> Trump Misused MIT Research in Reasons for Ditching Climate Deal
> MIT scientist says his study showed the Paris climate agreement was a good first step, but more emissions cuts —not fewer — are needed.
technologyreview.com
The MIT Technology Review says that Trump is a fucking liar, what does Sup Forums have to say about that?
Other urls found in this thread:
mises.org
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
greenclimate.fund
thediplomat.com
phys.org
wattsupwiththat.com
instituteforenergyresearch.org
news.mit.edu
nytimes.com
meetingorganizer.copernicus.org
mises.org
twitter.com
get a life you pathetic try hard
In other words, the Paris accord isn't good enough and is rather pointless.
I can't believe people still fall for this.
What will be the total drop in global temperature over time due to the influence of the Paris Accord?
How much money will be spent to achieve that drop in global temperature?
How much money, over time, will be spent to result in a drop of 1 degree celsius?
Oh nice so it doesn't even matter we left Paris then, well that's a relief
>MIT (((climate researcher))) makes study showing how fighting climate change will cost a lot more
>Trump cites it as a reason for quitting PA
>"LOL DRUMPF IS RETARDED HE DIDN'T UNDERSTAND MY STUDY!"
He understood it perfectly well
This is retard logic used by Nicaragua and Syria. Wtf is the world I'm living in?
It matters that you were insensitive to the environment'e feefees. If you truly loved the environment you would have stayed in the agreement to show that you care. I mean, Europe's doing it. We can't you be sweet like them? Asia is the environment's bull though. It's different.
He wanted to renegotiate. Most likely to force china to cut their emissions instead f just getting gibs from the US and Europe. That would be more emissions cuts, as the MIT research suggested.
Nice try though.
Lowering emissions is great, if the left wants a deal that is fair for everyone then they would be open to reopening the deal but no they wont do that and they wont remove the onesided bullshit America would have to put up or the migrants and open borders in the fucking agreement.
>This step doesn't do enough
>Better to do nothing
Your logic right now. Fuck it. I'm buying as much land as I can in Michigan along with water rights and going to set my family up for a fiefdom in the next 150 or so years.
Except it doesn't actually do anything to fix climate change. Read it for yourself, all it does is steal money from the people of rich nations and give it to the worthless parasites in shit countries so they can breed even more parasites (also with globalist elites probably skimming a large portion of it into their own pockets to further fund their programs to ruin humanity's future), and encourage good countries to take "refugees" (i.e. invaders) from shit countries.
fuck off commie scum
Hey so, does anybody know the real numbers for primary forcing due to CO2 concentration? Like i understand there is supposed to be a feedback effect with water vapor where more heat is trapped and radiated between CO2 and water vapor, but what is the base number just due to CO2?
Also do they take into account the decrease in heat due to reflection of solar irradiance from cloud formation? Incomplete combustion produces condensation phase aerosol and you'd expect there to be an estimate of this cooling effect taken into account.
HE'S A MIT NIGGER
...
>The MIT Technology Review says that Trump is a fucking liar, what does Sup Forums have to say about that?
He's been lying for decades and MIT just figured this out?
>well Sup Forums???
Try harder.
The Paris deal did nothing but further cripple the US economy and further enrich the Chinese economy. If you commies really cared about "muh environment" you would keep jobs and manufacturing in the US where there are regulations and worker protection. But no, you hate freedom and success. The entire purpose of leftist whining about the literal existence of weather patterns is entirely about weakening the United States and other successful western nations. Trump knows this and you faggots know it too.
US citizen livelihood is more important
Fuck MIT they just put out a book about how communism is awesome for children.
We're good man. I hope your family line does well, or that climate change is as big a hoax as most people on the right seem to claim. I'm down for a big heaping helping of "I told you so" if it means less human suffering due to supply scarcity. Gl m8!
Also idk where the commie thing came from. Being from a great lakes state, I feel that its within everyone's interest to maintain our environmental health. I also think that current economics generally doesn't factor in the cost that environmental deterioration can have on areas in terms of reduction in health, tourism, and agriculture. I'm very much a capitalist, but I'm not dumb enough to think that businesses also have a conscience.
"Climate policy" has always been about crippling capitalist nations. Nothing more.
A revision of data interpretation from 3 years ago doesnt necessarily make the Emperor a liar. Where was MIT's emphatic revision of that report before yesterday?
This.It's also a blind to shuffle money to liberal niggerland causes.
>Also idk where the commie thing came from.
Commies pander to naive bleeding heart faggots in order to trick them into crippling their own nations economy over pretty bullshit and propaganda that triggers their fee fees.
You can not protect the environment by asking the government to regulate your economy. Libshits are literally begging their governments to take away their jobs and freedom and give their wealth away to China.
