Archive for Thursday, June 1, 2017

Trump pulling U.S. from global climate pact, dismaying allies

President Donald Trump speaks about the U.S. role in the Paris climate change accord, Thursday, June 1, 2017, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

President Donald Trump speaks about the U.S. role in the Paris climate change accord, Thursday, June 1, 2017, in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

June 1, 2017, 9:50 a.m. Updated June 1, 2017, 6:02 p.m.


— President Donald Trump declared Thursday he was withdrawing the U.S. from the landmark Paris climate agreement, striking a major blow to worldwide efforts to combat climate change and distancing the country from many allies abroad. He said the U.S. would try to re-enter but only if it can get more favorable terms.

Framing his decision as "a reassertion of America's sovereignty," he said, "I was elected to represent the citizens of Pittsburgh, not Paris." His decision ended weeks of speculation, some of it fueled by Trump himself and his Cabinet members.

Under former President Barack Obama, the U.S. had agreed under the accord to reduce polluting emissions by about 1.6 billion tons by 2025. But the targets were voluntary, meaning the U.S. and the nearly 200 other nations in the agreement could alter their commitments.

Trump said that he would begin negotiations to re-enter the agreement or establish "an entirely new transaction" to get a better deal for the U.S. But he suggested re-entry was hardly a priority. "If we can, great. If we can't, that's fine," he said.

By abandoning the world's chief effort to slow the tide of planetary warming, Trump was fulfilling a top campaign pledge. But he was also breaking from many of America's staunchest allies, who have expressed alarm about the decision. Several of his top aides have opposed the action, too, as has his daughter and adviser, Ivanka Trump.

Scientists say Earth is likely to reach more dangerous levels of warming sooner as a result of the president's decision because America contributes so much to rising temperatures. Calculations suggest withdrawal could result in emissions of up to 3 billion tons of additional carbon dioxide in the air a year — enough to melt ice sheets faster, raise seas higher and trigger more extreme weather.

Trump's decision marked "a sad day for the global community," said Miguel Arias Canete, climate action commissioner for the European Union.

At home in America, the U.S. Conference of Mayors said it strongly opposed the decision and said mayors will continue efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions blamed for global warming. The group's vice president, New Orleans Mayor Mitch Landrieu said the action "is shortsighted and will be devastating to Americans in the long run." In fact, he said, sea level rise caused by unchecked climate change could mean that cities like his "will cease to exist."

Trump, however, argued the agreement had disadvantaged the U.S. "to the exclusive benefit of other countries," leaving American businesses and taxpayers to absorb the cost.

"This agreement is less about the climate and more about other countries gaining a financial advantage over the United States," he said, claiming that other countries have laughed at the U.S. for agreeing to the terms."

Investors seemed pleased, with stock prices, already up for the day, bumping higher as he spoke. The Dow Jones industrial average rising 135 points for the day

As for the mechanics of withdrawal, international treaties have a four-year cooling off period from the time they go into effect. That means it could take another three-and-half years for the U.S. to formally withdraw, though Trump promised to stop implementation immediately.

Major U.S. allies, business leaders and even the Pope had urged the U.S. to remain in the deal. The decision drew immediately backlash from climate activists and many business leaders.

The U.S. is the world's second-largest emitter of carbon, following only China. Beijing, however, has reaffirmed its commitment to meeting its targets under the Paris accord, recently canceling construction of about 100 coal-fired power plants and investing billions in massive wind and solar projects.

White House aides have been divided on the question of staying or leaving the accord and had been deliberating on "caveats in the language" as late as Wednesday, one official said. But Trump's statement was clear and direct.

So was opposition from environmental groups, as expected.

"Generations from now, Americans will look back at Donald Trump's decision to leave the Paris Agreement as one of the most ignorant and dangerous actions ever taken by any President," Sierra Club executive director Michael Brune said in a statement.


Clark Coan 8 months, 3 weeks ago

He's on the wrong side of history. So, California with the sixth largest economy in the world and 40 million people will lead the way.

Tony Peterson 8 months, 3 weeks ago

This one is going to come back and bite him in the ass. He's now alienated or pissed off essentially every U.S. ally in one way or another.

