Slashdot Mirror
The US Can't Leave The Paris Climate Deal Until 2020 (nytimes.com)
An anonymous reader quotes the New York Times:
Last week, President Trump announced that the United States would withdraw from the Paris climate agreement. But it will take more than one speech to pull out: 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.
The article also acknowledges "a growing coalition of states, cities and companies that are pledging to do as much as they can to meet the United States' climate goals on their own."
The article also acknowledges "a growing coalition of states, cities and companies that are pledging to do as much as they can to meet the United States' climate goals on their own."
Let me get this straight... It's a non-binding accord (other than we can't leave until 4 Nov 2019). So nothing changes.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
Since the Paris deal was never submitted to the Senate for confirmation, it is not a legally binding treaty, only a verbal agreement by Obama.
I am not arguing for or against the climate deal, just pointing out a simple fact of US law.
Citation: US Constitution Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the president of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United ..
-- Will program for bandwidth
with no enforceable requirements. It's a moot point when we pull out. The point is that we've made the gesture to pull out. It's basically a giant middle finger to the rest of the world.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
None of the terms are binding. So while we technically we might still have to be part of it until 2020, if we decide to throw it out, we can just start ignoring totally now.
Since the Paris deal was never submitted to the Senate for confirmation, it is not a legally binding treaty, only a verbal agreement by Obama.
I am not arguing for or against the climate deal, just pointing out a simple fact of US law.
Citation: US Constitution Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the president of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements, which must be confirmed by the Senate, between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United ..
That's not even remotely true.
The Paris deal isn't a treaty, it's an "accord". Because that's different, it can be agreed to by the president without any buy-in from the legislature. It comes under the "umbrella" treaty agreement the US has with the UN which *was* ratified by congress.
And if you disagree, note that Obama actually taught constitutional law at college, and no one disagreed with the action at the time - no one in the legislature brought the issue or the supreme court, no group in the US sued the government and pushed it to the supreme court.
I don't know where people get these ideas from. A plain-text reading of the constitution does not always convey the complexity and intricacies of the underlying law.
Whether we stay or leave (or return) will be a 2020 presidential election topic.
Well, they supplied most of our breeding stock, financed the initial exploration and development (and plundering and genocide) for our country, and have provided cheap labor to generate all the goods that we haven't built here for the last 40 years.
with no enforceable requirements. It's a moot point when we pull out. The point is that we've made the gesture to pull out. It's basically a giant middle finger to the rest of the world.
Not *entirely*... it also requires developed nations to give $100 billion annually to the less-developed nations.
Really. The agreement has no enforceable requirements, the goals are paltry and minor, and yet sends $100 billion to undeveloped nations to waste on corruption.
(And the US is already one of the least polluting nations, our measures of pollution have been going down over time, and this trend will continue with the introduction of electric vehicles and drone delivery.)
I honestly have no idea why anyone was ever in favor of the Paris agreement.
It's a complete and total waste.
It doesn't matter what Trump is going to do. The companies and scientists in the US that would be doing the work under the deal have unanimously said they are still going to do the work. The only difference here is that the US wont be contributing money to 3rd world countries so they can step up their game, which honestly inst that big of a deal because none of them pollute even near as close as the US, China, and India (the latter two aren't even going to start their work until after 2020 anyway).
Huh...
1) I believe the science is valid and that AGW is a problem.
C) I dislike Trump, a great deal.
VIII) I have no problems with us withdrawing from the accord, States and businesses are picking up the slack, or so it appears.
So, frankly, I don't much care that you don't like Trump. I don't like him either. Now, put on your big boy pants and go find a way to be nicer to Mother Nature. It'd be far more productive for you to help than it is for you to sit and complain.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
If it's so much of a nothingburger where the US pays and developing nations don't, why bother trying to stay in? As for the states and other entities wishing to bankrupt themselves into compliance, that's on them.
It'd be more credible if it was an actual treaty and developing nations actually did more than face-saving gestures.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Now, put on your big boy pants and go find a way to be nicer to Mother Nature. It'd be far more productive for you to help than it is for you to sit and complain.
You don't think someone could do both ?
I honestly have no idea why anyone was ever in favor of the Paris agreement.
That is solely favored by people that have a irrational hatred for carbon-based compounds as fuel. In addition, the people pushing Paris are largely shielded from the costs - they can fly highly polluting jets, power large houses, and drive smog-generating cars without worry.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
No, just an ordinary religion.
