Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 13 submissions in the queue.
Politics
posted by n1 on Thursday June 01, @04:44AM   Printer-friendly
from the Smart-move!-Very-good-for-America. dept.

President Donald Trump plans to make good on his campaign vow to withdraw the United States from a global pact to fight climate change, a source briefed on the decision said on Wednesday, a move that promises to deepen a rift with U.S. allies.

White House officials cautioned that details were still being hammered out and that, although close, the decision on withdrawing from the 195-nation accord - agreed to in Paris in 2015 - was not finalized.

[...] The source, speaking on condition of anonymity, said Trump was working out the terms of the planned withdrawal with U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Scott Pruitt, an oil industry ally and climate change doubter.

[...] The CEOs of Dow Chemical Co, ExxonMobil Corp, Unilever NV and Tesla Inc all urged Trump to remain in the agreement, with Tesla's Elon Musk threatening to quit White House advisory councils of which he is a member if the president pulls out.

Source: Reuters

On Twitter, Trump indicated that an announcement was coming soon.

"I will be announcing my decision on the Paris Accord over the next few days," he wrote. "MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

[...] Opponents of the climate deal were concerned after White House economic advisor Gary Cohn told reporters that the president was "evolving on the issue" during his trip overseas.

His daughter Ivanka and son-in-law Jared Kushner reportedly channelled support for the deal behind the scenes at the White House, encouraging climate change activists that Trump might change his mind. Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former Exxon CEO, also supported remaining in the treaty.

Source: Brietbart


Original Submission

Related Stories

It's Official - President Trump Pulls Out of Paris Agreement 93 comments

[Ed Note: What follows is the official press release from President Donald Trump at the White House. It marks the official stance of the United States pulling out of the Paris Agreement. Though there is certainly a political aspect to this, I would like to see if we can try to avoid political bickering and focus discussion on the actual details of the press release. See, also, our previous coverage, Report: Trump Plans to Exit Paris Climate Agreement. --martyb]

From the desk of President Donald J. Trump

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1) 2
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),- on Thursday June 01, @04:52AM (11 children)

    by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),- (3868) on Thursday June 01, @04:52AM (#518698)

    he'll do. Unless he changes his mind. Or else Jared et al tell him to do otherwise. Or...

    It might be more cogent to follow Trumps actual actions rather than his verbal pronouncements about his intentions of his imminent actions.

    Trump is also a notorious news manipulator, and this may be yet another attempt to shift the headlines away from his Russian follies and towards his so-called "agenda".

    --
    https://newrepublic.com/article/114112/anonymouth-linguistic-tool-might-have-helped-jk-rowling
    • (Score: 4, Informative) by bradley13 on Thursday June 01, @07:05AM (10 children)

      by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @07:05AM (#518731) Homepage Journal

      Trump's Russian follies?

      There has been so much written about this, but...so strange...no actual evidence of any wrongdoing at all.

      Seriously: what major candidates aren't in contact with other countries in the months before the election? This is entirely normal. [cnn.com] The candidates also all receive security briefings from the intelligence services. Why? Because the time between the November election and assuming office in January is far too short to take up the reigns of power.

      There was an article in the Swiss news today: "80% of the media coverage on Trump is negative", as if that were some sort of indictment of Trump. Personally, I take that the other way, as an indictment of the media. The media decides what stories it's going to write, and they take every opportunity to say "We, the media, don't like Trump." If I see this here, in Switzerland, I can only imagine it's 10x worse in the US.

      One of Trump's election promises was to withdraw from the Paris agreement. If you actually look at the details of the Paris agreement, it's absolute crap. It's basically a huge wealth transfer from the West to the rest of the world. That overshadows any actual climate action, which consists entirely of "pledges" and "goals". The only question is: does Trump actually have the guts to get out, against all the pressure of the Washington lobbyists and establishment? Only time will tell...

      --
      Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
      • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @12:19PM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @12:19PM (#518803)

        There was an article in the Swiss news today: "80% of the media coverage on Trump is negative", as if that were some sort of indictment of Trump. Personally, I take that the other way, as an indictment of the media.

        The vast majority of the media coverage on terrorism is negative, too. Do you take that as an indictment of the media as well?

        • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Thursday June 01, @03:42PM (1 child)

          by Sulla (5173) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @03:42PM (#518900)

          The media isn't making a big deal about terrorism being bad because of the amount of icecream it eats or it ordering meatloaf for a person on its staff

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @07:02PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @07:02PM (#518997)

            The media isn't making a big deal about terrorism being bad because of the amount of icecream it eats or it ordering meatloaf for a person on its staff

            Found the fox news viewer because icecream and meatloaf a the only kind of critical coverage of Don the Con that fox news ever reports.

      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by WalksOnDirt on Thursday June 01, @01:08PM (3 children)

        by WalksOnDirt (5854) on Thursday June 01, @01:08PM (#518834) Journal

        Seriously: what major candidates aren't in contact with other countries in the months before the election? This is entirely normal.

        What isn't normal is neglecting to mention them in official documents and lying about them when asked. Maybe they are just extremely forgetful, which would make them incompetent, but I think that's unlikely.

        • (Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Thursday June 01, @04:40PM (2 children)

          by digitalaudiorock (688) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @04:40PM (#518926)

          What isn't normal is neglecting to mention them in official documents and lying about them when asked. Maybe they are just extremely forgetful, which would make them incompetent, but I think that's unlikely.

          Not to mention...correct me if I'm wrong...they were attempting to use Russian secure channels, which seems to imply that they didn't want our intelligence agencies to know what was being discussed. Nothing suspicious there right??? I'd say this is why people like John McCain and anyone else paying attention aren't buying the bullshit about this being standard procedure.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @10:20PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @10:20PM (#519073)

            I know, right? What's he afraid of? It's not like there are leakers in the US agencies...

            • (Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Friday June 02, @12:09AM

              by digitalaudiorock (688) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 02, @12:09AM (#519114)

              It's not like there are leakers in the US agencies...

              Oh give me a Gold-damned fucking break. The "leakers" in these agencies are more like whistle blowers than anything. The "leaks" come from genuine concern because the jackass in the whitehouse and probably his whole family are basically owned by the Kremlin, as Putin most likely has airtight proof of their credit lines with every shady oligarch and mob figure in the country. When are people going to stop defending this guy?

      • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @02:09PM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @02:09PM (#518855)

        There has been so much written about this, but...so strange...no actual evidence of any wrongdoing at all.

        Trump actively and enthusiastically aided and abetted Russian President Vladimir Putin's plot against America. This is the scandal. It already exists—in plain sight.

        As soon as the news broke a year ago that the Russians had penetrated the Democratic National Committee's computer systems, Trump launched a campaign of denial and distraction. For months, he refused to acknowledge the Kremlin's role. He questioned expert and government findings that pinned the blame on Moscow. He refused to condemn Putin. Far from treating these acts of information warfare seriously, he attempted to politicize and delegitimize the evidence. Meanwhile, he and his supporters encouraged more Russian hacking. All told, Trump provided cover for a foreign government's attempt to undermine American democracy. Through a propaganda campaign of his own, he helped Russia get away with it. As James Clapper, the former director of national intelligence, testified to Congress this spring, Trump "helps the Russians by obfuscating who was actually responsible."