Bob Summers 8 months, 3 weeks ago

If I thought humans were put on Earth by the magical spaghetti monster, as it appears some critical thinkers believe, instead of evolving as one in concert with the evolution of Earth, I would believe the climate could be altered.

Or maybe, Earth had humans for a reason? Maybe Earth had humans to try and alter the climate?

Besides. If the intellectually complex were really concerned about mother Earth, they would eliminate half the humans on her. They wouldn't promote flooding bodies into America to use all of its Earth destroying devices? They wouldn't provide safe sanctuaries for bodies to hide out in to use all those devices that kill mother Earth. Would they.

Daniel Kennamore 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Right, because clearly the only way to prevent climate change is genocide.

Chris Golledge 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Bob, there is this thing called 'science'. You don't have to understand it for it to be a more accurate reflection of reality than your wishful thinking.

Bob Summers 8 months, 2 weeks ago

For your perusal CG,

Yes, the world is reaching a tipping point, but it has nothing to do with the trace amounts of life-giving carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Instead, the climate hoax itself is reaching a tipping point, the point at which the public stops listening to the apocalyptic predictions of the "End Is Nigh" crowd.

"I am fighting every day for the great people of this country," Trump boasted in his Rose Garden press conference announcing his decision on the agreement, adopted in Paris in December 2015. "Therefore, in order to fulfill my solemn duty to protect America and its citizens, the United States will withdraw from the Paris Climate Accord..."

...If only he had stopped there. However, after a brief applause break greeting the announcement of the withdrawal, the Dissembler-in-Chief completed the sentence thusly: "but begin negotiations to reenter either the Paris Accord or a really entirely new transaction on terms that are fair to the United States, its businesses, its workers, its people, its taxpayers." And then, just to make sure he added enough political hogwash to confuse everyone, he pressed on: "So we’re getting out. But we will start to negotiate, and we will see if we can make a deal that’s fair. And if we can, that’s great. And if we can’t, that’s fine."

Ok, then. So the US is withdrawing from the Paris Agreement not because it is the leading edge of the $100 trillion carbon swindle wedge. Not because it is based on the fake science of fundamentally flawed models with fundamentally incorrect inputs. Not because it brings us one step closer to the Edmund Rothschild-articulated vision of a "global conservation bank" to steward over the world economy or the century-old technocratic dream of an energy-based economy where people will be assigned "carbon credits" and forced to ration their activities in response to the dictates of a de facto world government. No, not for these reasons, but because the "deal" wasn't "fair" for "American workers?" And the Trump Administration is going to immediately begin negotiations to reenter the agreement?

Is this another case of the right decision for the wrong reasons? And if so, should we take this as the closest we're likely to get to actual victory in the war against the control freaks who are attempting to implement their globalist vision through the climate hoax?

Richard Neuschafer 8 months, 2 weeks ago

What's next Slob Blob? "Facts" from Alex Jones? Weekly World News was more factual than that garbage you posted.

Chris Golledge 8 months, 1 week ago

Name a research study which successfully refutes Arrhenius 1896.

Cliff Sperry 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Boy, oh boy Bob, another statement that invokes replies of WHAT is he talking about?

Bob Summers 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Exactly the response climate change deserves.


Fred Whitehead Jr. 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Look out Bob....!! The guys with the butterfly nets will be coming for you!!!!!

Fred Whitehead Jr. 8 months, 3 weeks ago

"But he was also breaking from many of America's staunches allies, who have expressed alarm about the decision"

Isn't this what the ignorant fool was doing from the minute he was "inaugurated"???

Michael Kort 8 months, 3 weeks ago

Aside from the fact that Trump is nuts,.........there also goes a ton of American jobs that will go to China, Vietnam, Europe, etc.

Too bad for us !

Even the corporates were against this idea !

The US is the world's 2nd largest polluter........i assume behind coal fired China.... who is trying to reform their own ways, whom we arrogantly insult......but we ask China to control North Korea. ?.........and Trumps actions mean that he is unfit to lead the free world by simple virtue of being an angry nut, who is blinded from obvious understanding, by his own anger .

Gee.....who knew that being president requires patience....... and was so tough ?.........really.?......or maybe the insane just don't notice most obvious things.......along with their followers !

