Climate change

[reckless]

Originally Posted by OntheRail

Yes Trump said "Let ME Think About It". He did and thought it to be a bad deal for the USA.

The next thing Trump needs to do is close all our military bases in Germany and let the Germans pay for their own homeland defense and security. Bring our troops home, Mister President!

To hell with Germany (and Europe) and Angela's Muslim migrant suicide mission.

[Ocala Mike]

Makes perfect sense to do so, if you believe that he's a Russian apparatchik.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Ocala Mike

Makes perfect sense to do so, if you believe that he's a Russian apparatchik.

Actually, it made very good sense decades ago under numerous presidents who didn't have the gonads Trump has.

[davew]

Originally Posted by OntheRail

Yes Trump said "Let ME Think About It". He did and thought it to be a bad deal for the USA.

what's so bad about it? the country already supports over half the people in the USA, why not half the people in the world?

[tucker6]

If the US followed its obligations set forth in the Paris Accord, it would reduce temperatures in 2100 by 0.008C. That's far less than the uncertainty of the numbers in the temperature record by more than a factor of 10.

if we were optimistic and continued the obligations beyond 2030 all the way to the end of the century, it would reduce global temperature rise by 0.031C. That's 1/20th of a degree F folks. Again, well inside the uncertainty bars of the measurements themselves.

The entirety of the Paris Agreement globally would reduce the rise by 0.08C, and if we also extended it another 70 years, it would reduce the rise by 0.17C. Again, this assumes the models are correct, but which have never been so far.

So at a cost to our economy of massive job loss and wealth loss over the coming decades, AND the dispersal of $75B to foreign countries to help them clean up their messes, we will save the planet (potentially) a fever of 0.17C. The global cost would rise into the trillions.

As stated by me many times on here, this is simply a redistribution of wealth scheme. Who would spend trillions on an issue where the problem is not well defined and modeled with any great confidence and the benefit by the spend is dubious at best. $2 trillion spend for maybe a 0.17C savings? That's ridiculous.

As for the US, why do we need to outlay $75B to other countries? We can clean up our act without the need to give freebies to everyone else. I heard on TV today that India expects $1.3T in proceeds from this redistribution scheme over time. That's insane. They have 300 million people without electricity in India, yet found enough cash to have nuclear weapons. Why don't they spend less on the military and more on their people, and why should I have to foot the bill for their poor decision-making?

[incoming]

Originally Posted by tucker6

As for the US, why do we need to outlay $75B to other countries? We can clean up our act without the need to give freebies to everyone else. I heard on TV today that India expects $1.3T in proceeds from this redistribution scheme over time. That's insane. They have 300 million people without electricity in India, yet found enough cash to have nuclear weapons. Why don't they spend less on the military and more on their people, and why should I have to foot the bill for their poor decision-making?

It only makes sense if you use "Dim's Logic." It is just one more monstrosity of a brain fart that cost trillions to implement and then leave the mess to be cleaned up by someone else. Time to hit the streets and torch something else or deny someone their rights for a invited guest to deliver their speech.

[davew]

it is past the point of no return

Al Gore made the proclamation over 10 years ago
http://www.progressivestoday.com/al-...ten-years-ago/

[Inner Dirt]

Originally Posted by davew

it is past the point of no return

Al Gore made the proclamation over 10 years ago
http://www.progressivestoday.com/al-...ten-years-ago/

If called on it he will say his scientists used models using the extreme of the variables erring on the side of caution. People that believe in global warming or climate change are never wrong, they have a phone book long list of excuses for all their wrong predictions.

[Rise Over Run]

Politicians that like to lecture us on the importance of addressing climate change are perfectly receptive to fly in separate planes because it would be uncomfortable to fly with another FLOTUS...

Twitter

__________________
Slope Handicapping ™ - winning since 2005

Our learning institutions only want diversity in appearances, not in thoughts.

[PaceAdvantage]

She needed her own plane in case she was hit by one of her debilitating "spells" again...

Either that or she's a racist.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

She needed her own plane in case she was hit by one of her debilitating "spells" again...

Either that or she's a racist.