The irony here is that many corporations, even some of the major fossil fuel companies, actually want the US to remain in the Accord, as much as anything because they fear that China and Europe are going to use US's exit as a stick to beat the US with, and create any number of disadvantages for US products.
While the US remains in the Accord, it has some means to shape it. The money being laid is the price one pays for admission. But outside of the Accord, by and large the US will, through commercial and local interests, try to abide by it, but will no longer have a Federal government capable of speaking for US interests. It is a surrender of authority and power, and for what exactly, a dying coal industry that won't survive no matter what happens?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Why is it that a US Politician doing something which favors the US is giving a "middle finger" to the world? India stating in that same accord that they would not take any action until they received $2 Trillion dollars was not a middle finger to the world? The majority of countries not having to take any action yet receiving US Tax payer dollars in "aid" is not a middle finger to the rest of the world?
Sorry, but this was an anti-US agreement. Obama did a whole lot of those, and had no problem telling the world how he felt about the US, so that should not be a surprise. Read the damn thing! Pulling out is Pro-American. Being willing to negotiate a fair treaty, as the Trump administration said they would attempt to do immediately is not giving a middle finger to anyone. The countries who are refusing to talk to the US Administration are giving the finger to the US.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
By the way. Slashdot rules are that you are not supposed to mod down a post just because you are convinced it is wrong. If a significant number of people believe it is correct then you are supposed to respond with arguments and evidence, not just bury the opposing view. If it is something like a typographical error or something then you can mod it down, but not if it is a considered conclusion, even a wrong one.
Slashdot administrators have told me that moderators that modded down my good faith posts, have had, and will have their moderator privileges permanently revoked. Even though the Slashdot administrators may disagree strongly with my conclusions, burying opposing views is considered bad faith moderation.
I hope all your posts are downmodded regardless of content because of your petulant, childish, and threatening attitude.
You do not deserve to be heard if you spend half of your posts threatening others while insisting you are acting in good faith.
Feel free to leave slashdot and never return. The rest of us will benefit from you being gone. I'm sure this is not the first time you have heard that sentiment in your life.
In fact, you don't know. You're taking it on faith. Others choose not to.
Others choose not to, based on faith, or because they have studied the models in detail ?
Explain and name the single model parameter that is responsible for 90% of the variation in model results?
I can, can you?
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I wasn't talking about me or you, but about "others". How many of them have studied the models in detail ?
/Paris/ is an accord of the UNFCCC. The USA can withdraw from the UNFCCC one year after giving its notice.
They talked about this recently on Science Friday, but here's an article with quite a bit of detail:
http://www.heritage.org/enviro...
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Then would Aspen, Colorado be their holy city, with Al Gore's various homes being their version of seminaries?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
These are models that try to extrapolate geologic spans from relatively small datasets. Of course they don't know.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Any 'competent modeler' can get the model to tell him/her anything he/she wants.
That's the definition of 'competent modeler'.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
US is choosing to leave in 2020. It does not need to follow any rules in the accord.
Said 'breeding stock' were mostly escapees from the kleptocracies.
As far as 'cheap labor' goes, we can't stop slavery in the rest of the world.
Others choose not to, based on faith, or because they have studied the models in detail ?
It's "a leap of faith" not an accident of faith.
Not believing people who are trying to sell you something is a basic survival skill. It doesn't require belief in some sort of alternative.
In other words, it can be just "no". It doesn't have to be "no, because I have faith the future will be specifically X instead of the specific Y future you have predicted".
You don't think someone could do both ?
Waste time mouthing off about politics and also do something to achieve meaningful change?
Yes, people can only waste part of their time. Many of us have hobbies and recreational activities. We don't pretend they are anything more than that, however.
To speak directly to your account name: Yes, 'Visualize Whirled Peas' if you wish, but we don't care nor do we need to hear about your virtue signaling.
Actually it's a good thing because carbon credits are exactly that, credits you can exchange for carbon fuels. The goal was to have richer nation pay for renewables and the money they save on carbon fuels would go to poor nations so they can better themselves by paying for the cheaper carbon fuels and get themselves (hopefully) out of poverty, just like previous aid to Africa has helped them not be part of the third world anymore.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Sorry, it's an accord that is part of the 1992 treaty that *was* approved by the Senate. So it is binding in that respect. Arguably, if you want out, you have to want out all the way and be done in a year, but 2020 isn't that far off to be out of just this bit.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
The big Globalist energy corporations want to remain players on the Globalist stage. However, alliances are crumbling worldwide.
