U.S. submits formal notice of withdrawal from Paris climate pact

[ilostmypassword]

44 minutes ago, I Luv Me said:

My experience since the eighties:
1980-1990. Couldn't predict the climate like we used to.
1990-2000. Happy to go along with global warming and C02 theory.
2000-2010. Not global warming sometimes global freezing. Now the narrative is Climate Change.
Ok can go with that but beginning to become a doubter.
2010-present.
Could Trump be better right about this?
I know it's a tantamount to heresy!


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

What in the world are you talking about? Global Warming and Climate Change refer to the same thing and always have.

And where in the world did you get the idea that there was no global warming from 2000 to 2010? Yours seem to be a particularly inept effort at concern trolling.

[Srikcir]

52 minutes ago, I Luv Me said:

Could Trump be better right about this?

"The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive."

You seriously think Trump could be right about this? No connection with science. But as the saying goes, facts just get in the way of imagination.

Lots of science behind manmade global climate change. Such as:

 

 

[PeCeDe]

As Churchill said, “You can always count on the Americans to do the right thing after they have tried everything else.” I still hold that to be true, but it won't be done by Trump.

[hawker9000]

21 hours ago, nasanews said:

More pollution and destruction to motherland.

Less war on U.S. workers and producers.  

 

If you're SOOOooooo concerned about "pollution and destruction", maybe you should investigate China's and India's (not exactly in the minor leagues when it comes to emissions....) commitments under the Paris "pact".   And realize that THEY never would have participated EITHER without those absurd concessions!   THEN you should maybe look into what U.S. producers have ALREADY accomplished WRT cutting back emissions.   Trump takes a stab at merely trying to level the playing field a bit and of course it's a major human atrocity...

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, hawker9000 said:

Less war on U.S. workers and producers.  

 

If you're SOOOooooo concerned about "pollution and destruction", maybe you should investigate China's and India's (not exactly in the minor leagues when it comes to emissions....) commitments under the Paris "pact".   And realize that THEY never would have participated EITHER without those absurd concessions!   THEN you should maybe look into what U.S. producers have ALREADY accomplished WRT cutting back emissions.   Trump takes a stab at merely trying to level the playing field a bit and of course it's a major human atrocity...

 

 

 

 

 

 

Please disregard Chinese and Indian CO2 amounts they get a free pass to massively produce CO2 into the foreseeable future. If CO2 is really a dangerous source of pollution and IS going to cause the catastrophic destruction of the planet's through uncontrolled temperature increase (as if humans can control the temperature of the planet to begin with), why in god's green earth would an agreement limiting CO2 emissions allow some countries to increase CO2 emissions for the next several decades, and not have any way to enforce adherence to those goals if they are not met? Also why wouldn't the cut in CO2 not be large enough to actually impart measurable change in the future temperature of the Earth?

 

Trump may be irrational and incomprehensible on many/most issues, but pulling out of this horribly flawed Paris Accord was not one of them in my opinion.

[Ahab]

Besides, there is no need to worry about CO2 emissions because we are supposed to run out of oil any day now. Keep in mind that peak oil predictions have been wrong since there have been predictions about known reserves of crude oil, eventually these predictions will be correct and that is when global CO2 emissions will start to decrease in a big way, not before.

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

Please disregard Chinese and Indian CO2 amounts they get a free pass to massively produce CO2 into the foreseeable future. If CO2 is really a dangerous source of pollution and IS going to cause the catastrophic destruction of the planet's through uncontrolled temperature increase (as if humans can control the temperature of the planet to begin with), why in god's green earth would an agreement limiting CO2 emissions allow some countries to increase CO2 emissions for the next several decades, and not have any way to enforce adherence to those goals if they are not met? Also why wouldn't the cut in CO2 not be large enough to actually impart measurable change in the future temperature of the Earth?

 

Trump may be irrational and incomprehensible on many/most issues, but pulling out of this horribly flawed Paris Accord was not one of them in my opinion.

Been hiding under a rock lately?

China, India to Reach Climate Goals Years Early, as U.S. Likely to Fall Far Short

 

Slowing coal use in China and India has put the world's two most populous countries on track to beat their carbon emission goals under the Paris climate agreement, according to a new analysis.

Greenhouse gas emissions from both countries are growing more slowly than they predicted just a year ago, and the difference is substantial—roughly 2 to 3 billion tons annually by the year 2030.

