Donald Trump withdraws United States from Paris climate accord

>>146028
>renegotiate a better deal

He already gutted the clean power plan with no alternative planned. What exactly is he going to renegotiate in an agreement that was non-binding for our government? The physics of vertical heat transfer into ocean waters causing rising sea levels? Does he have a different temperature reduction target in mind for the world?

>>146034
Pulling out of this is much worse than simply leaving a non-treaty.
We helped to craft this deal. Our government's inability to maintain a consistent position on our foreign agreements means our credibility as a country in negotiating any such agreement in the future is gone. Perhaps for generations.
Obama is partly at fault for assuming a republican administration could be reasoned with in the future if the agreement was non-binding.

Did you see macron's video? He basically said that France is welcoming to american green industry to move to. Trump just tossed away a multibillion dollar american industry for dead end coal that can't even compete with framing.
Other countries are already lining up to take this multibillion industry from

>>146034
1. If it's not happening, do you have to craft a policy to address it?

2. And even if its happening, who's to say we can do anything to prevent it to begin with?

>>146043
>who's to say we can do anything to prevent it to begin with?

It's incredibly simple. We have to limit our greenhouse gas emissions because carbon is opaque to infrared radiation.

The targets set in the Paris agreement are not enough to avert a significant possibility of future economic and ecological catastrophe, but it was supposed to be a starting point to get everyone on board.

Trump was right that it was just the beginning in terms of measures to mitigate risk of planetary disaster. But what do we do when we need global cooperation to tackle a global problem? The conservative platform has now made globalism a dirty word when used in any context, but that's just untenable. Not only because our economy has always been closely interlinked with global trade, but because that leaves us no options in tackling a threat to the planet in the future other than apathy or insistence taht all evidence is part of an unfalsifiable conspiracy theory.

>>146043
>who's to say we can do anything to prevent it to begin with?

It's incredibly simple. We have to limit our greenhouse gas emissions because carbon is opaque to infrared radiation.

The targets set in the Paris agreement are not enough to avert a significant possibility of future economic and ecological catastrophe, but it was supposed to be a starting point to get everyone on board.

Trump was right that it was just the beginning in terms of measures to mitigate risk of planetary disaster. But what do we do when we need global cooperation to tackle a global problem? The conservative platform has now made globalism a dirty word when used in any context, but that's just untenable. Not only because our economy has always been closely interlinked with global trade, but because that leaves us no options in tackling a threat to the planet in the future other than apathy or insistence that all evidence is part of an unfalsifiable conspiracy.

>>146043
>If it's not happening
It is happening, so this is a stupid question

>who's to say we can do anything to prevent it to begin with?
Scientists? Anybody who understands science? Increased GHGs increases the greenhouse effect. Curbing GHGs reduces warming. It's not complicated.

>>146044
I'm actually a chemist and do believe that man made climate change is occurring.

But. I think what Trump did wasn't completely crazy. It's because in reality there are only 2 tangible ways to combat climate change.

1. By force. No country will willingly skimp their economy in favor of everyone's benefit, especially the asian/african/south american nations. Europe and America alone cannot sustain it and the world knows it, and thereby only by the threat of military action will other be forced to comply. But that is unacceptable for obvious reasons.

2. A technological advance that is undeniably effective that every nation will adopt. If there is a miracle invention that lets the world abandon greenhouse gas emitting power than it can incur voluntary cooperation to everyone's benefit. But we are not there yet.

That's it, those are the only realistic options we have and I'd rather not pick number 1

>>146034
Probably one where China and India actually reduce their emissions instead of being allowed to increase them until 2030

One where we don't have to sacrifice our industrial output and levy those jobs to China and India

One where we don't have to pay (drumroll) 100billion a year to third world development in addition to our already substantial foreign aid

>>146169
There was the third option, of everyone agreeing to do something about it.
And it happened, after years of finding a deal everyone was OK with. Every country on earth agreed to reduce its contribution to climate change. But Trump whined that it was all a conspiracy by socialist countries to hurt the Greatest America.

Renewable electricity is cheaper than fossil since last year, thanks to China building massive wind and solar farms and thus reducing prices of production, so your second option ALSO works. We ARE there.

