U.S. sinks Arctic accord due to climate change differences

[PoS]

So a list that consists overwhelmingly of conservative/libertarian think tanks and fossil fuel/polluter associated/funded lobby groups, and a guy who literally pulled the 40% figure out of his ass without qualification as a guess; I'm not sure I'd consider that particularly persuasive; just saying.

Post a legit news link that refutes it then, I dare you.

 

[Surrealistik]

Post a legit news link that refutes it then, I dare you.

Post a legit news link that specifically refutes a notorious skeptic's asinine, unsourced asspull claim of 40%? Sure chief, I'll get right on that, nevermind that the burden of proof isn't on me here, or the inevitable denial of anything I do source as being legitimate.

Having said that, I'm not even particularly invested in this back and forth, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of referencing these things as any kind of meaningful or authoritative source/rebuttal.

Anyways, here's a paper on the matter: Expert credibility in climate change | PNAS

If he's talking about scientists in general (which isn't particularly meaningful even if it were true), I can't help you because to my knowledge the research on that has never been done; by Singer, or anyone else.

 

[marke]

[h=1]U.S. sinks Arctic accord due to climate change differences[/h]U.S. sinks Arctic accord due to climate change differences | Kitco News

ROVANIEMI, Finland, May 7 (Reuters) - The United States has refused to sign an agreement on challenges in the Arctic due to discrepancies over climate change wording, diplomats said on Tuesday, jeopardising cooperation in the polar region at the sharp edge of global warming.

Temperatures in the Arctic are rising at twice the rate of the rest of the globe, and melting ice has opened vast untapped oil and gas reserves to potential commercial exploitation.

A meeting of nations bordering the Arctic in Rovaniemi in northern Finland on Tuesday was supposed to frame a two-year agenda to balance the challenges of climate change with sustainable development of mineral wealth.

A diplomatic source with knowledge of the discussions said the United States balked at signing as it disagreed with wording in the declaration stating that climate change was a serious threat to the Arctic. A second source confirmed that.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"drill baby, drill"

Even if temperatures are rising no amount of trillions of dollars from the US will make the slightest difference in its progression.

 

[PoS]

Post a legit news link that specifically refutes a notorious skeptic's asinine, unsourced asspull claim of 40%? Sure chief, I'll get right on that, nevermind that the burden of proof isn't on me here, or the inevitable denial of anything I do source as being legitimate.

Having said that, I'm not even particularly invested in this back and forth, I'm just pointing out the absurdity of referencing these things as any kind of meaningful or authoritative source/rebuttal.

Anyways, here's a paper on the matter: Expert credibility in climate change | PNAS

If he's talking about scientists in general (which isn't particularly meaningful even if it were true), I can't help you because to my knowledge the research on that has never been done; by Singer, or anyone else.

Ah so I guess its isnt Singer who's talking out of his ass, then... instead its someone right here.

 

[jmotivator]

All the scientific evidence conclusively says she is.

Ok, I think the only thing that is set to end in 12 years is your trust in climate science.

We've passed enough of these "X years until doomsday" mile markers without incident that it should be clear that the only purpose for them is political. Your hint is that they are usually delivered by politicians.

 

[Vadinho]

The internet is like the Bible. If you search long enough you'll find affirmation for whatever it is you believe. Personally, I decide first who the experts are, where the weightiest authority is likely to be, and look there first. On the subject of climate change that's obviously NASA, the JPL, the NOAA, even the British Antarctic Survey. Those who deny that climate change is a problem, though, have no trouble finding fringe bloggers who cherry-pick statistical anomalies that make them feel like they're refuting science.
It comes back to two things- environmental concern has become a 'librul' thing and wealthy people are percieved as being intelligent by some people who feel like they can look intelligent by agreeing with them.

I agree but only one party or group is becoming a force politically based upon what appears to all as nothing more then willful ignorance and defiance of expertise on this matter. Why? its clear that the main support is from people who consider any environmental issue to be linked to liberals and because that is their mindset, they reflexively hate anything to do with the politics of the environment. What blows me away about these people is that many of them hunt, fish and enjoy the out of doors yet somehow cannot connect the dots.

 

[HumblePi]

Ok, I think the only thing that is set to end in 12 years is your trust in climate science.

We've passed enough of these "X years until doomsday" mile markers without incident that it should be clear that the only purpose for them is political. Your hint is that they are usually delivered by politicians.

Quite the opposite and you have not presented any good reasons why we shouldn't pay attention to the threat of global warming and do something about it now. The dangers of climate change are insidious, or at least used to be. I'd compare it to the old fable about boiling a frog. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death.

But in recent years, we're seeing that the planet is heating up even faster than scientists had predicted. We're seeing historically fierce storms, 1000-year floods, fires. And oceans warming to the point where coral is dying and marine life migrating to cooler water causing a depletion of fishing in areas of the country.

