Is the USA now a rogue state?

[Jetsun]

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

 

 

[Jetsun]

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. 

 

 

 

 

[dawei]

1 hour ago, Jetsun said:

 

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

 

 

 

It seems to me the graphs show the increasing starting around 1900...   and the difference between 1900-1950 vs 1950-present seems very similar.   So I'm not seeing a massive spike when we're talking about less than 1C in each of those ranges.

 

1 hour ago, Jetsun said:

 

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. 

 

China is likely already ahead of the US in green tech, we just don't realize it.   Why is that so bad?  Does the US have to be first at everything?

 

Their government can drive directions at will where ours depends largely on firms willing to take a risk to generate a future profit.  There is no excuse that solar, wind or water energy is not more dominant in our country except that it is not profitable.  The US is already stuck regarding the technology but I don't find anyone really coming out about how our profit driven model of business does this.

 

We're supposed to spend 100 Billion a year to be a part of an agreement where other countries have nothing they must adhere to.   If Obama had run this through Congress, I wonder if it would of approved it... but that's an aside.

 

I think what folks miss is the bigger picture... the budget and deficit... SOMETHING MUST GO... SOMETHING MUST STOP...  The US saw declines in CO2 prior to the agreement and will see more going forward... We have our own standards that drive, say improving vehicle mileage and emissions.   These things do not stop. 

 

We need to get our affairs under control while trying to improve our economy.    Maybe in 10 years when we're out of debt and running smoothly, and we've seen another 10 years of US decline in CO2... we're re-negotiate something to teach the rest of the world how to do it. 

 

If that's rogue... I'm all for it.

[MooNiNite]

3 hours ago, Jetsun said:

 

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. 

 

 

You realize what you're saying is backwards right? Technology doesn't advance through investing in the government. It advances from less government funding and more capital for the millions of businesses all working to create better technologies.

 

Elon Musk's, and every other business in the USA, will do far greater under Trump's administration because the government is simply getting out of the way. 

 

What do you think every single business in America is doing? They are competing to create more improved technologies.

 

Im not sure if Trump made a mistake with the Paris Agreement, but his economic policies will do much more towards technological advancements than anything this agreement could do. 

 

Edited June 3, 2017 by MooNiNite

[Brian]

2 hours ago, Jetsun said:

 

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. 

 

 

 

 

Elon Musk has raked in untold millions by being firmly attached to the test of government "green" subsidies. His future profits hinge on the endless continuation of that corporate welfare.

 

Meanwhile, he jets around in a  Gulfstream G6500ER.  He's a self-serving "Leer Jet Liberal" hypocrite.

[Brian]

3 hours ago, Jetsun said:

 

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

 

 

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.

[dawei]

2 hours ago, Brian said:

Scale is important,

 

Enuf said 

[Aetherous]

2 hours ago, Brian said:

His future profits hinge on the endless continuation of that corporate welfare.

 

Or people choosing his products...his solar roofing is interesting.

[windwalker]

34 minutes ago, Aetherous said:

 

Or people choosing his products...his solar roofing is interesting.

 

Something to consider with solar. 

Once the electrical generation capacity reaches a certain limit. There will be some type of tax needed to support the traditional electric companies for the infrastructure that they must maintain.  At some point the way electricity is distributed and maintained will have to undergo some very big changes.   

Edited June 3, 2017 by windwalker

[Michael Sternbach]

I think this discussion somewhat misses the mark. Sure enough, there are all kinds of debates going on between scientists, and Trump isn't even one of them. The real issue is that the Trump administration shows scant respect to the international community, as its imperialistic mottos clearly express. And that's what currently makes the US indeed a rogue state, at least to some degree.

 

 

"Melania, there's no more paper. Bring me some more international agreements!"

[Marblehead]

Some things need to be broken so that they can be fixed properly.

 

[Brian]

20 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

I think this discussion somewhat misses the mark. Sure enough, there are all kinds of debates going on between scientists, and Trump isn't even one of them. The real issue is that the Trump administration shows scant respect to the international community, as its imperialistic mottos clearly express. And that's what currently makes the US indeed a rogue state, at least to some degree.

 

 

"Melania, there's no more paper. Bring me some more international agreements!"

No, I'm afraid you miss the point.

 

Obama didn't have the authority to enter into a treaty and didn't have the authority to write a check for a billion dollars as a down payment.  The agreement is illegal.

 

Beyond that, the agreement is a redistribution scheme which transfers money from some countries to other countries with little promised impact on the planet's average global temperature.

 

On top of that, it is voluntary (for now), meaning countries don't have to actually fulfill their commitments but many will still be financial recipients regardless of their own efforts.

 

On top of that, China doesn't start for 20 years and India for 25.

