President 'The Donald' Trump and Surprising Consequences - Mod warning in OP

Peregrinus

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

That makes the most sense, thanks. I guess data like below can be somewhat misleading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

The data is correct; what might be misleading is the way it's used or interpreted.

China does produce more emissions in absolute terms than the US (or any other country). It doesn't follow, though, that China has a greater scope or capacity to reduce emissions; in fact the US can do so at a much lower cost (in both human and dollar terms) than China can. A real-world global climate policy has to take account both of what capacity each country has to reduce emissions (the US has many time the capacity of China to do this) and what impact that country can make on the global situation by reducing emissions (China scores higher than the US here) and then it needs to balance those two considerations to work out what is fair, reasonable, pragmatic, effective.

Paris attempts to do this. Certainly, you could argue that there could be a better attempt, but the Rand Paul/Republican analysis doesn't even pretend to do this. There's no attempt to balance, or even recognise, these two factors; the approach just looks at one factor, and pretends the other doesn't exist.

On the right of the Wikepedia page you link to is a chart showing both total emissions and per capita emissions for each country. As you can see, the patterns are wildly different. If you reordered that chart by the per-capita figures, you'd find a bunch of wealthy, carbon-profligate societies at the top, and a bunch of dirt-poor societies at the bottom. The countries at the top of that chart would have the greatest capacity to reduce their carbon emissions with minimal cost or disruption, the countries at the bottom the least. Essentially, Rand Paul argues for a global climate strategy which wholly ignores this factor, and I don't think that's very realistic.

kilns

Before he was a problem for America but now after this decision he is the Worlds problem.  He has been around 6 months into the job imagine what damage he could do in another 3.5 years
Paul Ryan needs to grow a pair and take him down

ThisRegard

A pretty good deconstruction of Trump's speech and claims by the Washington Post fact checker column, https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/fact-checker/wp/2017/06/01/fact-checking-president-trumps-claims-on-the-paris-climate-change-deal/?utm_term=.7c01c679e298

We've already seen his 'arguments' ripped apart, but it's eviscerated here.

Mancomb Seepgood

kilns wrote: »

Before he was a problem for America but now after this decision he is the Worlds problem.  He has been around 6 months into the job imagine what damage he could do in another 3.5 years
Paul Ryan needs to grow a pair and take him down

Paul Ryan has praised Trump's withdrawal from the Paris agreement.He is very much part of the problem.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

That makes the most sense, thanks. I guess data like below can be somewhat misleading.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions

How do you mean exactly?

If you mean the total emissions that is simply a function of China's population. It would be unfair to limit the US to the same total carbon output of Ireland for instance. In fact in the total emissions graph China seems to be doing better than the US even with its higher population.

If that is what you meant. I kinda assumed and went with that which may or may be relevant/fair if your point was something else.

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

If that is what you meant. I kinda assumed and went with that which may or may be relevant/fair if your point was something else.

I meant you need to look at it per Capita instead of overall emissions, I agree with what you said.

RGS

Ignoring the climate change issue but taking trumps stance on a human level it's sad that trumps grand idea is to 're open coal mines and subject workerd to an industry that caused untold health problems for previous generations of workers.
And even sadder that his voters in those mining areas want to go down mines and suffer health issues which trumps healthcare act won't cover.
It really is a 1940s vision of the world.

seamus

It's also worth re-iterating for the avoidance of doubt that Paris is entirely voluntary. It's a global agreement to co-operate towards an international goal. An initiative of peace and recognition that we are one species, not a series of isolated species. There are no penalties for failing to meet targets, no automatic sanctions for countries that don't.

Just a simple agreement between 195 countries to save this tiny ball of dirt that we all have to live on. We've never seen co-operation like this before.

And then Donald decides he "wants a better deal" for America. That sums up everything about him; he's a complete moron who doesn't even understand the basics of this agreement, and embodies every despicable aspect of the human psyche - selfish, small-minded, isolationist and arrogant.

