Jetsun

3 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

Interesting how the believers say  the global science community is 97% cohesive, and then turn around and say that a wide-reaching collusion is not viable. It is fascinating to see doublethink in vivo.

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

1 hour ago, Brian said:

In real scientific work, scientists employ the scientific method and things like falsifying data are frowned upon.  In real scientific work, those scientists who point out fraud or challenge the status quo are applauded rather than being labeled "contrarians and deniers."

 

Those paying attention to such things are less likely to swallow a hook.

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. 

5 minutes ago, Chang said:

 

An over simplification. Corbyn is a Cultural Marxist who supports unrestricted immigration into the U.K. and Europe. He has also voted consistently against any legislation which can be used in the war against the terrorists. It would be one thing to campaign against your nation's involvement and interference in the business of other countries but quite another thing to fail abysmally in the care and protection of your own countrymen.

 

Whilst we appear to be living in a lunatic asylum I would suggest that putting one of the lunatics in charge can only lead to more chaos and spread of insanity.

 

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. 

27 minutes ago, Chang said:

Just a reminder that it is Election Day in the U.K. and the voting public will decide who will form the government which will have to deal with the mess.

 

The choice is I am afraid very much between the devil and the deep blue sea but should the Socialists gain power then we in the U.K. will have a government led by Jeremy Corbyn. This is a man whose whole life has been dedicated to a to a hatred of Britain and support of those who use terror to attack our traditional values and way of life.

 

Should Corbyn come to power things will start to become very interesting very quickly.

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. 

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. 

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. 

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.

14 hours ago, Brian said:

Do you understand the significance of one measurement leading another?

 

Scale is important, Jetsun, because it provides necessary context.

 

Have you taken the time yet to read the Paris agreement?  I posted a link to it earlier for you.

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.

1 hour ago, MooNiNite said:

If you are against pollution then you should support Trump. He is helping the free market and lowering taxes. Independent companies like Tesla could replace all gasoline cars by 2025. That would have a much greater environmental effect than any democratic money scheme. Kindle books, email, and similar technological advances have greatly lessened our dependency on paper. Technological advances in solar panels, and other forms of generating power are also important. 

 

Anyone that understands economic and technological growth would understand that lowering taxes and stimulating the free market economy is the best route to technological advancement. 

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. 

15 hours ago, Brian said:

If the problem is temperature, your graph should, also:

 

Notice anything curious? The temperature leads the CO₂ levels -- except for now?

 

Hmmm...

 

Are we sure we understand the relationship?

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

30 minutes ago, Marblehead said:

You can't control the world.  Those who try only fail.

 

I recently read something similar to that somewhere.

 

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. 

1 minute ago, windwalker said:

? 

you posting on tech.  that was produced using tech, and other things that might contribute to what you 

have such feelings about.   They are so  poor, and yet they have atomic weapons...is it the rest of the worlds fault,

and the rest of world should fix it....

 

If I had such passion I would have moved there to help them out.....hey might be an idea instead of posting on the net.

you can go help them directly...  Just a thought...I'd do it...

just saying..

 

 

 

 

Yeah ok .....

13 minutes ago, windwalker said:

More to the point if somehow the US is able to influence the global temperature who do we influence it for?

 

Who decides what temperature is good, and what is not...What if some small island country out in the ocean needs it to be cooler for it to remain above sea level, and some other country needs it be warmer for better food production.  

 

Just a gen comment not directed at anyone....

 

 

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. 

13 minutes ago, Brian said:

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.

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. 

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. 

3 hours ago, Brian said:

The Paris Accord is fraudulent.  It is a power grab which uses bogus "science" (the facts and the history show the "big lie" for what it is) as the basis to siphon billions of Dollars out of the economies of nations like the US in a global redistribution scheme that lines the pockets of major financial & political players while doing virtually nothing to address the "problem" on which the whole deal is predicated.

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. 

43 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

Where did that statistic come from? Is it legitimate?

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

1 hour ago, Marblehead said:

No.  People in Japan and China have to wear protective masks in order to breathe.  Americans do not.

 

The USA has always been, until recently, a rogue nation.  That is how we became the most powerful nation on the planet.

 

Human population growth is what is ruining the planet.  That is happening in Asia and the Middle East, not the USA.

 

 

 

Human population growth is slowing in all industrialised countries, and in some like Japan and some European countries there are dangers of decline without immigration, (which is a principal reason for the migrant crisis) 

99.9% of credible scientists agree that climate change is a thing and most agree that there is enough evidence that mans influence on it is a threat to the future of humanity, or at least that it isn't worth the gamble. Even North Korea are on board, they only people who don't seem to think it exists are the Republican party. Some of them say that God will take  a care of it and Trump believes the paranoid notion that it is all a Chinese plot. The lunatics are running the asylum!

The people who are going to get rich out of this don't care as they won't be around to face the consequences. They are relics of the fossil fuel era trying to grasp hold of their power, which is inevitably doomed as clean energy becomes cheaper, but they will do whatever they can to stay in control.

 Being the most powerful nation on earth is worse than useless if you are going to use that power to screw up the world and take a dump on your own front lawn then refuse to help clean it up. 

The USA is now in a small group of rogue nations who don't care about the future of the planet, environmental catastrophe is potentially a much more serious threat than nuclear war yet the biggest polluter in history is backing out from helping to clear up its mess. It could be time the rest of the planet starts considering the USA a "rogue state", hijacked by oligarchs putting personal profit above the welfare of the planet. If it were a smaller less powerful nation the rest of the world might start talking about intervention on behalf of the greater good. 

Not sure what can be done really, the guy who did it was British and British society had saved his parents from probable torture and death, then gave them a secure prosperous life, then it educated him and gave him the money to go to university. He wasn't downtrodden or an idiot. 

As a first step they should probably say anyone who goes to Iraq or Libya shouldn't be allowed back in the country. All Mosques should have English speaking Imams and they should be checked regularly for any offensive content being taught. 

There needs to be more intellectual confrontation with Islamic ideology, but I don't know how that can be done except by insiders.