paris pact would result in a 0.2 degree change in temperature in 2100?

oh & its voluntary, no enforcement measure...so countries can ignore their commitments while the USA has to pay the UN billions to a "climate change slush fund?"

this is not about the climate. this is about fleecing the taxpayers & gifting that money to nutty liberals.

but you dumb libs have been so deeply duped you think the deal will "save" something.

dumb libs.

there is nothing wrong with clean air and water...nothing wrong with keeping pollution down and looking after the planet we live in...even been to china? ever breathe the fresh air? of course you have not you are just a trumpanzee...our population will double by 2100...there will be 12 billion humans...

heres a list of countries that did not sign: nicaragua, syria and now the USA

smart red hats LOL desperate to the max to defend their failure of a POTUS

remember when the same liberal swine called it "global warming" in the 80s & 90s???

how did those predictions turn out dumb libs? did those burning Iraqi oil fields in 1991 destroy the air?

the predictions were so bad, they renamed the movement "climate change" so any hurricane is now a mankind threatening event.

dumb, dumb libs.

hey dumb lib...i guess the thread title went way over your head...how does a 0.2 degree difference in temperature change anything?

but you dunderheads with IQs under 100 automatically talk about trees & clean air, as if this agreement will save anything.

dumb libs.

Ok Josh, lets just say its all a hoax so that everyone can laugh at America.

Right ?

Thats what you believe.

So lets just say it is true. Climate change is nonsense.

Why do you want to carry on burning old dirty fuels that are expensive and pollute the atmosphere. Why do you want to rely of these antiquated fuels that are finite when you have cheap clean fuel that can never be exhausted. Solar also creates more jobs than coal.

A huge chunk of the US is unused desert. You have absolutely no need of fossil fuels.

It does not make any sense Josh BB.

I am glad you asked how a 0.2 degree in temperature changes anything...you see the sahara was once a lush forest...then one single type of plant type died and became extinct...this plant gave shade to the earth and absorbed heat...the temperature rose because of this ever so slightly...this in turn made more plants die out...the temp rose again...more plants died and the temp rose yet again...

then nothing was left but dirt that was blown away by the wind...then rock remained...the rock split because of differences in temp day/night...it split more and more and then eventually became sand...the sahara dessert is growing and what I wrote is historic fact, it is not up for debate...

lucky that you have a "high IQ" and know better than science

genius trump said so...thinking is not a red hats forte

well apparently there is a problem with clean air and water when it cuts into corporate profits.

You can stand by your choice of president and disagree with something he has done at the same time. I know that is hard for some of you.

smart red hats:

(google air in china)

"Limiting warming 1.5°C above pre-industrial by 2100 means that the emissions of greenhouse gases need to be reduced rapidly in the coming years and decades, and brought to zero around mid-century"

"The emissions pledge pathway that includes INDCs has aover 90% probability of exceeding 2°C, and only a ?likely? (>66%) chance of remaining below 3°C this century. The current policy pathways have a higher than 99.5% probability of exceeding 2°C."

"The IPCC AR5 shows that even starting from emission levels implied by INDCs and current policy projections, 1.5°C and 2°C pathways are still technically feasible."

Global Temperatures - Climate Action Tracker

quote:
Beijing, where pollution is so intense that helpful citizens have started to trace landmarks in the smog so tourists can spot them through the haze.

Medium: Not consistent with limiting warming below 2°C as it would require many other countries to make a comparably greater effort and much deeper reductions.

Medium
Brazil»
China»
EU»
India»
Switzerland»
USA»
Indonesia»
Kazakhstan»
Mexico»
Norway»
Philippines»
Peru


Inadequate: If all governments put forward inadequate positions warming likely to exceed 3?4°C.

Inadequate
Argentina»
Canada»
Chile»
Japan»
Russian Federation»
Saudi Arabia»
South Korea»
Turkey»
UAE»
Australia»
New Zealand»
Singapore»
Ukraine»
South Africa

Rating countries - Climate Action Tracker

yeah. i watched this TV show on the science channel. it had all these smart scientists. they said the sahara desert was caused by an anomoly in the earths orbit that shifts the climate in that region.

i guess those science channel scientists were wrong, & you, with your head full of liberal bullshit, is right.

LOL dumb lib. maybe you should study more "science."

no no no LOL you do not get to dance around the answer you asked specifically: how does a 0.2 degree difference in temperature change anything?

and I answered specifically how it changes things...an anomaly in earths orbit or what ever caused the change in climate, made the temp rise ever so slightly...then the plants died out...

concentrate your "high IQ" on this: you asked how a temp change could change anything, I gave you an answer that is based on factual reality...

do not have your "high IQ" side tracked with the following things: desperation, inability to concentrate your gargantuan IQ on your own question, TV shows you saw and think I based my answer on...