        On June 15, 2016, the day after the Washington Post reported that the DNC had been hacked and that cybersecurity experts had identified two groups linked to the Russian government as the perps, Trump's campaign issued a statement blaming the victim: "We believe it was the DNC that did the 'hacking' as a way to distract from the many issues facing their deeply flawed candidate and failed party leader." The intent was obvious: to impede somber consideration of the Russian intervention, to have voters and reporters see it as just another silly political hullabaloo.

        In August, during his first intelligence briefing as the Republican presidential nominee, Trump was reportedly told that there were direct links between the hacks and the Russian government. [nbcnews.com] Still, he didn't change his tune. During a September 8 interview with RT, [politico.com] the Kremlin-controlled broadcaster that has been accused of disseminating fake news and propaganda, Trump discounted the Russian connection: "I think maybe the Democrats are putting that out. Who knows, but I think it's pretty unlikely." (Yes, he did this on RT.) He repeated a similar line at the first presidential debate at the end of that month, with his famous reference to how the DNC hacker "could be somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds, okay?"

        What could be better for Putin? The US government had called him out, yet the GOP presidential candidate was discrediting this conclusion. Trump made it tougher for Obama and the White House to denounce Putin publicly—to do so, they feared, would give Trump cause to argue they were trying to rig the election against him.

        For a hot second in january he finally admitted the truth: "As far as hacking, I think it was Russia." [theblaze.com] But then he went right back to calling it a hoax.

        This country needs a thorough and public investigation to sort out how the Russian operation worked, how US intelligence and the Obama administration responded, and how Trump and his associates interacted with Russia and WikiLeaks. But whatever happened out of public view, the existing record is already conclusively shameful. Trump and his crew were active enablers of Putin's operation to subvert an American election. That is fire, not smoke. That is scandal enough.

      • (Score: 2) by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),- on Friday June 02, @04:13AM

        by a-zA-Z0-9$_.+!*'(),- (3868) on Friday June 02, @04:13AM (#519195)

        For a "fake news" story the body count of ex-Trump officials keeps growing. If its all fake why doesn't Trump stand by his guns and keep his Russian tainted staff? After all, as you say, "there's no evidence"?

        If there's no evidence, why is he trying to suppress a no-evidence investigation? Is he so stupid as to not realize that obstructing an investigation into a "no evidence/fake news" story wouldn't give it legs - AND prove to be a major crime as well? He could be impeached for obstructing justice into a fake news story - a well deserved and ironic fate for The Donald.

        --
        https://newrepublic.com/article/114112/anonymouth-linguistic-tool-might-have-helped-jk-rowling
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @04:57AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @04:57AM (#518699)

    How will Trump accomplish plans without his head?

    • (Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @12:10PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @12:10PM (#518801)

      with covfefe

  • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday June 01, @04:58AM (45 children)

    by jmorris (4844) <reversethis-{gro.uaeb} {ta} {sirromj}> on Thursday June 01, @04:58AM (#518700)

    Love the Cognitive Dissonance going on here.

    Scott Pruitt, an oil industry ally and climate change doubter

    Trump's Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, the former Exxon CEO, also supported remaining in the treaty.

    So the OIL MAN supports staying in and the "oil industry puppet" wants out. Or maybe people have opinions and aren't slaves to big oil? Nah, that would make heads explode to even consider. I support pulling out because it is stupid and anti-science. AGW breaks every principle of the Scientific Method, period. Worse, because it does it so obviously it is degrading public confidence in science itself. It is a myth pushed to enrich the Globalists and redistribute wealth.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Thursday June 01, @05:13AM (41 children)

      by Mykl (1112) on Thursday June 01, @05:13AM (#518707)

      I'm not exactly sure how you came up with the claim that AGW "breaks every principle of the Scientific Method, period.". Scientists have formed a theory, designed experiments to test that theory, and have analysed the results to confirm and/or adjust their theory. That's exactly what is happening in climate science today.

      The world has been through this all before, back in the 70s/80s with the banning of CFCs when it was determined that they harmed the ozone layer. We had the same lobbyists claiming that the science was 'fake' or that there were other causes. Thank goodness the governments of the day paid more attention to the science than to the shrill voices of self-interested parties, or we may have lost even more of the ozone layer. As it is, we have just recently turned the corner where the hole over Antarctica has started to close again (CFCs had about a 20-30 year delay as they made their way up to the ozone layer, so there was always going to be a long tail in the fix). Skin cancers across Australia, which have been rising over the last couple of decades, may finally start to fall again.

      Unfortunately, the governments of today haven't acted quickly enough, and it looks like it's already too late for the Great Barrier Reef, for one:
      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/07/the-great-barrier-reef-a-catastrophe-laid-bare [theguardian.com]

      Screw you, climate change denier.

      • (Score: 0, Troll) by jmorris on Thursday June 01, @05:39AM (23 children)

        by jmorris (4844) <reversethis-{gro.uaeb} {ta} {sirromj}> on Thursday June 01, @05:39AM (#518717)

        Scientists have formed a theory, designed experiments to test that theory, and have analysed the results to confirm and/or adjust their theory.

        Nope. They had a theory, designed some computer models to attempt to test the theory, they were all outside the error bars so they ignored them and then started rewriting the historical record in attempts to salvage their gravy train. The only way to 'test' AGW theory is computer modeling, all models old enough to have predictive power have come up outside their error bars predicting far higher than what actually happened. Newer models may or may not be better but we won't know for twenty years.

        But then it got worse. As the Earth simply refused to warm on demand they morphed the scam to Climate Change. Well of COURSE the goddamned climate has continually changed since the Earth cooled enough to have a climate. What they did was nothing less than double down and make a claim that literally was not falsifiable since absolutely any result would 'confirm' it. Tell me what could possibly happen to falsify "Climate Change?" Do you know what you call a belief, unsupported by quantifiable evidence, that isn't falsifiable by any evidence or argument? I will tell you, we normally call such a belief a religious belief. And that is the optimistic view, that they are simply deluded. The more likely explanation for why trained scientists would abandon the Scientific Method is politics and money. Remember that there are literally trillions of dollars at stake in this latest International boondoggle and every other one. Plus the almost unlimited political power, enough to make their Marxist dreams come true. Might powerful temptations to be resisted, pretty easy to see why they succumbed.

        • (Score: 4, Informative) by Soylentbob on Thursday June 01, @05:53AM (16 children)

          by Soylentbob (6519) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @05:53AM (#518720)
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @06:20AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @06:20AM (#518724)

            "That graph looks fake. It must be made up." -AGW denier

            The above statement seems to be the only basis for climate change denial.

          • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @06:56AM (14 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @06:56AM (#518730)

            XKCD's cartoon looks like the hockey stick. For example, the little ice age is smoothed over so much that XKCD guy has to put an arrow there to remind himself where a historic weather event should be.

            Activists hate the more accurate one drawn by Josh.
            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/20/josh-takes-on-xkcds-climate-timeline/comment-page-1/ [wattsupwiththat.com]

            There was a reason the Romans and Greeks wore togas 2000 years ago!

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @07:59AM (5 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @07:59AM (#518744)
              • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday June 01, @12:40PM (4 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @12:40PM (#518816) Journal
                Typical ad hominem fallacy. Because a venue has been "criticized for inaccuracy", then we can outright ignore everything posted on that site. Do you know what else has been "criticized for inaccuracy"? Climate researchers. Should we as a result ignore everything ever done by a climate researcher? At some point, we should actually consider the claims made and the supporting evidence, such as it is, provided, rather than base our conclusions on tribal politics.
                • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @12:50PM (2 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @12:50PM (#518822)

                  Ad hominem, but not necessarily a fallacy. Depends on who does the critising.

