6 ms·

Uh huh. Paris agreement is non-binding. China has no obligation for 20 years. It's not ratified by Congress. Nothing from agreeing to this was going to affe

Uh huh. Paris agreement is non-binding. China has no obligation for 20 years. It's not ratified by Congress. Nothing from agreeing to this was going to affect your descendants other than draining American coffers of billions.

mikeash 9y ago
It's not this single action by itself that's outrageous, but the long pattern of harmful anti-science policy of which this is the latest example.
- elandybarr 9y ago
  There are reasons to object to the accord that have nothing to do with a so-called "anti-science policy". The actual wording of the accords has little to do with science and more to do with massive welfare obligations and handicapping the US economy with no requirements from China for decades. *edited autocorrect typo
  - mikeash 9y ago
    Climate change denial has been a Republican position for decades. Trump is on record saying that the whole idea is a hoax. There might be legitimate reasons to pull out of this agreement, but those are not their reasons.
    - elandybarr 9y ago
      Massive welfare to the majority of the world for no US benefit is a great reason to pull out.
      - flavor8 9y ago
        What does a climate treaty that benefits the US economy in the short term, and is politically feasible, look like?
      - mikeash 9y ago
        I think you missed what I said. That may be a great reason, but Trump and friends are pulling out because they don't think climate change is even real.
- throwaway7312 9y ago
  Minor correction. Science is anything that follows the scientific method. One important step of the scientific method is "make testable predictions." Another step is "refine, alter, expand, or reject" hypotheses. Science rests on the possibility of falsifiability. If it can be tested, and found false, it is science. If there is no way to falsify it, it is not science. For instance, evolution is falsifiable. We can expect that if we put certain organisms with rapid life cycles in a harsher environment, over a certain number of generations the population in the harsher environment will evolve to better suit that environment. If, say, 10,000 generations pass and the organisms in that environment are no better suited to it than a control population, we might conclude evolution has been falsified. Fortunately, we've done lots of tests like this, and evolution does indeed occur. So I may better understand how this is science, can you tell me how the theory of manmade global warming can be disproved?
  - i2amsam 9y ago
    I'm going to go with a prolonged period of worldwide cooling? Lab tests that show CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Isotope concentrations that show increasing CO2 is not coming from anthropomorphic causes? Evidence that the glaciers are melting because of some other reason than it's hot?
  - mikeash 9y ago
    One way to disprove it would have been if global temperatures had stayed at their 19th century levels. Starting from where we are now, it would be disproven if global temperatures returned to their 19th century levels.
  - coldpie 9y ago
    Have you read the IPCC Summary for Policymakers? It's a really good summary of the current state of the science. It's a very complicated topic and you're not going to get a complete answer in a HN reply. I'm serious, give it a read. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_...
thecage411 9y ago
Paris agreement is non-binding. Who cares? What matters is if it's working or not. Of course it's hard to untangle if it's due to accords, scientific/engineering breakthroughs, government investment, etc. but India and China are far ahead of their Paris targets: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15052017/china-india-paris-climate-goals-emissions-coal-renewable-energy https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15052017/china-india-pari... China has no obligation for 20 years. This statement is wrong in multiple ways. As you noted above, Paris is non-binding, so there are no "obligations" beyond developing a plan and reporting on progress. Next, China's goals begin in 2030, which is 13 years away, not 20. Finally, according to the link above, China is on pace to meet its goals almost a decade (!) in advance, i.e. early in the 2020s. So even a charitable interpretation of your statement looks to be wrong by about 4x. It's not ratified by Congress. This is as far as I can tell, just a negative thrown in that has nothing to do with the thesis. Is agreeing to the accords bad for the U.S. (cost billions!) or does it not matter, because it's not ratified. Which is it? Nothing from agreeing to this was going to affect your descendants other than draining American coffers of billions. So basically every other country is willing to drain their coffers. Why is that?
bildung 9y ago
> Uh huh. Paris agreement is non-binding. Which was essentially the result of lobbying by the US. Most other countries wanted a real, binding treaty. https://theintercept.com/2017/06/01/will-trumps-slow-mo-walkaway-world-in-flames-behind-him-finally-provoke-consequences-for-planetary-arson/ https://theintercept.com/2017/06/01/will-trumps-slow-mo-walk...

