Earth to Trump -- Fuck You!!

[John V]

The Paris Accord hardly does anything. Temperature is still supposed to rise 2 degrees or more by the end of the century. Really, if this is world-changing stuff, why aren't you guys demanding electricity by non-fossil means, and a limit to number of cars per household, or something like that?

[The Grand Nudger]

Okay, then the answer is stricter regulation and tougher agreements.  Right?  So that it does "enough"?

People -are- demanding alternative energy and clean cars or more public transport to reduce the number of cars.....Alpha..............that's what you and your boy are actively obstructing.  In fact, the world.. is demanding it ( you know..minus us and syria......).  That's what the Paris Accord was.





How could you have possibly not known the target of your own protestations?

[John V]

Okay, then the answer is stricter regulation and tougher agreements.  Right?  So that it does "enough"?

People -are- demanding alternative energy and clean cars or more public transport to reduce the number of cars.....Alpha..............that's what you and your boy are actively obstructing.  In fact, the world.. is demanding it ( you know..minus us and syria......).  That's what the Paris Accord was.

And it wasn't much.
http://news.mit.edu/2016/how-much-differ...-make-0422

Assuming a climate system response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions that’s of median strength, the three scenarios reduce the SAT in 2100 between 0.6 and 1.1 C relative to the “no climate policy” case. But because the climate system takes many years to respond to emissions reductions, in 2050 the SAT falls by only about 0.1 C in all three cases. Meanwhile, the rise in SAT since preindustrial times exceeds 2 C in 2053, and in 2100, reaches between 2.7 and 3.6 C — far exceeding the 2 C goal.

So, apparently you guys don't think the world will come to an end with a rise between 2.7 and 3.6 degrees, or you'd be demanding a lot more. 

Or, the Paris accords were mostly intended to make you think that something serious was being done, and you didn't care to really look into it.

[Jehanne]

What is a sheep? 

A person who believes what they're told without applying critical thinking.

You are not making any sense whatsoever.  Do you accept the fact that the Sun is a star that radiates light (hence, energy) away from its surface?  Are you saying that we are "sheep" for believing that?

No, I'm calling you sheep at the moment for refusing to consider that, as science tells us that temperature on earth has varied by 20 degrees in the past, and we're on the low side of the range currently, that maybe a rise in temperature isn't going to be catastrophic. And also for caring about the Paris Accord, which won't do much of anything, instead of demanding that drastic action be taken. Seriously, if you guys believe the gloom and doom, you should be bombing fossil-fuel burning power plants or some such, instead of protesting Milo.

I agree that the religious need to apply much more critical thinking.

Again, the Sun is warming, getting bigger and brighter, and so, you can't compare the past with the present -- it's apple and oranges.  As it is, the Earth is right next to the danger zone with respect to radius of habitability around the Sun (where liquid water can exist):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstel...table_zone

[John V]

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-climat...GQ20130715

Sea levels could rise by 2.3 meters for each degree Celsius that global temperatures increase and they will remain high for centuries to come, according to a new study by the leading climate research institute

That's an increase in sea level of 6.2 to 8.3 meters by end of century even WITH the Paris accords. Are you guys really OK with that, or don't you really believe it?

[The Grand Nudger]

Oh stop, alpha...ofc we aren't.  That's explicit in the fact that we were -for- whatever reduction the agreements could have afforded us, especially in light of a bunch of dolts in government who didn't think it was happening at all..or who knew it was....but action against it would be against their own private interests.

But that's not at issue, none of this is an issue, for you...you're just trying to talk your way through a rough patch.

Unless we've misread you, and the president, and you both think that we should team up with nicaragua to make an even more expansive agreement. Care to clear that up?

[LastPoet]

It is expected of you to be a cherry picker.

[Anomalocaris]

Okay, then the answer is stricter regulation and tougher agreements.  Right?  So that it does "enough"?

People -are- demanding alternative energy and clean cars or more public transport to reduce the number of cars.....Alpha..............that's what you and your boy are actively obstructing.  In fact, the world.. is demanding it ( you know..minus us and syria......).  That's what the Paris Accord was.

And it wasn't much.
http://news.mit.edu/2016/how-much-differ...-make-0422

Assuming a climate system response to anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions that’s of median strength, the three scenarios reduce the SAT in 2100 between 0.6 and 1.1 C relative to the “no climate policy” case. But because the climate system takes many years to respond to emissions reductions, in 2050 the SAT falls by only about 0.1 C in all three cases. Meanwhile, the rise in SAT since preindustrial times exceeds 2 C in 2053, and in 2100, reaches between 2.7 and 3.6 C — far exceeding the 2 C goal.

So, apparently you guys don't think the world will come to an end with a rise between 2.7 and 3.6 degrees, or you'd be demanding a lot more. 

Or, the Paris accords were mostly intended to make you think that something serious was being done, and you didn't care to really look into it.

The world really wouldn't come to an end if we eat all the Christian babies. So there is really no justification for us to eat fewer Christian babies.

[John V]

Unless we've misread you, and the president, and you both think that we should team up with nicaragua to make an even more expansive agreement.  Care to clear that up?

If you:
- believe the forecasts, and
- think that sea level rise of 6 - 8 meters by 2100 would be catastrophic, then

Yes, you should be doing much, much more.

That you're not makes me question whether you really believe the forecasts.

[The Grand Nudger]

Do you have any idea what I'm doing?  Why, no, no you don't.

You could have though, I've never been shy about posting it.  Alternative ag, sustainable aquaculture, IPM.  I'm all in. I don't have a dime left to put into it...until i sell a house on the water...in FL. I moved to elevation, and northward...to grow "southern" crops for a niche market. I do think that we aren't doing enough....you know who else thinks we aren't doing enough?  Pretty much every-motherfucking body in this country who doesn;t think that climate change is a chinese hoax. That's the whole point of having those agreements in the first damned place.

....................................?

I mean here you are, complaining about them because they don't do enough...as if that's a problem for you...and then, that?