EU warns Donald Trump: Paris agreement on climate change is ‘irreversible and non-negotiable’ - Polidicks

[QUOTE]The Paris Agreement on global warming is “irreversible and non-negotiable”, the European Union has said in a blunt warning to climate science denier Donald Trump. The EU and 79 developing countries in Africa, the Pacific and Caribbean issued a statement in which they reaffirmed their commitment to the landmark deal and called for others to do the same. The Trump administration is currently considering whether to withdraw from the agreement, which committed the world to keeping global warming to as close to 1.5 degrees Celsius as possible. ... The Trump administration is believed to be split over whether to withdraw the US as a signatory to the Paris Agreement. [/QUOTE] [url]http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/eu-donald-trump-paris-agreement-us-withdraw-climate-change-irreversible-non-negotiable-a7742286.html[/url]

Oh, he'll love to be told he has to play by the rules while all this domestic stuff is going on. :v:

Like most climate change believers, claiming that the discussion is already settled and their opinion is irrefutable fact.

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52246291]Like most climate change believers, claiming that the discussion is already settled and their opinion is irrefutable fact.[/QUOTE] I can't tell if this is a jab at Trump or if you're legit arguing that climate change is, in fact, arguable. Hint: it's not. We've got a ton of proof that shit's real and that we'll be fucked if we don't rein ourselves in. In either case, good. Trump will only understand hard stances.

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52246291]Like most climate change believers, claiming that the discussion is already settled and their opinion is irrefutable fact.[/QUOTE] Looks like a comment slipped in from the bizarro universe.

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52246291]Like most climate change believers, claiming that the discussion is already settled and their opinion is irrefutable fact.[/QUOTE] That's because it is a fact Climate Change is not subjective, your opinion on it is either right or wrong. The overwhleming majority of the world's scientist believe it is real and have done the research to prove it. The discussion is settled, stop denying reality.

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52246291]Like most climate change believers, claiming that the discussion is already settled and their opinion is irrefutable fact.[/QUOTE] Please tell me this os sarcasm, i cant tell anymore

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52246291]Like most climate change believers, claiming that the discussion is already settled and their opinion is irrefutable fact.[/QUOTE] How politicised the world has become that even objective fact needs fair representation of opinion. Some things just ARE, and not every single issue needs partisan debate. If your opinion is based on lies or mistruth [I]then it is invalid.[/I]

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52246337]How politicised the world has become that even objective fact needs fair representation of opinion. Some things just ARE, and not every single issue needs partisan debate. If your opinion is based on lies or mistruth [I]then it is invalid.[/I][/QUOTE] No, man. Didn't you hear? Feels before reals!

EU can go fuck itself if it thinks any policy it imposes on the US is "non-negotiable." Threats like these against sovereign nations do no good for the EU's bureaucratic reputation.

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52246291]climate change believers[/QUOTE] this is a dumb statement.

[QUOTE=Crumpet;52246337]How politicised the world has become that even objective fact needs fair representation of opinion. Some things just ARE, and not every single issue needs partisan debate. If your opinion is based on lies or mistruth [I]then it is invalid.[/I][/QUOTE] [QUOTE=forum rules] Because this is a debate forum we expect you to put effort into your posts, ensuring that they contribute positively to the current discussion. [/QUOTE] Debate forum Some things just ARE Pick one

[QUOTE=Chonch;52246358]EU can go fuck itself if it thinks any policy it imposes on the US is "non-negotiable." Threats like these against sovereign nations do no good for the EU's bureaucratic reputation.[/QUOTE] If it's a policy that is literally about saving the world we live in then yeah, it better fucking should be non-negiotable. [editline]18th May 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=Birdman101;52246366]Debate forum Some things just ARE Pick one[/QUOTE] Who told you that debates can only be over whether a factual thing is actually factual or not?

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52246366]Debate forum Some things just ARE Pick one[/QUOTE] would you like to debate the laws of gravity or whether the earth is the center of our solar system?

