quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

FR

Our Brexit: What President Trump saved us from -

quote:

1. Goodbye to ‘American Last.’ The Paris agreement was basically an attempt to halt climate change on the honor system. Its only legal requirements were for signatories to announce goals and report progress, with no international enforcement mechanism. As a result, it was likely that the United States and wealthy European nations would have adopted and implemented severe climate change rules while many of the world’s governments would avoid doing anything that would slow their own economies. The agreement basically made the U.S. economy and Europe’s strongest economies sacrificial lambs to the cause of climate change.

2. Industrial Carnage. The regulations necessary to implement the Paris agreement would have cost the U.S. industrial sector 1.1 million jobs, according to a study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These job losses would center in cement, iron and steel, and petroleum refining. Industrial output would decline sharply.

3. Hollowing Out Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The industrial carnage would have been concentrated on four states, according to the Chamber of Commerce study. Michigan’s GDP would shrink by 0.8 percent and employment would contract by 74,000 jobs. Missouri’s GDP would shrink by 1 percent. Ohio’s GDP would contract 1.2 percent. Pennsylvania’s GDP would decline by 1.8 percent and the state would lose 140,000 jobs.

4. Smashing Small Businesses, Helping Big Business. Big businesses in America strongly backed the Paris climate deal. In fact, the backers of the climate deal reads like a “who’s who” of big American businesses: Apple, General Electric, Intel, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, General Mills, Walmart, DuPont, Unilever, and Johnson & Johnson. These business giants can more easily cope with costly regulations than their smaller competitors and many would, in fact, find business opportunities from the changes required. But smaller businesses and traditional start-ups would likely be hurt by the increased costs of compliance and rising energy costs.

5. Making America Poorer Again. A Heritage Foundation study found that the Paris agreement would have increased the electricity costs of an American family of four by between 13 percent and 20 percent annually. It forecast a loss of income of $20,000 by 2035. In other words, American families would be paying more while making less.

6. Much Poorer. The overall effect of the agreement would have been to reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion and eliminate 400,000 jobs by 2035, according to Heritage’s study. This would exacerbate problems with government funding and deficits, make Social Security solvency more challenging, and increase reliance on government’s spending to support households.
The Paris deal was, in short, a disaster for America and a nothing-burger for climate.

http://www.breitbart.com/economics/2017/05/31/every-bad-thing-avoided-rejecting-paris-climate-accords/

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: Edwird

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX
Trump Pulled Out

And the thing is, she didn't even notice. ~ other than the orange walrus blubber rolling aside . . .

quote:



Dropping out of the agreement will let the U.S. avoid several deleterious effects of the agreement.

1. Goodbye to ‘American Last.’ The Paris agreement was basically an attempt to halt climate change on the honor system. Its only legal requirements were for signatories to announce goals and report progress, with no international enforcement mechanism. As a result, it was likely that the United States and wealthy European nations would have adopted and implemented severe climate change rules while many of the world’s governments would avoid doing anything that would slow their own economies. The agreement basically made the U.S. economy and Europe’s strongest economies sacrificial lambs to the cause of climate change.

2. Industrial Carnage. The regulations necessary to implement the Paris agreement would have cost the U.S. industrial sector 1.1 million jobs, according to a study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These job losses would center in cement, iron and steel, and petroleum refining. Industrial output would decline sharply.

3. Hollowing Out Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The industrial carnage would have been concentrated on four states, according to the Chamber of Commerce study. Michigan’s GDP would shrink by 0.8 percent and employment would contract by 74,000 jobs. Missouri’s GDP would shrink by 1 percent. Ohio’s GDP would contract 1.2 percent. Pennsylvania’s GDP would decline by 1.8 percent and the state would lose 140,000 jobs.

