climate change / unpredictable weather/wind

[Havre]

It’s not about what Trump says or believes, it is about what he does. Withdrawing from the Paris Climate agreement kinda speaks for its self.

So you think that the Paris climate agreement would have actually reduced carbon emissions in the future?

Many have rightly pointed out that while the West was required to institute severe economically crippling restrictions, the second and third world were not.

On the world stage, this meant that many second world powers would come to an advantage over the West in setting future economic and even climate policy. So the question in the end is, "do you really want Nations such as China to lead the planet in environmental policy?"

And if cognitive dissonance is strong enough in you to have answered yes, then you are in for a big surprise once those totalitarian regimes begin to call the shots for the environment. Just a hint, their track record ain't that great.

And leaving the Paris Climate agreement helps to reduce carbon emissions... how? Your argumentation is so overly simplistic and clearly also has been manipulated by Trump and Fox (China!). Not sure if you are aware, but Trump would love nothing more than to have authoritarian rule over the US...

Good thing we have someone as sophisticated as yourself explaining things then.

Someone disagrees with me -> manipulated by Trump and Fox

There is so much nuance in that statement you would think it was written by Buddha, Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, Einstein or maybe a combination of all of them.

It would be a good question to ask Matteo V what is the alternative? I completely agree with his point that if the "west" agrees to voluntarily slow growth then you are exposing yourself to someone else getting stronger. I don't see how that isn't valid, even if you believe in climate change that should be a concern, but how do you get the best of both by moving out of Paris?

Not that I believe Paris will ever be meaningful for anything else than as a symbol of unity (which isn't necessarily even a good thing when you just fuel the kind of moralizing you see in this thread).

[Pemba]

I know he often says 'fake news' and 'hoax' to journo's when climate change is brought up but has he ever said outright that agw doesn't exist/is false? ...or is he just a bit more like some of the skeptics in this thread that believe it's happening but just being over exaggerated? I'm inclined to believe the later is more likely and that he's just getting painted as a flat out denier by the media... only guessing.

No idea about Trump and Bolsonaro's personal opinions. But they are acting like AGW doesn't exist wouldn't you say ?

No idea tbh. All mainstream media paint him as the devil whatever he does so i don't really pay attention, i get the impression half the time he's just winding up the journo's so any of the 'hoax' type comments i take with a pinch of salt. I'd be interested to hear what he actually thinks on climate change, i'd be surprised if he outright denies agw. But in the crazy, finger pointing, twitter mob world we live in nowadays unless you drive a prius and go rioting with Greta your a climate change denier... let alone dare to question anything . Same with all the modern movements, you've either got to be fully in support or your a biggot... there all just branches from the same tree, societal cancer's imo.

Come on Prop-Joe, no idea ? You really have no opinion if Trump and Bolsonaro act for or against the existence of AGW ? Is this then because you suspect the press, social media are hiding their real actions from us ? Maybe Trump doesn't even exist ?

I do agree with the general lines of your post on social media, press and general opinion though.

[Pemba]

So you think that the Paris climate agreement would have actually reduced carbon emissions in the future?

Many have rightly pointed out that while the West was required to institute severe economically crippling restrictions, the second and third world were not.

On the world stage, this meant that many second world powers would come to an advantage over the West in setting future economic and even climate policy. So the question in the end is, "do you really want Nations such as China to lead the planet in environmental policy?"

And if cognitive dissonance is strong enough in you to have answered yes, then you are in for a big surprise once those totalitarian regimes begin to call the shots for the environment. Just a hint, their track record ain't that great.

And leaving the Paris Climate agreement helps to reduce carbon emissions... how? Your argumentation is so overly simplistic and clearly also has been manipulated by Trump and Fox (China!). Not sure if you are aware, but Trump would love nothing more than to have authoritarian rule over the US...

Good thing we have someone as sophisticated as yourself explaining things then.

Someone disagrees with me -> manipulated by Trump and Fox

There is so much nuance in that statement you would think it was written by Buddha, Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, Einstein or maybe a combination of all of them.

It would be a good question to ask Matteo V what is the alternative? I completely agree with his point that if the "west" agrees to voluntarily slow growth then you are exposing yourself to someone else getting stronger. I don't see how that isn't valid, even if you believe in climate change that should be a concern, but how do you get the best of both by moving out of Paris?

Not that I believe Paris will ever be meaningful for anything else than as a symbol of unity (which isn't necessarily even a good thing when you just fuel the kind of moralizing you see in this thread).

