Trump withdraws from the 2015 Paris Climate agreement

[El Kabong]

outsider

WOW, such insight from you, don't hurt yourself writing such amazing posts Beanz

[TitoFan]

Well hopefully after Trump people will come to their senses and vote for a man who not only runs the country well, but also cares about global issues, like any leader of a powerful country should.

Again, when the rest of the fucking world starts pulling their own weight then we can talk. Look at NATO, look at the UN, look at any huge disaster earthquake, tsunami, drought, famine, who is the first to show up and with the most money? The United States, that's fucking who.

Lyle, here's where we'll probably agree to disagree. Today's world and today's global problems require people/ leaders with a global vision. As opposed maybe to you, I believe it's possible to care both about your own country and about the world in general. It's ok for Trump to expect other countries to do their fair share and share the expenses in efforts that benefit everyone. But there's a world of difference between saying that, and just going about like the proverbial bull in a china shop, pulling out of accords and offending anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with him.

In other words, it's ok to say "America First". But America isn't the only tenant in the building. There's plenty of other world leaders with vision, good intentions, and willingness to work together for the good of the civilized world. Be it the environment, terrorism, or any other global issue.

Once again I'll invoke the tired but true "pendulum theory". You obviously viewed Obama as a pussy who bent over backwards and didn't put America's interests first. So for the sake of argument, let's go with that and assume it was necessary to reverse that trend a little bit. Don't you think we could've had a more deserving, Presidential, respect-inspiring person up there that could accomplish BOTH goals? That of putting American interests first, but without alienating/ isolating the rest of the world?

Only my opinion, of course.

[Kirkland Laing]

North Carolina Legislature Bans Sea Level Rise Due to Global Warming


The Republican-majority North Carolina legislature today passed a bill placing a 4-year ban on acknowledging rising sea levels due to global warming when considering coastal development within the state. The bill now goes to Governor Bev Purdue (Democrat), who thus far has not indicated whether or not she intends to sign it into law.
The legislation comes a week after research from the U.S. Geological Survey and published in the journal, Nature Climate Change, reported that since 1980, the 600-mile stretch of Atlantic coastline between Cape Hatteras, NC and Boston, MA, has experienced a rise in sea level that is 3-4 times the global average.
A house on North Carolina's Outer Banks -- a frequent target of tropical storms -- undercut by the storm surge from Hurricane Isabel in 2003. Credit: Mark Wolfe/FEMA

More disarming is another study, published this week in the same journal, indicating that even if efforts were underway to stabilize globally averaged temperatures at 2-3°C above pre-industrial measures, sea levels will continue to rise. Essentially, we have already passed a point-of-no-return, and even with aggressive mitigation, sea levels will continue to rise for the next several hundred years.
The ban instituted today is the result of a conflict between developers, who were willing to accept no more than a projected 8-inch rise, and a state-sponsored climate study that predicted a 39-inch (1 meter) rise in sea level by 2100. Rather than using any projection at all, the legislature elected to wait a new study is completed in 2016.


http://www.ecology.com/2012/07/03/no...ea-level-rise/

[walrus]

North Carolina Legislature Bans Sea Level Rise Due to Global Warming


The Republican-majority North Carolina legislature today passed a bill placing a 4-year ban on acknowledging rising sea levels due to global warming when considering coastal development within the state. The bill now goes to Governor Bev Purdue (Democrat), who thus far has not indicated whether or not she intends to sign it into law.
The legislation comes a week after research from the U.S. Geological Survey and published in the journal, Nature Climate Change, reported that since 1980, the 600-mile stretch of Atlantic coastline between Cape Hatteras, NC and Boston, MA, has experienced a rise in sea level that is 3-4 times the global average.
A house on North Carolina's Outer Banks -- a frequent target of tropical storms -- undercut by the storm surge from Hurricane Isabel in 2003. Credit: Mark Wolfe/FEMA

More disarming is another study, published this week in the same journal, indicating that even if efforts were underway to stabilize globally averaged temperatures at 2-3°C above pre-industrial measures, sea levels will continue to rise. Essentially, we have already passed a point-of-no-return, and even with aggressive mitigation, sea levels will continue to rise for the next several hundred years.
The ban instituted today is the result of a conflict between developers, who were willing to accept no more than a projected 8-inch rise, and a state-sponsored climate study that predicted a 39-inch (1 meter) rise in sea level by 2100. Rather than using any projection at all, the legislature elected to wait a new study is completed in 2016.