Let's be blunt......the rest of the world doesn't need to use the dollar as its' reserve currency and it is only idiots who can't comprehend that and that this arrogant madman who reps. their empty headed thinking is going to slowly or suddenly push the world to financially punish us by abandoning the dollar in world trading which will cost us greatly as an economy .

Putting America FIRST.... or the rest of the world LAST.............puts us right up there with SYRIA and Guatemala as the world's most backward countries and invites repercussions that could greatly effect individual Americans own wealth as the world reacts to Trump by bypassing us tradewise and currency wise .


Jim Phillips 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Maybe Trump got confused by the change in the "accepted science" over the decades. Afterall, global cooling in the 70s was changed to global warming after the cooling never happened. Then, global warming was changed to climate change when none of the dire predictions by the climate guru, AL Gore, never happened. I'm sure Trump is just too stupid to figure out why the "consensus of scientists" can't make up their collective minds about the topic.

Mike Riner 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Who do we blame for all the "climate changes" that happened in the past? Numerous ice ages, then thawing (i.e. warming).....who caused that???

Daniel Kennamore 8 months, 2 weeks ago

"Global Cooling" was never the consensus. A couple of random media articles from 40 years ago doesn't make that true.

Jim Phillips 8 months, 2 weeks ago

I might be wrong, Daniel, but I would guess by your statement that you were born in the 1980s at the earliest. Yes, Daniel, global cooling was the concensus back then because we had to eliminate cheap freon and chlorofluorocarbons out of aerosol cans because they were destroying the ozone, thus allow the Earth's heat to escape. See, that's the problem with reading revised history. Sometimes there are old folk around who lived through it.

Ken Lassman 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Did you look at the link that Daniel provided? I suggest you watch the Denial 101 video at the bottom of the article. Ozone layer destruction never was understood by the scientific community to "allow the Earth's heat to escape," as you describe it; it created a hole in the ozone shield that allowed UV radiation to come in, wreaking havoc on many biological fronts, and incidentally the CFCs were a greenhouse gas that increased warming to boot.

Getting back to the Denial 101 video, it accurately reflects that cooling studies were actually projections that showed if sulphate particles quadrupled in the atmosphere, cooling would ensue, perhaps in the long run triggering an ice age. But the Clean Air Act greatly reduced sulphur emissions, and the also-recognized-at-that-time greenhouse gases effect took hold, and warming has prevailed ever since.

The cooling hypothesis also triggered more federal funding of the atmospheric research that has solidified our understanding of the reality of humanity's role in climate change, by the way. And, yes, I was born WELL before 1980.

Jim Phillips 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Okay, you are correct and I was mistaken about the heat escaping. My bad. And yet, global cooling didn't happen in the 70s, Al Gore's dire time line predictions about our future due to global warming came and went, and we are all still alive. THe sky is not falling. There is still ice in the polar caps and the ocean hasn't swallowed up California. I will admit that there is climate change. There has been climate change ever since we've had climate. We have had several ice ages, some more severe than others. We have also had several periods of warming. Many of those changes occured without "inherently evil MAN" being around to blame it on. I'm quite sure we will experience many more cooling/warming periods before the universe implodes on itself, And you know what, there ain't a thing we can do about it at this point in our history.

Ken Lassman 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Al Gore is not a scientist--he's a politician, so I don't go to him for the science behind climate change and I suggest you don't do that, either. I recommend if you aren't intimidated by some graphs and have some scientific literacy skills, to review the Summary for Policymakers presentation made in 2014:

This is the last full report produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). If you don't want to wade through the words and graphs, you might be interested in the IPCC's video of their AR5: Physical Science Basis from 2013:

Bottom line: as usual, our politicians have muddled the truths for their own purposes, and, but also as usual, the evidence is clear if we go to the source. These truths are very uncomfortable for folks with a vested interest in the way things are done, but that doesn't change the conclusions of what science tells us is clearly happening as a result of human actions. This time around, it's not the orbital cycle, massive volcanism, or other geological or biological drivers that have changed the climate in the past--it's us, and the sooner we accept that, the sooner we can get to the really important discussions that need to take place for us to decide how to both mitigate the threats and adapt to the changes that are already baked into our future.

