US tech firms pledge to defy Trump on withdrawal from the Climate Change Agreement

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, rrubberr said:

SO if I say that the climate naturally changes but puny humans have nothing to do with it, can we all go home?

So if I say its an OBSERVED fact that since CFCs were banned in the late 80s the hole in the Ozone layer has shrunk every year will you go home and leave us to our thread?

[Misanthrope]

3 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

SO if I say that the climate naturally changes but puny humans have nothing to do with it, can we all go home?

And this is based on what? Refuted claims? "Facts" that you support out of a political opinion and not actually understanding the science behind the facts and refutations going back and forth?

 

So are you a climate scientist? Are you a scientists at all? Do you have a math degree? Can you explain the mathematical models behind this supposed fallacy at all? Or are you just here to quote breitbard, infowars, etc.?

[Misanthrope]

5 minutes ago, WMGroomAK said:

One could look at this as a brilliant move that saves the US $2 billion by pulling out of the accords and then having the large US cities be so 'outraged' that they decide to meet the emissions standards themselves...  

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-40131918

 

US government saves $2 billion, greenhouse emissions are still cut, win-win.  All this does is shift the responsibility for making these decisions from a Federal level to a state/local level.

One could also look at a single Sociopathic company negating the efforts of all of those companies running an engine powered by burnt puppies. This is why regulations exists so the work of many others is not quickly and irreparably destroyed by just a handful of careless individuals or companies. 

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, rrubberr said:

Smug liberal problem is showing again. Yes, you are SO enlightened

Not an argument.

[Master Disaster]

3 minutes ago, rrubberr said:

I thought the cows pooping was still burning a hole in the atmosphere and that was why California conveniently had to place a tax on it to make billions?

No, that's just the corrupt american government lying to make an extra buck. 

 

CO2 causes the greenhouse affect, the hole in the O2 layer is caused by CFC (technically chlorine).

 

Just shows you how much politicians actually know and what they're willing to say in the name of moah moniez!!!!

[Taf the Ghost]

1 minute ago, Master Disaster said:

So if I say its an OBSERVED fact that since CFCs were banned in the late 80s the hole in the Ozone layer has shrunk every year will you go home and leave us to our thread?

The general trick is to not bring up the Montreal Protocol or the Kyoto Accords because the actual information doesn't come out cleanly for the "we're doing something!" side. 

 

Limiting CFCs wasn't a bad thing on its own (more for local air quality issues), but there was never a "hole". It was great Rhetoric, but the original studies that set it off were terribly done and actively shaped to produce a result.  We also know there's something of a cyclical nature to the lower Ozone layer over the Southern Polar Region, but we don't know the extent of it.  The Ozone Layer has strengthened as a Net on Net analysis, somewhat. 

[cj09beira]

what we should be focusing on is putting pressure on CHINA you know that little country that gives no shits about the environment, so much so that one of the Olympic games (bike race) had its course stop long before the city were it was suppose to end because the pollution in the air would be bad for the athletes.

china then uses the advantage they have to dominate the global market with cheap products.

I see china as the biggest problem in this world right now ( north corea is right behind it ).

In Africa china as bribbed governments and is taking wood at an alarming rate at the price of transport, at the same time they are winning construction contracts which then are made exclusively with chinese machinery and people, and the only thing left in the country is a weak building ready to collapse.

their cheap products keep poor families in a state of having to buy the product again and again as they break so often, exploiting their low intelligence/ education.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, Taf the Ghost said:

The general trick is to not bring up the Montreal Protocol or the Kyoto Accords because the actual information doesn't come out cleanly for the "we're doing something!" side. 

 

Limiting CFCs wasn't a bad thing on its own (more for local air quality issues), but there was never a "hole". It was great Rhetoric, but the original studies that set it off were terribly done and actively shaped to produce a result.  We also know there's something of a cyclical nature to the lower Ozone layer over the Southern Polar Region, but we don't know the extent of it.  The Ozone Layer has strengthened as a Net on Net analysis, somewhat. 

I'm sorry but what?

 

So that's just rhetoric?

[Master Disaster]

Just now, rrubberr said:

Ah, purple, the great killer.

 

Yes, that's rhetoric.

Well in that case its observed rhetoric which makes it more real than anything you've said so far.

[Misanthrope]

Just now, rrubberr said:

Okay.

1) I never quoted Breitbart in relation to climate change.

2) You are very enlightened.

 

Or, if you're a scientist, Carbon, Chlorine, and Fluorine.

 

I mean, we're talking parts per trillion.

 

1) I already posted credible people refuting the article you quoted anyway. But do not pretend you came up with these arguments yourself: This are conservative talking points that come straight from conservative conspiracy theorist.

 

2) *intentionally unaddressed*

 

Are you done dodging? Can you go back to the study you posted without provocation and defend it against the article and the people I linked to refute? Because you see if you want to get in between scientists, you gotta understand why this back and forth exists. You need to tell me why the study is more legitimate than it's refutation and that is not done with "Oh but libtard scientists these and that!" rhetoric, that is done WITH EVIDENCE.

