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

[Taf the Ghost]

11 minutes ago, MageTank said:

Ignoring the massive mudflinging going on, Zuckerberg did make me chuckle.

 

"Every new data center we build will be powered by 100% renewable energy". Does this mean Intel finally found someone to buy those Atom processors?  

Zuck is also clearly planning to run for President, though probably not until 2024.   I look forward to the Meme potential.

[sazrocks]

14 minutes ago, S.Stephenson said:

Renewables are futureproof, they don't rely on OPEC and are due to the investments recently are only a few years off cost parity with conventional power generation.

Except we can't be powered 100% by the traditional (wind and solar) sources as they are inherently unreliable (see: Germany). We need conventional power somewhere to serve as the backbone. Personally I believe this should be some form of nuclear energy.

 

Heres a video:

 

[SansVarnic]

19 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

I don't know about the other guys, but didn't Elon Musk try to profit from the Paris deal crap?

16 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

So, wouldn't pulling out screw his company?

Elon Musk is a businessman, he attempts to profit from any deal he gets.

All deals he makes as a business man and by that it is a gamble that he is fully aware of. So no it doesnt screw him at all, it is part of the gamble.

 

[Misanthrope]

8 minutes ago, sazrocks said:

1. Please.... just go read the speech.

 

2. Yes, you did. You mentioned Trump supporters and said that they were "Denying there's even a problem to worry about"

 

3. Where did I mention that the studies had been refuted? I simply objectively stated a, without commenting on its legitimacy , reason for skeptics to exist. As I stated originally I am not in a position the refute or verify the studies for myself so I will therefore not do so publicly.

2. I'd remember quoting your name specifically. I also think we should be past clarifying "Not ALL Trump supporters" as any reasonable person should assume that's a prerequisite but regardless you can assume it so from this point forward

 

Consider the other points conceded or discarded (or both)

[sazrocks]

5 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

2. I'd remember quoting your name specifically. I also think we should be past clarifying "Not ALL Trump supporters" as any reasonable person should assume that's a prerequisite but regardless you can assume it so from this point forward

2. Fine. If it was not your intention to say all Trump supporters, then you didn't make it very clear. But Fine.

 

as for

6 minutes ago, Misanthrope said:

Consider the other points conceded or discarded (or both)

Discarding my points without giving a word of response makes you no better than others in this thread who do the same. If you discard my point, list your reason.

 

7 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

More or less it's why he's leaving.  It has nothing to do with climate change.  It's profit for him.

I would encourage you too to read his speech.

[SansVarnic]

The Paris agreement was/is garbage. Did nothing in gains for the US, had nothing to do with so called climate change. Leaving the Paris agreement was a good thing for the US just like when Bush did the same with the Kyoto Agreement signed by Clinton.

People will wine a complain about anything and nothing. This will all be forgotten down the road. All claims that Trump did this because he doesn't recognize climate change are foolish to think as much, it was about economic impact and nothing about climate, Trump even admits as much. 

Anyone whining about this did not pay attention to the details of the issue.

 

End of Discussion.

[Misanthrope]

5 minutes ago, sazrocks said:

2. Fine. If it was not your intention to say all Trump supporters, then you didn't make it very clear. But Fine.

 

as for

Discarding my points without giving a word of response makes you no better than others in this thread who do the same. If you discard my point, list your reason.

 

I would encourage you too to read his speech.

I also said conceded. This means that I agree with you enough that I don't think we have anything else to discuss.  

[mr moose]

Even if you don't agree with AGW, why would you be opposed to seeking alternative power sources that are cleaner than coal (ignoring the climate it has a death count from pollution).  Personally the idea of energy being cheaper long term (fusion and thorium looking to be very efficient) is appealing all on it's own.

[sazrocks]

1 minute ago, valdyrgramr said:

"I do it for the climate, not my bank account!"  Sure sure.  If they don't stick to it his business gets screwed...I'm not buying it for a second.

Then why would he be willing to re-enter into the agreement if it was on a more equal footing? 

[sazrocks]

5 minutes ago, valdyrgramr said:

To make him look good?  That's how he does his business.

What? He would look the complete opposite of good if the footing was leveled and he refused to re-enter. 

[Misanthrope]

Just now, valdyrgramr said:

No, he claims he would re-enter if it was good for the environment because that makes him look good.  He is leaving because it impacts his business.  It's rather obvious.

I agree: talking about re-entering is one thing, meanwhile he cut 493 million from the EPA already and this is not even the only environment related program to suffer cuts (video linked to the relevant part)

 

 

[dexT]

Obama's entry into the Paris Climate Accord was very unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly delineates the power to enter binding agreements with other countries lays with Congress, not the Executive branch. 

[ivan134]

4 minutes ago, dexT said:

Obama's entry into the Paris Climate Accord was very unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly delineates the power to enter binding agreements with other countries lays with Congress, not the Executive branch. 

Wow. That's crazy. He should have been impeached then.

[ivan134]

Who cares if the planet is livable for our descendants. At least we triggered those libtards.

[Misanthrope]

2 minutes ago, dexT said:

Obama's entry into the Paris Climate Accord was very unconstitutional. The Constitution clearly delineates the power to enter binding agreements with other countries lays with Congress, not the Executive branch. 

Wouldn't the same apply for leaving then?

[ARikozuM]

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been shut down or cleaned...

[The Sloth]

2 minutes ago, ARikozuM said:

I'm surprised this thread hasn't been shut down or cleaned...

i will call one @GoodBytes, this is getting toxic. 

[GoodBytes]

16 minutes ago, nerdslayer1 said:

i will call one @GoodBytes, this is getting toxic. 

1x GoodBytes is all you need! Call in the next 15min and we will double the offer! You'll get 2x GoodBytes'! Just pay separate shipping and handling! Call NOW!

[GoodBytes]

Ok, guys you clearly can't make any sort of discussion here. Locked.