Jetsun

The repeated theme of this thread is that Climate Change is a global conspiracy aimed at damaging the USA , if that isn't your position then I am glad you clarified. That is the belief of Trump who thinks it is a Chinese invention. And I expect the reason for the intervention letter by the other scientists is because the stakes are so high. We are talking about the future of the planet and survival of humanity, we have to get this right as a species otherwise we are screwed. There needs to be as much clarification, fact checking and hard science going on as possible.

In terms of conspiracy you should look into how large energy firms are funding many of the prominent climate change deniers https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/21/climate-change-denier-willie-soon-funded-energy-industry and how the Koch Brothers have invested over 100 million into the anti climate change industry

It's hardly mob justice, the majority of the response was fact checking the original claims as well as clarifying their own position and the majority position. Has the guy been fired or ostracized in any way except by letter? Not as far as I know, is there any evidence his funding has been cut as a result? Nope. Flimsy evidence of mob rule and very flimsy evidence of global conspiracy

Agreement based on independent research isn't the same as conspiracy to agree based on some kind of paranoid global conspiracy

One bad scientist doesn't negate the work and findings of thousands of others, who have worked independently without any influence of those who worked fraudulently. I agree that calling people deniers isn't exactly helpful regarding debate, but it doesn't make the climate change supporters incorrect. A global scientific conspiracy just isn't viable or practical.

He votes against things which restrict human rights, while the current government massively cut police spending. Who is really the one failing to protect the people? Corbyn is about the only person who says we should take a stand against Saudi Arabia, who are the world exporters of Terrorism and ISIS's number one funder.

That's not exactly true. Corbyn just isn't keen on killing people abroad for oil and gas. He says wars in the middle East contribute to terrorism, which is a point agreed upon by many people on both sides, such as the current Foreign Secretary.

Just to stir the pot. I'm very much glad that the terrorists weren't able to obtain guns while the police were. The police could kill the attackers in 8 minutes and many of those attacked will survive with the death rate comparatively low.

The Government are blaming the internet. The police and opposition blaming police cuts. Neither of which are really true. When everyone immediately tries to politicise the attacks for their own agenda they will never address the real problems and causes.

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.

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.

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.

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.

If you think that is true then why is Elon Musk so against Trump's decision? The Paris agreement helps to promote governments to invest in clean energy, which is inevitable anyway as clean energy is getting cheaper every year, so all it is really doing is helping to move the inevitable along. All Trump is doing is dragging his heels and in the process isolating himself and the USA. It also probably means the Chinese will start to take the lead and become the dominant world leaders in green technology while the USA remains stuck in the past, which does nothing to help the USA in the long run or help to make America great again.

So this proves that up until the recent era temperature and co2 were in direct relationship, but as your graph is over thousands of years it isn't precise enough to show the effect of the recent massive spike in co2 on the earths temperature So far more detailed graphs are ones like this: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/2015/global-average-temperature-2015 https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/decadaltemp.php

I have no doubt the world can correct itself and balance its own environment.. if we stop interfering with what it is trying to do. Even with our interference it will still probably be ok, we will just cause ourselves a great deal of misery and pain going against the natural processes until we learn that it is foolish to do so.

Yeah ok .....

Well there are large areas of the world, mostly poor countries such as Bangladesh who are likely to be flooded, with millions displaced and in poverty as a consequence. The UN has said it is likely to be the most impoverished who are hardest hit. I guess if all anyone cares about is nationalism then Trump is your man, if you care about humanity as a whole then not so much.

I don't know what the correct temperature should be, but it is clear man is having an impact on it "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities, and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position." https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

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 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.

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.

"The Republicans who urged Trump to pull out of Paris deal are big oil darlings" https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/jun/01/republican-senators-paris-climate-deal-energy-donations Nearly all those opposed to the Paris agreement are massive beneficiaries of the oil , gas and coal industries. Do you really think Trump and the Republicans are going up against these interests who fund their party? Come on they are doing their bidding. Follow the money

Saying it's global warfare just sounds like propaganda from the fossil fuel industry. It is a fact that solar power is taking over and increased spending in renewable energy will actually increase jobs in the USA even if the richest US oil barons lose out to Chinese investors, so how is supporting the fossil fuel industry putting America first? It is putting the 1% richest first at the expense of regular working Americans as well as the rest of the world.

I was talking about Global warming in general, very few legitimate scientists disagree with it, some just disagree with the man made influence