Jim Phillips 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Yet, many consider Gore to be the "father" of the climate change movement. You have your sources and buy into it. That's fine, it's your perogative. I have my source and feel is is nothing but a wealth redistribution scam. (i.e. the Paris Accord). My perogative. Neither will convince the other to change sides. Again, that's fine. That makes for interesting discussion, as long as it is kept civil. I do know that by the time the issue is definitely decided either way, neither of us will be around to know.

Ken Lassman 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Well it is good that it's civil--thanks for that. And as far as the issue being definitely decided after we're long gone: it's already definitely decided, it's already happening and will only get worse. Interest piqued? I gave you the science links--check it our for yourself.

And as far as your economic redistribution theory goes, I would say that the history of concentration of wealth IS the history of climate change. The future of humanity hinges on whether the up and coming billions in Asia and Africa who are wanting to have a satisfying lifestyle can do it without shoving enough carbon into the atmosphere to send the climate into a tizzy that will take millennia to bring back to anything close to what we'd consider normal, and unfortunately the seas rise all around the planet. The trick is to get investors to stop investing in coal and other carbon intensive fuels and instead build the new energy grids with renewables and create widgets that don't waste as much energy as we've been using. It's the only way our grandchildren will have anything close to what you've grown up having.

Chris Golledge 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Global cooling, #11.

But don't let reality interfere with whatever is going on in your head.

Harlan Hobbs 8 months, 2 weeks ago

This is worth it just to watch the liberals lose their cookies! The left wing liars and propagandists are preaching to an ever smaller choir. Keep it up!

Fred Whitehead Jr. 8 months, 2 weeks ago is worth it to watch the alt right loonies flaunch and sway as their hero, the totally incompetent and ignorant fool make one screw up after another. He cannot even make a rational "tweet" and three in the morning when most sane persons are sleeping.

What entertainment!! What fun!!!! "If it were not so disgusting)

Bob Summers 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Hey Whitehead....

Your covfefe is showing.

Daniel Kennamore 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Let me get this're okay with millions of people's lives being negatively effected by climate change as long as you get to rub it in liberal's faces?

What a lovely person you are.

Steve Jacob 8 months, 2 weeks ago

It all comes down to cutting climate changes kills jobs. That it the reason many Republicans deny climate change, because they don't have to fix a problem if it does not exist. Just look at China. They know they have a pollution problem and are attempting to fix it. I remember reading today one person say they never thought the White House would be more against climate regulation they Exxon Corporation.

Ken Lassman 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Trump just made it a whole lot easier to mount campaigns against the Republican incumbents. As trading partners and investment banks look elsewhere to do business, the lameness of his reasoning will become more and more apparent. Countries developing renewable low carbon energy efficient technologies will be the growth industries and job producers for the future. This is because the rising middle classes in other countries who only spend a fraction per capita of the energy as the average American does is looking for a better energy source from the rapidly dwindling options that we used and got us where we are today. We are ceding the leadership in innovation and production to other countries like China and India who now have enough capital to give us the snub and go on their own, and Europe has chosen to join them into the future.

Why are we taking the same wrong path as the Big 3 auto makers did in the 70s when the writing was/is so clearly on the wall? Short sided greed and hanging onto the power you have today at the cost of positioning yourself for the future comes to mind. Pretty much sums up where Trump is coming from and who he represents.

I suspect that the majority of people in the US will see this in coming years and hopefully take corrective actions. Most of us will join the rest of the world's countries in seeing the need to make these changes and re-join the world community in this most important way. In the meantime, our position as a world leader and someone to look to for inspiration has taken a huge hit. So sad.

Bob Summers 8 months, 2 weeks ago

You should write for Hollywood. Your creative writing skilz are groovy!

Jeff Mitchell 8 months, 2 weeks ago

MSNBC has a graphic saying "WRONG" over President Trump. I dont recall any similar graphic when the idiot Obama said we haf 57 states, called Lambeau Lambert or said Marine Corpse. Libetals are certainly selective in there criticism. To all...go north of Topeka...where did all of the quartzite rocks come from? glaciers? yes. and where are they now...melted? yes. climate change is real. it does happen. it has nothing to do with us...nothing. Carbon Dioxide levels were 100 times higher in the Precambrian...insects were 20 times bigger due to that. oxygen levels were at 30%..and i dont think there were any fords or toyotas cruising around. What a bunch of tripe.

