Paris Climate Agreement

Also from Forbes.

Objective Science Unmasks Global Warming Alarmists As The True Science 'Deniers'
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/20/objective-science-unmasks-global-warming-alarmists-as-the-true-science-deniers/

Oh. The $100 Billion is GCF's fundraising goal - to be raised from public, private and philanthropic sources by 2020.

Aspirational but not in the bank.

You can spend cash, you can even spend pledges (receivables) - but you can't spend a goal.

WHY do we need the paris accord? cant any of this be done without? Look, states have decided to go ahead and do things on their own. why isnt that good enough to begin with?

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/12/james-hansen-climate-change-paris-talks-fraud

the following is an excerpt

mention of the Paris climate talks is enough to make James Hansen grumpy. The former Nasa scientist, considered the father of global awareness of climate change, is a soft-spoken, almost diffident Iowan. But when he talks about the gathering of nearly 200 nations, his demeanour changes.

John Kerry rejects leading climate scientist's claim Paris talks were 'fraud'
Read more
“It’s a fraud really, a fake,” he says, rubbing his head. “It’s just bullshit for them to say: ‘We’ll have a 2C warming target and then try to do a little better every five years.’ It’s just worthless words. There is no action, just promises. As long as fossil fuels appear to be the cheapest fuels out there, they will be continued to be burned.”

Oh. The $100 Billion is GCF's fundraising goal - to be raised from public, private and philanthropic sources by 2020.

Aspirational but not in the bank.

You can spend cash, you can even spend pledges (receivables) - but you can't spend a goal.

It sounds like more than a "goal". It sounds like as part of the Paris Agreement advanced countries have "formally" agreed to mobilize USD 100 billion per year for the GCF.

"Among these concerted efforts, advanced economies have formally agreed to jointly mobilize USD 100 billion per year by 2020, from a variety of sources, to address the pressing mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries. "

Scientists are only able to be honest AFTER they retire because of the climate change mafia.

William M. Gray, the emeritus professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University (CSU), and the head of the Tropical Meteorology Project at CSU's Department of Atmospheric Sciences. The go to person for hurricane predictions had this to say.
Gray was skeptical of current theories of human-induced global warming, which he said is supported by scientists afraid of losing grant funding and promoted by government leaders and environmentalists seeking world government. Although he agreed that global warming was taking place, he argued that humans were only responsible for a tiny portion and it was largely part of the Earth's natural cycle. In June 2011, Gray wrote a paper directed at the American Meteorological Society, criticizing their advocation of anthropogenic global warming. He said that members were following a political agenda rather than a scientific one as well as working for special interests rather than the scientific community at large.

Judith Curry, former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research. She is a member of the National Research Council's Climate Research Committee. She resigned from her post in January 2017 and had this to say.
"The definition of ‘dangerous’ climate change is ambiguous, and hypothesized catastrophic tipping points are regarded as very or extremely unlikely in the 21st century. Efforts to link dangerous impacts of extreme weather events to human-caused warming are misleading and unsupported by evidence. Climate change is a ‘wicked problem’ and ill-suited to a ‘command and control’ solution. It has been estimated that the U.S. national commitments to the UN to reduce emissions by 28% will prevent three hundredths of a degree centigrade in warming by 2100... The articulation of a preferred policy option in the early 1990’s by the United Nations has marginalized research on broader issues surrounding climate variability and change and has stifled the development of a broader range of policy options. We need to push the reset button in our deliberations about how we should respond to climate change. We should expand the frameworks for thinking about climate policy and provide a wider choice of options in addressing the risks from climate change. As an example of alternative options, pragmatic solutions have been proposed based on efforts to accelerate energy innovation, build resilience to extreme weather, and pursue no regrets pollution reduction. Each of these measures has justifications independent of their benefits for climate mitigation and adaptation. Robust policy options that can be justified by associated policy reasons whether or not human caused climate change is dangerous avoids the hubris of pretending to know what will happen with the 21st century climate."

Judith Curry announces her resignation.

Mobilize USD $100B by 2020?

