US Pulls out of Paris Climate Accords

[Garnier Fructis]

Sorry, but this is total bullshit that is forever peddled by alarmists for the sole purpose to scare the kiddies.

What calamity? Where and when? Given that it will take over 5000 years to melt the ice at current warming trends, where is the impending doom? Given that sea levels are expected to rise 300mm in the next 100 years at current rates, and the sea rose last century by 150mm and we managed to handle that okay, where is the urgency? And who is to say this natural warming change won't shift back to a cooling period long before the planted burns itself to a crisp.

The bigger question you guys won't even acknowledge or answer is what is the political motivation for peddling this alarmist crap. Why is it predominately pushed by those on the left? I understand why some scientists run with it, they need research grants, but what do the political leaders gain from the scare campaign.

I've given specific examples, which you've systematically ignored, so I'm just going to reiterate this:

You're pretty much wrong about everything you posted here.

[draynay]

Answer the question.

I don't like your attitude.

[Garnier Fructis]

Aww c'mon Nexx, at least Endus has the decency to put in some obscure links containing vague data to muddy the argument.

Endus gives you links to information which is actually valid. That's not muddying the argument. That's just you refusing to even look at actual scientific information.

[apeiron1234]

I don't like your attitude.

Check my privilege then.

[Theodarzna]

That's a little defeatist. Where is the urgency? The future of the world is at stake, you need to convert as many of us unbelievers to this religion as possible.

Why would you sincerely believe this modern wonderland we have built would not come at some kind of cost?

[guldanlol]

Sorry, but this is total bullshit that is forever peddled by alarmists for the sole purpose to scare the kiddies.

What calamity? Where and when? Given that it will take over 5000 years to melt the ice at current warming trends, where is the impending doom? Given that sea levels are expected to rise 300mm in the next 100 years at current rates, and the sea rose last century by 150mm and we managed to handle that okay, where is the urgency? And who is to say this natural warming change won't shift back to a cooling period long before the planted burns itself to a crisp.

The bigger question you guys won't even acknowledge or answer is what is the political motivation for peddling this alarmist crap. Why is it predominately pushed by those on the left? I understand why some scientists run with it, they need research grants, but what do the political leaders gain from the scare campaign.

This is the same argument that was made when scientists were trying to cure measles. When and where will this outbreak take place?! How do you know it is going to happen?! Oh, well, you see we have this data, and we've done some testing... Oh, so since you've got data and have done some testing we're just inclined to believe you?! Prove it! And we all know what happened thereafter.

Unless you come to the conclustion yourself there is no amount of hard data that is going to sway your opinion.

[Torto]

Endus gives you links to information which is actually valid. That's not muddying the argument. That's just you refusing to even look at actual scientific information.

But I have looked at the information, from both the true believers and the sceptics, and I've made my decision based off that. I'm sure you have done the same, or at least I hope you have and made your own conclusion. The only real debate now is why you have chosen to believe the end of the world is nigh.

[Garnier Fructis]

Jesus fuck do you even live in the US?

Not only is this irrelevant, but he's correct in that Torto is dead wrong on nearly all of it.

[Theodarzna]

I am eternally vexed by how Conservatives can on the one hand astutely realize that things come at a cost (When it comes to social programs) but suddenly that part of the conservative mind will turn off selectively and assume that the environment will just keep giving us freebies and gime's forever and ever in the name of shareholder profits?

Like what gives? Why the assumption that we can just get free rides from nature? This shit comes at a cost.

[Torto]

Why would you sincerely believe this modern wonderland we have built would not come at some kind of cost?

I hate doing this, but I'll answer your question with a question.

Do you see mankind as a parasite draining the worlds resources until we inevitably kill our host, or do you see us as custodians capable of adapting the planet to our needs for all eternity?

Fossil fuels will go the way of the horse and cart, this climate change AGW rubbish will go the way of the 2k bug, and 100 years from now our children's children will look back at this period and laugh, like we laugh at cavemen throwing spears at the moon.

- - - Updated - - -

While I'd hardly claim to know the arguments made by every so-called skeptic, I can say that the ones I've encountered (chosen by climate change deniers mind you) make extremely clumsy arguments that demonstrate how little they really know.

And yet a lot of the scientists out there pushing AGW are not actual climatologists. They specialise in fields with no relationship with climatology, meteorology, atmospheric science or the like. And yet you are all happy to sit down and listen to them like it's gospel.