                  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by khallow on Thursday June 01, @06:49PM (1 child)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @06:49PM (#518987) Journal

                    Ad hominem, but not necessarily a fallacy. Depends on who does the critising.

                    Duh. But since it's not me committing the fallacy, then it's a fallacy.

                    • (Score: 2, Insightful) by aristarchus on Thursday June 01, @10:27PM

                      by aristarchus (2645) on Thursday June 01, @10:27PM (#519075) Journal

                      Typical ad hominem fallacy.

                      Not so typical, more of a trifecta of a non-fallacy. Climate change denial? Check! Brietbarf News? Check!! khallow coming to the defense with a badly thought out accusation of ad hominem? Ding! Ding! Ding! We have a winner! Not a fallacy. Fake news.

                • (Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday June 03, @08:28PM

                  by aristarchus (2645) on Saturday June 03, @08:28PM (#519973) Journal

                  Because a venue has been "criticized for inaccuracy", then we can outright ignore everything posted on that site.

                  Not so much the "inaccuracy", my dear khallow, more the mendacity. Hanlon's razor applies in most cases (do not attribute to malice what can be explained by incompetence), but in the case of these sources it does not because it has become fairly obvious to anyone arguing from good faith that these sources have been intentionally inaccurate, on purpose, with malice aforethought, and therefore calling them out is not an instance of an argumentum ad hominem. They are lying. Yes, scientists may occasionally be inaccurate, but for the most part, and by common consensus, they are not doing so intentionally, except in the tiny minds of twisted climate deniers, like some people who post here on SoylentNews. Allow me the privilege of not having to name names.

            • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @12:42PM (7 children)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @12:42PM (#518818)

              For example, the little ice age is smoothed over so much that XKCD guy has to put an arrow there to remind himself where a historic weather event should be.

              So you say that smoothing removed extremes from the curve? Well, that makes the fact that the current warming survives that smoothing just more significant, doesn't it?

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @02:08PM (6 children)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @02:08PM (#518854)

                The original hockey stick models were producing hockey stick graphs regardless of the data fed in, so... not necessarily

                • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @02:19PM (5 children)

                  by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @02:19PM (#518856)

                  The original hockey stick models were producing hockey stick graphs regardless of the data fed in

                  You make that sound like inputting random data produced the same result. That's basically a lie.
                  The truth is that using different, internally consistent, data sets of actual temperature measurements produce basically the same result.
                  That's confirmation of correctness, not disqualification.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 01, @07:41PM (4 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @07:41PM (#519008) Journal

                    You make that sound like inputting random data produced the same result. That's basically a lie.

                    From this summary [technologyreview.com] of the research in question:

                    Now comes the real shocker. This improper normalization procedure tends to emphasize any data that do have the hockey stick shape, and to suppress all data that do not. To demonstrate this effect, McIntyre and McKitrick created some meaningless test data that had, on average, no trends. This method of generating random data is called Monte Carlo analysis, after the famous casino, and it is widely used in statistical analysis to test procedures. When McIntyre and McKitrick fed these random data into the Mann procedure, out popped a hockey stick shape!

                    • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @08:03PM (3 children)

                      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @08:03PM (#519022)

                      Do you know who you are citing in that article from 2004?

                      Richard Muller: former climate change denier who now says that humans are almost entire responsible for climate change. [scientificamerican.com]

                      • (Score: 0, Troll) by khallow on Thursday June 01, @10:53PM (2 children)

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @10:53PM (#519085) Journal
                        That doesn't cancel out Muller's comments and thus is a red herring.

                        We should consider this warning sign. High profile researchers came up with a model of the past climate which was eventually shown to be heavily biased via its statistical processes to generate a hockey stick shape - a relatively flat model of climate change for a thousand years prior to the human industrial age and a sharp turn upwards afterward. Then when that research was discredited, suddenly several more studies with the same hockey stick curve show up to back the first bit of research. While that's not unheard of in science that some deeply erroneous work turns out to be on the right track, it is a curious coincidence that so much research backing that particular curve just suddenly shows up right when climate mitigation advocates needed a propaganda rebuttal to the Medieval Warm Period, which was prior to 1999 thought by many climate researchers to be a time when the Earth was roughly as warm as it is now (and implying as a result an inconveniently strong solar effect on climate).
                        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @11:25PM (1 child)

                          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @11:25PM (#519100)

                          > That doesn't cancel out Muller's comments and thus is a red herring.

                          No, what cancels them out is all the further research since 2004 that has verified the hockey stick graph.
                          Muller himself contributed to it.

                          > We should consider this warning sign.

                          You are a warning sign.

                          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 01, @11:49PM

                            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @11:49PM (#519109) Journal

                            No, what cancels them out is all the further research since 2004 that has verified the hockey stick graph.

                            Which isn't of much use, if the hockey stick isn't an accurate representation of the world's climate through the past thousand years. A key warning sign here is modern climate variations on the multi-decadal scale which disappear when one goes from the instrument record to paleoclimate data.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Weasley on Thursday June 01, @06:03AM (3 children)

          by Weasley (6421) on Thursday June 01, @06:03AM (#518721)

          Plus the almost unlimited political power, enough to make their Marxist dreams come true.

          So climate change is a leftist conspiracy to seize power and then hand it over to the proletariat?

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 01, @12:41PM (2 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @12:41PM (#518817) Journal
            Is handing power to the proletariat actually a dream of Marxists? It seems suspiciously absence in practice.
            • (Score: 2) by Weasley on Thursday June 01, @03:26PM (1 child)

              by Weasley (6421) on Thursday June 01, @03:26PM (#518890)

              Are there any national implementations of Marxism?

        • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @06:05AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @06:05AM (#518723)

          "their Marxist dreams come true"

          Hahaha. This guy is just a troll. Ignore him.

        • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @03:01PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @03:01PM (#518879)

          But then it got worse. As the Earth simply refused to warm on demand they morphed the scam to Climate Change.

          The truth is that the term "climate change" was deliberately popularized by republican pollster Frank Luntz for Bush in 2002 [theguardian.com] in order to minimize the danger of the problem. But, by 2006 even Luntz was publicly saying that global warming is real and serious:

          REPORTER: Today, Frank Luntz says the advice he offered the administration on global warming, was fair when he gave it, but he's distanced himself from their policy since.

          LUNTZ: It's now 2006. Now I think most people will conclude that there is global warming taking place, and that the behaviour of humans is affecting the climate.

          REPORTER: But the administration has continued to follow your advice, they're still questioning the science?

          LUNTZ: That's up to the administration. I am not the administration. What they want to do is their business, it has nothing to do with what I write, it has nothing to do with what I believe.

          http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/5312208.stm [bbc.co.uk]

          Furthermore the whole belief that the earth stopped warming is nothing more than statistical innumeracy. In 1998 there was a local maximum in warming [wikipedia.org] - a peak that was substantially higher than before. It took about 10 years to hit that same level again, but since then we've zoomed past it. 2014 [nasa.gov], 2015 [nasa.gov], and 2016 [nasa.gov] were each the hottest year on record at the time.

      • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday June 01, @05:45AM (15 children)

        by kaszz (4211) on Thursday June 01, @05:45AM (#518718) Journal

        The skin cancers in Australia are dependent on the CFC pollution? if so, cause of death over decades should hint to this.
        People tend to get the nasty malign melanoma there.