Do you think the world is better of without the Paris agreement then ? What would be a better alternative ? I completely agree with Matteo and maybe you that the West likes to kid themselves but I don't see how the nationalism that you see coming up in many places now would make things any better. Theoretically the national environment maybe (although I don't see any of that happening) but not internationally. Those who care about the environment ("the west") should remain or make itself strong (or great) by not caring too much about environmen(tal regulations) so that we won't be dictated by those who care less about environment (China and third world countries) in the first place ? That's pretty hopeless..

[Havre]

And leaving the Paris Climate agreement helps to reduce carbon emissions... how? Your argumentation is so overly simplistic and clearly also has been manipulated by Trump and Fox (China!). Not sure if you are aware, but Trump would love nothing more than to have authoritarian rule over the US...

Good thing we have someone as sophisticated as yourself explaining things then.

Someone disagrees with me -> manipulated by Trump and Fox

There is so much nuance in that statement you would think it was written by Buddha, Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, Einstein or maybe a combination of all of them.

It would be a good question to ask Matteo V what is the alternative? I completely agree with his point that if the "west" agrees to voluntarily slow growth then you are exposing yourself to someone else getting stronger. I don't see how that isn't valid, even if you believe in climate change that should be a concern, but how do you get the best of both by moving out of Paris?

Not that I believe Paris will ever be meaningful for anything else than as a symbol of unity (which isn't necessarily even a good thing when you just fuel the kind of moralizing you see in this thread).

Do you think the world is better of without the Paris agreement then ? What would be a better alternative ? I completely agree with Matteo and maybe you that the West likes to kid themselves but I don't see how the nationalism that you see coming up in many places now would make things any better. Theoretically the national environment maybe (although I don't see any of that happening) but not internationally. Those who care about the environment ("the west") should remain or make itself strong (or great) by not caring too much about environmen(tal regulations) so that we won't be dictated by those who care less about environment (China and third world countries) in the first place ? That's pretty hopeless..

I don't have a strong view on that. I think there are good things about Paris (and those kind of agreements in general), but I don't think it is all good.

I mentioned the potentially paradoxical dividing effect it could have. I also wonder if those kind of consensus driven agreements lead those that otherwise would have done more to do less (that is not necessarily going to happen as you can of course agree to Paris and do more). Will it reduce creativity as every country is just following what everyone else are doing?

On the other hand if we all could agree on something (whatever that is - climate change or nuclear weapons) that has to be a positive. If the agreement is sincere and not just virtue signaling etc.

I would challenge Matteo V to suggest a better way. Even if I don't always agree with him (certainly not the rhetoric) I do think he often has solid arguments - and I would expect him to have some good ones (better than mine) here.

[Pemba]

Good thing we have someone as sophisticated as yourself explaining things then.

Someone disagrees with me -> manipulated by Trump and Fox

There is so much nuance in that statement you would think it was written by Buddha, Shakespeare, Dostoyevsky, Einstein or maybe a combination of all of them.

It would be a good question to ask Matteo V what is the alternative? I completely agree with his point that if the "west" agrees to voluntarily slow growth then you are exposing yourself to someone else getting stronger. I don't see how that isn't valid, even if you believe in climate change that should be a concern, but how do you get the best of both by moving out of Paris?

Not that I believe Paris will ever be meaningful for anything else than as a symbol of unity (which isn't necessarily even a good thing when you just fuel the kind of moralizing you see in this thread).

Do you think the world is better of without the Paris agreement then ? What would be a better alternative ? I completely agree with Matteo and maybe you that the West likes to kid themselves but I don't see how the nationalism that you see coming up in many places now would make things any better. Theoretically the national environment maybe (although I don't see any of that happening) but not internationally. Those who care about the environment ("the west") should remain or make itself strong (or great) by not caring too much about environmen(tal regulations) so that we won't be dictated by those who care less about environment (China and third world countries) in the first place ? That's pretty hopeless..

I don't have a strong view on that. I think there are good things about Paris (and those kind of agreements in general), but I don't think it is all good.

I mentioned the potentially paradoxical dividing effect it could have. I also wonder if those kind of consensus driven agreements lead those that otherwise would have done more to do less (that is not necessarily going to happen as you can of course agree to Paris and do more). Will it reduce creativity as every country is just following what everyone else are doing?

On the other hand if we all could agree on something (whatever that is - climate change or nuclear weapons) that has to be a positive. If the agreement is sincere and not just virtue signaling etc.