Op is an anonymous fag
The west is being forced to enrich it's enemies and pay for nigger breeding grounds that will one day be used as cannon fodder to destroy them. Virtually all western political policy post ww2 has been to further the goal of the complete destruction of western democracy and capitalism, and the final genocide of European races.
Do you apply this to all environmental regulation or just those dealing with entities outside of the U.S. via treaty like the climate accords? How do you feel about something like the Great Lakes Restoration Initiative?
Was he referring to this study possibly don't remember what he said exactly
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
>All climate policies by the US, China, the EU and the rest of the world, implemented from the early 2000s to 2030 and sustained through the century will likely reduce global temperature rise about 0.17°C in 2100
>watching Sup Forums attempt to discredit MIT
>This step doesn't do anything except hurt America's economy
Damn right it's better do nothing
Reminder it's all caused by the Sun
So MIT can't be wrong? Also it's one scientist being mealy mouthed.
>Trump Misused MIT Research in Reasons for Ditching Climate Deal
No, he didn't "misuse" it. It said the treaty wouldn't do jack shit for the environment, so that's what he repeated.
That's not what I'm saying. I'm asking how effective this will be versus how much it costs. It's a decent enough question to ask, I would assume. Also, I'm hesitant to say that any climate change policy would be effective, unless China joins in on it. If big industries are hampered by this, they'll simply have more incentive to set up shop in China, or in any country that refuses to limit their emissions, which means emissions won't actually change.
If you want me to be on board with climate change policy, it needs to affect production capitals of the world that companies will just set up shop in once producing becomes unprofitable in the countries that have signed the policy.
Unless everyone signs in on it, basically no one signs in on it.
one of the most prominent "climate skeptics" is an atmospheric physicist from MIT.
>Also, I'm hesitant to say that any climate change policy would be effective, unless China joins in on it.
At least in the case of this paris thing, it doesn't even matter that China did join into it. China doesn't have to do jack shit until 2030. They could increase their emissions as much as they want. They could have 10X the rest of the world combined and it wouldn't make a difference. Once 2030 hits, there is literally nothing to stop them from keeping at that pace. It's just a list of things they'd like their members to do.
(((CLIMATE SCIENTISTS)))
>MIT publishes anything
>You: So MIT can't be wrong? Also it's one scientist being mealy mouthed.
Yeah you fucking retard. Where's your evidence that they are wrong other than the fact climate change is real hurts your feelings?
Hence why I said 'any climate change policy'. I don't like Trump, but there's literally no reason to sign this Accord. It's pointless and is just there to provide the illusion of """"progress"""" to the utopia that'll never exist.
I suppose I can get behind that stance. That being said, I feel like it fails to factor in political reality. If I were China I would argue at any meeting that called for large cuts for all nations, that the U.S. produces far more CO2 per capita than China (or even India) does, and that it is unfair to expect China, as a developing country, to make carbon cuts in the same amount of time as the U.S, a much more industrially developed country.
Furthermore, as far as I'm aware, China is already working towards reductions in pollutants and pushes towards Green energy.
I agree that a global, simultaneous shift would be wonderful, but I don't feel like pulling out of the accords is done in that light. Rather I feel like its done in order to benefit deregulation of the fossil fuel industries.
I agree that the Accords were largely symbolic, and perhaps I'm misinformed about their full extent, but I feel like a symbolic step is still better than nothing at all. I also feel like backing out removes the U.S. from any future leadership role on the topic.
you obviously know nothing about the paris accord. the amount of money we were pouring into it each year, for what like a .3 degree change over 80 years? fuck that, it's retard logic to even defend the deal.
How much?
I paid good money for temporary access to proprietary research.
Now only if I could remember my thesis.
US under Obama pledged 100 billion to the UN Green Climate fund alone
Wouldn't even matter. China would never hold up their end of such a deal and nothing, short of military force, would make them.
Something like .3 degrees F by 2100. Trillions of dollarydoos for nothing.
It's always funny. Sup Forums also said that the NASA is not a reliable source just yesterday...
BREAD ABOUT TO RAISE ACT
GET THE FUCK IN HERE FAGGOTS
>China makes a bunch of solar panels for themselves
>Too much smog to even use effectively
Honest politicians are shitty politicians?
The only reliable sources are scientists that show vaccination causes autism and the racial studies that show niggers have low iq. Anything else is leftist propaganda
I think that's global donations, not just U.S.
Except, China isn't exactly a developing country, it's more or less a modern country. A shitload of Toronto and East Coast property is owned by rich Chinese. A lot of our manufactured goods come from China, and while it doesn't exactly have the safety and comfort of a developed country, it sure as hell has some economic power, and should be subject to economic regulations like any other developed country. And, China pollutes anywhere between 33-50% more than the US.
And, at the same time, while China has invested a lot into green energy, it has to. It's more pragmatic than anything, and just a way to utilize open space in the country side and the many rivers the country has.
