REPORT: $12.7 Trillion Needed To Meet Paris Accord's Goal

This one is also interesting on a new report showing where green tech is failing.

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/06/14/ ... reen-tech/

They won't be getting the money from the USA thanks to President Trump!

Damn straight! Why should the polluter pay into the cleanup?

Damn straight! Why should the polluter pay into the cleanup?

What pollution?

I thought this was about the globalists telling you they could stop their prophesied Warmageddon by resetting the world's thermostat through control of the gas we exhale. Apparently if they take control of the West's money and are given greater control of behaviour they can do something they've never shown an ability to do before and fix some imagined problem. So they claim, but if they are going to fix a problem (even this imaginary one) it will be the first time we've seen any evidence of this claimed problem fixing capability.

But what pollution?

Scientists need to eat too and money and research grants flow to those who are supporting the most politically attractive trends of the day. Government funding would obviously not go to those who questioned the MMGW theory and sought to explore this from other angles. Scientists aren't necessarily lily white purists either. They have egos and reputations to establish and protect so there can be some bias towards this as well.

Over the years we've learned to be somewhat skeptical about what scientists have to say. Who remembers the "smoking scientists and researchers" of 60 years ago who were in the pay of big tobacco and actually concluded that smoking was highly beneficial. Then there are the foodies and aggies working for the food and agricultural industries who help to sell sugar and chemical additives in diets and a host of fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides, all of which are quite harmless.

Then there's the great coffee and wine drinking pissing contests between medical scientists. Sometimes its good, but next time its bad. I like wine and coffee so I'll go down the middle and drink both in modest amounts.

And of course politicians don't know squat about science. They'll run with whatever can be spun into political value and more money. Personally I'll watch my tomato patch for climate trends because I think the tomatoes are a lot smarter and more honest than the UN on climate stuff. Besides, they don't smell and taste like BS.

Food studies will always be inaccurate, because the only way to do a proper study of them is to feed one group lots, and feed another group none and see if there is a difference in health. Killing people during studies is frowned upon, so they rely on people's memories of what they ate and when. Usually inaccurate. That makes for poor results.

Then there are studies like that flawed one recently claiming children that don't drink cows milk are shorter. So many flaws with that one right away - small populations size, children than haven't fully grown . . .and I bet if you scratch the surface, it was funded by some dairy industry shell company. Similar to those tobacco studies, where internally they showed how addictive and harmful cigarettes were, but hire some shill to pretend to be a doctor and tout the benefits.

But that is not comparable to science. A scientists' ego is not a measure of data. The scientific method removes ego and opinion from results. As I've always said, if you want to disprove global warming as it is presented, then show us your data. Show us your measurements that have been confirmed through multiple methods, and/or show us an alternate explanation for what is observed that reconciles with your data or better explains current data.

Anyone that can do that will have all the funding they want, because oil intensive industries would like nothing better than business as usual, and they will pay kings ransoms to have that back again.

But instead, they are backing the Paris accords, because they know which way the consumers are heading. And it's follow them, or join big coal in bankruptcy protection.

CO2 is not a pollutant.

I'm not even going there. Nothing more can be said that wasn't the last 9 times that was shown to be wrong.

I'm not even going there. Nothing more can be said that wasn't the last 9 times that was shown to be wrong.

Shown to be wrong where? The usual place you mean? Your imagination.

Damn straight! Why should the polluter pay into the cleanup?

What pollution?

I thought this was about the globalists telling you they could stop their prophesied Warmageddon by resetting the world's thermostat through control of the gas we exhale. Apparently if they take control of the West's money and are given greater control of behaviour they can do something they've never shown an ability to do before and fix some imagined problem. So they claim, but if they are going to fix a problem (even this imaginary one) it will be the first time we've seen any evidence of this claimed problem fixing capability.

But what pollution?

Can't answer the question, eh?

"I can't answer your question, so you're stupid." What a Prog.