• Please be aware we've switched the forums to their own URL. (again) You'll find the new website address to be www.steelernationforum.com Thanks
  • Please clear your private messages. Your inbox is close to being full.

Scoop: PresidentTrump is pulling U.S. out of Paris climate deal

China is the problem, not the US.

In 2015, the top emitters were: China at 10.4 billion tons, US 5.4, EU 3.5, India 2.5, and Russia 1.8. China is emitting more than US-EU-Russia COMBINED, and is allowed to add basically another EU... while the rest of us pay this multi-multi-trillion-dollar effort so that the planet MIGHT be 0.3 degrees cooler in the year 2100. No thanks.

air-pollution-map-MAIN2.jpg


Red = Bad, mmmkay?



fox-tweet-climate-spending.jpg
 
CO2 IS NOT A POLLUTANT!


IT'S PLANT FOOD!

The whole Paris fake argument that we should pay trillions to lower C02 is ridiculous

I'm sure the planet Venus would agree with this...
 
The Hoax is being exposed more and more


Congress Investigates Fraudulent Science Used by NOAA to Push UN Global Warming Treaty

In 2015, Rep. Lamar Smith (R-Texas), chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, requested the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) to provide his committee with the data the agency had used to produce a controversial report on global warming. The report, written by Dr. Thomas R. Karl, director of NOAA's National Centers for Environmental Information, and published online in the journal Science, was desperately needed by the Obama administration at that time. Why? Because President Obama was heading to the United Nations Climate Summit in Paris, where he and other world leaders intended to conclude a new global compact. However, they were facing a major roadblock to their grandiose plans: the “pause.”

Contrary to the non-stop fright-peddling by the politicians and the hysterical media reports, global surface temperatures had remained flat for the past two decades. The modest, gradual rise in temperatures over much of the past century, insisted the more sensible climate scientists, was likely nothing more than natural, cyclical climate variation, and certainly nothing to panic about. However, even many of the most ardent global warming alarmists had been forced to admit that global temperatures, in defiance of alarmist predictions, had failed to rise since 1998. Among them was Prof. Phil Jones, the main character at the center of the infamous Climategate scandal at the University of East Anglia.

Dr. Jones reluctantly acknowledged in 2015 that there had been no “statistically significant” warming for the previous 15 years. This pause in warming (also called a “hiatus,” “plateau,” or “slow-down” in the climate literature) obviously, presented a huge problem to advocates of global governance, since the world’s peoples — and particularly Americans — are much less likely to accept the incredibly oppressive and outrageously expensive (as much as $100 trillion, or more, over the next century) draconian controls proposed by the UN if there is no credible evidence of an approaching climate apocalypse.alt

NOAA’s Dr. Thomas Karl, apparently, was given the task of making the pause/hiatus disappear, so that the warming panic propaganda would be more believable. Karl’s report, which was rushed into publication in Science without appropriate peer review, was immediately hailed by the establishment media as proof not only that the “pause” had never existed, but that the warming trend was rising much faster than scientists had expected. Because the Karl study was deemed to have disposed of the troublesome pause, it became known as “The Pausebuster.”

But how, inquiring minds wanted to know, had the NOAA researcher arrived at this startling new conclusion, which was contradicted by abundant hard evidence from satellite records, as well as oceanic and terrestrial monitoring systems? That’s what Rep. Smith and other congressional committee members also wanted to know. Since there had already been so many scandals and instances of confirmed fraud by the climate alarmists, and since the proposed UN “solution” to this supposed global “crisis” would demand a complete upending of our economy, huge expansions of government, and drastic restrictions on our freedom, the congressmen demanded to see the evidence. In addition, the committee had heard from whistleblowers inside NOAA that the agency had engaged in dodgy science, to say the least, in the hurried effort to produce the Karl study.

