Jump to content

Trump pulls America out of the Paris Climate Accord


Happysedits

Recommended Posts

Honestly, I wasn't a trump supporter but I decided to give him a full unbiased period of time to prove he is a fit president for this country. Now he's shown to me how stupid I was to trust him for a second.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, that settles it. Now the human race is going to face catastrophic death rates in the next few generations instead of the next few centuries.

I'm not saying that humans are going to go extinct, but since Trump has decided to accelerate global warming instead of try to slow it down, we're going to suffer from severe flooding and immense droughts, depending on where you live. Lots of people are going to die and water will become a conflict resource.

 

I've been pretty certain for a while, but Trump's ruling today has made me fully decide never to have kids. I just can't see the ethics of having a child when you know the world's going to get considerably worse and they'll suffer more than you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

but Trump's ruling today has made me fully decide never to have kids. I just can't see the ethics of having a child when you know the world's going to get considerably worse and they'll suffer more than you.

if more people think like this, um, you know what will happen, lol, rip

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a Trump supporter originally because it benefited me the most financially, even I thought he would ultimately not help the Earth very much.  At this point, I have no doubt that he was the worst of the choices.  Not only has he failed to follow through on nearly any of the things that helped me, he can't even stick to the things that got other people to vote for him.  I'm glad his wall will likely never happen, but I'm pissed that he lied blatantly and people were dumb enough to continue supporting him for the wrong reasons.  At this point, I am fully convinced he's unfit to be the president, not just a bad one, but one of if not the worst choice we had available.  He has no right to continue possessing power after his actions.  As for Paris, the agreement in itself was worthless as it was really just a suggestion even if it was accepted (there was no goal for countries to individually move towards and no way of measuring anything for another century), but the fact that Trump made the decision that benefited no one, not even himself, and made everyone mad just goes to show how out of touch he is with the world and politics in general.  At least our TF2 player Elon Musk (who vehemently fought to stay in the Paris Agreement) is on our side.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To start with, scientists themselves have no idea about climate change and stir up the panic unnecesarily.

Back in the '60s, they said global cooling and a new ice age was the issue of our time that would kill all of us. Then suddenly it was global warming, and by the 1980s US coasts would all be underwater. That of course didn't happen. It was actually the year 2000 that the coasts would be underwater. Nope, still I can see them. In the 2000s Al Gore made a documentary and it had a lot of sciencey science shit in it rite, and it predicted that the ice caps would entirely melt by 2016! And that didn't happen either. 4 years ago, it was snowing in egyptian deserts for the first time in 112 years. But you won't hear about it because it messes up the "global warming" narrative.

Secondly. This Paris Accord itself. It was made specifically to fuck over first world countries in favor of third world and the "developing" countries. United States was putting more money into it than any other country in the world by a huge margin. Meanwhile, China produces more harmful emissions than the entire United States and Europe COMBINED. And they're not obligated to do anything about it until 2030, at which point they can just as easily pull out like the US did.

It's like emptying a bathub with a glass with the tap turned on. I'm not suprised Trump became sick of it. In the meantime, the EU is SELLING licenses for CO2 emission to its countries, and giving out fines if a country exceeds it. A scam, if you ask me.

Nuclear energy is a very real accessible thing. If we focused all of our funding and efforts into nuclear, we could easily move away from finite fossil fuels into near limitless power with far more speed and efficiency than any renewables. The only argument that people have against it is toxic waste and meltdowns, both of which are massively overblown and have benefits that you THINK would outweigh the negatives if global warming was truly as bad as is claimed.

Besides that, global change is entirely not the thing caused by humans. It's been a cyclic event that happened in our history multiple times already. Scientists, politicians, the media, and most people in 1500 believed in phlogistons. Why don't you?

