President Trump Pulls U.S. Out of the Paris Climate Accord

[Lorenzoid]

The benefits of the US being part of the Agreement, as I see it, include being able to maintain at least a facade of leadership in world affairs. Sure, that's "vague," as @adurso points out. Things like leadership in world affairs, diplomacy, etc., ARE vague--hard to quantify. The effects are cumulative over various agreements, institutions, etc., that countries take part in. As the US continues to pull out of or away from one thing after another--we don't even sound 100% committed to NATO anymore--we lose our influence in the world bit by bit.

This has been explained numerous times but once more apparently. The biggest problem that should piss you off the most is that cited in the agreement (China and India specifically) are allowed to build an unlimited amount of coal fired plants with no time limit.

As I mentioned before, the largest polluters will only continue to pollute and not cut their emissions for at least another 13 years. This information is publicly available if you want to refute my claim.

The world expected the US to make many payments in the coming years to the Green Climate Fund. An amount that would be close to a $100 billion, by far the largest contributor to the fund using government funds AKA tax dollars. This does not include private businesses and corporations who would add another few billion. This amount would be triple what the rest of the world would contribute to the fund.

The main reason Trump pulled out of the Agreement, as I see it, is to make a big show of it--theatrics, with him at the center of the stage. What if the US had not pulled out that way but had simply flouted the terms by not contributing what the world expected of the US? Maybe I overlooked something, but from my reading of it the Agreement doesn't have teeth--contributions are self-determined by each country, and there are no penalties. What would the consequences have been? Trump is good at making excuses and spinning things, and I'm sure he could have come up with something that kept the rest of the world at bay. If the US had simply dragged its feet and not lived up to the spirit of the Agreement, it would have had essentially the same effect as not participating in it in the first place, but would have gotten less attention. It wouldn't be all over the news media, and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

 

[Skeptic14]

Are you a scientist? I am one. And because I am one, I'd never dream about second-guessing climate scientists. Because I know how much advanced knowledge that goes into a scientific publication.

But non-scientists apparently know better. About science. Go figure.

And here is another example of how science doesn't work.

Science works because it is empirical in nature, not authoritarian. In general, it is detrimental for scientist to avoid critiquing, second-guessing or questioning the findings of other scientist, particularly when the there is so little empirical evidence.

Further, the vast majority of peer reviewed content turns out false to some degree; and that's fine, because part of the process is the high level of scrutiny that should be applied in scientific fields, as opposed to the highly religious behavior of taking on authority the positions that work with your ideology.

 

[Storker]

science doesn't work

It doesn't? Hm. I must've missed that memo. Perhaps it came in while I was at the hospital getting an MR scan.

 

[Skeptic14]

science doesn't work.

It doesn't? Hm. I must've missed that memo. Perhaps it came in while I was at the hospital getting an MR scan.

Science works because it is empirical in nature, not authoritarian.

Nice try being a troll/dishonest... not that you had any credibility before but you definitely don't now.

 

[Caveeagle]

Are you a scientist? I am one. And because I am one, I'd never dream about second-guessing climate scientists. Because I know how much advanced knowledge that goes into a scientific publication.

But non-scientists apparently know better. About science. Go figure.

So are you suggesting that "scientist" have never come up with an incorrect conclusion? Or have been influenced by outside forces to suppress alternative evidence? Seriously.. Your "I am a scientist, so you must believe me" does not hold a lot of water for me. Were the "scientist" wrong in the 80's when they predicted global cooling?

Like I have said several times.. I am saying that I don't believe mankind has ANY impact on our environment. Just have yet to be convinced that we are their is a direct causational effect, or that there is a lot we can do to change the trends.

So, with your scientific background.. Please clear this up for me. What % of climate change has been cause by humans? What percent caused by geo-thermal activity? Solar flares?

 

[Caveeagle]

Scientists questioning the accuracy of IPCC climate projections
These scientists have said that it is not possible to project global climate accurately enough to justify the ranges projected for temperature and sea-level rise over the next century. They may not conclude specifically that the current IPCC projections are either too high or too low, but that the projections are likely to be inaccurate due to inadequacies of current global climate modeling.

• David Bellamy, botanist.[18][19][20][21]
• Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[22][23]
• Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[24][25]
• Judith Curry, Professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[26][27][28][29]
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[30][31]
• Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[32]
• Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[33][34]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[35][36][37][38]
• Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[39][40][41][42][43][44][45]

***List Truncated to meet forum posting limits***

 

[Storker]

Your "I am a scientist, so you must believe me"

Please provide a quote that I've said that.

If you can't I have to assume that you're lying.

 

[Caveeagle]

Are you a scientist? I am one. And because I am one, I'd never dream about second-guessing climate scientists. Because I know how much advanced knowledge that goes into a scientific publication.

But non-scientists apparently know better. About science. Go figure.

Please provide a quote that I've said that.

If you can't I have to assume that you're lying.

OK.. So you never stated ", so you must believe me".. But I think any clear thinking person could see how I inferred that from your comments.

And now more of the grade-school "..you're lying." type of rhetoric. What kind of scientist are you? And how does that relate to climate policy. ..Since you brought it up, You obviously think it should carry some weight. Why not give us the full context?

 

[Joneill]

Please provide a quote that I've said that.

If you can't I have to assume that you're lying.

Hmmm... so explain what you meant by this then:

"Are you a scientist? I am one. And because I am one, I'd never dream about second-guessing climate scientists."

Any reasonable person would take that to mean that we need to just believe whatever scientists say. That's crazy...lol

Btw - I'm a chemical engineer, so consider myself a scientist... and I do believe climate is changing but still somewhat sceptical on the predictions. Howwever, I am totally not trusting the true motivations of things like the PCA when you really read the details.

 

[Rhone Man]

Oh dear Lord, this got childish fast.

Yes, as a scientist having your work published involves a fairly rigorous peer review process. It is not flawless, of course, but it is a pretty good acid bath.

Yes, it is true that there are scientists who doubt the accuracy of forecasts of global warming. But what is clear is that there is a simply overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is happening, it is man made, and its effects will be unpredictable. Pointing to quibbling and uncertainty at the edges does not in any way undermine the overwhelming nature of that consensus of informed opinion.

Is it possible that global warming will turn out to be bunk? Stranger things have happened in scientific history, but it seems pretty damned improbable at this stage. Quite apart from aforesaid consensus, there is a fairly chunky amount of empirical data to draw upon now. Climate modelling is extremely difficult. But measuring temperature increases and sea levels rising is not.