Politics Democrats vent but can't stop Trump from leaving Paris climate agreement

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
bodyman5000 and 1 said:
It would be beneficial to have clean air while we are alive though.
Click to expand...

Here we have it pretty good, good say vs 1960. LA was almost uninhabitable, New York not far behind, especially in some allies.
Now China, by the photos I see, looks a lot like LA did back when it was terrible.
This agreement says China does some more of the shit while we need to stifle ourselves and pay billions for the privilege.
Damn man! That makes no friggin sense to me and I don't think it changes a figgin thing.

It is ridiculous that this issue is a political issue in my view. Can someone explain why it is a political issue? That might be worth understanding.
 
My environmental work for the day (a couple weeks actually).
Wood%20Shed.JPG


About 2 cords of wood in the shed for winter, going for three. All dead trees salvaged to prevent a fire hazard.
Madrone, Cedar, Fir. See the small firs! Those are dead from the forest's natural selection pruning process.
So I take them down for fire wood rather than burn hated commercial carbon fossil fuels.
Did you know this wood will add the same volume of C02 to the environment if I let it rot or burn it?
Burning it just accelerates the process.

Where a dead tree leaves a void, it will be replaced with 2 to 4 small trees to suck up C02 and emit Oxygen.
Oh yes! Tree hugger work.
 
Last edited:
MarAzul said:
My environmental work for the day (a couple weeks actually).
Wood%20Shed.JPG


About 2 cords of wood in the shed for winter, going for three. All dead trees salvaged to prevent a fire hazard.
Madrone, Cedar, Fir. See the small firs! Those are dead from the forest's natural selection pruning process.
So I take them down for fire wood rather than burn hated commercial carbon fossil fuels.
Did you know this wood will add the same volume of C02 to the environment if I let it rot or burn it?
Burning it just accelerates the process.

Where a dead tree leaves a void, it will be replaced with 2 to 4 small trees to suck up C02 and emit Oxygen.
Oh yes! Tree hugger work.
Click to expand...
Dirty hippie.
 
MarAzul said:
A sound policy does not need two sides.
Click to expand...
Two sides isn't working out all that well anyway. When the entire planet is on one side and the US, Syria and Nicaragua are on the other.
 
riverman said:
Two sides isn't working out all that well anyway. When the entire planet is on one side and the US, Syria and Nicaragua are on the other.
Click to expand...
Most of which were gonna get PAID or benefit from us inventing something somehow.
 
When the entire planet is on one side and the US, Syria and Nicaragua are on the other.

What has this to do with understanding the science or the understanding why the question is political.
Dammit river, you just seem to parrot sound bites. Rather mindlessly too.
 
Denny Crane said:
How about some love for Scientific American?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-malthus-is-still-wrong/
Click to expand...

Interesting article of mixed messages. Not all necessarily agreeable. This appears to be more of a policy positioning discussion than a scientific evaluation.
Scientifically, a population that is successful, will increase until it reaches equilibrium with the ability of the environment to support the population.
Increasing beyond equilibrium requires change.
Change the environments ability to support. - <- We have been doing some
Change the requirements of support needed by individuals. - <- here is where we are today
Alter the source of support within the environment. - <- We have not significantly
Expand the environment. - <- We don't have anywhere to go

Fussing about with birth rates and wealth is policy wonk stuff to do with maintaining equilibrium and or quality.

But , it's just of the top! :cool2:
 
Last edited:
MarAzul said:
Dammit river, you just seem to parrot sound bites. Rather mindlessly too.
Click to expand...
I don't watch TV Marz....that's where the mindless hang out but what's your excuse? ......Money got you by the nuts or something?
 
riverman said:
your parroting of sound bites and mindless accusations...damnit Marz!
Click to expand...

I see. Can you give us a link to the source parrot for my post in this thread? I'll make it easy, just guess at the source.
 
MarAzul said:
I see. Can you give us a link to the source parrot for my post in this thread? I'll make it easy, just guess at the source.
Click to expand...

MarAzul said:
This agreement says China does some more of the shit while we need to stifle ourselves and pay billions for the privilege.
Click to expand...