Sounds like a capital campaign to me.

Another article from Forbes.

"If you've ever expressed the least bit of skepticism about environmentalist calls for making the vast majority of fossil fuel use illegal, you've probably heard the smug response: “97% of climate scientists agree with climate change” — which always carries the implication: Who are you to challenge them?

The answer is: you are a thinking, independent individual--and you don’t go by polls, let alone second-hand accounts of polls; you go by facts, logic and explanation."

http://www.forbes.com/sites/alexepstein/2015/01/06/97-of-climate-scientists-agree-is-100-wrong/

Have you heard people throw around a 97% consensus number? BS!

"Summary: Cook et al. (2013) attempted to categorize 11,944 abstracts of papers (not entire papers) to their level of endorsement of AGW and found 7930 (66%) held no position on AGW. While only 65 papers (0.5%) explicitly endorsed and quantified AGW as +50% (Humans are the primary cause). Their methodology was so fatally flawed that they falsely classified skeptic papers as endorsing AGW, apparently believing to know more about the papers than their authors. Cook et al.’s author self-ratings simply confirmed the worthlessness of their methodology, as they were not representative of the sample since only 4% of the authors (1189 of 29,083) rated their own papers and of these 63% disagreed with their abstract ratings."

97 Articles Refuting The “97% Consensus”
http://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/

Mobilize USD $100B by 2020?

Sounds like a capital campaign to me.

"Among these concerted efforts, advanced economies have formally agreed to jointly mobilize USD 100 billion per year by 2020, from a variety of sources, to address the pressing mitigation and adaptation needs of developing countries. "

"Formally agreed" sounds like more than a capital campaign to me. And you keep dropping the point that the "agreement" calls for USD 100 billion per year starting in 2020.

As of June 2017, the Green Climate Fund has raised USD 24.3 million equivalent in pledges from 3 regional governments. The objective is for all pledges to be converted into contribution agreements within one year from the time at which they are made. 

As of June 2017, the Green Climate Fund has raised USD 24.3 million equivalent in pledges from 3 regional governments. The objective is for all pledges to be converted into contribution agreements within one year from the time at which they are made. 

You talk millions, this chart says billions. This is the initial contribution to hold over until 2020. It's called the IRM (Initial Resource Mobilization). The US has already contributed $1B.
http://www.greenclimate.fund/documents/20182/24868/Status_of_Pledges.pdf/eef538d3-2987-4659-8c7c-5566ed6afd19

The US has pledged $3 billion - paid $1 billion. An agreement has been signed for this amount.

Even if the US gov't doesn't pay another penny, US billionaires, states, and municipalities will step up and pay the balance of this pledge - and any negotiated "US" balance to launch programs in 2020.

Even if the US gov't doesn't pay another penny, US billionaires, states, and municipalities will step up and pay the balance of this pledge - and any negotiated "US" balance to launch programs in 2020.

Hmm, given our current economy, I HIGHLY doubt any of that will happen.

actually, I guarantee it wont.

Anyone familiar with what the Federal Reserve is doing RIGHT NOW?

Get ready for a rocky summer....

Mayors of 7,400 cities vow to meet Obama's climate commitments

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/jun/28/global-covenant-mayors-cities-vow-to-meet-obama-climate-commitments

Good News!

throwing good money after bad

Have you personally read the Paris Climate Agreement?

http://unfccc.int/paris_agreement/items/9485.php

throwing good money after bad

Janet Yellen will be presenting her annual report to Congress in mid-July.

Even if the US gov't doesn't pay another penny, US billionaires, states, and municipalities will step up and pay the balance of this pledge - and any negotiated "US" balance to launch programs in 2020.

Hmm, given our current economy, I HIGHLY doubt any of that will happen.

actually, I guarantee it wont.

Anyone familiar with what the Federal Reserve is doing RIGHT NOW?

Get ready for a rocky summer....

Janet Yellen will be presenting her annual report to Congress in mid-July.

