TL;DR: Koch Brothers, Citizen's United, Corporate takeover of the GOP.
Excerpt from The New York Times: The campaign ad appeared during the presidential contest of 2008. Rapid-fire images of belching smokestacks and melting ice sheets were followed by a soothing narrator who praised a candidate who had stood up to President George W. Bush and “sounded the alarm on global warming.”
It was not made for a Democrat, but for Senator John McCain, who had just secured the Republican nomination.
It is difficult to reconcile the Republican Party of 2008 with the party of 2017, whose leader, President Trump, has called global warming a hoax, reversed environmental policies that Mr. McCain advocated on his run for the White House, and this past week announced that he would take the nation out of the Paris climate accord, which was to bind the globe in an effort to halt the planet’s warming.
If it did split entirely on Dem/Repub lines? It would be a lot more obvious, eh?
What's sad, is that politics is so cutthroat and petty now that it's like only the ones who are most selfish can get in. Selfless people might not even make it into the halls of power, being barred, mocked, or repulsed by what it contains. Those who make it, no doubt despise its corruption too.
The answer is too obvious to wonder about.
.
.
.
M O N E Y
...doesn't help when the Secretary of State is the (questionable) ex-CEO of Exxon...
Facts are important things.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybBi3JsV5Eo
about 6minutes in. hilarious
This chart of yours claims that the impact of the agreement would be just 0.05 deg C by 2100, which of course makes the whole effort seem like a farce.
But every estimate of the agreement's effects that has been made by actual scientists shows that the agreement would have a lot more impact than that. While it's certainly true that the voluntary targets nations' have provided to date won't keep the world below the ultimate goal of limiting climate change to 2 deg C or less, the agreement makes a good start. The best estimates by scientists show that with the agreement's existing member pledges, temperatures will rise around 2.7 deg C by 2100, versus 3.6 deg C without it. That's a difference of 0.9 deg C (or 1.6 deg F). In terms of global warming, that's a significant reduction.
Bottom line: Climate scientists are estimating that, even as a first step, the agreement is likely to make a difference of 0.9 deg C. A former TV meteorologist with an axe to grind, however, puts the number 0.05 degrees. Predictably, you went with the latter rather than the former.
Yes, facts are important things.
Taking steps for everyone to lower pollution of all kinds = good.
Taxing one group Trillions while allowing other groups to keep doubling pollutions for free = bad.
Paris is the second option, it would do nothing even if fully implemented, which will simply never happen. May as well wish for flying pigs, that is much more likely than Paris Goals being met, ever.
Also: Please explain where in the Paris Agreement there is even the suggestion that any one group should be taxed trillions of dollars.
Show me how that is wrong or go fuck yourselves. China #1 and India #3 have exemptions, they WILL DOUBLE their output, not cut it at all! But 'the plan' is based on each nation cutting... so by design it will fail.
(Actually it is 4x their output by the Paris deadline, but that's minor...)
EVEN IF it met the impossible goals? IT WOULD NOT MATTER. That TINY bit of warming will not hurt anyone or anything. Those TRILLIONS of dollars would go to the very rich to make them richer, and the poor would become poorer. PERIOD.
So stop with the lies and deal with the words I actually say. Fucking too much for you eh? Cowards, every one of you.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
You're setting impossible goals in order to have an excuse to just give up. Paris is setting very ambitious goals in order to at least walk along the path that needs to be taken. You essentially say that if we raise the temperature by 2.8 instead of 2.7 °C or 2.0 °C, we might as well have raised it by 3.7 °C ... which is BS.
And No, Paris never once claims it will lower temperatures by -1.7C if implemented, that's bullshit for 2 reasons:
1. It simply never says that. It claims at most about 0.2C reduction over 100 years IF ALL NATIONS follow it and reduce (never increase) emissions.
2. It will happen in 100 years, which is bullshit. That's not science that's propaganda.
The world will not stall its growth for 100 years based on Paris, that's a fact even you cannot deny! You even demand growth!!! Which would make Paris invalid... you see that yes? Requiring zero growth to succeed, then allowing growth means it will NOT succeed. You cannot disagree with that.
Shall everybody else remain at ox cart level so we can keep the coal runners? Should we conquer China to stop their economic growth?
We can't sell that, and you wouldn't buy that.
OTOH we can chose weather the developing countries will emit twice as much as today, or four times, by developing the technology to use less energy for the same prosperity.
Also: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015_United_Nations_Climate_Change_Conference
Look at who emits most CO2, and who emits most CO2 per head, too. Someone can lower their emissions without losing anything but the cough ... and that cool coal runner his neighbors keep complaining about.
We should do this based on the 'models' which have ALL proven wrong so far, based on the claim that in 80+ years it MIGHT happen?
There is NO science to say that +4C over 1 century will be anything but beneficial! And NO science to show it will happen either. The current rate is for 1.3C, this is an indisputable fact.
I posted a study proving that plants are thriving with "AGW CO2" all over the world, the opposite of AGW Theory btw...
