carbon footprints.

China has already shown over the last couple of years that it is serious when it comes to climate change mitigation. Although far from perfect, the world’s most prolific GHG emitter is investing heavily in wind, solar, and nuclear power and its coal production has reached a plateau. Ambitious, enormous clean energy projects by state-owned corporations are underway across the globe.

In this respect, California – a progressive pioneer in clean energy since the 1980s, and home to nearly 40 million people, more than most countries – is China’s natural ally on the subject. The two may disagree about many other things, but on their frustration with the President, and their work on climate change, they have mutual goals.

Upon signing the agreement early today with Wan Gang, the Chinese minister for science and technology, Brown reminded the world that the power of states should not be underestimated.

“California is the leading economic state in America and we are also the pioneering state on clean technology, cap and trade, electric vehicles and batteries, but we can’t do it alone,” Brown said before a Chinese delegation.

Secretary of Energy Rick Perry was also at the meeting in Beijing. Despite quietly hoping that the President would stay in the Paris agreement, he’s happily going along with Trump’s decision to withdraw. This surprise announcement by Governor Brown must have come as quite a shock to him.

This is nothing short of a powerful rebuke to Trump, and Brown knows it. It’s increasingly looking like it’s not America alone on the world stage – it’s the President.

http://www.iflscience.com/environmen...reement-china/

[thethe]

Is China going to ahve to contribute anything to this deal? Do they have till 2030 to actually reduce their gasses? WHat is the actual benefit of this deal?

[sturg33]

Looks like businesses and states are realizing they can make a difference without mommy government making them.

[zitothebrave]

https://gfycat.com/SmoggySlightAmericanratsnake

[Julio3000]

Looks like businesses and states are realizing they can make a difference without mommy government making them.

American businesses knew that leaded gasoline was a massive public health risk for how long before they voluntarily stopped using it?

Oh, wait. They didn't voluntarily stop using it.

If you're going to try to pivot from "there is no anthropogenic climate change" to "the market will fix it without any intervention or price signals," the historical record is probably not going to back you up.

[sturg33]

American businesses knew that leaded gasoline was a massive public health risk for how long before they voluntarily stopped using it?

Oh, wait. They didn't voluntarily stop using it.

If you're going to try to pivot from "there is no anthropogenic climate change" to "the market will fix it without any intervention or price signals," the historical record is probably not going to back you up.

That's not what I was doing.

But thanks anyways

[57Brave]

do tell ...

[sturg33]

do tell ...

What I was doing was laughing at all the CEOs and mayors and governors crying about the US leaving... when they themselves can be the change they want to see.

Looks like that's what's happening.