Have you actually read the Accord? Or an objective summary of its provisions?

It's basically a bunch of meaningless, toothless, feel good platitudes wrapped around a massive wealth transfer from the developed countries to the Swiss bank accounts of the tinhorn dictators of undeveloped countries.

If you have a different interpretation of the agreement, please state it and provide support.

To start with, the stated goal is to keep the increase in average temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius, when the sky is falling analysis of the AGW activists tell us that 2 degrees will be catastrophic. And there is no mechanism for ensuring that we meet even that modest goal. It's almost like, we can't really solve the problem, so let's just have the wealthy nations pay a bunch of money to the poor nations and we'll all feel better about things.

It's a horse**** agreement. What we need to do is replace it with something that actually focuses on reversing global warming, if it is going to be the catastrophe that the AGW crowd keeps telling us.

I've about gotten to the point where I seriously question the motives and integrity of the AGW crowd, or at least its leaders. They seem very intent on beating up on fossil fuels, particularly oil, and on wealth transfer from the developed world to the undeveloped world, but not so much on actually taking material steps to reduce or eliminate global warming. It's almost like if we solved climate change, then their boogeyman would go away, and how would they then justify their Luddite attacks on the energy industry?

Very strange.

(06-02-2017 09:10 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 07:44 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  TRUMP: "At what point do they start laughing at us as a country?"

ANSWER: They've been laughing since 11/8/16.

Next question.

Setting aside the policy/diplomatic implications of dropping out of the Paris Accord, this is one thing that is so strange to me about many of Trump's speeches and in general the "America First" worldview, the constant whining about how we are so unfairly untreated. It fits in with Trump's act about how unfair life has been to him (!) but FFS we are the most powerful, richest country in the history of human civilization. I'm sure Bangladeshi hearts are breaking for us. Poor, poor America!

But then you look at polls of Trump's base and many of them actually think that white Christian males are the most oppressed group in America and it begins to make sense.

I mean, Trump isn't entirely wrong. The US has propped up other countries from a financial and security standpoint for far too long - NATO, UN, you name it. I laughed when Merkel made the statement that it's time for Europeans to take their fate in their own hands...as if that was supposed to be some "gasp" moment. It's about damn time mainland Europe does something, considering we propped up her country for quite a while in the 20th century.

That said, I have zero confidence that Trump knows what he is doing, other than pandering to his base and checking off some campaign promise on Steve "The Grim Reaper" Bannon's white board. I wouldn't mind him leaving this stupid little climate club (which has all the power of a schoolyard pact to be best friends forever) if he actually had a plan to forge a better climate conservation program, but I think the probability for that is zero.

(06-02-2017 09:37 AM)westsidewolf1989 Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 09:10 AM)JustAnotherAustinOwl Wrote:  

(06-01-2017 07:44 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  TRUMP: "At what point do they start laughing at us as a country?"

ANSWER: They've been laughing since 11/8/16.

Next question.

Setting aside the policy/diplomatic implications of dropping out of the Paris Accord, this is one thing that is so strange to me about many of Trump's speeches and in general the "America First" worldview, the constant whining about how we are so unfairly untreated. It fits in with Trump's act about how unfair life has been to him (!) but FFS we are the most powerful, richest country in the history of human civilization. I'm sure Bangladeshi hearts are breaking for us. Poor, poor America!

But then you look at polls of Trump's base and many of them actually think that white Christian males are the most oppressed group in America and it begins to make sense.

I mean, Trump isn't entirely wrong. The US has propped up other countries from a financial and security standpoint for far too long - NATO, UN, you name it. I laughed when Merkel made the statement that it's time for Europeans to take their fate in their own hands...as if that was supposed to be some "gasp" moment. It's about damn time mainland Europe does something, considering we propped up her country for quite a while in the 20th century.

That said, I have zero confidence that Trump knows what he is doing, other than pandering to his base and checking off some campaign promise on Steve "The Grim Reaper" Bannon's white board. I wouldn't mind him leaving this stupid little climate club (which has all the power of a schoolyard pact to be best friends forever) if he actually had a plan to forge a better climate conservation program, but I think the probability for that is zero.

ounds like you think anybody not against Trump must have his beliefs and reasons firmly planted in racism.