This is the perfect opportunity for the rest of the world tell Don to piss off and go burn his own country if he wants. It's not America's ball anymore, they can't take it and go home. Everyone else will move on, and the U.S.'s economy will slide sharply downwards.

I think his odds of being assassinated just rose sharply. There are a lot of wealthy people in the US who wanted to stay in Paris and won't appreciate the threat to their bottom line.

Billy86

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Is it true that if everyone in the agreement including China ( they're not obligated until 2030 afaik ) adhered to the emission restraints right this moment, Scientists estimate it would produce a 0.2 C reduction in Global temperature by the year 2100?

Re China, they really do seem to be racing to be more than prepared by that point though - their increases in renewables and clean energy the last few years has been staggering. As an aside I did a thesis earlier this year on finances in the movie industry mainly around box office revenues, and the way they're able to focus and mobilise on a goal is quite remarkable - they've gone from something like 150mn to 7bn revenue there in 15 years, only 3bn behind the US and about three times the size of the next biggest which on any given year is Japan/India/the UK. They're likely to overtake the US by 2020 and possibly even this year - box office might seem trivial but it's a flipside that allows them to dictate what movies are being made and what is in them; they're also why the Fast & Furious and Transformers franchises keep smashing records. There's a reason Matt Damon made that godawful looking Great Wall movie.

Not a fan of their government structure at all for a tonne of reasons, but the fact they don't have pesky elections to really worry about really let's them focus on 5/10/15 year plans and remain unwavering on them. Point of the post - when they set their eyes on something, they really don't f*** around. Even if the US dive back in somehow on January 20th 2021, they might not be able to fend China off with the damage this will do.

Leroy42

I think those that are claiming that somehow this will lead to a fallout for Trump in terms of support are mistaken. A sizeable amount of the US doesn't not believe in man made climate change. That being the case, the Prais accord makes no sense anyway as it is tackling a problem that doesn't exist. So for these people Trump is right.

The next cohort are those that may will concede that MMCC is a reality but that Paris places too high a costs on poor old USA. It is a worldwide conspiracy to do down the US, even though the US is actually one of the best placed countries to make the best of it.

The next cohort (although there are of course crossovers between them) are GOP hacks, that will side with the GOP no matter what.

I think people are being sucked in by the internet echo chamber and thinking that this covers most people. This will likely cause no ill effect to Trumps approval ratings (many of those that accept MMCC would not have voted for him anyway) and may even lead to an increase due to him standing up for America and MAGA.

I think people of misreading the situation. We are assuming that Trump is riding roughshod over the wished of the American people but it seems that this is exactly what a sizeable amount of America actually wants

Sam Kade

Calina wrote: »

Tbh Hank, maybe you should read up on the science first. Money is the grand total of irrelevant if we are extinxt.

Look back on the predictions they made over 10 years ago, none of them came true yet people believe they can predict the climate 50 years in advance.

listermint

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Full of personal and religious insults, the only thing I quoted was Politifact and an interview Rand Paul gave on CNN, not worth a response to be honest.

You quoted Rand Paul. It's not personal to you so don't be arguing that I am getting personal. His Christian views colour is arguments and are dotted in his view point.

I am pointing out the facts.

So please don't argue that I made it about yourself.

Leroy42

Sam Kade wrote: »

Look back on the predictions they made over 10 years ago, none of them came true yet people believe they can predict the climate 50 years in advance.

What do you think they have gotten wrong?

Hank Scorpio

listermint wrote: »

I am pointing out the facts.

listermint wrote: »

So but the only person crippling the us here is Trump and his rag tag Christian deniers.

But you choose to source your information from the same money hungry website's who are run by people who spread nonsense about how god will fix it all when in fact they don't believe that guff themselves they are shielded from climate change impact by their money.

Yeah.

Billy86

Mancomb Seepgood wrote: »

Paul Ryan has praised Trump's withdrawal from the Paris agreement.He is very much part of the problem.