And all this focus on the 'dying coal industry'?? You globalists are the only ones ranting about that. Meanwhile, the US ships barges full of coal to China every month. When China isn't buying their coal from North Korea, of course.
It's okay. We know that Big Oil can save us if we just agree with the globalist pacts.
Still not answering the question, I see.
>"So how are they forcing it down your throat, dickwad?"
Sorry, I don't respond to anonymous name throwers (other than to point out what they are). Grow up
Not believing people who are trying to sell you something is a basic survival skill.
There are plenty of people trying to sell the idea that AGW isn't happening.
it goes WAY further back than bush (and you skipped the most recent laughing stock obama) your bias is showing
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
You could just look at the temperature trend for the last 50 years. That doesn't require faith in models, groupthink, nor appeal to authority. http://www.woodfortrees.org/pl...
To speak directly to your account name: Yes, 'Visualize Whirled Peas' if you wish, but we don't care nor do we need to hear about your virtue signaling.
Wrong on both accounts, but keep going.
There are plenty of people trying to sell the idea that AGW isn't happening.
But they don't ask or demand any money from me. Nor are they telling me I must live my life according to their faith's proscriptions.
And even with that, I don't really believe them either.
You could just look at the temperature trend for the last 50 years.
And then what? Because if the answer isn't "buy into a specific predicted future scenario", then why am I looking?
Yes. You are 100% right.
Like mandating catalytic exhaust in Los Angeles did not reduce the smog problem, right? Like for India to mandate cars to be electric by 2030 will not modify long term investments and R&D for the whole world?
No. I don't know if you guys are trolling or what. If you're not, your silly exaggerations are counterproductive.
Don't you have a car? What do you buy to make it go, who sells it to you and which side of the "debate" are they on?
All I want is a secure system where it's easy to do anything I want. Is that too much to ask ~~ Randall Munroe
Money to third world countries tends to go into the pockets of dictators and autocrats.
No regulations are needed or demanded by the Accords. The government shouldn't regulate, but incent and report.
Learn to love Alaska
Don't you have a car? What do you buy to make it go, who sells it to you and which side of the "debate" are they on?
Gasoline makes a car go. What's your point? It's not a philosophy. I don't buy it because I believe in someone's worldview, I buy it because it beats walking.
The groupthink is so strong that you guys can't even make coherent arguments.
You're taking it on faith. Others choose not to
No, they instead take it on faith that it doesn't exist. There is no science disproving the "faith-based" climate change. So those opposing it have faith without evidence.
Learn to love Alaska
Most of these people are claiming AGW is Truth.
You don't have to conclusively disprove something in order to not believe it.
UNFCCC is a properly ratified treaty. This was an accord under that treaty that needed no new ratification. Pulling out of the UNFCC would end the Paris Accord (At least for the US). Better than a failure of a Constitutional challenge for an accord reached under terms of a treaty.
Learn to love Alaska
I read this interesting article about how conspiracy theorists tend to be narcissists. I'm beginning to suspect it's true.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
Europe has been engaging in an orgy of war, destruction, oppression, and genocide for centuries. And you're right that European elites financed the plundering and genocide of peoples around the world. The people who actually came to the US and settled it were trying to get away from all that.
That's why it's utterly foolish for anybody in the world to give a hoot about what Europeans think of Americans.
I'll start getting really worried if Europeans actually started liking the US or US policies.
If 10,000 people insist there's an elephant in my bedroom, you'd have to be a special kind of stupid to assume they are all lying without having a look yourself.
Learn to love Alaska
My last Accord was stolen. I never did get it back.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I am going to go out on a limb here and say you replied to the wrong post. mindbuilder is a decent fellow.
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
So you're saying that leaving the accord not only saves tax payer money, it also means that the US government will be more limited in engaging in crony capitalism on behalf of big corporations?
I think you're beginning to figure out why people wanted to leave this accord! Congratulations!
... So we never entered into it in the first place.
Presidential agreements are not binding on future administrations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com...
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I mourn for the chump stuck with that car.
