Is the USA now a rogue state?

[Taoist Texts]

55 minutes ago, Jetsun said:

 

 

I don't believe the stats about job and economic losses resulting from it. How about the stats of jobs created by green technology and solar farms etc,which is one of the fastest growing industries in the world.

Those are sham industries, not competitive without subsidies

 

Quote

 

In 2016 the U.S. will learn if renewable energy can survive without government support. The most significant tax credit for solar power will expire at the end of 2016, and the biggest one for wind already has. These federal subsidies have provided wind and solar developers with as much as $24 billion from 2008 to 2014, according to Bloomberg New Energy Finance. That’s led to a 12-fold increase in installed capacity over the past decade, helping lower costs at least 10 percent each year.

 

Combined, wind and solar still generate less than 5 percent of electricity in the U.S. The subsidy cuts come as both industries face stiffer competition from ultracheap coal and natural gas.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-05/say-goodbye-to-solar-power-subsidies

 

 

Quote

If you become self sustainable in energy then there is little reason to get involved in the Middle East any more, but the fossil fuel industry and vested interests are going to do everything it can to prevent this,

 

 

Hmm, the US always have been more than self sustainable in energy terms. The involvement in ME was always a political decision, for the most part implemented as a choice of buying oil from there.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Brian]

2 hours ago, Jetsun said:

 

The significance is that if Co2 helps to lead temperature then massively increased Co2 influenced by man is going to contribute to above average temperature rises, upsetting the natural cycle, which is the belief of almost all climate scientists such as those from NASA, MIT, The Royal Society etc after examining all the evidence over hundreds of years.

 

The scale shows that climate change in general is a natural event, but the scale means you can't see the impact of the relatively recent massive human influence on the environment. 

 

I skim read the agreement. It doesn't go far enough and isn't particularly enforceable, but the whole point is that someone needs to take a stand and take the lead. It took many years to even get counties like China and India to the table as they thought that the USA and Europe had been polluting the world for years since the Industrial revolution, so why should they limit theirs now just as they are developing. Now there is nobody taking the lead. 

 

I don't believe the stats about job and economic losses resulting from it. How about the stats of jobs created by green technology and solar farms etc,which is one of the fastest growing industries in the world. If you become self sustainable in energy then there is little reason to get involved in the Middle East any more, but the fossil fuel industry and vested interests are going to do everything it can to prevent this, which is basically what is going on now.

Are you aware that only about a quarter of US petroleum products are imported and only about a fifth of that comes from the Persian Gulf region?  Think about that for a moment -- roughly 5%. Our biggest suppliers are Canada and Mexico.

 

You have the leading/lagging thing completely backwards. Temperature leads CO₂ levels rather than the other way around.  Help me understand how a lagging indicator causes change in a leading indicator.  Additionally, the significant uptick in CO₂ levels you are calling attention to are not being accompanied, according your own graphs, by a corresponding change in temperature.  This strongly suggests that the Earth's average temperature is NOT a function of carbon dioxide levels and the whole basis for the Paris agreement is false.

[rene]

Frankly, I dont know what all the fuss is about. All countries still in the Accord can still do it; just without the US footing the bill for their efforts... oh wait. Never mind.

[Jetsun]

5 minutes ago, Brian said:

Are you aware that only about a quarter of US petroleum products are imported and only about a fifth of that comes from the Persian Gulf region?  Think about that for a moment -- roughly 5%. Our biggest suppliers are Canada and Mexico.

 

You have the leading/lagging thing completely backwards. Temperature leads CO₂ levels rather than the other way around.  Help me understand how a lagging indicator causes change in a leading indicator.  Additionally, the significant uptick in CO₂ levels you are calling attention to are not being accompanied, according your own graphs, by a corresponding change in temperature.  This strongly suggests that the Earth's average temperature is NOT a function of carbon dioxide levels and the whole basis for the Paris agreement is false.

 

Whatever the import rate the fact is the majority of the wars and tension in the Middle East are caused by oil, that is pretty clear, so what better way of avoiding that than reducing our dependency on it by changing to renewables. No need to cosy up to terrorist exporting Saudi Arabia, no need to invade sovereign nations. 

 

I doubt I can change your option on the relationship between leading and lagging but I don't get that from the graph you posted and nor do nearly all the world experts. The graphs I posted show the temperature rise since the Industrial revolution, since man started to interfere with the natural cycles. There are a lot of reasons for the raising and cooling of the earths temperature with C02 being one of them which is why you don't see some kind of huge proportional gigantic jump in temperature along side C02, rather a gradual increase above expected rates.

[Jetsun]

13 minutes ago, WuDao said:

Frankly, I dont know what all the fuss is about. All countries still in the Accord can still do it; just without the US footing the bill for their efforts... oh wait. Never mind.

 

Hopefully China will step up and it will lead to better relations and partnership between Europe, India and China. As the inevitable transition to renewable energy moves forward the USA will be left behind. It is just a shame and a potential threat the future of the planet if it encourages other nations to follow suit. Lets hope the rest of the world does step up to prevent a potential global catastrophe. 