The Republican party are the problem, for the most part. Paid climate change denier with one of their main objectives not only being spreading disinformation about climate change, but pushing an anti science agenda all the way down to primary education in order . Which is exactly why only 2 of 53 of them (including Pence who cast the deciding vote) voted against one of their paymasters in Betty Devos to be secretary of education. Needless to say she's delighted at the decision to destroy the US.

Of course when it comes to military weaponry or the science of gerrymandering or targeting demographics, they're all about that science.

Sam Kade

Leroy42 wrote: »

What do you think they have gotten wrong?

What they predicted.

ThisRegard

Sam Kade wrote: »

What they predicted.

Flying cars, single pills that are a whole meal? You basing your statements on The Jetsons?

Hank Scorpio

Leroy42 wrote: »

I think those that are claiming that somehow this will lead to a fallout for Trump in terms of support are mistaken.

I'd side with your opinion too, it will only strengthen the "us vs them" mentality where upsetting people is viewed as a win even more so the "globalists" regardless of how damaging the premise of such a decision may be.

Nody

Sam Kade wrote: »

Look back on the predictions they made over 10 years ago, none of them came true yet people believe they can predict the climate 50 years in advance.

True; the Great Barrier Reef in Australia was thought to be possible to save 10 years ago has now been declared impossible to save and recommended to try to emulate it's effects instead. But hey; it's all natural variation right? It's not like the Great Barrier Reef has been around for about 20 000 years before now or something...

Zubeneschamali

Sam Kade wrote: »

What they predicted.

Come on, give us an example, or a link.

What did they predict and how were they wrong?

Hank Scorpio

Nody wrote: »

It's not like the Great Barrier Reef has been around for about 20 000 years before now or something...

When did the Ice age happen again? :P

Professor Moriarty

Billy86 wrote: »

The Republican party are the problem, for the most part. Paid climate change denier with one of their main objectives not only being spreading disinformation about climate change, but pushing an anti science agenda all the way down to primary education in order . Which is exactly why only 2 of 53 of them (including Pence who cast the deciding vote) voted against one of their paymasters in Betty Devos to be secretary of education. Needless to say she's delighted at the decision to destroy the US.

Of course when it comes to military weaponry or the science of gerrymandering or targeting demographics, they're all about that science.

Trump is just a mouthpiece. He doesn't understand half of what he's being told to say.

Nody

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

When did the Ice age happen again? :P

Well the origins of it goes back 25 million years but the current coral in the reef that's alive (or recently died) only goes back about 20 000 years. Hence that's the time period you can use to check if there's been a significant water temperature increase or not...

Hank Scorpio

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

Come on, give us an example, or a link.

What did they predict and how were they wrong?

Here's one that popped up on google.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/07/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/

Dire predictions that the Arctic would be devoid of sea ice by September this year have proven to be unfounded after latest satellite images showed there is far more now than in 2012.

Scientists such as Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016, which has been widely reported by the BBC and other media outlets.

Prof Wadhams, a leading expert on Arctic sea ice loss, has recently published a book entitled A Farewell To Ice in which he repeats the assertion that the polar region would free of ice in the middle of this decade.

As late as this summer, he was still predicting an ice-free September.

Yet, when figures were released for the yearly minimum on September 10, they showed that there was still 1.6 million square miles of sea ice (4.14 square kilometres), which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012.

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Here's one that popped up on google.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/07/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/

Dire predictions that the Arctic would be devoid of sea ice by September this year have proven to be unfounded after latest satellite images showed there is far more now than in 2012.

Scientists such as Prof Peter Wadhams, of Cambridge University, and Prof Wieslaw Maslowski, of the Naval Postgraduate School in Monterey, California, have regularly forecast the loss of ice by 2016, which has been widely reported by the BBC and other media outlets.

Prof Wadhams, a leading expert on Arctic sea ice loss, has recently published a book entitled A Farewell To Ice in which he repeats the assertion that the polar region would free of ice in the middle of this decade.

As late as this summer, he was still predicting an ice-free September.

Yet, when figures were released for the yearly minimum on September 10, they showed that there was still 1.6 million square miles of sea ice (4.14 square kilometres), which was 21 per cent more than the lowest point in 2012.