Learn to love Alaska
I don't believe you can fit 10,000 people and an elephant in your bedroom no matter what your computer model say .
If you want to refute that claim you'll need a table that goes beyond 2011 and is not just CO2 before you can judge
"The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
CO2 to Water vapor positive feedback coefficient.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Since when has the US ever cared about honouring treaties? (That is, us honouring them. We get really upset when other people don't honour ours). I've yet to hear of ANY penalty, and it's a voluntary agreement anyway to "try hard to do a good job." Whatever.
Ok, so shit Democrats do on their own can't be overridden, and nothing Republicans do can be acknowledged.
Nice double standard we have here.
Divided we fall, but fuck that it's more important for progressives that their ideas be followed....
EFI did 90% of that. It was developed for racing.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
That's kind of irrelevant without ranges of the parameter, range of effect on the output and more to the point whether it changes the final conclusion.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
An old Accord with a VTec isn't bad, a Civic is better.
Slow cars are fun, if they're not that slow and you drive the piss out of them.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
That's interesting considering that we outsourced most of our manufacturing to China. The relevant externalities are likely occurring over there instead.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
They don't have to stay after they look. They don't even need to enter it to see the inside.
Learn to love Alaska
(the latter two aren't even going to start their work until after 2020 anyway).
Well I don't know what this 'work' is but both of those countries are already taking huge steps towards greening their economies, both countries are ahead of schedule in their plans to install hundreds of GW of renewable energy generation, China probably has more electric buses than the rest of the world combined.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
I just don't understand how an otherwise developed nation still has trouble with the very simple fact of climate change.
Please explain in detail how climate models work and why we can be certain their predictions will come true.
In fact, you don't know. You're taking it on faith. Others choose not to.
This sort of thinking means that anything that you can't understand must be dismissed, because you can't understand it. Anyone who has spent their lives studying something highly complicated is disallowed to use their findings because you (or I) don't have the skills to understand. At some point you have to trust lots of people saying the same thing. Especially when you don't have the skills to debunk their work. And *especially* when the fate of humanity is at stake.
Any 'competent modeler' can get the model to tell him/her anything he/she wants.
That's the definition of 'competent modeler'.
Eh? So what's the take-home from this attitude then? Never change anything because you can't be sure not changing it is definitely going to be harmful? What about things that will be too late to fix when it becomes obvious?
I just don't understand how an otherwise developed nation still has trouble with the very simple fact of climate change. You know the rest of the world is against you on this? You know that huge numbers of very smart people think you're wrong?
It is breathtaking arrogance to think you know better than literally everyone else.
That's basically the root isn't it... it's another vector for someone with very little knowledge to lord it over people who have spent lifetimes studying this sort of thing, just because they prefer a reality where they can use their big cars and polluting lifestyle without guilt.
CO2 is a greanhouse gas.
It traps 'heat' comming form the sun in the atmosphere, by preventing it being radiated back into space.
We know that since 200 years.
That is a scientific fact.
If you believe otherwise, you are an idiot.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
However Europe stopped doing all that after 1945, and the US never stopped ... so what is your point?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yes, I do have answers, but you don't deserve them and I won't discuss with you.
Literate people also know the difference between its and it's.
This sort of thinking means that anything that you can't understand must be dismissed
Predictions of the distant future are like that. There should be a super high bar for believing them. Because they tend to be wrong.
Anyone who has spent their lives studying something highly complicated is disallowed
No, you go ahead and believe their predictions if you want.
Especially when you don't have the skills to debunk their work.
No need to "debunk" predictions of the future. They either come true or not.
And *especially* when the fate of humanity is at stake.
The only thing less believable than a prediction of the distant future is a dramatic prediction of the distant future.
Nice comment title - too bad it applies to what you wrote.
As for the Paris deal being an accord, every other country that has to ratify treaties treated it as a treaty (which they have to, since it attempts to bind future administrations)
Who cares if Obama taught constitutional law - he was also had more unanimous overturns by the Supreme Court than any other modern president - so even is he knew constitutional law, he sure as hell did not follow it. (And as for why no one brought it to the Supreme Court at that time - look up a little legal item called standing. Nobody has standing to sue over the action until they are constrained by the action - as nothing in the Paris accord would have taken effect, no one had standing to sue.)
I get that you're making this a "everybody believe what you want to believe" thing, but when the fate of the planet that we all live on is the thing we're talking about, it's a bit beyond 'personal belief'.