        • (Score: 5, Informative) by Soylentbob on Thursday June 01, @07:11AM (14 children)

          by Soylentbob (6519) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @07:11AM (#518733)

          Skin cancer is correlated to UV-radiation, which is correlated to ozone-depletion in higher atmosphere, which lags behind CFC polution by 20 years as parent poster already suggested. So, according to the expectation voiced by the scientist, with the ban of CFC in the '80s we should see an ongoing incline of melanoma cases until ~2000, after that a stagnation, and with some luck a decline once the ozone layer rebuilds.

          Here are some actual statistics [canceraustralia.gov.au] (and here [canceraustralia.gov.au] is a deep-link to the graph proving the former hypothesis voiced in the '80s).

          There are some logical connections that can be assumed true even if not proven by experiment. If you know that people need to breath to survive, and you know by experience they drown after some time under water, you don't have to repeat the experiment with alcohol, oil and other liquids to prove that they will drown there as well. If it is known by experiment that uv-radiation increases the risk of skin cancer, it is known that ozone filters uv-radiation, it is known that CFC destroys ozone, it is known that it takes 20 years to go up through the atmosphere, then you don't need to wait for statistics to prove that CFC pollution will increase the risk of skin-cancer.

          Same with global warming: Some of the mechanisms are known. There are some mitigating effects (e.g. the sea dissolving some of the CO2), and probably not all of them were considered in the previous model. Some might delay the warming, other effects might speed it up (e.g. the methane released from the thawing former perma-frost areas in Siberia), some of them might cause additional problems (e.g. the CO2-levels in the seas can kill the corals, could bring the fish-population out of balance). AFAIK, no one claims to understand all interconnections to the last detail, and the models are adjusted when new influences are found. But the tendency is clear.

          • (Score: 2) by jmorris on Thursday June 01, @08:09AM (9 children)

            by jmorris (4844) <reversethis-{gro.uaeb} {ta} {sirromj}> on Thursday June 01, @08:09AM (#518747)

            There are some logical connections that can be assumed true even if not proven by experiment. If you know that people need to breath to survive, and you know by experience they drown after some time under water, you don't have to repeat the experiment with alcohol, oil and other liquids to prove that they will drown there as well.

            Actually, yes you do. Because there happens to be substances mammals CAN breath in, I'm sure you too have seen the video of lab rats swimming fully enclosed in a vat of liquid, which just happens to be a CFC if I recall. So yes Science requires you to actually test everything because every time we actually do the science right that way we end up discovering new stuff.

            • (Score: 4, Informative) by Soylentbob on Thursday June 01, @08:57AM (8 children)

              by Soylentbob (6519) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @08:57AM (#518755)

              Nice niche-example, but wrong conclusion. They didn't emerge rats in random liquids to see if they will always drown, instead they analysed the effect of drowning, analysed the build-up of the lung, devised a liquid which might work as well, and tested that hypothesis.

              I was suspecting someone would come up with it, but dismissed the thought because anyone informed enough to know about this effect could be expected to be intelligent enough to see how bad an argument it is. But if you insist on testing everything before taking it as fact, maybe you can submerge yourself in your filled bathtub for half an hour. I expect, no-one ever drowned in that one, so maybe it is safe :-)

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @01:56PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @01:56PM (#518850)

                He knew this. Just thought he could put it in and none would catch it. Same with Hannity. Leave out key aspects add in leftist .... faux news.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @03:08PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @03:08PM (#518881)

                Dude, you got red-herringed.
                Who the fuck cares if rats can breath a CFC?
                That's got zero to do with UV exposure and skin-cancer rates.
                Jmorris can't refute the facts, so he zeroes in on a completely irrelevant side-issue to steer the conversation away from him being wrong.

                • (Score: 2) by Soylentbob on Thursday June 01, @06:10PM

                  by Soylentbob (6519) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @06:10PM (#518972)

                  I found it amusing enough to answer for once :-)

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 01, @07:51PM (4 children)

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @07:51PM (#519010) Journal
                However, jmorris was right. I think a better analogy here is the flatness of the Earth. One doesn't need experiment to logically realize that the Earth must be flat.
                • (Score: 2) by Soylentbob on Thursday June 01, @08:50PM (3 children)

                  by Soylentbob (6519) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @08:50PM (#519037)

                  Actually you just have to look at the sea, ships coming into view tip of the sail first, to conclude earth is round. Humans did that more than 2000 years ago.
                  Your analogy is even less fitting because it contains no element of conclusion, just first appearances. The equivalent to the flat-earthers would therefore be the agw-denier: Go by what they feel right, without any attempt to understand the reasoning behind the other side.

                  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 01, @10:40PM (2 children)

                    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @10:40PM (#519082) Journal

                    Actually you just have to look at the sea, ships coming into view tip of the sail first, to conclude earth is round. Humans did that more than 2000 years ago.

                    Why would we do that empirical nonsense when we can logically conclude the Earth is flat instead? So much less work, you know.

                    Your analogy is even less fitting because it contains no element of conclusion, just first appearances.

                    Even if that were true, that would be irrelevant.

                    The equivalent to the flat-earthers would therefore be the agw-denier: Go by what they feel right, without any attempt to understand the reasoning behind the other side.

                    You keep feeling that way. My point is that we have the same false certainty presented just as you presented in your first post. Now, I get you don't think you're an AGW-denier, because you don't believe the general theory is false. But accepting a theory on completely unscientific grounds is no different than rejecting it on completely unscientific grounds. Reality isn't going to be any different. Let's examine your assertions in more detail:

                    Skin cancer is correlated to UV-radiation, which is correlated to ozone-depletion in higher atmosphere, which lags behind CFC polution by 20 years as parent poster already suggested. So, according to the expectation voiced by the scientist, with the ban of CFC in the '80s we should see an ongoing incline of melanoma cases until ~2000, after that a stagnation, and with some luck a decline once the ozone layer rebuilds.

                    You made a very specific assertion about the effects of CFC pollution. Where's the evidence to support that assertion? And notice that this ignores human behavior. It's very easy for humans to change their behavior in ways that increase or decrease not only the incident of melanoma (by staying inside or outside, for an obvious example), but even its detection. So right away, we have a huge factor that by itself can confound the prediction. But moving on, we also have a huge disconnect between the production of CFCs and the destruction of ozone in the stratosphere. The problem is that you don't have a handle on how ozone is created and destroyed (which is a huge problem with greenhouse gases as well). For example, if the primary mode of destruction of ozone is upper atmosphere water ice, then things like ozone holes might be natural phenomena going back to when oxygen first appeared in the atmosphere a billion or so years ago. But it's not as sexy a story to sell to say that humans panicked on a global scale when they first measured ongoing billion year old phenomena, is it?

                    I don't have a horse in this particular race, but it's interesting how confident these decisions were on the basis of a small period of time of measurement. I find that same overconfidence showing up once again with climate mitigation advocacy. There is a peculiar blinkered outlook such as you stating that one doesn't actually need to resort to evidence to make highly speculative claims:

                    Same with global warming: Some of the mechanisms are known. There are some mitigating effects (e.g. the sea dissolving some of the CO2), and probably not all of them were considered in the previous model. Some might delay the warming, other effects might speed it up (e.g. the methane released from the thawing former perma-frost areas in Siberia), some of them might cause additional problems (e.g. the CO2-levels in the seas can kill the corals, could bring the fish-population out of balance). AFAIK, no one claims to understand all interconnections to the last detail, and the models are adjusted when new influences are found. But the tendency is clear.

