(no subject)

[rain_gryphon]

Not at all what I expected from the title, but interesting anyway.

*****

Gay Vultures raising a child.

*****

I'm delighted to see us unequivocally rejecting that Paris Climate Treaty. Contrary to the mantra of the news media, we're not "withdrawing" - the Senate never ratified the treaty, so we were never a part of it to begin with. Obama understood full well what would happen if he took that to the Senate. I'm pleased as well that Trump leaves open the possibility that we'd be willing to take part in a fair and even-handed climate treaty, if others are interested in having one.

Comments

[moonhare]

I've googled up various Paris Accord data this morning, and it's confusing as hell as to what is actually going on at the White House. I say that because I find Trump to be overly smug when he does anything that he feels flies in the face of the Left, and as a part of a billionaire club with interests that could be impacted by climate change restrictions I see this action as not a 'win' for any segment of the US but his own 1%. He may have done something good, he may actually be trying to do good things, but his delivery always makes his actions seem devious and juvenile.

That said, I believe the press is just blowing this out of proportion to make Trump look worse than he is already perceived by them, using key words like Climate, Paris Accord, Global Warming, etc, to stir up the populace with knee-jerk commentary without giving both points of view or even explaining what this means rationally.

[rain_gryphon]

The thing is, there hasn't been a single testable hypothesis - not one - advanced by "climate science" that tested true. First it was going to get hotter every year, and that didn't happen. Then a few years back we had a dry winter, and that meant it would never snow again, and children could never build snowmen. Then we had a blizardy year, and that was climate change. Then the west coast had their drought, and that was climate change. And then, of course, they had rather more rain than they wanted, and that was because climate change has "supercharged the upper atmosphere", whatever that means. It's failed predictions, over and over, but we need to trust them and fund their work, because they can predict what will happen a hundred years hence. And I have yet to hear any attempt to explain why the Martian temperatures seem to be tracking ours.

Also, none of the signatories are acting like anything is actually wrong. There's no effort being expended on ways to control the climate, no discussion of costs vs benefits. There's only one solution even under consideration, and that, of course, has no enforcement mechanisms, and only applies to some signatories and not others. I think the goal here is simply that of having a large multi-lateral treaty, with occasional rounds of negotiation, and if that can be made to work in a safe situation where the outcome doesn't matter, then we've a template for how to make that work. There are a lot of people who quite sincerely believe that the world would be a better place if nations faded away.

[gremy.livejournal.com]

I don't think politicians are much qualified to make decisions regarding climate change, anyway. Just leave it to the scientists.

[allaboutweather.livejournal.com]

^

Not to mention all the Hollywood celebrities that think they're experts on everything (when they're really a bunch of hypocrites on a number of issues). :/