Apparently 97% climate scientists saying that humans are causing climate change isn't a high enough bar for you. I would put a bet on that there is nothing that could be said that would make you believe it.
How typical of someone who is most likely on the "progressive", "liberal" end of the spectrum to applaud efforts to silence opposing arguments. That's the only way such views gain prominence because they can't stand on their own. It's a fact that the US is not a part of the Paris climate deal, but apart from that, as has been pointed out by many people here, the "deal" isn't even enforceable; it's a fig leaf for climate chicken littles and achieves nothing. So what if you think the US is stuck in it for a few more years, they're not going to do squat. But children do like their petty victories so you can keep flinging poop and climasturbating to your heart's content, it changes nothing :-D
What to do what to do...
"The catalytic converter, an invention that has sharply reduced smog from cars, has now become a significant and growing cause of global warming, according to the Environmental Protection Agency."
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/05...
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
True: the US occupation of Europe since WWII and the close supervision of Germany have been fairly effective in preventing major European atrocities.
You need to realize, though, that Americans are getting tired of paying for Europe's defense or cleaning up the shit that centuries of European colonialism and imperialism have dumped on the world. Whether it's Vietnam, Africa, or the Middle East, it's almost always Europe's fault.
My point is that Americans couldn't care less whether Europeans laugh at them or throwing temper tantrums in response to US presidents not coddling them anymore.
...the fate of the planet that we all live on is the thing we're talking about...
It will be ok. Always is. It doesn't need you to save it. Sorry. You're still important to your friends and family even though you're not the hero savior of the planet.
Apparently 97% climate scientists saying that humans are causing climate change
No 97% agree on any specific temperature or timeframe. I "believe" in it. I don't believe the dramatic predictions and all the storytelling.
A lot of the most dramatic predictions have already been proven wrong when the time came and the thing they predicted didn't happen.
...the fate of the planet that we all live on is the thing we're talking about...
It will be ok. Always is. It doesn't need you to save it. Sorry. You're still important to your friends and family even though you're not the hero savior of the planet.
Aw, shucks. Thanks!
Apparently 97% climate scientists saying that humans are causing climate change
No 97% agree on any specific temperature or timeframe. I "believe" in it. I don't believe the dramatic predictions and all the storytelling.
A lot of the most dramatic predictions have already been proven wrong when the time came and the thing they predicted didn't happen.
I hope you're right. I really do.
According to the original definition, China is a third-world country. They are neither a representative democracy nor are they a member of NATO. They aren't a member of the Warsaw Pact either, which is what the "second-world" is. Of course the Warsaw Pact is long gone, so China is pretty much a second-world country.
That's not how climate models work.
Guess which one of those statements most of us here think is true about you.
Am I excommunicated from the science bandwagon? I sure hope not.
Exaggeration factor.
Yeah but the US cumulative emissions per capita to date is still 10x China emissions. Touche! ...and US current emissions per capita are still 3x China. Point!
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Actually no.
It's pretty easy to understand that countries can't be trusted if the treaties made by one of the temporary wearer of the big hats won't be upheld by the next one, especially when they come as quickly as every 4 years, and in this country never lasts more than 8 under any circumstances.
Whether you like it or not, it's the duty of the POTUS to uphold our treaties and agreements, even if he personally doesn't like them. If he has the power to voluntarily dismiss them, he has to do it by the means allowed for in the agreement. If he doesn't like that, he can bite off his own dick for all that matters, assuming he can find it.
There's a lot of stuff, but lets limit it to something simple for you.
They are who we buy most of our stuff from, including megatons of raw resources, and it's also the same for who we sell most of our stuff to, including entertainment.
It had nothing to do with having democracy, as the First World countries Greece and Turkey, both members of the NATO, were ruled by military juntas in the late 1960ies and early 1970ies.
Actually it was the electors that picked him, and most of those are rather well educated in some of the finest institutes of racist learning and enabling of white supremacy, for the rich.
...the US is leaving according to the appropriate rules, and formal departure will actually take some time.
So why are so many of you shitting yourselves with anguish over it?
-Styopa
My Accord was an '81. When it was finally retired, I had driven it as a new driver for 5 years with, no second gear (three speed automatic), no reverse, had to run the heater all the time to prevent overheating, in 110 degree heat sometimes. It had overheated, warped block, so the overheating problem, and oil leaks. No door locks. It was a hand-me-down that should have ended up in the dump, not driven by a new driver.
