Archive for Wednesday, May 31, 2017

Trump expected to pull U.S. from landmark global climate agreement

In this May 18, 2017 file photo, President Donald Trump speaks in the East Room of the White House in Washington. A White House official says President Donald Trump is expected to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

In this May 18, 2017 file photo, President Donald Trump speaks in the East Room of the White House in Washington. A White House official says President Donald Trump is expected to withdraw the United States from the Paris climate accord. (AP Photo/Susan Walsh, File)

May 31, 2017, 10:34 a.m. Updated May 31, 2017, 2:21 p.m.

Advertisement

— President Donald Trump is expected to withdraw the United States from a landmark global climate agreement, a White House official said Wednesday, though Trump and aides were looking for "caveats in the language" related to the exit and had not made a final decision.

Leaving the deal would fulfill a central campaign pledge, but would anger international allies who spent years in difficult negotiations that produced an accord to reduce carbon emissions.

Trump faced considerable pressure to hold to the deal during visits with European leaders and Pope Francis on his recent trip abroad. The official, who insisted on anonymity to discuss the decision before the official announcement, said the president and his aides were finalizing the details of a pullout.

Trump himself tweeted that "I will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days."

While Trump currently favors an exit, he has been known to change his thinking on major decisions and tends to seek counsel from a range of inside and outside advisers, many with differing agendas, until the last minute.

A second White House official, who was not authorized to discuss private conversations and also insisted on anonymity, said Trump had not made a final decision on how to proceed.

Trump's top aides have been divided on the accord.

He was to meet later Wednesday with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who has favored remaining in the agreement. Chief strategist Steve Bannon supports an exit, as does Environmental Protection Agency administrator Scott Pruitt. Senior adviser Jared Kushner generally thinks the deal is bad but would like to find a way to see if U.S. emissions targets can be changed.

Trump's influential daughter Ivanka Trump's preference is to stay, but she made it a priority to establish a review process so her father heard from all sides, said one of the officials.

Nearly 200 nations, including the United States under President Barack Obama's administration, agreed in 2015 to voluntarily reduce their greenhouse gas emissions in an effort to combat climate change. Withdrawing would leave the United States aligned only with Russia among the world's industrialized economies.

A senior European Union official said the EU and China would reaffirm their commitment to the pact regardless of what Trump did, and would spell out, during talks Friday in Brussels, how they would meet their obligations. The official, who is involved in preparing the meeting between EU officials and China's premier, was not authorized to speak publicly and discussed the matter on condition of anonymity because the meeting statement was not finalized.

News of Trump's expected decision drew swift reaction from the United Nations. The organization's main Twitter page quoted Secretary-General Antonio Guterres as saying, "Climate change is undeniable. Climate change is unstoppable. Climate solutions provide opportunities that are unmatchable."

The Sierra Club's executive director, Michael Brune, called the expected move a "historic mistake which our grandchildren will look back on with stunned dismay at how a world leader could be so divorced from reality and morality."

The House Democratic leader, Rep. Nancy Pelosi of California, referred to it as "a stunning abdication of American leadership and a grave threat to our planet's future."

Trump claimed before taking office that climate change was a "hoax" created by the Chinese to hurt the U.S. economy, an assertion that stands in defiance of broad scientific consensus.

But Trump's chief White House economic adviser, Gary Cohn, told reporters during the trip abroad that Trump's views on climate change were "evolving" following the president's discussions with European leaders.

Still, he said that the carbon levels agreed to by the prior administration "would be highly crippling to the U.S. economic growth," and said that, if the president had to choose between limiting carbon and economic growth, "growing our economy is going to win." Supporters of the deal say it's not an either-or choice.

Word of Trump's expected decision came a day after the president met with Pruitt. Like his boss, the EPA head has questioned the consensus of climate scientists that the Earth is warming and that man-made emissions are to blame.

Once in power, Trump and Pruitt have moved to delay or roll back federal regulations limiting greenhouse gas emissions while pledging to revive long-struggling U.S. coal mines.

What is not yet clear is whether Trump plans to initiate a formal withdrawal from the Paris accord, which under the terms of the agreement could take three years, or exit the underlying U.N. climate change treaty on which the accord was based.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and 21 other Republican sent Trump a letter last week urging him to follow through on his campaign pledge to pull out of the climate accord. Most of the senators who signed are from states that depend on the continued burning of coal, oil and gas.

