Re: Al Gore and Trump talk about climate change

by **Floyd Robertson** 2017-06-02, 09:04

Nice.

Al Gore and Trump talk about climate change - Page 10 DBQjeibV0AA5BQ-

by **GRR Spartan** 2017-06-02, 09:05

Combine Trump's proposed budget and the Climate Agreement opt out and its a cloudy scenario.

For example the proposed budget defunds the EPA exhaust testing lab in aa, MI where they test vehicles to see if mileage claims and exhaust data presented by the manufacturers is accurate. The budget also cuts Federal grants to research universities.

Without those facilities and grants, Hyundai would have never been fined and forced to put the correct miles ppg estimates on the sticker and VW diesels would still be on the road since they were caught by university labs.

by Guest 2017-06-02, 09:35

Floyd Robertson wrote:Nice.

Just think without those countries in the temperature won't be curbed by 1/2 degree over 80 years. My god, the humanity.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2017-06-02, 09:38

LooseGoose wrote:
Floyd Robertson wrote:Nice.

Just think without those countries in the temperature won't be curbed by 1/2 degree over 80 years. My god, the humanity.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Troll on Goosie. Troll on.

by Guest 2017-06-02, 10:00

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Just think without those countries in the temperature won't be curbed by 1/2 degree over 80 years. My god, the humanity.

You have no clue what you're talking about. Troll on Goosie. Troll on.

Someday it would be interesting if you actually used a fact in a post.
Matt Lewis Schools CNN Panel On Paris Agreement [VIDEO]

“America with President Obama made an overly ambitious pledge to cut greenhouse emissions,” said Lewis. “What that would do is cost about six million jobs, probably trillions of dollars in energy costs, but what do we get out of it?”

“That’s where the deal really falls apart, ” he says.

Lewis then discussed what would happen if the Paris deal was implemented in full, saying that the benefit would not be worth putting millions of Americans out of work.

“It would shave .02 degrees Celsius off of warming by [the year] 2100,” Lewis claims. “It’s not a good deal for America.”

by **DWags** 2017-06-02, 10:09

Meh, out of the 50 most innovative companies for renewable energy in the world, 43 are in the U.S., 17 are in California. What does that mean? I have no fucking clue. But it seems like maybe the U.S. is maybe doing what it can. I don't think that those 43 companies will lose jobs. I don't know really what any of this shit means, so I'm not going to bitch about it.

I do laugh at the morons that say it's not a big deal. Of course it is. The bottle law was a big deal. It helps, everything helps. To say that pollution isn't hurting our world and our kids futures is as asinine as people thinking in the 50's putting smoke in in your lungs from cigs wasn't a bad thing, or in the early 80's think doing blow was fucking great cause it really couldn't hurt you. If you are so fucking stupid that you need a study to tell you that, well, you're going to believe man doesn't have an effect on the world and that climate change is a hoax. Why argue with them, they're either idiots, or they're heavy into the business side and would sacrifice a couple people getting cancer from eating fish from a polluted stream for some jobs. Whatever.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2017-06-02, 10:18

LooseGoose wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

You have no clue what you're talking about. Troll on Goosie. Troll on.

Someday it would be interesting if you actually used a fact in a post.
Matt Lewis Schools CNN Panel On Paris Agreement [VIDEO]

“America with President Obama made an overly ambitious pledge to cut greenhouse emissions,” said Lewis. “What that would do is cost about six million jobs, probably trillions of dollars in energy costs, but what do we get out of it?”

“That’s where the deal really falls apart, ” he says.

Lewis then discussed what would happen if the Paris deal was implemented in full, saying that the benefit would not be worth putting millions of Americans out of work.

“It would shave .02 degrees Celsius off of warming by [the year] 2100,” Lewis claims. “It’s not a good deal for America.”

How hypocritical. Goose, you are a self admitted troll that has said you have no desire for an honest debate. Why should I care what you post from now on? Dazzle me.

by **NigelUno** 2017-06-02, 10:19

LooseGoose wrote:
Floyd Robertson wrote:Nice.

Just think without those countries in the temperature won't be curbed by 1/2 degree over 80 years. My god, the humanity.

Why did so many companies support the pact?

Like these:

Exxon and Conoco Reiterate Support for Paris Climate Deal

Do you support Trump in this decision?

by **DWags** 2017-06-02, 10:41

JCPenny employs 104,000 people. There are 50,000 coal mners left in America. If West Virginia opens that whole new coal mine, because of technology it will add 70 more coal mining jobs.