My '83 Civic that replaced it wasn't much better.
Learn to love Alaska
Believe what you like, it changes nothing
is it bad news or good news for US. What is he impact?
So, science solved the last serious problem, and?
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
or are you saying otherwise? Like that there are little people and big people, and big people (who live over here) are allowed to each pollute more than little people (who live over there), or something along those lines?
Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Pulling out of Paris does NOT mean we have to stop offering small business grants and paying for the NSF, DOE, etc. How can you even equate the two things? I imagine the $3T will be more productive when spent by US citizens (who like clean and safe energies such as solar and wind) than if it were handed to 3rd world dictators and (for some reason) China.
Pulling out of Paris does NOT mean we have to stop offering small business grants and paying for the NSF, DOE, etc. How can you even equate the two things? I imagine the $3T will be more productive when spent by US citizens (who like clean and safe energies such as solar and wind) than if it were handed to 3rd world dictators and (for some reason) China.
Where are you getting that 3TN figure?
Hate to sound skeptical but I suspect you're talking shit, you see.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
The money is *earmarked* for certain purposes, but most of it goes to corrupt warlords diminishing their own countrymen, and to undermining western civilization.
Cite please
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Every US citizen must be punished and forced to live in poverty to make up for the damage done to the rest of the world.
Every citizen! They are all greedy crybabies who ruined everything good in the world and they must pay.
You should grow up and argue against real points made by real people. It's worrying that you wouldn't be embarrassed by such an obvious strawman.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
Fine and dandy to believe the Sierra Club and some highly-politicized "scientists", but AGW (unlike the natural change in climate over geologic timespans) largely DNE. But that's science that /. won't accept.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
The US complied with Kyoto, much to the detriment of its own citizenry (read: the majority not living in the coasts or in environmentalist Colorado).
As for Paris, someone wanted an uninterruptible gravy train from the US to some BFE country, even at the cost of entire US regions. Americans got their choice through representation, and the US exited it, despite the claims from the MSM to the contrary.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
the US, China, and India (the latter two aren't even going to start their work until after 2020 anyway)
Actually, China has gotten very serious about the issue and is on track to be well ahead of its commitments by 2020. In January China announced that it is investing $360B in domestic low- or no-carbon power generation (wind, solar, hydro and nuclear), to be installed by 2020. China has already cut its consumption of coal sharply, and is on track to keep cutting it further. China is also investing heavily (about $1T over the next few years) in green energy production around the world. Much of that money counts as a donation to third world countries under the terms of the Paris Accord, but China is going to end up owning much of the energy infrastructure in Africa and elsewhere, which means it's going to end up with huge influence and economic power in those regions just as they start to modernize... and start buying lots of Chinese-made goods.
China has recognized that not only is Global Warming a problem to be solved, it's also a tremendous opportunity to create an economic empire and obtain concomitant political influence throughout the emerging markets of the world. While the US dithers and disengages, China is going to step up and establish a new Chinese-led world order to replace the one that America created after WWII.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
The actual facts are that cities aren't under ocean water and the the weather is not very interesting. Most things in the world are a lot better than they were 50 years ago.
How can you hate on a car that kept running with a warped head? You can't keep running aluminum head cars when they get too hot. It will trash them all.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
As in like, why do we do this to ourselves?
From TFA, it reads like this accord is nothing more than a friendship contract. Aren't we all fucking grownups here?
How much money is wasted through PAYING people to make shit like this even happen? Christ.
I tend to rant.
> That's interesting considering that we outsourced most of our manufacturing to China.
This is an incorrect urban legend. The US produces about as much as it ever has:
https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-k2F...
We do it with a lot fewer people these days, due to improved productivity. The stuff we import from China is in *addition* to the domestically made stuff.
>Hate to sound skeptical but I suspect you're talking shit, you see.
Why the hell would you hate to be skeptical, are you too stupid to question what you're told? The $3T is a "middle of the road" estimate. They vary between $1T and $5T depending on who did the study. I'm not going to give you any one link or study, I suggest you do some reading and draw your own conclusions. While you are doing so I strongly suggest you leave behind your hatred for sounding skeptical, being skeptical is a necessity in today's world, especially when politics and climate change are involved.