[QUOTE=Chonch;52246358]EU can go fuck itself if it thinks any policy it imposes on the US is "non-negotiable." Threats like these against sovereign nations do no good for the EU's bureaucratic reputation.[/QUOTE] Stop acting like your country has a fucking right to threaten the whole god damn world with climate change then Stop acting like you're the goddamn centre of the fucking world

[QUOTE=Chonch;52246358]EU can go fuck itself if it thinks any policy it imposes on the US is "non-negotiable." Threats like these against sovereign nations do no good for the EU's bureaucratic reputation.[/QUOTE] Its an agreement, not a policy. Its a warning that if the US backs out they'll probably carbon tax the shit out of imports. I wish these kind of threats weren't necessary but surely you agree we need to do something now? Not wait for the next administration to maybe go along with it. The Paris agreement is the best shot at collaborative climate action yet.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52246358]EU can go fuck itself if it thinks any policy it imposes on the US is "non-negotiable." Threats like these against sovereign nations do no good for the EU's bureaucratic reputation.[/QUOTE] The only people that should go fuck themselves are the Trump administration for even thinking withdrawing from one of the most important agreements(not an EU policy) that gathered the entire world together as one for an important cause that will only benefit everyone.

[QUOTE=Lambeth;52246376]would you like to debate the laws of gravity or whether the earth is the center of our solar system?[/QUOTE] There was a time when such things were debated furiously--the result was what we now consider fact.

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52246366]Debate forum Some things just ARE Pick one[/QUOTE] Please, give your factual reasons for why climate change doesn't exist then. Right now all you've done is posture.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52246386]There was a time when such things were debated furiously--the result was what we now consider fact.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and that time is not now. They are facts now, they're not something that you're supposed to be debating over.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52246358]EU can go fuck itself if it thinks any policy it imposes on the US is "non-negotiable." Threats like these against sovereign nations do no good for the EU's bureaucratic reputation.[/QUOTE] What...? :hairpull: climate change is a non negotiable fact and if you're getting pissy because trump and america was told that, I dont know what to expect. This is like THE non negotiable policy, something has to be done now or the world fulla humans will start to lose humans

[QUOTE=Chonch;52246358]EU can go fuck itself if it thinks any policy it imposes on the US is "non-negotiable." Threats like these against sovereign nations do no good for the EU's bureaucratic reputation.[/QUOTE] Nah, honestly, the US can go fuck itself. We're talking about preserving the god damn world so that humanity, and the millions of other species on this planet, have a future to speak of. I don't care one bit about your opinion or Trump's: climate change is real and we're almost at a point where we're permanently screwed. Backing out of this agreement should not be an option. You chose to be part of it, and it should stay that way, whether you like it or not.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52246386]There was a time when such things were debated furiously--the result was what we now consider fact.[/QUOTE] Climate change was also debated furiously. Then 99% of the worlds scientists said in unison that it is real. It is a fact.

[QUOTE=Chonch;52246358]EU can go fuck itself if it thinks any policy it imposes on the US is "non-negotiable." Threats like these against sovereign nations do no good for the EU's bureaucratic reputation.[/QUOTE] "It imposes upon the US"? What the fuck are you talking about, we agreed to the Paris agreement, going back on that agreement doesn't make [I]them[/I] look childish, it makes [I]us[/I] look childish, because we're the ones who look like we can't be taken at our word.

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52246366]Debate forum Some things just ARE Pick one[/QUOTE] are you trying to argue that there's no such thing as an objective fact?

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52246291]Like most climate change believers, claiming that the discussion is already settled and their opinion is irrefutable fact.[/QUOTE] aren't you technically doing the same thing by talking down on them? :thinking:

[QUOTE=simkas;52246370]If it's a policy that is literally about saving the world we live in then yeah, it better fucking should be non-negiotable. [editline]18th May 2017[/editline] Who told you that debates can only be over whether a factual thing is actually factual or not?[/QUOTE] Im not trying to say it doesnt exist, id just like to play devils avacado here and point out how quickly everyone grabs their torches and pichforks if anyone even suggests that climate change maybe isnt the huge world ending problem that pro-climate-change people make it out to be.

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52246409]Im not trying to say it doesnt exist, id just like to play devils avacado here and point out how quickly everyone grabs their torches and pichforks if anyone even suggests that climate change maybe isnt the huge world ending problem that pro-climate-change people make it out to be.[/QUOTE] Well, yeah, because those people are denying clear and present facts and are actually factually wrong.

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52246409]Im not trying to say it doesnt exist, id just like to play devils avacado here and point out how quickly everyone grabs their torches and pichforks if anyone even suggests that climate change maybe isnt the huge world ending problem that pro-climate-change people make it out to be.[/QUOTE] I mean to be fair, we have a lot of evidence that climate change is a real thing caused by human beings, and I haven't seen any evidence of the opposite.

