Paris climate change deal.

Post Reply New Topic

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/12/world/glo ... ence-vote/


If other countries decide to participate in the climate change deal, we may actually have a chance in saving humanity.

They can agree to whatever they want, it's can't and won't be enforced. It is not legally binding. If you really believe this was Earth's last hope then it is time to give up.

It is highly unlikely that unchecked global warming will bring about the end of humanity. The only event that can do this right now is probably nuclear war.

What we can hope to avoid with the Paris Agreement (this is apparently it's official name) are millions (perhaps hundreds of millions in a worst case scenario) of dead due to drought, starvation, conflict due to displacement etc.

But in the end, this depends on the accord being enforced and credibly implemented.

It also requires ratification:


Source: United Nations - Adoption of the Paris Agreement

However, with China apparently on board (unlike the disaster in Copenhagen), reaching 55/55 will be significantly easier.

I wouldn't buy beachfront property yet.

Rich countries will give money to third world countries that cannot afford to "go Green".

How this works is that the big international banks type a debt into their bank balance book, say minus a hundred billion dollars which they then print and give to say India.
This money doesn't actually exist, its debt, but the books will balance once you Global warming believers in the West earn and pay the bankers a hundred billion dollars of real money, plus interest, no wonder they invented Global Warming, they are happy because they get loads of free money, you are happy because you think you are saving the world.

You guys really should read "The Creature from Jekyll Island".

And, when the balloon goes "BANG!", the last audible voice will be that of a denier claiming it's all a watermelon conspiracy.

But Nambo is right. The one mistake is however that that's how the mechanism of any economic growth is designed.
And that, in turn, is why capitalism is struggling a bit, as of late.

The other mistake is that personally, I'm old enough to remember that summers used to be more moderate when I was a kid, and there used to be more snow in winter, and the glaciers reached further down. Something's causing climate change, so why not listen to the science I entrust my life with everytime I go see a doctor, use satnav or turn on my nuclear-fission powered reading lamp.

Cheers, Lending non-existent money is what makes the bankers so rich, its why they keep trying to get you to take out credit cards, this is the same thing but involves countries rather than individuals.

Now when you where born, I remember how cold and grey the summers were compared to the summers we had back in the sixties when I was a kid, which were far hotter than we get now, I used to look forward to winter coming because the summers were so hot.

You guys that are so worried about the Earth, why is it you are only worried about what the money makers tell you to be worried about?, if you want to be worried, try researching Fukushima, about the billions of gallons of plutonium radiated water that is being pumped into the Pacific, that is killing all life that is washing up on Americas Western Coast, you only seem to do what the Establishment tells you to do, they keep quiet about Fukushima because they have screwed up big time, some scientists claim Fukushima is the sort of life ending event such as what happened to kill the dinosaurs, but they cant make money out of that, in fact it would cost them money if people woke up to it and demanded something be done.

If the sumners in the 60ies were so hot, why is 2015 the hottest year on record?

Point taken about fukushima being anything but over;
However, radiation leads to mutation, not extinction. I think most of mankind will keep procreating for a while, even if people start getting leukemia in their twenties.
I'm not a fan of nuclear power either, and yeah, I wouldn't greenlight a powerplant next to the sea. You know, with sea levels rising and all.
Neither would I greenlight oil drilling in the somewhat inaccessible and very rough arctic sea, either.

But a quick meta-question:
Why is it either climate change OR fukushima?
I was of the opinion it was both, and much, much more. Isis, plastics, GMOs, pesticides, bees dying, fracking, traffic, nuclear waste from power plants that work as they should, electronic waste, quicksilver in solar power panels, the scraping of ocean floors to get sand to build chinese high rise ghost towns, overpopulation, gentrification, capitalism, 7th day adventism and lots and lots more

So many things in need of taking care of.
What's wrong with getting started on at least one of them? Because you prefer a different order?

Not to downplay fukushima, I'm still following that. But as you might have realized from this climate change thing: interfering in other countries energy politics is tricky.

The biggest result of the paris convention is that everyone (including the big polluters of china and the US) now agree that it really is time to go do stuff.

The deal itself in not as powerful as advertised indeed, but having everyone agree that it is time, and at least state intent to help the 3rd world in also reducing both the contribution to, and negative effects of, global warming, that is the gain.

I am hopeful that something will happen in the following years, that more substantial short-term goals will be set up and enforced (like: reduce electricity from fossil fuels to 40% of the total by 2030, 20% by 2040, 0% by 2050 or something).