Or a extremely elite elitist.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by tucker6

If the US followed its obligations set forth in the Paris Accord, it would reduce temperatures in 2100 by 0.008C. That's far less than the uncertainty of the numbers in the temperature record by more than a factor of 10.

if we were optimistic and continued the obligations beyond 2030 all the way to the end of the century, it would reduce global temperature rise by 0.031C. That's 1/20th of a degree F folks. Again, well inside the uncertainty bars of the measurements themselves.

The entirety of the Paris Agreement globally would reduce the rise by 0.08C, and if we also extended it another 70 years, it would reduce the rise by 0.17C. Again, this assumes the models are correct, but which have never been so far.

So at a cost to our economy of massive job loss and wealth loss over the coming decades, AND the dispersal of $75B to foreign countries to help them clean up their messes, we will save the planet (potentially) a fever of 0.17C. The global cost would rise into the trillions.

As stated by me many times on here, this is simply a redistribution of wealth scheme. Who would spend trillions on an issue where the problem is not well defined and modeled with any great confidence and the benefit by the spend is dubious at best. $2 trillion spend for maybe a 0.17C savings? That's ridiculous.

As for the US, why do we need to outlay $75B to other countries? We can clean up our act without the need to give freebies to everyone else. I heard on TV today that India expects $1.3T in proceeds from this redistribution scheme over time. That's insane. They have 300 million people without electricity in India, yet found enough cash to have nuclear weapons. Why don't they spend less on the military and more on their people, and why should I have to foot the bill for their poor decision-making?

Well

Well stated, Tucker! And The Donald has heard you and other critical thinkers like you. We're out of the Paris Accord. Not only do I love it but Wall Street does too!

[classhandicapper]

Originally Posted by tucker6

If the US followed its obligations set forth in the Paris Accord, it would reduce temperatures in 2100 by 0.008C. That's far less than the uncertainty of the numbers in the temperature record by more than a factor of 10.

if we were optimistic and continued the obligations beyond 2030 all the way to the end of the century, it would reduce global temperature rise by 0.031C. That's 1/20th of a degree F folks. Again, well inside the uncertainty bars of the measurements themselves.

The entirety of the Paris Agreement globally would reduce the rise by 0.08C, and if we also extended it another 70 years, it would reduce the rise by 0.17C. Again, this assumes the models are correct, but which have never been so far.

So at a cost to our economy of massive job loss and wealth loss over the coming decades, AND the dispersal of $75B to foreign countries to help them clean up their messes, we will save the planet (potentially) a fever of 0.17C. The global cost would rise into the trillions.

As stated by me many times on here, this is simply a redistribution of wealth scheme. Who would spend trillions on an issue where the problem is not well defined and modeled with any great confidence and the benefit by the spend is dubious at best. $2 trillion spend for maybe a 0.17C savings? That's ridiculous.

As for the US, why do we need to outlay $75B to other countries? We can clean up our act without the need to give freebies to everyone else. I heard on TV today that India expects $1.3T in proceeds from this redistribution scheme over time. That's insane. They have 300 million people without electricity in India, yet found enough cash to have nuclear weapons. Why don't they spend less on the military and more on their people, and why should I have to foot the bill for their poor decision-making?

I can't vouch for your numbers, but this is absolutely the correct way to think about the issue.

Beyond that they are worried about 100 years from now as if the world, how we house ourselves, where people want to live and work, the technology we have at our disposal, etc.. will all be identical. That's nonsensical. Even if the temperature was exactly the same 100 years from now there would still be huge changes to all of that. In fact, that's what we are striving for. In 100 years we'll probably be terraforming the moon and Mars and have much greater control over the environment on earth. This is pretty much a non issue even if the science and projections are 100% accurate.

[reckless]

Wow, now, just maybe... super fraud Elon Musk will have to use his own money instead of the billions of subsidy dollars he glommed from the US taxpayer to finance his idiotic dreams.

[Jess Hawsen Arown]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Well

Well stated, Tucker! And The Donald has heard you and other critical thinkers like you. We're out of the Paris Accord. Not only do I love it but Wall Street does too!

Another in the long list of great things that President Trump has done in undoing the nightmare of the previous 8 years.