[Garnier Fructis]

But I have looked at the information, from both the true believers and the sceptics, and I've made my decision based off that. I'm sure you have done the same, or at least I hope you have and made your own conclusion. The only real debate now is why you have chosen to believe the end of the world is nigh.

Alright, let me amend my statement. You haven't understood the scientific information.

Because from prior interactions with you on this topic, we all know that you have big-ass misunderstandings about even the very basics, which you wouldn't have if you had read and understood it.

Gems like 'where important data such as the middle age warming period being smoothed out so as to make the current period look worse than it is historically' indicate multiple things, most prominently that you haven't understood the difference between regional and global effects. That's one example.

Another example is 'the climate changes naturally.' Yes, that is party of the theory. Which you would know, if you had read or understood it. Furthermore, it's not an either/or, as the 'it changes naturally' argument indicates. Both natural and human effects are important. Which, again, you would know if you had read or understood it.

And finally, that you think we're predicting some sort of doomsday is the biggest indicator that you haven't actually looked at it. Because nowhere in the science is there anything about the world ending. A lot of things will get fucked up, like crop yields, water supplies, arable land, disease spread, etc. The 'doomsday' shit is almost completely a straw-man cooked up by 'skeptics.' It isn't in the literature, and it isn't in anything that Endus would have linked you.

[Theodarzna]

I hate doing this, but I'll answer your question with a question.

Do you see mankind as a parasite draining the worlds resources until we inevitably kill our host, or do you see us as custodians capable of adapting the planet to our needs for all eternity?

Fossil fuels will go the way of the horse and cart, this climate change AGW rubbish will go the way of the 2k bug, and 100 years from now our children's children will look back at this period and laugh, like we laugh at cavemen throwing spears at the moon.

I see all things as coming at a cost, which usually Conservative types are really astute at observing except of course when it comes to the comings and going of the 'Market' and titans of industries desire for ever greater vaults of cash, and then miraculously most Conservatives seem willing to turn off that part of their brain. I think mankind is not capable of being custodians for eternity because we have never built anything that is eternal and I fail to imagine we would start now more over I wouldn't say we are parasites either.

Humanity is one part of a larger ecosystem and whilst we can sacrifice much of it for our own prosperity, much as say the Carthaginians might sacrifice their children to the Moloch for a good harvest or victory in war, but it comes at a sacrifice and there is a point at which the sacrifice is suicidal and insane to keep doing.

[Garnier Fructis]

And yet a lot of the scientists out there pushing AGW are not actual climatologists. They specialise in fields with no relationship with climatology, meteorology, atmospheric science or the like. And yet you are all happy to sit down and listen to them like it's gospel.

Your point is made moot by the observation that nearly all climatologists are on the same page. So we can chuck all the physicists, biologists, doctors, etc, and it wouldn't change anything.

In fact it would raise the relative proportion of scientists that agree, given that most of the skeptics are in fields with little relationship to climatology and atmospheric science. Bringing up this point to try and bolster your argument is not even a double edged sword: it's a single edged sword, that you aimed at yourself.

[Torto]

Alright, let me amend my statement. You haven't understood the scientific information.

Because from prior interactions with you on this topic, we all know that you have big-ass misunderstandings about even the very basics, which you wouldn't have if you had read and understood it.

Gems like 'where important data such as the middle age warming period being smoothed out so as to make the current period look worse than it is historically' indicate multiple things, most prominently that you haven't understood the difference between regional and global effects. That's one example.

Another example is 'the climate changes naturally.' Yes, that is party of the theory. Which you would know, if you had read or understood it. Furthermore, it's not an either/or, as the 'it changes naturally' argument indicates. Both natural and human effects are important. Which, again, you would know if you had read or understood it.

And finally, that you think we're predicting some sort of doomsday is the biggest indicator that you haven't actually looked at it. Because nowhere in the science is there anything about the world ending. A lot of things will get fucked up, like crop yields, water supplies, arable land, disease spread, etc. The 'doomsday' shit is almost completely a straw-man cooked up by 'skeptics.' It isn't in the literature, and it isn't in anything that Endus would have linked you.

Okay good, this is progress. Now that we can all the agree the planet isn't doomed and our deaths are not imminent, we can discuss climate change like adults without all the alarmist bullshit designed to scare people into making unnecessary drastic lifestyle changes.

A few degrees change in temperature over the next century will have affects on the planet, both positive and negative. Either way we will adapt, as will other species. If we spent our efforts concentrating on that instead of doing stupid things like trying to alter the planets temperature by switching lights off and driving electric cars then I'd be on board.