[rene]

8 minutes ago, Jetsun said:

 

Hopefully China will step up and it will lead to better relations and partnership between Europe, India and China. As the inevitable transition to renewable energy moves forward the USA will be left behind. It is just a shame and a potential threat the future of the planet if it encourages other nations to follow suit. Lets hope the rest of the world does step up to prevent a potential global catastrophe. 

I dont agree with your conclusions, but Im all for better relations. Thanks for your post!

[Brian]

42 minutes ago, Jetsun said:

 

Hopefully China will step up and it will lead to better relations and partnership between Europe, India and China. As the inevitable transition to renewable energy moves forward the USA will be left behind. It is just a shame and a potential threat the future of the planet if it encourages other nations to follow suit. Lets hope the rest of the world does step up to prevent a potential global catastrophe. 

China insisted on a 20-year deferment and a clause which allows them to say "economic impact!" while still claiming to be in compliance.

 

Still haven't read it?

[Brian]

1 hour ago, Jetsun said:

 

Whatever the import rate the fact is the majority of the wars and tension in the Middle East are caused by oil, that is pretty clear, so what better way of avoiding that than reducing our dependency on it by changing to renewables. No need to cosy up to terrorist exporting Saudi Arabia, no need to invade sovereign nations. 

 

I doubt I can change your option on the relationship between leading and lagging but I don't get that from the graph you posted and nor do nearly all the world experts. The graphs I posted show the temperature rise since the Industrial revolution, since man started to interfere with the natural cycles. There are a lot of reasons for the raising and cooling of the earths temperature with C02 being one of them which is why you don't see some kind of huge proportional gigantic jump in temperature along side C02, rather a gradual increase above expected rates.

If you dramatically change one variable and don't see a proportional change in another, the latter is bit dependant upon the former.

[Jetsun]

1 minute ago, Brian said:

China insisted on a 20-year deferment and a clause which allows them to say "economic impact!" while still claiming to be in compliance.

 

Still haven't read it?

 

I read enough of it and read most of the summaries. The USA and Europe have been polluting the world for a long time, the Chinese and Indians say that it is a bit galling of us to now to tell them that they can't do exactly what we have been doing for generations at a time when their progress and development is quite delicate, in the sense they are still developing their national infrastructure. But they are coming on board after many years of resistance due to the fact their their air quality and environment is now completely screwed. Giving them the same targets as us is practically unrealistic, yet somebody has to lead the way. It is a process which would hopefully lead to stronger and more concrete targets for developing countries like China over time, but to abandon that process means that is now unlikely. 

[gendao]

3 hours ago, Jetsun said:

I read enough of it and read most of the summaries. The USA and Europe have been polluting the world for a long time, the Chinese and Indians say that it is a bit galling of us to now to tell them that they can't do exactly what we have been doing for generations at a time when their progress and development is quite delicate, in the sense they are still developing their national infrastructure. But they are coming on board after many years of resistance due to the fact their their air quality and environment is now completely screwed. Giving them the same targets as us is practically unrealistic, yet somebody has to lead the way. It is a process which would hopefully lead to stronger and more concrete targets for developing countries like China over time, but to abandon that process means that is now unlikely. 

Right, China has already been LEADING THE WORLD IN RENEWABLE ENERGY investment for the past several years now...  So, they are already working more than anyone (including the US) to leapfrog directly to greener energy.  Obviously, you can't transition from semi-3rd World to 1st World overnight, though...

Quote

According to China’s 12th Five-Year Plan for Economic and Social Development (2011-2015), the country will spend $473.1 billion on clean energy investments over the next five years. China’s goal is to have 20 percent of its total energy demand sourced from renewable energy by 2020.

Meanwhile, the US blockaded cheaper Chinese solar panels, while pissing away $2 billion in tax dollars on failed domestic companies like Solyndra.

 

In the end, US taxpayers & consumers, Chinese companies, and the global environment all lost.  Wow, how's that for an "American Way" trifecta?!

Edited June 4, 2017 by gendao

[Michael Sternbach]

17 hours ago, Brian said:

Bullshit, ralis.

 

The original draft of the IPCC paper which started this whole thing was roundly criticized by the scientists asked to review it because the science was bad and the conclusions weren't supported by the data being presented. The program managers told the scientists it didn't matter because the purpose was policy-shaping.  Those scientists mostly stopped participating in the review process but were all listed as having "peer-reviewed" the work despite rejecting it.

 

Since then, the "climate scientists" (a specialty which curiously sprang into being to support this "crisis") have repeatedly been caught falsifying data and lamenting how the results don't actually support the claims. What would be career-ending admissions in other scientific fields are somehow badges of courage in this particular field.

 

Quite curious.

 

Sounds interesting, but it's just conjecture without reliable sources.

[Brian]

1 hour ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Sounds interesting, but it's just conjecture without reliable sources.

I might have to be your "reliable source" for the first part.

 

Google "climategate" for the beginning of the second part.

Edited June 4, 2017 by Brian

[Spotless]

[ralis]

2 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

Sounds interesting, but it's just conjecture without reliable sources.

