Right! Let me back in. EYES with $$$$ signs....okie dokie!!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Trump: U.S. to withdraw from Paris climate pact, calls it 'unfair' for America
- Thread starter Revmitchell
- Start date
- Status
Right! Let me back in. EYES with $$$$ signs....okie dokie!!
Care to make a bet on that? They are loving Trump leaving the field to them and Europe. You seem to believe we can dictate to the world. We can't. Now they can make demands on us if we want to rejoin. [/QUOTE]
Uh....JOINING in any capacity (first, last or rejoining) IS coupled with DEMANDS!
That is one of Trumps POINTS. The demands and expectations are highly shouldered upon the US, while other nations widely default on their pledging to comply and their default is widely accepted!
Uh....JOINING in any capacity (first, last or rejoining) IS coupled with DEMANDS!
That is one of Trumps POINTS. The demands and expectations are highly shouldered upon the US, while other nations widely default on their pledging to comply and their default is widely accepted![/QUOTE]
You do not understand the Chinese or negotiations between governments.
Well, unless someone's one of those climate change denying fruitcake, the statement makes perfect sense: Mar-e-Lago WILL be below sea level in years to come if Trump gets his way. It's a shameful foolish act of a turkey begging for an early Thanksgiving. I'd laugh if it wasn't so serious for God's Creation.
sigh, Al Gore made a movie on this in which none of the predictions in that movie have occured. We are all supposed to be burried in water right now. Let's stop pretending this science is settled and get honest. It's beneath you.
And how, exactly, will the Paris accords stop rising sea levels?
How will the Paris accords reduce sunspot activity which is building toward an 1100 years maximum some time around 2070?
How will the Paris accords reduce deep ocean temperature rise as measured over the past 3 decades?
How do the Paris accords speed up the 200 year co2 reuptake cycle?
How do the Paris accords reduce the 94% of atmospheric co2 emissions NOT related to human activity?
How will the Paris accords reduce sunspot activity which is building toward an 1100 years maximum some time around 2070?
How will the Paris accords reduce deep ocean temperature rise as measured over the past 3 decades?
How do the Paris accords speed up the 200 year co2 reuptake cycle?
How do the Paris accords reduce the 94% of atmospheric co2 emissions NOT related to human activity?
Whoah! Wow! Just Wow! When over 95% of scientists agree about anthropogenic climate change, the science 'isn't settled'?!! Oh. My. Word. Presumably this is all 'fake nooze' of 'alt facts'.
I'm very sorry: I thought you wanted to have a serious debate on the pros and cons of the Paris agreement based on SCIENCE. Quite clearly you do not (which doubtless explains why all you have are unsubstantiated insults). There's therefore little point in carrying on any engagement with you.
"Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded."
Read more at: The 97 Percent Solution
I did not say what I base my view on. Not sure where in the world you got that from. It seems to me to be nothing more than a snotty statement pulled out of thin air. I have yet to see you defend anything about this in order to have a discussion based on science. I see you have made a lot of unsubstantiated claims based on politically motivated "science" which is nothing more than a cover got global governance and wealth redistribution.
Americans will never give into that.
What pros and cons?
The aim of the convention is described in Article 2, "enhancing the implementation" of the UNFCCC through:
"(a) Holding the increase in the global average temperature to well below 2 °C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change;
How? Read the UNFCCC and tell me HOW to keep temperature rise below 2 degrees centigrade?
(b) Increasing the ability to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;
How? Read the UNFCCC and tell me HOW to adapt to the adverse impacts of climate change and foster climate resilience and low greenhouse gas emissions development, in a manner that does not threaten food production;
(c) Making finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions and climate-resilient development."
How? And what do they mean by "finance flows consistent with a pathway towards low greenhouse gas emissions?"
And how do you enforce the accords among the 148 countries that have ratified it of the 195 countries whose representatives signed it?
And how do you enforce it among the 47 countries that have not ratified it?
And how do you enforce the provisions that are voluntary on the part of the signatories?
Trump is not abandoning the accords. He is asking to reconvene the meetings and hammer out universal, enforceable guidelines that will actually do something other than be a useless "feel good" political exercise.
Poobah...
https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhener...-anthropogenic-climate-change/2/#cacfa77d08e7
Cook is careful to describe his 2013 study results as being based on “climate experts.” Political figures and the popular press are not so careful. President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry have repeatedly characterized it as 97% of scientists. Kerry has gone so far as to say that “97 percent of peer-reviewed climate studies confirm that climate change is happening and that human activity is largely responsible.” This is patently wrong, since the Cook study and others showed that the majority of papers take no position. One does not expect nuance in political speeches, and the authors of scientific papers cannot be held responsible for the statements of politicians and the media.
Given these results, it is clear that support among scientists for human-caused climate change is below 97%.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of fact, of those that took a position, only about 1/3 were positive. I believe that's slightly less than 97% or 95% or any of the other lies being bandied about by the worldwide distribution of wealth gang.
Last edited:
By using solar powered farm tractors and by telling cows to quit pooping methane gas.
You do also understand that this post and reasoning is a logical fallacy called the bandwagon fallacy......right?
Well, the 97% figure comes from your own NASA, amongst others. Do you and Trump therefore think that this they also peddle 'fake nooze'?https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
Are NASA on a 'false bandwagon' too?
Are NASA on a 'false bandwagon' too?
Yes, in fact Obama tried to turn nasa into a climate change organization instead of space exploration.
Hijacked! How Obama and the Left Killed NASA: The journey from the Moon to radical activism
https://climate.nasa.gov/nasa_science/history/
Congress May Shift Climate Research Away from NASA
But I see you failed to address what i posted.
Last edited:
We have some on the board who continue to sit smugly in Plato's Cave and will continue to deny change as the water rises to their nose and beyond. Guess they will also insist they are dry.
Proof please or is this simply another one-liner you want to believe but cannot back up?
- Status