That would be enough to more than offset the relatively poor performance expected from the United States as President Donald Trump rolls back controls and puts the U.S. on track to miss its Paris pledge.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15052017/china-india-paris-climate-goals-emissions-coal-renewable-energy

[Ahab]

2 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Been hiding under a rock lately?

China, India to Reach Climate Goals Years Early, as U.S. Likely to Fall Far Short

 

Slowing coal use in China and India has put the world's two most populous countries on track to beat their carbon emission goals under the Paris climate agreement, according to a new analysis.

Greenhouse gas emissions from both countries are growing more slowly than they predicted just a year ago, and the difference is substantial—roughly 2 to 3 billion tons annually by the year 2030.

That would be enough to more than offset the relatively poor performance expected from the United States as President Donald Trump rolls back controls and puts the U.S. on track to miss its Paris pledge.

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15052017/china-india-paris-climate-goals-emissions-coal-renewable-energy

The words in the article and the graphs in the article do not correlate. The article states that China will be double digit percentage points less emissions than in 2005 (same for India), but the associated graph shows no decrease, and actually continues to increase. Meanwhile in the evil and horrible United States CO2 emissions are actually decreasing, not slowing the increase in growth. 

[ilostmypassword]

 

53 minutes ago, Ahab said:

The words in the article and the graphs in the article do not correlate. The article states that China will be double digit percentage points less emissions than in 2005 (same for India), but the associated graph shows no decrease, and actually continues to increase. Meanwhile in the evil and horrible United States CO2 emissions are actually decreasing, not slowing the increase in growth. 

Where does it say in that article that "China will be double digit percentage points less emissions than in 2005 (same for India)" It says nothing of the sort. You have a vivid imagination.The article said a slowing in the growth, not an absolute decline. China and India are developing nations. So it's a lot harder for them to cut fossil fuel use than it is for fully developed nations. What's more in 2015 Chinese emissions of CO2 actually decreased. 

For the first time since 2000, China’s CO2 emissions decreased by 0.7% in 2015 and its per capita CO2 emissions by 1.2%, compared to 2014.

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/jrc-2016-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2016-report-103425.pdf

 

In addition, China already is cutting CO2 emissions from burning fuel in absolute terms. It's only because of its massive use of cement that its CO2 output is on a rising trend. And considering that China has been doing a lot of massive overbuilding, a burst in that economic bubble is inevitable.

 

And it should be noted that the Chinese and Indian economies are growing much faster than those of the fully developed nations. And they have committed themselves to cutting CO2 emissions on a per unit of GDP basis.

 

 And you write as if the the poor USA is being singled out for cutting emissions. Except of course, it's not. It's just that the USA emits a lot more CO2 per capita than virtually all other nations with a fully developed economy even after taking GDP per capita into account.  So there are a lot more emissions to cut.

And what makes it worse is that the USA has a president who actually wants to promote more burning of coal which not only releases huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere but other pollutants including neurotoxins like mercury.

[thaihome]

Article everyone should read to understand exactly what a con this whole withdrawal actually is. Nothing but feeding read meat to his base. No actual policy behind it. 

TH 

 

 

In fact, the only parts of the Paris Agreement which Trump can’t unilaterally adjust are the parts he is complying with. Paris makes certain legal demands on the United States, but they encompass requirements like “show up to the annual meeting.” Today, Trump announced he would be showing up to the meeting. So it’s unclear what he would be trying to negotiate in Paris—unless it’s just grandstanding.

https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/08/trump-and-the-paris-agreement-what-just-happened/536040/

[PeCeDe]

44 minutes ago, thaihome said:

 

So it’s unclear what he would be trying to negotiate in Paris—unless it’s just grandstanding. 
 

Article everyone should read to understand exactly what a con this whole withdrawal actually is. Nothing but feeding read meat to his base. No actual policy behind it. 

TH 

 

 

He's likely going for two things, 1) He likes to be pampered and have his ego stroked by the likes of Macron. 2) Just guessing, but his Trump Tower, Paris needs some marketing.. It is very

nice BTW, here it is under construction.

 

 

 

 

.

Edited August 6, 2017 by PeCeDe
added a picture

[Ahab]

3 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

Where does it say in that article that "China will be double digit percentage points less emissions than in 2005 (same for India)" It says nothing of the sort. You have a vivid imagination.The article said a slowing in the growth, not an absolute decline. China and India are developing nations. So it's a lot harder for them to cut fossil fuel use than it is for fully developed nations. What's more in 2015 Chinese emissions of CO2 actually decreased. 

For the first time since 2000, China’s CO2 emissions decreased by 0.7% in 2015 and its per capita CO2 emissions by 1.2%, compared to 2014.

