Page 5 of 6

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Wed 01 May 2019, 16:26:53
by asg70
Plantagenet wrote:If you have something to say about the Paris Accords or other International Climate Negotiations then lets hear it...


Obama has nothing to do with what's going on with current climate negotiations. You continuing to harp on it is the real deflection. But by all means keep projecting and crying foul. Your evasion tacts are well known here for what they are.

The real loggerhead in climate policy isn't Obama, it's Trump, for reasons which should be obvious.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Wed 01 May 2019, 16:38:14
by Plantagenet
asg70 wrote:
Plantagenet wrote:If you have something to say about the Paris Accords or other International Climate Negotiations then lets hear it...


Obama has nothing to do with what's going on with current climate negotiations..


All current climate negotiations begin from the position established in previous climate treaties. Unfortunately, the previous climate treaties such as Obama’s China-US treaty and the very similar Paris Accords were terrible treaties.

The problem with OBama’s China-US bilateral climate treaty and the UN Paris Accords is that they are both shams. Neither of them require any CO2 reductions. THese terrible treaties provide cover for polluters in CHina and other countries to continue to pollute the atmosphere with more and more CO2, leading to ever greater global warming.

Obama’s Paris Accords are actually worse then the previous UN climate—-the Kyoto Accords. The Kyoto Accords at least made CO2 reductions the central point of the treaty....and the Kyoto Accords intentionally were set up to be a practice treaty with the understanding that the next treaty would REQUIRE reductions in CO2 output—— something that Obama failed to build upon.

Cheers!

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Wed 01 May 2019, 21:18:57
by dohboi
The British Parliament seems to be at least talking the right language:

British Parliament Declares 'Climate Change Emergency'

https://dw.com/en/british-parliament-de ... a-48568627

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Thu 02 May 2019, 09:40:57
by asg70
Plantagenet wrote: and the very similar Paris Accords were terrible treaties.


Trump has no interest in improving the situation. So why are you fixating on Obama? I think we know the answer (hence the NPC meme).

Point being you're stuck in the past and not acknowledging the current impediment to climate policy.

Truth is you're not really interested in any subject on this forum beyond what opportunities it provides to sling mud at a past president, which is why little of what you say is taken seriously.

That's not an ad hom, it's an accurate description of the wasted bandwidth you shovel into this forum on a daily basis.

Obama had his two terms, but we're now entering into an election cycle. Would you care to render your opinion yea or nay for 4 more years of Trump? If the answer is yea you really have no credibility in suggesting you have concern about the environment, not like you deserve it anyway considering your discretionary plane trips.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Thu 02 May 2019, 10:35:50
by Newfie
ASG,

Reading your post I pick up a rather extreme bias. You are asking someone to pick between Trump and some un-named candidate. We’ve already seen that when the population was given a choice between Trump and Hillary that Trump won. And while it may not have been a clear majority it was a very significant portion of the population, not something to be dismissed. So it’s entirely possible that Trump will win again in 2020. That depends upon a lot of factors not the least of which is the Dems picking a viable candidate and or there being a viable 3rd party candidate.

You are proposing a political litmus test. It must be of your party. That is one of the foundational positions if fascism, extreme loyalty to the party.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Thu 02 May 2019, 15:24:42
by asg70
Newfie wrote:You are proposing a political litmus test.


You can't claim to care about the environment and be pro-Trump at the same time. That is not an endorsement of any other candidate, but it at least associates Trump as an anti-enivoronmental politician, which he absolutely is, from the appointment of Scott Pruitt on down to "bringing back coal", etc... It makes no sense, in terms of proportion, to single out Obama for criticism while not bringing up Trump's track record other than to shield Trump by accusing Obama and liberals of not doing enough. It's a flimsy diversion tactic and it's obvious.

That doesn't absolve the general public from complicity in electing the guy in the first place, but Plant never wants to come to grips with his own political bias and how his party loyalty is INCOMPATIBLE with his so-called environmental interests. He's gone this long suffering from extreme cognitive dissonance so I'm not expecting him to have an epiphany anytime soon but his bullshit deserves to be called out.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Thu 02 May 2019, 15:56:16
by Tanada
asg70 wrote:
Newfie wrote:You are proposing a political litmus test.


You can't claim to care about the environment and be pro-Trump at the same time. That is not an endorsement of any other candidate, but it at least associates Trump as an anti-enivoronmental politician, which he absolutely is, from the appointment of Scott Pruitt on down to "bringing back coal", etc... It makes no sense, in terms of proportion, to single out Obama for criticism while not bringing up Trump's track record other than to shield Trump by accusing Obama and liberals of not doing enough. It's a flimsy diversion tactic and it's obvious.

