Global warming err Climate change HOAX

[DC Tom]

I agree, for a deal that massive, 67 votes in the Senate are needed. That is all he needed to say, instead he is getting the blame from world leaders.

 

Yes, because he's an idiot.

 

And in this case, his predecessor is equally as big of one.

[B-Man]

 

 

 

 

 

 

.

[Benjamin Franklin]

Nikki Haley is probably short-lived. Says Trump believes in climate change.

 

Chain jerk coming in 3, 2...

[Doc Brown]

 

Yes, because he's an idiot.

 

And in this case, his predecessor is equally as big of one.

What's even more scary is that even if the Paris Accords was ratified by the Senate two years ago and was considered a treaty, Trump still arguably had the constitutional authority to withdrawal from it. Article 2 section 2 of the constitution says you need a 2/3rds vote in the Senate to ratify a treaty. However, article XV of the constitution gives the president power to withdrawal from treaties under particular circumstances without Senate approval under certain circumstances.

 

Here's a decent article on the topic http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/can-the-president-terminate-the-abm-treaty

[grinreaper]

http://nypost.com/2017/06/01/in-ditching-paris-deal-trump-does-right-by-america-and-the-world/

 

In fact, Trump had already abandoned the Paris goals by junking Obama’s Clean Power Plan. Yet he’s not turning back the clock. He’s just saying no to what Obama sought to impose — a rush to a low-carbon America at huge economic cost.

Under Paris, as Trump noted, the United States would’ve had to close all its coal plants, even as China builds hundreds more — and coal still generates a third of US electricity.

Yet America will continue to cut its carbon emissions: They’re already down by a fifth since 2000, thanks to fracking and the gradual replacement of coal plants with natural-gas ones. That’s better than Europe did as it implemented Kyoto by making electricity cost twice as much as it does here.

Nor did Paris make sense. As Danish economist Bjorn Lomborg notes, it entails costs of over $1 trillion a year to shave 0.36 degrees Fahrenheit off global temperatures by 2100 — a tenth the reduction it said is necessary.

The better response, Lomborg argues, is massive R&D in non-carbon power — so that humanity needn’t impoverish itself to “save the planet.” As he pursues smart post-Paris policies, Trump ought to boost outlays for “green energy” R&D.

America has far cleaner air and water than it did 50 years ago, and more parkland. It should continue those trends, and keep reducing its carbon emissions — democratically.

What the nation won’t do, thanks to the president, is devastate its own economy against the public’s wishes in order to satisfy the global elite. Count this as a major Trump promise kept.

[DC Tom]

What's even more scary is that even if the Paris Accords was ratified by the Senate two years ago and was considered a treaty, Trump still arguably had the constitutional authority to withdrawal from it. Article 2 section 2 of the constitution says you need a 2/3rds vote in the Senate to ratify a treaty. However, article XV of the constitution gives the president power to withdrawal from treaties under particular circumstances without Senate approval under certain circumstances.

 

Here's a decent article on the topic http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/detail/can-the-president-terminate-the-abm-treaty

 

I'd never even considered that. The article isn't directly applicable, I think, as the ABM treaty had written within it a standard for either party to terminate the agreement, so in that case Senate approval also conveys approval of some sort of concept of withdrawal. In the case of the Paris Accords, I don't know that that's the case (and from the "But you can't do that!" hand wringing coming from everybody, I suspect it may not be), so Senate approval may have included approving some sort of text on the order of "you can't withdraw from this." Which then may become binding law...or may not, because of the Constitutional issues the article raises (which would have been an interesting Supreme Court case).

 

So while I'm not sure the article, written with respect to the ABM treaty, is directly applicable to the Paris Accords, it certainly raises interesting points.

America has far cleaner air and water than it did 50 years ago, and more parkland.

 

Nobody cares, because...carbon!

[Magox]

I've yet to find a single person who has been able to defend the Paris Climate agreement with a scintilla of substance. All I hear are hysterics and dire forecasts.

[IDBillzFan]

I've yet to find a single person who has been able to defend the Paris Climate agreement with a scintilla of substance. All I hear are hysterics and dire forecasts.

 

LA Times big headline today about how CA is leading the pack to stick to the agreement in spite of Trump.

 

I'm thinking, "So, just to be clear, the state of CA is going to throw in the billions upon billions of dollars that the US was in for? Is that the plan? Because that's what I'm hearing."

[Doc Brown]

I've yet to find a single person who has been able to defend the Paris Climate agreement with a scintilla of substance. All I hear are hysterics and dire forecasts.

 

 

Game, set, match. Not photo shopped at all.

[Deranged Rhino]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/02/giant-antarctic-iceberg-hanging-by-a-thread-say-scientists

 

Don't worry, that's not from Global Warming/Climate change...

 

It's from ongoing archaeological excavations of an advanced human culture which lived in Antarctica before it froze...

 

[Koko78]

I've yet to find a single person who has been able to defend the Paris Climate agreement with a scintilla of substance. All I hear are hysterics and dire forecasts.

 

The world is going to end based on one immutable scientific principle: Because !@#$ you, that's why!

[4merper4mer]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/02/giant-antarctic-iceberg-hanging-by-a-thread-say-scientists

 

Don't worry, that's not from Global Warming/Climate change...