And why must we go to the extremes? WhiteCristianMales are the MOST discriminated against group? No middle ground?

i am sure there must be some individuals out htere who would think that, but not many. personally, I can think of times when being a white, or a Christian, or a guy is not optimum, but of course, the statement was all three at once. Does the fact that on occasion it is not so great being a Christian, for example, mean that other groups must have it better?

i Believe in equal rights and equal opportunities under the law. i guess some would take that as racist.

i have little doubt that most, if not all of Trump's choices will not be viewed favorably by the environmental community, but they are not the constituency that elected him.

i heard a good joke today. what does a liberal answer when you ask him his religion? "The environment".

i am one who DOES believe the climate is changing, as it has for eons before now and will do so until the end of the Universe.

I believe that Man has SOME impact on a natural couse, but not necessarily most of it and certainly not all.

i think efforts to slow the chamges are fine, but slowing it will not change the ultimate ending. we can slow a boulder rolling downhill, but it willreach the bottom of the hill eventually.

so the question becomes, what to do and what cost to pay. I Would put more effort into developing heat resistant wheat, for example, than in closing down pipelines. But those are just my choices. i will vote that way, of course. somebody may think that dynamiting refineries is a better approach. Disagree, BTW.

(06-02-2017 09:35 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Have you actually read the Accord? Or an objective summary of its provisions?

It's basically a bunch of meaningless, toothless, feel good platitudes wrapped around a massive wealth transfer from the developed countries to the Swiss bank accounts of the tinhorn dictators of undeveloped countries.

If you have a different interpretation of the agreement, please state it and provide support.

To start with, the stated goal is to keep the increase in average temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius, when the sky is falling analysis of the AGW activists tell us that 2 degrees will be catastrophic. And there is no mechanism for ensuring that we meet even that modest goal. It's almost like, we can't really solve the problem, so let's just have the wealthy nations pay a bunch of money to the poor nations and we'll all feel better about things.

It's a horse**** agreement. What we need to do is replace it with something that actually focuses on reversing global warming, if it is going to be the catastrophe that the AGW crowd keeps telling us.

I've about gotten to the point where I seriously question the motives and integrity of the AGW crowd, or at least its leaders. They seem very intent on beating up on fossil fuels, particularly oil, and on wealth transfer from the developed world to the undeveloped world, but not so much on actually taking material steps to reduce or eliminate global warming. It's almost like if we solved climate change, then their boogeyman would go away, and how would they then justify their Luddite attacks on the energy industry?

Very strange.

I agree that the Accord doesn't go far enough, but that's not why Trump pulled out of it. Instead, he's making a last-ditch effort to save a coal industry that's dying (already an animated corpse?) anyway. What is his plan to reverse/address/acknowledge global warming?

Also, I have to push back a little bit on the idea that we needed to pull out entirely because the Accord didn't go far enough. There's a value in incremental goals, no? (Note that this is just a larger philosophical point - I agree that the Accord lacked the robust enforcement mechanisms to practically ensure a 2 degree reduction).

(06-02-2017 11:09 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  I agree that the Accord doesn't go far enough, but that's not why Trump pulled out of it. Instead, he's making a last-ditch effort to save a coal industry that's dying (already an animated corpse?) anyway. What is his plan to reverse/address/acknowledge global warming?
Also, I have to push back a little bit on the idea that we needed to pull out entirely because the Accord didn't go far enough. There's a value in incremental goals, no? (Note that this is just a larger philosophical point - I agree that the Accord lacked the robust enforcement mechanisms to practically ensure a 2 degree reduction).

There aren't even any meaningful incremental goals. Each country sort of sets its own goals and we all sing Kumbaya. Of the four largest emitters of greenhouse gases, the US committed to a greater than 20% reduction, while the other three--Russia, India, and China--essentially committed to no reduction. That's not a reasonable agreement, and that is not going to have a material impact on global temperatures.

The only really hard provision is that the US and other developed countries are going to send hundreds of billions to developing countries, most of which will probably end up in tinhorn dictators' Swiss bank accounts. Obviously that was the mechanism for buying the votes of those developing countries. Without the US in there to write the lion's share of the checks, the deal probably falls apart completely.

I don't really have a problem with committing to reduce our emissions. I have a problem with other large emitters not making similar reduction commitments. And I have a problem paying ransom to tinhorn dictators of third world countries. Things I'd like to see for developing countries, and I'd like to see us take leadership, are

1) Massive efforts to bring cheap alternatives to developing countries. Turn the Sahara into a solar farm. You could meet Africa's electric needs, and probably a good bit of Europe's as well. Turn coastal areas and windy internal areas into wind farms. What does having electricity throughout the continent do to Africa's economy?
2) Since sea level is a concern, get some water out of the seas. Put in desalinization plants and pump fresh water inland to fill dry Lakes Chad and Faguibine in Africa and Eyre in Australia. You'd enable irrigation that would greatly expand productive agriculture, and those crops would soak up CO2. And particularly in the African areas, you'd have a huge potential positive impact on the economies. So those are winners on three fronts. Also, do the Qattara Depression project in Egypt. I think other dry lakes, like the Aral Sea, may be too far inland for this to be cost effective, but still might be worth a try.