I'd say you are parroting Donald Trump there. And you and he are incorrect, since the agreement is non-binding.

barfo
 
MarAzul said:
I see. Can you give us a link to the source parrot for my post in this thread? I'll make it easy, just guess at the source.
Click to expand...
that would be parroting your link....I'll advertise for you for a commission though....let's just say any news that doesn't fit your bubble becomes fake news and the person expressing it becomes an instant liberal parrot....you say global warming will cause some flooding in NY and Miami....I show you links to the world's damage projected at a much larger scale and ............you call me mindless....don't know how you get away with the insulting but I've got thick skin
MarAzul said:
I see. Can you give us a link to the source parrot for my post in this thread? I'll make it easy, just guess at the source.
Click to expand...
Try original thought sometime.....how did you calculate your way through life without links?
 
barfo said:
I'd say you are parroting Donald Trump there. And you and he are incorrect, since the agreement is non-binding.

barfo
Click to expand...

Wow! I missed it. Can you give me a link to that one?
 
MarAzul said:
Wow! I missed it. Can you give me a link to that one?
Click to expand...

You want me to give you a link to Trump saying that? Or am I misunderstanding your request?

It's in his speech announcing the withdrawal.

barfo
 
riverman said:
that would be parroting your link....I'll advertise for you for a commission though....let's just say any news that doesn't fit your bubble becomes fake news and the person expressing it becomes an instant liberal parrot....you say global warming will cause some flooding in NY and Miami....I show you links to the world's damage projected at a much larger scale and ............you call me mindless....don't know how you get away with the insulting but I've got thick skin

Try original thought sometime.....how did you calculate your way through life without links?
Click to expand...

I see. You do know your response lacks even one source of parroting.
 
barfo said:
You want me to give you a link to Trump saying that? Or am I misunderstanding your request?

It's in his speech announcing the withdrawal.

barfo
Click to expand...

I didn't see it. But good for him, I had no idea he was able to characterize so descriptively.
 
barfo said:
I'd say you are parroting Donald Trump there. And you and he are incorrect, since the agreement is non-binding.

barfo
Click to expand...
Then why are you so upset about it?

It's now not binding, too.

Buh bye anything-Obama.
 
MarAzul said:
A view of rising seas from the MarAzul
I use the follow current charts which I have modified to navigation charts so I may reference my boat's position relative to the currents and the projected course relative to the currents at any given time.

These ocean current are generated partially from the earth turning daily on it's axis, the effects of which are known as the Coriolis effect. The other major power source of this world wide current flow is the introduction of the cold water into the oceans from Rivers and streams, often very cold water from glacier melt. This cold water displaces the warmer sea water adding to the flow to the ocean currents, especially the Kuro Siwo current in the North Pacific and the Gulf Stream in the North Atlantic.

How long these currents will continue to be powered is no-doubt a function of how long with the Glaciers feed the cold water into the ocieans. Since we know, Glaciers are predicted to be gone, especial those that exist between the 30 latitudes North and South, before the end of this Century. Perhaps closer to 40 - 50 years. Farming in these areas, once watered by glacier melt will really become a challenge. But without the water injection into the Sea, the sea level rise reaches it's maximum, and these major Ocean current probably cease to flow as we know them to through out human history.

Without these current, you can suspect the land warmed by the currents, Canada, Northern United States, and Northern Europe become one hell of a lot colder. Probably triggering a new Ice age in the Northern Hemisphere. At that point the sea levels begin to slowly recede for several thousand years until it drops some 190 feet from todays level as the water is transfered once again to a Glacier Ice Pack.

I do hope our grand children can learn to deal with the events. I seriously doubt they will find one among them that can devise a plan to stop the cycle. No doubt something will, but I wouldn't bet on it being man made. I expect the first thing that we will be forced to deal with beyond a little flooding in Miami and New York, is lack of water for farming in the most populated areas on earth. It should be anticipated now! But it isn't!

0_Pac%20%20Currents.jpg


0_Atlantic%20Currents.jpg


0-Indian%20Ocean%20Current.jpg
Click to expand...

Where are the priests of Climate Change Religion? There must be one to will correct my limited understanding of Oceanography, Thermal Dynamics , Geology and Geography.
All we need is to lower the C02 Right! Al Gore Just said it today!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top