I'm not really asking for a global shift, I'm asking for a shift between manufacturing powers like China, Mexico, Taiwan, etc. etc.
The Accords are a symbolic step forward that does nothing but cost money until 2030. Countries can do whatever they wish until the 2030's, and nothing's stopping them from backing out until then.
I'm honestly fine with not having leadership roles on that subject, if getting one means wasting a lot of money and sending more industry to parts unknown.
Liberals' idea of "fixing problems" is putting retarded half measures in place and assuming the problem will fix itself eventually. In the case of climate change, their half measure approach is carbon credits, emissions standards, etc.
If they genuinely wanted to make a difference, they'd fund a massive overhaul of uranium fission plants in the US. For the same amount of taxpayer money that goes towards fossil fuel subsidies we could break ground on half a dozen new, 4th-gen plants every year. We could double the US nuclear capacity within 20 years.
Climate change isn't real so liberals can fuck off
The U.S. looked pretty similar prior to the clean and and clean water acts. This isn't to say that China will make the same rapid progress, but I can certainly wish them luck in their goal. I can only hope that the increasingly poor air quality will serve as a wake up call much like the Great Stink of 1856 did for Britain and sanitation.
You'd think it couldn't be possible but Trump manages to make himself look even more ridicolous than Bush Jr.
>Furthermore, as far as I'm aware, China is already working towards reductions in pollutants and pushes towards Green energy.
China does have a ton of "green energy" and they plan on increasing that over the next few years a great amount. But the thing is they are also planning on building like 1 new coal plant a week during that time. So their total "green energy"(non hydro) share of energy production will increase from like 6% to 8%. they've just got so many people the numbers that come out looking insane like they are just super green and into wind/solar.
I'm sorry do you have any presuppositions as to why Trump pulled out of the deal?
Why can't any of you people get it through your heads? The climate isn't the issue with respect to this accord. The accord will do shit for the climate and further cripple the U.S. economy while enriching nations that have no intentions of taking measures to preserve the environment/climate.
the sky is falling
we need mo money fo dem pograms
carbon tax n chit.
isis be comin now
Let's just hope that China's pollution doesn't migrate elsewhere.
That would require a whole different kind of wall.
Well NASA does adjust their own historical data to fit their models so no, I don't really trust NASA at this point.
In fact I do: he is stupid. He unironically believes that there is a global conspiracy between China and almost every climate scientific around the world to destroy the American economy. Literally Infowars-tier ideology.
I am not surprised though that you faggots believes in this bullshit, since most of you are uneducated rednecks with FASDs. It's just amazing that even when I provide scientific evidence you come back with some bullshit blog post talking about some jewish conspiracy
>explaining ecological processes
>with economic models
(((science)))
According to this article, China is canceling the construction of coal power plants on a massive scale
thediplomat.com
this article states that coal consumption has fallen since 2014
phys.org
If China really wants to reduce smog, it seems silly to build more coal plants. Not that China is any green haven, but they seem to be attempting to move away from major polluters.
The whole paper is based on a guess of where he got the figure from, so the entire article, as well as your argument is based on pure assumption and not upon fact.
Also, it came out the NOAA document that was used to pen this Accord used falsified data in oceanic bouts to line up with what container ships were measuring. So the deal itself is built on a faulty foundation of politicized information.
This just skims the surface of this whole stinky mess of a street in India. Keep pushing though, RWDS cannot come fast enough
>Conduct study
>Study yields certain results
>Person you don't like accurately states those results
>HATE FACTS HATE FACTS
REALITY:
The Paris Accord is a useless deal that costs trillions in real losses to US GDP, but achieves almost no actual temperature decreases even in the models used by Climate Alarmists:
wattsupwiththat.com
>Full study graph is from:
onlinelibrary.wiley.com
massive rapes will lower our global temperature
Reality is China continues to build more coal power plants, on a scale that dwarfs other Western economies:
>China is expected to add nearly 200 gigawatts of thermal power capacity between 2015 and 2017—most of it coal-powered and more than the entire electrical capacity of Canada.
instituteforenergyresearch.org
>According to this article, China is canceling the construction of coal power plants on a massive scale
Interesting. Obviously my data was out of date. But is China just switching to Natural Gas though, which has gotten really cheap recently?
There is no way China will grow at the rate they need with just solar/wind, that is just a given. As much as I would like us to be totally off fossil fuels it just doesn't make sense economically at this point.
>We need to cut 25-28% of all carbon emissions from the United States within the next thirty years while also having a growing economy. You also need to give 100 Billion in aid to third world nations who produce .0001% of the output that you do and also produce very little industry.
>That's great, Mr. Paris Agreement. How do you suppose we do that first part without a meteor decimating the East Coast, and the second part without raising the fuck out of our taxes?
