Trump just removed the US from the Paris climate accords

[toexist]

drt4lfe post is just as valid to the OP discussion.

Maverick I think your the first person I've encountered whom likes to argue more than me. I wouldn't be surprised if u were to debate me in the earth being round at this point.

 

[Maverick]

Regarding the film, not even the global warming proponents agree with the films numbers.

"Doug Boucher, reviewing the film for the Union of Concerned Scientists, disputed the film's claim that 51% of global greenhouse gases are caused by animal agriculture. Boucher describes the 51% figure as being sourced from a 2009 Worldwatch Institute report by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang; not from a peer-reviewed scientific paper. He asserts methodological flaws in Goodland and Anhang's logic, and claims that the scientific community has formed a consensus that global warming is primarily caused by humanity's burning of fossil fuels. Boucher claims the scientific consensus is that livestock contribute 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions - far lower than the 51% claimed by the film.

The Union of Concerned Scientists review concludes by alleging that livestock does indeed contribute to global warming—albeit at a far lower rate than the film claims—and notes that the film's allegation of a scientific 'conspiracy' to suppress knowledge belies the vast amount of literature published on the topic of livestock's contribution to greenhouse emissions."

 

[Maverick]

No, the earth is round... thus we agree

 

[toexist]

Regarding the film, not even the global warming proponents agree with the films numbers.

"Doug Boucher, reviewing the film for the Union of Concerned Scientists, disputed the film's claim that 51% of global greenhouse gases are caused by animal agriculture. Boucher describes the 51% figure as being sourced from a 2009 Worldwatch Institute report by Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang; not from a peer-reviewed scientific paper. He asserts methodological flaws in Goodland and Anhang's logic, and claims that the scientific community has formed a consensus that global warming is primarily caused by humanity's burning of fossil fuels. Boucher claims the scientific consensus is that livestock contribute 15% of global greenhouse gas emissions - far lower than the 51% claimed by the film.

The Union of Concerned Scientists review concludes by alleging that livestock does indeed contribute to global warming—albeit at a far lower rate than the film claims—and notes that the film's allegation of a scientific 'conspiracy' to suppress knowledge belies the vast amount of literature published on the topic of livestock's contribution to greenhouse emissions."

Maverick I can Google anything and find someone who agrees with me as it relates to ANY subject. So am now supposed to copy and paste one of the countless positive reviews on the Internet in order to prolong this debate about a documentary you havent seen and likely will never see?

 

[Maverick]

I don't have to watch it, you are taking the film as absolute truth but peer review from the scientific community and the EPA states there where never a peer review and discounts the numbers, the film is not new, I known about the film for a couple of years when the university pulled the Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang report from required reading because the numbers didn't go through peer review and later discounted, the numbers came from Worldwatch Institute report and the authors were Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang whom were part of the films making. The university is the same university my Wife works at and I knew about the discrepancy then regarding the numbers in the film. Even the EPA own number under the enviro President obummer discounted those findings. The liberal scientific community that's been pushing for the carbon tax even discounted the numbers.

 

[toexist]

I don't have to watch it, you are taking the film as absolute truth but peer review from the scientific community and the EPA states there where never a peer review and discounts the numbers, the film is not new, I known about the film for a couple of years when the university pulled the Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang report from required reading because the numbers didn't go through peer review and later discounted, the numbers came from Worldwatch Institute report and the authors were Robert Goodland and Jeff Anhang whom were part of the films making. The university is the same university my Wife works at and I knew about the discrepancy then regarding the numbers in the film. Even the EPA own number under the enviro President obummer discounted those findings. The liberal scientific community that's been pushing for the carbon tax even discounted the numbers.

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3302820/?ref_=nv_sr_1

You're speaking as if everything you're saying is fact. The documentary explores the corruption that exists within environmental agencies which you base your facts on.

Like I said before...will agree to disagree. I certainly don't agree with your take on this documentary...which you HAVEN'T seen.

 

[Brent S]

One thing I do agree with is that behind most documentaries someone was pushing their agenda. I don't agree with the numbers presented either. But like I said earlier, if even half, or more likely a quarter of those stats are accurate, then it is an eye opener. We've all known about pollutants from burning fossil fuels for ages, but there are other unexpected pollution sources out there. I am glad to be made aware of other contributing factors.

 

[Proud Prepper]

I know the planet has cycles and has changed many times over the millennia. Most of those changes happened slowly, giving plants and animals time to adapt. The problem with human overpopulation and its effects are it is happening fast. Most species will be extinct, which will have dire consequences for us. I'm not just being a doomsayer here. I think mankind has the potential to solve these issues. I don't think we will though.