I would challenge Matteo V to suggest a better way. Even if I don't always agree with him (certainly not the rhetoric) I do think he often has solid arguments - and I would expect him to have some good ones (better than mine) here.

I think many aspects of the environment are international issues therefore better dealt with at international level. But sure, there are negatives to the Paris agreements and others. I also think that Matteo makes some very good points, I agree with quite a few, although not on his position on AGW. It's a pity that his points appear to be ignored by many and this is not very convincing for their side of the argument. Matteo is also able to stay reasonable and polite generally (but not always). It should be possible to have opposing views and remain friendly. Sadly that doesn't appear to be the case for very many.

[prop_joe]

No idea about Trump and Bolsonaro's personal opinions. But they are acting like AGW doesn't exist wouldn't you say ?

No idea tbh. All mainstream media paint him as the devil whatever he does so i don't really pay attention, i get the impression half the time he's just winding up the journo's so any of the 'hoax' type comments i take with a pinch of salt. I'd be interested to hear what he actually thinks on climate change, i'd be surprised if he outright denies agw. But in the crazy, finger pointing, twitter mob world we live in nowadays unless you drive a prius and go rioting with Greta your a climate change denier... let alone dare to question anything . Same with all the modern movements, you've either got to be fully in support or your a biggot... there all just branches from the same tree, societal cancer's imo.

Come on Prop-Joe, no idea ? You really have no opinion if Trump and Bolsonaro act for or against the existence of AGW ? Is this then because you suspect the press, social media are hiding their real actions from us ? Maybe Trump doesn't even exist ?

I do agree with the general lines of your post on social media, press and general opinion though.

Not really. I have an opinion which i expressed was my guess but i've never heard or seen him sit down and talk with someone about it. Other than him pulling out the Paris agreement i don't really know what he has/hasn't done regarding climate, i believe he likes fossil fuels? I'd heard the Paris agreement, like many things, wasn't quite cracked up to what it was supposed to be, think this is what Matteo's elluding to. Don't know anything about Bolsonero other than i heard he likes chopping trees and he's South Americas Trump. But yeah, the press only seem to highlight the negative and never the positive with him... obviously i suppose as they pretty much all want him out. Lol Maybe he doesn't, never met the guy, only ever seen him on the little black box in the corner... a bit like covid really

[prop_joe]

No idea about Trump and Bolsonaro's personal opinions. But they are acting like AGW doesn't exist wouldn't you say ?

No idea tbh. All mainstream media paint him as the devil whatever he does so i don't really pay attention, i get the impression half the time he's just winding up the journo's so any of the 'hoax' type comments i take with a pinch of salt. I'd be interested to hear what he actually thinks on climate change, i'd be surprised if he outright denies agw. But in the crazy, finger pointing, twitter mob world we live in nowadays unless you drive a prius and go rioting with Greta your a climate change denier... let alone dare to question anything . Same with all the modern movements, you've either got to be fully in support or your a biggot... there all just branches from the same tree, societal cancer's imo.

So much ignorance, projection and stupidity in one post: you show us time and time again there is not bottom. It’s quite sad your brain has been completely manipulated by Fox News and conspiracy groups.

It’s not about what Trump says or believes, it is about what he does. Withdrawing from the Paris Climate agreement kinda speaks for its self.

Thanks very much . Yes I agree with regard to ignorance, the worrying thing is the more i learn about politics and climate the more i realise just how much i don't know... however, unlike in my youth i enjoy learning nowadays. I'm interested to know what or why you think what i said is stupid... it may well be but unlike your posts at least it's honest. For you maybe but in this instance i'm interested in what he believes. ps - i don't watch Fox news nor have i seen any Trump or Climate conspiracies so yet again your assumptions are inaccurate.

ps - I think Toby should introduce corrections... reckon you, sharksky and slide might owe me one or two

[Pemba]

No idea tbh. All mainstream media paint him as the devil whatever he does so i don't really pay attention, i get the impression half the time he's just winding up the journo's so any of the 'hoax' type comments i take with a pinch of salt. I'd be interested to hear what he actually thinks on climate change, i'd be surprised if he outright denies agw. But in the crazy, finger pointing, twitter mob world we live in nowadays unless you drive a prius and go rioting with Greta your a climate change denier... let alone dare to question anything . Same with all the modern movements, you've either got to be fully in support or your a biggot... there all just branches from the same tree, societal cancer's imo.

