Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

I want to sue the republican party for willful denial of scientific evidence about climate change.


Recommended Posts

Just now, AsburySkinsFan said:

You must not pay attention to me much, which is understandable. My stance has been well established here.

Oh I pay attention.  Your post specifically called out one party for liking bombs over clean air.  Both parties like bombs over clean air as demonstrated by our nations actions over the last 3 decades.  Perhaps you didnt mean it.  But that's what you posted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Oh I pay attention.  Your post specifically called out one party for liking bombs over clean air.  Both parties like bombs over clean air as demonstrated by our nations actions over the last 3 decades.  Perhaps you didnt mean it.  But that's what you posted.

You will still get elected by one party by calling for cuts in defense spending, the other party not so much. You know which one is which. So tell me again which party loves bombs more. My point still stands.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, AsburySkinsFan said:

You will still get elected by one party by calling for cuts in defense spending, the other party not so much. You know which one is which. So tell me again which party loves bombs more. My point still stands.

Judging those parties by their words and not their actions?  Come on.

Link to post
Share on other sites

So the Paris agreement is not binding nor are we compelled to do anything we don't wish.

 

Remind me again why it matters if we are in it?


Is it really just a group hug?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, twa said:

So the Paris agreement is not binding nor are we compelled to do anything we don't wish.

 

Remind me again why it matters if we are in it?


Is it really just a group hug?

Symoblic gestures matter.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, twa said:

 

True, I like tilting at windmills.

Is it true the agreement if followed would only result in  .05°C savings by 2100 ?

 

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/05/31/in-one-graph-why-the-parisclimate-accord-is-useless/

 

 

Well, the agreement is to keep global temperatures from increasing 2 degrees C in 2100 and at some point time in the future have zero net C emissions.  From there, everything is essentially voluntary with no way to punish countries based on what they do.  It is not clear to me by what your link means "Do all of Paris Promises by 2030".

 

As part of the agreement, though each country had to propose Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDC) to achieve the 2 degrees C goal (with there being no penalty other than shame and embarrassment if you don't achieve your proposed INDCs)

 

Models indicate the first round of INDCs would fail to achieve the 2 degree goal (but if you think models are over estimating warming, then INDCs might very well be successful).  If you sum up the GHG emissions based on INDCs, based on models global temperatures will increase by 2.6-3.1 degrees C by 2100 so fails to do so.

 

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v534/n7609/full/nature18307.html

 

I am also not sure of the deceleration of RCP8.5 as do nothing.  Does anybody really want to bet what will happen with CO2 emissions by 2100 if we do nothing?  However, your graph does seem to correctly reach the proper temperatures for RCP8.5 (~4.5 degrees C by 2100).

 

So if countries hit their INDCs, the graph would be wrong.  If countries hit their INDCs, temperatures should be about 1.5 degrees lower than if RCP8.5 happens.

Edited by PeterMP
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

And yet 1/2 of the GOP voted for Trump because of the party platform...come on.

And how many Dems voted for their party platform in spite of their actions that contradict it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doing nothing will not happen (if you believe tech advances are achievable) , nor do we know RCP8.5 will happen.

 

Reminds me of the world running out of food scare back in the day.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

And how many Dems voted for their party platform in spite of their actions that contradict it?

So your argument is that voting for the GOP platform that seeks to expand military spending even though we already spend as much as the next 12 nations combined is the same as voting for the Democrat platform that doesn't?

 

Seems clear which Presidents are interested in teducing military spending.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/defense_spending

34927140041_117430b16b.jpg

 

Edited by AsburySkinsFan
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-scrambles-defend-trumps-use-climate-data-disputed-authors-200714240.html

 

White House scrambles to defend Trump’s use of climate data, disputed by the authors themselves

Quote

 

The White House scrambled Friday to defend President Trump’s remarks about global warming the day before, when he announced he would begin the process of withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement. A major area of dispute was the president’s use of a study by scientists from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

 

“Even if the Paris Agreement were implemented in full, with total compliance from all nations, it is estimated it would only produce a two-tenths of one degree Celsius reduction in global temperature by the year 2100,” the president said, citing the study entitled “How much of a difference will the Paris Agreement make?” “Tiny, tiny amount,” Trump added.

 

But MIT scientists said that Trump had “badly misunderstood” their study. In response Friday, EPA administrator Scott Pruitt said there were other studies to back up the president’s position. “There were other studies that were published at the time,” said Pruitt. “The MIT study was something that, as you indicated, showed two-tenths of one degree. They didn’t have the corner on the market in studies at that time, there were plenty — we can provide those to you.”

 

School officials involved with the study told Reuters that the White House hadn’t reached out to them to allow them to explain their work. “We certainly do not support the withdrawal of the U.S. from the Paris agreement,” said Erwan Monier, a lead researcher at the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change, and one of the study’s authors. “If we don’t do anything, we might shoot over 5 degrees or more and that would be catastrophic,” said John Reilly, co-director of the program.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

^ This sort of thing is just all the time now. Trump pulls something out of his butt that's clearly wrong or not true, GOP "leadership" scrambles to defend and legitimize it, half the country now swears up and down by it.

 

Is anything ever going to happen with the whole "wiretapping" or is that just over with now? If that had been Hillary, you'd be talking about President Kaine by now.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Kilmer17 said:

Judging those parties by their words and not their actions?  Come on.

 

One of these parties actually does decrease defense spending.  One of them does not.  

 

One of these parties actually starts wars.  One of them ends them.  

 

One of these parties gets elected pledging to enforce environmental regulations.  And then carries out that promise.  

 

One of them gets elected promising to eliminate the EPA.  And after being elected, simply appoints someone who opposes environmental regulation to head it, and proposes cutting it.  

 

Now, if you want to point out that the Dems are not complete ant total pacifists, then you've got a perfectly valid point.  

 

OTOH, if you just want to try to defend a really rotten set of priorities by trying to claim a false equivalence, well then, you just might be a Republican.  

 

 

 

6 hours ago, AsburySkinsFan said:

So they go back to burning coal and fossil fuels and we get no where.

 

This is a GLOBAL issue. Maybe if we stopped spending 60% of our nationsl budget on bombs we could make some real progress.

 

Oh wait...no we won't because one party likes bombs more than they like clean air.

 

You do realize that you're exaggerating just a teensy bit, here, right?  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, twa said:

Doing nothing will not happen (if you believe tech advances are achievable) , nor do we know RCP8.5 will happen.

 

Reminds me of the world running out of food scare back in the day.

 

 

 

Technology has advanced for the last 150 years.  Do you want me to tell you what has happened to CO2 emissions over that time?

 

(and you do know that China instituted a one child policy and there were major famines that lead to lots of deaths in places like Africa.)

Edited by PeterMP
Link to post
Share on other sites

cnn ac360 just had an interesting backstory on the competitive enterprise institute (climate-and-general science-denier club/think tank---backed mainly by individual secret donors <likely coal/mining interests>) and their influence on don...head dude ( knock-off albino version of wilbur ross) led transition epa staff, backed pruitt as anti-mmcc warrior to trump...blah blah...the world's greatest assemblage of semi-sapient turds with **** for brains in modern history continues...

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Bang said:

Why should Trump listen to MIT?

He's a loser, lost to that Kenyan muslim who's fault everything is.

 

~Bang

I think people like Trump and his faithful are jealous of the educated. They dispise those who know more than they do. They distrust the learned. I've seen anti-intellectualism up close for years, and it is an ugly cancer. Thry make decisions based on spite and distrust of those who know the most about various topics. They are certain their god will impart all the wisdom they'll ever need. I've lost travk of the number of times I've heard that university education ruins people. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...