4. Smashing Small Businesses, Helping Big Business. Big businesses in America strongly backed the Paris climate deal. In fact, the backers of the climate deal reads like a “who’s who” of big American businesses: Apple, General Electric, Intel, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, General Mills, Walmart, DuPont, Unilever, and Johnson & Johnson. These business giants can more easily cope with costly regulations than their smaller competitors and many would, in fact, find business opportunities from the changes required. But smaller businesses and traditional start-ups would likely be hurt by the increased costs of compliance and rising energy costs.

5. Making America Poorer Again. A Heritage Foundation study found that the Paris agreement would have increased the electricity costs of an American family of four by between 13 percent and 20 percent annually. It forecast a loss of income of $20,000 by 2035. In other words, American families would be paying more while making less.

6. Much Poorer. The overall effect of the agreement would have been to reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion and eliminate 400,000 jobs by 2035, according to Heritage’s study. This would exacerbate problems with government funding and deficits, make Social Security solvency more challenging, and increase reliance on government’s spending to support households.
The Paris deal was, in short, a disaster for America and a nothing-burger for climate.

http://www.breitbart.com/economics/2017/05/31/every-bad-thing-avoided-rejecting-paris-climate-accords/

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

Back on topic:

Our Brexit: What President Trump saved us from -

quote:



Dropping out of the agreement will let the U.S. avoid several deleterious effects of the agreement.

1. Goodbye to ‘American Last.’ The Paris agreement was basically an attempt to halt climate change on the honor system. Its only legal requirements were for signatories to announce goals and report progress, with no international enforcement mechanism. As a result, it was likely that the United States and wealthy European nations would have adopted and implemented severe climate change rules while many of the world’s governments would avoid doing anything that would slow their own economies. The agreement basically made the U.S. economy and Europe’s strongest economies sacrificial lambs to the cause of climate change.

2. Industrial Carnage. The regulations necessary to implement the Paris agreement would have cost the U.S. industrial sector 1.1 million jobs, according to a study commissioned by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. These job losses would center in cement, iron and steel, and petroleum refining. Industrial output would decline sharply.

3. Hollowing Out Michigan, Missouri, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. The industrial carnage would have been concentrated on four states, according to the Chamber of Commerce study. Michigan’s GDP would shrink by 0.8 percent and employment would contract by 74,000 jobs. Missouri’s GDP would shrink by 1 percent. Ohio’s GDP would contract 1.2 percent. Pennsylvania’s GDP would decline by 1.8 percent and the state would lose 140,000 jobs.

4. Smashing Small Businesses, Helping Big Business. Big businesses in America strongly backed the Paris climate deal. In fact, the backers of the climate deal reads like a “who’s who” of big American businesses: Apple, General Electric, Intel, Facebook, Google, Microsoft, Morgan Stanley, General Mills, Walmart, DuPont, Unilever, and Johnson & Johnson. These business giants can more easily cope with costly regulations than their smaller competitors and many would, in fact, find business opportunities from the changes required. But smaller businesses and traditional start-ups would likely be hurt by the increased costs of compliance and rising energy costs.

5. Making America Poorer Again. A Heritage Foundation study found that the Paris agreement would have increased the electricity costs of an American family of four by between 13 percent and 20 percent annually. It forecast a loss of income of $20,000 by 2035. In other words, American families would be paying more while making less.

6. Much Poorer. The overall effect of the agreement would have been to reduce U.S. GDP by over $2.5 trillion and eliminate 400,000 jobs by 2035, according to Heritage’s study. This would exacerbate problems with government funding and deficits, make Social Security solvency more challenging, and increase reliance on government’s spending to support households.
The Paris deal was, in short, a disaster for America and a nothing-burger for climate.

http://www.breitbart.com/economics/2017/05/31/every-bad-thing-avoided-rejecting-paris-climate-accords/

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX http://www.breitbart.com/economics/2017/05/31/every-bad-thing-avoided-rejecting-paris-climate-accords/[/size]

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
You do realize that the Journal it was published in was an Academic Journal which is often considered not only more prodigious, but also more competitive because that paper has to compete for page space against every other category of academia out there which also get's their papers published in that book. Not only that, it also suffers a much strict peer review process and must intentionally be constructed in a critical way in order for it to provide some sort of academic insight or the ability for it to be used in an academic setting.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
The 'Scientific Journal' that Cook et al was published in on the other hand deals specifically with publishing papers that have to do with the environment - which means that there is a lot less to compete against, and allows for the Author to review the feed back provided by the peer review, allowing for alterations or editing of his paper during the peer review process. .