>>146204
>Probably one where China and India actually reduce their emissions instead of being allowed to increase them until 2030

China has a 60% reduction target for 2030.
They are investing billion in renewable energy and canceled plenty of coal power plant all over the country. They are taking this very seriously. Also electric cars are getting super popular over there.
They're still polluting a lot because the agreement was only signed in 2015 and the effort are only barely starting. Also china have billion of people. Things like that don't change in a single year.

>One where we don't have to sacrifice our industrial output and levy those jobs to China and India
jobs are going to india and china because their competence is much higher and their cost is much lower. It has nothing to do with climate or paris agreement.

>One where we don't have to pay (drumroll) 100billion a year to third world development in addition to our already substantial foreign aid
USA pledged 3billion (paid 500million so far). The fund now has just a bit more than 10billion in pledges from France, Japan, US, Mexico, Indonesia and Vietnam. The goal is to get 100 billion because with that much they will be able to help the countries that struggle the most developing without using coal.

The only thing USA did with this is show to the world that they're like an autistic little kid throwing a tantrum because they don't understand something and the confusion makes them angry. And that USA is a country that will not honor its signature and turn away from its commitments.

whether he joined it or not i doubt it would make much of a difference.

its hard to take any politicians concern over the environment too seriously anyway,

>>146324
It does make a difference when the 2nd polluter on earth is saying it's a conspiracy and drop out of an agreement to reduce GHG and wants to go back to coal energy.

Not only does it make a difference because USA is polluting a lot but also because some smaller countries will now think that since the 2nd polluter of earth isn't doing its effort, they shouldn't have to.
It cost a lot for the smaller countries and they risk dropping out easily. This is why there is a 100 billion fund being put in place. To assure that they can go through it and don't quit. Because it requires the effort of everyone.

Funny enough though the first to drop out is the country pretending to be the best in the world. Shows how much bullshit it is.

>>146322
>they don't understand something and the confusion makes them angry.
The more time pass, the more I believe this theory about Trump having trouble reading. Even a Ssimple English wikipedia page seems beyond his reach.

>>146324
America had already joined. He terminated a contract with the rest of the world, and showed America can't be trusted with respecting deals.

>>146328
Bloomsberg said he'd pay the few billions, I think it's 10 or 3 as >>146322 says.

>>146332
congress never ratified the deal making it invalid until it had nice try

>>146332
The deal sucked dick and results in a .3 celcius drop over 100 years

>>146336
How is that bad?

>>146336
... as opposed to a rise in 5

Climate change has been a hoax for over 70 years. The world is going to end by their account 12 times in my lifetime.

>>146340
source?

>>146340
>Climate change has been a hoax for over 70 years.
the theory's been around for 120 years, are you saying it wasn't a hoax for the first 50?
>The world is going to end by their account 12 times in my lifetime.
>I don't have any rational argument so I'll just make some shit up

>>146340
>Communist plot to de-Industrialize 'Merrica.

>>146342
Generally, if you're not willing to research yourself then you're probably not going to budge from your belief anyways

>>146405
A person who can't back up what they say is generally full of shit.

>>146322
>They are investing billion in renewable energy and canceled plenty of coal power plant all over the country. They are taking this very seriously. Also electric cars are getting super popular over there.

Here in America it's difficult to understand that all across the world, in Europe and China, climate change is taken very seriously. It's not exactly a big deal over in the states. Certainly not big enough to decide elections or create severe discontent.

Furthermore, over in those countries, the argument is what should be done, and how much, while in the US, we're still at the first step of debating whether or not it's a problem. Basically, we're still at the policy setting stage when it comes to this issue, they're at the policy making/implementation.

>>146416
>we're still at the policy setting stage
You passed that step in 2015. You went back.

>>146412
Lol go back to /pol/ if you can't do your own research on news. This is a place of special minds conducting civil moderated discourse

If you have to elect a businessman president, then in the future choose a guy that isn't deeply in debt to anyone. In particular when we don't know who owns his debt.

>>146405
I have researched this. Far far more than you have. And I have not found anything to indicate that climate change has been a hoax for 70 years, nor have I found 12 times where "they" said the world was going to end.