 

Finally some actual scientific research:

 

 

mSQa7xW.png

6aVf0C6.jpg

VaEHKt8.png

 

 

Some myths about climate change:

 

 

ZlU6JON.png

 

 

 

TL;DR: Read the entire thing, it's a serious topic after all.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol Adam, yep let's invest in nuclear energy. The most dangerous energy source known, radioactive waste burial is highly unstable and damages the ecosystem in a myriad of ways. Not to mention the obvious danger of nuclear fusion itself... Radiation and the effects it causes are irreversible and catastrophic.

 

It's actually hilarious that you support Trump with these decisions. It's obvious that you look after your own back pocket first or are just completely ignorant to every counter productive change Trump has made.

 

Oh yeah and it's good to see that you've learnt from Trump and have contradicted your first sentence with your 'scientific' data... What happened to scienctists having no idea? Lol. Anyone can quote climate sceptic data which has no link of cause and effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol Adam, yep let's invest in nuclear energy. The most dangerous energy source known, radioactive waste burial is highly unstable and damages the ecosystem in a myriad of ways.

 

[personal attack, way to go]

 

Oh yeah and it's good to see that you've learnt from Trump and have contradicted your first sentence with your 'scientific' data... What happened to scienctists having no idea? Lol. Anyone can quote climate sceptic data which has no link of cause and effect.

Like I said, the arguments against the nuclear energy are overblown to the point to cause a prejudice amongst people against nuclear energy. The only two forces that can take down a nuclear power plant are commies and an earthquake+tsunami combined. The nuclear waste serves no threat to the ecosystem if contained properly, as opposed to CO2.

 

My data further proves my point. They stir up the panic while THEIR OWN research contradicts their claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Omg I get it! You're trolling! Hahaha damn dude you got me! Because there's no way that you actually believe that the massive amounts of co2 that we have pumped into the atmosphere since the industrial revolution has no effect on global temperature changes. There is mountains of evidence to support this allow with its by products such as ocean acidification. Literally go to any reputable scientific source which actually records co2 data and has no vested interest in coal, mining ect. Plz no more climate sceptical 'scientists'. Maybe you need hard proof like the death (mass bleaching) of the great barrier reef coral system in Australia?

 

Oh yeah and as global weather systems fluctuate more, natural disaster inherently becomes from frequent which makes nuclear even more volatile.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way you speak to me through your posts (which you like yourself btw wow) really shows how you try to provoke me into an aggresive response. Well tough luck for you I'm better than that.

At least I am the only one person in this thread to bother providing actual sources for my claims.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol k, cause being ignorant to the biggest issue of our generation is 'tough'. Please look through science magazines such as nature ect. Plz. You can find evidence for anything if you want to. Especially on the internet. There's billions and billions of dollars invested in non-renewable energy such as coal, of course there is 'evidence' to contrary it's obvious negative impacts on the world.

 

Plz.

Use your common sense.

Plz.

 

Ps. I'm not trying to aggravate you, I just get emotive when people cherry pick evidence which supports their claims without looking at the whole picture.

 

I wish I could upload my graduate degree papers detailing the effects of climate change and it's increasing prevalence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol Adam, yep let's invest in nuclear energy. The most dangerous energy source known, radioactive waste burial is highly unstable and damages the ecosystem in a myriad of ways. Not to mention the obvious danger of nuclear fusion itself... Radiation and the effects it causes are irreversible and catastrophic.

 

It's actually hilarious that you support Trump with these decisions. It's obvious that you look after your own back pocket first or are just completely ignorant to every counter productive change Trump has made.

 

Oh yeah and it's good to see that you've learnt from Trump and have contradicted your first sentence with your 'scientific' data... What happened to scienctists having no idea? Lol. Anyone can quote climate sceptic data which has no link of cause and effect.

Just because Chernobyl and Fukushima happened doesn't mean it's bad. Chernobyl was sturdy construction and Fukushima was a natural disaster. Still a very good power source for mass power

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Meanwhile, China produces more harmful emissions than the entire United States and Europe COMBINED. And they're not obligated to do anything about it until 2030, at which point they can just as easily pull out like the US did.