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
But yeah - you're right. It wasn't published in a Scientific Journal.

But if you don't want to accept a peer reviewed counter point which raises these questions...
then just read the paper itself...

Literally the conditions of Cook et al:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

So rather then reading the papers, observing the research, or even simply browsing over the Conclusion inside each paper - they simply scanned over the Abstract a non-descript inconclusive description of what the paper contains. That is like Reviewing a movie by only reading the tagline printed on a poster, or a book by only reading the information on the backflap.

That is just a stupid approach for any research...

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
But let us continue - because Cook et al gets worse:
"66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming."

This instantaneously make the paper a lie - How can you have a 97% consensus of all the papers written about global warming if 66.4% of the papers you go through provide no position? So where does this 97% come from?

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
When people actually went through the paper, they started to reach out to the authors of the papers which where cited in Cook's little lie... Come to find out that a number of their papers are misrepresented or poorly interpreted.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update1

quote:

But you're going to keep believing that 97% lie...
Ignore the fact that it is written by an Solar Physicist (not a climate scientist) Evangelical Christian that has intentionally altered and misrepresented data in order to present a gloom and doom situation which is gobbled up by idiots and politicians alike. That's the status quo for you isn't it?

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
You do realize that the Journal it was published in was an Academic Journal which is often considered not only more prodigious, but also more competitive because that paper has to compete for page space against every other category of academia out there which also get's their papers published in that book. Not only that, it also suffers a much strict peer review process and must intentionally be constructed in a critical way in order for it to provide some sort of academic insight or the ability for it to be used in an academic setting.

Did you even look at the link I showed you?
A rebuttal by Cook himself was published in the SAME JOURNAL not long after.

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
The 'Scientific Journal' that Cook et al was published in on the other hand deals specifically with publishing papers that have to do with the environment - which means that there is a lot less to compete against, and allows for the Author to review the feed back provided by the peer review, allowing for alterations or editing of his paper during the peer review process. .

Less competition automatically means lower standards?
More competition means higher standards?
Why do more or less submissions somehow mean that the journal has higher or lower standards?
Where are you even getting this information from?

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
But yeah - you're right. It wasn't published in a Scientific Journal.

But if you don't want to accept a peer reviewed counter point which raises these questions...
then just read the paper itself...

Literally the conditions of Cook et al:
We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11 944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'.

So rather then reading the papers, observing the research, or even simply browsing over the Conclusion inside each paper - they simply scanned over the Abstract a non-descript inconclusive description of what the paper contains. That is like Reviewing a movie by only reading the tagline printed on a poster, or a book by only reading the information on the backflap.

That is just a stupid approach for any research...

If the point is to find whether or not they endorse AGW, and that can be discerned from reading the abstract, what exactly is the problem here??

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
But let us continue - because Cook et al gets worse:
"66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming."

This instantaneously make the paper a lie - How can you have a 97% consensus of all the papers written about global warming if 66.4% of the papers you go through provide no position? So where does this 97% come from?

LOL... so what, they're supposed to include papers that are irrelevant to the study?
If there's no position being expressed, then they can't say whether they accept OR refute AGW.
It doesn't mean 'unsure', it means that they didn't bring it up.
Can you seriously not understand this?

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
97.2% of papers published on the subject of climate change by people who know what they're talking about agree...