Come on Prop-Joe, no idea ? You really have no opinion if Trump and Bolsonaro act for or against the existence of AGW ? Is this then because you suspect the press, social media are hiding their real actions from us ? Maybe Trump doesn't even exist ?

I do agree with the general lines of your post on social media, press and general opinion though.

Not really. I have an opinion which i expressed was my guess but i've never heard or seen him sit down and talk with someone about it. Other than him pulling out the Paris agreement i don't really know what he has/hasn't done regarding climate, i believe he likes fossil fuels? I'd heard the Paris agreement, like many things, wasn't quite cracked up to what it was supposed to be, think this is what Matteo's elluding to. Don't know anything about Bolsonero other than i heard he likes chopping trees and he's South Americas Trump. But yeah, the press only seem to highlight the negative and never the positive with him... obviously i suppose as they pretty much all want him out. Lol Maybe he doesn't, never met the guy, only ever seen him on the little black box in the corner... a bit like covid really

I think Trump goes further than just liking fossil fuels. I think he kind of helps or promotes them or the companies that are involved with them a.o. by turning back environmental regulations. Which makes me think he acts as if AGW doesn't exist. But it might all be a lie, he might be paying Greenpeace etc in secret or something. It's all possible, who knows. But I do have that opinion. Don't know much about Bolsonaro either other than what you've just mentioned. But being known for chopping trees isn't indicative of believing in AGW. Certainly not proof but enough to form an opinion for me. But not a very strong or well informed one obviously.

[Matteo V]

And leaving the Paris Climate agreement helps to reduce carbon emissions... how? Your argumentation is so overly simplistic and clearly also has been manipulated by Trump and Fox (China!).

It helps by not giving those in power in second and third world countries a chance to continue along the environmentally destructive path which they have been on. Regardless of whether or not it solves the problem, it does stop it from becoming unsolvable in the future. This is a very realistic assumption in that these second and third world countries have shown no regard for the environment in the past, present, and with future policies, other than with promises that they are not held it to by any real consequences.

Not sure if you are aware, but Trump would love nothing more than to have authoritarian rule over the US...

I am unable to defend against anything that you say someone else thinks. So yes, I guess I am - and will remain unaware - that Trump wishes to have authoritarian rule over the US. Do you mean like as in Xi Jinping style dictatorial rule for life? If so, I was also unaware that this was being pushed through the legislative branch by Trump. Would that also not take a constitutional amendment?

[Matteo V]

It would be a good question to ask Matteo V what is the alternative? I completely agree with his point that if the "west" agrees to voluntarily slow growth then you are exposing yourself to someone else getting stronger. I don't see how that isn't valid, even if you believe in climate change that should be a concern, but how do you get the best of both by moving out of Paris?

Not that I believe Paris will ever be meaningful for anything else than as a symbol of unity (which isn't necessarily even a good thing when you just fuel the kind of moralizing you see in this thread).

First off, it does stop the virtue signaling that is a persistent cancer in the environmental movement. When those who are most passionate about solving an issue, wind up being the ones who make the problem worse, we gain much by stopping their worthless or harmful actions.

Next, real action should be taken with regard to rewarding population reduction in countries where it is naturally taking place. Growth, as a supported policy, should be abandoned for sustainability and eventual reduction. Both of these policies rely first on changing the banking system to where growth is no longer required for prosperity. And this is likely the one true insurmountable task that must be achieved, because of sheer opposition from those in control of the current banking system.

And finally, the absurd environmental policy of "not in my backyard", should be ended. Products for consumption in the West, which would be much more expensive if they were produced in the West due to environmental restrictions existing in the West, should still be produced at that higher cost in the West. We need to end outsourcing our pollution to second and third world countries. No longer should the West enjoy a lifestyle of relatively pollution-free land, water, and air, while those in second and third world countries are choking on the pollution that supports our lifestyles.



So there are your solutions. Intelligent environmentalist are well aware that the above are the only real actions that will have any meaning or bearing on our future. They also know, given the stupidity, gullibility, and greed, of everyone from your average person to the leaders of countries, implementation of all of these would be an insurmountable task.

So why not just sell you some solar panels made in China? And then mandate that you pay more for your wind generated electricity which supports large subsidy taking corporations. All the while getting you worked up about something that isn't even enough of a problem in comparison to the reality that we are facing. Then have a meeting of those world leaders and create some piece of paper to pacify, or even create division, as a distraction from the fact that those world leaders would still continue to live the same lavish Lifestyles regardless of any agreement.

Anyone care to claim that that is an inaccurate assessment of the situation???