I just don't think people are doing the math here.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2017-06-02, 10:46

I'm super excited to see if China passes us as the #1 superpower in the world in my lifetime.

by **NigelUno** 2017-06-02, 10:47

DWags wrote:JCPenny employs 104,000 people. There are 50,000 coal mners left in America. If West Virginia opens that whole new coal mine, because of technology it will add 70 more coal mining jobs.

I just don't think people are doing the math here.

He told the coal miners we would get out of the agreement, Bannon put it on his white board, and here we are.

It's a shame he didn't listen to one of his closest advisors, but I think she was home with her kids.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-06-02, 10:50

DWags wrote:JCPenny employs 104,000 people. There are 50,000 coal mners left in America. If West Virginia opens that whole new coal mine, because of technology it will add 70 more coal mining jobs.

I just don't think people are doing the math here.

in their defense, republicans aren't big fans of math and science.

by **Robert J Sakimano** 2017-06-02, 10:50

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:I'm super excited to see if China passes us as the #1 superpower in the world in my lifetime.

if/when they do, it'll be fake news.

by Guest 2017-06-05, 09:34

I'm in favor of this. Walk the walk and I'll start to give credence to your BS.

To fight climate change, start with Leonardo DiCaprio's private jet lifestyle

But if climate change is really such a crisis, and if sacrifice on our part is needed to stop it, then why aren’t we seeing more sacrifice from people who think it’s a problem?

That’s what one person asked on Twitter: "What if climate scientists decided, as a group, to make their conferences all virtual? No more air travel. What a statement!” And what if academics in general — most of whom think climate change is a big deal — started doing the same thing to make an even bigger statement?

It would be big. And what if politicians and celebrities stopped jetting around the world — often on wasteful private jets instead of flying commercial with the hoi polloi — as a statement of the importance of fighting climate change?

And what if politicians and celebrities lived in average-sized houses, to reduce their carbon footprints? What if John Kerry, who was much put out by Trump’s action, gave up his yacht-and-mansions lifestyle?

What if, indeed? One reason why so many people don’t take climate change seriously is that the people who are constantly telling us it’s a crisis never actually act like it’s a crisis. They’re all-in for sacrifices by other people, but never seem to make much in the way of sacrifices themselves.

Well, some might say, that’s why we need laws. Even people who are deeply concerned about climate change lack the self-discipline to change their behavior. So we need discipline to be imposed, by the force of government.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2017-06-05, 09:41

LooseGoose wrote:I'm in favor of this. Walk the walk and I'll start to give credence to your BS.

To fight climate change, start with Leonardo DiCaprio's private jet lifestyle

But if climate change is really such a crisis, and if sacrifice on our part is needed to stop it, then why aren’t we seeing more sacrifice from people who think it’s a problem?

That’s what one person asked on Twitter: "What if climate scientists decided, as a group, to make their conferences all virtual? No more air travel. What a statement!” And what if academics in general — most of whom think climate change is a big deal — started doing the same thing to make an even bigger statement?

It would be big. And what if politicians and celebrities stopped jetting around the world — often on wasteful private jets instead of flying commercial with the hoi polloi — as a statement of the importance of fighting climate change?

And what if politicians and celebrities lived in average-sized houses, to reduce their carbon footprints? What if John Kerry, who was much put out by Trump’s action, gave up his yacht-and-mansions lifestyle?

What if, indeed? One reason why so many people don’t take climate change seriously is that the people who are constantly telling us it’s a crisis never actually act like it’s a crisis. They’re all-in for sacrifices by other people, but never seem to make much in the way of sacrifices themselves.

Well, some might say, that’s why we need laws. Even people who are deeply concerned about climate change lack the self-discipline to change their behavior. So we need discipline to be imposed, by the force of government.

Goose,

Hollywood celebrities aren't scientists. This is a pretty dumb post.

by **DWags** 2017-06-05, 09:50

LooseGoose wrote:I'm in favor of this. Walk the walk and I'll start to give credence to your BS.

To fight climate change, start with Leonardo DiCaprio's private jet lifestyle

But if climate change is really such a crisis, and if sacrifice on our part is needed to stop it, then why aren’t we seeing more sacrifice from people who think it’s a problem?