http://www.ecology.com/2012/07/03/no...ea-level-rise/

Dude the oceans are fucked. It is estimated there are more particles of plastic in the ocean than fish. There is a notorious Island of garbage floating around the ocean larger than Texas. Coral reefs will soon be a thing of the past. Over fishing is a bigger concern. Most of humans protein is harvested from the ocean. You really think one state passing a bill matters with china and Japan etc doing what they do along with the US. At least we try to stick by quoata but you are truly misguided Kirk

[El Kabong]

Lyle, here's where we'll probably agree to disagree. Today's world and today's global problems require people/ leaders with a global vision. As opposed maybe to you, I believe it's possible to care both about your own country and about the world in general. It's ok for Trump to expect other countries to do their fair share and share the expenses in efforts that benefit everyone. But there's a world of difference between saying that, and just going about like the proverbial bull in a china shop, pulling out of accords and offending anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with him.

In other words, it's ok to say "America First". But America isn't the only tenant in the building. There's plenty of other world leaders with vision, good intentions, and willingness to work together for the good of the civilized world. Be it the environment, terrorism, or any other global issue.

Once again I'll invoke the tired but true "pendulum theory". You obviously viewed Obama as a pussy who bent over backwards and didn't put America's interests first. So for the sake of argument, let's go with that and assume it was necessary to reverse that trend a little bit. Don't you think we could've had a more deserving, Presidential, respect-inspiring person up there that could accomplish BOTH goals? That of putting American interests first, but without alienating/ isolating the rest of the world?

Only my opinion, of course.

@TitoFan, the United States taxpayer flips the bill for 22% of the United Nation's budget.....I don't want to fucking hear about how we need to make things harder for ourselves to "help the environment".


We've got Radical Islamic terrorists attempting to murder 100% of the nonbelievers, and to me....maybe this is where we disagree ......that's pretty fucking bad for MY environment.






@Kirkland Laing yeah, you WOULD love Bev Perdue. I'm shocked she never went to prison.

[El Kabong]

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2...an-coral-reef/



OOPSY DAISY.....if there a Carbon Offset for that? Should I say some Hail Mary's?

[TitoFan]

Lyle, here's where we'll probably agree to disagree. Today's world and today's global problems require people/ leaders with a global vision. As opposed maybe to you, I believe it's possible to care both about your own country and about the world in general. It's ok for Trump to expect other countries to do their fair share and share the expenses in efforts that benefit everyone. But there's a world of difference between saying that, and just going about like the proverbial bull in a china shop, pulling out of accords and offending anyone and everyone who doesn't agree with him.

In other words, it's ok to say "America First". But America isn't the only tenant in the building. There's plenty of other world leaders with vision, good intentions, and willingness to work together for the good of the civilized world. Be it the environment, terrorism, or any other global issue.

Once again I'll invoke the tired but true "pendulum theory". You obviously viewed Obama as a pussy who bent over backwards and didn't put America's interests first. So for the sake of argument, let's go with that and assume it was necessary to reverse that trend a little bit. Don't you think we could've had a more deserving, Presidential, respect-inspiring person up there that could accomplish BOTH goals? That of putting American interests first, but without alienating/ isolating the rest of the world?

Only my opinion, of course.

@TitoFan, the United States taxpayer flips the bill for 22% of the United Nation's budget.....I don't want to fucking hear about how we need to make things harder for ourselves to "help the environment".


We've got Radical Islamic terrorists attempting to murder 100% of the nonbelievers, and to me....maybe this is where we disagree ......that's pretty fucking bad for MY environment.

Pick and choose, Lyle. Pick and choose. What on Earth does overpaying for the UN's budget have to do with being more conscientious about the environment? Let's keep our apples and oranges in separate crates.

First... I've never defended the UN as an organization. I've rarely if ever seen anything useful coming out of it, and in this day and age seems more pomp than anything of substance, if you ask me. I'd seriously consider taking a long hard look at what the UN does for the world, and weigh that against the costs involved.

You managed to throw terrorism in there as well. Very well. Let's talk terrorism then. I'm all for having a global, cooperative effort and/or organization dedicated to fighting terrorism. As far as Trump's demands that other countries pay their fair share...... I'm all for it. Kudos for the mentality that the US can't be expected to bankroll all of the world's initiatives.

But you have blinders on, Lyle. You're far too intelligent and educated to have that type of mentality. With your mind, you should be looking a little toward the horizon and give a damn about the rest of the world as well. Again, it's possible for a great leader to put his country first... and also care about global issues.