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
When people actually went through the paper, they started to reach out to the authors of the papers which where cited in Cook's little lie... Come to find out that a number of their papers are misrepresented or poorly interpreted.

http://www.populartechnology.net/2013/05/97-study-falsely-classifies-scientists.html#Update1

Populartechnology is a cheapo denialist blog. I actually met the guy who runs it... he insists he didn't choose the name 'populartechnology' to make people with fuzzy memories think it was actually Popular Mechanics or some other legitimate source of information, but I doubt it.

And the article predictably focuses on the same group of people as your last article.... including the ever-reliable Willie Soon.

It's garbage.

quote:

But you're going to keep believing that 97% lie...
Ignore the fact that it is written by an Solar Physicist (not a climate scientist) Evangelical Christian that has intentionally altered and misrepresented data in order to present a gloom and doom situation which is gobbled up by idiots and politicians alike. That's the status quo for you isn't it?

You are willing to accept someone who was paid $1.2 million by oil and gas companies as a legit source of information about climate change, are willing to accept people who appear at conferences held by libertarian think tanks who spread lies about oil companies and big tobacco as totally okay... and yet because Cook is an evangelical Christian, somehow he can't be trusted?

Amazing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
You do realize that the Journal it was published in was an Academic Journal which is often considered not only more prodigious, but also more competitive because that paper has to compete for page space against every other category of academia out there which also get's their papers published in that book. Not only that, it also suffers a much strict peer review process and must intentionally be constructed in a critical way in order for it to provide some sort of academic insight or the ability for it to be used in an academic setting.

Did you even look at the link I showed you?
A rebuttal by Cook himself was published in the SAME JOURNAL not long after.

Yeah i did look at the link you provided... What do you want me to say?
You're an idiotic illiterate fucktard because all the super long titles are hard to read, let alone enough for your stupid little mind to understand.

What you linked:
Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change: A Response to Legates, Soon and Briggs
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11191-013-9608-3

Was a rebuttal to:
Learning and Teaching Climate Science: The Perils of Consensus Knowledge Using Agnotology
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs11191-013-9588-3

Which is not the Paper i linked:
Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9

So yeah...
don't know what to say to that aside from "You are Wrong"
But I guess i felt that pointing your ignorance wasn't really constructive...
But if you want to double down on it:

Way to be wrong Idiot.
That is a rebuttal to an entirely different paper.
What's more - Because your pal Cookie Published there, I guess what they publish must have some merit because obviously if it was an ignorant den of the uneducated that will publish anything for a buck they wouldn't of accepted his Paper for publication...

So... yeah... way to be doubly wrong.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
Yes... More competition leads to higher standards - because the paper has to have more merit or importance to it in order to justify it's publication. Because Science & Education Journal is an Academia Journal, it covers a wide variety of subjects ranging from all fields of science. This means that papers published there have to prove themselves more important, pertinent, and worthwhile then the hundreds of other papers which are all also competing for inches in the journal in any other category of science. Even more generic or popular Scientific Journals which cover a wider variety of subjects or professions, and in turn forces authors to compete for space between those pages will produce a higher standard of paper.

Environmental Research Letters on the other hand is an Electronic Publication on a very very narrow field of consideration.

As an example, if 2 papers where submitted for consideration :
'Observation of structural structural stability in Carbon Nanotubes and potential applications'
Is a well produced, 200 page study with displays a myriad of graphs, data points, and experimental conclusions.

Verses

'Is it warmer in here?'
A 3 page study that reads like a High School Science Experiment in which a person looks at a thermometer each day and measures for 3 months and draws a vague pointless conclusion.

Which one is more likely to get published in Environmental Research Letters?
'Is it warmer in here?' - Because it is a paper which is concerning the Environment... Despite the length and depth the 'Carbon Nanotube' paper goes into being well articulated, researched, and presented... because it involves a category not interested by the Editor of the Journal - it does not find itself a publication there.