That’s what one person asked on Twitter: "What if climate scientists decided, as a group, to make their conferences all virtual? No more air travel. What a statement!” And what if academics in general — most of whom think climate change is a big deal — started doing the same thing to make an even bigger statement?

It would be big. And what if politicians and celebrities stopped jetting around the world — often on wasteful private jets instead of flying commercial with the hoi polloi — as a statement of the importance of fighting climate change?

And what if politicians and celebrities lived in average-sized houses, to reduce their carbon footprints? What if John Kerry, who was much put out by Trump’s action, gave up his yacht-and-mansions lifestyle?

What if, indeed? One reason why so many people don’t take climate change seriously is that the people who are constantly telling us it’s a crisis never actually act like it’s a crisis. They’re all-in for sacrifices by other people, but never seem to make much in the way of sacrifices themselves.

Well, some might say, that’s why we need laws. Even people who are deeply concerned about climate change lack the self-discipline to change their behavior. So we need discipline to be imposed, by the force of government.

Do you believe in climate change or not? all I'm asking. If you don't, fine, live your life the way you are, because you make zero difference in it. If you do, fine, live your life the way you are, because you make zero difference in it.

We can argue all we want about this shit. I drive my car only when needed, the wife and I recycle, I do't litter. Goose, I'm assuming you do to, so WTF. It's not us. We can be like these dumb asses and argue about it, and if it is happening, our kids are fucked. And if it isn't happening, what a joke.

Here's the deal, It seems to me that if you want to slow down travelers it's going to effect a shit ton of jobs in that industry. If you want to get factories to stop doing what they're doing, it will effect corporate profits. I guess that's where we're at. Do we want grunts jobs effected or corporate profits? I guess it depends what side of the isle you're on.

I got thirty years left tops. When the great flood comes, only thing that will effect me is when my dead body floats out of a grave dug for me, 25 years earlier.

by Guest 2017-06-05, 10:21

I've said here many times that the climate is obviously changing - always has, always will.

The difference is the politicians wanting to use natural cycles to dictate lives.

You people are aware that the "Paris accord" is/was projected to lower temps by 0.02 degrees C by 2100? The uproar over that is laughable given the accuracy of the climate models so far.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-06-05, 10:26

LooseGoose wrote:I've said here many times that the climate is obviously changing - always has, always will.

The difference is the politicians wanting to use natural cycles to dictate lives.

You people are aware that the "Paris accord" is/was projected to lower temps by 0.02 degrees C by 2100? The uproar over that is laughable given the accuracy of the climate models so far.

If there's one place you shouldn't get your talking points from, it's a trump speech.

Here's the response from the people who wrote the 0.2 degrees article in the first place.

http://news.mit.edu/2017/mit-issues-statement-research-paris-agreement-0602

by Guest 2017-06-05, 10:29

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:I've said here many times that the climate is obviously changing - always has, always will.

The difference is the politicians wanting to use natural cycles to dictate lives.

You people are aware that the "Paris accord" is/was projected to lower temps by 0.02 degrees C by 2100? The uproar over that is laughable given the accuracy of the climate models so far.

If there's one place you shouldn't get your talking points from, it's a trump speech.

Here's the response from the people who wrote the 0.2 degrees article in the first place.

http://news.mit.edu/2017/mit-issues-statement-research-paris-agreement-0602

thank you for confirming the point.

Jesus. Copenhagen is NOT Paris.

First, the 0.2 degree-figure used in the talking point reflects the incremental impact of the Paris Agreement compared with the earlier Copenhagen agreement.

I guess using the logic in that statement the Cavs won 1 of the 1st 2 games in the finals, I'll just add their 2 games together against one of the Warriors games.

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-06-05, 10:35

You cherry picked the wrong line.

If you instead compare the impact of the Paris Agreement to no climate policy, then the temperature reduction is much larger, on the order of 1 degree Celsius — 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — by 2100.

by Guest 2017-06-05, 10:40

Travis of the Cosmos wrote:You cherry picked the wrong line.

If you instead compare the impact of the Paris Agreement to no climate policy, then the temperature reduction is much larger, on the order of 1 degree Celsius — 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — by 2100.

Are we still in the Copenhagen deal?

by **Travis of the Cosmos** 2017-06-05, 10:47

LooseGoose wrote:
Travis of the Cosmos wrote:You cherry picked the wrong line.