Ken Lassman 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Well, I don't think the same reasons apply when I say I agree with your last sentence. If you really want to discuss the science of climate change, let me know. Otherwise, I'm happy you're happy, and have a great day.

Daniel Kennamore 8 months, 2 weeks ago

If you honestly can't see the difference between a gaffe in speech and being fundamentally wrong in a policy statement...maybe you shouldn't be voting.

Jeff Mitchell 8 months, 2 weeks ago

And your hero Al Gore is a moron who flunked out of divinity school, received D's in every science and math class and Hillary couldn't pass the DC bar exam...those are facts. Don't like those do we?

Thomas Bryce Jr. 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Don't look now but because of Trump's decision to leave the Paris Accord, we are now in the same Group as Syria and Nicaragua. "Making America Great again"(Like Nicaragua and Syria!)

Bob Smith 8 months, 2 weeks ago

What one President does by decree, another President can undo. The last resident of 1600 Penn. Ave appears to not have been aware of that fact.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Trump is an alarm bell ringing loudly. His "election" by the ancient and outmoded "Electoral College" should have raised alarms in all segments of society. (The "Electoral College" is an 18th century holdover that should have been trashed with slavery and denial of the right to vote for women,)

But that has not happened and we now see the horrible results by a person who did not received either a majority of the primary vote (no runoff) or the "real" vote. Yeah, he is the "president" but not by the will of the people.And the disaster of that fact is becoming more and more real as we dissolve into the hate driven, ignorance guided desolation of having our "great America" stained by a fool and idiot who, because of the "Constitutional Electoral College" has rein over the country and is dragging us down in the gutters of history with his incoherent drivel and actions. We know he is a liar and a pervert. And yet we bow before him.

What a stunning example for our children and the rest of the world!! America.....your "plumbers butt" is showing,

Bob Summers 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Why didn't Obama save the planet during the Copenhagen Climate change conference in 2009 when he owned the House and Senate?

He could have passed laws that Trump could not get rid of?

Why did Obama destroy the planets chances for survival in 2009?

Ken Lassman 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Copenhagen was superceded by Paris, so what's your point, Bob? Obama had to get China on board first, which happened between Copenhagen and Paris--get it?

Harlan Hobbs 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Dems should spend their time trying to get Hillary off the stage. As long as she tries to remain relevant, they are doomed. Get out the butterfly nets and people in white coats for her.

Go Trump!

Steve Hicks 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Strange that Trumpians seem to be the only people who can't get over Hilary. Probably hoping that the "lesser of two evils" deception they bought with Trump will still make their terrible choice look good...?

David Reynolds 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Hey Fred Whitehead get over the election. Your candidate lost because she was the worst candidate.

You conveniently forget how she manipulated the Dem primary to weasel Bernie Sanders out. Shame on you & shame on the Demm party apparatus for coniving to make it happen. So before you complain about anything clean up the Dem house.

By the way the constitution works just fine. The electoral college protects each state by forcing candidates to win states...not just LA & NY. If the latter was the case that would be tyranny.

By the way, I believe all the name calling reflects the kind of person the name caller is.

Ken Lassman 8 months, 2 weeks ago

David said: "I believe all the name calling reflects the kind of person the name caller is." I quote you from the previous thread:


"weak in spirit"






Interesting belief you have....

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 8 months, 2 weeks ago

I think Trump and his supporters are the ones who keep talking about the election. Feeling insecure, David. We need to feed your ego as well as Trump's?

He was only elected president, not dictator. He can't stop businesses, cities and states from following the accord and trying to find ways to get rid of coal and find renewable, sustainable, clean energies. What is he going to do? Outlaw solar and wind? Force people to by gas guzzlers? Convert all new electric plants back to coal? He doesn't have the much power. The rest of world is going to move on, and leave you and Trump behind. Bye, bye.

Fred Whitehead Jr. 8 months, 2 weeks ago

David Reynolds......Hillary Clinton lost because the director of the FBI chimed in with his foolish and stupid notions that his "discovery" of additional "e-mails" in another computer (Which proved to be a fraud and falsehood) 5 or 6 days before the election. This was clearly posed to the many people in the country that have no knowledge whatsoever of "classified information" or any other security provisions present in the U.S. Government. They were left with the impression that "She did SOMETHING wrong.......after all......the FBI director is infallible.