mikeash 9y ago

It's not this single action by itself that's outrageous, but the long pattern of harmful anti-science policy of which this is the latest example.

elandybarr 9y ago
There are reasons to object to the accord that have nothing to do with a so-called "anti-science policy". The actual wording of the accords has little to do with science and more to do with massive welfare obligations and handicapping the US economy with no requirements from China for decades. *edited autocorrect typo
- mikeash 9y ago
  Climate change denial has been a Republican position for decades. Trump is on record saying that the whole idea is a hoax. There might be legitimate reasons to pull out of this agreement, but those are not their reasons.
  - elandybarr 9y ago
    Massive welfare to the majority of the world for no US benefit is a great reason to pull out.
    - flavor8 9y ago
      What does a climate treaty that benefits the US economy in the short term, and is politically feasible, look like?
    - mikeash 9y ago
      I think you missed what I said. That may be a great reason, but Trump and friends are pulling out because they don't think climate change is even real.
throwaway7312 9y ago
Minor correction. Science is anything that follows the scientific method. One important step of the scientific method is "make testable predictions." Another step is "refine, alter, expand, or reject" hypotheses. Science rests on the possibility of falsifiability. If it can be tested, and found false, it is science. If there is no way to falsify it, it is not science. For instance, evolution is falsifiable. We can expect that if we put certain organisms with rapid life cycles in a harsher environment, over a certain number of generations the population in the harsher environment will evolve to better suit that environment. If, say, 10,000 generations pass and the organisms in that environment are no better suited to it than a control population, we might conclude evolution has been falsified. Fortunately, we've done lots of tests like this, and evolution does indeed occur. So I may better understand how this is science, can you tell me how the theory of manmade global warming can be disproved?
- i2amsam 9y ago
  I'm going to go with a prolonged period of worldwide cooling? Lab tests that show CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? Isotope concentrations that show increasing CO2 is not coming from anthropomorphic causes? Evidence that the glaciers are melting because of some other reason than it's hot?
- mikeash 9y ago
  One way to disprove it would have been if global temperatures had stayed at their 19th century levels. Starting from where we are now, it would be disproven if global temperatures returned to their 19th century levels.
- coldpie 9y ago
  Have you read the IPCC Summary for Policymakers? It's a really good summary of the current state of the science. It's a very complicated topic and you're not going to get a complete answer in a HN reply. I'm serious, give it a read. http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_...

thecage411 9y ago

Paris agreement is non-binding. Who cares? What matters is if it's working or not. Of course it's hard to untangle if it's due to accords, scientific/engineering breakthroughs, government investment, etc. but India and China are far ahead of their Paris targets: https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15052017/china-india-paris-climate-goals-emissions-coal-renewable-energy https://insideclimatenews.org/news/15052017/china-india-pari... China has no obligation for 20 years. This statement is wrong in multiple ways. As you noted above, Paris is non-binding, so there are no "obligations" beyond developing a plan and reporting on progress. Next, China's goals begin in 2030, which is 13 years away, not 20. Finally, according to the link above, China is on pace to meet its goals almost a decade (!) in advance, i.e. early in the 2020s. So even a charitable interpretation of your statement looks to be wrong by about 4x. It's not ratified by Congress. This is as far as I can tell, just a negative thrown in that has nothing to do with the thesis. Is agreeing to the accords bad for the U.S. (cost billions!) or does it not matter, because it's not ratified. Which is it? Nothing from agreeing to this was going to affect your descendants other than draining American coffers of billions. So basically every other country is willing to drain their coffers. Why is that?

bildung 9y ago

> Uh huh. Paris agreement is non-binding. Which was essentially the result of lobbying by the US. Most other countries wanted a real, binding treaty. https://theintercept.com/2017/06/01/will-trumps-slow-mo-walkaway-world-in-flames-behind-him-finally-provoke-consequences-for-planetary-arson/ https://theintercept.com/2017/06/01/will-trumps-slow-mo-walk...