Trump Pulls Out of The Paris Accord

[Chicks]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

Which makes the link meaningless contextually.

All of them despicable, birds of a feather. Trump and Putin will go down in history among the worst mankind has to offer.

[bobabode]

'Factcheck Shows Trump's Climate Speech Was Full of Misleading Statements'

"President Trump justified his decision yesterday to leave a global climate accord with debunked conservative talking points and studies funded by groups with ties to the fossil fuel industry.

He claimed the Paris Agreement would make America the laughingstock of the world, costing the country 2.7 million jobs. He said China and India could build coal plants with abandon, while the United States would be forced to shutter its own. Factories would close. Energy prices would skyrocket. Brownouts and blackouts could spread across the power grid, forcing families to go without electricity.

“In short, the agreement doesn't eliminate coal jobs. It just transfers those jobs out of America and the United States, and ships them to foreign countries,” Trump said. “The rest of the world applauded when we signed the Paris Agreement. They went wild. They were so happy — for the simple reason that it put our country, the United States of America, which we all love, at a very, very big economic disadvantage.”

The picture Trump painted is a terrifying one. It's also incredibly unlikely, according to economic studies and analyses of how the Paris deal would work.
From the costs and benefits to the global impacts, the president cherry-picked his talking points to support withdrawing from the agreement." SA

continued here https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ng-statements/

Those eggheads at Scientific American must be commies. Right Whell?

[Dondilion]

Everybody is worked up about an agreement that was not binding.

People, entities, countries can still do what they want.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Chicks

All of them despicable, birds of a feather. Trump and Putin will go down in history among the worst mankind has to offer.

You would have made sense if you had stated "a good American under Bush". Remember the "Dixie Chicks";they were bad Americans.

Instead you reached for Hitler and lost your balance.

[donquixote99]

Thank you for you opinion, but I don't see how you can say that. Basically, all cries of 'that's ridiculous' basically mean 'that is emotionally unacceptable to me.'

If others feel differently, and they do, then what?

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_in_Academia

Bwahahahaaa.

See post 71

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

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.

Originally Posted by bobabode

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accuracy_in_Academia

Bwahahahaaa.

Originally Posted by bobabode

C'mon, man. It took only a short search to see that your source is as nuts as they come. Look at the founder of this family business - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed_Irvine.

You can criticize sources all you want thus insulating yourselves from alternative points of view....just like the folks that you baselessly vilify for allegedly "only watching Fox News and listening to Rush Limbaugh."

But every once in a while, even mainstream media sources let things slip out:

http://www.tbo.com/news/blogs/the-ri...y-so-20140519/

Fully two-thirds of the 11,000 scientific articles Cook and Co. reviewed took no position on AGW. Then, when authors graded themselves, some flipped, but more than a third still declined to say yay or nay on AGW. Perhaps the discrepancy can be attributed to peer pressure. Even so, 64.5 percent — the number who did take a position — is a long way from 97 percent.

The history of the climate change debate seems to have a number of its advocates who aren't ashamed to "cook the books".

[whell]

Originally Posted by Chicks

Sorry, real science isn't biased. It's peer reviewed, time after time, to ensure that it's as accurate as possible, leading to consensus. The consensus is clear. There is no doubt. Your fake news sites are funded by those who would benefit by obfuscating the facts. Wake up! Why do you continue to post nonsense? You would have been a "good German" under Hitler. Or are you a "good Russian" under Putin?

Yawn.

And then, of course, there's the fact the the modeling developed over time by climate hysterics don't match up with observed temps. In fact, the models predict twice as much warming as actually observed.

[whell]

Originally Posted by bobabode

https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ng-statements/

Those eggheads at Scientific American must be commies. Right Whell?

I don't supposed you'd find it odd that "Scientific American" would source an "economic study" from the left-leaning Resources for the Future, would you?

Nah, I thought not.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by whell

Yawn.

And then, of course, there's the fact the the modeling developed over time by climate hysterics don't match up with observed temps. In fact, the models predict twice as much warming as actually observed.

One can read about the author of this chart here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Christy. He's described as a faculty member at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, who has long worked with another faculty member, Roy Spencer.

The chart was from a paper published in the journal 'Remote Sensing.' You can read about the journal here. Interestingly, the journal's original editor resigned in 2011, over the Journals publication of a controversial paper by Roy Spencer.

The journal is publish by an organization called MDPI. Your can read about MDPI here. The publisher has drawn heavy criticism for accepting for publication articles the critics call pseudoscience.

You can read about Roy Spencer here. This article states that:

Spencer is a signatory to "An Evangelical Declaration on Global Warming", which states that "We believe Earth and its ecosystems—created by God’s intelligent design and infinite power and sustained by His faithful providence —are robust, resilient, self-regulating, and self-correcting, admirably suited for human flourishing, and displaying His glory.

The Spencer article cited about includes this criticism of a 2011 paper of Spencer's:

Andrew Dessler later published a paper opposing the claims of Spencer and Braswell (2011) in Geophysical Research Letters.[25] He stated, among other things:

First, [they] analyzed 14 models, but they plotted only six models and the particular observational data set that provided maximum support for their hypothesis. Plotting all of the models and all of the data provide a much different conclusion.

I'd be interested to know if the data set that forms the basis of Christy's chart, reproduced above, has similar problems. I wonder how '102' predictions were selected, and how the red line that somehow supposedly represents their collective output was derived. It occurs to me that the author might have exercised a lot of discretion in deciding what constituted an 'includable study' in his set of 102, with the result being driven by the choosing. At the very least, one must suspect the line averages apples, oranges, eggplants, and wild hickory nuts.

BTW, why is all the 'observation' data shown as straight lines? The actual data would plot as a scattering of points. Regression analysis can plot a straight line through such points, but now you're not charting obeservations, you're charting your own analysis. It should at least be descriptively called out as such on the chart.