Trump Administration Stands Alone As the Rest of the G20 Pledges To Fight Climate Change

[Martin Marprelate]

I can appreciate your anecdotal witness, but it is not evidence, much less hard data. Which winter are you referring to and what were the daily temperatures? How do they differ from “his” raw data?

You called the raw data “his,” yet he presented it as the raw data they all have.

How much did those forest fires raise the global temperature? You may be confusing hot and cold with wet and dry. Didn’t he address that in the presentation?

I call myself a climate change 'wonderer.' I'm no scientist and I don't know enough about the topic to call myself a skeptic.
I followed the link to the WUWT website and found this:

There is significant evidence that would tend to falsify global warming. The mean global air temperature has not risen for the last fifteen years. At the end of March the global extent of sea ice was above the long-term average and higher than it was in March of 1980. Last December, snow cover in the northern hemisphere was at the highest level since record keeping began in 1966. The UK just experienced the coldest March of the last fifty years. There has been no increase in droughts or wildfires. Worldwide hurricane and cyclone activity is near a forty-year low.

That doesn't seem to square with what I read and hear about droughts in South Africa, Australia and elsewhere, nor with wildfires in California and Australia, but OK, maybe I'm being fed a selective diet of news; who knows?. Then I look at the graph on post #19 and it seems in rather stark disagreement with what I've quoted above. Surely it's not beyond the wit of man to check all these stats out, comp[are them and find out who's telling porkies and who isn't?

 

[HankD]

Weather comes weather goes...

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I call myself a climate change 'wonderer.' I'm no scientist and I don't know enough about the topic to call myself a skeptic.
I followed the link to the WUWT website and found this:

There is significant evidence that would tend to falsify global warming. The mean global air temperature has not risen for the last fifteen years. At the end of March the global extent of sea ice was above the long-term average and higher than it was in March of 1980. Last December, snow cover in the northern hemisphere was at the highest level since record keeping began in 1966. The UK just experienced the coldest March of the last fifty years. There has been no increase in droughts or wildfires. Worldwide hurricane and cyclone activity is near a forty-year low.

That doesn't seem to square with what I read and hear about droughts in South Africa, Australia and elsewhere, nor with wildfires in California and Australia, but OK, maybe I'm being fed a selective diet of news; who knows?. Then I look at the graph on post #19 and it seems in rather stark disagreement with what I've quoted above. Surely it's not beyond the wit of man to check all these stats out, comp[are them and find out who's telling porkies and who isn't?

Is post #19 showing raw data? No. Did you listen to the presentation Dr. Easterbrook made? Did you note his caveats?

Did you read the article (letter) cited in post #18? Did you note his caveats? Wading through all of the material is indeed difficult, but finding presentations of the raw data is more difficult.

I have not seen a point by point rebuttal of the main points Dr. Easterbrook raised. Have you? The tendency is ad hominem, but we both know that is not a counterargument.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Weather comes weather goes...

Or, as we all know, and as Dr. Easterbrook graphically points out, weather tends to cycle, which is why we talk of 100-year floods, periods of drought, etc.

Rather than riding on a knife's edge, there seems to be a valley in which weather self-corrects, like a swinging pendulum. According to the geologic histories they all depend on, there can be ice ages and thaws, but they have cycled for millennia (or much, much longer), and have nothing to do with technological advances that somehow brought imbalance.

 

[HankD]

Or, as we all know, and as Dr. Easterbrook graphically points out, weather tends to cycle, which is why we talk of 100-year floods, periods of drought, etc.

Rather than riding on a knife's edge, there seems to be a valley in which weather self-corrects, like a swinging pendulum. According to the geologic histories they all depend on, there can be ice ages and thaws, but they have cycled for millennia (or much, much longer), and have nothing to do with technological advances that somehow brought imbalance.

Are you old enough to remember the "acid rain" scare?

 

[just-want-peace]

Are you old enough to remember the "acid rain" scare?

Remember it well; was gonna wipe out crops, ruin vehicles, devastate forests, yada, yada, yada!
Chicken Littles have abounded since man tried to build the tower of Babel!!!
Unfortunately, there are too many whose mouth muscles are far more fit than their brain muscles, and re-spout and believe it all with no common sense thinking!
'Pears as how this mentality is growing exponentially in gov't (& elsewhere) in the last several years.
This 82 YO is hoping the Rapture is just around the corner, & then these over educated(??)-limited intelligence "leaders" will get control of this country and re-do it as they wish. I'll give it one year max before the borders are filled with "emigrants" as opposed to "immigrants" !

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Are you old enough to remember the "acid rain" scare?

Old enough, yes, but I don't recall much (I didn't pay enough attention then). Checking just now, it seems there was unsubstantiated attribution of supposed damage. Environmentalists are not as prescient as they would have us believe, in large part because they don't understand the environment nearly as well as they would have us believe, in large part because they tend to be much too narrow in scope.

But the problem is far greater, because their politics skew toward harming more benign nations and helping bad actors, which will worsen world conditions environmentally, economically, and politically. China is a prime example--communist, atheist, cutthroat; in short, they have no conscience. They don't care about their people or their environment, much less about other people or other environments, yet environmentalists don't care one whit. This is even more of a problem because the Chinese are globally involved on a large scale.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Remember it well; was gonna wipe out crops, ruin vehicles, devastate forests, yada, yada, yada!
Chicken Littles have abounded since man tried to build the tower of Babel!!!
Unfortunately, there are too many whose mouth muscles are far more fit than their brain muscles, and re-spout and believe it all with no common sense thinking!
'Pears as how this mentality is growing exponentially in gov't (& elsewhere) in the last several years.
This 82 YO is hoping the Rapture is just around the corner, & then these over educated(??)-limited intelligence "leaders" will get control of this country and re-do it as they wish. I'll give it one year max before the borders are filled with "emigrants" as opposed to "immigrants" !

