Climate change - the POLITICAL debate. Vol 4

[Otispunkmeyer]

Love Facebook sometimes, trump pulls from the Paris agreement and it's because he wants to ruin the world and doesn't care about anything but money.

When you actually bother to read their reasons, is because someone read the fine print and realised they were getting a stty deal (and the deal is estimated to be nigh on ineffectual any way...). Sounds like the US are going to continue their own emissions reduction work anyway, just at their own pace and in control of their own direction.

They're looking after themselves and dont see why they should be footing the bills for others or letting china have a free pass till 2030. It doesn't mean they aren't going to bother improve their emissions and efficiency.

[London424]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

They're looking after themselves and dont see why they should be footing the bills for others or letting china have a free pass till 2030. It doesn't mean they aren't going to bother improve their emissions and efficiency.

Which is pretty stupid for him - if that is the intention, to limit the emissions under his own hand internally.

He had the opportunity to blame others for handcuffs imposed - instead, according to you theory, he is going to still do it (equating to economic harm in his views) and thus be blamed for it in the rust belts of the USA.

Nassacism at its best...."I won't play to someone else's rules, but do it bad under my own rules instead"

From my reading each country sets their own targets anyway, they aren't legally binding and you don't pay any fines/penalties if you miss them. Sounds completely worthless.

[hyphen]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

They're looking after themselves and dont see why they should be footing the bills for others or letting china have a free pass till 2030. It doesn't mean they aren't going to bother improve their emissions and efficiency.

Which is pretty stupid for him - if that is the intention, to limit the emissions under his own hand internally.

He had the opportunity to blame others for handcuffs imposed - instead, according to you theory, he is going to still do it (equating to economic harm in his views) and thus be blamed for it in the rust belts of the USA.

Nassacism at its best...."I won't play to someone else's rules, but do it bad under my own rules instead"

Standard politician games worldwide, say you haven't done something to please a crowd, and then still do it later on to appease another crowd.

[LongQ]

London424 said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

They're looking after themselves and dont see why they should be footing the bills for others or letting china have a free pass till 2030. It doesn't mean they aren't going to bother improve their emissions and efficiency.

Which is pretty stupid for him - if that is the intention, to limit the emissions under his own hand internally.

He had the opportunity to blame others for handcuffs imposed - instead, according to you theory, he is going to still do it (equating to economic harm in his views) and thus be blamed for it in the rust belts of the USA.

Nassacism at its best...."I won't play to someone else's rules, but do it bad under my own rules instead"

From my reading each country sets their own targets anyway, they aren't legally binding and you don't pay any fines/penalties if you miss them. Sounds completely worthless.

I rather suspect that the French, especially Hollande who has little else to show for his time in charge, will not be terribly happy if that version of the deal escapes from the banishment inflicted upon it by the world's free speaking media.

[wc98]

could someone tell the planks at the bbc historical sea level rise in florida is not accelerating .it is about 2mm per year for the last 100 years. how they get away with broadcasting this utter ste unchallenged i will never know.

[Murph7355]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Which is pretty stupid for him - if that is the intention, to limit the emissions under his own hand internally.

He had the opportunity to blame others for handcuffs imposed - instead, according to you theory, he is going to still do it (equating to economic harm in his views) and thus be blamed for it in the rust belts of the USA.

Nassacism at its best...."I won't play to someone else's rules, but do it bad under my own rules instead"

Why?

Being able to blame others when your head's under st doesn't exactly leave you, or more importantly your country, in a great position.

There is also nothing to say that whatever the US elect to do will put them in economic harm. If he takes a slower, sustainable approach to reductions etc then why should it?

If the headline summary of the Paris agreement is anything to go by, I'm surprised anyone signed up to it in the first place. It looks comical.

[frisbee]

Otispunkmeyer said:

Love Facebook sometimes, trump pulls from the Paris agreement and it's because he wants to ruin the world and doesn't care about anything but money.

When you actually bother to read their reasons, is because someone read the fine print and realised they were getting a stty deal (and the deal is estimated to be nigh on ineffectual any way...). Sounds like the US are going to continue their own emissions reduction work anyway, just at their own pace and in control of their own direction.