The biggest reason the US hasn't been doing more is because our government is feeding people like you arguments against scientific evidence by scaring you with 'death panel' situations like, "you won't be able to eat beef anymore!!" "Democrats want to eliminate airplanes and trains!" This is propaganda intended to scare you and justify our government denying the dangers of global warming. The reason they're scaring you is very simple. In the years since the Paris climate agreement, banks have paid $1.9 trillion dollars to finance fossil fuels.

The fossil fuel industries have been the most well-funded in world history and those industries are willing to spend millions of dollars to obfuscate and create misconceptions. And that is frustrating because those dollars come from the taxpayers, because they get $27 billion dollars of subsidies and they turn around and tell deceptions to the public. We need to end those $27 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and put those resources into research and development of safer, cleaner energy sources.

 

[jmotivator]

Quite the opposite and you have not presented any good reasons why we shouldn't pay attention to the threat of global warming and do something about it now.

I have been arguing against these doomsday prognostications since the beginning. They keep being wrong, and fools keep accepting them on, I assume, the belief that they have to be right eventually. At some point, when the Sun has exhausted in fisionable fuel, and begins to expand, as the Earth is slowly engulfed of the corona, there will be some climate alarmist numbskull in an escape pod somewhere saying "SEE I TOLD YA SO!!"

The reason you don't believe them is because they have never been right.

 

[Buzz62]

Quite the opposite and you have not presented any good reasons why we shouldn't pay attention to the threat of global warming and do something about it now. The dangers of climate change are insidious, or at least used to be. I'd compare it to the old fable about boiling a frog. The premise is that if a frog is put suddenly into boiling water, it will jump out, but if the frog is put in tepid water which is then brought to a boil slowly, it will not perceive the danger and will be cooked to death.

But in recent years, we're seeing that the planet is heating up even faster than scientists had predicted. We're seeing historically fierce storms, 1000-year floods, fires. And oceans warming to the point where coral is dying and marine life migrating to cooler water causing a depletion of fishing in areas of the country.

The biggest reason the US hasn't been doing more is because our government is feeding people like you arguments against scientific evidence by scaring you with 'death panel' situations like, "you won't be able to eat beef anymore!!" "Democrats want to eliminate airplanes and trains!" This is propaganda intended to scare you and justify our government denying the dangers of global warming. The reason they're scaring you is very simple. In the years since the Paris climate agreement, banks have paid $1.9 trillion dollars to finance fossil fuels.

The fossil fuel industries have been the most well-funded in world history and those industries are willing to spend millions of dollars to obfuscate and create misconceptions. And that is frustrating because those dollars come from the taxpayers, because they get $27 billion dollars of subsidies and they turn around and tell deceptions to the public. We need to end those $27 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and put those resources into research and development of safer, cleaner energy sources.

As a matter of fact, the planet IS warming up. Has been for quite some time now. See...our perception of 'time' is fairly irrelevant to the time it takes for Earth to go through natural changes. I would think the north polar cap may go through massive upheaval in the coming years. As a result, we do see some rather interesting weather patterns and events. This too is only natural. But no frogs are gonna cook, and marine life is in more danger from all the plastics we heave into the oceans, then from warmer water. One of the "cooler" things about life on Earth, is its magnificent ability to adapt.

What I'm saying is...its pretty gawd-damn obvious now, that the dooms-day predictions are all just talk. Dangerous talk at that. The "science" behind man-made global warming is...in a word...huey. Its become nothing more than a tool of power. Nothing more.

Research SHOULD be done to find cleaner sources of energy. They should be tested and implemented if cost effective, in order to SUPLEMENT that which we already have. And who knows? Perhaps after additional research, we'll happen across a source of energy that is truly "clean". Because lets face it...changing carbon in the air, for mountains of spent batteries in the ground, is not a "wise" solution.

 

[Vadinho]

I have been arguing against these doomsday prognostications since the beginning. They keep being wrong, and fools keep accepting them on, I assume, the belief that they have to be right eventually. At some point, when the Sun has exhausted in fisionable fuel, and begins to expand, as the Earth is slowly engulfed of the corona, there will be some climate alarmist numbskull in an escape pod somewhere saying "SEE I TOLD YA SO!!"

The reason you don't believe them is because they have never been right.

I agree that forecasting to the year is almost impossible but why focus on these types of political statements instead of the real trend and issue? The experts are mostly in agreement, drastic changes in patterns will continue and it is due to man.

 

[jmotivator]

I agree that forecasting to the year is almost impossible but why focus on these types of political statements instead of the real trend and issue? The experts are mostly in agreement, drastic changes in patterns will continue and it is due to man.

Patterns don't continue. Climate is always in flux. The Earth has been hotter, the Earth has been colder, the Earth has never been static. Climate Alarmism is like noticing the temperature has risen 5 degrees since sun rise and concluding that the oceans will be boiling by noon tomorrow.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Patterns don't continue. Climate is always in flux. The Earth has been hotter, the Earth has been colder, the Earth has never been static. Climate Alarmism is like noticing the temperature has risen 5 degrees since sun rise and concluding that the oceans will be boiling by noon tomorrow.

Right, though humans are causing this current warming trend due to the liquid dinosaurs we're burning so that we can have conveniences such as mobility. That fact isn't in dispute.