[SurvivorNVL]

2 minutes ago, cj09beira said:

what we should be focusing on is putting pressure on CHINA you know that little country that gives no shits about the environment, so much so that one of the Olympic games (bike race) had its course stop long before the city were it was suppose to end because the pollution in the air would be bad for the athletes.

china then uses the advantage they have to dominate the global market with cheap products.

I see china as the biggest problem in this world right now ( north corea is right behind it ).

In Africa china as bribbed governments and is taking wood at an alarming rate at the price of transport, at the same time they are winning construction contracts which then are made exclusively with chinese machinery and people, and the only thing left in the country is a weak building ready to collapse.

their cheap products keep poor families in a state of having to buy the product again and again as they break so often, exploiting their low intelligence/ education.

China actually has long-term colonization plans in Africa to establish and extract resources.  But China and India are equally a problem if we focus on the CO2 / Pollution.  The West has clean burning coal factories and clean burning oil plants for energy generation - scrubbers are actually so efficient in latest technologies, that it's almost purely clean.  China still uses old generation tech that is reliable but heavily toxic.  So that is a given.  Though I know the Philippines months ago was targetted by the EU saying they should get involved in the Paris talks and the Philippines told them out-right to screw off because, "We cannot afford the regulations and taxes imposed on our developing nations to follow misguided science."  Duterte just told them to screw off in a less polite way than that, though.

Though as for the African contracts, China is deliberately building things under even the code of quality they use in China itself.  Not just so they keep being contracted for repairs and re-building, but also because they get fast access to abundant resources that Africans can't figure out how to utilize.  The Chinese are ingenious.

[AlwaysFSX]

1 hour ago, Master Disaster said:

Lmao, if you destroy the planet then there is no USA anymore. You do understand that, right?

We're not gonna kill the planet.

[Master Disaster]

1 minute ago, rrubberr said:

Are you scared yet? I'm not, somehow.

 

At least they had the sense to use red, it's a far more alarming color.

Congratulations, you managed to post the picture which shows the difference between how it was (my picture) and how it is now (your picture) which has all happened since CFCs were banned. 

 

But hang on, humans don't have an impact on earth, its all natural cycles. And you talk about rhetoric.

[WMGroomAK]

6 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

CO2 causes the greenhouse affect, the hole in the O2 layer is caused by CFC (technically chlorine).

Okay, I'm going to take issue with the first part of this statement as CO2 does not cause the greenhouse effect.  CO2 is one of several gases that are considered greenhouse gases that can contribute to climate change.  The other major 'greenhouse gases' include Water Vapor/Clouds, Methane, Ozone, Nitrous Oxide, Sulfur Hexaflouride and many more.  One of the biggest problems with climate change research and theory when looking at greenhouse gases is determining the proportion of impact from each gas as their can be regional variations.  

[Master Disaster]

Just now, WMGroomAK said:

Okay, I'm going to take issue with the first part of this statement as CO2 does not cause the greenhouse effect.  CO2 is one of several gases that are considered greenhouse gases that can contribute to climate change.  The other major 'greenhouse gases' include Water Vapor/Clouds, Methane, Ozone, Nitrous Oxide, Sulfur Hexaflouride and many more.  One of the biggest problems with climate change research and theory when looking at greenhouse gases is determining the proportion of impact from each gas as their can be regional variations.  

OK, that's a fair point and I did phrase it incorrectly but it doesn't affect the result though.

[Misanthrope]

1 minute ago, rrubberr said:

Do liberals really still have the nerve to call conservatives conspiracy theorists?

 

Again, there has been a double standard created in which you are always right.

Once again, not an argument, you just continue to offer nothing to your own arguments. Please just let more competent people take it from here I actually have seen people that make more interesting and more fact supporting cases for refuting climate change. I didn't agree with them but they made legitimate cases they didn't have to spend 4 pages calling everybody "liberals"

[cj09beira]

4 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

China actually has long-term colonization plans in Africa to establish and extract resources.  But China and India are equally a problem if we focus on the CO2 / Pollution.  The West has clean burning coal factories and clean burning oil plants for energy generation - scrubbers are actually so efficient in latest technologies, that it's almost purely clean.  China still uses old generation tech that is reliable but heavily toxic.  So that is a given.  Though I know the Philippines months ago was targetted by the EU saying they should get involved in the Paris talks and the Philippines told them out-right to screw off because, "We cannot afford the regulations and taxes imposed on our developing nations to follow misguided science."  Duterte just told them to screw off in a less polite way than that, though.

Though as for the African contracts, China is deliberately building things under even the code of quality they use in China itself.  Not just so they keep being contracted for repairs and re-building, but also because they get fast access to abundant resources that Africans can't figure out how to utilize.  The Chinese are ingenious.

its funny that no one talks about this, its crazy. what i have seen in africa is horrible. whole ships full of really expensive wood, no planting, but all others have to plant before cutting :-|

[Taf the Ghost]

2 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

I'm sorry but what?

 

So that's just rhetoric?

 

Oh, scary.  Giant Purple People Eater, I think.