However, with the new Trump administration putting pressure on both NOAA and the Republican leadership in Congress, Rep. Smith may finally get the long-awaited data he has been doggedly pursuing. And Americans may get the relief of knowing that at least our federal government will not be continuing to use our tax dollars and the massive federal bureaucracy to shackle us with this massive, destructive UN scheme.

https://www.thenewamerican.com/tech...used-by-noaa-to-push-un-global-warming-treaty

if the evidence is so clear, it seems to me, that the scientists would be lining up to show their data and methods. Isn't the whole point of having scientific proof that anyone can look at your data and methods and duplicate your result? Instead, these people are fighting the release of the information. "Because it will be used to bully other scientist into not speaking up for the Climate".....
 
I'm sure the planet Venus would agree with this...

The question is and always has been, "What effect does petroleum-based CO2 emissions have on the environment?"

Computer models are the only evidence available. The problem is that the models have been adjusted, and tinkered-with, and re-adjusted time and again to make them more accurate when compared with actual climate data, but the models remain inaccurate.

Look, I get that a model which is 5% off is still a damn reliable model, but the history for these models is that they are not that accurate and simply cannot take into account the massive number of variables effecting climate (ocean currents, ocean temperatures, cloud cover, volcanic eruptions, CO2, methane, solar distance, solar activity, and on and on).
 
uh-oh

The Hoax unravels


31,487 U.S. Scientists Reject Global Warming Hoax

A growing list of 31,487 U.S. scientists (and counting) has signed a petition strongly rejecting as unproven the hypothesis of man-made global warming or climate change. These signers include four NASA astronauts, at least two Nobel Prize winning physicists, 9,029 Ph.D.s and some of the nation’s top climatologists. Only U.S. scientists are included in this particular petition. Only relevant scientific fields are included

There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

These scientists are instead convinced that the human-caused global warming hypothesis is without scientific validity and that government action on the basis of this hypothesis would unnecessarily and counterproductively damage both human prosperity and the natural environment of the Earth.

In PhD scientist signers alone, the project already includes 15-times more scientists than are seriously involved in the United Nations IPCC process. The very large number of petition signers demonstrates that, if there is a consensus among American scientists, it is in opposition to the human-caused global warming hypothesis rather than in favor of it.

http://fairfaxfreecitizen.com/2017/06/04/31487-u-s-scientists-reject-global-warming-hoax/
 
The question is and always has been, "What effect does petroleum-based CO2 emissions have on the environment?"

Computer models are the only evidence available. The problem is that the models have been adjusted, and tinkered-with, and re-adjusted time and again to make them more accurate when compared with actual climate data, but the models remain inaccurate.

Look, I get that a model which is 5% off is still a damn reliable model, but the history for these models is that they are not that accurate and simply cannot take into account the massive number of variables effecting climate (ocean currents, ocean temperatures, cloud cover, volcanic eruptions, CO2, methane, solar distance, solar activity, and on and on).

Steeltime has a dog in this fight like all human beings do, but let's see what one of the most deeply invested interests in AGW has to say on the matter.

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

ExxonMobil's perspectives on climate change

Our position on climate change

We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.

Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks.


Annnnnddddd we are done...........thanks for playing
 
Steeltime has a dog in this fight like all human beings do, but let's see what one of the most deeply invested interests in AGW has to say on the matter.

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

ExxonMobil's perspectives on climate change

Our position on climate change

We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.

Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks.


Annnnnddddd we are done...........thanks for playing

Of course Exxon does it's best to downplay it: risks instead of certainty, and quantify instead of known values.

They do this because only idiots continue to spout that it's a hoax.....in other words Steelernation Trumptards.

They just want to squeeze out that last dollar before the SHTF and still be able to say "we told you"
 
Last edited:
Steeltime has a dog in this fight like all human beings do, but let's see what one of the most deeply invested interests in AGW has to say on the matter.

http://corporate.exxonmobil.com/en/current-issues/climate-policy/climate-perspectives/our-position

ExxonMobil's perspectives on climate change

Our position on climate change

We have the same concerns as people everywhere – and that is how to provide the world with the energy it needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

The risk of climate change is clear and the risk warrants action. Increasing carbon emissions in the atmosphere are having a warming effect. There is a broad scientific and policy consensus that action must be taken to further quantify and assess the risks.

