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

Billy86

ThisRegard wrote: »

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

what do you expect, it's a climate change denial website full of shi*te right from the front page - https://wattsupwiththat.com

Celticfire

ThisRegard wrote: »

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

Billy86 wrote: »

what do you expect, it's a climate change denial website full of shi*te right from the front page - https://wattsupwiththat.com

Feel free to refute the points he made in his article then. Should be quite easy.

Billy86

Also when talking about "we want American jobs, don't give a f*** about the rest of the world or it's future" narrative, the US oil, gas and coal industries employ 187,000... wind employs more than any of those individually, while solar employs more than double their combined total at 374,000 - https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2017/01/25/u-s-solar-energy-employs-more-people-than-oil-coal-and-gas-combined-infographic/#4f662d5e2800

Zubeneschamali

It's important to note that this is not just Trump being his usual demented self - 22 Republican Senators urged him to do this.

ThisRegard

Billy86 wrote: »

what do you expect, it's a climate change denial website full of shi*te right from the front page - https://wattsupwiththat.com

LOL, I just opened the page, what a crock of **** that site is.

ThisRegard

Celticfire wrote: »

Feel free to refute the points he made in his article then. Should be quite easy.

Links are throughout the last few pages, knock yourself out.

Hank Scorpio

Christy42 wrote: »

Define accurately

To the extent that's been quoted in studies to the tenth of degrees 100 years in the future regarding the Paris agreement. Not a denier! Just throwing that out there, I don't know enough about it other than reading random articles from the outside over the years. Trumps twitter history tells a different story, at least he's consistent :pac:

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/265895292191248385?lang=en

oscarBravo

Celticfire wrote: »

I'm sure most on here will disagree with the article and that's their prerogative.

It's not a question of "their prerogative"; that's just the usual "every opinion is equally valid" crap.

Most on here will disagree with the article because it's missing the point. The article is approaching the Paris agreement as if it's a trade deal, with winners and losers, complete with the simplistic binary Trumpian view that if the USA isn't the only winner, then it's losing, and that's not acceptable.

The Paris agreement is an attempt to address an existential crisis for the entire human race, and the USA - or, at least, the right-wing idiots that are currently running the country - are asking "what's in it for us?".

The article is approaching the agreement from the perspective of "if those g-d foreigners refuse to accept America First as their guiding principle, then we'd rather watch the world burn".

So, no: most people here won't disagree with the article as some sort of "prerogative"; most people here will disagree with the article because it's a steaming pile of bollocks.

oscarBravo

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

...I don't know enough about it other than reading random articles from the outside over the years.

Here's a thought: when you don't know enough about a topic to give an informed opinion, it's generally a safe bet to go with the scientific consensus.

Trumps twitter history tells a different story, at least he's consistent :pac:

Consistency in a dangerous idiot isn't by any means a virtue.

Professor Moriarty

oscarBravo wrote: »

Here's a thought: when you don't know enough about a topic to give an informed opinion, it's generally a safe bet to go with the scientific consensus.

Consistency in a dangerous idiot isn't by any means a virtue.

“A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines."

Ralph Waldo Emerson

Hank Scorpio

oscarBravo wrote: »

Here's a thought: when you don't know enough about a topic to give an informed opinion, it's generally a safe bet to go with the scientific consensus.

To be honest it can be talked about since it was something he ran on and has political implications even ignoring the absolute technicalities, from either side.

Consistency in a dangerous idiot isn't by any means a virtue.

Yes I was joking, just in case you missed the pacman smiley.

Billy86

Celticfire wrote: »

Feel free to refute the points he made in his article then. Should be quite easy.

It's already been covered thoroughly, so here's a brief synopsis of the nonsense you linked to.

1. Irrelevant to climate change. But hey... Obama amirite!?

2. See my post above, wind and solar employ over 500,000 compared to 187,000 in fossil fuels. Execs from fossil fuel industries have said those jobs are not coming back. That growth is not happening and all Trump is doing here is ruining a far larger and far more viable industry - and that's talking about 'viable' in a financial sense, not just clearly obvious fact that winds keeps blowing and sun keeps shining, but oil and coal don't magically keep appearing.

3. Being in the Paris agreement would obviously mean having to hold standards, something we're all aware Trump and many of his supporters hate because keeping standards are hard.

4. Maybe, maybe not. This is hilariously vague on purpose. It would mean standards needing to be kept and the irony here is that would help more than double the amount of people in renewables than it would those in the dying fossil fuel sectors (and that is, dying globally).

