NOW they tell us. Scientists say Worst-case climate change scenario is EVEN WORSE than we thought (due to hi-growth economy)

The fact the Security Council has helped combat these varied and largely unrelated challenges shows its potential to do good. Yet these interventions also pose the critical question of why it has yet to engage climate change in any meaningful way. Article 41 sanctions would be available to the council in the event of states not meeting their Paris Agreement obligations. Economic sanctions could also be placed upon corporations, that currently operate with relatively little international scrutiny. What the council brings is an ability to coerce – something that is currently lacking throughout international climate law.

The Security Council has access to the tools the world so desperately needs to enforce state and private action on climate change.

Only hope now is the UN wrote:

The fact the Security Council has helped combat these varied and largely unrelated challenges shows its potential to do good. Yet these interventions also pose the critical question of why it has yet to engage climate change in any meaningful way. Article 41 sanctions would be available to the council in the event of states not meeting their Paris Agreement obligations. Economic sanctions could also be placed upon corporations, that currently operate with relatively little international scrutiny. What the council brings is an ability to coerce – something that is currently lacking throughout international climate law.

The Security Council has access to the tools the world so desperately needs to enforce state and private action on climate change.

This was a parking lot, now it's all covered with daisies.

I heard those golobal warmings caused the volcanoes to erupt in Hawaii.

Faaak. I'm on the 2nd floor in a NYC apartment. Does this mean I need to relocate to at least the 10th floor to avoid being flooded out of my place?

Only hope now is the UN wrote:

The fact the Security Council has helped combat these varied and largely unrelated challenges shows its potential to do good. Yet these interventions also pose the critical question of why it has yet to engage climate change in any meaningful way. Article 41 sanctions would be available to the council in the event of states not meeting their Paris Agreement obligations. Economic sanctions could also be placed upon corporations, that currently operate with relatively little international scrutiny. What the council brings is an ability to coerce – something that is currently lacking throughout international climate law.

It's one of the great sadnesses throughout all human history that so many people have to be coerced into doing good. I'm glad there's a few brave individuals willing to sacrifice their lives to make this possible, for the greater benefit of the rest of us.

Most MAG@ folks do not believe scientists. They preferred woodworking over chemistry and physics classes at their public high schools.

Trump (USA) has hit them with a triple 'whammy'.... first discarding Hussein's Paris pretensions, then ending pointless monitoring on behalf of EU, and now having such a BIGLY economy that they have to totally revise the projections all the way out to 2100!

moist wrote:

I Am Sam wrote:

Apparently that 'machine' can even detect your grain of salt in a 1,000 yr old slice of ice core. That's where it went they say.

Damn it, my grain of salt got in the ice core again.

BRILLIANT!!!

The solution and opportunity to climate change is not eliminating it, but in finding ways to adapt to it. An end to the rapid economic growth in Asia (which is the primary driving force behind it) is not going to really on the horizon, and there is nothing Trump can really do to stop it (other than tariffs that many democrats criticize, simply because it is Trump who is proposing them). I find it ironic that the same people who are so opposed to climate change are also for socialized medicine (which ultimately causes people to live longer and drain resources), opposed to warfare (which is the human response to competing over scarce resources), etc. If you truly fear climate change, you should welcome death and destruction as these are the forces that will ultimately reverse climate change.

joedirt wrote:If you truly fear climate change, you should welcome death and destruction as these are the forces that will ultimately reverse climate change.

Bravo! wrote:

joedirt wrote:If you truly fear climate change, you should welcome death and destruction as these are the forces that will ultimately reverse climate change.

This is the single most idiotic statement I've read in any of the umpteen million AGW threads on LR. Well done!

He actually has a point. If global warming/climate change is true. It will supposedly just wipe out a large enough population, and reducing the population will reduce the amount of green house gas emissions. IE reversing the climate change.