Maybe you should stop making things up if you don't have any way to support it

>>146448
>Far mooooore than youuuu have (licks teeth)

Lol Anon is on the case guys, he's a bright cookie who went to a liberal arts college I wouldn't mess with him and his superior intellect

>>146449
You made an sweeping and startling claim.
Another anon asked you to provide evidence for your claim.
You refuse to provide evidence, and shift the burden of proof to the listener.

That's not how assertions work, man. I can make up whack shit too, but it doesn't mean anything unless I have a reputable source or reviewed research to support it. Please don't lower the quality of discourse by making accusations and stupefying attempts to find the truth behind them.

>>146028
> renegotiate a better deal for the American people
*American oil, gas and coal companies.
I guess he technically isn't wrong since the above are legally considered people now.

>>146451
I'm not here to change your mind. I'm not going to pull article after article to back up my points. I've played that game before. The opposition will discredit the bias of the website, discredit the study, discredit the articles entirely. It's boring and played out.

If you're genuinely interested in why the Paris agreement is awful then just go online with an open mind and research. I can tell you that everything has pros and cons and this agreement imo has way more cons than pros (if any).

All these little copout arguments calling people who dislike it "anti science" is taking what I would consider the least amount of mental energy in a discussion. There's alot to be said why the agreement is shit.

>>146454
Well were those websites biased? Were those studies able to be discredited? Fuck your version of 'open mind,' you're just trolling or stupid if you can't see how petulant you sound.

>>146455
Yeah, this guy is a good reason you don't fight internet battles

>>146416
>>146422
Stop taking the planet hostage with your disgusting beliefs. Trump had the balls to say fuck it, and he was right to do so, the fact that renegotiation is unconcievable prove that it was never about the environment, it's just a bunch of jealous globalists trying to run the US into the ground.

So many progressives on /news/

https://youtu.be/0XxYwWg7F8I

This was about giving the world a middle finger, while reminding us that he shares our resentments of liberal elites and welfare queen scientists and tree-hugging squishes who look down on real Americans who grow their own foo and dig for coal. Pissing off the liberals and Euros and other academics and scientist is a feature, not a downside. The United States should be a global renegade, rejecting not only the so called scientific consensus about climate but all international efforts and tearing down the globalist order and returning international politics back to the nationalistic greatness of the 19th and early 20th century. America is a fortress, the last bastion against the degeneracy that has gripped the world. Let our faith in the Lord be our shield, and our hate be our swords against this beast.

>>146481
>kill all communists.

This is what it boils down to.

>>146041
Pretty much any other republican woul've kept the deal. Obama's mistake (most people's mistake, really) was underestimating Trump as a candidate and overestimating the electorate.

>>146476
You assholes being up globalist and the free market way too much sound like records on repeat at this point

>>146476
when all you can do is shout JEWS GLOBALISM AND SOROS over and over again nobody pays attention

Enjoy becoming a cringe warrior like the rest, you lovable disregard.

>>146442
>special minds

Yeah, autism sure speaks huh :^)

>>146476
>Trump had the balls to say fuck it,
It doesn't take balls to be a retard
>he was right to do so
No, he was very wrong. But you lack foresight.
>the fact that renegotiation is unconcievable
Paris is renegotiable without leaving. Well, was for you.
>it's just a bunch of jealous globalists trying to run the US into the ground.
Trump is running USA to the ground, the rest of the world isn't jealous of a country led by a childish idiot who can't even read a page of text and will never be trusted ever again.
We're sorry for you. That's pity in our eyes.

Also, Stop taking the planet hostage with your disgusting beliefs. It apply to you.

>>146481
What will you do with the Bomb? It is made of dirty Jewish science, in case you forgot.

>>146502
Paris Agreement is weak sauce and you know it. It's not about saving the planet or not - it's about weather the agreement would be effective as well as fiscally feasible. He and many determined it wasn't.

It's easy to throw money at the situation, but the earth needs something more than a hand me out to developing countries, counties I wouldn't trust with a few million let alone billion. The money will end up, like it ways does, in the hands of the corrupt.

Solution? Brazil Amazon, Indian Rainforest, African Congo, and Chinese forsets are put under lock down. All countires agree to reduce fishing and ocean pulluting becomes international crime (oceans clean the air more than the forests)

What does he have to gain by leaving an agreement that is non-binding and not even enforceable? He just makes himself look bad and pisses everyone off. The only plus is it pleased his coal voters.