ExxonMobil is taking action by reducing greenhouse gas emissions in its operations, helping consumers reduce their emissions, supporting research that leads to technology breakthroughs and participating in constructive dialogue on policy options.

Addressing climate change, providing economic opportunity and lifting billions out of poverty are complex and interrelated issues requiring complex solutions. There is a consensus that comprehensive strategies are needed to respond to these risks.


Annnnnddddd we are done...........thanks for playing


Public Relations.
Ever hear of it?
 
Public Relations.
Ever hear of it?

Sure...people won't buy their gas, instead they'll power their car with a hamster wearing a collar that says "I'm a conspiracy nut" running on a wheel....right?
 
the irony of it is, now, elfie gives a **** what Exxon has to say. If they said, it is NOT a problem, it would be just Big Oil paying off scientists to keep up the deniers.

What Exxon has to say has no bearing on the veracity of AGW. Well....today.

Forty years ago they knew it was true and PR didnt matter then. They did research on it because they thought their core business was coming to an end.

They wanted a seat at the table with government ,because surely government was not going to allow the destruction of the biosphere......then came Heartland and the tobacco hearings. Exxon learned a valuable lesson; people can be convinced of anything. In the case of big tobacco it was the idea that there is "uncertainty" as to whether tobacco causes cancer.....SOUND FAMILIAR?

Heartland......the same front group that now pimps the climate change denial industry.

Here ,learn something instead of just repeating what that drug addled piece of human excrement Rush Limbaugh brainwashes you with.


https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

After you read that we are officially done......

Cognitive dissonance must be a hell of a mental cross to bear.
 
I'm not being swayed by these 3%er arguments that continue to be parroted here. The oil industry has done their due diligence to try and refute a world standard in science. There is no conspiracy of the 97% here guys.

Conspiracies are small groups influencing a small amount of people. 3%<97%. If you're looking for a conspiracy, the smaller number is trying to wag the dog...
 
I'm not being swayed by these 3%er arguments that continue to be parroted here. The oil industry has done their due diligence to try and refute a world standard in science. There is no conspiracy of the 97% here guys.

Conspiracies are small groups influencing a small amount of people. 3%<97%. If you're looking for a conspiracy, the smaller number is trying to wag the dog...

You can contribute my carbon taxes, then.
 
Forty years ago they knew it was true and PR didnt matter then.

40 Years ago they told us we were heading for an ice age. Do I have to post the video...again? From 1978:

 
See: Distance to Sun

Still in the goldilocks zone. Problem is runaway greenhouse gas effect leading to a 96% CO2 atmosphere.

Come on Spike, you know the space stats. I love your space posts!
 
The question is and always has been, "What effect does petroleum-based CO2 emissions have on the environment?"

Computer models are the only evidence available. The problem is that the models have been adjusted, and tinkered-with, and re-adjusted time and again to make them more accurate when compared with actual climate data, but the models remain inaccurate.

Look, I get that a model which is 5% off is still a damn reliable model, but the history for these models is that they are not that accurate and simply cannot take into account the massive number of variables effecting climate (ocean currents, ocean temperatures, cloud cover, volcanic eruptions, CO2, methane, solar distance, solar activity, and on and on).

Methane actually has a more drastic effect to greenhouse gas retention than CO2. Methane is being released in unregulated, unsustainable quantities by corporate farming, and the melting of permafrost in the arctic circle. The permafrost data is new and very interesting if you want to take a look.
 
You can contribute my carbon taxes, then.

You must have missed my earlier posts stating the carbon tax is fiscally irresponsible, which is why I supported pulling out of the Paris Accord.

Also, you don't pay carbon taxes, corporations do.

Still doesn't change the science. I still believe the US can reduce emissions on their own, more efficiently than paying into a global bank.
 
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-...ing-agenda-really-about-destroying-capitalism

U.N. Official Admits Global Warming Agenda Is Really About Destroying Capitalism
by Tyler Durden
Feb 3, 2017 6:57 PM

A shocking statement was made by a United Nations official Christiana Figueres at a news conference in Brussels.