That's the problem nowadays. We lack the type of respect-inspiring leaders the country had decades ago. Now it seems any narcissistic, self-centered, inarticulate, personality-challenged dumbass can be President.

[El Kabong]

Pick and choose, Lyle. Pick and choose. What on Earth does overpaying for the UN's budget have to do with being more conscientious about the environment? Let's keep our apples and oranges in separate crates.

First... I've never defended the UN as an organization. I've rarely if ever seen anything useful coming out of it, and in this day and age seems more pomp than anything of substance, if you ask me. I'd seriously consider taking a long hard look at what the UN does for the world, and weigh that against the costs involved.

You managed to throw terrorism in there as well. Very well. Let's talk terrorism then. I'm all for having a global, cooperative effort and/or organization dedicated to fighting terrorism. As far as Trump's demands that other countries pay their fair share...... I'm all for it. Kudos for the mentality that the US can't be expected to bankroll all of the world's initiatives.

But you have blinders on, Lyle. You're far too intelligent and educated to have that type of mentality. With your mind, you should be looking a little toward the horizon and give a damn about the rest of the world as well. Again, it's possible for a great leader to put his country first... and also care about global issues.

That's the problem nowadays. We lack the type of respect-inspiring leaders the country had decades ago. Now it seems any narcissistic, self-centered, inarticulate, personality-challenged dumbass can be President.

Are you shitting me right now @TitoFan? Dude I'm really trying to be patient and keep things cool between you and me but fucking hell man that post.....that post made it kind of difficult just because you're belittling me AND you're not using the internet (which you obviously have) to research anything about this very topic.


The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change operates under what group again? The Paris Accords was under what group again?


I'll answer that for you, since NOBODY on this site can answer a simple fucking question OR look anything up: "What is the United Nations?" DING DING DING!!!!


And what's this?

The United States ALONE paid (2015 estimate) $8 billion in mandatory payments and voluntary contributions to the United Nations and its affiliated organizations. The biggest portion of this money – about $3 billion this year – goes to the U.N.'s regular and peacekeeping budgets. FYI that $3 Billion for peacekeeping....that's larger than 185 countries put into the UN COMBINED. And that is just for defense.


As for the Paris Accord: Sticking with the deal could have cost 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025, according to a National Economic Research Associates study. And the effects would be widespread, including a loss of 440,000 manufacturing jobs, according to NERA's numbers. Meanwhile, according to proponents' own data, the agreement would have no discernible effect on global temperatures.

And the longer the agreement ran, the worse it would get, according to NERA's data. By 2040, production (and thus employment) would be decimated in a host of industries, including a 38 percent cut in iron and steel, 31 percent in natural gas, and 86 percent for coal. At that point, the total economic cost to the U.S. would approach $3 trillion in lost gross domestic product and 6.5 million industrial jobs.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/th...rticle/2624974


Any other countries taking it on the chin like that? Hmmmm let's see

Yemen has promised a whopping 1 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions as part of the global Paris climate agreement.
North Korea, meanwhile, has said its pollution will double by 2030 compared with 2000 levels — but only if the rest of the world writes a sizable check. Otherwise, its emissions will rise even further.
India, Iran, South Sudan, Niger, the Central African Republic, Cuba, Egypt, Paraguay and a host of other countries have similar demands: Pay up, or else they will have to keep polluting.
China said it will hit peak emissions by 2030 and then begin reductions (MAYBE, if they still feel like it).
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ations-wealth/


And again, nations remaining in the Paris Accords were set to build hundreds of thousands of new coal plants....hundreds of thousands.....COAL.....but I guess I'm just small minded and grasping at straws here.

As for the terrorism....http://time.com/4113801/climate-change-terrorism/ .....yeah some fucking nerdalingers chalk that shit up to Global Warming because apparently Allah Akbar means "It's too hot, we need A/C" in Arabic


But you were saying how I pick and choose, you were saying I have my blinders on and how I am too intelligent and too educated to think like this? Dude....I'm disappointed bruh

[Gandalf]

outsider

WOW, such insight from you, don't hurt yourself writing such amazing posts Beanz

Well, if you will speak such obvious bollocks Lyle.

[TitoFan]

Pick and choose, Lyle. Pick and choose. What on Earth does overpaying for the UN's budget have to do with being more conscientious about the environment? Let's keep our apples and oranges in separate crates.

