187 American Cities Pledge To Uphold Paris Accord |
|
|
|
|
Jun 4 2017, 07:48 PM
|
|
There is literally no better deal than this, it was non-binding. Meaning, if the USA did absolutely nothing, the penalties were exactly zero. It was basically just a good faith agreement with the rest of the world. The USA gained the greatest benefit in growing our economy via the use of fossil fuels and we're the only ones to now leave the agreement. Withdrawal is just a political stunt, but will do nothing to affect the states decisions, or the economic necessity of striving for cleaner energy. We do want green energy , but not at the cost of US jobs . This is an interview with a founding member/ scientists of Greenpeace offering a different evidence based opinion https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZDK1aCqqZkQ&t=1540s This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Jun 4 2017, 07:54 PM |
|
||
|
|
|
Jun 4 2017, 10:52 PM |
I guess that tells me how open for discussion you are . The Scientist was founding scientist for " Green peace " , does that not warrant maybe a short listen . start at 8:50 , and give it 3 minutes ? I'm very open to discussion, but credibility is key. I watched your three minutes and was wholly unconvinced in the premise presented. It is a common counter-argument that we are always in heating/cooling cycles and therefore man plays no part, but that is only a half truth. It's true that the earth's climate does cycle over time, but since 1950 (coinciding with mankind's rising use of fossil fuels) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere risen sharply. Secondly, the scientific consensus on climate change being man-made is anywhere from 95-99% That's about as close to certainty as a scientific conclusion gets. Youtubers interviewing the 1% of PhDs that disagree and calling it a scam doesn't meet the rigors of peer reviewed science by a long shot. There will always be dissenters, but that doesn't make them right. A humourous take on CO2 levels -------------------- |
|
|
||
|
|
|
Jun 4 2017, 11:50 PM
|
|
I'm very open to discussion, but credibility is key. I watched your three minutes and was wholly unconvinced in the premise presented. It is a common counter-argument that we are always in heating/cooling cycles and therefore man plays no part, but that is only a half truth. It's true that the earth's climate does cycle over time, but since 1950 (coinciding with mankind's rising use of fossil fuels) the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere risen sharply. Secondly, the scientific consensus on climate change being man-made is anywhere from 95-99% That's about as close to certainty as a scientific conclusion gets. Youtubers interviewing the 1% of PhDs that disagree and calling it a scam doesn't meet the rigors of peer reviewed science by a long shot. There will always be dissenters, but that doesn't make them right. A humourous take on CO2 levels I can give your report its due , but I have also been on the planet long enough to understand where and how NASA gets funding (it's always about money , on both sides , don't think that those on your side are not worried about their lively hood ) I think the answer lies more in the middle , and if in the middle that means we have time to figure it out properly rather than the doomsayers ( like Gore who said the poles would be gone by now )saying the sky is falling P.S. history has shown us that the single dissenting voices ( that were mocked at their time ) we right This post has been edited by jstcrsn: Jun 5 2017, 12:21 AM |
|
||