Just because you choose to ignore the effects of pollution doesn't mean they don't exist.

 

[JonC]

Reminds me of a song...

The Cheese Stands Alone ♭
The Cheese Stands Alone ♭
Hi Ho the Derry O ♭
The Cheese Stands Alone ♭

I never knew those lyrics!!!??? Guess I never got that far in the song

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

Just because you choose to ignore the effects of pollution doesn't mean they don't exist.

True enough as far as truisms go. But your own camp--G20 members especially--ignores so much of the reality that they end up being the world's worst offenders. This has already been cited, but you seem deaf to it, and certainly dumb, at least I've not seen where you voice it. Europe's diesel fuel pollution problem has been developing for years at their instigation. China, India, Russia, and other "developing nations" will be polluting at will with their full permission, which means extremely large scale with no end in sight. China is not just developing in China, but in Africa and other areas as well.

 

[FollowTheWay]

True enough as far as truisms go. But your own camp--G20 members especially--ignores so much of the reality that they end up being the world's worst offenders. This has already been cited, but you seem deaf to it, and certainly dumb, at least I've not seen where you voice it. Europe's diesel fuel pollution problem has been developing for years at their instigation. China, India, Russia, and other "developing nations" will be polluting at will with their full permission, which means extremely large scale with no end in sight. China is not just developing in China, but in Africa and other areas as well.

I don't know what you mean by "your own camp." personally, I can't understand how a Christian can justify God's creation which He left us in charge of. My political beliefs are actually based on my faith.

 

[just-want-peace]

Just because you choose to ignore the effects of pollution doesn't mean they don't exist.

As I have noted before, you DO seem to have a reading comprehension problem!!
In true liberal fashion, you "read what you want to read", then offer a rebuttal to counter your interpretation rather than the actual post!!!

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I don't know what you mean by "your own camp." personally, I can't understand how a Christian can justify God's creation which He left us in charge of. My political beliefs are actually based on my faith.

Well, you seem to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that these other political entities are actually working to protect the environment. They are not. They are playing political economic games to shift power and profits. I said that too nicely. They are trying to undermine US influence and rob us blind.

 

[Praying]

My stance on this is I don't think I can believe in global warming the way they are saying it is happening. Our weather is changing but not because of what we are doing to cause it. From what I have read over time is that they have been known to seed the clouds to cause rain and other weather patterns to happen. Rather that is true or not I do not know but was taught this in school back in the 50's. God is in control of the weather. As is said about in the end times. We will see more and more earthquakes, and I will add volcanoes as well as other things that happens about every 100 or so years. I do know that a lot of politicians have been getting rich off of this. So it leaves me to wonder what is really the truth about global warming other than politicians getting rich from this.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Well, you seem to believe, despite evidence to the contrary, that these other political entities are actually working to protect the environment. They are not. They are playing political economic games to shift power and profits. I said that too nicely. They are trying to undermine US influence and rob us blind.

What is your "evidence to the contrary?"

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

What is your "evidence to the contrary?"

Ummm, what we’ve been discussing all along. But the underlying problem is that you simply cannot imagine someone you trust, because they pretend to uphold some of your values, could somehow be misleading you.

Are all of these people you trust so blindly Christians? No, of course not. Perhaps almost none of them are. There is no good reason to trust any of them so blindly. No good reason. Any of them.

I can already imagine your response, but you’re wrong. I don’t trust them either. Any of them.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Ummm, what we’ve been discussing all along. But the underlying problem is that you simply cannot imagine someone you trust, because they pretend to uphold some of your values, could somehow be misleading you.

Are all of these people you trust so blindly Christians? No, of course not. Perhaps almost none of them are. There is no good reason to trust any of them so blindly. No good reason. Any of them.

I can already imagine your response, but you’re wrong. I don’t trust them either. Any of them.

I don't trust anyone blindly. I evaluate their statement with respect to what they do. This is a typical Trumpite statement. Accusing the other side of doing what you are doing. How does your hero do on this?

 

[FollowTheWay]

Ummm, what we’ve been discussing all along. But the underlying problem is that you simply cannot imagine someone you trust, because they pretend to uphold some of your values, could somehow be misleading you.

Are all of these people you trust so blindly Christians? No, of course not. Perhaps almost none of them are. There is no good reason to trust any of them so blindly. No good reason. Any of them.

I can already imagine your response, but you’re wrong. I don’t trust them either. Any of them.

Not an acceptable answer. Please tell me, what is YOUR evidence to the contrary?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

I don't trust anyone blindly. I evaluate their statement with respect to what they do. This is a typical Trumpite statement. Accusing the other side of doing what you are doing. How does your hero do on this?

"I evaluate their statement with respect to what they do."
What do you mean by that statement? I suspect that is where the problem lies.

 

[FollowTheWay]

"I evaluate their statement with respect to what they do."
What do you mean by that statement? I suspect that is where the problem lies.

So you argue that you should follow people (like Trump) blindly regardless of the outcome of their actions. That is a very common problem with Trump supporters. As he said, he could shoot a person in the middle of 5th Ave. in broad daylight and wouldn't lose any followers.