5. Not remotely, they're a taste of standards being set. The rest of the world is worried about pollution, and if the US does not want to keep up then that is their decision - just like it those who do decide to keep to a standard decide not to do business with them for undermining their own efforts, that is also fine. Should countries be forced to do as much business with another nation who they strongly disapprove of, as they would with others they do approve of?

6. What economic risks?

7. What relevance does this have with the US or Trump's decision to leave the Paris agreement? Are the US an energy-poor country?

Christy42

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.

1) can be fixed by getting senate approval for the agreement. Democrats will pass it so unless Republicans want to screw over future generations....

2) no. Invest in renewables which are showing far higher growth at the moment than fossil fuels and will continue to do so

3) will not change whether or not the US is in the agreement

4) no if they deal with other countries they will face the risk either way The agreement is non binding at a government level though so that can't be used against them in court

5) how can you have protectionism against the entire world which would be in if the US signed? Question makes no sense. Also isn't Trump pro protectionism? Why is it suddenly savage and why the leading question.

6) assumes massive risk for the US and goes from there. May as well say given the risk of unicorns why did the US leave the agreement. Question becomes non sensical without proof of risk.

7) No. It acknowledges that poorer countries will need help from richer countries to get these targets.

@Hank. https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

The averages should be pretty good but the predictions for individual years not so much. They also all have assumptions on carbon emissions which if change would change results. However that said I would not expect a tenth of a degree to be the level of accuracy over 100 years even with all that correct.

This provides error bars to see how accurate we expect predictions to be.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature-projections

Professor Moriarty

Christy42 wrote: »

1) can be fixed by getting senate approval for the agreement. Democrats will pass it so unless Republicans want to screw over future generations....

2) no. Invest in renewables which are showing far higher growth at the moment than fossil fuels and will continue to do so

3) will not change whether or not the US is in the agreement

4) no if they deal with other countries they will face the risk either way The agreement is non binding at a government level though so that can't be used against them in court

5) how can you have protectionism against the entire world which would be in if the US signed? Question makes no sense. Also isn't Trump pro protectionism? Why is it suddenly savage and why the leading question.

6) assumes massive risk for the US and goes from there. May as well say given the risk of unicorns why did the US leave the agreement. Question becomes non sensical without proof of risk.

7) No. It acknowledges that poorer countries will need help from richer countries to get these targets.

@Hank. https://www.skepticalscience.com/climate-models.htm

The averages should be pretty good but the predictions for individual years not so much. They also all have assumptions on carbon emissions which if change would change results. However that said I would not expect a tenth of a degree to be the level of accuracy over 100 years even with all that correct.

This provides error bars to see how accurate we expect predictions to be.
https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-global-temperature-projections

I'm amazed that Pruitt has allowed that lying website to remain. Fúcking scientists. What do they know?

Hank Scorpio

Is it wrong that I laughed at the "mass extinction in natural world" part ?

It won't be long until the next set of elections come rolling around and the Dems can do as they wish, seems a bit hysterical to me.

oscarBravo

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Is it wrong that I laughed at the "mass extinction in natural world" part ?

Yup. If you were the only one laughing at it, we could cheerfully ignore you, but unfortunately your cavalier attitude is shared by many of the people who are actually in a position to do something about it.

B0jangles

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Is it wrong that I laughed at the "mass extinction in natural world" part ?

It won't be long until the next set of elections come rolling around and the Dems can do as they wish, seems a bit hysterical to me.

Yes, very wrong and very ignorant.


Graph illustrates current estimated extinction rates in each major species group - dotted line at bottom of graph shows expected background rate.

We are currently witnessing the start of a mass extinction event the likes of which have not been seen on Earth for at least 65 million years. This is the alarming finding of a new study published in the journal Science Advances. The research was designed to determine how human actions over the past 500 years have affected the extinction rates of vertebrates: mammals, fish, birds, reptiles and amphibians. It found a clear signal of elevated species loss which has markedly accelerated over the past couple of hundred years, such that life on Earth is embarking on its sixth greatest extinction event in its 3.5 billion year history.

http://www.iflscience.com/plants-and-animals/earth-s-sixth-mass-extinction-has-begun-new-study-confirms/

ThisRegard

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Is it wrong that I laughed at the "mass extinction in natural world" part ?

Yes, it absolutely is wrong. Just take a look at the current endangered species list and what we've lost in the last couple of decades, never to be seen again.

I can see this working out alright for America (unitentionally). All the big cities and powerhouse states have said they're still going to work towards "green" stuff, they can benefit from the coal etc., and say to other countries "hey, we installed solar panels, not our fault, please buy from us."