From the same article:

"Although a quick glance at NSIDC satellite data going back to 1981 shows an undeniable downward trend in sea ice over the past 35 years"

And:

“As global temperatures rise, we will see a continuing decline in Arctic sea ice extent, although this will happen somewhat erratically, rather like a ball bouncing down a bumpy hill."

And:

“Without substantial reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, the ball will reach the bottom of the hill, meaning the Arctic is 'ice-free', starting with a few days one summer, a few weeks another summer and gradually becoming more and more frequent over the next few decades."


No point in wandering down meaningless and labyrinthine discussions about climate change instead of discussing Trump and his idiocy. Global warming leading to climate change. That is a fact. Trump's Trump's cronies, decision will exacerbate that change. That is a fact.

Hank Scorpio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

No point in wandering down meaningless and labyrinthine discussions about climate change instead of discussing Trump and his idiocy.

I'm not denying its existence, just saying it probably impossible to accurately predict. They didn't change the terminology from global warming to climate change without reason imo. Then there's the whole man made vs natural changes debate.

Celticfire

Trump’s Reported Decision to Withdraw from Paris Agreement Right Choice for America and the World

Trump’s decision should instead be based on a thorough examination of these questions:

(1) Did President Obama set a dangerous precedent when he joined the Paris Agreement without obtaining the Senate’s advice and consent?

(2) Is the Agreement’s basic policy goal incompatible with the pro-growth energy agenda on which Trump campaigned?

(3) If America stays in the Paris Agreement, will U.S. leaders experience incessant pressure from foreign governments, multilateral bureaucrats, and their media and environmentalist allies to adopt the kinds of domestic climate policies the Trump team is currently rescinding?

(4) Will remaining a party to an Agreement based on the alleged urgent need for “climate action” increase litigation risk to the U.S. government and U.S. companies, especially if the Trump administration continues to upend elements of Obama’s NDC?

(5) Are current threats of trade retaliation a foretaste of the destructive protectionism Paris will unleash if we strengthen the Agreement by remaining in it?

(6) Is it the case that the Agreement will provide no detectable mitigation of climate risks in the policy relevant future while imposing enormous economic risks on the American people?

(7) Does the Agreement’s mid-century emission reduction goal require energy-poor countries to drastically reduce their peoples’ current consumption of affordable energy from fossil fuels?

Perhaps this article doesn't suit the narrative but there's just slightly more going on than Trump hates the climate and want's to look after his coal buddy's. I'm sure most on here will disagree with the article and that's their prerogative.

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I'm not denying its existence, just saying it probably impossible to accurately predict. They didn't change the terminology from global warming to climate change without reason imo. Then there's the whole man made vs natural changes debate.

No there's not. There is no debate to be had. My own belief is that we have passed tipping point and we have, at best, 200 years to colonise another habitable planet before this planet becomes uninhabitable. But many scientists hold out some hope that drastic change now might slow the pace of global warming to the point where there is a slim chance of reversal. Either way, man made destruction of this planet has reached crisis status.

ThisRegard

Celticfire wrote: »

Trump’s Reported Decision to Withdraw from Paris Agreement Right Choice for America and the World



Perhaps this article doesn't suit the narrative but there's just slightly more going on than Trump hates the climate and want's to look after his coal buddy's. I'm sure most on here will disagree with the article and that's their prerogative.

Most, if not all, of those points have been debunked since yesterday in one place or another.

Christy42

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I'm not denying its existence, just saying it probably impossible to accurately predict. They didn't change the terminology from global warming to climate change without reason imo. Then there's the whole man made vs natural changes debate.

Define accurately. Can we predict the exact temperature. No we can simply make predictions. We can state a trend that we can see.

We can also say that the trend it is largely man (and woman:p) driven.

The global warming/climate change was not a switch from scientists and both terms are still widely used.

There are multiple links that say the same thing but I went with the nasa one.

https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/articles/whats-name-global-warming-vs-climate-change