>>146533
>He and many determined it wasn't.
So infeasible that it had literally no teeth, it was just a goal on paper the US was suggested to aim for.

The only folks the agreement is fiscally unfeasible for are the Republican congressmen that get tens of millions from lobbyists on the matter, and that's only for the near future, because their children will have to occupy the same planet.

>and many
Everyone in the US and noone anywhere else on Earth, incidentally.

>>146538
No, you're seeing it as black and white. Try to see the grey.

It would not help ANYTHING. The earth would continue down it's current course. Whether you believe warming is anthropomorphic or natural or both, it wouldn't change it. It was a monetary welfare program for third world nations that cannot be trusted with that kind of ridiculous money.

>>146533
Or go full blow communism.

>>146537
Save Fossil Fuels from Communists.

>>146541

>It would not help ANYTHING.
What would not help? Accepting reality? Accepting physics of warming and wanting to curb the temperature increase from the greenhouse effect?

>The earth would continue down it's current course.
You know what will make the Earth continue down its current course? Not doing anything.

>Whether you believe warming is anthropomorphic or natural or both, it wouldn't change it.
Believe what you want, you're wrong if you disagree because the science is very much settled.

>It was a monetary welfare program for third world nations that cannot be trusted with that kind of ridiculous money.
Then don't pay them for being bloodthirsty parasites or whatever it is you trump supporters think of folks who weren't born pampered in suburbs. But at least be on the same page as the rest of the world in accepting we need to curb emissions.

>>146567
Noones saying we shouldnt do anything, or that climate change isn't happening.
You're just putting words in the opposition mouth to make your arguments more reasonable.

The Paris Agreement is not the right thing! That's all. I think alot of people see this.

And if you think giving free money away to countires that can't even build a highway and go a week without a mass shooting by a cartel or warlord then you're being naive.

You seem to be under the impression that blindly entering some sort of insane pact would solve climate change, as if having your heart in the right place means anything. The world is more complex than "sign this agreement".

Hell why don't start by planting trees or something? Be the change you want to see in the world.

Planet X. = end of the world. + Sun is entering a new stage. as you know the sun rotates also and has dark spots. warming is the least of problems. cooling is coming.

>>146592
Or could you say...
*raises paw* *tips fedora* *teleports beind you*
Winter is coming? Heheh

>>146481

you make me think of this
>>145665

>>146576
> I think alot of people see this.
Yeah, in USA .

>And if you think giving free money away to countires that can't even build a highway and go a week without a mass shooting by a cartel or warlord then you're being naive.

Yes, that's why no one give free money to anyone.
The fund is used to help countries reduce their GHG mostly by avoiding coal.
Helping implies that the country in question is already doing something.


>You seem to be under the impression that blindly entering some sort of insane pact would solve climate change, as if having your heart in the right place means anything. The world is more complex than "sign this agreement"

No one blindly agreed. This has been in discussion and debate for a few years by the entire world. You're extremely fucking stupid if you think it was just agreed blindly.
The entire world agreed on some target to reach. Most of them wont reach them at all, but every fucking little bit helps.
It wont solve climate changes. But it will help slowing it down a little bit.

America is like a fat kid giving up and dropping on the ground panting for air because walking forward is too hard.
The world is definitely complex and this agreement is the biggest one in history.

>Hell why don't start by planting trees or something? Be the change you want to see in the world.
>slowpoke.jpg
We started planting trees already decades ago. I have a tree on my lawn that my brother planted for a school project to "save the planet" in 1984. We're still doing it.
Stop being so fucking slow. You're supposed to be the #1 country in the world and you're still struggling behind everyone.

>>146321
>>146169
I'm working on an invention that's meant to break down garbage further and remake it into material that can be re-purposed. (potentially reducing costs on raw materials.)

I want to make it limit 25%-45% of the world's waste and when I'm done, hopefully...

It's still in early design and concept in terms of designs and function. Though are others besides me working on that, that are ahead obviously.

>>146718
fuck my dyslexia, don't expect it soon.

>>146718
Recycling? You're inventing recycling?

>>146034
Trump Climate Deal.