 

As I said, "hole" was great Rhetoric, as it comes across better than "Lower Atmosphere Concentration of Ozone at specific altitude above sea level reaching lower extremes during the annual cycle".   Which is why I said the general "trick" is to not bring it up.  Once you do, there's a world of weeds to sort through, and a lot of them don't look too pretty for attempting to use it for the Climate Change debate.

 

Phasing out CFCs wasn't a bad idea, on its own. They do cause local air quality issues, and, in large cities, potentially fairly massive ones.  The effects on the Ozone Concentrations in the South Polar Region is a lot messier.  Especially when the Ozone Concentrations run through an Annual cycle and are effected by quite a lot of things, and we simply don't know the total effects from different inputs. 

 

But I also remember a claimed 1 year spike in USA CFC release and the news cycle about making an Ozone "Hole" over North America. 

[SurvivorNVL]

Just now, cj09beira said:

its funny that no one talks about this, its crazy. what i have seen in africa is horrible. whole ships full of really expensive wood, no planting, but all others have to plant before cutting :-|

Honestly, China is just picking up where Europe left off, though where Europeans would and did improve Africa, such as Rhodesia(Zimbabwe isn't a place) - the Chinese are there simply for exploitation and resource removal.  Honestly, in the future, I'd expect China-Russia-India and Iran with all the deals they're forming together - to come out as new super-powers or a Eurasianist Union as the West declines.  

[cj09beira]

Just now, SurvivorNVL said:

Honestly, China is just picking up where Europe left off, though where Europeans would and did improve Africa, such as Rhodesia(Zimbabwe isn't a place) - the Chinese are there simply for exploitation and resource removal.  Honestly, in the future, I'd expect China-Russia-India and Iran with all the deals they're forming together - to come out as new super-powers or a Eurasianist Union as the West declines.  

true, and horrifying 

[SurvivorNVL]

Just now, cj09beira said:

true, and horrifying 

You know in South America, and in North America, there's a general rule of thumb that American companies(be it from either of the North or South), replant three trees for every one they take from the earth.  On Africa's east coast , the Chinese basically exhume all the resources and salt the land.

[Taf the Ghost]

2 minutes ago, SurvivorNVL said:

Honestly, China is just picking up where Europe left off, though where Europeans would and did improve Africa, such as Rhodesia(Zimbabwe isn't a place) - the Chinese are there simply for exploitation and resource removal.  Honestly, in the future, I'd expect China-Russia-India and Iran with all the deals they're forming together - to come out as new super-powers or a Eurasianist Union as the West declines.  

The saddest part is: no one cares.  "Africa" is a concept to the Private Jet crowd. If they actually wanted to help, they'd cut off most of the "development aid", which really just goes to fund the local dictator's family.

 

The other trick is that China is mostly focused on East Africa. Western exposure to the area is actually quite limited these days.  After everyone just looked the other way during the Rwandan Genocide in 1994, I'm pretty sure they mostly all agreed to just never mention the area.

[sazrocks]

8 minutes ago, Master Disaster said:

Just shows you how much politicians actually know and what they're willing to say in the name of moah moniez!!!!

I believe this is one of the reasons there are so many skeptics. There is so much to be gained monetarily and politically from the regulation in the name of defeating climate change that there is the possibility of evidence being skewed/falsified in order to gain the above.

 

Another concept is the concept of research justification. If a research project turns up no issues about a particular thing, then no more funding goes toward that particular thing because it isn't necessary. If it does turn up problems however, then more money will be poured into the research. Therefore there is an incentive for research to justify itself by producing results. 

 

A relevant example here could be the NASA website. There are people who spend a good amount of time and are paid for maintaining it, researching for it, etc. If it were to come out that climate change isn't a thing and that everything is all fine and will be, those people would be out of a job/would be reassigned.

 

Please don't take this as me taking sides; on the contrary I am neutral until I have the ability/time to thoroughly evaluate the evidence. Don't take my points above as absoutes; in other words, I don't mean to say that the above things are definetly happening, but that they could be happening and that causes people to doubt the evidence produced by these agencies.

[cj09beira]

Just now, SurvivorNVL said:

You know in South America, and in North America, there's a general rule of thumb that American companies(be it from either of the North or South), replant three trees for every one they take from the earth.  On Africa's east coast , the Chinese basically exhume all the resources and salt the land.

They are also doing shit in the seas, they go all the way to the coasts of Mozambique to steal fish and a lot of it.

[SurvivorNVL]

Just now, Taf the Ghost said:

The saddest part is: no one cares.  "Africa" is a concept to the Private Jet crowd. If they actually wanted to help, they'd cut off most of the "development aid", which really just goes to fund the local dictator's family.

 

The other trick is that China is mostly focused on East Africa. Western exposure to the area is actually quite limited these days.  After everyone just looked the other way during the Rwandan Genocide in 1994, I'm pretty sure they mostly all agreed to just never mention the area.

Cruel solution, but likely the only solution.  Africa all around if people wanted to truly help it - would cut off any and all aid, and let the long-suffering end.  Europe removed itself from the equation and when they did - the future of Africa was damned due to the lack of colonization.  Hell, the only still working infrastructure in Zimbabwe is from the 1960s when the English owned it.