Do stuff like that instead of just sending them money.

(06-02-2017 10:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  i heard a good joke today. what does a liberal answer when you ask him his religion? "The environment".

I heard a good joke too:
Q: What is the definition of a Republican?
A: A person who can't define his Second Principle without contradicting his First.

The "Great Unmasking Scandal"? I'll wait for the evidence, but it smells to me a whole lot like Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraqi WMD, Deep State Wiretapping and other rotting fish.

(06-02-2017 12:47 PM)ColOwl Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 10:15 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  i heard a good joke today. what does a liberal answer when you ask him his religion? "The environment".

I heard a good joke too:
Q: What is the definition of a Republican?
A: A person who can't define his Second Principle without contradicting his First.

The "Great Unmasking Scandal"? I'll wait for the evidence, but it smells to me a whole lot like Benghazi, Whitewater, Iraqi WMD, Deep State Wiretapping and other rotting fish.

And the Great Collusion Scandal.

and my joke was funnier.

Is there anybody here who thinks that GW can be reversed? If GW is 50% natural and 50% man-caused, and we can eliminate 50% of the man-caused portion, then it will still proceed at 75% of the current rate.

Unless you think it is 100% man-caused and 100% man-reversible, all these efforts are just to slow the boulder rolling downhill, and none of them would make the boulder roll back uphill to the top and stop.

Even if you could, what wouldbe the goal? The same climate we had in 1957? 1837? 1237? 5000 BC? 25000 BC? The one we had before the last Ice Age, the one we had during the Medieval Warm Period, the one in the Jurassic? You guys don't even know the goal, yet all these efforts are supposed to get us there?

Roll with the punches, guys. Nothing wrong with slowing the rock 25%, but also acknowledge that we cannot stop this thing, and we should prepare. We are running out of water, so the desalination plants make sense in more ways than one. We are going to see changes in what foodstuffs can be grown where at what cost, so let's make plans to adapt. Spending all our capital, political and financial, on trying to turn back the clock is a waste of time.

(06-02-2017 01:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is there anybody here who thinks that GW can be reversed? If GW is 50% natural and 50% man-caused, and we can eliminate 50% of the man-caused portion, then it will still proceed at 75% of the current rate.

Unless you think it is 100% man-caused and 100% man-reversible, all these efforts are just to slow the boulder rolling downhill, and none of them would make the boulder roll back uphill to the top and stop.

Even if you could, what wouldbe the goal? The same climate we had in 1957? 1837? 1237? 5000 BC? 25000 BC? The one we had before the last Ice Age, the one we had during the Medieval Warm Period, the one in the Jurassic? You guys don't even know the goal, yet all these efforts are supposed to get us there?

Roll with the punches, guys. Nothing wrong with slowing the rock 25%, but also acknowledge that we cannot stop this thing, and we should prepare. We are running out of water, so the desalination plants make sense in more ways than one. We are going to see changes in what foodstuffs can be grown where at what cost, so let's make plans to adapt. Spending all our capital, political and financial, on trying to turn back the clock is a waste of time.

I agree with practically all of this. A multifaceted approach that combines slowing the change with adapting to the change is likely best. I also liked Owl69's ideas above (although I shudder to think what would happen when formerly coastal pirates start to hijack inland electricity conduits, instead).

I'd also like to say that the bolded text could also double as a great response to "Make America Great Again."

(06-02-2017 03:00 PM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  

(06-02-2017 01:37 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Is there anybody here who thinks that GW can be reversed? If GW is 50% natural and 50% man-caused, and we can eliminate 50% of the man-caused portion, then it will still proceed at 75% of the current rate.

Unless you think it is 100% man-caused and 100% man-reversible, all these efforts are just to slow the boulder rolling downhill, and none of them would make the boulder roll back uphill to the top and stop.

Even if you could, what wouldbe the goal? The same climate we had in 1957? 1837? 1237? 5000 BC? 25000 BC? The one we had before the last Ice Age, the one we had during the Medieval Warm Period, the one in the Jurassic? You guys don't even know the goal, yet all these efforts are supposed to get us there?