 

It's from ongoing archaeological excavations of an advanced human culture which lived in Antarctica before it froze...

 

I didn't click the link but am guessing aliens.

[Deranged Rhino]

I didn't click the link but am guessing aliens.

[KD in CA]

What parts of global warming don't you believe in? It's irrefutable that we are in a warming trend.

 

And if we are.....so what? The planet warms, the cools, the planet warms again. It's been happening for billions of years. What logical reason is there for the sudden mass hysteria? Are people really so arrogant now as to think we can create the ability to control the evolution of the planet to suit our specific wants?

 

And spare me the bogus 'it's warming cooling changing faster than ever!!' nonsense.

[Benjamin Franklin]

 

And if we are.....so what? The planet warms, the cools, the planet warms again. It's been happening for billions of years. What logical reason is there for the sudden mass hysteria? Are people really so arrogant now as to think we can create the ability to control the evolution of the planet to suit our specific wants?

 

And spare me the bogus 'it's warming cooling changing faster than ever!!' nonsense.

First it's foolish to believe that we can't change the planet just because it's been here so long. We already have changed the planet in countless ways.

 

Second, anti-pollution laws have forced some cleaning of the planet so laws do have a positive effect when people can't see past their individual convenience or small mindedness. It's a tough call enacting legislation on this topic though, be it clean air or gas emission. The hysterics of both sides rise to fever pitch.

 

Third, I never advocated for nor defended the Paris Accords. That deal was stupid and another example

Of executive overreach.

[Chef Jim]

First it's foolish to believe that we can't change the planet just because it's been here so long. We already have changed the planet in countless ways.

 

Second, anti-pollution laws have forced some cleaning of the planet so laws do have a positive effect when people can't see past their individual convenience or small mindedness. It's a tough call enacting legislation on this topic though, be it clean air or gas emission. The hysterics of both sides rise to fever pitch.

 

Third, I never advocated for nor defended the Paris Accords. That deal was stupid and another example

Of executive overreach.

Please count the ways we've changed the planet. And we have put in place lots of environmental regulations in my lifetime. Don't seem to be working do they?

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

My contention is this:

We don't need diplomats and politicians to solve the issue of carbon emissions. We need entrepeneurs. Like, say, Elon Musk.

[B-Man]

DAVID HARSANYI: Democrats Have Lost On Climate Change, And It’s Their Own Fault.

 

Moreover, many voters don’t see Democrats acting like people who believe we’re facing an extinction level event.

For instance, why aren’t we talking about adding hundreds of new nuclear power plants to our energy portfolio?

Such an effort would do far more to mitigate carbon emissions than any unreliable solar or windmill boondoggle –certainly more than any non-binding international agreement. Maybe there are tradeoffs, who knows.

Or take prospective presidential hopeful Andrew Cuomo. Setting intentions aside, in all practical ways, he’s been worse for the environment than Trump. Cuomo claims he “is committed to meeting the standards set forth in the Paris Accord regardless of Washington’s irresponsible actions.” Yet as governor, he’s blocked natural gas pipelines and banned fracking, which has proven to be one of the most effective ways to mitigate carbon emissions.

U.S. energy-related carbon emissions have fallen almost 14 percent since they peaked in 2007 according to the OECD – this, without any fabricated carbon market schemes. The driving reason is the shift to natural gas. Why do liberals hate science? Why do they condemn our grandchildren to a fiery end?

Fact is, Obama—as was his wont—tried to shift American policy with his pen rather than by building consensus (which was also an assault on proper norms of American governance, but the “Trump is destroying the Constitution!” crowd is conveniently flexible on this issue.) It’s not a feasible or lasting way to govern, unless the system collapses. It is also transparently ideological.

 

 

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

DAVID HARSANYI: Democrats Have Lost On Climate Change, And It’s Their Own Fault.

 

 

 

For instance, why aren’t we talking about adding hundreds of new nuclear power plants to our energy portfolio?

 

Thorium molten salt reactors.

 

Technology available since the 70s.

[KD in CA]

First it's foolish to believe that we can't change the planet just because it's been here so long. We already have changed the planet in countless ways.

 

Second, anti-pollution laws have forced some cleaning of the planet so laws do have a positive effect when people can't see past their individual convenience or small mindedness. It's a tough call enacting legislation on this topic though, be it clean air or gas emission. The hysterics of both sides rise to fever pitch.

 

Third, I never advocated for nor defended the Paris Accords. That deal was stupid and another example

Of executive overreach.

 

The problem is the left conflates the concept of improving environmental conditions via sensible policies and practices with the bullsh-- "climate change" narrative, and does so intentionally for political gain. Assuming we have the ability to control the direction or rate of the planet's natural warming/cooling cycles is folly, but that's the implied message with every absurdly alarmist story about how the world is ending because some chunk of ice broke off Antarctica or how there was some local tidal flooding on Miami Beach.

 

If we make the air and water cleaner, the planet is still going to get warmer. Or cooler. Humans will adapt as such changes will take place over thousands of years as always.

 

And I'm still waiting for anyone to propose a solution to the biggest environmental threat of all: overpopulation.