US Pulls out of Paris Climate Accords

[Theodarzna]

I think that is an ignorant view when theirs been literally decades of shit science and doom criers since the fucking 70's. Wolf has been cried far to many times and people are skeptical as fuck. Compile that with people who have politicized the issue and who profit from it. People have legitimate reasons to be skeptical. Calling people flat earthers and other derogatory language does more to damage your cause then aid it.

Is it a disbelief that the climate is changing or a disbelief in the solutions or the people proposing solutions?

[The Oblivion]

Is it a disbelief that the climate is changing or a disbelief in the solutions or the people proposing solutions?

personally, i am totally against the climate accords from a US perspective. I do believe in climate change and working to reduce emissions though. How extreme or what may come of climate change, i doubt it will be catastrophic or something we cant handle, but there is no downside in working to reduce it as we go along.

[Endus]

Is it a disbelief that the climate is changing or a disbelief in the solutions or the people proposing solutions?

Well, he was bitching about the science, so that's a refusal to accept that human emissions are warming the climate, the science.

Solutions move outside of the scientific realm into engineering and policy. These use science, but aren't themselves scientific.

[Stacyrect]

No. You don't have "legitimate reasons to be skeptical". You have a literal conspiracy theory you've invented out of half-truths and outright lies, and a steadfast refusal to even make a basic effort to actually look into any of the actual facts involved.

Climate change denial or "skepticism" is in exactly the same anti-intellectual territory as flat-eartherism. It involves exactly the same levels of refusal to accept basic facts and measurements.

The information's all right there, publicly available, for anyone who's actually skeptical and willing to look at the evidence with an open mind (which is what "skepticism" means.) The attitude you're describing is not "skepticism". It's willful ignorance and conspiracy nuttery. A skeptic asks to see the evidence with an open mind and does not form any conclusions until they have examined it.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

There you go. If you're an actual skeptic, fill your boots.

If you're going to find reasons not to look, well, that's the definition of willful ignorance.

You mean facts like this?



You mean ignore basic facts and measurements like that?

It's not willful ignorance. Time and time again. The argument for man made climate change is atrocious and people aren't convinced. Make a better argument.

[Jerot]

personally, i am totally against the climate accords from a US perspective. I do believe in climate change and working to reduce emissions though. How extreme or what may come of climate change, i doubt it will be catastrophic or something we cant handle, but there is no downside in working to reduce it as we go along.

Why are you against it specifically? Given its non-binding and essentially a symbolic gesture more than anything.

[Theodarzna]

Well, he was bitching about the science, so that's a refusal to accept that human emissions are warming the climate, the science.

Solutions move outside of the scientific realm into engineering and policy. These use science, but aren't themselves scientific.

I find that resistance to talking about Man Made Climate Change comes from a place of skepticism about the people most often talking about rather than the actual science of it.

It is helpful to press people on that and see if maybe there is a way through the impasse.

[Endus]

You mean facts like this?

<snip for space>

You mean ignore basic facts and measurements like that?

It's not willful ignorance. Time and time again. The argument for man made climate change is atrocious and people aren't convinced. Make a better argument.

Cherry-picking numbers you've made no effort to understand the context of is a textbook example of willful ignorance, in fact. I'm not sure why you've decided to provide a character example of my point, but you're doing a bang-up job.

Is there a reason you're ignoring the hundreds of sources and comprehensive analysis report that I provided you?

- - - Updated - - -

I find that resistance to talking about Man Made Climate Change comes from a place of skepticism about the people most often talking about rather than the actual science of it.

It is helpful to press people on that and see if maybe there is a way through the impasse.

If you're refusing to believe science because "liberals" believe science, that's willful ignorance. It's just explaining your motive, not a defense of your behaviour.

[Zmaniac17]

Let me get this straight. The Paris climate accord is simultaneously:

-non-binding and ineffective
-the most important agreement in human history
-not worth renegotiating with the most powerful nation on the planet that would be footing the biggest portion of the bill
-the only thing preventing the polar ice caps from melting and killing everybody

And it's actually none of those things. It's just a way for countries to signal their intentions. It's unfortunate for the U.S. that this happened but I think overall for the world it's a good thing. Trump makes a good bad guy. He's inept so the bad things he tries don't do much damage but it's enough to get people to join together against him. And ironically that's kinda what we need. And this gave climate change a lot of good news coverage.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signalling_(economics)

[Theodarzna]

If you're refusing to believe science because "liberals" believe science, that's willful ignorance. It's just explaining your motive, not a defense of your behaviour.

Why be chauvinistic or dickish when some empathetic understanding could achieve a better result for everyone?

Do you care about Climate Change or your ego?

[The Oblivion]

Why are you against it specifically? Given its non-binding and essentially a symbolic gesture more than anything.

ive stated many times through out the thread, you can check my post history or re read the thread lol its a novel by now though

[Endus]

Why be chauvinistic or dickish when some empathetic understanding could achieve a better result for everyone?

Because they're the ones who started the attacks with direct insults and accusations of dishonesty, and literally all I'm doing is pointing out the irrational nature of their argument in clear and unbiased terms. This is me being empathic and understanding, and trying to point out the irrational core of their argument and getting them to see it for what it is.

Maybe calling it like it is is "dickish" because I'm not obsequious enough for you, but I don't have time to spend much time being concerned about grown adults being upset when I point out that they're wrong and have no legitimate argument to back their claims. Especially not when they are overtly and explicitly hostile and abusive in their own statements.

There's also that I don't really expect to convince a denier that they're wrong. They've already discarded evidence and reason as principles they consider in forming their own opinions, so there's nothing I could ever show them that would ever convince them of anything. And that's their choice. What I can do, is demonstrate how completely without merit their arguments are to everyone else reading the thread, so those who honestly doesn't know about the subject and are willing to listen to the evidence can come to an informed understanding.