The county with the greatest absolute CO2 emissions pays the other countries to improve.
(currently china)

The biggest payments go to the countries that need to improve the most.
(current us, and our arab friends)

Simple and fair. Surely nobody can argue with this.

>>146862

>The county with the greatest absolute CO2 emissions pays the other countries to improve (currently china)

And the US

>>146862 #
If it were fair, countries would contribute according to their historic per capital contribution. Those that contributed most per capital to the carbon budget had some economic advantage and so should contribute proportionately to the aid required for transitioning the developing world.

The actual amount of aid that will be required is almost certainly orders of magnitude less than the price of compensating for the full advantage the US will have historically had.

who cares who leads
who even cares how we divvy up contribution.
more than half the planet is going to become a dust bowl according to data from every field and scientists at fucking Shell.
and that's not even considering the unknown consequences of the runaway warming when we surpass +2degC over pre-industrial levels.

we're probably going to be number one economy on a planet largely inhospitable to human civilization
we don't have a single law regulating CO2 emissions.
we spend tens of billions of taxpayer dollars for the navy to secure passage for oil tankers.
we're scrapping all our subsidies to green technology when the rest of the world is promising to double down on its installation.
we're promising more coal-fired plants when other countries are promising to end construction and close facilities.
we're not only stagnating on every front, we're moving backward, and we're already the second largest emitter, largest historic emitter, and one of the largest per capita emitters of greenhouse gasses.
all because some faggots want to settle some political scores.

>>147791
Nah, because deforesting and ocean pollution / overfishing are way more detrimental to the environment than "historical c02 output"

>>147805
We can spend forever trying to balance out the universe, but we need to begin acting at some point. And don't worry, I agree that all need to be addressed and we should do that in as equitable a way as possible. The US should definitely take it upon itself to bring that up as well if it thinks it is being short-changed in these areas. But that does not excuse inaction on climate change. In fact, if we're getting our priorities straight, they're all devastating but climate change carries a serious existential risk to global economy and ecology.

>>147818
I agree the US should be green. I agree other countries should be green.

I don't agree in the US giving jobs + money to unstable third world nations. That's where I get off the train.

>>147822
The US isn't handing them a competitive advantage here by contributing toward their aid.
The aid isn't free money. They have to use it toward combating their carbon footprint and are expected to meet certain commitments across time in that respect to continue receiving aid. Nobody is going to continue giving them aid if they consistently fail to meet their share of commitments.
But we haven't even given the developing world a chance.

>>147827
I don't trust them doing anything they say they'll do with the money. I don't believe it won't hurt our own economy. I don't believe Co2 (vs deforesting and ocean pollution) is the biggest concern.

>>146576
>Noones saying we shouldnt do anything, or that climate change isn't happening
Trump is. He's said that repeatedly. So have many other conservatives, including most of /pol/

>>147832
He requested a renegotiation and it was snubbed. I personally think the US is already on the right track. Our forests are growing and our emissions are dropping.

>>147831
The Paris Accord addresses more than just CO2

>>147834
So surprise, the richest country in the world can afford to make itself "Green". Problem is we can't judge nations incapable of paying for concrete roads when they exploit their natural resources. That's the game we played for the past 100 years. Our position allows us to help less fortunate countries for everyone's benefit or continue to horde our spoils to the worlds detriment.

>>147834
>renegotiation
the agreement wasn't a transaction.
it wasn't negotiated out of selfish interest on behalf of any country.
the agreement was, according to world's best climate models, X was the bare minimum that has to be done to prevent runaway climate change, and since we need everyone on board to recognize a global threat, countries are given 100% discretion to decide their own commitment.
which brings to question, what is there to renegotiate? totally non-binding terms?
folks say trump was playing to his base, but I guess I'm more cynical because I think all he has in his head is a desire to get even with people. I can't imagine what it must be like to go through life being such a small person.
this was the lowest thing the US could have done and we did it.

>>147850
Oh I see, it's not enough that the US manages to unfuck its own CO2 emissions, it must somehow pay for the rest of the world to unfuck their own.

Yeah, try ramming that spending bill down the throats of every American during the election and see which candidate wins.

>>147857
>Yeah, try ramming that spending bill down the throats of every American during the election and see which candidate wins.
If you want to make it a matter of public opinion, Hillary did win the popular vote.

