JohnS vs JohnO on Paris Climate Agreements

[Brickjectivity]

John Stossel says the Paris Climate Agreements do not create any imperative for other nations to take actions -- only the USA. He says they are an agreement to do nothing and that its a good thing we are leaving them. This came to my attention when someone on facebook posted it, and I think its good to have yet another climate change thread in order to find out what other people think about it. For balance and entertainment value I'm providing some links to past conversations and a very nice informative video by John Oliver.

John Oliver says no, its not a good idea to leave the Paris Climate Agreements.

These are a couple of interesting Johns, and I think in this case they both have some substantial points to make. Both are activists. Both do some research before they make informative videos. John Oliver's video is older; but he's a comedian media mogul. He can handle a tiny bit of unfairness.

CFR (the think tank that analyses politics from a USA perspective) puts forward a factual non opinionated background for specifically what impact the withdrawal from the climate agreement has on the USA. It sticks to how it might affect the job market and specifically talks about emissions amounts here in the USA. It doesn't comment on CO2 emissions elsewhere in the world or on whether Stossel is correct about his claims about other countries. here: CFR background on economic and other effects (Let me know if the link is not working)

Here are several links to previous RF threads on the subject of Climate Change. (Some are in Dir areas, like the Green Room.)

• US officially quits Paris climate accord
• The real climate declaration
• What is to be done?
• (I think) we're finally screwed...

Who is right?

 

[BSM1]

Of course, everyone knows that left wing, self serving comedians are infallible. John S. is repeating what I have been saying all along: the accord was NON-BINDING to the most egregious polluting countries in the world. However, the US would have their feet held to the fire to any restrictive mandate put forth by these countries. Thank you Mr. President...

 

[Subduction Zone]

Of course, everyone knows that left wing, self serving comedians are infallible. John S. is repeating what I have been saying all along: the accord was NON-BINDING to the most egregious polluting countries in the world. However, the US would have their feet held to the fire to any restrictive mandate put forth by these countries. Thank you Mr. President...

I see that you do not understand how these things are done. You are now complaining that the signers of the Paris Accord did not act like "climate activists". Nations that want to impose rules upon others first need to place rules upon themselves. And the Paris Climate Agreement was working. Once the first group has their feces coagulated then they can start to put some teeth into their rules and start to enforce them on other countries. Right now developing nations get a bit of an out, but that is not a deal that will last forever. China knows this. They are perhaps the leading country on developing solar power right now.

And the ability to set economic sanctions on countries that do not comply is huge. By removing ourselves from the agreement we also removed any power we would have to affect future sanctions. Some of which could easily be place on the U.S..

 

[Subduction Zone]

John Stossel says the Paris Climate Agreements do not create any imperative for other nations to take actions -- only the USA. He says they are an agreement to do nothing and that its a good thing we are leaving them. This came to my attention when someone on facebook posted it, and I think its good to have yet another climate change thread in order to find out what other people think about it. For balance and entertainment value I'm providing some links to past conversations and a very nice informative video by John Oliver.

John Oliver says no, its not a good idea to leave the Paris Climate Agreements.

These are a couple of interesting Johns, and I think in this case they both have some substantial points to make. Both are activists. Both do some research before they make informative videos. John Oliver's video is older; but he's a comedian media mogul. He can handle a tiny bit of unfairness.

CFR (the think tank that analyses politics from a USA perspective) puts forward a factual non opinionated background for specifically what impact the withdrawal from the climate agreement has on the USA. It sticks to how it might affect the job market and specifically talks about emissions amounts here in the USA. It doesn't comment on CO2 emissions elsewhere in the world or on whether Stossel is correct about his claims about other countries. here: CFR background on economic and other effects (Let me know if the link is not working)

Here are several links to previous RF threads on the subject of Climate Change. (Some are in Dir areas, like the Green Room.)

• US officially quits Paris climate accord
• The real climate declaration
• What is to be done?
• (I think) we're finally screwed...