Roll with the punches, guys. Nothing wrong with slowing the rock 25%, but also acknowledge that we cannot stop this thing, and we should prepare. We are running out of water, so the desalination plants make sense in more ways than one. We are going to see changes in what foodstuffs can be grown where at what cost, so let's make plans to adapt. Spending all our capital, political and financial, on trying to turn back the clock is a waste of time.

I agree with practically all of this. A multifaceted approach that combines slowing the change with adapting to the change is likely best. I also liked Owl69's ideas above (although I shudder to think what would happen when formerly coastal pirates start to hijack inland electricity conduits, instead).

I'd also like to say that the bolded text could also double as a great response to "Make America Great Again."

1957, maybe. the others, no.

to be fair, when I hear MAGA, I think the 80's much more than the 50's. having lived through both decades, I temd to prefer the 80'sBut I didn't vote for Trump because of MAGA. In fact, I did not vote for Teump. but knowing what I know now about him, I could vote for him if the opponent is Hillary.

(06-02-2017 11:09 AM)OldOwlNewHeel2 Wrote:  I agree that the Accord doesn't go far enough, but that's not why Trump pulled out of it. Instead, he's making a last-ditch effort to save a coal industry that's dying (already an animated corpse?) anyway. What is his plan to reverse/address/acknowledge global warming?

I think it's not so much that it doesn't go far enough but that it goes in the wrong direction. Most of it is about stuff that won't do a damn thing to reduce global warming.

There's one and pretty much only one way to save the coal industry--coal liquefaction and gasification. German scientists developed a pretty good approach during WWII to overcome their lack of oil. The problem is that it generates CO2. But it's point source CO2 not spread all over the place, and that means there can be ways to handle it. So handle it.

Quote:Also, I have to push back a little bit on the idea that we needed to pull out entirely because the Accord didn't go far enough. There's a value in incremental goals, no? (Note that this is just a larger philosophical point - I agree that the Accord lacked the robust enforcement mechanisms to practically ensure a 2 degree reduction).

Again, to me it's not a question of going far enough, it's a question of going the wrong direction. We would be writing hundreds of billions of dollars of checks to make it work. Without us, therefore, it won't work, so there will be a renegotiation. I'd say we use some negotiating leverage. If we are going to be putting in money, it won't go to "countries" (where a bunch of it will end up in tinhorn dictators' Swiss bank accounts) but rather to specific projects that we will control--we plan them, we design them, we build them, and US companies get the lion's share of the work. And if we are going to be putting in money, it's not going to be a deal where we cut 20-30% and everybody else keeps on keeping on. Everybody is going to make cuts and there is going to be shared sacrifice. What better time for the developing world to get on green energy than now, when their energy needs are expanding? And one other thing, it's going to be a treaty that requires senate approval, and we are not on the hook for anything until that happens.

So some didn't like the deal because it forced us to cut emissions by 20-30% (is that the case? I've only seen it say we pledged to cut emissions to 26-28% below 2005 levels) and it allowed other countries to keep on keeping on? But this Accord had no legal teeth to enforce that - so where is the force? Theoretically we could have actively kept increasing our emissions and nothing could have come from that. But the Accord did at least put the topic of climate change and GHG reduction at the forefront of international politics and make it so that countries were at least thinking about it and trying to combat it.

So what would have been the harm in staying in the Accord, leading from the front on the climate change issue, and attempting to lead from the front on green infrastructure? We will still be able to try and support green infrastructure, but we have ostracized ourselves from the international community and appear to want to go the opposite direction of the rest of the world.

And for those who are happy we left because it didn't go far enough to help reduce GHG emissions or climate change, not every legislative action must be a homerun. Very often you must tackle issues incrementally. Plus, I don't imagine you would actually support a strictly enforced international agreement that would have significantly altered ours, and the world's, economy.

Bottom line: Obama and Kerry bribed the rest of the world into signing a meaningless piece of paper, in order that they could claim to have done something about climate change.

(06-03-2017 07:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line: Obama and Kerry bribed the rest of the world into signing a meaningless piece of paper, in order that they could claim to have done something about climate change.

Bribed how?

And if this paper wasn't meaningless, why pull out of it? What is the benefit of that? All it seems to be doing right now is alienating us from the international community.

(06-03-2017 08:54 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 07:38 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Bottom line: Obama and Kerry bribed the rest of the world into signing a meaningless piece of paper, in order that they could claim to have done something about climate change.

Bribed how?

And if this paper wasn't meaningless, why pull out of it? What is the benefit of that? All it seems to be doing right now is alienating us from the international community.