[apeiron1234]

Okay good, this is progress. Now that we can all the agree the planet isn't doomed and our deaths are not imminent, we can discuss climate change like adults without all the alarmist bullshit designed to scare people into making unnecessary drastic lifestyle changes.

A few degrees change in temperature over the next century will have affects on the planet, both positive and negative. Either way we will adapt, as will other species. If we spent our efforts concentrating on that instead of doing stupid things like trying to alter the planets temperature by switching lights off and driving electric cars then I'd be on board.

i just bought an electric car

[Torto]

[citation needed]

Quick example: Are you happy to agree with Bill Nye the Science Guy? He has a few videos spouting AGW, with half naked dancers and all that. His qualifications? he is a fucking mechanical engineer!

[Torto]

I see all things as coming at a cost, which usually Conservative types are really astute at observing except of course when it comes to the comings and going of the 'Market' and titans of industries desire for ever greater vaults of cash, and then miraculously most Conservatives seem willing to turn off that part of their brain. I think mankind is not capable of being custodians for eternity because we have never built anything that is eternal and I fail to imagine we would start now more over I wouldn't say we are parasites either.

Humanity is one part of a larger ecosystem and whilst we can sacrifice much of it for our own prosperity, much as say the Carthaginians might sacrifice their children to the Moloch for a good harvest or victory in war, but it comes at a sacrifice and there is a point at which the sacrifice is suicidal and insane to keep doing.

That is an unusually bleak outlook from you Theo.

I have more confidence in humanity. I believe we have the technical aptitude to overcome obstacles like a few degrees warming. We stopped being parasites when we learned to cultivate and farm land. And we have gotten very good at it. We can manipulate resources to our needs and I believe we can do it forever, or until we get hit by an asteroid.

[Torto]

That's... exactly what we're talking about? You've already admitted we'll need other sources of energy, so those costs to develop such sources are going to be needed regardless. Do you also understand that in the long run, it would be cheaper to start reducing the rate of the temperature increasing now to avoid the damage it can cause to our infrastructure? It's cheaper to prevent drastic (when I say drastic I don't mean end of the world bullshit like you think) temperature change in the next 100 years and cause certain currently habitable areas to be uninhabitable than it would be to do nothing, let it fuck us, then have to essentially move parts of our population after their area gets fucked.

This isn't about adapting to slightly warmer weather. It's about saving as much of our infrastructure and already inhabited land as we can without it becoming expensive as fuck later.

See, this is where we diverge views. You are all on board with the Paris agreement, same as the Kyoto agreement where governments punish each other for CO2 emissions while developing countries get a free pass and handouts. I don't see the point. Reducing CO2 changes nothing. It's all about the feels, and conflating a view that man has the power to change the climate.

- - - Updated - - -

How does that discredit actual climate scientists? Just because he's a mechanical engineer, doesn't mean he's incapable of actually evaluating and understanding the data and arguments put forth.

You guys were berating me for believing sceptics who apparently are not climate scientists. I was just demonstrating it goes both ways.

[Sargerasraider]

That's... exactly what we're talking about? You've already admitted we'll need other sources of energy, so those costs to develop such sources are going to be needed regardless. Do you also understand that in the long run, it would be cheaper to start reducing the rate of the temperature increasing now to avoid the damage it can cause to our infrastructure? It's cheaper to prevent drastic (when I say drastic I don't mean end of the world bullshit like you think) temperature change in the next 100 years and cause certain currently habitable areas to be uninhabitable than it would be to do nothing, let it fuck us, then have to essentially move parts of our population after their area gets fucked.

This isn't about adapting to slightly warmer weather. It's about saving as much of our infrastructure and already inhabited land as we can without it becoming expensive as fuck later. Oh, and the whole the thing about air quality.

As has been noted extensively in this thread, the problem is with the Paris accord to begin with.

Compare the goal of limiting warming to less than 2C to building a 100 story tower.

The problem is that we need to spend an enormous amount of money to have the whole tower built by next month to do any good, and the Paris agreement is like agreeing to build a four story tower that everyone may or may not contribute to without penalty. To top it off, we pay a contractor to do this who goes and spends all the money on booze, so we get less than nothing.

In the end, we're better off spending that money on learning how to adapt.

[Masark]

Super storm sandy is not new york being flooded because of rising ocean temperatures, but nice try!

What do you think happens to the height of a storm surge when the overall ocean level is raised?