>>147883
HAH ! the popular vote is like saying she's one of top 10 songs this week. next week she's gone. popular don't win.

Water vapor is the strongest greenhouse gas. The atmosphere is defined per the by the gravitational attraction of the planet on the atmospheric gases above the surface, and is a function of the mass of the planet.
Replace CO2 in the calculation with water vapor and you get more greenhouse heating.
You have been scammed.

>>147884
No it's like saying she got more votes than Trump, but he's sticking around anyway for no good reason.

>>147898
There are a number of greenhouse gasses and yes water vapor is one of them.

But unless you've developed a gigadehumidifier or some such we cannot control the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere.

We can control our carbon emissions.

We can control large scale methane emissions.

We probably need the ozone layer, just saying.

So yes water vapor does make up about 3/4 of the greenhouse effect. But we can't control that so it's not an issue. Human endeavors aren't adding gigatons of water vapor to the atmosphere.

We ARE adding gigatons of CO2. So even if CO2 is only responsible for 10-12% of global warming it's still enough to fuck us all over as Hadley cell expansion destroys our best agricultural regions.

By reducing CO2 emissions we can slow, or even reverse the process and therefore ensure the continued survival of the species.

It's not hard to understand, and it would be virtually impossible to fake the amount of evidence supporting the phenomenon.

>>147822
Well, your president is refusing to invest in the future's energy and goes back to coal.
The world will buy Chinese solar panels if you don't make them. We sure won't take steam locomotives out of the museums for your coal.
But sure, you won't have to pay 3 billions per year, that's sooo much for a (soon) third world country, we understand. You could have just not paid and stayed in the accord.
>But it's not 3 billions it's 100
That's the global piggy bank, it will be 97 without you.
See, the Paris agreement was really about buying American solar panels and hydrogen technology when you develop it. I guess www.makeourplanetgreatagain.fr will work on hydrogen instead.

Your president is also selling weapons to unstable nation.

>>147997
Lets not invest in other countries. They're not reliable.

The Paris Agreement was about aligning Europe with China's energy production and manufacturing aspirations since the EU can't offset it's surmounting debt and rising energy needs. Russia and the Middle East have proven to be too unstable.

Read between the lines and the whole thing is a giant scam.

>>148003
>They're not reliable.
The USA is unreliable with Trump as president.
What investments are you talking about?

You're saying the agreement was about making Europe pollute as much as China?
That's some next level midline reading skills you have, Anon.

>>148009
Democrats: "let's throw billions of dollars at third world shitholes so they can become futuristic green energy utopias"

Gee what could go wrong?
How do you get this fucking dense?

>>148035
Not as Dense as Koch's cock suckers.

>>148042
You're missing out then kek

>>148043
On the cock sucking.

No thanks.

>>148048
oh I'm so fucking scared of communists emerging from /pol/.

Go deal with your own problem before you commence on your conquest.

>>148048
>is an American
>steals outdated Germanic terms

For what purpose? Are you really so intellectually bankrupt that you can't come up with terms that are culturally yours?

>>148050
Culture isn't sacred

>>147943
she didnt get more votes, i saw the news.

>>146028
sad facts: gov. will only pay scientist if they give pro global warming narrative.... 2 billion dollars. 3500 scientist sign petition on the global warming issue and that the narrative is fake.

>>148264
I'm surprised more people aren't aware of the substantial evidence that proves C02 has nothing to do with rising temps and that it's virtually impossible to measure the "average earth temp"

Numerous Nobel prize winning physics scientists have come out and revealed the massive discrepancy in error with data collection, and the apparent lack of proper discussion.

Even in this thread you can see the religious fervor of emission based warming believers

>>148266
Sounds rather interesting and feasible, can I get some sources or PDFs?

>>146746
>break down garbage further
Sounds like he's building a recycler for landfill garbage. Anything that goes into a landfill is basically discarded instead of recycled, so it's a sound idea.

