President Trump Pulls U.S. Out of the Paris Climate Accord

[dmaziuk]

Wow, I always wondered what happened to that company. Actually, I still wonder. The article focuses on political ties to Obama and didn't get into what the actual problems were.

The idea was to roll solar panels into tubes instead of flat sheets. It didn't work as well as they hoped it would.

 

[Skeptic14]

Yes, it is true that there are scientists who doubt the accuracy of forecasts of global warming.

It should be clarified that what is significant is anthropogenic climate change, not if the climate is changing, I don't think any sane person doubts climate changes and has changed throughout the 4.6 billion year history of our planet. And the doubt isn't about our forecast accuracy, we know how inaccurate our forecast and models are every time we watch the predictions come out vastly off. The doubt is on the degree of climate change directly resulting from human activity, specifically industrialization.

But what is clear is that there is a simply overwhelming scientific consensus that global warming is happening, it is man made, and its effects will be unpredictable.

This simply isn't true, not all parts of the statement anyway. The "it is man made" gets slipped in there with the "consensus" argument and that is incorrect and a misrepresentation of the reality of the oft quoted 98% consensus.

Pointing to quibbling and uncertainty at the edges does not in any way undermine the overwhelming nature of that consensus of informed opinion.

Quite apart from aforesaid consensus, there is a fairly chunky amount of empirical data to draw upon now. Climate modelling is extremely difficult. But measuring temperature increases and sea levels rising is not.

Nevermind the misrepresentation of the consensus, consensus isn't how science works anyway, evidence and accurate model/prediction is how scientific endeavors should be approached. Meaningful scientific discourse should never begin/include consensus arguments.

We have yet to accurately model long term climatic changes on a regional let alone global scale because the "science isn't settled" and we clearly are a long way from fully understanding global climate systems and evolution.

Having temperature measurements and sea level measurements is meaningless by themselves, they in no way can be used to determine if it is part of a natural climatic volatility of our planet or if they are anthropogenic.

Short but good overall explanation on this highly politicized topic:


Renowned chemist giving an extremely in depth explanation (if you like math) of why are climate models continue to be so inaccurate. TLDR; We cannot discern anthropogenic and natural perturbation of our climate which introduces immense error in the models.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THg6vGGRpvA

 

[KathyV]

This article from the Little Cayman Marine Research Institute says that the Paris agreement is inadequate:

‘Aggressive action’ needed to save coral reefs | Cayman Compass

 

[admikar]

I am not an "USian" as Storker named people of USA, so I have no right to say whether Trump's move was good or bad. My interest in this is because of the fact that US position as global superpower influence all of us with its actions. That said......what really annoys me......

Through Sea Save Foundation, I have been a participant in other International CoPs (CITES or the Conference of International Trade of Endangered Species) is one. Through tough work and deliberation, we have successfully gotten hammerheads, mantas, oceanic white tips and many other marine species listed on the Appendices.
The Paris Accord was an agreement that came out of one of these international conferences. According to the agreement, the United States has committed to giving a three-year notice if we want to withdrawal. Trump gave notice in the rose garden a few days ago.
My question is, why would we pull out? We walked away from a discussion. Being part of that discussion did not mandate anything. Leaving the international group and saying we will see if we can negotiate a better agreement in the future does not make sense. We were already at the negotiating table. While personally, I think that we should double down on our commitment, our involvement in the accord did not mean that we would. It just meant that we realized that we need to work together with other sovereign nations if we are going to discuss environmental issues because these challenges do not recognize political boundaries.

Those that are most dedicated to this accord could always lead by example.

To fight climate change, start with Leonardo DiCaprio's private jet lifestyle

@Georgienne Bradley, your profile say that you're "Dive travel professional". I don't know if that means that you travel a lot or you organize a travel for others. Anyway, your actions are contributing to spending a lot of fuel, which in your belief are part of aforementioned environmental issues. Are you willing to stop what are you doing for benefit of the environment? Are you willing to stop using any form of transportation with ICE? Are you ready to lead by an example?

Are you a scientist? I am one. And because I am one, I'd never dream about second-guessing climate scientists. Because I know how much advanced knowledge that goes into a scientific publication.

I'm sure I can remember few instances where scientists were wrong. Flat Earth was one of them....

 

[BDSC]

Anyway, your actions are contributing to spending a lot of fuel, which in your belief are part of aforementioned environmental issues. Are you willing to stop what are you doing for benefit of the environment? Are you willing to stop using any form of transportation with ICE? Are you ready to lead by an example?

I'm fairly certain the answer is going to be no.

 

[Blasto]

Yes, as a scientist having your work published involves a fairly rigorous peer review process. It is not flawless, of course, but it is a pretty good acid bath.

I got stuff published that I later realized to be wrong.

No, the heavens didn't smite me. No, I wasn't blackballed. No, the journal didn't publish a retractions. No, I didn't either. No, there isn't even a mechanism for me to do that, a "sorry I screwed up" button. All I can do is mention, when publishing new results and conclusions, that the old ones should be disregarded.

What matters as far as the scientific process is concerned is that it wasn't intentional fraud, the methods were accepted as scientific, and the paper followed the IMRAD format - that was the most important part, really.

 

[Storker]

'm sure I can remember few instances where scientists were wrong. Flat Earth was one of them....

The Galileo gambit. Cute.

 

[admikar]

It just serves as a point that you're not mistake proof just by being a scientist. I'm speaking in general, not about you personally.

 

[dmaziuk]

The Galileo gambit. Cute.

If he can remember the 1600s, he wasn't there.

 

[diver0008]

My question has been, and remains, what negative effects result from the US withdrawal from the Paris Accords?

So far the responses have been vague references to "leadership", "China", "Mean Orange Man".

Because no one knows.

No one has a crystal ball.

No one knows if the climate change predictions will come true.

No one knows if agreements will be honored.

No one knows what other factors or catastophes either environmental or financial will arise.

There are too many known unknowns and indeterminable unknown unknowns for anyone to know anything really.

But what we all do know is that tomorrow the family must eat, and the mortgage must be paid.

Jet-set back-patting politicians and diplomats earmarking my money for a plethora of unknowns when my knowns are real and immediate is a non-starter.

Glad Trump has got the peoples' priorities straight.