Trump Pulls Out of The Paris Accord

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by whell

His "idiot supporters" probably agree with him. The climate has been alternatively heating and cooling for billions of years.

What we "climate deniers" think is BS is the alarmism and hysteria that accompanies the debate, particularly when the beneficiaries of alarmism and hysteria tend to be big government advocates and billionaires.

There is no proof of that since the thermometer was only invented in early 1700. So if the earth did indeed go through heating/cooling cycles there really is no precise record.

As for the hysteria as you call it, modern science has explained the cause very well whereby there is a near unanimous agreement throughout the entire world except people like you, climate change deniers and why is that?

[Rajoo]

Originally Posted by nailer

I've experienced excellent results biamping with an active crossover.

Ditto, but having acquired for short money an 8BST, have my DQ-20's passively biamped. I don't hear much of an awakening. Will go the active route next.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Oerets

The problem with your way of thinking, if you are wrong we all die!

Barney

Such hyperbole is the problem in this debate, and distances us from workable solutions. We're no more or less likely to "die" if we put regulatory controls on our own ability to develop cost effective and long term solutions to our energy needs, while countries like China are India allowed under the Paris accords to ramp up their coal production and continue emissions.

France, the home of the Paris accords, generates 75% of its power with nuclear plants. Here in this country, the environmental lobby has choked off pursuit of nuclear power, which is currently the cleanest and safest method of power generation available.

The best way forward on this is not to make unenforceable agreements with other countries that are great for PR and do little to make this country's power generation more green, more efficient, more cost-effective, more safe or more sustainable. The best way forward is not to subsidize fledgling industries with shake business plans and good political connections.

The best way forward is to change our approach domestically and get out of our own way. Fracking is a great example. Natural gas is a cost effective and environmentally friendly alternative to coal. The left wants to shut it down. There are questions about safety that are solvable. We spend money combating the fracking industry, and then we waste money on over-regulation and government grants to companies that no longer exist. We should be providing companies with access to funding to help them cost effectively solving these issues to strengthen this industry.

I'm watching the talking heads on the Sunday shows this morning. One of them, on Face the Nation, just said that "solar is the cheapest energy source". Those kind of blanket statements are self serving, half true and highly misleading. Solar energy would be entirely ineffective her in the upper Midwest, where cloud cover is substantial particularly in the winter months. Sure, Michigan is deploying more solar generation on its grid, mostly due to state regs from the Granholm era that require an increase in renewable generation. Solar is a decent supplemental source, but its doubtful that it will ever be primary here.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

There is no proof of that since the thermometer was only invented in early 1700. So if the earth did indeed go through heating/cooling cycles there really is no precise record.

You can't be serious, so I'll assume that you're joking here. But just in case....

There's plenty of evidence of large - scale climate shifts. In fact, the debate really isn't whether current climate change is unique in its occurrence. The debate is whether the rapidity of current climate change is different than climate change that has occurred in the past.

http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/educati.../iscurrent.pdf

You might like this article.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

Such hyperbole is the problem in this debate, and distances us from workable solutions. We're no more or less likely to "die" if we put regulatory controls on our own ability to develop cost effective and long term solutions to our energy needs, while countries like China are India allowed under the Paris accords to ramp up their coal production and continue emissions.

.

Since the limits are voluntary, the US can do as it pleases, as well, and change the limits at will. There was no reason at all to pull out of this, except for Trump to score political points with his moronic base.

[merrylander]

Mother Earth will survive it is merely mankind that will perish, at fitting end in many ways.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Rajoo

As for the hysteria as you call it, modern science has explained the cause very well whereby there is a near unanimous agreement throughout the entire world except people like you, climate change deniers and why is that?

No, there's not "agreement". There's an alleged consensus, but consensus isn't part of scientific methodology. In fact, the claim of consensus is dubious.

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Mother Earth will survive it is merely mankind that will perish, at fitting end in many ways.

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/...s/homo-sapiens

The species that you and all other living human beings on this planet belong to is Homo sapiens. During a time of dramatic climate change 200,000 years ago, Homo sapiens evolved in Africa. Like other early humans that were living at this time, they gathered and hunted food, and evolved behaviors that helped them respond to the challenges of survival in unstable environments.

Well, since it appears to have been climate change that gave rise to homo sapiens, it would be "fitting" and plausible that climate change takes us out.

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by whell

No, there's not "agreement". There's an alleged consensus, but consensus isn't part of scientific methodology. In fact, the claim of consensus is dubious.

Lol, the site you link to has a link right up top to something called "ConservativeU". Clearly a fake news site, no doubt financed by the coal industry. Sorry, but your sources are biased. Real scientists are nearly universally in agreement.

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Since the limits are voluntary, the US can do as it pleases, as well, and change the limits at will. There was no reason at all to pull out of this, except for Trump to score political points with his moronic base.

...which was apparently the driving factor behind Obama getting into it in the first place.

So, if there's no concrete reason to stay in, why stay in?