>>148326
Dr. Ivar Geiaver - Nobel prize laureate says Obama "dead wrong" on global warming

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/653805?section=Newsfront&keywords=Ivar-Giaever-nobel-prize-global-warming-obama&year=2015&month=07&date=07&id=653805&aliaspath=%2FManage%2FArticles%2FTemplate-Main&oref=duckduckgo.com

http://www.newsmax.com/t/newsmax/article/559929?section=LarryBell&keywords=climate-warming-moore&year=2014&month=03&date=17&id=559929&aliaspath=%2FManage%2FArticles%2FTemplate-Main&oref=duckduckgo.com

https://youtu.be/qdTlXuTwvEQ

Dr. Patrick Moore, Greenpeace founder, left Greenpeace when the organization began to take "human emissions" as the primary cause of concern and not deforesting and overfishing/ocean pollution

The increase in temperature between 1910 and 1940 was virtually identical to the increase between 1970 and 2000. Yet the IPCC does not attribute the increase from 1910–1942 human influence.” Why then, he asks, “does the IPCC believe that a virtually identical increase in temperature after 1950 is caused mainly by human influence, when it has no explanation for nearly identical increase from 1910 to 1940?”

Dr. Varenholt and Dr. Lovelock, both climatologists, described the IPCC as "dogmatic" and "incredibly sloppy" in their science and reporting. They both found regular inconsistency, number fudging, and gross exaggerating in both their and NASAs climate models to get a more dramatic result.

Some scientists have noted that the thermometers tend to be located in cities, where reduced tree and increased pavement would play a role in increased temperatures on the readings

Recent work (Tsonis, A. A., K. Swanson, and S. Kravtsov, 2007: A new dynamical mechanism for major climate shifts, Geophys. Res. Ltrs., 34, L13705, doi:10.1029/2007GL030288), suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.”

>>146028
>President Trump announced Thursday that he was starting the process for a U.S. exit from the Paris climate change agreement

Fake news is fake.

>https://politics.slashdot.org/story/17/06/11/0615225/the-us-cant-leave-the-paris-climate-deal-until-2020
>Under the rules of the deal, which the White House says it will follow, the earliest any country can leave is November 4, 2020. That means the United States will remain a party to the accord for nearly all of Mr. Trump's current term... Nov. 4, 2019 is the earliest date that the United States can submit a written notice to the United Nations that it is withdrawing from the Paris deal -- exactly three years after it came into force. As soon as that happens, the United States can leave the accord in exactly one year... If a new president enters the White House on Jan. 20, 2021, he or she could easily submit a written notice to the United Nations that the United States would like to rejoin the Paris accord. Within 30 days, the United States could re-enter the agreement and submit a new pledge for how the country plans to tackle climate change.

OMG, we leave it for 3 months before the new guy comes in. The horror.

>>148266
Even if global warming is a hoax, there are other benefits to using renewable energy, such as less smog and cheaper electricity bills.

>>148625
>Fake news is fake.
The headline is just quoting what Trump himself has stated.
But sure, yeah, "fake".
Let's discredit the media for telling us the stupid shit the President says.

>>148629

If Trump says that he's going to blow up the moon, the media shouldn't react by saying "ZOMG, we're all going to DIE!!!1one" and freaking everyone out. They should call him out on how it's impossible.

>>148633
>If Trump says that he's going to blow up the moon
Trump's announcement that we're leaving the Paris accord mostly means that the American government no longer holds the belief that climate change is a problem, and limiting it is no longer a goal we share with the world.
All of this is accurate.
Our formal membership is a minor technicality, pretending otherwise is the real "fake news".

>>146044
Why is the goal always to limit emissions and not to remove excess carbon from the atmosphere? Every time I hear politicians or environmentalists discussing climate change it revolves around reducing emissions. Sure it would be ideal to reduce as m7ch as possible, but if we remove more then we put into the environment wouldn't that be just as if not more effective. It would also allow us to address methane which is worse then carbon dioxide but seems to be an after thought. There is the added benefit that it would stimulate industry and innovation as well, making it more palatable to businesses.

>>149518
Carbon and emissions stuff is a load of shit. We need to be cleaning the ocean, removing radiation and pullution. Reforestation projects.

>>149518
We don't have the tech to do that on such a scale yet. Given a hundred years, we might, but not right now.

>>149522
Then why not make that the major focus of investment as opposed to solar panels which require expensive components and rare earth metals which need to be imported?

>>149521

I think we need to approach this problem from many angles if we want to see any meaningful progress.