[Theodarzna]

Because they're the ones who started the attacks with direct insults and accusations of dishonesty, and literally all I'm doing is pointing out the irrational nature of their argument in clear and unbiased terms. This is me being empathic and understanding, and trying to point out the irrational core of their argument and getting them to see it for what it is.

Maybe calling it like it is is "dickish" because I'm not obsequious enough for you, but I don't have time to spend much time being concerned about grown adults being upset when I point out that they're wrong and have no legitimate argument to back their claims. Especially not when they are overtly and explicitly hostile and abusive in their own statements.

There's also that I don't really expect to convince a denier that they're wrong. They've already discarded evidence and reason as principles they consider in forming their own opinions, so there's nothing I could ever show them that would ever convince them of anything. And that's their choice. What I can do, is demonstrate how completely without merit their arguments are to everyone else reading the thread, who honestly doesn't know about the subject and is willing to listen to the evidence.

Has your method convinced anyone?

[Endus]

Has your method convinced anyone?

Did you read that last paragraph? I edited it in but you still caught it in the quote, so you may not have.

It isn't meant to "convince" the deniers, because by denying evidence and facts, they've decided they aren't willing to be convinced of anything. They have predetermined and fact-free conclusions, and are completely unwilling to consider any evidence that contradicts those views.

I find that unfortunate, but there's nothing I can do about it. But I can demonstrate how meritless their arguments are to everyone else, to prevent their views spreading.

[Jerot]

You mean facts like this?

You mean ignore basic facts and measurements like that?

It's not willful ignorance. Time and time again. The argument for man made climate change is atrocious and people aren't convinced. Make a better argument.

The temperature of the earth does fluctuate, but what you're looking at is changes over the course of HUNDREDS of MILLIONS of years, we're projecting changes in the range of decades to centuries.



Life can adapt to minute changes over hundreds/thousands of generations, but not to changes this rapid. We're living in the Holocene extinction, the greatest loss of biodiversity in 65 million years.

[Nadiru]

The US is already likely to meet its Paris accord commitments regardless of Trump's withdrawal from the accord itself. Because natural gas is 50% cleaner than coal, and the price of natural gas, already below the historic average, is likely to decline further, due to advances in extraction technology. That the Trump administration is pursuing policies to increase natgas production only increases that likelihood of price declination which only hastens the phasing out of coal.

I'm not precisely sure why people are putting so much stock into the accord, given that it's completely toothless. Well, maybe that's not true; people are putting stock in it because Trump Did A Thing, so people are virtue signalling like their lives depended on it.

[Endus]

I'm not precisely sure why people are putting so much stock into the accord, given that it's completely toothless. Well, maybe that's not true; people are putting stock in it because Trump Did A Thing, so people are virtue signalling like their lives depended on it.

It's not about whether the USA will hit the emissions targets or not. It's that the USA has stated that, pretty much alone among all nations in the world, it doesn't want to cooperate on this issue. After signing on to do exactly that. It's petty and pointless.

[draynay]

It's that the USA has stated that, pretty much alone among all nations in the world, it doesn't want to cooperate on this issue. After signing on to do exactly that. It's petty and pointless.

Indeed. It makes it painfully obvious to the world that the US president is a commitment-averse backward anti-intellectual manchild. He could have at least pretended to be a grown up. Now they have to wonder what other commitments the US will renege on, whether this will be a four/eight-year trend of complete reversals with every new administration.

The US negotiated this accord to be a leader in this field and now has completely backtracked. Who can count on us for anything?

Considering we don't gain anything from this, and lose a great deal, it isn't difficult to question the wisdom.

[Nadiru]

It's not about whether the USA will hit the emissions targets or not. It's that the USA has stated that, pretty much alone among all nations in the world, it doesn't want to cooperate on this issue. After signing on to do exactly that. It's petty and pointless.

The US is cooperating on this issue, by meeting its goals regardless, and is likely going to be the only state that meets its Paris commitments, because the US alone has market forces working towards emission reductions rather than away from it. What's petty and pointless is denigrating that achievement just so people can harass an unpopular President.

[Deathcries]

No. You don't have "legitimate reasons to be skeptical". You have a literal conspiracy theory you've invented out of half-truths and outright lies, and a steadfast refusal to even make a basic effort to actually look into any of the actual facts involved.

Climate change denial or "skepticism" is in exactly the same anti-intellectual territory as flat-eartherism. It involves exactly the same levels of refusal to accept basic facts and measurements.

The information's all right there, publicly available, for anyone who's actually skeptical and willing to look at the evidence with an open mind (which is what "skepticism" means.) The attitude you're describing is not "skepticism". It's willful ignorance and conspiracy nuttery. A skeptic asks to see the evidence with an open mind and does not form any conclusions until they have examined it.

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/

There you go. If you're an actual skeptic, fill your boots.

If you're going to find reasons not to look, well, that's the definition of willful ignorance.

Are you butt hurt? I was looking at an image today and you're the first person I thought of.


All this agreement would've accomplished is fuck the American middle and lower class people with higher energy cost and job loss. China and India would've made money hand over fist while laughing at us.

People like you want that to happen though.

I am fucking estatic Trump did exactly like he said he would. Go take your fake man made climate change ideology and shove it up your ass.

[Endus]

The US is cooperating on this issue, by meeting its goals regardless, and is likely going to be the only state that meets its Paris commitments, because the US alone has market forces working towards emission reductions rather than away from it. What's petty and pointless is denigrating that achievement just so people can harass an unpopular President.

Yeah, that bit in bold? Absolutely false. The EU's emissions have been dropping right along with the USA's, at least.



Note too that while China started to spike up around 2003, by 2012 they'd already started to level their numbers out.