If you instead compare the impact of the Paris Agreement to no climate policy, then the temperature reduction is much larger, on the order of 1 degree Celsius — 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit — by 2100.

Are we still in the Copenhagen deal?

Honestly, I can't find a solid answer on that. However, my inkling would be that it would be similarly unenforceable so that whatever we agreed to there we are also out of, but I'm not exactly sure.

by Guest 2017-06-07, 16:42

Yep, this is just weather......but if it were hot or drought it'd be global warming.

California's endless winter: 8 feet of snow still on the ground in June

by Guest 2017-06-07, 16:45

Oh....and here's an MIT professor that must be a science denier....
In the future, people will marvel how hysterical mankind has been, Lindzen says

And according to you, is the world warming or not?

The climate is constantly changing, it has never stayed constant. We had a warming episode in 1978-1998, probably comparable to several tenths of a degree. I am using the word "probably" because when the measurement error is plus minus 0.2 °C, you may always modify your results to match a trend you find convenient. To deduce trends from changes comparable to tenths of a degree is nonsense from a statistical perspective. It is almost impossible to say with certainty that the warming has taken place. The international panel of the U.N. known as the IPCC acronym is claiming: The warming between 1919 and 1940 wasn't caused by humans but the warming between 1978 and 1998 was. But their magnitude and shape was basically identical. It's propaganda. You may always focus on small changes and scale the graph so that it looks dramatic to the naked eye.

What about the argument about the 10 hottest years in history that were uniformly recorded from 1998?

If 1998 is the warmest one in your dataset from the beginning of your measurements, and if the temperature stabilizes afterwards, then it seems logical that most of the following years will belong among the warmest ones. This argument says nothing about the trends. I think that this argument is abusing the people's innumeracy. It's a fact that since 1998, the Earth has basically seen no temperature trend. First, this 20-year-old hiatus wasn't predicted by the IPCC models. Second, they aren't even attempting to seriously explain it. Ex post explanations, e.g. that the heat was stored in the ocean and will emerge from the ocean sometime in the future, aren't convincing.

by **DWags** 2017-06-07, 17:21

Goose when you pretend you're a conservative do you consider your faux persona a Goldwater conservative?

by Guest 2017-06-07, 18:03

DWags wrote:Goose when you pretend you're a conservative do you consider your faux persona a Goldwater conservative?

Seeing this speech made me who I am. This speech should be shown to all Americans once a year. It's possibly the greatest political speech of all time. My eyes well up just thinking about it.

by **NigelUno** 2017-06-07, 18:05

LooseGoose wrote:Oh....and here's an MIT professor that must be a science denier....
In the future, people will marvel how hysterical mankind has been, Lindzen says

And according to you, is the world warming or not?

The climate is constantly changing, it has never stayed constant. We had a warming episode in 1978-1998, probably comparable to several tenths of a degree. I am using the word "probably" because when the measurement error is plus minus 0.2 °C, you may always modify your results to match a trend you find convenient. To deduce trends from changes comparable to tenths of a degree is nonsense from a statistical perspective. It is almost impossible to say with certainty that the warming has taken place. The international panel of the U.N. known as the IPCC acronym is claiming: The warming between 1919 and 1940 wasn't caused by humans but the warming between 1978 and 1998 was. But their magnitude and shape was basically identical. It's propaganda. You may always focus on small changes and scale the graph so that it looks dramatic to the naked eye.

What about the argument about the 10 hottest years in history that were uniformly recorded from 1998?

If 1998 is the warmest one in your dataset from the beginning of your measurements, and if the temperature stabilizes afterwards, then it seems logical that most of the following years will belong among the warmest ones. This argument says nothing about the trends. I think that this argument is abusing the people's innumeracy. It's a fact that since 1998, the Earth has basically seen no temperature trend. First, this 20-year-old hiatus wasn't predicted by the IPCC models. Second, they aren't even attempting to seriously explain it. Ex post explanations, e.g. that the heat was stored in the ocean and will emerge from the ocean sometime in the future, aren't convincing.

Goose? Didn't you say you thought the climate was changing...or warming?

by **GRR Spartan** 2017-06-07, 20:16

LooseGoose wrote:I'm in favor of this. Walk the walk and I'll start to give credence to your BS.