The transfer of payments. And while meaningless (toothless) in the 'have to cut', there is (was I should say) an obligation to pay for that privilege.

So we alienate a community by saying 'sorry the cuts are toothless', and by saying 'screw you we arent going to pay for the the accord either'. I am sure we are alienating communities by refusing to pay the freight money-wise. Much like I probably alienate a panhandler by not paying them either.

And the 'meaningless' actually has two components here: first, the magnitude and effect of any AGW is *far* from being determinative in any scientific sense, and assuming in arguendo that such effect is valid, the proposed cuts in Paris are essentially a pinprick as to what is supposedly needed to actually affect that.

And the US has transfer payments to boot, even if the targets are met. Sounds to me like we are bribing the world (the transfer payments) to get a piece of paper done that, assuming the projections have any validity or any validity in the magnitude of effect, has no ability to even shift that.

On top of that the only community that had that magnitude of obligation in 'voluntary cuts' and 'not so involuntary transfer payments' was the United States.

I fail to see how anyone could support the US being a party to that agreement.

When I first read this line:

"Obama and Kerry bribed the rest of the world into signing a meaningless piece of paper, in order that they could claim to have done something about climate change."

I thought about the Iran agreement first. But then it would have to read like this:

Obama and Kerry bribed the Iran into signing a meaningless piece of paper, in order that they could claim to have done something about Iran's nuclear program.

But I was wrong. Different meaningless piece of paper. Apologies.

Everybody seems to agree this was meaningless, so why withdraw? I wonder, if this was meaningless, why the furor over withdrawing? It is like five year olds breaking their promise to marry each other.

In any case, nobody has come forward with any statement of what the climate goals of the GW actions should be. I know, things were perfect when I was 10 - is that the goal? Can't be - we had cars that belched smoke and factories that did the same. So maybe another goal would be better. How about 1492, before white men messed up the Western Hemisphere. But they were messing up Europe already, mining coal and all. Maybe 12,000 BC, befoe ANY humans immigrated to the Western hemisphere? How about 200,000 BC, before protohumans discovered fire? As one of our number says, if you don't know where you are going, any path will get you there.

You know, 500 or 1000 or 5000 or 10,000 years ago, if climate change threatened us, we just moved the village. Not so easy to do that now. Who is going to move Miami 50 feet back from the shore? i guess we could ask the Anasazi how they coped, if we could find them. Or we could ask the mammoth hunters how they coped with the disappearance of their food supply.

I think the emphasis should be how to deal with change more so than how to reverse it. That doesn't mean I am what some here would call a climate denier. I readily agree the climate is changing. I disagree on on what the goals should be or how to attain them.

(06-03-2017 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When I first read this line:

"Obama and Kerry bribed the rest of the world into signing a meaningless piece of paper, in order that they could claim to have done something about climate change."

I thought about the Iran agreement first. But then it would have to read like this:

Obama and Kerry bribed the Iran into signing a meaningless piece of paper, in order that they could claim to have done something about Iran's nuclear program.

But I was wrong. Different meaningless piece of paper. Apologies.

Everybody seems to agree this was meaningless, so why withdraw? I wonder, if this was meaningless, why the furor over withdrawing? It is like five year olds breaking their promise to marry each other.

In any case, nobody has come forward with any statement of what the climate goals of the GW actions should be. I know, things were perfect when I was 10 - is that the goal? Can't be - we had cars that belched smoke and factories that did the same. So maybe another goal would be better. How about 1492, before white men messed up the Western Hemisphere. But they were messing up Europe already, mining coal and all. Maybe 12,000 BC, befoe ANY humans immigrated to the Western hemisphere? How about 200,000 BC, before protohumans discovered fire? As one of our number says, if you don't know where you are going, any path will get you there.

You know, 500 or 1000 or 5000 or 10,000 years ago, if climate change threatened us, we just moved the village. Not so easy to do that now. Who is going to move Miami 50 feet back from the shore? i guess we could ask the Anasazi how they coped, if we could find them. Or we could ask the mammoth hunters how they coped with the disappearance of their food supply.

I think the emphasis should be how to deal with change more so than how to reverse it. That doesn't mean I am what some here would call a climate denier. I readily agree the climate is changing. I disagree on on what the goals should be or how to attain them.

I think you're proposing a fallacy that suggests the methods for reducing our impacts aren't also coping methods, and that their only benefit lies in the reduction of green house gases.

One way to cope with climate change and other potential issues of future population growth is to try and reduce our consumption of energy resources and utilize those materials in another manner.

