Is the USA now a rogue state?

[Brian]

7 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

You are claiming that you are in the rational group? Climate scientists are irrational? I have suggested several sources for further study and it seems you have chosen to disregard even a look at Korzybski or Strogatz.

 

You are in the category of denying AGW!

 

 

LMAO

 

Am I a heretic, ralis? Should I be arrested as an enemy of the state and reeducated?  Perhaps a little training on how to be a good citizen?  Maybe you'd lend me your copy of The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism?  I've only read parts of it, namely Chapter I ("Ignorance Is Strength") and Chapter III ("War Is Peace"), so I guess I don't yet comprehend it fully.

 

Jetsun is suggesting the world might need to invade the US and force compliance...

[Jetsun]

3 minutes ago, windwalker said:

Why are you posting propaganda without looking into facts and what it was actually about. Would you rather the u.s. release It's control over its own resources to outside countries. I wouldn't but maybe you and others would.

 

So what are the actual facts? Every other country in the world apart from Nicaragua and Syria signed up to the agreement. The biggest polluter in human history and second current polluter in the world the USA don't agree in limiting pollution because it may harm the bottom line in some fossil fuel industries, against the advice of nearly all reputable scientific organisations world wide. 

 

The science may be wrong, but you are gambling with the environment to make a few extra dollars. 

 

The rest just sounds like conspiracy theories to me. 

[Jonesboy]

2 minutes ago, Jetsun said:

 

So what are the actual facts? Every other country in the world apart from Nicaragua and Syria signed up to the agreement. The biggest polluter in human history and second current polluter in the world the USA don't agree in limiting pollution because it may harm the bottom line in some fossil fuel industries, against the advice of nearly all reputable scientific organisations world wide. 

 

The science may be wrong, but you are gambling with the environment to make a few extra dollars. 

 

The rest just sounds like conspiracy theories to me. 

 

Ok, so we agree to cut our c02 and kill coal for instance. Meanwhile China, Russia and India each get to double there coal mines/plants and c02 emissions?

 

It does nothing to help the climate but transfer wealth from the U.S. to other countries.

 

Just plain silly.

[Brian]

18 minutes ago, Jetsun said:

 

Why would countries like the traditional allies of the USA , such as many European countries, Japan, South Korean etc want to strengthen countries like China and India at the expense of the USA ? It makes no sense strategically or economically for that to be a priority.

 

It reeks of paranoia that this is some kind of global conspiracy targeted at weakening the USA. It is far more likely that people are looking at the science and worried about the environment that their grandchildren are going to inherit.

Ah.

 

You haven't actually read it, then?

 

https://www.technocracy.news/index.php/2015/12/16/full-text-paris-cop21-climate-change-agreement/

 

You probably haven't read the UN "2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development" either, then?

https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/post2015/transformingourworld

[windwalker]

What I find most interesting about this topic is the method in which it was implemented. It was not done using the normal process by which it would be done.  Which makes it all  very easy thankfully for it to be undone.

 

 If it's a good thing let the American people have their say through their representatives as to whether it's good for the country or not.

 

The real question for anybody reading this topic.  Is why was it not voted on and ratified as a treaty. 

Edited June 2, 2017 by windwalker

[Marblehead]

I agree with you regarding climate change.  It has been going on for billions of years.  There have been times of snowball Earths and near snowball Earths and other time of nearly total desert for all the land masses.

 

The immigration bit is a lie.  The countries that are allowing immigrants in have large rolls of their own unemployed people.  It is a scam to lower wages by increasing the work force.

 

Additional CO2 in the atmosphere will allow for better and faster plant growth.  But I do agree that industry is putting too many pollutants into the atmosphere that at causing human health problems.

 

 

[ralis]

3 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

I agree with you regarding climate change.  It has been going on for billions of years.  There have been times of snowball Earths and near snowball Earths and other time of nearly total desert for all the land masses.

 

The immigration bit is a lie.  The countries that are allowing immigrants in have large rolls of their own unemployed people.  It is a scam to lower wages by increasing the work force.

 

Additional CO2 in the atmosphere will allow for better and faster plant growth.  But I do agree that industry is putting too many pollutants into the atmosphere that at causing human health problems.

 

 

 

Plants have a limited uptake of CO2. Just another excuse to dump more carbon in the biosphere. 

[Marblehead]

19 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Plants have a limited uptake of CO2. Just another excuse to dump more carbon in the biosphere. 

Ah!, but the more plants there are the more CO2 will be utilized.  But the problem is that humans are cutting down the natural plant growth to make room for the excessive increase in the human population.

 

We cannot continue to destroy what reduces CO2 in the atmosphere and then say that it is because industry has tried to keep up with the demand of an increasing population.

 

Edit to add:

 

Reduce the demand and the CO2 emissions will naturally be reduced.

 

 

Edited June 2, 2017 by Marblehead

[ralis]

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

Ah!, but the more plants there are the more CO2 will be utilized.  But the problem is that humans are cutting down the natural plant growth to make room for the excessive increase in the human population.

 

We cannot continue to destroy what reduces CO2 in the atmosphere and then say that it is because industry has tried to keep up with the demand of an increasing population.

 

Edit to add:

 

Reduce the demand and the CO2 emissions will naturally be reduced.

 

 

 

 

Nature will prune out overpopulation via insects, natural disasters and intraspecies competition. Too much CO2 reduces nutrient uptake.

https://phys.org/news/2015-06-carbon-dioxide-air-restrict-ability.html

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html

 

Quote

"To understand complex ecological systems, the traditional approach of isolating one factor and looking at that response, then extrapolating to the whole system, is often not correct," Mooney said. "On an ecosystem scale, many interacting factors may be involved."