But you're probably going to blow this off because You couldn't come to this reasonable assessment yourself and needed it to be explained to you... Not that intellect is a strong suit of yours. Don't worry i look forward to reading a drafted argument of personal attacks and out of context 'science' which you think disproves everything i said here... It is all you're good for in this instance.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
Because the abstract doesn't provide that information most of the time... The abstraction is a short description of the purpose, the the most important parts of information gained or used, and a general idea of the outcome. Some papers don't even provide an Abstraction - just as some books don't have a backflap to describe the basic plot.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
R. S. J. Tol, a global warming advocate, found that many of his papers where misrepresented or omitted. Papers which where intentionally written as neutral providing no real opinion where listed as 'Endorsing' while other papers he explicitly states his stance that AGW as real where filed as neutral or weak endorsement because those excerpts where found in the conclusion but not the abstraction.

How do you not see this as a huge red flag about the paper?

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
It is an intentional misrepresentation of data in order to present narrow perspective of information which is intentionally misleading.
Look at what you parroted when prompted:

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
97.2% of papers published on the subject of climate change by people who know what they're talking about agree...

97% of papers published not 97% of papers that provide an opinion...
of papers published
This is the message that is repeated by idiots and politicians.

And they keep saying it because when you read '97% of papers published' it presents the concept that it is so agreed upon by people that know what they are talking about that disagreeing with it means your an idiot. It is intentionally constructed to be that way, to twist the minds of the uneducated and skewer counter arguments presented by many because of the idea 'people smarter then them or that have access to more information then them all agree.'

But this is a Lie.
The truth would be:
32.6% of papers published on the subject of climate change by people who know what they're talking about agree global warming is happening and humans have an influence.

Doesn't exactly carry the same weight as '97%' does it?
Doesn't convince the uneducated or ill informed of your stance.
Doesn't convey your desired message of 'I'm right - people agree with me'

Even in political poles they don't say "48% of Americans voted Hillary, while only 46% voted Trump"
They give the context 'of people that voted', 'of ballets submitted', 'of the popular vote'

This is because it is a well known fact that in the United States not everyone votes. Only 50-60 percent of eligible voters actually submit their ballot... so saying 'Of all Americans' is not valid because a large portion of American's didn't vote for either.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
Because some one out there might be getting a check from a Big Oil company and thus are not completely unbiased... I guess that means you get to ignore it all right?

Because fuck dissenting opinion.
Ignore that reasoning, rational, logic, information, and data.

quote:

ORIGINAL: InfoMan
You done gone and proved me all kinds of wrong because you attacked credibility of one of the writers.
Ad Hominem? what's that? Ah we speak English here, so ignore that too!

Is this all you're really capable of doing?
Parroting lies, attacking people rather then their stances, and avoiding the truth?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

The Paris Agreement isn't about the people of Paris.

quote:

Regardless of how you want to look at it, every fucking country in the world believes climate change is a problem, only in the US is there a fucking debate.

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

The Paris Agreement isn't about the people of Paris.

Jesus Christ, MM, are there people on this forum so desperately thick that you really felt the need to say that?

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Oh well. Maybe it's a good thing that the rest of the world will no longer look at the USA as leader in any way. Trump's nailed that one, good and firm.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Oh well. Maybe it's a good thing that the rest of the world will no longer look at the USA as leader in any way. Trump's nailed that one, good and firm.

I thought this said it better than words.

quote:

ORIGINAL: BoscoX

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer

FR

Oh well. Maybe it's a good thing that the rest of the world will no longer look at the USA as leader in any way. Trump's nailed that one, good and firm.

I thought this said it better than words.

Cartoon reality

The President was democratically elected on promises to do exactly that sort of thing

"Drain the swamp"

The real babies are they who refuse to accept the results of the election

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

Do you think that should stop me from dissenting his and your madness and hate???? to post what I feel, think, know or laugh at?
unlikely.
You can suck all the oooze you want. Im just gonna keep posting.
the swamp is now full of the sewer.... and its going to do some serious damage.
You love it, I understand why.
He loves the uneducated.