Hank Scorpio

oscarBravo wrote: »

Yup. If you were the only one laughing at it, we could cheerfully ignore you, but unfortunately your cavalier attitude is shared by many of the people who are actually in a position to do something about it.

Lighten up bud, the vast majority of us here have zero influence over the vote in the US, quarrelling back and fourth is for entertainment and time passing purposes only. Trump ran on withdrawing from the agreement, and like the travel ban, I don't get the hysteria when he's followed through on it. I think he's made a mess of the Presidency but it has little to do with his actual politics. In 3 years time the Dems will likely get in and do whatever they want, that's how elections work, there's winner and a loser, if we can't have a laugh in the meantime what's the point of doing anything at all. Given the predictions, it's going to have approximately zero influence on the overall climate change.

ThisRegard

The problem here is that everyone on earth is a potential loser because of one idiot.

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Lighten up bud, the vast majority of us here have zero influence over the vote in the US, quarrelling back and fourth is for entertainment and time passing purposes only. Trump ran on withdrawing from the agreement, and like the travel ban, I don't get the hysteria. I think he's made a mess of the Presidency but it has little to do with his actual politics. In 3 years time the Dems will likely get in and do whatever they want, that's how elections work, there's winner and a loser, if we can't have a laugh in the meantime what's the point of doing anything at all. Given the predictions, it's going to approximately zero influence on the overall climate change.

Hank, the problem is this. America's withdrawal damages everyone on the planet not just Americans. That's why people outside of America are incensed.

Edit: Post above says it better.

Hank Scorpio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Hank, the problem is this. America's withdrawal damages everyone on the planet not just Americans. That's why people outside of America are incensed.

Edit: Post above says it better.

Then the Dems should be asking themselves how they let such a mad man win instead of carrying on with this Russia nonsense. It wasn't a secret he was going to do it. As for you or I it's out of our control.

aloyisious

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.

Do you think that Don is right in his claim that he can bargain down and get a new "Paris" agreement from the other countries who have signed up to the present agreement, or do you agree with the other part of his statement which amounts to a shrug of the shoulders "we'll do our own thing" response?

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Then the Dems should be asking themselves how they let such a mad man win instead of carrying on with this Russian nonsense. It wasn't a secret he was going to do it. As for you or I it's out of our control.

I see. So it was the Dems that caused America to withdraw from Paris. Ok.

It might be out of our control but, as you said yourself, that shouldn't stop us discussing it.

Please don't mention Hilary. Just don't.

Hank Scorpio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

I see. So it was the Dems that caused America to withdraw from Paris. Ok.

It might be out of our control but, as you said yourself, that shouldn't stop us discussing it.

Please don't mention Hilary. Just don't.

I'm not, I don't get the hysteria in the media, he campaigned on it.

Edit: Do you think there's little chance the terms will get renegotiated?

Professor Moriarty

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I'm not, I don't get the hysteria in the media, he campaigned on it.

The hysteria in the media exists for two reasons: I. In his first month he threatened and alienated the vast majority of news outlets. 2. He's dangerously incompetent.

Hank Scorpio

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

The hysteria in the media exists for two reasons: I. In his first month he threatened and alienated the vast majority of news outlets. 2. He's dangerously incompetent.

If we're being brutally honest, they alienated him and continue to do so. Look at the daily press briefings, children are better behaved.

Second point is hard to disagree with.

mcmoustache

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

Then the Dems should be asking themselves how they let such a mad man win instead of carrying on with this Russia nonsense. It wasn't a secret he was going to do it. As for you or I it's out of our control.

Oh yeah, I nearly forgot about all that. Speaking of...

...from NBC

The Trump administration was gearing up to lift sanctions on Russia when the president took office, but career diplomats ginned up pressure in Congress to block the move, two senior former State Department officials told NBC News Thursday.

It's the latest evidence that President Trump moved to turn his favorable campaign rhetoric about Russia into concrete action when he took power.

Daniel Fried, who served as a senior diplomat until he retired in late February, said he became aware of the sanctions effort in the early weeks of Trump's presidency.

I should also add that the two sources used in the article are named and most certainly not anonymous.

Mancomb Seepgood

Hank Scorpio wrote: »

I'm not, I don't get the hysteria in the media, he campaigned on it.

Edit: Do you think there's little chance the terms will get renegotiated?

Paris represents the minimum needed to avoid catastrophe.

What would the nearly 200 other nations have to gain by re-opening negotiations with a single rogue government which has shown little but contempt for the world and it's environment as a whole?Any attempt to reopen negotiations should be refused outright.