To fight climate change, start with Leonardo DiCaprio's private jet lifestyle

But if climate change is really such a crisis, and if sacrifice on our part is needed to stop it, then why aren’t we seeing more sacrifice from people who think it’s a problem?

That’s what one person asked on Twitter: "What if climate scientists decided, as a group, to make their conferences all virtual? No more air travel. What a statement!” And what if academics in general — most of whom think climate change is a big deal — started doing the same thing to make an even bigger statement?

It would be big. And what if politicians and celebrities stopped jetting around the world — often on wasteful private jets instead of flying commercial with the hoi polloi — as a statement of the importance of fighting climate change?

And what if politicians and celebrities lived in average-sized houses, to reduce their carbon footprints? What if John Kerry, who was much put out by Trump’s action, gave up his yacht-and-mansions lifestyle?

What if, indeed? One reason why so many people don’t take climate change seriously is that the people who are constantly telling us it’s a crisis never actually act like it’s a crisis. They’re all-in for sacrifices by other people, but never seem to make much in the way of sacrifices themselves.

Well, some might say, that’s why we need laws. Even people who are deeply concerned about climate change lack the self-discipline to change their behavior. So we need discipline to be imposed, by the force of government.

What the fuck has that got to do with anything but right wing propaganda and character association?

Its akin to being a "conservative" and/or a Law and Order Republican and smoke dope as you rant about Democrats and liberals.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2017-06-08, 08:39

Al Gore and Trump talk about climate change - Page 10 Zsi5uxhuxa2z

Is this the thread where we post turn of the century articles as if they mean anything today?

by Guest 2017-06-08, 09:33

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Is this the thread where we post turn of the century articles as if they mean anything today?

Yes, yes it is. It's amazing how we went through a period of global cooling after that article.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2017-06-08, 09:58

LooseGoose wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Is this the thread where we post turn of the century articles as if they mean anything today?

Yes, yes it is. It's amazing how we went through a period of global cooling after that article.

Al Gore and Trump talk about climate change - Page 10 Mean-temp-graph

Do you need your hand held to interpret this chart?

by Guest 2017-06-08, 10:07

Watch Out Pylon! wrote:
LooseGoose wrote:

Yes, yes it is. It's amazing how we went through a period of global cooling after that article.

Do you need your hand held to interpret this chart?

Thank you for confirming my statement.

by **Watch Out Pylon!** 2017-06-08, 10:19

LooseGoose wrote:
Watch Out Pylon! wrote:

Do you need your hand held to interpret this chart?

Thank you for confirming my statement.

Do you know what fossil fuels are? Do you know what they do to the atmosphere when burned? Do you know when humans really ramped up the use of them?

Sorry for posting like Nigel, but I have to talk to you like I would a 5 year old some times.

by **DWags** 2017-06-08, 19:03

https://www.google.com/amp/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/news/2013/13/130612-united-states-west-science-dust-storms-environment

Getting dusty

by **DWags** 2017-06-08, 19:04

Cough cough

https://www.google.com/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/36553594

by **DWags** 2017-06-08, 19:05

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/marshallshepherd/2017/05/10/dust-storms-in-the-southwestern-u-s-are-increasing-is-there-a-connection-to-valley-fever/amp/

by **DWags** 2017-06-08, 20:10

These storms aren't from man changing the environment are they?

by Guest 2017-06-08, 20:28

DWags wrote:These storms aren't from man changing the environment are they?

That's supposedly why we were going to see so many more hurricanes too.....didn't happen.

throw 50 darts at the wall though and maybe you'll hit the target with one, that's what these climate alarmists do.

by **DWags** 2017-06-08, 20:34

LooseGoose wrote:
DWags wrote:These storms aren't from man changing the environment are they?

That's supposedly why we were going to see so many more hurricanes too.....didn't happen.

throw 50 darts at the wall though and maybe you'll hit the target with one, that's what these climate alarmists do.

Al Gore and Trump talk about climate change - Page 10 502811600

My gawd that's great.

by **InTenSity** 2017-06-08, 21:03

LooseGoose wrote:
DWags wrote:These storms aren't from man changing the environment are they?

That's supposedly why we were going to see so many more hurricanes too.....didn't happen.

throw 50 darts at the wall though and maybe you'll hit the target with one, that's what these climate alarmists do.

El Nino and La Nina have a lot of influence on hurricane season. The last few years have been very active, but since a lot doesn't hit the US, who gives a shit. amirite?

by Sponsored content