That doesn't absolve the general public from complicity in electing the guy in the first place, but Plant never wants to come to grips with his own political bias and how his party loyalty is INCOMPATIBLE with his so-called environmental interests. He's gone this long suffering from extreme cognitive dissonance so I'm not expecting him to have an epiphany anytime soon but his bullshit deserves to be called out.


If you want to set standards like that then 90+% of politicians, on every side of every aisle are automatically disqualified because words mean jack squat. Show me politicians who have actions showing they believe climate change is a threat rather than simply mouthing whatever phrases they think will get them reelected.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Thu 02 May 2019, 18:17:24
by Newfie
Tanada,

Pretty much, it’s that kind of thinking that has led me to not vote.

ASG,

Plant is not the topic of discussion here. We are discussing international climate negotiations.

I strongly disagree with Trumps position vis Climate Change. But at least he is honest about them, you know where he stands. The threat is right in your face.

Obama was very two faced, talked as if Paris was a very good thing when in fact it was not. He led folks to believe that we were making significant progress when we were not. His “big climate change policy speech”, which I read carefully was just as much about supporting the fossil fuel industry as it was about climate change. The man was a shyster and liar, or terribly stupid.

It’s not that I disagree with your concern, I don’t. But we should see the world clearly, not through jingoistic slogans.

P.S. it would be much more productive to discuss the 2020 field and their stances on climate change.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Thu 02 May 2019, 18:33:52
by onlooker
For the most part, the nations that could make a difference related to CC, have been all talk no action

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Thu 02 May 2019, 19:21:16
by Ibon
Regardless of the political party or the country that leads in any initiative it will always start as a vision, an ideal, a long term goal. No climate agreement is going to leave the gates with anything close to viable solutions. We are all savvy enough here on this board after studying energy issues for the past 20 years that this will be a long long process. But the process starts with a vision, with a goal. What will eventually give any accord teeth toward effective solutions are the consequences that will bear down.

In that sense I do not agree with Newfie that Obama was intentionally a liar or knowingly misleading. The same goes for all the other countries that signed on. We all know what a joke this initial start was through the lens of effective solutions. But it is wrong to say that the players were intentionally misleading. These accords go through bitter rounds of negotiations with countries who all have their profit and economic growth goals that create the biggest road block to effective mitigation. As long as that takes priority over effective mitigation of climate change then yes these accords are laughable and a joke. But they are not useless in the sense that they give recognition to the issue and a basis out of which the slow process toward effective mitigation can procede through the decades that follow once consequences bite down.

Without being partisan I do agree with ASG in this case. . Trump, for all his honesty, is a serious step backward even if Obama was all platitudes and no real substance.

Substance comes with the BIG SQUEEZE......

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Thu 02 May 2019, 19:52:56
by Plantagenet
Ibon wrote: I do not agree with Newfie that Obama was intentionally a liar or knowingly misleading. The same goes for all the other countries that signed on.


I don't see how they could have missed it. Prof. James Hansen and several non-Governmental Agencies like 350.org denounced the proposed treaty before it was signed, and even the governmental scientists who were advising Obama were pretty explicit right from the start that the Paris accords assumed some magical way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere that didn't actually exist.

Its well known that James Hansen sought to meet with Obama for years to warn him about just how serious climate change was, and Obama refused to meet him. Its as though Roosevelt refused to meet with Einstein when Einstein requested a meeting to warn Roosevelt about the nuclear bomb. Thats what is called willful ignorance---if Obama didn't know enough about climate change to write a Treaty with some teeth in it, its because Obama intentionally didn't want to know enough.

AND, in the years since the Paris Accords was signed, its become apparent that CO2 emissions have ACCELERATED, not declined, and global warming is not stopping because Obama and the others signed an agreement ordering to climate to warm no more then 1.5° 2.0°C. If any of these people had a shred of honesty they would admit the Paris accords have failed to stop global warming and have failed to reduce CO2 emissions....but Obama and the others say nothing.

If Obama wasn't intentionally a liar when he put together the Paris Accords, its because he intentionally refused to see the facts or meet the people who could tell him the facts. In any event, he has been proven to be a liar by subsequent events---the Paris Accord is fatally flawed and has already failed in spite of Obama's brainless boasting about how his agreement would stop global warming. We're on track to hit 1.85°C ABOVE the pre-industrail global temp baseline this year....within spitting distance of the 2°C limit Obama claimed to have created just 3 years ago.

Ibon wrote:Without being partisan I do agree with ASG in this case. . Trump, for all his honesty, is a serious step backward even if Obama was all platitudes and no real substance.