Yup.............a clearly placed and poised bit of false information to sway the election to the pervert.

Bob Smith 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Fred, Hillary is blaming a whole raft of people and organizations for her defeat. "...Hillary Clinton continues to discover how she failed twice to become “the inevitable president,” the second time by blowing the election that all the politicians, pundits, pollsters and consultants said she couldn’t lose. Hillary has developed a special gift at this. She earlier had said that James Comey, then the director of the FBI, and John Podesta’s pilfered emails were the only reasons why she was so soundly thumped by Donald Trump, but at a technology conference earlier this week she expanded her list of heartless villains to 18. These include Facebook, Twitter, the Russians, the Democratic National Committee, racism, misogyny, Gov. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, voter suppression, The New York Times, Steve Bannon, Google, and “the media.” Does that make 18 yet? She excluded from blame toenail fungus, the heartbreak of psoriasis, and, of course, herself. Decent, kind-hearted Americans can only be happy that daughter Chelsea’s cat, Socks, did not live long enough to see what happened to America’s first family of political plunder..."

Bob Summers 8 months, 2 weeks ago

"The two things you need to know about the Paris [climate] agreement are, one, it is not going to do very much to tackle climate [change]...and it is incredibly costly." So says Bjorn Lomborg, the president of the Copenhagen Consensus Center and author of The Skeptical Environmentalist. Make no mistake, the Danish political scientist believes climate change is happening and that human activity is the main cause.

But as Lomborg stressed during an interview with Reason's Nick Gillespie, the Paris accord and the earlier Kyoto Protocol are terrible ways to tackle the problem and the United States was right to withdraw from the treaty. If you're interested in protecting the environment and helping the world's poor, says Lomborg, there are cheaper and more-effective ways to reach those goals.

Ken Lassman 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Now you're quoting Bjorn Lomborg? At least you didn't call him a climatologist or someone with any credibility in the scientific community. Try to provide something worth discussing next time, though.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Trump can do what he wants, but he can't tell Americans what to do, and most of them are going to follow the Paris Accord. A whole lot of big businesses even. But that's okay, Trump. All those coal miners still like you.

Steve Hicks 8 months, 2 weeks ago

With this decision, we may have entered the "post-Trump" era.

Other world-leaders are saying they'll go on with the Paris Agreement, without him.

A number of state governors and big-city mayors have said they will too.

Likewise Microsoft, Google, and other huge global businesses, in the U.S. and elsewhere ("job-creators," in Trump-speak).

And very many private citizens will keep on with their commonsense conservation efforts.

Even many of Trump's own cabinet, notably his Secretary of State (and former oil-man), know he's made a stupid, harmful decision.

For a self-proclaimed business "genius," Trump is amazingly oblivious to unintended consequences (probably because he's contemptuous of those that wiser people try to point out to him). In this case, I'm sure he thought his decision would show him to be a decisive leader: instead, he's made himself irrelevant to everyone but his "base" and the coal-industry, and world-leader to no one but Syria and Nicaragua.

When Trump realizes nobody's paying him the slightest attention...his greatest fear...we should probably expect some childish "acting out" to put himself center-stage again. Since he still wields all the power of the American presidency, we are facing a very dangerous time.

Imagine a four-year old, in time-out...with nuclear weapons.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 8 months, 2 weeks ago

It will also be the "post-American as world leader" era. Trump is not the leader of the free world like many of our presidents have been. That will irk him.

Richard Aronoff 8 months, 2 weeks ago


Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Women and minorities? Really. Are you going to take care of the weak, little ladies? NOT.

David Reynolds 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Fred, regarding your reason Hillary lost, everyone has their fantasy.

Ken you flatter me, keeping track of everything I said. Compare contexts. No comparison of intent to demean.

Ken Lassman 8 months, 2 weeks ago

No problem, David; it was easy to look up. Unintentional demeaning is still demeaning. And as far as comparing contexts goes, I'll leave the actual intent of the other name callers for them to describe, not you.