 

Quote

"Most studies have looked at the effects of carbon dioxide on plants in pots or on very simple ecosystems and concluded that plants are going to grow faster in the future," said Field, co-author of the Science study. "We got exactly the same results when we applied carbon dioxide alone, but when we factored in realistic treatments -- warming, changes in nitrogen deposition, changes in precipitation -- growth was actually suppressed."

 

[Brian]

Greener not browner:

https://www.cato.org/blog/greener-not-browner

[ralis]

24 minutes ago, Brian said:

Greener not browner:

https://www.cato.org/blog/greener-not-browner

 

 

It seems Dr. Michaels has been bets on his predictions. Further, there are other factors spelled out in the articles I posted.

[Marblehead]

31 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

 

Nature will prune out overpopulation via insects, natural disasters and intraspecies competition. Too much CO2 reduces nutrient uptake.

https://phys.org/news/2015-06-carbon-dioxide-air-restrict-ability.html

http://news.stanford.edu/news/2002/december11/jasperplots-124.html

 

 

 

T'is true.  The processes of nature will do what it has to do and it really won't care what we humans think about it.

 

[Brian]

4 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

T'is true.  The processes of nature will do what it has to do and it really won't care what we humans think about it.

 

 

[Marblehead]

Was listening to some BOC yesterday.

 

I'm glad Godzilla likes Japan.  She has made it to New York once but she pretty much likes the Japanese people.

 

[Aetherous]

[Brian]

 

[Brian]

A sincere question...

 

What is the Earth's average temperature supposed to be?

[windwalker]

 

 

ya I can see how climate change might endanger the coast line. Rising sea level and all.  

14000 yrs ago we had a lot more coastline, now its gone, who do we blame for it....who will pay?

thats the real question...

 

Maybe it was the native peoples of the time,,,yep that must be it,,,,,time to pay up 

Edited June 2, 2017 by windwalker

[dawei]

7 hours ago, Jetsun said:

 

So what are the actual facts? Every other country in the world apart from Nicaragua and Syria signed up to the agreement. The biggest polluter in human history and second current polluter in the world the USA don't agree in limiting pollution because it may harm the bottom line in some fossil fuel industries, against the advice of nearly all reputable scientific organisations world wide. 

 

The science may be wrong, but you are gambling with the environment to make a few extra dollars. 

 

The rest just sounds like conspiracy theories to me. 

 

Data is always suspect to the tale one wants to tell...    I look at data every day and trust nothing but an underlying understanding.

 

If you look at it 'per capita' (per population), then China who was #1 falls to #15.    Saudia Arabia who was #10 goes to #1.   Australia who was #17 goes to #2.

 

So what exactly are the facts we should look at ?

 

Ignoring per capita, the US was historically a top emitter till 2007... then there is a consistent decline for 10 years...   In that time period, china shot threw the roof starting around 2000.

 

Paris agreement or not... What, exactly is the problem ?

 

 

[Brian]

If we are going to "stop climate change," it seems to me we should have an optimal target in mind.  Surely climate scientists can tell us to within a tenth of a degree what that optimal global average temperature is, right?  Just randomly freezing it seems illogical.  To help the reader while pondering this question, I offer these handy references showing various date ranges:

 

 

 

 

[Marblehead]

How about if we plug up all the volcanoes on the planet.  They put out more CO2 than all of humanity does.

 

[Jetsun]

Here is a list of 100 reputable international scientific organisations who agree that man has contributed to climate change 

 

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

 

This was taken from the NASA website. I'm sure the armchair scientists on this website know better than all the world experts put together.

 

My father was asked to go to the Arctic circle to gather data on climate change there on behalf of the Royal Society a few years ago. I guess he is another one of those involved in the conspiracy to put the USA down, some kind of mass global conspiracy involving independent people from separate nations across the entire globe. 

Edited June 2, 2017 by Jetsun

[Brian]

20 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

How about if we plug up all the volcanoes on the planet.  They put out more CO2 than all of humanity does.

 

That might seem the obvious solution but that's because you are a rich white American male.

 

Volcanoes have great cultural significance in some parts of the world.  A multi-year $10B international study has been conducted by top government vulcanologists which involved many trips to exotic locations (and several surprisingly expensive visits to Nevada and Amsterdam). These experts scientifically determined that active volcanoes can be environmental hazards and, after checking a map, they found volcanoes to be unfairly distributed. A UN Volcano Redistribution Program has been commissioned to ensure volcanoes only disparately impact certain undisclosed population groups (which they felt was fair).

 

You should have received notice in the mail...

[Marblehead]

I don't doubt there has been a similar study.

 

Yeah, you stretched out the last part of that pretty much but then, the world is coming to that, isn't it?

 

The notice must have gotten lost in the mail like all other unwanted bills that were supposed to make it to my mail box.

 

 

[Brian]

8 minutes ago, Jetsun said:

Here is a list of 100 reputable international scientific organisations who agree that man has contributed to climate change 

 

https://www.opr.ca.gov/s_listoforganizations.php

 

This was taken from the NASA website. I'm sure the armchair scientists on this website know better than all the world experts put together.

 

My father was asked to go to the Arctic circle to gather data on climate change there on behalf of the Royal Society a few years ago. I guess he is another one of those involved in the conspiracy to put the USA down, some kind of mass global conspiracy involving independent people from separate nations across the entire globe. 

So what's the correct average global temperature, Jetsun?  If we intend to take control of the planet's thermostat, are we going to have an optimal target or are we going to run it up and down in a knee-jerk fashion for a century or two?

 

Seems a reasonable question.