First... I've never defended the UN as an organization. I've rarely if ever seen anything useful coming out of it, and in this day and age seems more pomp than anything of substance, if you ask me. I'd seriously consider taking a long hard look at what the UN does for the world, and weigh that against the costs involved.

You managed to throw terrorism in there as well. Very well. Let's talk terrorism then. I'm all for having a global, cooperative effort and/or organization dedicated to fighting terrorism. As far as Trump's demands that other countries pay their fair share...... I'm all for it. Kudos for the mentality that the US can't be expected to bankroll all of the world's initiatives.

But you have blinders on, Lyle. You're far too intelligent and educated to have that type of mentality. With your mind, you should be looking a little toward the horizon and give a damn about the rest of the world as well. Again, it's possible for a great leader to put his country first... and also care about global issues.

That's the problem nowadays. We lack the type of respect-inspiring leaders the country had decades ago. Now it seems any narcissistic, self-centered, inarticulate, personality-challenged dumbass can be President.

Are you shitting me right now @TitoFan? Dude I'm really trying to be patient and keep things cool between you and me but fucking hell man that post.....that post made it kind of difficult just because you're belittling me AND you're not using the internet (which you obviously have) to research anything about this very topic.


The IPCC, or Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change operates under what group again? The Paris Accords was under what group again?


I'll answer that for you, since NOBODY on this site can answer a simple fucking question OR look anything up: "What is the United Nations?" DING DING DING!!!!


And what's this?

The United States ALONE paid (2015 estimate) $8 billion in mandatory payments and voluntary contributions to the United Nations and its affiliated organizations. The biggest portion of this money – about $3 billion this year – goes to the U.N.'s regular and peacekeeping budgets. FYI that $3 Billion for peacekeeping....that's larger than 185 countries put into the UN COMBINED. And that is just for defense.


As for the Paris Accord: Sticking with the deal could have cost 2.7 million lost jobs by 2025, according to a National Economic Research Associates study. And the effects would be widespread, including a loss of 440,000 manufacturing jobs, according to NERA's numbers. Meanwhile, according to proponents' own data, the agreement would have no discernible effect on global temperatures.

And the longer the agreement ran, the worse it would get, according to NERA's data. By 2040, production (and thus employment) would be decimated in a host of industries, including a 38 percent cut in iron and steel, 31 percent in natural gas, and 86 percent for coal. At that point, the total economic cost to the U.S. would approach $3 trillion in lost gross domestic product and 6.5 million industrial jobs.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/th...rticle/2624974


Any other countries taking it on the chin like that? Hmmmm let's see

Yemen has promised a whopping 1 percent cut in greenhouse gas emissions as part of the global Paris climate agreement.
North Korea, meanwhile, has said its pollution will double by 2030 compared with 2000 levels — but only if the rest of the world writes a sizable check. Otherwise, its emissions will rise even further.
India, Iran, South Sudan, Niger, the Central African Republic, Cuba, Egypt, Paraguay and a host of other countries have similar demands: Pay up, or else they will have to keep polluting.
China said it will hit peak emissions by 2030 and then begin reductions (MAYBE, if they still feel like it).
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...ations-wealth/


And again, nations remaining in the Paris Accords were set to build hundreds of thousands of new coal plants....hundreds of thousands.....COAL.....but I guess I'm just small minded and grasping at straws here.

As for the terrorism....http://time.com/4113801/climate-change-terrorism/ .....yeah some fucking nerdalingers chalk that shit up to Global Warming because apparently Allah Akbar means "It's too hot, we need A/C" in Arabic


But you were saying how I pick and choose, you were saying I have my blinders on and how I am too intelligent and too educated to think like this? Dude....I'm disappointed bruh

I'm honored that you've decided to be "patient" with me, Lyle. Heaven knows it's not easy dealing with uninformed folk like me who just like arguing for argument's sake. But "belittling you"? Whoa there, Nellie. I thought I went out of my way NOT to belittle you. Dial back on the Sensitivity Meter there, bro. Humor me for a bit, Lyle. Why is it you feel compelled to bite anyone's head off who dares disagree with you?

Ok so again you talk as if I'm defending the United Nations. I guess it must be a language thing, 'cause I could've sworn I said the usefulness of the UN in this day and age should be reevaluated. Then you go on about the Paris Accord and the supposed lost jobs. So let's see..... anything we read which goes against Trump or any of his decisions is fake news or based on fake numbers. But Trump makes a monumental gaff..... and immediately there's tons of supporting (cough) "facts", that we all must take as gospel and written in stone. I'm not saying this is a double standard or anything but..... ok, yes I am.