                    Let us note here your implication that the models are good enough to base policy on. But what is that based on? You made a point of stating that "logical connections can be assumed". But we see here that you don't know enough about the system in question to make that claim (and it's not looking good for climate modelers either - we need models that can predict, not models that can fit well to past data that might not be correct).

                    • (Score: 2) by Soylentbob on Friday June 02, @06:45AM (1 child)

                      by Soylentbob (6519) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 02, @06:45AM (#519241)

                      I could now write some equally verbose explanation, but it boils down to this:
                      We don't have a labratory-earth to experiment. But we don't have one to waste, either. That leaves two options: Either we don't bother at all and ignore any very likely risk, or we accept that science builds a model and tries to improve its accuracy incrementally by checking it against reality, and give it our best effort. Note that I still avoid any premise about the actual correctness of current prevalent models.

                      It should be a no-brainer that the second postition is the only viable one. If you can't agree that far, we need to open a moral discussion, not one about facts.

                      Assuming we agree on 2nd, you could still try to deny agw or ozone depletion due to CFC, but not just by pointing out how the current models lack accuracy or skew in one direction. In that case as a doubter you would have to propose a better model, which needs to be consistent with state-of-the-art physics (behaviour of infrared- and other radiation in CO2 and methane, liquid flow dynamics, etc.) and match past measurements. You could earn millions by that, given that large industries would profit from it. The fact that no-one came up with such model and agw is still focused on pointing out inaccuracies, although capitalism generates a strong incentive to oppose global warming, shows how unlikely such a model would be.

                      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 02, @12:15PM

                        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 02, @12:15PM (#519318) Journal

                        We don't have a labratory-earth to experiment. But we don't have one to waste, either. That leaves two options: Either we don't bother at all and ignore any very likely risk, or we accept that science builds a model and tries to improve its accuracy incrementally by checking it against reality, and give it our best effort. Note that I still avoid any premise about the actual correctness of current prevalent models.

                        Well, if we're going to base our decisions on such models, then let us note that a) the models don't predict consequences at present that are particularly severe, and b) such model building has a history of bias and exaggeration, meaning the consequences are probably less dire (particularly in the distant future where no one faces consequences for being deliberately wrong) than predicted. In the meantime, humanity has other, bigger problems that it needs to deal with. While a coherent, measured approach to climate change mitigation can help these bigger problems, I can't help but notice that just like the bias of the climate models, there is a consistent bias in favor of radical and unproductive climate change mitigation even to the point of making the bigger problems worse (such as a recent story where someone advocates that we need global food rationing because climate change).

                        And that sums up why I'm not on board. There is this myopic obsession with climate change as if it were the only problem that the world faces; there is this consistent bias in favor of exaggerating the problems of global warming and other climate change (which to make clear, I do agree exist, just not to the degree that it is the most important problem that humanity faces); and there are a variety of really poor solutions being proposed as a result which don't take into account the actual problems that humanity faces or the actual costs of the solutions.

          • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Thursday June 01, @09:40AM (3 children)

            by kaszz (4211) on Thursday June 01, @09:40AM (#518763) Journal

            I need statistics to figure out when the lowered CFC pollution will cause less skin cancers. Australia is almost like a gigantic no-go-zone. At last on daytime.

            Is the skin cancer rate the same for Aborigines?
            For them the individuals that could not handle it should been dead since thousands of years ago.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @09:41PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @09:41PM (#519052)

              If the earth is flat then you need only pen and paper.

              Start at any point on the paper and draw east.
              You will run to the edge. And need a portal to get 'home'.
              If you home is (0,0) (which is easiest) this will work with any maintained angle.
              All needing a portal to get back home.

              On a sphere you don't need a portal.
              Having traveled around the world I have yet to enter a portal.

              Portals exist in magic. Thought magic was evil.

              Also see Foucault's pendulum for a simple to build proof.

            • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Friday June 02, @12:20AM (1 child)

              by Mykl (1112) on Friday June 02, @12:20AM (#519122)

              Skin cancer rates for Aborigines are much lower because they have much darker skin/more melanin than European-Australians, and are thus much less susceptible to skin cancer. This, of course, varies depending on heritage (e.g. someone who only has 1 aboriginal grandparent will generally have lighter skin and may be more susceptible)

              Even if Aborigines were susceptible to skin cancer, they wouldn't have been affected by CFC pollution thousands of years ago, because we only invented CFCs in the 20th Century.

              • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday June 02, @01:00AM

                by kaszz (4211) on Friday June 02, @01:00AM (#519138) Journal

                My thought on Aborigines were that they maybe have such good protection naturally that they aren't affected at all even by the modern CFC ozone depletion issue.

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 01, @10:06PM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday June 01, @10:06PM (#519063)

        He came up with the claim because he wants it to be true. Read some of his post history; this is a Leninist, in the sense that he has said on at least one occasion i can remember here he wants to burn the entire system down.

        Presumably this includes the entire culture, everything from the news media to the scientific method itself. It all stands condemned in his sight. Therefore, he makes this sort of claim to hasten the destruction of these things. Remember that "actor-based vs reality-based community" thing from the Bush era? This is the same thing. And what that little quotable sound bite actually means is closer to "We are the doers, and you are the passive, reactive observers."

        Make sense now? This isn't even a lie; it's bullshit. Meaning J-Mo does not know, or care, how true his words are, so long as they work toward his aims. If the liar is Truth's rapist, the bullshitter is Truth's slovenly, impotent, gluttonous pimp.

    • (Score: 2, Touché) by shrewdsheep on Thursday June 01, @08:41AM

      by shrewdsheep (5215) on Thursday June 01, @08:41AM (#518753)

      In an argument about science or the "scientific method", I suggest you learn to avoid saying "period.".

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @05:17PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @05:17PM (#518946)

      [begin supper-encoded secret communication] Special Elite Crack Social Justice Squad of Warriors, jmorriswatch unit, update. jmorris seems to be at a cross-roads with regard to AGW. Trump administration vacillations and conflicts of interest have put him into a noncoherent thought pattern. Not that this is new, but it is a different pattern, less coherent. Will advise if situation offers opportunities for intervention.[end super-encoded sucret communism]

      • (Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday June 01, @10:09PM

        by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Thursday June 01, @10:09PM (#519066)

        Roger that, Captain. Deploying flares for increased visual range. Subject's motivations and movements have been illuminated; spread information to all observers as per standard cognitohazard vaccination protocol.

  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @05:01AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @05:01AM (#518701)

    The summary is just: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_race_journalism [wikipedia.org]

    Why does it not say why I should care. What are the consequences either way?

    • (Score: 1) by realDonaldTrump on Thursday June 01, @11:51AM

      by realDonaldTrump (6614) on Thursday June 01, @11:51AM (#518790) Journal

      Jobs, the consequences are jobs. And by the way, still deciding about the Paris thing. Very big decision, the ratings are going to be terrific! Like The Celebrity Apprentice before Arnold ruined it.The ratings went right down the tubes. It was a total disaster when Arnold did it. Arnold, you're fired! When I did it, Number 1. That's right folks, the Number 1 show on television. Huge, HUGE share in the 18 to 49. No matter what LYING Nielsen says. So tune in for my Paris show. Soon. Great television, great for America. @Rosie is failing on @TheView. And jobs. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN! #TrumpTV

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Thursday June 01, @05:04AM (2 children)

    by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @05:04AM (#518702)
    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by c0lo on Thursday June 01, @05:27AM (1 child)

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @05:27AM (#518714)

      On climate change, who needs Donald Trump? [politico.eu]

      Investors, energy suppliers, technology giants, carmakers, mayors, governors and many others are already betting on green opportunities. That will continue with or without Washington.