Hundreds of high-profile businesses have spoken out in favor of the deal, including Apple, Google and Walmart. Even fossil fuel companies such as Exxon Mobil, BP and Shell say the United States should abide by the deal.

In Congress, 40 Democratic senators sent Trump a letter saying withdrawal would hurt America's credibility and influence on the world stage.

Scientists say that the earth is likely to reach more dangerous levels of warming even sooner if the U.S. retreats from its pledge because America contributes so much to rising temperatures. Calculations suggest it could result in emissions of up to 3 billion tons of additional carbon dioxide in the air a year โ€” enough to melt ice sheets faster, raise seas higher and trigger more extreme weather.

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.

Comments

Greg Cooper 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Of course he is going to do that. After all, with the dangerous press covfere going on, how can we worry about such trivialities as public health, environmental disasters, and such as that?

Fred Whitehead Jr. 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Well......................What did you expect from a clueless, ignorant, incompetent, fool who's only visible and known skill is stiffing his contracted companies by refusing to pay his bills??

Honestly!!................ what DO you expect from this sort of debauched and useless jerk???

Why is anyone surprised?? Well.............most civil and rational people.......

Bob Smith 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Didn't there used to be a line in the Terms of Service about name-calling?

Fred Whitehead Jr. 5 months, 3 weeks ago

I did not call anyone or anything "names".......I merely indicated known conditions and attributes. No names.......ehhh?

Bob........you really love the guy, don't you?? Butters your bread, eh?

Truth is difficult to swallow, especially when it is true. Check out CNN......Oooppps!I forgot........"Fake news!!" My bad!

Ralph Reed 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Bob, Fred wasn't calling names, he was making statements of fact. Numerous statements.

As a note, #45 says MAGA. We were great until he got elected because he fooled a bunch of people. We're not now in the eyes of the world and most common sense people in the US.

Tony Peterson 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Cheetoface is an idiot. Everything about his "presidency" has been a kneejerk reaction to something without any thought given to what the implications are. He has the attention span of a miniature poodle with a twitter account.

Rick Masters 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Ommmmm! You're name calling...I'm telling...ommmmmmm!

David Reynolds 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Interesting, all this name calling & negative references.

Yet not one constructive comment is offered as an alternative.

Sounds to me like a very bad case of Trump Derangement Syndrome has been identified in Lawrence.

It would really be interesting if the left made an honest effort to find common ground on issues & areas where the Left & the President could work together for success. At least then the Left could get some positive results for their agenda.

The Left is acting like Obama in his first term where he told the Republicans that Obama won the election thus implying it was Obama's way or nothing.

Maybe the Left should work harder to explain factually, not emotionally or with Goreisms, to the President, how staying in the Paris Accord benefits the USA. Possibly the Left could explain how, & be accountable for real economic & job growth that would immediately help currently displaced workers wanting to work.

There is much that needs to be done. With the Left constantly picking a fight, the Left will get nowhere except further marginalized.

When was the last time anyone gained a friend or won the cooperation of anyone after verbally attacking them & calling them names.

Greg Cooper 5 months, 3 weeks ago

OK, here's a constructive comment: get rid of this incompetent excuse for a politician, and get someone in the office who actually believes in the betterment of the ENTIRE nation and its people, who can and will work with, not against, anyone who offers help and honest criticism, and who has the intellectual and emotional ability of more than a three year old.

And that's just the beginning, but a very good one. And it will take more than leftists, rightists, and other labeled and interest groups and their constant "me first" attitudes, David. It will take each and every one of us in concord to fix the looming disasters this man has put into motion.

Armen Kurdian 5 months, 3 weeks ago

You have to remember why he was elected in the first place. Without fully understanding that, that emotional response is not going to work.

Remember, he's not a politician at all. He's a salesman, and everything about his candidacy and Presidency has been salesmanship. Until you recognize that the emotional lashback against him is not going to work. It only entrenches his supporters.

Greg Cooper 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Don't even try to tell me what I understand and what I don't, Armen. I know the Constitution and accept the results of the election. That's not even an issue with me.