Lower our emissions? Canada's economy will literally be destroyed if we "meet our Paris goals". It will never happen, and China AND India will each DOUBLE their CO2 output, not reduce it. These are facts, deal with reality please!
If technology will save us all? It will come from the PRIVATE sector like it ALWAYS HAS for the past 2000+ years. You think Communist China or India will develop new technology? They only make things others have invented...
But thanks for being polite! I appreciate that :-)
You failed to do so and are trying to hide that failure by indignant ranting and name-calling.
Our "last chance" they kept telling us. Just like Kyoto was our last chance, and Bern... a series of last chances!
http://imgur.com/8wTxkJu
Not for themselves of course!! Only for OTHERS.
They'll still fly private jets around the world on the taxpayer dime to 'discuss lowering' something that is happening naturally. ie: demand the impossible, then punish people when the impossible goal is not met.
The AGW side wants to return to the past, even if it destroys the economy of half the world. Your example is nonsense, sorry.
It was never intended to fight "climate change" at all. It is flat-out "redistribution of wealth".
A little wealth redistribution is justified.
If you wonder what that might have to do with Canada or the USA, did you consider where the money came from for the British to take over most of the planet? To develop and invest Canada and USA, when there were only the natives here? And at what cost to the people of India? That was seed money for the countries that don't remember who paid the price for their development.
The notion that what happened hundreds of years ago should be "paid back" in modern money is puerile nonsense. It does not justify taking money from innocent common people and giving it to billionaires today.
I'm here in Canada. Most of Canada was 'taken' from some tribe or another. And they had, in turn, taken it from a former tribe too. And so on back to the ice age.
EVERY inch of arable land on the planet was taken by force from someone else. Are we going to give it all back to the Neanderthals or something? Just how far back do we go for your 'justice'?
What was done several 100 years ago, especially during the colonial past, is the primary cause of poverty in most of the modern world. Make no mistake about it. You can try to deny it all you want, however the fact cannot be altered. Wealth was looted from each and every colony, existing industries were destroyed to create markets for British industrial output. Eg. During the British rule, the thumbs of over 20,000 Indian craftsmen were severed to prevent them from using the loom to make cloth - no mining there. The Indian people were arrested for picking salt from their own backyard so that British salt could be sold to them. The Western world is rich ONLY as a result of looted wealth which was transferred to build their economies at the cost of millions of innocent common people from those lands.
I don't deny anything except the stupidity of your solution. Destroy one prosperous economy to enrich a vile and corrupt economy and culture? No thanks.
Unless you think Saudi Arabia, China and others are paragons of humanity and virtue? Role models for all nations to follow? Then you must admit there's a hell of a lot of really shitty governments out there... and they will be the ones raking in the billions, and their own impoverished people will get exactly squat.
Now we're opposed to Climate Change... and the AGW are endorsing it??
I'm so confused! (lmao)
Just more double-speak straight from the DNC Talking Points Bulletin.
I know you have trouble with big words, here you go:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/expounding
http://notrickszone.com/2017/05/29/80-graphs-from-58-new-2017-papers-invalidate-claims-of-unprecedented-global-scale-modern-warming/#sthash.ktF0tSb7.v73iF4DG.dpbs
I already started going through some of these studies. So far I've gone through 12 of those. Completely unrelated to AGW. They talk about Chinese Agriculture, there's a couple of studies on how the temperatures changed due to Volcanoe's going off. I did find 2 studies that stated AGW may be caused by something else. None of the other studies make the AGW doesn't claims that I've read thus far.
They show how it has been warmer before, with NO human actions involved.
They show that the science is NOT "settled" but in fact real science continues to be done on various parts of climate research.
They show cycles going back 2,000 - 10,000 years or longer, natural ones, not human-caused.
Each one isn't "proof" of anything, they are studies, research and data. What we interpret that to mean is up to us.
If you can look at a dataset that shows it was warmer in the past, and claim it proves it has NEVER been warmer than today? Go for it! :-)
And other brief warming trends have existed, like under 100 years, and everything survived. In fact life flourished! Now COLD trends have wiped out plenty over that short a time, in the past.
One 'spike' in the (iirc) 12th century saw temps rise +4.4C in under 30 years... nothing went extinct, and humans did not cause it. So again, deal with reality and facts please.
Yes AGW proponents have said hundreds of times, thousands even, that NEVER in Earth's post ice-age history has it been warmer. They'll grudgingly allow that it was in Dinosaur days... maybe.
So again, exactly like your bullshit claim that "no one ever said the science is settled"? You spout lies.
Questions: 1. How can the past few years be "the highest temperatures ever recorded" if it was warmer in the past?
2. Wouldn't it utterly defeat the entire basis of AGW theory if 2000 years ago (for one example) it was warmer than today and that was NOT caused at all by human actions?
Similarly, there are plenty of people who state, without any actual evidence, that there is no human contribution at all to warming. I think it's reasonable to assume that both extremes of opinion are wrong and should be ignored as meaningless noise. We should continue to investigate, and we should invest in research to reduce the possible human contribution not only because it may save our children (and their children, etc., down the line) from potentially dangerous effects of excess warming, but also because that possible warming effect is due to the huge amount of pollutants we're pumping into our environment, poisoning ourselves in the process even if we're not warming the planet.