David Reynolds 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Ken, words like deceit, chicanery, dishonest, etc, in the context used, can only be regarded as demeaning if they are internalized based on some assumption of guilt.

If one deliberately falsifies data for the purpose of deceiving another person or members of a body, to create a false narrative, what would it be called? Seems to me dishonest, deceit & chicanery are appropriate as they describe an action, not the person.

Maybe that will clear up any misunderstandings regarding context & intent.

Ken Lassman 8 months, 2 weeks ago

That can be said about any insult, David. If someone calls someone else a lying, cheating no-good idiot, that person does not have to assume they are guilty for it to be internalized as an insult, and anyone witnessing that exchange would describe it as an insult. Saying that someone deliberately falsifies data is a description, calling them a charlatan and weak in spirit is an insult.

And I remind you that it was your most interesting statement: "I believe all the name calling reflects the kind of person the name caller is." is the only reason I brought up those terms anyway.

Bob Smith 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Because name-calling is all you have...

Ken Lassman 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Too bad it's completely false, at least according to that "fake news site: the US Geological Survey:

David Reynolds 8 months, 2 weeks ago

In all seriousness, President Trump withdrew from a Tresty that Obama wouldn't submit to congress becayse Obama knew it wouldn't be ratified. So what's changed?

No one is stopping anyone or any company from continuing to continue reducing their co2 emissions.

The standards were all what's the big deal?

The big deal is this: "The GW/CC folks lose the ability to sue companies, individuals or other entities for not achieving the voluntary objectives. The same goes for the global community suing the USA. The suits would go something like this: President Obama signed the Treaty & Trump agreed to it therefore you are out of compliance, therefore we will sue you to bring you into compliance."

So there's the ruffled feathers causing all this bluster from the International Community & GW/CC crowds. They try to use the courts to achieve what they can't achieve legislatively.

David Reynolds 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Ken nice try to try to explain your ideas about the intent of my comments regarding those, caught putting out false data. Sorry no cigar!

You conveniently did not answer my question regarding what you would call someone when that someone deliberatly falsified data?

Ken Lassman 8 months, 2 weeks ago

I DID answer it, David: I said you describe their behavior, you don't insult them. Go back and re-read what I said.

And you conveniently keep ignoring your own assertion that you think a person who insults is just projecting who they are.

David Reynolds 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Ken you ignore my very simple question.

Do you plan to answer it?

Ken Lassman 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Re-read my second answer, which was the same as the first: what do you not understand about it? Do you want me to elaborate about it even further? Like your question is actually suggesting that the GISS land temperature data has been deliberately skewed, or that ARGOS sea buoy calibration was actually skewed away from reality? Or that the ice core analysis was fudged? Or that all of the other data coming in from all directions including sea level rise, ocean acidification, species poleward shifting, glacial mass shrinking, extreme weather severity and frequency are all being skewed collectively to fit some master conspiracy? I could call such an assertion idiotic, paranoid and delusional; instead I choose to summarize such assertions as not holding up to the Occam's razor critique: that it would require a massive orchestration of collaboration that is not apparent, and can be much more easily explained using a much simpler model: verifiable, testable laws of physics that accurately describe what happens when you increase atmospheric carbon 40%. In other words, instead of insulting you, I can describe the science and make rational comparisons that show that the existing models showing anthropocentric climate change are adequate and no alternative model is out there that comes close to explaining the observations.

David Reynolds 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Extinction of Dinosaurs VS Global Warming, Scientific Facts:   Scientists have shown that the moon is moving away from the earth at a rate of about 2.5cm each year.

If you do the math, you can calculate that about 15+ Billion years ago the moon was orbiting the earth at about 15 feet from the earth's surface.

This would explain the death of the dinosaurs - the tallest ones, anyway.   That is the way Global Warming Science (analysis and predicting results) works.   The scientific truth is much different, because the moon has only been orbiting the earth for about 4.5 billion years and its orbit was never that close (current hypothesis is the moon was formed via a major collision of an object with the earth and the debris of that collision were captured by earth’s gravity forming the moon).  

This just shows the fallacy of extrapolation of data, which is what the Global Warming/Climate Change folks are doing (extrapolating data) when they predict the warming of the earth in the future. Which leads me to something I learned as a young engineer.  