Now, I realize he's not a politician. He is, however, a sentient human being who exhibits none of the traits that make a politician, or, more importantly, in this instance, a leader. And, as a salesman, he is expected to exhibit the honesty and strength of character that makes one want to buy into his product or program. Those are also, coincidentally, the traits that are essential for a president. He hasn't shown any honest trait since he started campaigning; has waffled, if not completely backtracked, on nearly every "promise" he made to get into the office; and has not a single meaningful victory in his first months in office. His staff and appointees have exhibited the blind loyalty that comes only from fear and the ones he has fired were let go for being honest and telling the truth about his shortcomings, for lack of a less emotional word. "His" Congress is in disarray, having no meaningful leadership from him , and is incapable of representing the very people who elected them, and him.

Don't ever assume, Armen, that just because I disagree with you, or him, means that I am a kneejerk Democrat or Republican or whatever. It is because of comments like yours and those like you that this nation is so divided politically and ideologically. If you mean what you say, then look closely at what IS rather than what you WANT IT TO BE or what you've been told it will be. Our job as citizens is to be informed, on both positions, and to instruct our leaders on how to represent us. That's what I do, along with trying to point out to others, like you, what the facts represent and not what I want them to be. That's what our representative republic is all about, mister, and don't forget it.

Tony Peterson 5 months, 3 weeks ago

There isn't any common ground. Even the Republicans in Congress have started to throw up their hands in frustration because THEY can't figure out a way to work with him. Trump will come out with a position one day and then 48 hours later say something the exact opposite about the same issue.

Scott Burkhart 5 months, 3 weeks ago

snicker A non Senate ratified treaty that does nothing but make the United States do the lion's share of the paying up front while nations like China and India have years to start kicking in money (if ever). Thank you, President Trump. #maga

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 5 months, 3 weeks ago

So you say it's bad, what is your evidence? It hasn't even started. In fact, the US is expected to reach their goals on time, and for the first time we have China and India, major polluters vowing to do something. Why not sell your investments in oil, and put it into the rapidly growing sustainable energies? It's creating more jobs. It's still almost on the ground floor. They are going to get rich, you could to. Or do you still wish we had 8 track tapes?

Scott Burkhart 5 months, 3 weeks ago

It's bad because it is a wealth redistribution campaign by the socialist leaning countries. Period.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Specifics? If we let the rest of the world be innovative and develop clean renewable energies, while we just keep doing the same thing over and over again, we will lose. It's called innovations. Conservatives are starting to sound like the radical Iranians who do not want the modern world in their country. Sell you oil stocks for pete sake. Be daring and innovative. That's what made the US great, not the same old same old. At the turn of the last century, you would still be riding a horse.

Armen Kurdian 5 months, 3 weeks ago

I don't know that I agree with that. It's probably not an agreement I would have signed in its present form, but withdrawal from it could have larger consequences from a geopolitical standpoint than simply the climate change issue. I think we should stay in, yet use our ingenuity (vice the ham-handed EPA rules which he appropriately is rolling back) as a country to get there. I quite frankly don't care about the whole idea of 'global warming' I think that's a red herring. Energy independence is a national security issue in my opinion, but that also means continuing to invest in renewable energies.

Ken Lassman 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Consider the evidence, Armen, that down the road the cumulative consequences of changing the atmosphere's chemistry will be far reaching and slow to turn around. Extreme weather frequency has been shifting for a while and will only get worse, coupled with future generations having to deal with the hard-to-address issues of increased flooding AND mega-droughts, coastal city flooding, shifting agricultural areas, ocean food supply collapse, etc. These are no longer wild-eyed extremist views; rather they are accepted probabilities by global reinsurors, our defense department and many multinational corporations who are taking measures to adapt. If we don't mitigate by reducing carbon emissions significantly, though, adaptation won't be possible for many.

Rejecting Paris is akin to rejecting immunizing your child; the science does not support your conclusion and it puts others at risk.

David Reynolds 5 months, 3 weeks ago

The above comments represent every reason why my above comments are valid.

Thus how about all you naysayers set the example and start being constructive.

Have you written your federal representatives & senators & the White house directly to offer constructive solutions?

Or are you just weak in spirit when it comes to actually making an effort to make a constructive difference?

Greg Cooper 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Do you actually read the comments before you disparage them? Try reading mine and then get back to me, David. And, yes, I, personally, have done all those things, as well as organizing a discussion group to try and find answers to the problems of our state, and the nation. What have you done, David, other than disagree with comments you haven't even read?

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Called, emailed, sent postcards, written letters, showed up at meetings. Now, what have you done?