Of course. Obama was a slyly dishonest climate criminal, and Trump is a stupid blundering ignorant climate criminal. They have turned out to both be bad news for the chance of getting a post-Kyoto UN climate treaty that will actually mandate CO2 emission reductions.

Meanwhile the climate is going haywire. Huge areas of forest in California are burning up every summer as are forests in Australia and Siberia and parts of Europe and forests in other temperates areas (Even Winnie the Poo's beloved 100 acre wood in England is on fire in a heat wave right now). Meanwhile the Antarctic and the Arctic and the sub-Arctic, where I live, is changing forever and CO2 is now accumulating in the atmosphere quicker then ever and China continues to build hundreds of coal-fired power plants in spite of being a signatory in good standing to the Paris Accords (see link in my post on the prior page of this thread).

Cheers!

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Thu 02 May 2019, 20:04:05
by Ibon
Plantagenet wrote:
I don't see how they could have missed it. Prof. James Hansen and several non-Governmental Agencies like 350.org denounced the proposed treaty before it was signed, and even the governmental scientists who were advising Obama were pretty explicit right from the start that the Paris accords assumed some magical way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere that didn't actually exist.


They didn't miss that...... they understood. Just like they didn't miss all the data from their economic advisers regarding the goals for GDP growth and corporate lobbyists and every other constituency that has to be measured in considering a compromise which at the end made the final outcome a useless agreement.

This is what every future negotiation will also bring, regardless of political party. A grand compromise which waters down whatever accord.... this is actually by the way supported by the vast majority of the worlds citizens, who just like Obama and all the other nations play lip service but when it comes to real sacrifice, AS IN YOUR AIR TRAVEL PLANT, just doesn't really happen.

I will not debate politics here, every politician, even Trump, understands the real threat of climate change, they are chained to a stalemate of conflicting goals which is actually perfectly matched with the stalemate or better yet checkmate that happens in ecological overshoot.

You can't expect anything different, until the BIG SQUEEZE.

Back to the point, these accords are not useless even though they are for the moment useless...... at some point when consequences bite there will be collective capitulation and a place from which to start real mitigation ... that place could very well be whatever toothless agreement is around at that moment.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Thu 02 May 2019, 21:26:28
by asg70
Ibon wrote:...but when it comes to real sacrifice, AS IN YOUR AIR TRAVEL PLANT, just doesn't really happen.


Image

BTW, Trump is further burnishing his environmental creds today.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Thu 02 May 2019, 21:28:27
by Ibon
asg70 wrote:
Ibon wrote:...but when it comes to real sacrifice, AS IN YOUR AIR TRAVEL PLANT, just doesn't really happen.


Image


Plant is just like Obama, says pretty words about how serious climate change is but doesn't do squat about it.

In psychology this is called projection.

We now know why the obsession!

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Thu 02 May 2019, 21:31:32
by Ibon
ASG, don't get too excited, we are all like Plant and Obama......

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Thu 02 May 2019, 22:00:02
by asg70
Ibon wrote:In psychology this is called projection.


This is the difference between Plant and the rest of us.

Plant exists for the purpose of projecting, passive-aggression, and sociopathic gaslighting.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Thu 02 May 2019, 22:10:52
by Ibon
asg70 wrote:
Ibon wrote:In psychology this is called projection.


This is the difference between Plant and the rest of us.

Plant exists for the purpose of projecting, passive-aggression, and sociopathic gaslighting.


In an open forum everyones pathology is exposed, especially after many years.

My suggestion is let it go. You mentioned upstream that Plant's obvious pathology has resulted in him having lost credibility ages ago, So why not just leave it at that.

Don't let his obsession be your obsession...

It's just a digital personality..... its not real!

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Fri 03 May 2019, 00:34:55
by Plantagenet
Ibon wrote: this is actually by the way supported by the vast majority of the worlds citizens, who just like Obama and all the other nations play lip service but when it comes to real sacrifice, AS IN YOUR AIR TRAVEL PLANT, just doesn't really happen.


Whereas your own air travel and ennui/ASG's air travel is perfectly OK and unworthy of mention, I assume?

Image
Tired of shameless hypocrites harassing you about your air travel while ignoring their own air travel? Then travel the politically correct way....on the backs of eagles :lol: :-D :P :roll:

Cheers!

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Fri 03 May 2019, 04:22:14
by Ibon
Make no mistake folks. This site is about entertainment.
Not much more.

Re: International Climate Negotiations Pt. 3

Unread postPosted: Fri 03 May 2019, 05:24:10
by Cog
Image