>?
That third step is why he pulled out. I don't like Trump very much, but pulling out of this was absolutely the best move.
The only better move would be to re-write the US' commitment and re-submit it with sane terms.
If it was something like 10-15% over the next thirty years, that could be done. In fact Obama already mandated that back in 2009. 28% is akin to Miami and San Francisco sinking into the ocean overnight. China didn't even commit that much, and they have the most room for improvement.
All around a stupid deal for the US and anyone who disagrees is uneducated and/or braindamaged.
> unironically citing an article from Bjorn Lomborg
Either you are a shill or a total moron.
Check news.mit.edu
>Waah waah everyone who proves me wrong is wrongthink
No one cares, kill yourself.
That article sites a May 2016 WSJ article for that information. A New York Times article from January of 2017 states that over 100 coal fired plants have been canceled due to concerns over smog.
>The announcement, made by China’s National Energy Administration, cancels 103 projects that were planned or under construction, eliminating 120 gigawatts of future coal-fired capacity.
Again. I'm not saying China is an angel, but there's certainly something going on.
Was it or was it not accepted in a peer reviewed academic journal?
I thought you climate faggots were obsessed with "expert" validation? Or is it just when it's someone you agree with?
India and China have to dismantle all of their Coal Power Plants immediately
> not gonna fucking happen, and the paris accord didnt even address them really
They form an INVERSE relationship, and the albiedo produced by having more clouds reflects more heat than the clouds trap.
The US spent 70 years building capital in Europe, It is sad to see the hegemony fall, but such is the situation! You will be missed US-bros, I truely mean that! T'was a good run though
Yeah, why would they enter such an agreement? They're not cucks.
Data is inconclusive.
Need more inconclusive data.
Why this convolution is starting to look like obfuscation.
Doesn't matter, do your homework.
From what I'm looking at it's an issue of overcapacity. They simply make too much energy at the moment.
nytimes.com
The Paris Agreement forced the US to bend over and destroy its economy in order to cut emissions while also paying China and India billions to keep polluting. Oh and for doing all this, temperatures are affected absolutely fuck-all. How is that a good first step?
> I hope your family line does well, or that climate change is as big a hoax
Good news!
LMAO is this your """study"""?
meetingorganizer.copernicus.org
Where's the actual study? Writing a press release isn't a study.
Even in their press release, Paris results in temperature rises well over 3 degrees by 2100, and only 0.6-1 less rises than a business as usual response. Lomberg has a real study showing 0.17 degree difference on a more alarmist model. Empty press releases =/= study.
>WE NEED TO SPEND 100 TRILLION GALACTIC SUPERBUCKS TO STOP A GLOBAL WARMING EFFECT OF .5 DEGREES
>AMERICA YOU NEED TO FOOT 85% OF THE BILL AND DESTROY YOUR ECONOMY OR THIS WON'T WORK
>So you're telling me you're trying to incite global panic over fractions of a degree. So when it would be 70 degrees out it's instead 70.5 degrees?
>WHY DON'T YOU GET IT THIS IS APOCALYPSE SCENARIO, MOST VITAL IMPORTANCE. YOU CAN'T BACK OUT!
>Maybe use your brains and come up with a fair deal
>*deafening REEEE's*
Get fucked shill.
Yes, China are decomissioning old coal plants, but are building new coal plants too. You're tricking yourself by only looking at one side of the equation.
no matter how many times you say this idoits and shills will ignore you and talk about how trump ties his shoe laces with bunny ears instead of loop and pull.
its a tactic commonly used around here to actually have a a discussion./ My advice is to just move on to greener pastures
Hey bro they did a press release annoucing their results. Because it can sort of be spun to somewhat agree with Leftist narratives they don't have to actually publish the content of their study or submit it to peer review, don't be silly.
meetingorganizer.copernicus.org
this desu. thread.
gotta start an transparent ngo without an fsa so that way you can ttyl when you lol and all the dtf chicks gtfo.
Know what I'm saying?
>Copy paste your same message with different VPN's
what do you mean with this OP?
That makes sense. They have been overbuilding everything. Just like how they have all those pre-built cities which are now ghost towns.It seems to me like China has just experienced a construction boom, where they just built everything they possibly could without much care for how important it was. The leadership doesn't really have to answer to anyone so it's not too unrealistic. Maybe that's coming to an end now. They've diversified a good deal, but without this huge construction sector working constantly I wonder what those guys will do.
Oh wait.....they are now just working all over Africa/Eurasia...Interesting move chinks.
>Misused
LIED
ITS NOT THE FIRAT TİME HE LED AND IT WONT BE THE LAST.
THIS POLITICALLY CORRECT LANGUAGE IS ANNOYING.
A MAN LIVE THAT DOST MISUES THINGS , HE LIES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I want Reddit out