No, I don't have the time nor the inclination to paste dozens of video clips or quotes from the Internet..... so I guess my opinions are worthless. Only those who pore over the Internet and pick and choose what to post and what to ignore..... THOSE are the only opinions worth something. But I'm gonna just wing it here, and hope for the best.

For every Tom, Dick and Harry (with special interests, mind you) that nibbled in Trump's ear about the Paris Accord being "BAD", there's an equal or greater number of just as credible industry leaders which say the exact opposite. Caring about the environment may be bad for some job sectors, but it's wonderful for others, namely renewable energy, which..... contrary to popular denier opinion..... is here to stay and is not going anywhere.

Ok so we're going to compare the US to similar countries like South Sudan, Niger, Central African Republic, etc. They're going to keep polluting, so doggone it, so will we!! Brilliant! I would say it's an asinine argument, but your fuse is a bit short already.

And the terrorism thing you were the one who brought it up, Lyle. Frankly, I even forgot what the argument there was.



Listen, you need to chill a bit and respect other people's opinions. I mean.... unless by saying that I'm belittling you.

[El Kabong]

We've got homeless VETERANS here. I don't want 1 single penny spent on the UN before that problem is corrected.

The UN is shit, I'm glad you feel that way. I wanted you to know where all the climate change bullshit came from. I also wanted you to know that the financially strapped United States is really pouring out cash and for what? Not our citizens...not the bankrupt US protectorate Puerto Rico who will need some help in the near future



Also did nobody take note of this from my previous post?


according to proponents' own data the agreement would have no discernible effect on global temperatures.





Did we all just miss that? Are we not going to say to ourselves "Well gee why the fuck are we doing all this if there will be an impact of 0.000% on the temperature and seeing how we're attempting to prevent CLIMATE CHANGE that might be something of note?"





....I guess that kind of thing just means I'm a hateful evil guy who enjoys popping the balloons of the little children at the Anthropogenic Climate Change parade, awww the poor dears

[Kirkland Laing]

Miami Beach is one of the nation's cities most vulnerable to climate change — and its leaders are doing something about it. The city, a national leader in addressing climate, has begun to make improvements aimed at protecting residents from rising sea levels.
In South Florida, the rate of sea-level rise has tripled over the last decade, according to a new study from the University of Miami.

[...]



Over the last decade, flooding during high tide in this and other neighborhoods along Miami Beach's western edge has become a regular occurrence. The University of Miami study confirms that the main reason for the increased flood events is sea-level rise. While some elected officials, including Florida's Republican Gov. Rick Scott, aren't ready to acknowledge the threat posed by climate change, here in Miami Beach, it was an issue that helped get Levine elected. "I think I did a campaign commercial in a kayak," he says.

[...]

To combat flooding, Miami Beach has launched a $400 million project that's begun installing as many as 80 pump stations throughout the city. In addition, more roads on the island's low-lying western edge will be rebuilt higher..............................


http://www.npr.org/2016/05/10/476071...ical-willpower

[TitoFan]

Miami Beach is one of the nation's cities most vulnerable to climate change — and its leaders are doing something about it. The city, a national leader in addressing climate, has begun to make improvements aimed at protecting residents from rising sea levels.
In South Florida, the rate of sea-level rise has tripled over the last decade, according to a new study from the University of Miami.

[...]



Over the last decade, flooding during high tide in this and other neighborhoods along Miami Beach's western edge has become a regular occurrence. The University of Miami study confirms that the main reason for the increased flood events is sea-level rise. While some elected officials, including Florida's Republican Gov. Rick Scott, aren't ready to acknowledge the threat posed by climate change, here in Miami Beach, it was an issue that helped get Levine elected. "I think I did a campaign commercial in a kayak," he says.

[...]

To combat flooding, Miami Beach has launched a $400 million project that's begun installing as many as 80 pump stations throughout the city. In addition, more roads on the island's low-lying western edge will be rebuilt higher..............................


http://www.npr.org/2016/05/10/476071...ical-willpower

North Carolina did one better than South Florida.
They up and outlawed climate change.









Now..... it's illegal.

[El Kabong]

Dear Kirkland,



Miami is a city which is located on limestone (which erodes very quickly geologically speaking) and parts are located on both man-made and natural barrier islands (which are constantly moving)......sooooooo



I'm not really all that shocked or concerned


Thanks for being so worried.



Your friend,


El Kabong

[Kirkland Laing]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/...ushpmg00000009