Donald Trump ready to withdraw from Paris climate agreement

You haven't read what I said. Anyone who believes that man-made action is not causing the bleaching of coral, is not treated as a climate scientist.

You implied that the whole thing is faith-based and therefore not scientific and therefore not to be taken seriously. I was merely pointing out that it must be an awfully powerful faith and asking where I can get some of that.

I didn't suggest anything of the kind (at least in this post).

Very interesting link. Stefan is a pretty down to earth intelligent guy, and I have no reason to disbelieve him.

I had no idea it would cost 100 trillion dollars and do next to nothing to protect the enviroment. [Which Im all for]

Dear Leader Donald Trump will ensure the US joins Syria and Nicaragua in not supporting the Paris climate agreement, in a bid to defy the ((globalists)) and the ((green agenda)). After all, we all know global warming is a Chinese communist hoax; we're too smart to fall for these silly environmentalist liberal cuck schemes. Go Trump. MAGA!

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/may/31/donald-trump-withdraw-paris-climate-change-agreement

No that is called cherry picking evidence.

For example the Verheggen et Al study, 2014 surveyed 1,868 climate scientists. What do you think climate scientists are going to say? There is no climate change?

The John Cook et al 2013 study surveyed 11,944 published articles on the subject. Again what do you think they are generally going to say, articles introducing a new topic.

A neutral study would have to go and ask several thousand scientists chosen at random from the entire population o scientists and be able to prove it's neutrality though unbiased sampling.







Posted from TSR Mobile

To put that figure in context, there were 296 million cases of malaria in 2015, killing 731,000 people (90% in Africa, making poor communities even poorer).

"The total amount of projected funding needed for the current malaria-eliminating countries to achieve elimination and prevent reintroduction through 2030 is approximately US$8.5 billion" (source).

The Paris Agreement costs 11,765 times as much. (I wouldn't be surprised if it has already cost that much , does anyone have a figure?) Any commitment to spend that money? Not to my knowledge, charities like Unicef are sending charity workers out to collect.

That's if climate change is real

Are you just a professional idiot? Why are you more qualified than the thousands of scientists and the 195 countries who all agree on this?

Absolutely ridiculous. And to think our Prime Minister holds hands with the guy who wants to wreck our planet. Lets make June the end of May.

I am sorry, climate science is a discipline of true believers. Effectively you cannot become a climate scientist unless you believe in man-made global warming. Haven't you noticed that scientific sceptics aren't described as climate scientists; they are always described as chemists, biologists, physicists or whatever.

Likewise you won't find any academic in the field of surveillance studies who wants more cctv cameras. Surveillance studies is a discipline for complaining about the amount of surveillance. Electronic security is the discipline for people who want more surveillance. They write in different journals, they go to different conferences and they do not engage with one another.

Climate science like surveillance studies is a club for like-minded people.

How... have you managed to bring up terrorism in a thread about global warming?

Acknowledging that climate change is a common concern of humankind,
Parties should, when taking action to address climate change, respect, promote and consider their respective obligations on human rights, the right to health, the rights of indigenous peoples, local communities, migrants, children, persons with disabilities and people in vulnerable situations and the right to development, as well as gender equality, empowerment of women and intergenerational equity,

And now nearly 24 hours later nobody has said why it's bad other than "because it is." Somebody please tell us all why it is a bad idea when the effect would be something like maximum 0.034C over the next 82 years based on assumptions that maximise the figure. That figure is based on the 0.2C estimated effect of complete implementation of all measures well beyond the expiry of the accord, and then assuming linear effects on output vs increase and the current figure of the US contributing 17% of CO2 emissions, clearly established as a maximum because there wouldn't be full implementation, it wouldn't be extended, and that 17% figure is going to be dropping sharply as the developing world continues to develop and need more power.