 

On top of that, countries like China and India can simply claim compliance poses a negative economic impact and not comply while still being in compliance.

 

Analyses estimate between 5 & 6.5 million jobs lost in the US over the next 23 years (particularly in the energy and manufacturing sectors) and significant increases in energy costs, which will cause inflation on all domestic goods and services (which will give countries like China an additional economic advantage).

 

Illegal, doesn't do what it is claimed to do, full of holes, and particularly bad for the US...

 

Have you actually read the agreement, Michael?

 

BTW, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, NASDAQ and the S&P 500 all closed with record highs again  after Trump's announcement.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Brian

[Brian]

Oh, and FWIW...

 

Looks like some of that billion dollars US taxpayers have already contributed (and presumably won't get back) has been sent to Starjumper to plant trees  (but being represented as coming from the kind Europeans...)

[MooNiNite]

30 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

I think this discussion somewhat misses the mark. Sure enough, there are all kinds of debates going on between scientists, and Trump isn't even one of them. The real issue is that the Trump administration shows scant respect to the international community, as its imperialistic mottos clearly express. And that's what currently makes the US indeed a rogue state, at least to some degree.

 

 

"Melania, there's no more paper. Bring me some more international agreements!"

 

You wanna lose another 10 trillion? For nothing?

 

You do realize before Trump, Obama was threatening ww3 with Russia? Like the whole world was going to end. 

 

If you have looked at History, USA "Internationalism" been pretty destructive. 

 

Obama dropped how many bombs in the last 8 years?

[MooNiNite]

I think the world has had enough of USA "Internationalism." If it wasn't for our free market capitalist society producing so many innovations, we would probably have one of the worst reputations in the world. 

 

[ralis]

13 minutes ago, MooNiNite said:

 

You wanna lose another 10 trillion? For nothing?

 

You do realize before Trump, Obama was threatening ww3 with Russia? Like the whole world was going to end. 

 

If you have looked at History, USA "Internationalism" been pretty destructive. 

 

Obama dropped how many bombs in the last 8 years?

 

How many missiles  did Trump order launch on a near empty airfield? And, for what?

Edited June 4, 2017 by ralis
Edit

[Marblehead]

And it's time we stopped telling other leaders how to rule their countries and paid more attention to how our own country is being ruled.  And yes, get our ass out of the ME too. 

[Marblehead]

2 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

How many missiles  did Trump order launch on a near empty airfield? And, for what?

To destroy the air field with minimal casualties.  Didn't want ISIS taking control of it.

 

 

[Michael Sternbach]

The reactions to my post confirm what I said in the first place: This is about politics, not about science.

 

Final certainty regarding the relationship between CO2 emission and climate change is hard to come by lest we just continue this global experiment and see how it ends, but given the catastrophic magnitude of the potential fallout, it would be wise to err on the 'safe' side. And any efforts in that direction, insufficient as they may be, should be supported, IMO.

 

Instead of insisting on destructive and eventually unsustainable technologies, why not greatly intensify research into alternative energy sources asap?

[Brian]

5 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

The reactions to my post confirm what I said in the first place: This is about politics, not about science.

 

Final certainty regarding the relationship between CO2 emission and climate change is hard to come by lest we just continue this global experiment and see how it ends, but given the catastrophic magnitude of the potential fallout, it would be wise to err on the 'safe' side. And any efforts in that direction, insufficient as they may be, should be supported, IMO.

 

Instead of insisting on destructive and eventually unsustainable technologies, why not greatly intensify research into alternative energy sources asap?

Yes, Michael, this is political -- the "global warming" thing has been political rather than scientific from the very beginning.  This is precisely the problem.

[ralis]

5 minutes ago, Brian said:

Yes, Michael, this is political -- the "global warming" thing has been political rather than scientific from the very beginning.  This is precisely the problem.

 

Paid fossil fuel shills are responsible, along with the Koch bros. and their neoliberal demagoguery. 

[Brian]

10 minutes ago, ralis said:

 

Paid fossil fuel shills are responsible, along with the Koch bros. and their neoliberal demagoguery. 

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.

Edited June 4, 2017 by Brian

[windwalker]

1 hour ago, ralis said:

 

How many missiles  did Trump order launch on a near empty airfield? And, for what?

 

Easy,

so you and others can post on the internet and say what a bad guy he is

I don't think there is a price tag one can put on this.....

 

Or did I miss your point and he should have used more, it wasn't enough ?

[MooNiNite]

Global Warming and Climate Change are two different things.

 

One is a theory about how the other can be influenced.... 

 

The Washington Post messes this up pretty frequently.. 

[Jetsun]

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.

Edited June 4, 2017 by Jetsun