Clark Coan 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Anyone who thinks China invented Global Warming to sell solar panels is just plain ignorant. He'll come around when his Mar-a-Largo resort in Florida floods due to rising seas. But then it will be too late. It is probably already too late to stop a climate catastrophe but we have to try.

Bob Smith 5 months, 3 weeks ago

People are mistaking their own radical opinions for revealed truth. If there had been similar posts about the last resident of 1600 Penn Ave, they'd have been disappeareded so fast it would have made you head spin. Double standard, folks, right here on this once award-winning website.

Michael Kort 5 months, 3 weeks ago

So Bob.........your degree as a climate expert is from where ?

Ken Lassman 5 months, 3 weeks ago

You are the epitome of double standards, I'm afraid. I've provided you with ample data from myriad sources that are reliablly collected, analyzed and projected using statistically valid processes that 1) climate change is real; 2) it cannot be explained without the physics of atmospheric chemistry and fluid dynamics that incorporates the influence of human emitted greenhouse gases and 3) continuing to emit at current/growing levels will have long term, dire consequences on a wide range of biological, economic and political levels.

You, sir, are the one mired in your radical opinions and revealed truths. Oh--you're talking about insulting Donald Trump? Never mind. Let the peanut gallery and two-way spitting contest continue. Silly me, I was thinking about the content of the news report.

Armen Kurdian 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Bob, climate change is real, the planet's climate has been changing ever since the oceans formed billions of years ago. The question has always been what is mankind's effect on the environment. We have seen that it can be dramatic, such as the Yellow River, the poisoning of portions of Eastern Europe due to zero emission controls while burning dirty coal, the poison fog of London, air quality in China, etc. The right balance of free enterprise and government can be successful and we can lead the way. There is lots of room in this equation for both the right and left to have success here.

Ken Lassman 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Armen, it sounds like you might be interested in the proposals advocated by the Citizen's Climate Lobby, where instead of a regulatory approach, free market incentives are utilized to very efficiently reduce the amount of carbon emitted. This is accomplished by levying a carbon fee at steadily increasing amounts to the source (i.e. at the well head, mine, etc) that is then refunded to taxpayers, who are free to use this dividend to either pay for increased costs at the pump/heating bill or to use that money to decrease waste/purchase renewable alternatives. Places where carbon fee and dividend have been tried have resulted in significant carbon emissions reductions as well as stimulated economic activities due to new jobs created to weatherize, start up new renewables based initiatives, etc. Google them and/or get involved in the local group who is actively lobbying our national legislators to consider this approach. Many Republicans are seeing this as a viable free market alternative to regulation, and yes, it can be tweaked to offset regional/fixed income disparities that might result in more of a burden as fees rise.

David Reynolds 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Why should the USA stay in the Paris Accord?

China is a signatory with no responsibilities to reduce emissions.

As usual we have an agreement that accomplishes nothing but transfer money from wealthy countries to poor countries, and at the end of the day the seas won't have flooded Mar-a Largo, the planet will not have burned up.

Dorothy Hoyt-Reed 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Turn of your stupid Britefart. Even the Chinese legislature has ratified it. Their capital is suffering from pollution. They are ready to act. Oh, and your buddy is not angry with China anymore so you need to change your hatred. I think he hates Europe this week, and the media. Keep up. China granted him a bunch of trade marks, so he likes them again. And they arrested some worker's rights people who were out to embarrass his little girl and her little shoe business. China is his buddy again.

Michael Kort 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Donald is just off of his medicine......... or maybe he is back on it ?.....he's bizar either way !

Trolls used to live under the bridges.........now they have internet employment spreading fake news like The Donald does,........they are coming up in the world !

David Reynolds 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Hey Mr. Kort, what's different today from 95 years ago? The global warming alarmists sound exactly the same today!

What about the 70's, when there was supposed to be global cooling?

Why did today's alarmists change the current religion from global warming to climate change?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/science/globalwarming1922.asp

Joe Blackford II 5 months, 3 weeks ago

HAL: Dave, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye.

FYI => go to the source, the Norwegians who believe that water currents are again the reason for your "red" herring example, just as currents were responsible in the 1920s-30s-1960, when fish populations spiked & fell w/return to cooler currents.