      Paris climate deal: EU and China rebuff Trump [bbc.com]

      Trump ‘Covfefe’ Tweet More Searched Than Paris Climate Agreement [fortune.com]

      UN calls climate action 'unstoppable' as Trump threatens to withdraw from Paris Agreement [independent.co.uk]

      Is the Paris deal better off without Trump's America? [businessinsider.com.au]

      Obviously, taking the US out of the accord reduces our ability to lead on reducing carbon emissions — but the US wasn’t likely to provide much leadership on that under Trump, in or out of the accord.
      Trump’s choice to exit might increase political pressure within other countries to act on climate change. This effect would be similar to the surprising way Trump seems to be strengthening the European Union and depressing support for Euroskeptic parties in Europe.
      Trump is globally unpopular, and he tends to bring discredit on the causes with which he associates himself. When Trump endorses nationalist political parties, voters become less inclined to support them...
      ...
      If the US remains in the agreement, we could blast past our own emission targets and show the agreement to be toothless. The Trump administration could also seek to further weaken the agreement in negotiations over its implementation.

      Given these facts, why wouldn’t Exxon want Trump to stay in? Right now, Trump is inside the climate change tent pissing in. If we pull out of the agreement, he’ll be outside the tent, pissing somewhere else.

      If the US leaves Paris, the agreement will be left with members who are, on average, more committed to following it and more likely to take actions unfavorable to companies like Exxon — and Trump won’t have any influence over how the agreement works.

      Trump Can’t Stop Corporate America From Fighting Climate Change [slate.com]
      Sustainability is good for business. Pulling out of the Paris Agreement won’t change that.

      European Commission: Trump 'can't just leave' climate deal [washingtonexaminer.com]

      The commission president said withdrawing from the Paris Agreement would take Trump down a three- to four-year process of withdrawal. So the direct action Trump is promising is impossible.

      "So this notion, 'I am Trump, I am American, America First and I'm going to get out of it' — that won't happen," Juncker said.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @07:28AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @07:28AM (#518739)

        Yeah. I saw several headlines like that today.

        Another one that struck me was
        Trump's reported exit from Paris climate deal signals end of the American Century
        There have been more similar to that one since 2017/01/20.

        -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Thursday June 01, @05:07AM (16 children)

    by takyon (881) <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Thursday June 01, @05:07AM (#518704) Journal

    Is The World Better Off If Trump Bails On Climate? [ecosystemmarketplace.com]

    These experts say it may actually be best if the U.S. left the Paris climate agreement [washingtonpost.com]

    But even as climate scientists and activists continue to urge the president not to withdraw from the agreement, citing the possibility of international blowback and a potential undermining of other nations’ commitment to it, a small group of experts has begun to argue that a withdrawal may actually be for the best.

    According to them, it’s clear that the Trump administration will fail to meet the climate goals that the Obama administration established under the agreement — namely, a pledge to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 26 to 28 percent below their 2005 levels by the year 2025. And remaining a part of the accord while blatantly ignoring this commitment could do more damage than simply leaving altogether, they say.

    Luke Kemp, a climate and environmental policy expert at Australian National University, made this argument in a recent comment published in the journal Nature Climate Change. There, he points out that most experts’ fears about a U.S. withdrawal revolve around its potential to inspire a kind of domino effect, in which other nations see a lack of commitment from one of the world’s largest greenhouse gas emitters and also decide to pull out or backslide on their climate goals. But, he argues, this possibility may actually be heightened if the United States remains in the agreement as a laggard, weakening the compact from within.

    “The success of Paris largely relies on its pledge and review process to create political pressure, and drive low-carbon investments,” he writes. “A great power that willfully misses its target could provide political cover for other laggards and weaken the soft power of process.”

    It’s a clear minority opinion among experts who support action on climate change. Most other scientists, environmentalists and liberal policymakers have fiercely advocated for remaining in the Paris agreement. Because the United States is the second-largest greenhouse gas emitter in the world, and was an early leader on the creation of Paris accord under the Obama administration, many have suggested that withdrawing could have a strong demotivating effect, clearing the way for other nations to abandon their own climate goals as well.

    However, Kemp suggests that if the United States simply withdraws altogether, other nations might actually be inspired to step up their game in its place. In fact, there’s reason to believe this effect might already be occurring. While the Trump administration has relentlessly worked to roll back environmental and climate-related regulations since assuming office, dashing hopes that the United States might still meet its Paris climate goals, China and India — two other major global greenhouse gas emitters — are already on track to exceed their own commitments.

    --
    [SIG] 04/14/2017: Soylent Upgrade v13 [soylentnews.org]
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @05:27AM (11 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @05:27AM (#518712)

      Just like the summary, so much text without even any appeal to science. It is all how many people think this or that, which is creeping me out. I think Trump is pushing this narrative.

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by takyon on Thursday June 01, @05:32AM (10 children)

        by takyon (881) <{takyon} {at} {soylentnews.org}> on Thursday June 01, @05:32AM (#518716) Journal

        If you want someone to tell you that the world will warm X degrees in Y years unless emissions are drastically reduced, in which case it will only warm 0.5*X degrees in Y years, then you can find that:

        https://www.ipcc.ch/ [www.ipcc.ch]

        That's the kind of scientific body that has informed the climate agreement. But actually implementing an agreement and keeping countries committed to it is a political, not scientific endeavor.

        --
        [SIG] 04/14/2017: Soylent Upgrade v13 [soylentnews.org]
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @05:46AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @05:46AM (#518719)

          Just read this earlier today: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14453512 [ycombinator.com]

          Control the tone... it is now political rather than scientific. Bad news no matter what you believe.

        • (Score: 3, Interesting) by bradley13 on Thursday June 01, @11:12AM (6 children)

          by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @11:12AM (#518782) Homepage Journal

          The IPCC will tell me about projected warming? Sure they will. Of course, science is about having a hypothesis, making predictions, and having those predictions verified by reality. The IPCC doesn't do that.

          They have no theory. Their predictions have been wrong [judithcurry.com] - with each revision to each report they have to reduce their projected warming [wattsupwiththat.com]. As for the great consensus: there are a zillion different models [typepad.com], which is rather like p-hacking. Just by chance, one or another of those models may match some future data.

          Is the climate warming? Sure, it is. How much of that is due to CO2? That is pretty well-understood, and the answer is "not much". The IPCC projections and climate models assume positive feedback cycles [sciencedirect.com], which just stubbornly refuse to manifest. Instead, as just about any engineer or scientist ought to expect, the feedback tends to be negative - otherwise the Earth's climate would long since have destabilized.

          As a nice overview, this cartoon by Josh does a pretty good job [wattsupwiththat.com]. When you see the data in a larger context than just a few decades, there is simply no reason to panic.

          --
          Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @05:21PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @05:21PM (#518948)

            Bradley, at science suck you do. We will have to put you in the "deniers" category.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @07:11PM (4 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @07:11PM (#519001)

            Instead, as just about any engineer or scientist ought to expect, the feedback tends to be negative - otherwise the Earth's climate would long since have destabilized.

            Terrible. There is no reason to expect feedback to be negative, that is 100% dependent on the actual mechanisms at work. The Earth has experienced Ice Ages and Heat Ages, but barring some wild shift the various feedback mechanisms end up resulting in an equilibrium state which then reverses. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and the PPM in the atmosphere has drastically increased over the last 100 years.