You're also not recognizing that there already is a lot of emphasis on and work going into studying and understanding climate change impacts and evaluating potential mitigators. The problem has become that, with the politicization of the words "climate change" a lot of that research became politicized. But luckily in the past few years the word resiliency has started bouncing around, and American conservatives have not started attacking that phrase, in the same way they did climate change.

(06-03-2017 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When I first read this line:

"Obama and Kerry bribed the rest of the world into signing a meaningless piece of paper, in order that they could claim to have done something about climate change."

I thought about the Iran agreement first. But then it would have to read like this:

Obama and Kerry bribed the Iran into signing a meaningless piece of paper, in order that they could claim to have done something about Iran's nuclear program.

But I was wrong. Different meaningless piece of paper. Apologies.

Everybody seems to agree this was meaningless, so why withdraw? I wonder, if this was meaningless, why the furor over withdrawing? It is like five year olds breaking their promise to marry each other.

In any case, nobody has come forward with any statement of what the climate goals of the GW actions should be. I know, things were perfect when I was 10 - is that the goal? Can't be - we had cars that belched smoke and factories that did the same. So maybe another goal would be better. How about 1492, before white men messed up the Western Hemisphere. But they were messing up Europe already, mining coal and all. Maybe 12,000 BC, befoe ANY humans immigrated to the Western hemisphere? How about 200,000 BC, before protohumans discovered fire? As one of our number says, if you don't know where you are going, any path will get you there.

You know, 500 or 1000 or 5000 or 10,000 years ago, if climate change threatened us, we just moved the village. Not so easy to do that now. Who is going to move Miami 50 feet back from the shore? i guess we could ask the Anasazi how they coped, if we could find them. Or we could ask the mammoth hunters how they coped with the disappearance of their food supply.

I think the emphasis should be how to deal with change more so than how to reverse it. That doesn't mean I am what some here would call a climate denier. I readily agree the climate is changing. I disagree on on what the goals should be or how to attain them.

I think you're proposing a fallacy that suggests the methods for reducing our impacts aren't also coping methods, and that their only benefit lies in the reduction of green house gases.

One way to cope with climate change and other potential issues of future population growth is to try and reduce our consumption of energy resources and utilize those materials in another manner.

You're also not recognizing that there already is a lot of emphasis on and work going into studying and understanding climate change impacts and evaluating potential mitigators. The problem has become that, with the politicization of the words "climate change" a lot of that research became politicized. But luckily in the past few years the word resiliency has started bouncing around, and American conservatives have not started attacking that phrase, in the same way they did climate change.

I am not sure what the fallacy is. Just tell me the goal, and we can be done here. All I hear from the environmentists is reduction this, reduction that. Sure that buys time, but how does it help to 'cope' with the inevitable rises in temperature that will occur later rather than sooner if we don't use that time for anything but more "reduction this, reduction that? If an asteroid were heading for Earth, should the focus be on slowing it down so it hits 20 years later? Of course, that buys time, but should we use that time just to find ways to make it hit us 40 years later? That is the way I see the environmental movement working.

I haven't seen the word 'resiliency" in this context until today. what does it mean? what is the contextual definition?

and why would you assume american conservatives would attack it? I for one would be happy to see the problem defined and an approach to solving it/handling it laid out. It will take more than Kill Coal or Kill Oil. Especially since 90%+ of the world is not cooperating. It is like having 100 smokers in a room, and 7 of them quit and declare they have made progress toward a smoke free room.

I think the attacks, as you term them, are skepticism against Global Warming as a boogeyman and the solutions put forward. I have yet to see any environmentalist call the changes natural or inevitable. I do attack this approach as a "Chicken Little" approach. BTW, when did the left switch from Global Warming to climate Change, and why?

All I want is a reasonable statement of the problem followed by a reasonable statement of the goal, followed by a reasonable statement of how the world can get there.

I know, not much, but i have never heard any of the three.

(06-03-2017 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When I first read this line:

"Obama and Kerry bribed the rest of the world into signing a meaningless piece of paper, in order that they could claim to have done something about climate change."

I thought about the Iran agreement first. But then it would have to read like this:

Obama and Kerry bribed the Iran into signing a meaningless piece of paper, in order that they could claim to have done something about Iran's nuclear program.

But I was wrong. Different meaningless piece of paper. Apologies.

Everybody seems to agree this was meaningless, so why withdraw? I wonder, if this was meaningless, why the furor over withdrawing? It is like five year olds breaking their promise to marry each other.