Warming currents are one supposed cause of large expanses of ice melting. Unfortunately, the laws of thermodynamics are not easily explained to the scientifically illiterate that the warmer current event is insufficient to account for the vast amount of ice melting.

http://www.forskningsradet.no/prognett-polarforskning/Nyheter/More_cod_in_warmer_Barents_Sea/1253955314855&lang=en

Ken Schmidt 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Bob & David et. al: Lavoisier, in the 17th century, explained the law of conservation of mass energy. I'll save you the heavy reading and summarize, "mass is neither created nor destroyed." When we pull carbon atoms out of the ground, burn them, split them into smaller atoms or elements and place them in the air, there is no air fairy who comes and says, "poof, begone." They go somewhere. Generally they react with unstable ions to create light-bending molecules. If we can scientifically measure the number of carbon atoms existing in the atmosphere in compounds such as methane (CH4-- C stands for Carbon if you have forgotten your high school freshman chemistry coarse), and use spectrometry to measure how these aerial compounds interact with light, we can get a strong hypothesis, with much probability, for how they affect our land masses below. You can't see your heart, but somehow, you still believe the science which tells you that it keeps you alive. Stop the nonsense and arguing for the sake. I wish the president, Trump or whomever, were more interested in stimulating the economy while continuing to fund jobs and industries which ween our dependence on oil from the middle east and dirty fuels such as coal. Take the subsidies you give to those industries and fund college funds for workers and their children so they can go learn new trades which help us get ahead and not simply continue the cycle. Strop trolling unless you have more than one outlying datum to prove your point. I can give you many and happy to take a day off and visit the labs at KU with you to start. Unless you are afraid of inconvenience.

David Reynolds 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Ken really? You miss the point that badly?

My point is that GW & GC has been promoted by alarmists for the last 100 years, & what's the result? No significant warming!

CO2 remains a trace gas & we are finding by the vary nature of CO2 as required for life the planet is creating more & more sinks.

But the whole argument of what causes GW is what breaks down. Over recent years we have learned, to the embarrassment of the GW alarmists, the data supporting the GW alarmists has been falsified by so many agencies & "scientiests" the credibility of GW is destroyed.

Even the comic strip Doonesbury is telling GW supporters you cause is baded on a false set of assumptions & dubious calculations.

So no Kent I won't go to KU or any place else until the GW industry cleanse up it's act.

Ken Schmidt 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Is your point that the magic fairy is making the carbon we place in the atmosphere go poof? I don't even believe I pointed to CO2 in my writings. The most significant factor contributing to change is methane, although the efforts of CO2 cannot be deducted as well. So let's go with the gas less likely to be found in the atmosphere and use your example. Do you believe we placed a man on the moon? Some people don't. If you are one of them, I shall close here. If so, and you believe NASA as a credible source of information, how about we start simple. According to NASA research, 1950 was the last time we reached the highest recorded CO2 levels in the last 400,000 years. How do they know that? They can measure radioactive isotopes, carbon 14 which is created in the atmosphere, and part of respiration of all creatures on this earth...or to use your words, "required for life the planet [sic]" and describe the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere at the time of life. Furthermore, TODAY our carbon levels, as observed by NASA is nearly TWICE the level of 1950. There has been no magical dip, dive or rollercoaster ride. Like NASA, those levels have skyrocketed. If we discuss global temperatures as a function of CO2 levels (I know, facts are sticky and you don't like those I can surmise from your lack of source defended writings), we see the correlation of CO2 levels observed with the coinciding hypotenuse showing global temperature rise. It's no wonder that 16 or the 17 warmest years we have ever seen have happened since 1950. You can't fake that data. It's there. There is nobody falsifying those numbers. Which numbers are YOU referring to...those "alternate facts?" https://climate.nasa.com for fact checking.

David Reynolds 5 months, 3 weeks ago

So what Ken?

These are all trace gases. There concentrations in the atmosphere are divided between natural causes and man made causes, except for cfc's. As usual all the analysis if GW proponents ignore the dominating effects of water vapir & clouds

Ken Lassman 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Trace gases? So what's your point? Here's some plutonium tea and arsenic jello--help yourself. I can assure you they're only in trace amounts.....

And who's ignoring water vapor? How do you think the other greenhouse gases' role in temperature regulation work? Apparently you don't understand; otherwise you would have not written that sentence....

Armen Kurdian 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Ken, trying to poison David isn't going to change his mind. But I would be interested to know if all the environmental rules/regs passed over the last couple of decades have done anything to slow this apparent growth in NH4 & CO2.