They're looking after themselves and dont see why they should be footing the bills for others or letting china have a free pass till 2030. It doesn't mean they aren't going to bother improve their emissions and efficiency.

Yep, getting all that nasty polluting coal out of glorious American soil and into that nasty global air!

[voyds9]

frisbee said:

Yep, getting all that nasty polluting coal out of glorious American soil and into that nasty global air!

Would this be the coal that what originally plant material.

That plant material made from co2 and water and sunlight.

Perhaps we could call it a carbon cycle.

Perhaps Trump is just taking the long view (rather than 1960 onwards)

[hidetheelephants]

Congress and the senate was never going to ratify Paris anyway, not with a GoP majority; Trump is just virtue signalling for his domestic audience.

[chris watton]

Murph7355 said:

Why?

Being able to blame others when your head's under st doesn't exactly leave you, or more importantly your country, in a great position.

There is also nothing to say that whatever the US elect to do will put them in economic harm. If he takes a slower, sustainable approach to reductions etc then why should it?

If the headline summary of the Paris agreement is anything to go by, I'm surprised anyone signed up to it in the first place. It looks comical.

Or in other words, 'st, what the hell does this mean for my future Green prospects!'

It seems that Trump has read the agreement and realised it's nothing to do with saving the planet, and more to do with wealth distribution.

[turbobloke]

frisbee said:

Yep, getting all that nasty polluting coal out of glorious American soil and into that nasty global air!

Since when have coal mine owners or miners taken coal out of the ground then toured the world throwing it into the air? It would only fall back to the ground anyway.

If you want to get on a high horse about air, try indoor air. Both the US EPA and UK BRE found that air in UK and US homes and other buildings is on average ten times more polluted than outdoor urban air.

Nothing much is being done about it: no supranational organisation bleeding taxpayers dry via national budgets, no home air taxes to 'tackle' this far more serious problem, no BLEZs, no howling pressure groups, yet tens of thousands of sick people die prematurely indoors in heavily polluted air every year - this could be your moment.

[turbobloke]

chris watton said:

It seems that Trump has read the agreement and realised it's nothing to do with saving the planet, and more to do with wealth distribution.

Exactly. Using the green blob's own junkscience, the Paris boondoggle would have an immeasurably small impact, the real impact is shown below via the IPCC itself telling it as it is.

[turbobloke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

2010 ? really ?

Again, your sourcing (selective choosing) of data, soundbites, and reporting is so out of date it is laughable to support your own agenda.
Whilst I think we all know your views, skewing the story makes a mockery of the efforts.

As if it matters when a confession took place. Murderers would serve no longer than 7 years under your intellectually bankrupt ideas. Your desperation is obvious by the ridiculous content of recent posts,

What a UN IPCC official said, which matches reality, isn't skewing the story - that's the BBC's role.

You have nothing material to offer. You're now a parody of yourself.

[Hosenbugler]

Trumpy has called the bluff on the climate change scam . As said, nothing about the environment , everything about taxation and distribution of wealth.

The fact that climate change is a made up scam at the behest of the UN is revealed in their own publications , especially this one, authored by the Council of the club of Rome, a Un thinktank.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Global_Rev...

[PRTVR]

Good news from America, it looks like China will be leaning on Europe to maintain their job destroying policies, people should remember that China is not cutting back it's coal power station building programme to save the planet, it has found that the existing power stations are running under capacity , China also hit a record of electricity generation via coal, yep everybody is on side and marching to a new future.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal_in_China.


Paddy, do you just ignore things that have been said in the past ?

[Hayek]

robinessex said:

Er, can we now ask if the planets temp goes up a gnats cock, whether it matters?

I hear (IIRC) that the Paris agreement meant that they thought that they could reduce projected temperature rise by 0.3degrees (F or C, I don't know?) by 2100. Seems either neither here nor there, or easy to fudge in 2100 to claim an overwhelming success, or both.

[anonymous-user]

Hosenbugler said:

Trumpy has called the bluff on the climate change scam . As said, nothing about the environment , everything about taxation and distribution of wealth.