[QUOTE=Birdman101;52246366]Debate forum Some things just ARE Pick one[/QUOTE] Here, have a cross post of the last time we debated climate change [QUOTE][QUOTE=Toybasher;52214749][url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KkrlhoFbBM[/url] Where the Al Gore clip was from. I understand. I was bringing up how farfetched it seems for "97-99% of scientists" to agree that humans have a major impact on climate change. It just seems hard to prove from a scientific standpoint. I'll try and explain why a bit better this time. First, how can we measure the relation of human activity on climate? It seems the researchers are trying to prove it by combining C02 with temperature graphs? It's ridiculously complicated. I'll try and explain what I "Know." Supposedly methane is actually a bigger contributor to the greenhouse effect than C02 ever will be. Human activities hardly even emit much C02. [IMG]http://i65.tinypic.com/2s809px.jpg[/IMG] Here's a report to the U.N. [url]https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-State-of-the-Climate-Report.pdf[/url] Standouts include temperature remaining somewhat steady over the past 18 years, ice caps actually gaining mass in 2016 compared to 2012, temperature data's increases being only in a margin of error of about a hundredth of a degree, etc. I also want to mention how unreliable temperature data from the early 1900's can be. [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/07/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/[/url] There's also stuff like this I'd like to bring up. Even Mars, another planet which is devoid of life (At least currently.) seems to have warming issues, too. [url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/mars-also-undergoing-climate-change-ice-age-retrea/[/url] My argument is how can we be so sure that humans are directly having an effect on the climate, and if so, how much? Is all the teeth-gnashing about "We need a carbon tax, we need to ban plastic bags!" etc. really justified? Could it all be a natural cycle of some sort, outside of our control? Back to the main topic in the thread, the EPA funding cuts. Couldn't some of that money be better spent elsewhere? I'm not saying we should let people dump oil into rivers, but it's hard to see the mess in that agency and think all the money we send there is actually being used properly. It's one of the most polarizing issues, sadly.[/QUOTE] Alright, since you are trying to have a discussion, ill give it a go ill preface that since climate change, on a technical level, is quite complicated, a lot of "information campaigns" often try to simplify things to keep things brief. This is fine in a general sense, but obviously some problems and oversimplification can be made. So folks like Al-Gore (who is a politician) and even folks like Bill Nye (who is more of an entertainer) are not the upmost best sources of information. Great for getting a general clue about things, but not for specifics. Lets start [QUOTE=Toybasher;52214749] I understand. I was bringing up how farfetched it seems for "97-99% of scientists" to agree that humans have a major impact on climate change. It just seems hard to prove from a scientific standpoint. [/QUOTE] why does it seem far fetched? Climate change was studied for decades now. Even Exxon started [URL="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/"]conducted research in the 70s[/URL]. That is plenty of time for research and discussion amoungst the scientific community to reach an agreement. [QUOTE=Toybasher;52214749] First, how can we measure the relation of human activity on climate? It seems the researchers are trying to prove it by combining C02 with temperature graphs? It's ridiculously complicated.[/QUOTE] As per your own words, it is "ridiculously complicated." Many different datas are combined from various studies to form models, generally computer ones, to then get a bigger picture. There are many such ways to measure human activities on climate, but one of the obvious ways is to measure the climate from before there were people and then during human civilization (particularly the industrial age). One way this can be done is by "ice cores." The idea behind this method is that when snow falls, it collects a bit of the atmosphere in tiny bubbles on the ground. As snow accumulates, those bubbles of gas are buried. So if we go somewhere where it has snowed for thousands of years (like the arctic) and drill way down, we can get to those little trapped bubbles and see what the atmosphere was like from that era. You can read more about it here: [url]http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/ice_core_co2.html[/url] And as the data shows, for the past several hundred thousand years, CO2 has been going up and down, peaking at 298.6 ppmv 330,000 years ago, but it generally fluctuated between 170 ppmv and 300 ppmv of thousands of years. Then suddenly in the last few [I]decades[/I] it shot up to 386 ppmv and is rising 2 more a year. So from that alone, we know that when the industrial age started, we already had a massive effect on our atmosphere. [QUOTE=Toybasher;52214749] Supposedly methane is actually a bigger contributor to the greenhouse effect than C02 ever will be. Human activities hardly even emit much C02. [IMG]http://i65.tinypic.com/2s809px.jpg[/IMG] Here's a report to the U.N. [/QUOTE] [URL="https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases#methane"]Yes, Methane is actually 25x more potent that CO2[/URL]. It does however, still come from a lot of our industrial processes. [IMG]https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/styles/medium/public/2017-04/methanea.png[/IMG] However, Im not sure why you say that human