"Just like I said they would..." Topic

Wealthy countries are backing away from their climate promises. The Trump administration will participate in its first meeting of the world's 20 largest economies later this week, and it's probably no coincidence that G-20 finance ministers are watering down their commitment to the Paris climate change agreement ahead of time.
Back in July, the same G-20 group issued a statement saying governments should pay the $100 USD billion per year they had committed under the Paris accord and put policies in place to bring the agreement "into force as soon as possible." Now, Bloomberg has a draft of a statement from the finance ministers that suggests development banks — like the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development — should raise private money to pay the bill. Governments, it argues, are already too strapped. It's unclear which countries pushed for the change in tone.

link

I'd say it is also unclear how other organizations, who assumedly get their money from these same strapped countries are going to manage to foot the bill. If private money was available and folks were that committed, one would have thought that maybe they would have ponied up already – maybe get by on only four mansions, and "carpool" on each others private jets for various events.

Spending other people's hard earned money isn't as easy or popular as it used to be.

It's very easy to make grandiose promises until the bill actually comes due. Especially with the peer pressure of the other buffoons making their own grandiose promises and you not wanting to be outdone.

But just as lacking in validity as most of the things you hear when folks boast "If I was in that situation, I would have…(fill in the blank)"

VERY easy to claim with absolute certainty what you would or would not do when you are not actually in that particular circumstance. An entirely different things when you are.

But if you look back through my many posts, I've continually pointed out that if nothing else, the following factors were at play and would be problematic:
1. There is no replacement that can be brought on line TODAY to replace the power generated by (those evil, wicked) carbon dioxide generating sources.
2. That power is needed TODAY for the economies of the world.
3. Many of those economies are ALREADY skating on thin ice in terms of economic stability, safety and solvency
4. No country is going to altruistically cut their own throats economically to satisfy this sort of pledge.
5. A number of key nations have already pledged that they WOULD NOT cut back for several years, and then, cutting back would be at an uncertain rate
6. In many countries like in the EU, their economies are also having to absorb millions of migrants whose needs, expectations, etc. would put an even bigger burden on them in terms of power needed, and economic "spare funds" to use for paying their commitments. Want to guess what the impact will be when Turkey opens up the migrant floodgates as promised? How many hundreds of thousands will continue to risk the Med by boat to get to Europe?

Martin can post all the scientific papers he wants. Charlie DiCaprio can make fun of me as much as he wants. Bowman can disagree with me as much as he wants.

Like it or not, reality has a way of showing up and affecting whatever lofty goals folks may have. This is just one more instance.

I can't be overdrawn, I still have a ton of blank checks!

The Globalists must be going out of their minds. Lol.

Don't worry. I'm sure they'll suddenly discover a Near Earth Object headed straight for us and scheduled to hit us in a 100 years or so. And if you question their interpretation of the data they'll call you a heretic and accuse you of attacking science itself.

Dan

Bowman can disagree with me as much as he wants.

I'll disagree with you when I think you are wrong about the Science. And I have no problem in doing so.

This is politics and has nothing to do with the science of climate change. It's like following Lamar Smith and that donkey show of his Committee on Science, Space and Technology and thinking that is Science.

I think zoneofcontrol hits the nail on the head.

I'm not claiming it is science. Just that it represents the problems with governments actually doing what they promised on the issue.

It doesn't matter how serious the science says things are. In the end, the needs of the "now" will almost always trump the "a century from now" no matter how dire things in a hundred years will be.

As the old saying goes, it is hard to remember you are there to drain the swamp when you are up to your ass in alligators.

I think zoneofcontrol hits the nail on the head.

I disagree and offer our government as a prime example. They are more than happy to spend other people's hard earned money, and a whole lot more all with little regard for the consequences of their wanton disregard of the enormity of the peril it grows.

I'm not claiming it is science

Then why place it on this board?

MIT weighs in with some clear science on the subject.

link

No MIT doesn't weigh in… Richard Lindzen weighs in. Whose arguments have been repeatedly debunked.

Do better…

I'm not claiming it is science.

Hmmmmm…. This is the Science Board, is it not?

Just that it represents the problems with governments actually doing what they promised on the issue.