In any case, nobody has come forward with any statement of what the climate goals of the GW actions should be. I know, things were perfect when I was 10 - is that the goal? Can't be - we had cars that belched smoke and factories that did the same. So maybe another goal would be better. How about 1492, before white men messed up the Western Hemisphere. But they were messing up Europe already, mining coal and all. Maybe 12,000 BC, befoe ANY humans immigrated to the Western hemisphere? How about 200,000 BC, before protohumans discovered fire? As one of our number says, if you don't know where you are going, any path will get you there.

You know, 500 or 1000 or 5000 or 10,000 years ago, if climate change threatened us, we just moved the village. Not so easy to do that now. Who is going to move Miami 50 feet back from the shore? i guess we could ask the Anasazi how they coped, if we could find them. Or we could ask the mammoth hunters how they coped with the disappearance of their food supply.

I think the emphasis should be how to deal with change more so than how to reverse it. That doesn't mean I am what some here would call a climate denier. I readily agree the climate is changing. I disagree on on what the goals should be or how to attain them.

I think you're proposing a fallacy that suggests the methods for reducing our impacts aren't also coping methods, and that their only benefit lies in the reduction of green house gases.

One way to cope with climate change and other potential issues of future population growth is to try and reduce our consumption of energy resources and utilize those materials in another manner.

You're also not recognizing that there already is a lot of emphasis on and work going into studying and understanding climate change impacts and evaluating potential mitigators. The problem has become that, with the politicization of the words "climate change" a lot of that research became politicized. But luckily in the past few years the word resiliency has started bouncing around, and American conservatives have not started attacking that phrase, in the same way they did climate change.

I am not sure what the fallacy is. Just tell me the goal, and we can be done here. All I hear from the environmentists is reduction this, reduction that. Sure that buys time, but how does it help to 'cope' with the inevitable rises in temperature that will occur later rather than sooner if we don't use that time for anything but more "reduction this, reduction that? If an asteroid were heading for Earth, should the focus be on slowing it down so it hits 20 years later? Of course, that buys time, but should we use that time just to find ways to make it hit us 40 years later? That is the way I see the environmental movement working.

I haven't seen the word 'resiliency" in this context until today. what does it mean? what is the contextual definition?

and why would you assume american conservatives would attack it? I for one would be happy to see the problem defined and an approach to solving it/handling it laid out. It will take more than Kill Coal or Kill Oil. Especially since 90%+ of the world is not cooperating. It is like having 100 smokers in a room, and 7 of them quit and declare they have made progress toward a smoke free room.

I think the attacks, as you term them, are skepticism against Global Warming as a boogeyman and the solutions put forward. I have yet to see any environmentalist call the changes natural or inevitable. I do attack this approach as a "Chicken Little" approach. BTW, when did the left switch from Global Warming to climate Change, and why?

All I want is a reasonable statement of the problem followed by a reasonable statement of the goal, followed by a reasonable statement of how the world can get there.

I know, not much, but i have never heard any of the three.

OO, you probably haven't heard of these things because you aren't looking. I'm tangentially related to a field that is deeply involved with resiliency, which is the term that started being used because of the political context of climate change (which started being used after global warming was being attacked, but it is more accurate), combined with it being an accurate description of the content.

I mean, I doubt you go to the annual AGU conference...

Here seen some links I found that help touch on resiliency.

http://www.wri.org/our-work/topics/climate-resilience

https://news.agu.org/press-release/ameri...gy-policy/

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/...plete_.pdf

In the academic community (especially overseas) a significant amount of research in the civil, structural, geological, and ecological realms is going into how to adapt and develop more resilient communities that can continue to function as side effects of climate change emerge.

(06-03-2017 11:07 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 10:49 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 10:23 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2017 09:57 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  When I first read this line:

"Obama and Kerry bribed the rest of the world into signing a meaningless piece of paper, in order that they could claim to have done something about climate change."

I thought about the Iran agreement first. But then it would have to read like this:

Obama and Kerry bribed the Iran into signing a meaningless piece of paper, in order that they could claim to have done something about Iran's nuclear program.

But I was wrong. Different meaningless piece of paper. Apologies.

Everybody seems to agree this was meaningless, so why withdraw? I wonder, if this was meaningless, why the furor over withdrawing? It is like five year olds breaking their promise to marry each other.

In any case, nobody has come forward with any statement of what the climate goals of the GW actions should be. I know, things were perfect when I was 10 - is that the goal? Can't be - we had cars that belched smoke and factories that did the same. So maybe another goal would be better. How about 1492, before white men messed up the Western Hemisphere. But they were messing up Europe already, mining coal and all. Maybe 12,000 BC, befoe ANY humans immigrated to the Western hemisphere? How about 200,000 BC, before protohumans discovered fire? As one of our number says, if you don't know where you are going, any path will get you there.