 

[Vadinho]

Patterns don't continue. Climate is always in flux. The Earth has been hotter, the Earth has been colder, the Earth has never been static. Climate Alarmism is like noticing the temperature has risen 5 degrees since sun rise and concluding that the oceans will be boiling by noon tomorrow.

I bet you even acknowledge that your comment here is more alarmist then whatever it is you are criticizing. The argument that the Earth has been going through climate cycles is a very silly tactic and one that serious people discount immediately. Rather then belabor the point again, I can only point to data showing the climate changing dramatically since the Industrial Revolution. Trapped carbon is being released into the atmosphere at rates that will make human life very difficult in the coming decades. If you dispute this then there is no point in engaging any further.

 

[Surrealistik]

Ah so I guess its isnt Singer who's talking out of his ass, then... instead its someone right here.

Just throwing out a guess (as he specifically describes it) at 40% of all scientists (which again, isn't meaningful; it's the specialist view of those who actually study the subject that matters) and sourcing and referencing nothing in support of this would be the definition of a classic ass-pull.

 

[PoS]

Just throwing out a guess (as he specifically describes it) at 40% of all scientists (which again, isn't meaningful; it's the specialist view of those who actually study the subject that matters) and sourcing and referencing nothing in support of this would be the definition of a classic ass-pull.

Since he's a climatologist who works in that field and knows others, I think I'll take his word over yours or Ocasio-Cortez's...

 

[Surrealistik]

Since he's a climatologist who works in that field and knows others, I think I'll take his word over yours or Ocasio-Cortez's...

I've made no assertions; I'm merely pointing out he made an unsourced ass-pull guess at something that is in actuality meaningless (again, because even if true, an aggregate of all scientists doesn't really matter as their fields of specialization in the majority aren't on the subject of climate science; meanwhile if he's referring to climate scientists, that's demonstrably wrong per the research I linked you) which he absolutely did.

 

[PoS]

I've made no assertions; I'm merely pointing out he made an unsourced ass-pull guess at something that is in actuality meaningless (again, because even if true, an aggregate of all scientists doesn't really matter as their fields of specialization in the majority aren't on the subject of climate science; meanwhile if he's referring to climate scientists, that's demonstrably wrong per the research I linked you) which he absolutely did.

Like I said, prove its an ass-pull. Because it looks to me that someone else is doing the ass-pulling here just because it doesnt jive with his side.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Trump is ignoring the warnings from his own federal agencies.

"The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. More frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities. Future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life, exacerbating existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and economic inequality. Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally. People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts. Prioritizing adaptation actions for the most vulnerable populations would contribute to a more equitable future within and across communities. Global action to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce climate-related risks and increase opportunities for these populations in the longer term."


Fourth National Climate Assessment

 

[Bergslagstroll]

US have also refused to sign a deal to regulate the shipment of plastic waste to developing countries.

"Almost all the world’s countries have agreed on a deal aimed at restricting shipments of hard-to-recycle plastic waste to poorer countries, the United Nations announced on Friday.

Exporting countries – including the US – now will have to obtain consent from countries receiving contaminated, mixed or unrecyclable plastic waste. Currently, the US and other countries can send lower-quality plastic waste to private entities in developing countries without getting approval from their governments.

Since China stopped accepting recycling from the US, activists say they have observed plastic waste piling up in developing countries. The Global Alliance for Incinerator Alternatives (Gaia), a backer of the deal, says it found villages in Indonesia, Thailand and Malaysia that had “turned into dumpsites over the course of a year”."

Nearly all countries agree to stem flow of plastic waste into poor nations | Environment | The Guardian

 

[Surrealistik]

Like I said, prove its an ass-pull. Because it looks to me that someone else is doing the ass-pulling here just because it doesnt jive with his side.

Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.

 

[PoS]

Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.

As opposed to just bias? Hey, if you want to believe the world will end in 12 years, go for it. I'll stick to facts.

 

[Surrealistik]

As opposed to just bias? Hey, if you want to believe the world will end in 12 years, go for it. I'll stick to facts.

Not my opinion; all I did is point out an obvious, unsourced ass-pull which is meaningless even if true, nothing more.

 

[PoS]

Not my opinion; all I did is point out an obvious, unsourced ass-pull which is meaningless even if true, nothing more.

Nope. Its obvious youve taken sides. You'd rather believe a high school drop out who claims she can see CO2 in the air than a climatologist. OK, well thats you.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Confirmation bias is a hell of a drug.

Yes, for eexample that PoS call scientific reports lies without providing any evidence for why they are lies.

While at the same time he take it as truth then one person make a guess without having any facts to back up that guess.

While the scientific consensus on climate change is clear.

Scientific Consensus | Facts – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

The 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change are all flawed — Quartz

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Examples of the warming in the arctic.

Canada warming twice as fast as the rest of the world, report says - BBC News

March Temperatures in Alaska: 20 Degrees Hotter Than Usual - The New York Times

While global impact of climate change are accelarting.

Climate change: Global impacts 'accelerating' - WMO - BBC News