Figueres admitted that the Global Warming conspiracy set by the U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change, of which she is the executive secretary, has a goal not of environmental activists is not to save the world from ecological calamity, but to destroy capitalism. She said very casually:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

She even restated that goal ensuring it was not a mistake:

“This is probably the most difficult task we have ever given ourselves, which is to intentionally transform the economic development model for the first time in human history.”
I was invited to a major political dinner in Washington with the former Chairman of Temple University since I advised the University with respect to its portfolio. We were seated at one of those round tables with ten people. Because we were invited from a university, they placed us with the heads of the various environmental groups. They assumed they were in friendly company and began speaking freely. Dick Fox, my friend, began to lead them on to get the truth behind their movement. Lo and behold, they too admitted it was not about the environment, but to reduce population growth. Dick then asked them, “Whose grandchild are we trying to prevent from being born? Your’s or mine?

All of these movements seem to have a hidden agenda that the press helps to misrepresent all the time. One must wonder, at what point will the press realize they are destroying their own future?

Investors.com reminds Figueres that the only economic model in the last 150 years that has ever worked at all is capitalism. The evidence is prima facie: From a feudal order that lasted a thousand years, produced zero growth and kept workdays long and lifespans short, the countries that have embraced free-market capitalism have enjoyed a system in which output has increased 70-fold, work days have been halved and lifespans doubled.
 
I'm not being swayed by these 3%er arguments that continue to be parroted here. The oil industry has done their due diligence to try and refute a world standard in science. There is no conspiracy of the 97% here guys.

Conspiracies are small groups influencing a small amount of people. 3%<97%. If you're looking for a conspiracy, the smaller number is trying to wag the dog...

Read the article, Cope. The "97%" issue is provable bullshit.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexep...e-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/#7e7fcd13f9ff

Look, there are bases for discussion and dispute, but that 97% idiocy is the equivalent of arguing a point "because my mom said so."
 
I won't say that climate science is false. I will say that a lot of the "science" fed to us as "science" is in fact not science at all. The "evidence" we've been fed is a load of horse ****. In 1978, these scientists told us we were heading for an Ice Age. Then they told us the planet was warming. Called it Global Warming in fact. Then for 15 years, there was no warming. So it was changed to "Climate Change" because they couldn't show the warming.

I think a vast majority of climate science is tainted and influenced by money and grants and governments and Al Gore, all combined, that have a very real reason to get you hysterical about "climate change".

I think a lot of the science is corrupt, as evidenced. See NOAA and their falsified weather data. See the Navy falsified weather data. Or other agencies' falsified weather data.

I think the error in your quote above is you call it science. I don't. I call it manipulation through falsified data. When you can differentiate "climate science" from grant-influenced, government-influenced, politically-influenced statistical manipulation, then we can begin to have a discussion. There's been no planetary warming for 15 years. The global caps didn't melt. Scientists now are predicting an ice age. And guess what? Earth naturally goes through progressions of warming and cooling century after century after century.

I know this. Carbon taxes don't work. Ask Australia. Carbon taxes do redistribute wealth. Carbon taxes were a damnation on Germany. These taxes and regulations are a means by which to divert money from one pocket, to another - i.e., away from the US.

As stated before, when the US is asked to pony the brunt of the check and China has to do nothing for 30 years, well...and you couple it with this "science" you speak of...the writing on the wall is pretty evident.

****, even Bill Clinton was smart enough not to sign onto this bullshit with the Montreal Accord, or the Sao Paolo accord or whatever the bullshit was called then.
 
Still in the goldilocks zone. Problem is runaway greenhouse gas effect leading to a 96% CO2 atmosphere.

Come on Spike, you know the space stats. I love your space posts!

references please.

Please include explanation of feedback mechanism.

TIA
 
Methane actually has a more drastic effect to greenhouse gas retention than CO2. Methane is being released in unregulated, unsustainable quantities by corporate farming, and the melting of permafrost in the arctic circle. The permafrost data is new and very interesting if you want to take a look.

I would love a look. Pls pass along a link. TIA
 
Top