The fact that climate change is a made up scam at the behest of the UN is revealed in their own publications , especially this one, authored by the Council of the club of Rome, a Un thinktank.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Global_Rev...

Seems unlikely.

Amazingly, all the nations sign up for an agreement, which you think is a scam.

Then one pulls out and it's Trump. You find the only leader agreeing with your stance is Donald Trump and this somehow validates your position.

[Jinx]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Jinx said:

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

Again - rather than hypothesis
Please put some stats to your statements, as I always have.

There are 6030 wind turbines in the UK - 20 turbines covers approx 250 acres so give or take 305 km^2 of land wasted.


In America they have Save the Eagles

Unfortunately the RSPB seems to make a killing from windfarms out of killing......

And the link I previously provided shows we are still taking more energy from our European neighbours than the wind provides.....

Point 1 - Wrong

Point 2 - wrong - eta, yes - they 'have' save the Eagle - but the facts are biased / wrong

Point 3 - Wrong (Come on - Daily fking mail is your source? )

Point 4 - Today (or the snap shot of time when this is read and relevant) renewables energy is low. You realise that is not daily ?


But to the main point, and the 'politics' aspect - you said so much Cost.
Please elaborate on the cost vs the energy statement

Edited by Paddy_N_Murphy on Thursday 1st June 22:16

Where? - I think Paddy you are another shill without the wit to reply with the standards you expect of others. There is a word for that.

[turbobloke]

Paddy_N_Murphy said:

As we established a month ago, but for the benefit of others - the 'pensioners' freezing you enjoying pulling out of the air.

Remind me, what was the causation ?

The order of events is correct for causality in all required senses and there is a coherent and consistent mechanism linked to inability to heat homes adequately with impacts on pensioners more than others,. The evidence that additional green levies on energy bills has pushed more pensioners into fuel poverty leading to hypothermia and death is overwhelming.

Paper by W R Keatinge PhD FRCP said:

Approximately half of excess winter deaths are due to coronary thrombosis. These peak about two days after the peak of a cold spell. Approximately half the remaining winter deaths are caused by respiratory disease, and these peak about 12 days after peak cold. The rapid coronary deaths are due mainly to haemoconcentration resulting from fluid shifts during cold exposure.

The elderly are severaly impacted. A survey carried out by Age UK found that 50% of pensioners turn their heating down to save money even when they are not warm enough. Later research by uSwitch showed that 80% of elderly households were rationing their energy use. Britain has a worse record on elderly winter deaths than colder European states such as Sweden, Norway and Finland and Age Concern have warned that unless heating is made more affordable, further large-scale deaths would occur.

The increasing toll of hypothermia 2007-2012 occurred after severe winters and a surge in energy costs of 40% including £112 due to the cost of "energy and climate change policies" (DECC as was) where the additional pointless greenblob confiscation of £112 represented 10% of annual energy bills (ONS). This idocuments a quantitative insight into the contribution of greenblobbery to the circumstances which result in excess elderly deaths during cold spells,

One result of this rationing of heating in the homes of the elderly resulting in death due to hypothermia between 2 and 12 days after peak cold is purchase of cheap large books and from charitry shops, a desperate attempt by pensioners to keep warm affordably, avoiding the decision on whether to eat or heat.

Workers at a charity shop in Swansea have described how the most vulnerable shoppers were seeking out thick books such as encyclopaedias for a few pence because they were cheaper than coal. Pensioners told the shop staff that thick books make ideal slow-burning fuel for fires and stoves. The Guardian reported in 2014 that fuel poverty and hypothermia were already affecting younger households, citing an example of a pregnant mother aged 26 who was dismantling shelving piece by piece to burn in order to keep warm.

Any pointless, expensive and unrelable contribution to this tragedy should be stopped immediately, but faith is strong and gullibility over climate fairytales is widespread among politicians...as we see today with ignorant comments on Trump's wise decision.

[turbobloke]

Jinx said:

Where? - I think Paddy you are another shill without the wit to reply with the standards you expect of others. There is a word for that.

At this stage, may I suggest a few words - pointless and boringly transparent. There's plenty of room in the new energy thread for vested interest ramping.