Changes happened Slowly? Animals and plants found frozen while in a very living state and fast frozen geological area's discovered was determined to have happened at a rapid rate. Most change is slow, but some is very rapid after volcanic and meteorological events, most occurring without mankind's involvement in any way. Even with all our pollution and use of nukes, we have not even come close to the damage done to the planet in the past by natural events and the earth is still here doing just fine, with or without us, major changes will occur. We need to learn to adapt.

We need to help make the area's we live and use for our own survival sustainable for our existence. In this aspect we need to control the pollution and environmental conditions the best we can.

 

[Brent S]

Changes happened Slowly? Animals and plants found frozen while in a very living state and fast frozen geological area's discovered was determined to have happened at a rapid rate. Most change is slow, but some is very rapid after volcanic and meteorological events, most occurring without mankind's involvement in any way. Even with all our pollution and use of nukes, we have not even come close to the damage done to the planet in the past by natural events and the earth is still here doing just fine, with or without us, major changes will occur. We need to learn to adapt.

We need to help make the area's we live and use for our own survival sustainable for our existence. In this aspect we need to control the pollution and environmental conditions the best we can.

Without a doubt, the earth will be just fine. In a million years after we are gone there will be no signs of our existence at all. The planet has a way of cleaning itself up over time. The problem of quick changes to the environment is strictly for us. And yes, you're right there were quick changes through the ages, but it didn't bode well for the plants and animals alive at those times.

 

[DrHenley]

From 2015
"Updated data from NASA satellite instruments reveal the Earth’s polar ice caps have not receded at all since the satellite instruments began measuring the ice caps in 1979.

Bypass the MSM and go straight to a relatively unbiased source: (National Snow and Ice Data Center)
Here is the Arctic Ice extent as of yesterday (June 3rd, 2017)
You can see that compared to the median extent from 1981-2010, some areas have less ice, but some areas have more ice. The Arctic has hardly melted.

Note, some of the currently ice bound areas of the Arctic were explored by Viking sailors during the Medieval Warm Period around the year 1000 AD. There was a Viking outpost on Baffin Island well into the Arctic Circle. (see second map)

 

[drt4lfe]

Or you could just...not respond...dirt for life.

like I said 99.99% don't care and the last thing they think about day to day is global warming.....throwing good money after bad at some point needs to stop....the U.S. taxpayers have paid enough for the global warming scare propaganda program....

 

[toexist]

like I said 99.99% don't care and the last thing they think about day to day is global warming.....throwing good money after bad at some point needs to stop....the U.S. taxpayers have paid enough for the global warming scare propaganda program....

I know they don't care...that is why I choose not to debate it. Especially not here of all places.

 

[Maverick]

From Lisa friend who professor for the department of ecology & evolutionary biology at Yale and volunteers as a high school science teacher, the person is one of those left wing environmental type people, this was taken from a private conversation at the time, permission to re-post here from both of them.

"Every time the paris agreement topic comes up the only thing that is clear is how little anybody knows about it. The document, only 16 pages, references a ton of other documents, so Its tough to figure out for the average person. But, some research, you can find and can understand our "pull out".

I agree with the paris agreement in principle. You can't effect climate if only one country is making changes. But, this is also where the paris agreement fails, miserably.

1. The United States is "legally bound" to contribute $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund. It sounds high, but the fund is expecting to raise $100 billion. There is a catch, however, as everyone else's commitment is listed as a "non-binding" provision. So we are obligated, while the rest is volunteer. Now, think of the UN funding, and imagine how much really will be volunteered. The funds go entirely to funding green energy in other countries.

2. Is there accountability for the funds? Not really. A dictator could be given millions, only to spend it on a new mansion with solar panels to qualify. Well, it's not that bad, but the accountability on usage is limited.

3. The paris agreement has emissions goal for the United States that, we all agree, we should definitely meet. The pact legally requires the United States to get 26-28% below our 2005 emissions numbers. The only catch is that we've already done this, all without any international pact. In 2005 we were doing ~7550 in emissions. In 2015 we did 5172 in emissions. We are effectively 68.5% of the 2005 number, or about 32% lower than 2005. What's that mean? There is no longer domestic obligation for the United States on the agreement. At least, if my math is right. Why are we doing so well? Not exactly Tesla, but natural gas. But that doesn't get discussed.

4. The paris agreement is very India specific. As it should be, as India is nearly solely responsible for Greenland melt. But forget $3 billion, the pact expects $2.5 trillion to be given to India over the next 15 years. India has NO requirement to the pact unless this obligation is on track. Where is most the money coming from? Care to take a guess?