Worth mentioning that China are already investing huge amounts of money into renewables over fossil fuels:

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/05/china-invest-renewable-fuel-2020-energy

 

Also while it is true that China produce more emissions than the US and the EU combined, the US produce almost 10 percent more per capita. Not to mention that Chinese factories are likely to decline with their co2 emissions as much of the labour is moving to fast developing countries such as Vietnam and Africa. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lol Adam, yep let's invest in nuclear energy. The most dangerous energy source known, radioactive waste burial is highly unstable and damages the ecosystem in a myriad of ways. Not to mention the obvious danger of nuclear fusion itself... Radiation and the effects it causes are irreversible and catastrophic.

You can't deny the yuge amounts of power that nuclear energy can produce compared to its alternatives, and it's getting safer all the time. Two examples of nuclear meltdown are not enough to stop using it. A mixture of nuclear fission and renewables over fossil fuels is ideal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ignoring the climate change side of things, this decision was obviously just a way to rally Republicans behind him during this discussion of impeachment. Even though the majority of Americans in each state felt as though Trump should participate in the agreement ( http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/paris_agreement_by_state/), the majority of Republicans ( http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/26/polling-finds-majorities-oppose-epa-cuts-paris-pullout-237650 ) felt as though he should stay out. The last thing he wants to do is alienate more moderate Republicans.

 

Economically, this move makes no sense. It seems as though he is pandering to a niche part of his voting group in the coal industry, even though coal is a dying industry and there is no legitimate need to try and save it ( https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/04/25/climate/todays-energy-jobs-are-in-solar-not-coal.html?_r=0). Aside from initial cost, there really isn't any economic downside from switching to clean energy.

 

 

I didn't really want to touch on whether or not global warming is real, but in case you want to read more about it, NASA made a handy little webpage showing that the post-Ice Age period of warming is being accelerated by mankind, as well as many other non-warming affects due to climate change. If you want to check it out you can find it here: https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/, there is plenty of credible information.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

To start with, scientists themselves have no idea about climate change and stir up the panic unnecesarily.

I always just love that argument

 

Well, to start with, lets assert the people who study and specialize in the subject have no idea about it.

 

now, let me, who didn't study the subject, tell you what's really going on

The obvious flaw being that you don't discredit scientists but overcredit the subject as too complext. Which would be all the more reason for non-scientists to STFU.

 

#Logic101

 

----

As for nuclear power. It's better for the CO2, sure, but as long as we don't have a decent answer fo the nuclear waiste - for obvious reasons, I'm hesitant to praise it.

 

 

Ignoring the climate change side of things, this decision was obviously just a way to rally Republicans behind him during this discussion of impeachment. Even though the majority of Americans in each state felt as though Trump should participate in the agreement ( http://climatecommunication.yale.edu/publications/paris_agreement_by_state/), the majority of Republicans ( http://www.politico.com/story/2017/04/26/polling-finds-majorities-oppose-epa-cuts-paris-pullout-237650 ) felt as though he should stay out. The last thing he wants to do is alienate more moderate Republicans.

a very clear case of how partisan leadership is where democracy fails.

 

(if 70% of the ppl is pro-Paris, but of that 30/70, we're talking 30/20 republican and 0/50 democrat, a partisan republican leader would see the 30 as a majority (as it's 30 vs 20) and do what the 30 want, opposite to a definate minority )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if more people think like this, um, you know what will happen, lol, rip

Actually, that may save us.

Carrying capacity of humans is ~10 billion I think.

We are at a population of 8 Billion.

Once we hit 10, we will go extinct.

 

I recently actually read this book in which a rich politician went undercover, and released an epidemic disease to the world. In a week, it effectively made 2/3rds of humans sterile. Ironically, it saved the human race.

It was interesting to say the least.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, that may save us.