Ken Schmidt 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Armen, a valid question. I think we both have to honestly answer, "no." There has been no accord and something the alt-right likes to point to often. The difference is we now see a global consortium willing to work together in some fashion. I have climbed mountains in Appalachia and seen the direct effects of deforestation from prevailing winds an arm's reach from coal-fired plants. The folks living within a mud-slide's distance have a very strong opinion of sulfuric and nitric acid. Likewise, I am an avid diver and experienced the bleaching of corals in some of the most pristine reefs. Ammonium has a large effect here. These animals have been alive, many for hundreds of years, and have changed in form little for millennia. The pace in which our world changes today has far exceeded their ability to adapt. Much like us, their tissue is susceptible to burns. Their contained algal symbiotes long since dead which provide photosynthetic sugar compounds for food. If we think of the environment as an economy, we continue to flood the market with currency that can't be spent. Sooner or later, the environment will no longer be able to adapt. What then happens?

Ken Lassman 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Ken, Armen, Actually, the growth in both arenas have dropped off if you look at the data, specifically: http://www.globalcarbonproject.org/carbonbudget/16/files/Infographic_Emissions2016.jpg shows that US CO2 emissions have been dropping off since around 2005 and global emissions have tapered off as well, with a little separation between actual emission data and the projections of the "business as usual" curve displayed in the Global Carbon Project link I provided you.

Regarding NH4, the actual greenhouse gas in question is N20, which is a byproduct of NH4, which, by the way is under considerable attention in order to reduce the dead zones in the Gulf of Mexico caused by excess nitrogen runoff from over-fertilization of soils. At any rate, N20 emissions appeared to have peaked in 2011 and have been dropping ever since: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-02/documents/2017_executive_summary.pdf

These are two examples of how valuable our monitoring and mitigation efforts have been and will continue to be if we have any reasonable chance of reducing emissions and whether the efforts we are making are actually doing what we want them to do. Folks need to let their legislators know that we want to continue to monitor these and other indicators of what's going on, and that this is an important role that government has to play if we really want a comprehensive, accurate understanding of these dynamics.

David Reynolds 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Sorry i hit something & submitted my comments unintentionally.

It is useless to pursue this line of dialogue as neither of us are going to be convinced.

As I mentioned above. There has been too much chicanery on the part of those supplying data in support of GW.

You have your view & you have a right to it. Same with me.

The only difference is I know where my data comes from & its reliability. I can not say the same for those promoting GW.

I can say the following though, if the GW data was so correct then it wouldn't have been so easily refuted by those questioning it. Regardless of whom is refutung the data. GW proponents like to talk about how scientific their data is. Yet, scientifically it doesn't stand up to scrutiny to analysis.

Ken Schmidt 5 months, 3 weeks ago

boggle I am honestly baffled. Snarky comments aside. Agreed, we may never find common ground. Yet, I still remain amazed for your thinking is not alone. Indeed "trace" gasses, as you call them and as found on the first returned Google result which hails from a middle-school lecture, can be found in most natural causes. Volcanic activity most folks like to point out first. Those introductions, however, are part of the earth's natural equilibrium. The earth has evolved to handle the ebb and flow of these movements and indeed causes our weather to cycle. Most folks like to point to these cycles as reason to deny climate change yet never acknowledge the megatons of carbon we place unnaturally in the air. That tire spins so it must be a car, right? Uh, no, that's a truck...but it's got tires, so it must be a car.

I am baffled, however, by your statement regarding vapor and clouds. How is that making the global temperature rise? That is a weather element which has persisted long before our coming. Are you suggesting there are fewer (or more?) clouds today which is the explanation for weather cycles? Maybe some type of 20 year El Nino which causes the ocean and atmosphere temps to rise and global ice caps to shrink to all-time lows? You also state you "know" where your data comes from and it's reliability. I would ask you cite it as I have please.

My degree is in biology. I have followed the scientific process, written and been accepted in scientific publication. I have never mentioned that anywhere outside a resume before and feel it is only relevant for one reason here. I know what it's like to have your work mercilessly scrutinized for flaw or logic error. I wonder who in the scientific community you point to might have successfully refuted the stats which NASA, to return to my previous example, has published? I have seen some works from authors whose research was funded by the fossil fuel industry. Their biggest problem was they failed to divulge their ethical dilemma and the taint it had on skewed stats. Do, please, continue the conversation as I am interested in the mentioned sources.

