Yes the USA didnt agree to any of the accords.
Gots lots of flack and I’m thinking the USA has done more to help the climate than any other western country via the EPA.
yes, but is Co2 a problem?
Yes, it is. It’s historically one of the major driving factors of global climate change.
About methane:
“While methane is a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2, there is over 200 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. Eg - CO2 levels are 380 ppm (parts per million) while methane levels are 1.75ppm. Hence the amount of warming methane contributes is calculated at 28% of the warming CO2 contributes.”
And “since the early 1990’s, the trend in increasing methane has slowed down and even leveled off in the last few years.”
Somewhere above the issue of population growth was mentioned. It is probably worth considering that human population was pretty much stable until the begining of the industrial revolution the UK. Which was powered by coal. In short the use of fossel fuels has literally and factually powered population growth. And of course it is a feedback loop. The more energy we use the faster the population can grow leading to more energy use.
The implications of this are quite profound and potentially nasty. When we run out of accessible fuel, the world population will collapse. With population growth at a compount 1.8% it will double in 40 years. Even if we build huge quantities of PV,s and windmills, there will still be a huge “adjustment”.
I am glad I will be long gone (hopefully) before the third world war starts.
1 Like
Posted without comment. I don’t have to.
How do you verify a prediction? You wait and see what actually happens.
By the time climate changed is verified it is too late to change course.
It’s like the Fitzgerald/Crystal situation: they waited to see what would happen until they collided.
Don’t repeat that mistake!!
1 Like
What is true for USA is not so for the rest of the world.
Those who have an interest or and opinion on climate change in the rest of the world don’t rely upon what one or the other US political party may profess to believe for political gain.
The future of our planet and future generations cannot be left to be decided by somebody who can only think of the next election.
Where warming is most pronounced is not in the continental USA or the tropical regions, but in the Arctic:
1 Like
Well, scientists have a way to do it. I probably should have used their word for it which is validate rather than verify.
They apply their model to previous years (starting say 20 or 30 years ago) and see if their models predict what was actually observed over subsequent years. They’ve done this and the climate models have consistently predicted higher temperatures than were actually observed.
So they don’t work when we know the changes over a period of time and therefore they can’t be trusted to predict the future climate.
I has actually been more accurate to predict no temperature increase. The result has consistently been more accurate than the climate models. The model predictions have diverged further and further from the observations despite being constantly retuned to adjust them for what was observed.
They don’t work.
You seem to be advocating the much discredited precautionary principle. The problem with it is that the damage done by the precautionary activities (spending vast amounts of money to change the climate, damage to industry, impoverishing populations, demonising essential gases and fossil fuels) are never taken into account. The minuscule effects of those vast expenditures are predicted to be insignificant cooling in temperatures so far into the future we won’t live to see it. Humans have adapted to all climate changes for millennia.
We can adapt. That’s what we should do.
If the arctic is warming caused by GLOBAL warming, the antarctic should be doing the same. It isn’t.
I don’t know if you have noticed, by the Arctic and Antarctic are on opposite “ends of the world”.
The geography is VERY different, with the Arctic being an ocean surrounded by land masses, while the Antarctic is a continent surrounded by oceans.
2 Likes
The industries being developed to tackle man made climate change is creating millions of jobs around the world and pulling people out of poverty in many cases.
Global warming and rising sea levels are forcing people off their land and impoverizing people in low lying areas of some of the poorest countries of the world.
But who cares about that when you live on high ground in one of the rich countries of the world?
Your philosophy and political view is what give capitalisme and dogmatic conservative thinking a bad name.
1 Like
Ah, yes. I do know that. But global warming alarmists predicted warming would be seen at BOTH poles. The tropics don’t warm. Another prediction busted.
Economics lesson 1. If the warmists are creating millions of jobs to produce the same amount of output eg lots more jobs building and maintaining solar and wind farms than coal fired power stations for the same electricity, then by definition this will drive up the price of electricity.
Lots more jobs are not desirable if they aren’t producing value added services. They are a detriment. If you want more jobs you could ban machinery and build everything by hand. You’d need millions more workers but costs would skyrocket and wages would fall. Socialists love this sort of thing which is why no socialist nation can compete with a free capitalist one.
Where? Who? If people are forced off their land by sea level rises, what’s your solution? Mine is adapt. Yours seems to be change the earth’s temperature at vast cost by a poofteenth of a degree and feel good that you’ve done your bit. BUT, sea levels will continue to rise as they have for thousands of years. Problem NOT solved.
Houses are falling into the water in western nations too. UK, Australia, USA are some. Do we grizzle to the world to stop it? Places like Bangladesh where poor farmers move to newly formed, low lying islands in the river deltas understand that their homes are not permanent. The river will change its course and they’ll be washed away. They move.
Yes, I’m an eeevil capitalist. Show me a socialist nation that’s freer and more successful that a capitalist one. And I don’t have a bad name. Socialists, on the other hand …
Nearly everybody in US claim to be CAPITALISTS, even if they live “pay cheque to pay cheque”.
(Or is that welfare check??)
Freedom Index 2017:
I don’t see USA anywhere among the top 10.
Your point? Jughead is from OZ.
Freedom has been constantly eroded over my lifetime by the growth of the overbearing regulatory nanny state in the US.
Then the 9/11 terrorist attacks changed everything for the worse. We could still breath with the wars on drugs, tax evasion, money laundering, and political incorrectness. That did not bother most of us too much. But the rise of the anti-terror bureaucratic police state brought the end of privacy and freedom as we knew it.
Foreign citizens may have more freedom in some of their home countries. However, I’ve yet to find any other populated place in the world where an American can live with more privacy and freedom than in the US.
Depending on one’s interests and needs, many other “free” countries actually offer a lot less “freedom” to Americans because everything is too expensive relative to the cost in the US. What they offer is the freedom to be poor, but without any of the social benefits offered to nationals.
Similarly, a lot of poor supposedly “cheap” countries, are not really all that much cheaper than the US. Especially, if you try to live to a US standard with the same hobbies and interests. They are only cheap if you live like a local without any highly taxed imported goods.
For all it’s faults, the USA is still pretty good.
3 Likes
Ooops, forgot that bit.
He sounds like a typical conservative redneck, regardless of nationality though.
I don’t know which countries you are referring to, or are familiar with, but the countries on the list of 10 freest in the world operate with both taxation and welfare system based on residency, not citizenship. IOW; All residents, whether national or foreign, are contributing and receiving the same. (At least in principle)
In the countries it is natural to compare USA with (i.e.other OECD Countries, not G20) the poverty level is lower and the social safety net is stronger, so no need to worry about being poor if you should find yourself without work, or sick. (if you are a legal resident that is)
Conservative, yes. Redneck, no. Sensible, YES.
What are you?
I’m a realist with no ideological or political affiliation.