Trump Expected to Pull Out of Paris Climate Agreement

Trump has to follow the GOP line or they will impeach him. Trumpism is GOP ism. I know back in the day there was Bush I or Eisenhauer or whatever.

 

You still have yet to address what I've said, which isn't surprising coming from you.

Also, when it comes to figuring out the costs of these kinds of things, you don't turn to climatologists, you turn to economists.....but I'm sure you knew that. Economists not associated with any group you can easily dismiss with an ad hominem have said that the Paris climate agreement would cost the US between $1.28 trillion and $5.28 trillion and you haven't refuted that at all. That's what the conversation is about so address that and don't waste your time trying to spin things with logical fallacies.

 

All those type of studies disregard natural gas which has been instrumental in reducing emissions and taking significant market share from coal. Those studies don't reflect the real world.

 

Links?

Again, natural gas emits considerably less pollution than coal and we have lots of it

 

He didn't link a thing.

 

That's true, but I've seen those exact numbers before (though not per year as he was suggesting) so I was assuming that's where he got them. It would make sense that he'd use numbers from a conservative think tank sort of organization. Either way, I don't think anyone seriously suggests that the Paris climate agreement wouldn't cost the US over a trillion dollars and that it wouldn't raise energy costs on average Americans so really we'd just be haggling over how much extra it would cost the country and how much it would hurt the average American household rather than if it would.

 

be skeptical of all science where meaningful experimentation is not possible (economics, public health, climate)

 

Can you and dandorotik create your own little forum where you cuss, insult and whine all day?

 

Yeah you're a regular Gandhi around here.

 

yeap; sad part is China may lead the technology advancements for busn and state to adopts... big $$$$$ and a potential huge lost opportunity here

 

With American technology, soon we will be able to build an air conditioner to cool the entire planet.

 

What the hell does meaningful experimentation mean? Do you mean where it's hard and not always possible to run controls? What specifically are you skeptical about?

Also, skepticism doesn't mean outright rejection, it means examine the results. Gun to your head, when is the last time you read a scholarly publication on climate change?

 

This. China and behemoth that is all of SE Asia are more worried about smog and water quality than global warming so they reduce emissions and impose regulations to achieve a greater quality life, more productivity, and higher growth.

The US still has a lot of solar and wind potential, just needs a coherent strategy. Texas is an example of how the US energy portfolio should be moving and how to get there, invest in the transmission lines. Texas also subsidizes a small percent of each kWh, but I would forfeit that and just invest heavily in transmission lines. Once that power in the middle nowhere in SW US or Great Plains has a means to get to customers, renewable will follow. Meanwhile, coal gets pushed out by the sooner than later stagnating global demand for coal and more environmental friendly base generating sources in nuclear and gas.

 

And be accepting of all scientific advice posted by anonymous non-scientists on a basketball BBS. I love this place.

Let me suggest changing your statement as follows:
Be scientifically skeptical of all scientific data. Likewise, be politically skeptical of all political statements.
But adult citizens of this country, if we want it to thrive, should never be politically skeptical of scientific data and especially not of scientific consensus.

 

I apologized to you in another thread, and yet you continue to mention my name. Thank you.

 

I too am a chemist. I too am totally on board with Republicans fighting the speculative parts of "climate change". After these points we disagree. You argue we are the biggest contributor to "climate change" but that is the issue. Since they had to change the narrative from "global cooling" to "global warming" to now "climate change" over the last few decades,these changes in the narrative speak volumes that we have no clue to the role man plays in the climate. We may truly impact the climate, only time will tell, but the changes in the narrative and the obviousness of the 100% change in the narrative over the over the last few decades should be more than enough for any rational person to want to further investigate the information before we commit to anything as radical as this Paris Climate Agreement. The questions with the models and the fact that proper PCA was not performed on the input data should be more than enough evidence we need further investigation.

 

conditions include thousands of confounding variables, need for a large sample size over a long period of time, public policy implications that create a politicized environment, large amounts of money at stake re funding for a particular position

I don't deny climate changes, I just don't care and don't think there is anything that can be done or is worth doing about it.

 

Almost all of climate data is based on climate models. These models have already proven to be untrue based on earlier projections and proper PCA was not performed on the input data to begin with. Surely if you are a chemist you have dealt with modeling and realize without proper PCA, any input data can be used to leverage a model to a predetermined result? PCA is what is used to keep models honest.

 

This is an important statement, a bold statement, and I think that it is false. All predictions are based on models, yes, or extrapolations of trends to some extent.

But climate data is climate data, from readings of bubbles in ice cores, to tree ring data, to recorded history since we started reliably measuring temperatures in the atmosphere and at the surface. Furthermore, as a physicist, I always boil it down to ONE thing: satellite data confirms we are taking in more heat from the sun than we are then sending back out to space, and that's integrated over all wavelengths. If more energy comes in to a system than leaves that system, physics doesn't give you any option: some part of that system, or all of that system, will be increasing its temperature.

As a chemist, I can assume you embrace the nearly 150 year record of clear experimental data on what CO2 does with sunlight and recognize the great genius of that OG physical chemist Svante Arrhenius when he predicted the effects of the industrial revolution on our atmosphere over 100 years ago.

[I know, I know. I should know better than to get serious about science in a thread on a basketball BBS, but I am having one of my spells.]

 

I think you should be skeptical of yourself given that you obviously don't know what science is.

That said the Paris accord is a useless doc...even if everyone abided by it perfectly, the worst of global warming would still happen.