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/jrc-2016-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2016-report-103425.pdf

 

In addition, China already is cutting CO2 emissions from burning fuel in absolute terms. It's only because of its massive use of cement that its CO2 output is on a rising trend. And considering that China has been doing a lot of massive overbuilding, a burst in that economic bubble is inevitable.

 

And it should be noted that the Chinese and Indian economies are growing much faster than those of the fully developed nations. And they have committed themselves to cutting CO2 emissions on a per unit of GDP basis.

 

 And you write as if the the poor USA is being singled out for cutting emissions. Except of course, it's not. It's just that the USA emits a lot more CO2 per capita than virtually all other nations with a fully developed economy even after taking GDP per capita into account.  So there are a lot more emissions to cut.

And what makes it worse is that the USA has a president who actually wants to promote more burning of coal which not only releases huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere but other pollutants including neurotoxins like mercury.

From the article "Climate Action Tracker said China is on track to achieve or surpass its goal to reduce its emissions intensity by 64 to 70 percent below its 2005 levels by 2030. India's Paris climate pledge was to lower the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33 to 35 percent by 2030 below 2005 levels. Carbon Tracker projects that, with current policies, India will leap past that mark to a 42 to 45 percent cut in emissions intensity by 2030."

 

it is worded extremely awkwardly.

[ilostmypassword]

45 minutes ago, Ahab said:

From the article "Climate Action Tracker said China is on track to achieve or surpass its goal to reduce its emissions intensity by 64 to 70 percent below its 2005 levels by 2030. India's Paris climate pledge was to lower the emissions intensity of its GDP by 33 to 35 percent by 2030 below 2005 levels. Carbon Tracker projects that, with current policies, India will leap past that mark to a 42 to 45 percent cut in emissions intensity by 2030."

 

it is worded extremely awkwardly.

There is a difference between "emissions" and "emissions intensity"

[Jingthing]

Happily, the ogre clown potus is being met with strong resistance from the majority of Americans that actually think science is a thing.

 

Major regional U.S. leaders like the esteemed Governor Jerry Brown of California are taking action for the U.S. to comply with the Paris accord regardless of what the orange moron proclaims. 

 

 

Edited August 6, 2017 by Jingthing

[Maybole]

"Republican U.S. congressional leaders have backed Trump's move to exit the accord. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, for example, said it was "another significant blow to the Obama administration's assault on domestic energy production and jobs"."

 

There appears to be a visceral hatred of the last president and a vindictive desire to remove all he has done. will we even see him erased from history as a non-person?

[Jingthing]

19 minutes ago, Maybole said:

"Republican U.S. congressional leaders have backed Trump's move to exit the accord. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, for example, said it was "another significant blow to the Obama administration's assault on domestic energy production and jobs"."

 

There appears to be a visceral hatred of the last president and a vindictive desire to remove all he has done. will we even see him erased from history as a non-person?

Actually, this stupid dark era is going to elevate Obama's greatness in history. 

[I Luv Me]

What in the world are you talking about? Global Warming and Climate Change refer to the same thing and always have.
And where in the world did you get the idea that there was no global warming from 2000 to 2010? Yours seem to be a particularly inept effort at concern trolling.

Well thanks digger,
That was my first post ever on a blog and you almost stopped me from replying.
But I will persist hoping you come from a land that encourages free discourse.
You are correct my post was inept.
I did it on my iPhone after a few beers.
But I disagree with you on climate change.
That does not give you a free pass.
I am not a troll.
But I am an enept deplorable.
Your climate science stinks.



Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[I Luv Me]

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=les+patterson&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-au&client=safari#imgrc=tEX8eZvUVZ6HdM:


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[I Luv Me]

And a lot of folks agree with me.
Learn to deal with people who disagree with you.



Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Thakkar]

7 minutes ago, I Luv Me said:

And a lot of folks agree with me.

What matters is whether the facts agree with you. Talk to the facts; they are your true friends, not some "folks"

[I Luv Me]

Lottsa folks not some folks. C'mon we're talkin' about this religion called climate change. Hallelujah


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[I Luv Me]

Enough to elect Trump


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[ilostmypassword]

2 hours ago, I Luv Me said:

Well thanks digger,
That was my first post ever on a blog and you almost stopped me from replying.
But I will persist hoping you come from a land that encourages free discourse.
You are correct my post was inept.
I did it on my iPhone after a few beers.
But I disagree with you on climate change.
That does not give you a free pass.
I am not a troll.
But I am an enept deplorable.
Your climate science stinks.



Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Apparently, you believed that drinking more than a few beers this time was going to help you make your case.

[hawker9000]

18 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

 

Where does it say in that article that "China will be double digit percentage points less emissions than in 2005 (same for India)" It says nothing of the sort. You have a vivid imagination.The article said a slowing in the growth, not an absolute decline. China and India are developing nations. So it's a lot harder for them to cut fossil fuel use than it is for fully developed nations. What's more in 2015 Chinese emissions of CO2 actually decreased. 

For the first time since 2000, China’s CO2 emissions decreased by 0.7% in 2015 and its per capita CO2 emissions by 1.2%, compared to 2014.

http://edgar.jrc.ec.europa.eu/news_docs/jrc-2016-trends-in-global-co2-emissions-2016-report-103425.pdf

 

In addition, China already is cutting CO2 emissions from burning fuel in absolute terms. It's only because of its massive use of cement that its CO2 output is on a rising trend. And considering that China has been doing a lot of massive overbuilding, a burst in that economic bubble is inevitable.

 

And it should be noted that the Chinese and Indian economies are growing much faster than those of the fully developed nations. And they have committed themselves to cutting CO2 emissions on a per unit of GDP basis.

 

 And you write as if the the poor USA is being singled out for cutting emissions. Except of course, it's not. It's just that the USA emits a lot more CO2 per capita than virtually all other nations with a fully developed economy even after taking GDP per capita into account.  So there are a lot more emissions to cut.

And what makes it worse is that the USA has a president who actually wants to promote more burning of coal which not only releases huge amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere but other pollutants including neurotoxins like mercury.

China a "developing nation" ...  ROFL.   Yeah, right.   "Developed" enough to float a major naval presence (including carriers); "developed" enough to lay claim to the S. and E. China seas because they're ALSO "developed" enough to covet the resources; "developed" enough to build and militarize entire islands from scratch in far flung ocean areas; "developed" enough to be N. Korea's enabler"; "developed" enough to build entire cities from the ground up.  "Developing nation" my a##.  Total anti-American rubbish!  The concessions to China were a simple gimme to get them onboard.  Otherwise, they'd have scuttled the pact before it started.  And for India it was an extortion scheme to get some aid money flowing in.

 

And you're correct.  Absolutely correct.  In China's case it's only a matter of slowing the GROWTH of EXISTING emission levels, NOT cutting back on them, as the U.S. HAS BEEN doing for a decade.   (And why you think this supports your argument is a mystery to me.)  And yes, this certainly boosts Chinese productivity since their enterprise isn't hobbled by the same environmental restrictions as in the U.S.   They can continue to profitably manufacture and then export to the U.S. goods which U.S. workers are too burdened with restrictions to be able to competitively produce!

 

Trump definitely got this one right!   It's precisely what I'd have most expected Obama to get wrong, and Trump to get right.

 

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, hawker9000 said:

China a "developing nation" ...  ROFL.   Yeah, right.   "Developed" enough to float a major naval presence (including carriers); "developed" enough to lay claim to the S. and E. China seas because they're ALSO "developed" enough to covet the resources; "developed" enough to build and militarize entire islands from scratch in far flung ocean areas; "developed" enough to be N. Korea's enabler"; "developed" enough to build entire cities from the ground up.  "Developing nation" my a##.  Total anti-American rubbish!  The concessions to China were a simple gimme to get them onboard.  Otherwise, they'd have scuttled the pact before it started.  And for India it was an extortion scheme to get some aid money flowing in.

 

And you're correct.  Absolutely correct.  In China's case it's only a matter of slowing the GROWTH of EXISTING emission levels, NOT cutting back on them, as the U.S. HAS BEEN doing for a decade.   (And why you think this supports your argument is a mystery to me.)  And yes, this certainly boosts Chinese productivity since their enterprise isn't hobbled by the same environmental restrictions as in the U.S.   They can continue to profitably manufacture and then export to the U.S. goods which U.S. workers are too burdened with restrictions to be able to competitively produce!

 

Trump definitely got this one right!   It's precisely what I'd have most expected Obama to get wrong, and Trump to get right.

 

 

 

So China is not a developing nation but still manages to have a 7 percent growth rate? Any more economic nonsense to share with us? And has been pointed out, they have already managed to begin reducing their production of CO2 from fossil fuels. 1/3 of their CO2 production comes from cement manufacture. In time that will diminish. And the Chinese are way ahead of schedule in CO2 reduction.