 

The so called 'Climategate' was a right wing conspiracy in which emails of climate scientists were obtained and the contents were taken out of context. The conspiracy cabal would have the whole world believe that thousands of researchers are involved in a massive coverup/conspiracy.

Edited June 4, 2017 by ralis
Edit

[Michael Sternbach]

2 hours ago, Brian said:

I might have to be your "reliable source" for the first part.

 

Google "climategate" for the beginning of the second part.

 

By "reliable sources", I meant well documented studies.

[Brian]

3 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

By "reliable sources", I meant well documented studies.

Well documented studies of the comments & replies to a 20+ year old draft document or well documented studies of scientists' own e-mails  and public admissions of falsifying data?

 

You didn't bother Googling "climategate," I take it?

[ralis]

This thread reminds me of this scene in the movie 'Interstellar.'

 

 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

3 hours ago, Brian said:

Well documented studies of the comments & replies to a 20+ year old draft document or well documented studies of scientists' own e-mails  and public admissions of falsifying data?

 

You didn't bother Googling "climategate," I take it?

 

I did. What I found was inconclusive though.

[MooNiNite]

18 hours ago, Jetsun said:

 

The significance is that if Co2 helps to lead temperature then massively increased Co2 influenced by man is going to contribute to above average temperature rises, upsetting the natural cycle, which is the belief of almost all climate scientists such as those from NASA, MIT, The Royal Society etc after examining all the evidence over hundreds of years.

 

The scale shows that climate change in general is a natural event, but the scale means you can't see the impact of the relatively recent massive human influence on the environment. 

 

I skim read the agreement. It doesn't go far enough and isn't particularly enforceable, but the whole point is that someone needs to take a stand and take the lead. It took many years to even get counties like China and India to the table as they thought that the USA and Europe had been polluting the world for years since the Industrial revolution, so why should they limit theirs now just as they are developing. Now there is nobody taking the lead. 

 

I don't believe the stats about job and economic losses resulting from it. How about the stats of jobs created by green technology and solar farms etc,which is one of the fastest growing industries in the world. If you become self sustainable in energy then there is little reason to get involved in the Middle East any more, but the fossil fuel industry and vested interests are going to do everything it can to prevent this, which is basically what is going on now.

 

This is a thin sliver of perspective where i would agree with democrats.

But America needs to first fix America, before helping others.

We have a corrupt government heavily lobbied by corporations and an the evil mass media pushing enslavement.  

 

 

Edited June 5, 2017 by MooNiNite

[MooNiNite]

4 hours ago, ralis said:

This thread reminds me of this scene in the movie 'Interstellar.'

 

 

 

 

Absolutely zero reasoning regarding the moon landing. 

 

How can you even think this is any reasonable sort of evidence?

 

It is mostly shows Hollywood's ability to make you believe something simply because an actor said it. 

 

 

[ralis]

18 minutes ago, MooNiNite said:

 

Absolutely zero reasoning regarding the moon landing. 

 

How can you even think this is any reasonable sort of evidence?

 

It is mostly shows Hollywood's ability to make you believe something simply because an actor said it. 

 

 

 

Are you talking about the movie or the actual moon landing? Are you a moon landing denier? Do you understand why I posted this clip?

[Brian]

11 hours ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

I did. What I found was inconclusive though.

"I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps
to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) amd from
1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline."

-- Prof. Phil Jones
Climatic Research Unit
School of Environmental Sciences
University of East Anglia

 

 

OK, if you say so.  Not sure what you would consider conclusive if the Professor in charge of the entire project e-mailing his colleagues to tell them he had just personally falsified data doesn't do it.

[windwalker]

Quote

While France and other G7 countries lamented the U.S. exit from the Paris climate accord, America’s air is already cleaner than that of any other country in the G7.

Quote

Current levels of carbon dioxide concentration in the environment are substantially lower than they have been during earlier periods in the planet’s history. Without human intervention, the concentration of CO2 has climbed as high as 7,000 parts per million (ppm) in prior eras, whereas at present the concentration is just over 400 ppm.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/05/who-united-states-among-least-polluting-nations-on-the-planet/

 

Interesting isn't it.  As is often the case for many things those that make the most noise are often the worst violators of what ever they accuse the other of doing or being.   

[Brian]

12 minutes ago, windwalker said:

 

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/06/05/who-united-states-among-least-polluting-nations-on-the-planet/

 

Interesting isn't it.  As is often the case for many things those that make the most noise are often the worst violators of what ever they accuse the other of doing or being.   

Link directly to the study by the World Health Organization, on the off-chance we have any closed-minded & intolerant individuals would reject the link above simply because it is Breitbart.

http://gamapserver.who.int/gho/interactive_charts/phe/oap_exposure/atlas.html

 

EDIT: Added WHO link which somehow didn't post the first time...

 

Edited June 5, 2017 by Brian

[windwalker]

Just now, Brian said:

Link directly to the study by the World Health Organization, on the off-chance we have any closed-minded & intolerant individuals would reject the link above simply because it is Breitbart.

It happens to be Breitbart, because most if not all mainstream what is called "news" will not report it or even mention it.

They like being sheep dogs..herding the sheep.