5. China is also the big winner. With USA abandoning coal the resource has become cheap. You would think this paris agreement would stop coal as an energy resource worldwide, since it supposedly includes the rest of the world. China is the biggest offender, and the Pact doesn't require any correction from them until, wait for it, 2030. United States emissions could drop to 0 and we wouldn't dent China's emissions growth in the next 5 years, let alone 13. This is terrible What's worse, the paris agreement allows for China to make another 1,171 coal plants. What?!?

Yes, more coal plants, just not in the United States. It's too cheap of an energy for a wealthy country to enjoy. Fine. India is allowed a few less than 500 new coal plants. That's awesome. See ya Greenland.

Obviously this paris agreement is a joke as it's written. It's only successful objective is siphoning money out of the United States."

 

[WGregMiller]

From Lisa friend who professor for the department of ecology & evolutionary biology at Yale and volunteers as a high school science teacher, the person is one of those left wing environmental type people, this was taken from a private conversation at the time, permission to re-post here from both of them.

"Every time the paris agreement topic comes up the only thing that is clear is how little anybody knows about it. The document, only 16 pages, references a ton of other documents, so Its tough to figure out for the average person. But, some research, you can find and can understand our "pull out".

I agree with the paris agreement in principle. You can't effect climate if only one country is making changes. But, this is also where the paris agreement fails, miserably.

1. The United States is "legally bound" to contribute $3 billion to the Green Climate Fund. It sounds high, but the fund is expecting to raise $100 billion. There is a catch, however, as everyone else's commitment is listed as a "non-binding" provision. So we are obligated, while the rest is volunteer. Now, think of the UN funding, and imagine how much really will be volunteered. The funds go entirely to funding green energy in other countries.

2. Is there accountability for the funds? Not really. A dictator could be given millions, only to spend it on a new mansion with solar panels to qualify. Well, it's not that bad, but the accountability on usage is limited.

3. The paris agreement has emissions goal for the United States that, we all agree, we should definitely meet. The pact legally requires the United States to get 26-28% below our 2005 emissions numbers. The only catch is that we've already done this, all without any international pact. In 2005 we were doing ~7550 in emissions. In 2015 we did 5172 in emissions. We are effectively 68.5% of the 2005 number, or about 32% lower than 2005. What's that mean? There is no longer domestic obligation for the United States on the agreement. At least, if my math is right. Why are we doing so well? Not exactly Tesla, but natural gas. But that doesn't get discussed.

4. The paris agreement is very India specific. As it should be, as India is nearly solely responsible for Greenland melt. But forget $3 billion, the pact expects $2.5 trillion to be given to India over the next 15 years. India has NO requirement to the pact unless this obligation is on track. Where is most the money coming from? Care to take a guess?

5. China is also the big winner. With USA abandoning coal the resource has become cheap. You would think this paris agreement would stop coal as an energy resource worldwide, since it supposedly includes the rest of the world. China is the biggest offender, and the Pact doesn't require any correction from them until, wait for it, 2030. United States emissions could drop to 0 and we wouldn't dent China's emissions growth in the next 5 years, let alone 13. This is terrible What's worse, the paris agreement allows for China to make another 1,171 coal plants. What?!?

Yes, more coal plants, just not in the United States. It's too cheap of an energy for a wealthy country to enjoy. Fine. India is allowed a few less than 500 new coal plants. That's awesome. See ya Greenland.

Obviously this paris agreement is a joke as it's written. It's only successful objective is siphoning money out of the United States."

Thank you. I tried reading and after about 20 minutes my head exploded.....

 

[Brent S]

I will try finding info on it myself too. If this is the case, why wouldn't trump bring out some of these points to help his case?

 

[Maverick]

I will try finding info on it myself too. If this is the case, why wouldn't trump bring out some of these points to help his case?

He has but very little reporting on it from the media, he already said the US are the only ones giving money and none of the money is being re-invested back in our Country, he also stated this on the campaign trail. The person that gone back and fourth with the Wife didn't vote for Trump. In the beginning the person supported the Paris agreement until one of the students ask for additional information.

 

[Robinjopo1]

The people involved in cowspiracy are animal rights activist and veganism advocates. look up the names!! They have a bone in the fight and pushing the vegan view


Directed by
Kip Andersen
Keegan Kuhn

Produced by
Kip Andersen
Keegan Kuhn

Starring
Kip Andersen
Howard Lyman
Richard Oppenlander
Michael Pollan
Michael Klaper
Will Tuttle
Will Potter

Executive-Produced by
Leonardo DiCaprio

But old Leo hops on his jet even for short trips. Al Gore is also a huge hypocrite with his houses, boats, etc.

 

[Robinjopo1]

My toll

I figured the forum is open to the community One may disagree on some things if not many things with other members and still remain cordial and many on here even through disagreement I have abundance of respect for with the many member here but we shouldn't tell other member not to respond to a post because one disagrees.

my tolerance seems to be wearing thin.