Ken Lassman 5 months, 3 weeks ago

So if Trump pulls out, he'll be joining Nicaragua and Syria as the only two non-signatories. Syria was in the midst of a civil war, so couldn't be bothered with diplomatic initiatives. Nicaraguan envoy Paul Oquist criticized the Paris Agreement for not punishing countries who didn't follow it. He stated Nicaragua will continue countering climate change on its own, with plans being that the country will be "90 percent renewable" by 2020.

Here's to creating a Nicaraguan-US partnership!

David Reynolds 5 months, 3 weeks ago

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2014/06/23/global-warming-fabricated-by-nasa-and-noaa/

I know some don't like the above site, but it quotes another site you might like.

Ken this shows why there is such unreliability in the sources you quote.

You can keep trying, but I see no value in continuing this dialogue.

The GW alarmists & so called scientists living off the federal government have ruined it for themselves.

The so called peer reviewed articles have cherry picked the reviewers. There is so much deceit in the GW community it is astonishing.

So I'm out. I'll leave the this subject to you. I have more important things to do.

Ken Lassman 5 months, 3 weeks ago

I'm sorry you are not willing to dialogue, but this is consistent with your past attitude, which has been based on non-scientific, non-peer reviewed sources. Be well, and leave the dialogue about the science of climate change to others who are committed to using real data, statistically valid analyses and projections.

Be well, David.

David Reynolds 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Ken the reason I don't dialogue is your last comment. You ignore the fact that your GW cause is tarnished. Your "peer reviewed" science is non-independent. You refuse to admit GW data has been rigged enough times serious doubt exists regarding its credibility.

You refuse to admit credible scientists have been fired from their positions because they cast credible doubt on GW data.

So you can pull the old Liberal card of trying to tarnish me.

I have plenty of scientific & engineering background. I know a charlatan when I see, read & hear one.

So you can continue to promote your spurious data and superficial sources. Maybe you will convince some uneducated persons.

Ken as a person who is such a believer, why don't you demand credibility in the GW Religion.

Yes even the people within your GW industry call GW a "Religion"...which of course it means GW is based on faith, not science.

Ken Schmidt 5 months, 3 weeks ago

David, science is a bit like chess. Someone makes a move and the other side does it's best to find flaws and disprove the other. The rules in this game are that you have to use data which are reliably reproduced to solidify your stance and make claims only the data can prove. You never enjoy being proven wrong but it also furthers the discipline as a whole. As a standard, very few folks get mad when your theory is disproved. Your hope is only that your research was still good enough to spur further discovery when the others were working to refute your findings. Your quotes come from bloggers and politically tied and motivated websites. Instead of choosing a moving target, how about you define a neutral, peer-reviewed resource and lets discuss on equal terms. I can imagine no scientist who would use the term "religion" and "science" when referring to their work. The two are not incompatible nor mutually exclusive throughout history. Likewise, history has proven that when religion and science are equally mixed, unsavory results seem to follow.

David Reynolds 5 months, 3 weeks ago

http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/02/24/un-ipcc-chief-admits-global-warming-is-religious-issue-it-is-my-religion-and-my-dharma/

I just "Asked The Google" for articles regarding GW or CC whichever you prefer, and the above article came up.

It discusses The GW/CC credibility issue beyond faith.

I look forward to some honesty from the GW/CC community, but I am not holding my breath.

Ken Schmidt 5 months, 3 weeks ago

You also notice he was forced to resign?

Richard Aronoff 5 months, 3 weeks ago

The two biggest polluters in the world are China and India. This climate agreement requires them over the next 30 years to do.........absolutely nothing. China has been opening, on average, one new coal fired power plant a week.

When Obama signed onto this deal there were may people who felt that it should have been brought to the Senate to be voted on like a treaty. He didn't do it because he knew that the Senate would never pass the measure.

The best thing Trump could do would be to do what Obama should have done --- leave the decision up to the Senate where Dorothy's letters, postcards and phone calls might actually do some good.

Meanwhile, the former president who has a carbon footprint the size of God's ego just bought a nine bedroom, eight and a half bathroom home in Washington, DC. AND HE BUILT A WALL AROUND IT!

Priceless.

Ken Schmidt 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Choosing a relatively neutral source to say, actually, they have cancelled the plans or construction of over 104 plants this year, or over 120GW of production. That cancellation is a little more than 1/3 of our country's total annual production. To be clear, they use more than 3X the number of coal-fired plants than the US. Yes, they are the largest polluter. *We are second, not India. Source: http://www.businessinsider.com/china-plans-to-cut-back-on-coal-power-plants-2017-1

I actually agree that the president would best leave this issue to the general consensus of the elected officials in congress to get a better representation of public opinion--although they seem incapable in the last few years on any issue.