According to Wikipedia, the US didn't ratify the 1969 Treaty on Treaties. But even if it had, the President and the Senate cannot alter the Constitution even by a treaty and 2/3 vote. Altering the Constitution requires 3/4 of the states. Even a treaty on treaties duly ratified by the Senate, can't give away the Senate's obligation to ratify treaties. The Paris Agreement is a treaty regardless of whether it is called one or not. The words of the Constitution have a particular meaning. And something doesn't stop being what it is just because you label it something else. For example, if the Constitution requires 3/4 of the States for something, you can't just slap the label "State" onto a bunch of kindergartners and give them a cookie for their signature. A kindergartner is not a state. The Paris Agreement IS a treaty. The American people ratified the Constitution based on the plain meaning of the words. They expected the protection that comes from the Constitution denying the president the power to unilaterally enter the US into binding treaties. But even if the treaties on treaties was binding on the US, no country could reasonably claim that the American people were bound by the President's agreement, not after the House of Representatives voted to nullify the President's status as a representative of the American people.
The head was fine. The block was warped. I can pop off a head strip it of valves and the like) and send it to a shop for a $200 re-finishing. The block was warped. You can't re-machine a block for less than the cost of a new block. It wasn't worth a full re-build.
My father drove well under the speed limit at all times. So he didn't ever need to glance at the speedometer, or warning gauges. So the oil pressure and heat gauges didn't mean anything, until the engine blew and he couldn't see through the smoke. That's when it became "mine". I rebuilt it myself on a budget, and got to drive it to its true death.
2nd gear "gone" in a 3sp auto is rough. if it shifted to 2, it was in N. So to merge on a highway, you keep the throttle on the floor until it shifts to 2, then release, until it shifts to 3. The accelerate as hard as possible without downshifting to N. It certainly helped with traffic prediction skills. And rebuilding an automatic transmission was beyond me, so I left that thing in, especially since there was so much else wrong with it.
Learn to love Alaska
Every time Trump tries to do something 'landmark' it turns out it's just him not understanding the way the world/politics/reality works. I understand he's "the president" but are his aides really not allowed to fucking taze him or something equally subduing when he goes all Orange-Maniac on the country?
He's solidly his own worst enemy, and just won't listen when people try to tell him he's being an ignorant asshat - even his own kids.
Honda blocks are cast iron, they crack rather than warp.
It was the head, it's always the head. Not usually repairable by decking. Even if it was, your compression would go so high you'd need AvGas.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I am taking the best information I can from the best scientists I can. I take it on faith partly because I can't possibly verify everything myself and partly because, whenever I do try to verify something that's agreed on by virtually all scientists in a field, it checks out.
If you actually look at something like the IPCC report, you'll see that the predictions are of ranges with confidence levels. You'll also notice that it's virtually certain that bad things will happen.
You're claiming that going on the best available information is tantamount to taking it on faith. I'd say it requires more blind faith to deny the science.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
We have consistently rising temperatures, increasing amounts of CO2 in the air, records of burning enough fossil fuels to more than account for the CO2 increase, isotopic analysis of CO2 in the atmosphere indicating that a lot of it comes from fossil fuels, and the knowledge that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I'd say that's enough to point out that AGW is happening. There's still a lot of debate and observation on the details.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
The planet will be fine. It's actually the humans on it I'm most worried about. The humans will survive, of course, being very adaptable, but I'm interested in their quality of life.
Of course the most dramatic predictions probably won't come to pass. The less dramatic ones are bad enough.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Sure it is. It's a very simple climate model, but it's a climate model.
We're getting more total energy in the atmosphere.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
If you actually look at something like the IPCC report, you'll see that the predictions are of ranges with confidence levels.
They predict different temperature outcomes every report.
You'll also notice that it's virtually certain that bad things will happen.
By running the results of one questionable model into other, even more questionable models.
You're claiming that going on the best available information is tantamount to taking it on faith. I'd say it requires more blind faith to deny the science.
I disagree with both of those characterizations. There's no metric for "best available information". And I don't "deny the science", it just appears to be exaggerated and dramatized, sometimes wildly. This is a phenomenon that's been discussed: scientific papers (in any field) with dramatic results get published and noticed, papers with boring results don't, despite the fact that the boring results are less likely to be proven wrong.
You seem not to get the point.
Europe stopped after 1945.