Unfortunately for mother earth there will be several negative intermediary steps in the process of the eventual reduction of human population. As the conditions slowly become more severe and the human numbers fall maintenance of higher technology will fail due to inadequate labor availability. Thus those that remain will be reduced to using more primitive survival methodology which will deplete the most easily accessible, already diminished raw natural resources such as timber.

This will complete the process as the ability of humans to adapt will reach it's zenith and no longer support the species. So called "lower" forms of life will survive and biodiversity will eventually recover with human numbers then too small to affect the climate for a long time, if ever again.

It's been a while since I put this out there so here goes:

Science is where you observe phenomena, construct a theory to explain it, and then look for any evidence that could disprove your theory. Global Warming was a theory constructed without evidence where it's supporters only look for data confirming their conclusions while ignoring non-conforming data and attacking everyone who presents it or anyone who doubts their conclusions. Therefore, Global Warming is not science.

Global Warming is a political movement, a religion, a set of superstitious beliefs, a mythology, an apocalyptic cult, and a very big business. But it isn't science.

So the real “science deniers” are those who believe in Global Warming. It is the skeptics who are defenders of true science.

-- DiscoGary

DiscoGary wrote:

It's been a while since I put this out there so here goes:

Science is where you observe phenomena, construct a theory to explain it, and then look for any evidence that could disprove your theory. Global Warming was a theory constructed without evidence where it's supporters only look for data confirming their conclusions while ignoring non-conforming data and attacking everyone who presents it or anyone who doubts their conclusions. Therefore, Global Warming is not science.

Global Warming is a political movement, a religion, a set of superstitious beliefs, a mythology, an apocalyptic cult, and a very big business. But it isn't science.

So the real “science deniers” are those who believe in Global Warming. It is the skeptics who are defenders of true science.

-- DiscoGary

Interesting perspective Mr. Disco. Let me ask you a related question on a slightly different topic...

Is unwavering belief in the free market a form of religious belief? I mean the hardcore folks who think the solution to every problem is “free market reform” or who say “the market will correct that”. I think it is especially since for many areas of the economy (healthcare for example) there are no real world, empirical examples of how a “free market” healthcare system is superior in anyway to a universal / socialized system. The folks who spout off about “free market” and healthcare are applying principles to a system and claiming theoretical superiority using examples outside the healthcare realm.

I think free market zealots are no different than radical Islamic terrorists in the staunchness of their beliefs with little to no real world data supporting their position.

They are also similar to climate change cultists who base their opinions on media reports rather than peer reviewed data.

What’s wrong with all of these people?

Mother earth has been around for 4.5 billion years, we have been here for the blink of an eye. Mother earth will be here long after we are gone and will be just fine, it is the humans who are f'd.

joedirt wrote:

Mother earth has been around for 4.5 billion years, we have been here for the blink of an eye. Mother earth will be here long after we are gone and will be just fine, it is the humans who are f'd.

INCORRECT! The earth is 6000 years old. This is FACT! Per, my good friend S. Pruitt God and the Bible should determine EPA policy.

Actually America built the best health care system in the world using the free market. It started to become un-affordable when FDR initiated salary caps in WWII, which led to companies offering health care benefits instead of salary increases, which led to companies becoming a third party payer, which led to cost increases because of the disconnect between the vendor and the customer, which led to many people being unable to afford health care, which brought the government in to help with Medicare and Medicaid, which used government money to drive the costs up further, which drove more people out of the market, which led to more government intervention ...

So, you're wrong on the health care example. You likely have never seen free market health care so you don't know what it would look like.

History has proven that the greatest engine for generating wealth for the common man, the best way to raise standards of living, the best way to live in peace, mutual tolerance, and prosperity is to have a system of free markets, capitalism, and limited government. That's the secret recipe and it's supporters promote it for good reason.

Islamic fundamentalism on the other hand is a force for intolerance, oppression, violence, and barbarism.

You're inability to see the difference between the two means that our education system has failed you miserably.

So the US has the best healthcare system in the world - which is not evidenced by any health outcomes observable in the data - but has been awful since 1945 ?

You breathe stupid from every pore of your body.