activities even emit much CO2, when the picture you posted right below says that the US electricity production alone puts out 1.9 gigatons of CO2 in the air, with that only being 0.9% of the worlds total production. As as per my ice core example, the worlds CO2 levels have clearly risen. [QUOTE=Toybasher;52214749] [url]https://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/2016-State-of-the-Climate-Report.pdf[/url] [/QUOTE] I would like to take this opportunity to remind everyone to [I]check their sources[/I]. one of the best ways to do this is to remove everything after the .org or .com part of the URL So let us see [URL="https://www.cfact.org"]https://www.cfact.org[/URL] wow, that totally looks like a legit source with peer reviewed studies. (this was sarcasm) If we look at that PDF, we can see if was made by [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Morano"]Marc Morano[/URL], who works in [I]politics[/I], not science. He clearly is not a valid soure for anything scientific. lets also talk about cherrypicking for a moment. In that PDF, Marc makes the claim that "Global temperatures have been virtually flat for about 18 years, [B]according to satellite data[/B]" We have so many ways of collecting temperature data, and yet he only focuses on this one method? Satellite data? And why is the satellite seeming to show information contrary to ground weather stations, weather balloons, and computer models? The correct answer is that the satellites "were" showing contrary information. You see, unlike weather balloons or ground weather stations, which simply use thermometers to measure temperature, Satellites cannot do that and instead employ a trick by using a microwave sensor to measure the radiation off of oxygen, and using a constant we can convert that reading into a temperature. We have many different satellites orbiting, with sensors that are slightly different from one and another. This wasnt noticed initially, and so when all the sensor data was combined, it gave off some strange data, contradicting directly what ground stations were saying, saying that the temperature was warming, stable, or cooling in different areas. This error was since found however, and is now corrected. There is still some controversy about how accurate satellite data is, but it falls pretty in line with everything else, so it makes sense. read more about that here: [url]http://science.sciencemag.org/content/309/5740/1548.full[/url] But Marco, in his bid to cherrypick only what is relevant, is using the old data from satillites which was proven wrong, and ignoring everything else. At this point, Cfact is pretty much a "thinktank" and I would ignore them entirely. [QUOTE=Toybasher;52214749] [url]http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/10/07/experts-said-arctic-sea-ice-would-melt-entirely-by-september-201/[/url] There's also stuff like this I'd like to bring up. [/QUOTE] Ill point out this excerpt [QUOTE]Although a quick glance at NSIDC satellite data going back to 1981 shows an undeniable downward trend in sea ice over the past 35 years, scientists have accused Prof Wadhams and others of "crying wolf" and harming the message of climate change through "dramatic", "incorrect" and "confusing" predictions.[/QUOTE] We see here there was some disagreement about how fast ice will be lost (and it turns out one side was right), but the overall trend is that the arctic is losing ice, that global average temperature is rising, etc. There is some debate of "how fast," but there is practically no debate amoungst scientists of "if" this things are going to happen [QUOTE=Toybasher;52214749]Even Mars, another planet which is devoid of life (At least currently.) seems to have warming issues, too. [url]http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/31/mars-also-undergoing-climate-change-ice-age-retrea/[/url] [/QUOTE] Ill be honest, im not sure what this has to do with the earth warming. the only variable i think that they have in common is the output energy of the sun, which makes no sense because the sun is slightly cooling [url]http://www2.mps.mpg.de/projects/sun-climate/data.html[/url] [QUOTE=Toybasher;52214749] My argument is how can we be so sure that humans are directly having an effect on the climate, and if so, how much? Is all the teeth-gnashing about "We need a carbon tax, we need to ban plastic bags!" etc. really justified? Could it all be a natural cycle of some sort, outside of our control? Back to the main topic in the thread, the EPA funding cuts. Couldn't some of that money be better spent elsewhere? I'm not saying we should let people dump oil into rivers, but it's hard to see the mess in that agency and think all the money we send there is actually being used properly. [/QUOTE] It is justified to save our planet for future generations. I can continue posting more data that what is happening is not natural, because it isnt. The evidence is clear. And we need the epa to continue researching this. Cutting their funding to go elsewhere is stupid anyways, its like cleaning your hard drive by deleting text files. [QUOTE=Toybasher;52214749]It's one of the most polarizing issues, sadly.[/QUOTE] It is polarizing for one reason only, because many companies will lose money (or just make less money), if climate regulations are put in place, thats why folks like marco fund thinktanks. [/QUOTE] But these threads always result the same. We point out all the facts, you guys spout the same factually wrong lines a few times like a broken vinyl until you cower away from this thread when you realize you cannot win against facts. But if you really want to debate, then at least put some damn effort in your posts instead of making dumb snipes