We know a lot about what the Earth's climate was like way back then because of clues that remain in rocks, ice, trees, corals, and fossils.These clues tell us that the Earth's climate has changed many times before. There have been times when most of the planet was covered in ice, and there have also been much warmer periods. Over at least the last 650,000 years, temperatures and carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have increased and decreased in a cyclical pattern. We have been keeping records only recently in human history. There is a of solar phenomena called "Maunder Minimum," which refers to the seven decades, from 1645 to 1715, when the sun's surface ceased its heat-releasing magnetic storms and coincided with the Little Ice Age, a period of chillier temperatures, from around 1550 to 1850 in Europe, North America and Asia, according to NASA.There were three cycles of particularly chilly periods, beginning around 1650, 1770 and 1850, each separated by slight warming intervals, according to NASA. Although the Maunder Minimum corresponds with the first of the three cooling periods, the connection between solar activity and terrestrial climate are topics of on-going research, according to NASA

When top scientists have been caught out manipulating the figures and doing things like place there equipment on rooftops next to hot air vents, you remember "Climategate"? :- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html , you may chose to still trust the information these proven liars still put up, personally, I chose to rely on my own experience, limited as it is to the UK, but I was replying to another UK resident.
Back in the sixties where I lived, summers were far hotter and winters were far colder, it was so hot that the roads used to melt and stick to the tyres of your car, I remember having to make rows of ice lollies to eat to try and cool down.
Nowadays we hardly even get anything worthy of the name summer, 2015 hottest on record?, your having a laugh.
Did you know that global temperatures have not increased for 19 years despite CO2 emissions

Here are a couple of links to demonstrate how the powers that be are being deceptive :-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2425775/Climate-scientists-told-cover-fact-Earths-temperature-risen-15-years.html
http://www.thenewamerican.com/world-news/europe/item/22124-bbc-censors-skepticism-of-human-caused-climate-change

Here are some links showing there has been no "Global Warming" for many years despite an increase in CO2:-
http://www.climatedepot.com/2014/03/04/updated-global-temperature-no-global-warming-for-17-years-6-months-no-warming-for-210-months/

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/17470-nasa-data-global-warming-still-on-pause-sea-ice-hit-record

http://www.ancient-origins.net/news-general/scientists-fear-new-little-ice-age-00999

http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/22003-cooler-heads-prevail-at-texas-climate-summit

If they called it "Global Cooling", I would be more inclined to believe it.
As for radiation leading to mutation rather than extinction, I think you will find that far more creatures die from radiation than mutate, the few that survive might mutate but the majority die off first.

As for whats wrong with tackling Global Warming first when there are indeed so many other things wrong with the Earth? Well, all those other things are caused by big money and the establishment, "Global Warming" is the way the Establishment can shift the blame on us poor people and get us to part with our money.
How about we tackle the destruction of the Earths forests first?, that way there would be plants to absorb the CO2, that might also stop the climate change events we are seeing if the Earth is restored to its natural state?, but no, they will keep cutting down rain forests, and as the destruction of the Earths rain forests cause changes to the climate, the men in power shout "Global Warming, you ordinary people are destroying the Earth, give us more money", whilst they continue to cut down trees and you defend them!

No enforcement mechanism in this deal means the deal is just a bunch of hot air(pun intended)

The money, energy and political capital would be much better spent hardening infrastructure against storms, stopping this insane building on the coasts which have flooded time and again even before the current climate changes. All these glass buildings that are death traps get to stay, while we spend our time comparing people who do not agree with the consensus to holocaust deniers.

Last edited by ASPartOfMe on 14 Dec 2015, 10:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

Some holocaust deniers might resent the comparison, too, but for the converse reason.

Rajendra Pachauri, Chairman of the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, resigned in February. His statement in his resignation letter was as follows:

"For me the protection of Planet Earth, the survival of all species and sustainability of our ecosystems is more than a mission. It is my religion and my dharma."

There you have it. It's a religion to the true believers in anthropogenic climate change.

Science explains things. Religion gives meaning. The science says the climate is changing (as if it were ever static) and that things such as CO2 levels have an impact. The crusaders who take on a mission from Gaia (ala the Blues Brothers) have made that the meaning of their life.

Beware true believers, for they will pervert the science to their own dogma. Humans are bad. Humans are harmful. The earth is good. Etc.

@Nambo
Yes, stopping deforestation is a very good idea.
What I don't get is how you conclude that the blame is put on us, rather than large corporations and governments.
I mean, it's pretty obvious that most of us can't compete with the industry in producing CO2 - that's why this, nay, any agreement is an important first start. Me cycling to work can't offset one minute of heavy industry.
Governments have to regulate that.

But I do agree that there should be a tax on carbon, and tax evasion for large companies is another thing that urgently needs fixing.