            The cartoon by Josh is neat where the data isn't smoothed out, but what jumped out at me was how the spike in temperature increase is not found anywhere else except when the earth was really cold. So we're in a warm period but the temperature is increasing at a rate faster than ever before? Suspicious.

            If nothing else I don't see how that is not a reason to panic. The Earth will be fine, but the millions of people who can easily be affected by major shifts in weather patterns are the ones who will not be fine. Then they will want to move somewhere less fucked up, and WE will be less fine. But hey, don't worry, God will sort it all out!

            • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 01, @08:47PM (2 children)

              by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @08:47PM (#519034) Journal

              The cartoon by Josh is neat where the data isn't smoothed out, but what jumped out at me was how the spike in temperature increase is not found anywhere else except when the earth was really cold. So we're in a warm period but the temperature is increasing at a rate faster than ever before? Suspicious.

              That does sound like a thing to be concerned about. But we need to know more about past climate in order to demonstrate such a claim. It may be that there are many such spikes from high temperatures over the past few hundred thousand years.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @10:09PM (1 child)

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @10:09PM (#519065)

                Yes, we must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to you and your ilk. You realize the only way to do that is to let it happen? Otherwise it is literally just models based on existing data, which so far overwhelming say the same thing.

                Stop shitting in the yard, you're a bad boy khallow BAD. Stop it! If you're going to shit at least crap in your own room.

                • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 01, @11:45PM

                  by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @11:45PM (#519106) Journal

                  Yes, we must prove beyond a shadow of a doubt to you and your ilk.

                  And the fallacies begin. If you want to have an opinion, then no standard of proof is necessary. If you want my support on radical mitigation efforts for global warming, then a high standard of proof (really of evidence) is required.

                  You realize the only way to do that is to let it happen?

                  Sure. I don't have a problem with that. If there was an urgent problem associated with global warming, we'd both know of it by now.

                  Otherwise it is literally just models based on existing data, which so far overwhelming say the same thing.

                  Yes, namely, that they don't know enough about future climate change to base world-spanning decisions on.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @10:12PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @10:12PM (#519068)

              There is no reason to expect feedback to be negative, that is 100% dependent on the actual mechanisms at work.

              It seems to be stable though. If not it is bizarre that I can say that venus is 0.723x closer to the sun than the earth,and plug into stefan boltzmann law to get sqrt(1/0.723)*288 = 388 K. Then look at the atmosphere of Venus at the same pressure and see the expected temperature. This seems to work for all pressures greater than ~ 100 mbar (which seems to be a universal tropopause pressure). How can the "unstable climate" idea explain this?

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @03:43PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @03:43PM (#518901)

          That's the kind of scientific body that has informed the climate agreement.

          No. The IPCC is not a scientific body. It may take input from science, but the IPCC by its very nature is a political body. From its own site, [www.ipcc.ch] emphasis by me:

          The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change.

          And:

          It does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters.

          And:

          As an intergovernmental body, membership of the IPCC is open to all member countries of the United Nations (UN) and WMO. Currently 195 countries are Members of the IPCC.

        • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 01, @08:38PM

          by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @08:38PM (#519030) Journal

          If you want someone to tell you that the world will warm X degrees in Y years unless emissions are drastically reduced, in which case it will only warm 0.5*X degrees in Y years, then you can find that:

          The IPCC is a remarkably cheap propaganda investment. For me, the real problem is determining what will happen next. Currently, it looks like we'll just have to run the clock and see. The IPCC can't fake the future.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Thursday June 01, @06:30AM (2 children)

      by kaszz (4211) on Thursday June 01, @06:30AM (#518727) Journal

      Another approach is that Trump withdraws and the rest of the world sets up customs fees, lets call it CO2 compensation tax.

      Speaking of CO2, these present permafrost dethawing near the north pole is serious business. If it reaches the runaway point such that releases CH4 increases the release of more CH4 due to the fact that CH4 is way more potent than CO2.

      • (Score: 2) by aclarke on Thursday June 01, @11:53AM (1 child)

        by aclarke (2049) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @11:53AM (#518793) Homepage

        I'd like to see something like this as the partner to globalization. Sure we'll trade with China, the US, whomever, but there will be environmental and ethical surcharges applied. As countries, and industries within those countries, clean up, the surcharges get lowered. The true cost of our consumption needs to be internalized, and if that plastic thingamabob at Walmart cost $14 instead of $2.99, people would think twice about buying it.

        Of course this isn't going to happen because the process will be politicized, and the US will put an environmental surcharge on Canadian softwood lumber because Canada is building too many cars in its factories or something unrelated to the environmental cost of Canadian softwood lumber, and so on. Canadians aren't a shining world example of environmentalism either, so a system like this might convince us to clean up our act too.

        • (Score: 2) by kaszz on Friday June 02, @12:40AM

          by kaszz (4211) on Friday June 02, @12:40AM (#519127) Journal

          US pays customs fee for CO2 pollution and China pays customs fee for human abuse. That could work ;)

          What needs to happen is to make manufacturers use production that pollutes less such that the plastic thingamabob at Walmart cost $5 instead of $2.99, and people can handle the cost. And the environment is sustained.

          Maybe China will have the first self inflicted environmental disaster great enough to change policy. Another possibility is change of people at the top.

    • (Score: 2) by Sulla on Thursday June 01, @04:02PM

      by Sulla (5173) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @04:02PM (#518910)

      Are we number two in total or number two on a per person basis?

  • (Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday June 01, @06:32AM (1 child)

    by krishnoid (1156) on Thursday June 01, @06:32AM (#518728)
    1. Macron directly addresses climate scientists [twitter.com]
    2. In a show of dominance, Macron squooshes Donald Trump's hand [cnn.com] while shaking it
    3. ...
    4. And there you have it [politico.com].

    I knew my Schadenfreude over that handshake was gonna end up in bad karma. Welcome to the long, hot summer of 2017.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Geezer on Thursday June 01, @09:57AM (11 children)

    by Geezer (511) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @09:57AM (#518768)

    Everything the scary-clownish US government touches, regardless of (D) or (R) regime, touches turns to shit. Bloated, bureaucratic, crony-capitalist shit.

    I see this case of disengagement as a win for the planet.

    Europe and Asia can get on with whatever works (or not) for them. Godspeed.

    Meanwhile, the evolving and growing market for renewables will gradually solve the problem by disrupting the global fossil-fuel economy naturally.

    The energy market is gradually responding to advances in technology in spite of old-money resistance to change and the machinations of their puppet government. It is the nature of disruption.

    In this case, technology has the potential to solve the problem without, or in spite of, the Beltway Bozos' greasepaint smears on it, thank you very much.

    --
    Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @12:48PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @12:48PM (#518821)

      New, green capitalists will eat old, smoky capitalists - that is how it always happens.

      I never understood how could anyone think that keeping the things old way would bring in more profits then changing everything. Going environmentalist resonates so good with planned obsolescence mantra, because every n years you will be forced to upgrade every thingamajig to more environmentally friendly thingamajig, including some very heavy, very expensive stuff. And that is so much job, and so much profit! Given an external unattainable goal without an exit condition (like "War on ... something"), economy can really thrive indefinitely. On the contrary, if economy only plays with itself, it gets hick-ups. So there really has to be a "follow the leader" game, a mission & vision, etc. Kennedy did it with space program, Reagan did that with his armament program, but it is all dwarfed by even greater endeavors which were taken in late XIX century with first large global infrastructure projects around the world - steamboat shipbuilding, railroads, telegraph and telephone, ... Today if we chose to stop the global warming, it would be a huge boost for economy similar to that from late XIX century, because we have to change almost everything, it is almost like as building it anew. New empires wait to be founded. It is very shortsighted to keep oneself out of it just to protect some old sunken investments.

      • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday June 01, @02:57PM

        by Thexalon (636) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @02:57PM (#518877) Homepage

        Given an external unattainable goal without an exit condition (like "War on ... something"), economy can really thrive indefinitely.

        The exit condition is in fact well-defined: Reduce global average temperature to approximately what it was about 10 years ago, then go for carbon neutrality after that.

        --
        If you act on pie in the sky, you're likely to get pie in the face.
    • (Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @01:23PM (8 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @01:23PM (#518838)

      Everything the scary-clownish US government touches, regardless of (D) or (R) regime, touches turns to shit. Bloated, bureaucratic, crony-capitalist shit.

      That's utter bullshit.
      You've been brain-washed by the republican modus operandi of "the government is incompetent and if you elect us we will prove it."

      When government works, it doesn't get coverage because "nothing wrong here" is not news.
      For example, I bet you heard a lot about Solyndra. I bet you didn't hear that the loan-guarantee program that backed Solyndra actually turned a profit [reuters.com] despite the expectation of congress that it would lose money because the intent was to back R&D that was too risky for Wallstreet. The very technologies you are holding up as proof that government is unnecessary were the intended dividends of that government program.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 01, @08:53PM (4 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @08:53PM (#519038) Journal

        I bet you didn't hear that the loan-guarantee program that backed Solyndra actually turned a profit

        And I hear we've always been at war with Eastasia. Words aren't automatically true. And let us note here that there is no way for the loan guarantee program itself to turn a profit. By definition, it is pure loss. Indeed, they mention later on:

        Under the program, the DOE issues a loan guarantee for about 50 to 70 percent of a project's cost. The borrower then secures a loan from either the U.S. Treasury or a private lender. Most of the program's loans have come from the Treasury, Davidson said.

        So the US Treasury loans are what is actually generating a profit, maybe. Given the magic accounting that pervades the federal government at all levels, it is trivial to lose vast sums of money and generate a profit. Just have the US Treasury or some other department feed more money into these projects so they can keep paying interest payments. My bet is that a lot of the more marginal projects under this loan program will go south now that they don't have a friendly administration in charge.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @09:10PM (3 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @09:10PM (#519046)

          So the US Treasury loans are what is actually generating a profit

          Are you familiar with the phrase, "distinction without a difference?"
          Because if you aren't, you really, really ought to be.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday June 01, @09:55PM (2 children)

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @09:55PM (#519058) Journal

            Are you familiar with the phrase, "distinction without a difference?"

            The difference here is that we have introduced an easy mechanism for hiding losses.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @10:18PM (1 child)

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @10:18PM (#519072)

              Ah, the magical hand-wave of conspiracy theory where the only evidence is lack of evidence.
              Unsurprising.

              • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday June 02, @12:12AM

                by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 02, @12:12AM (#519116) Journal
                Let us recall that the program wasn't expected to generate a profit at the time it was created. And a variety of early failures indicate that there were a variety of very poor decisions made in the program from the beginning. Yet we are to expect that they turned a considerable profit naturally in the face of both lack of intent and startling incompetence?

                No, sorry, they cooked the books.
      • (Score: 2) by Geezer on Thursday June 01, @09:17PM (2 children)

        by Geezer (511) Subscriber Badge on Thursday June 01, @09:17PM (#519047)

        Actually, I vote anarcho-syndicalist. Think Noam Chomsky. Or this:

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl4ufIrMtXg [youtube.com]

        --
        Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @10:16PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @10:16PM (#519071)

          Who cares how you vote?
          The fact is you bought their narrative hook, line and stinker.
          Notice how you had no rebuttal to the facts, only to your perceived accusation of being a republican rather than simply falling for the republican line.

          • (Score: 2) by Geezer on Friday June 02, @12:18AM

            by Geezer (511) Subscriber Badge on Friday June 02, @12:18AM (#519119)

            You really are an insufferable little twat, aren't you? I can be childish too, see:

            Hillary lost. Neener, neener, neener. :p

            --
            Scruting the inscrutable for over 50 years.
  • (Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @01:50PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @01:50PM (#518848)

    Trump is a zero-sum guy. He thinks that for every winner in a negotiation there must be a loser. That might be true in real-estate where you can screw someone in a 'deal' and then walk away and never hear from the other guy again. But that's not how politics works, especially international politics because everybody is still there the day after you screw them and you still have to work with them and everything else.

    Pulling out of the Agreement will have none of its intended effects. It will not unleash an economic renaissance for coal, or make climate change any less of a pressing issue at home. Neither the laws of physics or economics can be wiped away by executive order. Climate change will continue to march on, just as basic economics are increasingly pushing markets toward low-carbon energy. Meanwhile, the Clean Air Act still demands that the U.S. government regulate carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases. President Trump and his administration can slow-walk that process, but not reverse it entirely.

    What we stand to lose, however, is a seat at the table and trust in America’s ability to deal with big problems. Despite its shortcomings, the Paris Agreement was a positive symbol of international cooperation. To see it undone for the purpose of satisfying craven nationalism is distressing, and an overt abdication of our responsibility. American credibility on climate will be sacrificed, and we will forfeit our ability to spur other countries toward climate action. The climate, national security, and economic implications of turning our backs on the world are hard to fathom, but they may run very deep.

    Furthermore, both China and India are years ahead of schedule on meeting their Paris commitments. [climatechangenews.com] India just cancelled 14 gigawatts of coal plants [independent.co.uk] because cost of unsubsidized solar is in near free-fall, dropping 44% in the last 18 months and is now 24% cheaper than coal. Pulling out of the Paris Accord would be a confession that America isn't first or even second, that America can't even compete with 2nd world countries.

    And, FWIW, a majority of people in each of the 50 states supports staying in Paris climate pact. [yale.edu] Red, blue, purple. All of them.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @03:44PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @03:44PM (#518904)

      STAAAAAAHP!!! WON'T ANYONE THINK OF THE CHiiiiiiiiiiiiiLDREN???!!!!1111

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @04:03PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @04:03PM (#518911)

      BP, Shell, EM all support staying in it.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @04:15PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @04:15PM (#518913)

        That's PR since Paris is so popular with voters. It doesn't stop them from benefiting in the short term from a retreat. They get to have their cake and eat it too by publicly supporting it even when trump cancels it. Rex Tillerson, former CEO of Exxon until he became SecState is a "luke-warmer" [senate.gov] which means he gives empty lip-service to global warming, but his actual policy positions boil down to doing nothing because "the science isn't settled."

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @05:00PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 01, @05:00PM (#518934)

      Neither the laws of physics or economics can be wiped away by executive order.

      Wait, you mean to tell me that Trump can't repeal the second law of thermodynamics?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02, @12:56AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 02, @12:56AM (#519137)

      And, FWIW, a majority of people in each of the 50 states supports staying in Paris climate pact. [yale.edu] Red, blue, purple. All of them.

      Trump were not voted in to be sane on environmental policy. Issues like Muslim threat, PC-culture, elitism in power, heightened tensions with Russia, crony capitalism etc were far more important.

(1) 2