Which might be germane to, say, an Economics Board or a Public Policy Board. But a Science Board? Not so much…

@Terrement,

Here's a Science-related matter to discuss then …

Mark your calendar. April 22 is the 2017 March for Science event. From the tone on their web page it looks like the theme is a call to "save" some aspect of Science:
marchforscience.com

Apparently not all scientists are in agreement as to what the cause of this year's March really is. Here one member of the scientific community with some concerns that maybe Science is not all about Science these days:
link
scienceleftbehind.com

Anyway, let's all come out and give our absolute and undivided support to whatever Science-related cause the 2017 March for Science folks finally decide we should all support. Make sure to wear comfortable shoes though. I'm not a 100% sure but I think there's some walking involved.

Dan

Then why place it on this board?

Because it directly relates to the ability to take action on what science says is needed. Without the ability to take action, or the making of choices of which choices to take, the science, in a vacuum is meaningless.

Have you folks ever written about the IPCC? Pretty sure you have. Pretty sure that is primarily government and not scientists as well.

Besides you folks don't get nearly as pissy as the folks over on the napoleonics board do when I post there.

Since Bowman objects to non-science being posted on this board, one wonders his compulsion to post:

The downside is that this also applies to non-renewable sources of energy like gas, natural gas and coal. Parzival is probably right, only fission and fusion will provide enough for civilization's accelerating thirst for electrical power.

My province, Ontario (pop. 13.5 million) is powered by about 60% nuclear and 24% hydroelectricity (from Niagara Falls and the Niagara river). We have no coal or oil burning for energy. On the down side, the costs of our electricity have been rising steadily.

which sounds like it belongs on the industry and commerce board. NOT science. Oh, but it is OK when he does it, right?

As a fellow pedant, I always learn something on these threads.

…,this pedant's main takeaway is a renewed wish that journalists would look up what "begging the question" means.
Begging the question is actually a logical fallacy:

To astronomers, Sedna's whacky orbit begged an obvious question: How did it get out there?
So the journalist is really using "invites" instead of "begged"?

English vocabulary and grammar board?

….we don't need Dead Billionaires in Spaaaaace!
We don't?

Sarcasm or Humor board?

Is rudeness catching?

Manners board?

And Charley DiCaprio posted:

"Just that it represents the problems with governments actually doing what they promised on the issue."

Which might be germane to, say, an Economics Board or a Public Policy Board. But a Science Board? Not so much…

Yet he is more than willing to give a free pass to those with whom he agrees. Double standard, eh?

"Is there a reason why there is a Science Board that alleges to debate climate issues on a toy soldier gaming site?"
Yeah, I gotta agree with ya there…. Like you, I'd like to see the damn subject banned, but we're in the minority, I guess…

TMP Talk board

Hmmmmmmm…. Lobster burritos…. YUMMMMMMM….

Food Board.

I think what you did is called "quote mining". All of my comments were on threads that dealt with Science and technology. This one, while interesting, belongs on a political board.

MIT weighs in with some clear science on the subject.

Ya, he did good science up until 2013 when he left MIT to become a paid shill for the Cato Institute. This is the same guy who denies a link between lung cancer and smoking (why does the Cato Institute still hang on to this view?) and stated that atmospheric CO2 "boils" off into space, so no heating can occur.

link

link

link

If you can't dispute his findings then it is time to go to the tired old Ad Hominem attack. When you can't debate, attack.

Here one member of the scientific community with some concerns that maybe Science is not all about Science these days:

While I don't agree with all of Berezow's libertarian political viewpoints, he is a good scientist and his reservations above seem fine with me. He wonders why the March for Science seems to dwell on publically funded science, while the majority of science (64%) is done privately, or at private educational institutions with no public funding. I suspect that publically funded science is more apt to be cut in cost cutting government budgets, and that is what March for Science is concerned with.

I like that he is a right winger who goes onto Fox News and blasts them for denying global warming. He also is a big fan of the carbon tax.

If you can't dispute his findings……

Good try, but they have been disputed…..successfully. Look it up. Start with his CO2 leaving the atmosphere into space claim.

Oh and by the way, Lindzen is not an AGW denier. Sorry about that. You can look that up too.

Economics is a science.

Economics is a science.

Well……. As a Social (or "soft") Science, yes. As a "hard" Science (ie, physics, biology, astronomy, etc), no… And I say that as a card-carrying, making-a-living member of that august profession. We do use some of the same tools (in Econometrics, for example), but put us on par with physicists and biologists? Nah…. (A running gag in the field is that economics was invented to give astrology credibility…).

Depends on who you ask. I knew a few Chemists and Physicists that didn't think Biology was a "hard" science either.