Carrying capacity of humans is ~10 billion I think.

We are at a population of 8 Billion.

Once we hit 10, we will go extinct.

 

I recently actually read this book in which a rich politician went undercover, and released an epidemic disease to the world. In a week, it effectively made 2/3rds of humans sterile. Ironically, it saved the human race.

It was interesting to say the least.

What's the title of the book? Sounds kinda fucked up but interesting.

But yeah, a big moral movement to not have kids would trim down the population but not eradicate it- there will always be people who want to have families.

Of course, the global economy would crunch like Japan's, but that's because our economy is unsustainable and relies on constant growth instead of thoughtful conservation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's the title of the book? Sounds kinda fucked up but interesting.

But yeah, a big moral movement to not have kids would trim down the population but not eradicate it- there will always be people who want to have families.

Of course, the global economy would crunch like Japan's, but that's because our economy is unsustainable and relies on constant growth instead of thoughtful conservation.

Inferno by Dan Brown.

I kinda spoiled a part of it but highly recommend.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

To start with, scientists themselves have no idea about climate change and stir up the panic unnecesarily.

Back in the '60s, they said global cooling and a new ice age was the issue of our time that would kill all of us. Then suddenly it was global warming, and by the 1980s US coasts would all be underwater. That of course didn't happen. It was actually the year 2000 that the coasts would be underwater. Nope, still I can see them. In the 2000s Al Gore made a documentary and it had a lot of sciencey science shit in it rite, and it predicted that the ice caps would entirely melt by 2016! And that didn't happen either. 4 years ago, it was snowing in egyptian deserts for the first time in 112 years. But you won't hear about it because it messes up the "global warming" narrative.

 

I find this argument somewhat lacking. For one thing, we are talking about climate change, the overall warming of Earth. It doesn't matter if it snows in Egypt as long as it is hot as hell all other 364 days of the year. Secondly, climate change is a serious issue. Global temperatures have gone up 1.7 degrees Celsius on average since 1880(https://climate.nasa.gov), and as a result ice caps have melted drastically (http://www.canyoncountryzephyr.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/polar-ice-caps-melting.jpg). Perhaps scientists have been wrong about the urgency of climate change. However there is simply no denying that it will be a serious issue in years to come.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this argument somewhat lacking. For one thing, we are talking about climate change, the overall warming of Earth. It doesn't matter if it snows in Egypt as long as it is hot as hell all other 364 days of the year.

If you look at Egypt's average temperature of summer months: (I've seen them between 1901 & 2015 - which incompasses the timespan "4 years ago 112 years ago")

 

if we look at the 30°C mark

  • between 1901 & 1994:
    • has been reached in 20 years (21.5% of the years)
    • the longest streak was 4 years in a row (1930-1934), and there were 5 streaks of 2 years
    • has been reached in 22 months (18 years once, 1 year twice, 1 year trice)
  • between 1995 and 2015 (20 year span)
    • every year has had their hottest avr temp reach over >30°C
    • so ... that's a 20 year streak and counting (opposite the 4 year streak in '30)
    • has been reached in 33 months (3 years once, 11 years two 6 years trice) (more then once no longer is exception, no longer rule)
Now, lets look at the 30.7 mark (the hottest avr monthly temperature measured between 1901 & 1994 )
  • between 1901 & 1994 (93 year span):
    • reached 2 times in 93 years: in both '16 and '88
  • between 1995 and 2015 (20 year span)
    • reached 16 times in 20 years
    • has been reached in 27 months (8 years once, 5 years twice, 3 years trice)
So ...

 

In 1901-1994, in 93 years, the avr. summer temp reached 30.7 degrees twice.

In 2002, 2008 and 2012, in each of those years, it reached 30.7 or more, trice.

 

Global temperatures have gone up 1.7 degrees Celsius on average since 1880

The Egypt data confirms this (1916 has 30.7°C --> 2010 has 31.2°C)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...