Who is right?

I like Stossel, but sometimes his anti-government stance turns him into a real idiot.

 

[sun rise]

More right wing lies about what is in the agreement from those who don't read it and create propaganda to influence those who don't read it either nor read the summaries that are easily findable.

... the 'contributions' themselves are not binding as a matter of international law, ...
Furthermore, there will be no mechanism to force[7] a country to set a target in their NDC by a specific date and no enforcement if a set target in an NDC is not met.[8][19] There will be only a "name and shame" system
...
most of the agreement consists of "promises" or aims and not firm commitments.[84] He called the Paris talks a fraud with 'no action, just promises' ...
... assumption – that member states of the United Nations, including high polluters such as China, the US, ...will somehow drive down their carbon pollution voluntarily and assiduously without any binding enforcement mechanism

 

[BSM1]

I see that you do not understand how these things are done. You are now complaining that the signers of the Paris Accord did not act like "climate activists". Nations that want to impose rules upon others first need to place rules upon themselves. And the Paris Climate Agreement was working. Once the first group has their feces coagulated then they can start to put some teeth into their rules and start to enforce them on other countries. Right now developing nations get a bit of an out, but that is not a deal that will last forever. China knows this. They are perhaps the leading country on developing solar power right now.

And the ability to set economic sanctions on countries that do not comply is huge. By removing ourselves from the agreement we also removed any power we would have to affect future sanctions. Some of which could easily be place on the U.S..

Bull feces...

 

[Twilight Hue]

John Stossel says the Paris Climate Agreements do not create any imperative for other nations to take actions -- only the USA. He says they are an agreement to do nothing and that its a good thing we are leaving them. This came to my attention when someone on facebook posted it, and I think its good to have yet another climate change thread in order to find out what other people think about it. For balance and entertainment value I'm providing some links to past conversations and a very nice informative video by John Oliver.

John Oliver says no, its not a good idea to leave the Paris Climate Agreements.

These are a couple of interesting Johns, and I think in this case they both have some substantial points to make. Both are activists. Both do some research before they make informative videos. John Oliver's video is older; but he's a comedian media mogul. He can handle a tiny bit of unfairness.

CFR (the think tank that analyses politics from a USA perspective) puts forward a factual non opinionated background for specifically what impact the withdrawal from the climate agreement has on the USA. It sticks to how it might affect the job market and specifically talks about emissions amounts here in the USA. It doesn't comment on CO2 emissions elsewhere in the world or on whether Stossel is correct about his claims about other countries. here: CFR background on economic and other effects (Let me know if the link is not working)

Here are several links to previous RF threads on the subject of Climate Change. (Some are in Dir areas, like the Green Room.)

• US officially quits Paris climate accord
• The real climate declaration
• What is to be done?
• (I think) we're finally screwed...

Who is right?

On the decision to pull out, I think we have the right discontinue with the agreement if we so choose.

As the climate change debate goes, im of the opinion that a better job needs to be done in explaining the specifics rather than just producing theoretical data and 'forecasts' to the public. I mean how many times have they been wrong already with this? Do you blame people for not listening anymore? Does anyone ever remember the little boy who cried wolf?

Lastly , I kind of hope we are screwed. That ironically would be a good thing. Nothing gets people on board together working in unity than having a good solid disaster. It's how the human race rolls for better or worse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Bull feces...

What part did you not understand? Oh wait, probably all of it. But then you are a science denier, at least when it comes to this topic. I remember the poor questions that you asked on another thread. You take yourself out of the debate when you do that just as sadly the U.S. took them out of having any future control on possible sanctions.

 

[Subduction Zone]

On the decision to pull out, I think we have the right discontinue with the agreement if we so choose.

As the climate change debate goes, im of the opinion that a better job needs to be done in explaining the specifics rather than just producing theoretical data and 'forecasts' to the public. I mean how many times have they been wrong already with this? Do you blame people for not listening anymore? Does anyone ever remember the little boy who cried wolf?