You know, 500 or 1000 or 5000 or 10,000 years ago, if climate change threatened us, we just moved the village. Not so easy to do that now. Who is going to move Miami 50 feet back from the shore? i guess we could ask the Anasazi how they coped, if we could find them. Or we could ask the mammoth hunters how they coped with the disappearance of their food supply.

I think the emphasis should be how to deal with change more so than how to reverse it. That doesn't mean I am what some here would call a climate denier. I readily agree the climate is changing. I disagree on on what the goals should be or how to attain them.

I think you're proposing a fallacy that suggests the methods for reducing our impacts aren't also coping methods, and that their only benefit lies in the reduction of green house gases.

One way to cope with climate change and other potential issues of future population growth is to try and reduce our consumption of energy resources and utilize those materials in another manner.

You're also not recognizing that there already is a lot of emphasis on and work going into studying and understanding climate change impacts and evaluating potential mitigators. The problem has become that, with the politicization of the words "climate change" a lot of that research became politicized. But luckily in the past few years the word resiliency has started bouncing around, and American conservatives have not started attacking that phrase, in the same way they did climate change.

I am not sure what the fallacy is. Just tell me the goal, and we can be done here. All I hear from the environmentists is reduction this, reduction that. Sure that buys time, but how does it help to 'cope' with the inevitable rises in temperature that will occur later rather than sooner if we don't use that time for anything but more "reduction this, reduction that? If an asteroid were heading for Earth, should the focus be on slowing it down so it hits 20 years later? Of course, that buys time, but should we use that time just to find ways to make it hit us 40 years later? That is the way I see the environmental movement working.

I haven't seen the word 'resiliency" in this context until today. what does it mean? what is the contextual definition?

and why would you assume american conservatives would attack it? I for one would be happy to see the problem defined and an approach to solving it/handling it laid out. It will take more than Kill Coal or Kill Oil. Especially since 90%+ of the world is not cooperating. It is like having 100 smokers in a room, and 7 of them quit and declare they have made progress toward a smoke free room.

I think the attacks, as you term them, are skepticism against Global Warming as a boogeyman and the solutions put forward. I have yet to see any environmentalist call the changes natural or inevitable. I do attack this approach as a "Chicken Little" approach. BTW, when did the left switch from Global Warming to climate Change, and why?

All I want is a reasonable statement of the problem followed by a reasonable statement of the goal, followed by a reasonable statement of how the world can get there.

I know, not much, but i have never heard any of the three.

OO, you probably haven't heard of these things because you aren't looking. I'm tangentially related to a field that is deeply involved with resiliency, which is the term that started being used because of the political context of climate change (which started being used after global warming was being attacked, but it is more accurate), combined with it being an accurate description of the content.

I mean, I doubt you go to the annual AGU conference...

Here seen some links I found that help touch on resiliency.

http://www.wri.org/our-work/topics/climate-resilience

https://news.agu.org/press-release/ameri...gy-policy/

https://www.fema.gov/media-library-data/...plete_.pdf

In the academic community (especially overseas) a significant amount of research in the civil, structural, geological, and ecological realms is going into how to adapt and develop more resilient communities that can continue to function as side effects of climate change emerge.

Read all three. Nice to see somebody is preparing for disaster, even if it is limited and local. But I don't see it as yet being a key and major piece in the environmental movement, which seems to be focused on staving off the inevitable through reductions. If it was key, maybe I would have heard about it before today.

True, I did not go looking for something that I had never heard of before today. Still have not heard two environmentalists mention resiliency. (You, Lad, are #1).

My personal beliefs, stated here and other places previously, is that availability of fresh water is the biggest problem facing us, and most of that, if not all, is not related so much to climate change as to increased population. We are outgrowing this world. The aquifers are draining. A solar powered car will not slake anybody's thirst.

You want communities to survive, get them water out of nowhere.

yes, I think it is a very bleak assessment. If you have a nicer one that is realistic, I would love to hear it. I don't hold out much hope for the Earth of my great-great-great-grandchildren, and not because we didn't shut down oil. More because we spent the first 100 years solving all the wrong problems.

Water is needed for much more than drinking. It is used for growing food. No irrigation, less food. No water, no cattle.

and, just to quibble, climate change was the catch all the global warming people shifted to when recent data did not support them. It really doesn't matter whether we call it this or that, as the policies urged are always the same.