David Reynolds 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Richard a big high five on the hypocrisy...๐Ÿ‘

You know what...you can't make this stuff up. ๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚๐Ÿ˜‚

David Reynolds 5 months, 3 weeks ago

An interestung point of deception is occurring with the Paris Climate Treaty, it's REAL NAME.

There are what, 193 countries involved. In 192 of those countries the Paris Climate Treaty is actually known as a Treaty.

But not in the USA, It's called the Paris Climate Accord. Now isn't that clever.

The reason of course is all treaties must be approved by a 2/3 vote in the Senate...good luck with that. Those involved with this deception know it.

Thus just another lie masked as something sellable to the left.

As I have said earlier, the GW/CC proponents know no limits to their deception.

It's time to stop the deceit, falsehood, chicanery, etc.

Ken Lassman 5 months, 3 weeks ago

I don't know where you get your "facts," David, but why not try to go to the source: http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php

They clearly refer to your "treaty" as the Paris Agreement, not Treaty. By the way, the title of the Agreement in French is ACCORD DE PARIS, which may be why some refer to it as an Accord.

So, agreed, stop the deceit, falsehood, chicanery, etc.

Bob Smith 5 months, 3 weeks ago

"..Sometimes -- maybe almost always -- the world seems to run on Freudian projection. One of the salient recent examples is Barack Obama's supporters -- and Obama himself, literally and by implication -- calling Donald Trump "authoritarian." But in non-projected reality, during his administration, Obama is the one who imposed what we might deem -- in appropriately Maoist parlance -- the "Three Authoritarianisms." They were the Paris climate accord, the Iran deal, and US intelligence agencies being used to surveil American citizens. All three of these "authoritarianisms" were entirely ex-Constitutional. The first two were in essence treaties on which Congress (and by extension the American people) never got to vote or, for that matter, discuss in any serious way. The Paris accord probably would have failed. As for the Iran deal, we still don't know the full contents and therefore debating it is somewhat moot. We have, however, seen its consequences -- corpses littered all across Syria, not to mention untold millions of refugees. Admittedly, too, the third of "Three Authoritarianisms" is still, shall we say, occluded. We don't know the extent of this surveillance and may never. But this too is typical authoritarian behavior..." https://pjmedia.com/rogerlsimon/2017/06/01/paris-trump-blocks-first-of-obamas-three-authoritarianisms/

Bob Summers 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Democrats were in charge of the world in 2009. Why didn't they irrefutably save the world then by passing laws that Trump could not wipe away with the stroke of a pen?

Ken Lassman 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Can you say "excessive partisanship that has led to unacceptable gridlock" three times quickly?

If you can't, try making a list of the major legislation passed by the Trump Administration

Bob Summers 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Can you say "Obama undermined" saving the planet?...just once?

http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/03/31/how-the-us-undermined-the-copenhagen-climate-summit/

The US wanted:

  • to protect their politically powerful fossil fuel industries, and their right as a nation to carry on polluting;

  • to avoid having to pay out billions of dollars in climate funding to developing countries;

  • to deny China the global leadership role it sought to secure for itself, and instead leave it humiliated;

  • to present the USA and its President Barack Obama as trying against the odds to secure a climate agreement, in the face of obdurate resistance by other countries.

The operation was, in other words, spectacularly successful. The rest of the world (and Liberal toadies for Obama) were played for suckers. China emerged with a bloody nose. And the US was free to carry on letting rip with its emissions.

Ken Lassman 5 months, 3 weeks ago

Hello?? What year is this? It's not 2014, and yes, Copenhagen was a bust, but guess what: it led to Paris, where everyone agreed to voluntary reductions, including the US and we've been lowering our emissions since around 2005 and are anywhere from 39 to 53% of being in full compliance with the Paris Agreement.

So yes, I CAN say Obama saving the planet once. Thanks for the opportunity. And no, you apparently can't say "excessive partisanship led to unacceptable gridlock." thanks for that clarification, too.

Larry Sturm 5 months, 3 weeks ago

What happened to made in America. Ivanka has her clothing line made in China.

Commenting has been disabled for this item.

loading...