I am sure your "high IQ" will manage

Beijing: Chinese premier Li Keqiang was expected to issue a joint statement with the European Union in Brussels on Friday reaffirming the world's biggest greenhouse gas polluter would fully meet its Paris Agreement goals.

While the US exits the Paris accord, China takes real action on climate change

bye bye USA

it takes whole 2 mins to work out that any international climate deals are bullshit...

US emits:
USA - Climate Action Tracker

~6MT CO2/year


China emits:
China - Climate Action Tracker

~12MT CO2/year


Russia emits:
Russian Federation - Climate Action Tracker

~2.5MT CO2/year

so,
China emits 2x, with economy that is half the size of the US... so they are 4x less "efficient" than the US...
Russia emits close to half, but their economy is 15x smaller... so they are 7.5x less "efficient" than the US...

and these are just 2 random examples... half the world is many multiples less "efficient" than the US...

and you guys think US are somehow the bad guys? how about China and Russia (and the rest of developing world) get to the same ballpark level of efficiency as the US first, then we'll discuss global climate deals?

1) my dispute with PC climate change is whether mans impact is enough to make earth uninhabitable. not whether all of mans activity is or is not having an impact.

but its impossible to debate a liberal on the topic. you libs paint all deniers as extremists...you already suggested i think its all a hoax. so how do i discuss something intelligently with an opponent that cant think with clarity? cant do nuance?

2) clean technologies often have bad externalities that you liberals ignore. liberals do not talk about the fact that solar panels require minerals called "rare earth" for a reason. ergo, the cost of solar may never get down below oil or coal. & windmills kill a lot of birds. & tidal turbines, if used, will kill a lot of fishes. & teslas actually run on coal, not electricity. no liberals talk about where tesla electricity is made.

what about nuclear? by far its the most efficient supplier of energy by giant order of magnitudes. nuclear subs can live under ice for months on a small lump of energy. But no libs talk nuclear. why?

3) to the extent there is a threat to earth, that threat is in the size of our population, not in the tech we employ. even if we go to all renewable, having trillions of people to feed will consume so many resources, the air will be the least of our problems.

4) i might be more sympathetic to left wing climate concerns if any of their predictions would come true. i wore a greenpeace shirt when i was in high school. eventually i realized the fear they sold was not coming to pass. when they predicted environmental apocalypse when iraq lit up hundred of oil wells, & their predictions didnt happen, i smartened up.

the issue of climate has become so political that there is no reasoned discourse on it anymore. liberals have polluted the entire enterprise with shrill claims of having "science" on their side, & labeling anybody who questions as haters & dumb & deplorable.

obviously like DirtyDon, Joshua doesn´t realise how much change .2 degrees can do up on the artic, also, he doesn´t think about families in the future, he´s thinking 2100 is far away, although, those in 1800´s would have thought the same...


dumb fuckers with not a care for anyone but themselves

i´d go as far as saying, Trump can burn in hell but even the devil wouldn´t want him

only two words for you Joshua G, you´re "Selfish cunt"

you live in your own dumb reality. posting pics of every place the US has invaded since WWII. i have wasted enough words on your fantasy factory.

dismissed.

yep. considering my opposition. i'm pretty sure trump did the right thing.

You're smarter than every country on the planet except Syria and Nicaragua.

yes what else could you do but "dismiss" something that is obviously true and you have no possible way of refute?

if you find a flaw in my logic, please point it out...

and it's not that that every country is "smarter", they nod now, and pretend they are in agreement, but as soon as they walk away from negotiation table everyone knows damn well that they'll do whatever they want anyway...

that's because:
a. it's very difficult to measure CO2 emissions
b: there are no penalties for not complying

and besides, the whole thing is pointless, no matter what China or Russia (and rest of developing countries) do, they will not get to same level of CO2 emissions per GDP "efficiency" as the western world any time soon, making the whole agreement highly unfair -> why should we make sacrifices, when China, Russia, etc do not?

There is no flaw in your logic, you're smarter than every country on the planet, boy genius.

look at the dumb lib, employing the boilerplate "groupthink" argument. you know, all the countries agree, so it must be true. like all the "scientists" agree with liberals on climate change. remember when the groupthink of the church thought Galileo was a nutter, dumb lib? sorry, im talking over your head now.

comment from social media that blows you dumb libs out of the ballpark:

he's right. this entire climate debate is based on a liberal assumption humans can control the future environment outcomes. its laughable. historically, the climate has not been amenable to humans. inevitably, it will return to that state, someday. But you dumb libs will blame trump/redhats for it, no matter what.

Joshua W, you're a failed pot grower turned internet board troll. You have less credibility than a 10 year old flunkee, you fat fuck.