The USA did not.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Actually no. It's pretty easy to understand that countries can't be trusted if the treaties made by one of the temporary wearer of the big hats won't be upheld by the next one, especially when they come as quickly as every 4 years, and in this country never lasts more than 8 under any circumstances. Whether you like it or not, it's the duty of the POTUS to uphold our treaties and agreements, even if he personally doesn't like them. If he has the power to voluntarily dismiss them, he has to do it by the means allowed for in the agreement. If he doesn't like that, he can bite off his own dick for all that matters, assuming he can find it.
POTUS does not get to pass treaties for the USA; only Congress can do that. POTUS negotiates them but Congress authorizes them. The Paris Accord was never passed by Congress. It was only negotiated by the former POTUS administration. Therefore the USA is not actually a legal party to the Paris Accord and therefore can completely ignore it. That is, after all, how the Constitution defines the Treatise process for the USA.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
UNFCCC is a properly ratified treaty. This was an accord under that treaty that needed no new ratification. Pulling out of the UNFCC would end the Paris Accord (At least for the US). Better than a failure of a Constitutional challenge for an accord reached under terms of a treaty.
UNFCCC may have been; but amendments to it in any form would still *require* a new ratification which was never sought for the Paris Accord. So no, not legally binding on the USA in any manner or form.
That's not to say a good diplomat wouldn't honor it in principle in some form - that's good politics, but such honoring would likely be to the most minimal degree - no money spent, no new regulations to support it, etc.
Truth is like the sun. You can shut it out for a time, but it ain't goin' away. - Elvis Presley (source: imdb.com)
Yes, we already agreed on that. It's no great moral achievement (after all, Europe was still full of Nazis, imperialists, colonialists, socialists, and communists post-1945, they didn't all get killed in WWII), it's simply that Europe didn't have a choice.
Really? Where did the US "plunder" or commit "genocide" post-1945?
This is science. We observe more. We figure out more stuff. Also, global temperatures do depend on things like how much fossil fuel we burn.
However, the reports do show that temperatures will go up, and that bad things will happen. In fact, temperatures are going up, and there are bad things happening that are likely related to climate change.
You may be confusing science journalism with science. In science, if a paper is published with dramatic results, it attracts attention, and therefore if it's wrong it's likely to be debunked faster than if it were boring. Remember the reaction to the LHC experiment clocking neutrinos as faster than light? Large numbers of physicists looked at it and it wasn't long before we knew what really happened.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
It's not an amendment. Often treaties do not specify something. "A tariff no less than 5%, and no greater than 15%" wouldn't be unacceptable in a treaty. Then later meetings with the treaty members select the number 10% for the next 5 years, with a re-visit after that to set a new number. No changes to the substance of the treaty, so no new ratification needed. The Paris Accord is a non-binding outline on how to report against the UNFCCC. There's nothing in it that warrants ratification. It's simply not a treaty.
Learn to love Alaska
Decking to smooth it out, and a fat gasket to keep compression manageable. Or maybe it was the lack of oil that damaged the block. The oil pressure was never right after that, even with a new pump. And I don't know if it was ever right before that, I didn't drive it until after the engine blew.
Learn to love Alaska
We did not talk about genocide, but imperialism.
But if you want to find an example for genocide: Vietnam.
If you want an example for plunder: central and south america, except Argentinia and Brazil.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Me: Europe has been engaging in an orgy of war, destruction, oppression, and genocide for centuries. And you're right that European elites financed the plundering and genocide of peoples around the world.
You: However Europe stopped doing all that after 1945, and the US never stopped ... so what is your point?
Of course, the latter claim is bullshit too. Parts of Europe remained fascist for decades after WWII, other parts communist. After WWII, Europe still had colonies around the globe, a bloody religious conflict in Northern Ireland, and an actual genocide in Bosnia in 1995. The only Europeans that were reasonably well behaved were the Germans, but that was because they were split and occupied; the country was full of genuine ex-Nazis until the mid-80s and still has millions of communists and neo-Nazis. That is Europe for you: a political cesspool.
The mess in Vietnam was caused by French colonialism and Russian expansionism; the US merely tried to contain the aftermath. And the idea that the US committed "genocide" in Vietnam is ludicrous. You must have been listening to old Pravda recordings.
South America was plundered by the Spanish; the US merely tried to contain the aftermath.