We are in a "pause" with only tiny amounts of warming, lasting the past 20 years. Almost every pro-AGW person admits this. The warming in this time is exactly what Skeptic Theory predicted, and about 1/3 of what AGW predicted and entirely outside of the MOE for their models. For 20 years now...
I have seen the originators of AGW saying it is 100% human and that there was NEVER warmer times. And hundreds of other TOP AGW supporters.
If this was poker? I'd have a full house (kings and aces) and you'd have Jack-high...
Furthermore: it has NEVER been shown how even +5C (which is an insanely high estimate!) over 100 years is harmful! Never once. Why would it be if it has been that warm many times in the past?
Every 'warm period' in the past was prosperous and all life flourished. Why would this time be the opposite?
No, no further investigations required: the science is settled. Haven't you been paying attention? Only Skeptics want 'more research' and they are always wrong, right?
Nice try... and that took longer than 100 years I guarantee it.
The meteorite at Chicxulub caused long-lasting devastation and hot debris across the world, releasing large amount of sulfur from the gypsum and igniting woods all around the world - a combination known to cause unfavorable climate changes. Unfortunately that wasn't everything: If you hit a ball, the impact will transfer to the other side - where the Indian Ghat was there crossing a super volcano - or it was about to be created. That alone already was decreasing the number of dinosaurs, but it being accelerated didn't help.
Not ALL life was extinguished, and humans (or what would someday become humans) survived a freaking massive meteor strike... same for that super-volcano (it was really huge!).
MY CLAIM that a +5C warming has NEVER harmed anything remains true. Period. And that is the maximum AGW theory predicts over a fucking century, not 1 year like the meteor or volcano...
ONLY the Pro-AGW side says 'the science is settled' and that NO further research OR discussion is needed. Act now they tell us, no need for ANY more information!
And you've ignored my point that not one study shows a +5C rise will harm anything.
My Point: It HAS been that warm before, and when that happened? ALL life flourished! Again I ask: why would it be any different this time? Kings over aces dude, you got squat.
It isn't my reading that needs work here, it is your thinking or writing.
And you skipped over a ton of stuff, then claimed victory? Sorry, not worth shit.
Yes, we DO KNOW that Nature adapts easily to +5C over 100 or 1000 years because it has happened hundreds of times!!
Yes, a "few degrees" causes change... EVERYTHING CAUSES CHANGE! ALL CHANGE IS CHANGE!!! Can I shout that louder? Did you hear it yet? THE CLIMATE ALWAYS CHANGES! ALWAYS FOR 4 BILLION YEARS IN A ROW without a single fucking human involved...
4 fucking BILLION YEARS in a fucking row.... and YOU SAY we humans can stop ALL CHANGE by destroying our economies? No! Just no! We cannot "stop it" ok? Change WILL HAPPEN and we cannot stop it. Unless it was 100% human caused, then maybe? But IT IS NOT and therefor all our efforts are HUBRIS. We invite MORE disaster on ourselves in this insane idea that WE CONTROL NATURE. Ok? See it now?
If we cannot adapt better than a lemming? We don't deserve to be here. Fact. Mother Nature doesn't give a flying fuck about YOU ok?
I notice you had nothing to say about my point of how we're poisoning ourselves. Do you deny that, too?
ok?
Nothing else. Other than wealth redistribution of course.
Same for AGW.
If you deny humans can stop all change? YOU are a Skeptic too! Welcome to the club, we have cookies!
I have never once denied humans play a role in "global climate change". Never. 1%? 5%? Maybe 10%? But for fuck's sake NOT 100%!!! If it was 100%? Then NO CHANGE EVER in the past would have happened, ok?
However? AGW and Paris are based on humans being 100% responsible for ALL climate change. All of it. If not? Then multiply the costs by the % that is natural: trillions become tens of trillions... it is insane to try to fight natural changes, adapt or perish. Fighting Mother Nature = perish.
Mitigate? Your side has not even shown that a warmer climate IS BAD! Why mitigate something that may well be a benefit?? Isn't that suicidally stupid?
IF the Earth was warmer naturally AND we all survived quite nicely? WHY is the same warmth suddenly THE APOCALYPSE and going to literally end all life on Earth? As those supporting AGW have been telling us from the start? (or at least wipe out the human race and half the animals... they are always quite vague in their Doomsday scenarios...)
McCain is about as liberal as a Repub can get, but the Dems still hated him, of course! It was hard to attack him though, so ANY vice-prez nominee would have been put through the meatgrinder exactly the same way as Palin was.
Is that his Nobel peace Prize on his jacket? Lolz!
Because not one Democrat owns stocks in 'bad companies' eh? Not one!! They are the paragons of morality and virtue!
Evil Republicans want to run businesses to make money, and pure & good Democrats want the Government (themselves of course) to take all that money away "for the good of humankind"... of course!