I expect a huge liquidity problem will follow... the fed is already "stopping" the money flow and will soon begin to raise interest rates again, for the 3rd time this year (it's happened a total of like 3 times in 10 years so far, and 2 of those were this year).

Our economy will tighten, and start to spiral down; the LAST thing we need is the Paris Climate Agreement.

Soon frivilious items like that will not be tolerated, or should not be as more and more cities and states fall into financial ruin (at least, public financial ruin, NO ONE mentions the CAFR and the extreme amount of money that is being made via investments by local municipalities, counties and cities...)

August will be very interesting.

We need to circle the wagons, not give money to Europe.

How about investing in and invigorating our economy while keeping and protecting our clean energy, environment, lands, air, water, oceans, wildlife and people?

You think companies should be allowed to pollute our waters with toxins and get away with it with a slap on the wrist measly fine while taxpayer's subsidize and pay for the majority of cleanups and spills and people directly affected die from their proximity and pollution caused directly by these companies?

Oil spills, chemical wastes and dispersed toxic waste are rampant, much more than reported.
The cumulative effects, over time are mind boggling as the numbers.

So it's better to ignore something because it doesn't fit into your narrative, than do anything to to be proactive?
What's an entire planet and everything on it worth?

Didn't realize we had a perfect planet B and a way to get there waiting for ALL of us!

Remember this?

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/science-jan-june13-hinkley_03-13/

Now this:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/07/pawnee-nation-erin-brockovich-sue-oil-gas-fracking-oklahoma-earthquakes/

Oil spills:

https://www.bing.com/search?pc=ASWI&form=AMZNS1&q=number+of+oil+spills+per+year
Please note EPA under present administration no longer has information available to public.

http://all-about-water-filters.com/terrible-water-contamination-disasters-in-history/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/epa-clean-water-rule_us_59535198e4b02734df2e6e06

Or THIS:

https://thinkprogress.org/clean-water-rule-repeal-official-f12e35f5b35?gi=7ecfa7c82d3d

I guess we don't deserve to have protections for clean energy, water, land air, etc., according to this present self-serving administration.
They can sell us out for their 30 pieces of silver.
No problem, as long as it isn't you on the receiving end.
And hopefully, if you are, have Affordable Healthcare to see you and your loved ones through it.

How about investing in and invigorating our economy while keeping and protecting our clean energy, environment, lands, air, water, oceans, wildlife and people?

You think companies should be allowed to pollute our waters with toxins and get away with it with a slap on the wrist measly fine while taxpayer's subsidize and pay for the majority of cleanups and spills and people directly affected die from their proximity and pollution caused directly by these companies?

So... you want the government to do... More?

https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2015/08/16/the-epa-mess-that-needs-cleaning/tv0jrvqf7cHkBdTDcU6DJJ/story.html

yep, the EPA does a great job keeping the environment clean. Way to go

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-blog/energy-environment/309750-trumps-pick-for-epa-chief-could-clean-up-obama-mess

http://dailycaller.com/2016/04/12/feds-leave-dangerously-polluted-superfund-sites-uncleaned-for-decades/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/jan/19/obamas-epa-refuses-pay-claims-gold-king-mine-spill/

Good thing we have capitalism to save the environment.

Renewable energy is becoming so cheap the US will meet Paris commitments even if Trump withdraws

we didnt need the paris accord to accomplish our goals. not one bit

Isn't better that countries work together?

Isn't better that countries work together?

What you really mean is countries governments, right?

No, that's not better... we don't need MORE government, we have enough messed up stuff as it is.

The US is a republic that is a form of government in which power is explicitly vested in the people, who in turn exercise their power through elected representatives.

By this definition, the US republic's government represents US citizens and works in collaboration with the governments of other countries which in turn represent their citizens (we hope).

What does MORE government mean in terms of working collaboratively with other countries' governments?

US diplomacy launched over 200 years ago. In the case of the UN, over 60 years ago.

I prefer to live in a world that is dominated by US interests, period. You have to participate to dominate.

Isn't better that countries work together?

What you really mean is countries governments, right?

No, that's not better... we don't need MORE government, we have enough messed up stuff as it is.