Lastly , I kind of hope we are screwed. That ironically would be a good thing. Nothing gets people on board together working in unity than having a good solid disaster. It's how the human race rolls for better or worse.

The climate debate is pretty much the same as the evolution/creationism "debate". All of the facts and evidence are on one side only.

 

[Twilight Hue]

The climate debate is pretty much the same as the evolution/creationism "debate". All of the facts and evidence are on one side only.

The fact remains, do a better job in explaining it or don't complain about it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The fact remains, do a better job in explaining it or don't complain about it.

It has been explained very well. But if you do not understand AGW I will try to answer your questions for you.

 

[Woberts]

Of course, everyone knows that left wing, self serving comedians are infallible. John S. is repeating what I have been saying all along: the accord was NON-BINDING to the most egregious polluting countries in the world. However, the US would have their feet held to the fire to any restrictive mandate put forth by these countries. Thank you Mr. President...

John Oliver isn't the average comedian. His stuff is pretty heavily researched. It's more of a video essay with some jokes thrown in for good measure.

 

[Ponder This]

John Stossel says the Paris Climate Agreements do not create any imperative for other nations to take actions -- only the USA. He says they are an agreement to do nothing and that its a good thing we are leaving them. This came to my attention when someone on facebook posted it, and I think its good to have yet another climate change thread in order to find out what other people think about it. For balance and entertainment value I'm providing some links to past conversations and a very nice informative video by John Oliver.

John Oliver says no, its not a good idea to leave the Paris Climate Agreements.

These are a couple of interesting Johns, and I think in this case they both have some substantial points to make. Both are activists. Both do some research before they make informative videos. John Oliver's video is older; but he's a comedian media mogul. He can handle a tiny bit of unfairness.

CFR (the think tank that analyses politics from a USA perspective) puts forward a factual non opinionated background for specifically what impact the withdrawal from the climate agreement has on the USA. It sticks to how it might affect the job market and specifically talks about emissions amounts here in the USA. It doesn't comment on CO2 emissions elsewhere in the world or on whether Stossel is correct about his claims about other countries. here: CFR background on economic and other effects (Let me know if the link is not working)

Here are several links to previous RF threads on the subject of Climate Change. (Some are in Dir areas, like the Green Room.)

• US officially quits Paris climate accord
• The real climate declaration
• What is to be done?
• (I think) we're finally screwed...

Who is right?

John is right.

 

[Brickjectivity]

John is right.

We can't go wrong if we stick with John.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It has been explained very well. But if you do not understand AGW I will try to answer your questions for you.

My biggest questions involve exactly what types of scientific procedures that were used to make the determinations as to what is man-made and what is natural , and how critical levels are determined to warrant sounding off the alarm bells as they are.

I've had a few of those questions already answered and it softened my stance on it a bit, but I'm not completely convinced that global warming or climate change is entirely man-made.

Theoretical modeling and forecasts are not sufficient. People want something more concrete to go by before jumping completely on board with it all.

 

[Subduction Zone]

My biggest questions involve exactly what types of scientific procedures that were used to make the determinations as to what is man-made and what is natural , and how critical levels are determined to warrant sounding off the alarm bells as they are.

I've had a few of those questions already answered and it softened my stance on it a bit, but I'm not completely convinced that global warming or climate change is entirely man-made.

Theoretical modeling and forecasts are not sufficient. People want something more concrete to go by before jumping completely on board with it all.

Reasonable questions. They have a baseline of climate using various different metrics. Ice cores are a very good record since they in effect sample the globe. The water that forms them came from the oceans and ratios of various isotopes record the temperature. At the same time a record of how much carbon dioxide there is in the atmosphere becomes part of the ice too. So we have a very long term record of how temperatures and carbon dioxide interact.

For more recent years there are lake varves and other annual deposits that give us more local temperatures. And for the last couple of hundred years we have direct measurements.