Jim Wooten an engineer wrote a law which I always think of when I encounter information/data that predicts with great certainty, a complex subject (especially with many yet unknown variables), with great accuracy.  

Paraphrasing the Law & its Corollaries: The Law: “The acquisition of uncommon knowledge inhibits the ability to apply common sense”. Corollary 1: “Global Warming, having no uncommon knowledge, is smarter than the varied scientists trying to predict its behavior.” Corollary 2: The computer renders obsolete the necessity of rationalizing and simplifying problems—or even of understanding them. Which leads to the following Question: It has never been clear to how many places an incorrect answer must be carried to make it correct.  

For some Beware, contemplating the above has been known to cause headaches.

Ken Lassman 8 months, 2 weeks ago

If you bothered to look at the IPCC publications, which are the product of a group effort of thousands of scientists and tens of thousands of critiques, you would have seen the fallacy of your critique. The published results are projections, not predictions, and the projections have a range of assumptions that have as their end product a range of outcomes. I suggest you take the time to become more familiar with this before you cast judgment on it.

David Reynolds 8 months, 2 weeks ago

To your very point. Thanks for reinforcing my point. Projections with a range of assumptions attached to each one, with each projection having a range of outcomes. Thus complex problem with many unknowns driving many conclusions via computers using programs that by the nature of the algorithms are biased because someone had to write the equations to generate the outcomes. Sounds to me like my comments fully match your statements.

And oh yes, you forgot to mention we still dont have a grasp of all the various factors involved, nor how the various factors interact & to what degree with each other, nor specifically the negative or positive impacts of each.

Thus it is presumptuous (no pun intended) to forecast the future climate coconditions with such accuracy the IPCC says.

Ken I assume your a nice guy and well intentioned. I also assume you are committed to the IPCC docs as you continiously quote them. But I believe you have lost your objectivity as you so faithfully defend them. I believe if you looked at the data & assumptions driving the computed results, from a truley scientific objective perspectives, you would say like I do...interesting, need a lot more information, regarding how the climate system works, data to back it up, etc. before I will be fully invested in the IPCC projections.

Is the climate changing, as it always has. Is man the cause, the story is still out regarding how much if any man is influencing the planet. Is there a need for all the alarmist activity, absolutely not.

The USA is moving in the right direction in cleaning up its environment. It will continue to do so. The pace is the issue for the alarmists. And we don't need a treaty to guide us especially one that can impact us negatively.

The USA will continue forward on climate improvement steps consistent with sound economics.

You see this is the point where I seperate from the GW/CC crowd. Do we need to clean up our act yes. Do we need to do it with such urgency that we negatively impact our economy & dailey lives, NO!

There is time regardless of all the alarmists saying we are at a tipping point.

Now you understand why I wrote my story above.

Ken Lassman 8 months, 2 weeks ago

Do you understand how science works? Do you understand how the IPCC works and how it came up with the products that it did? You say--without looking at the data that the IPCC project did--that their models and projections are based on information, but a lot more information is needed. Guess what: the scientists who participated would agree. Why? Because they aren't afraid of looking at the data, re-analyzing and re-projecting, incorporating the new information into the old. That doesn't stop them from concluding that according to all of the data collected so far that humans are changing the atmospheric chemistry enough to change the climate and things will get more extreme, especially if we continue as we have been doing.

Now you may think differently, but from what I can tell it's just your opinion, nothing more. I prefer to believe the scientific community that has been on the case for decades, with the latest AR5 publication involving a community of 800 scientists selected from a professional peer group of 3000 (and 60% of them new to the process in order to maintain a fresh, competent viewpoint as objective as possible), reviewing 9200 scientific papers and authoring a publication that also took into consideration tens of thousands of comments from their peers in draft versions, systematically developing the conclusions which they labeled with a matrix of certainty and reliability, as they, too believe that more data is needed.

This is not an alarmist undertaking. This is one of the most conservative and comprehensive scientific undertaking ever before attempted in the history of our species. I suggest you actually take the time to dig into it before calling it alarmist.

Ken Lassman 8 months, 2 weeks ago

And thanks for reinforcing my sense that the mind can work in mysterious ways, David. Have a beautiful, happy day.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.