341–350 of 413 posts
370 upvotes in 2 hours with 268 comments (as I write this), yet this story is at the very bottom of the front page of HN at #28 (6:15 EST). Does HN systematically penalize / shadow censor certain kinds of content?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
According to Michael E. Mann, in 2100 it's +4.5C with no action, +3.5C with just the Paris Accord, and +1.8C with ratcheting up. ( https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DBQpulkWAAE2mrc.jpg )
Would that be the 'Nobel prize winner' Dr Mann, who massaged the so-called hockey stick data leading to all this climate change/global warming hysteria in the first place? Hardly a credible source of anything IMHO.
"Climategate" was reviewed extensively by numerous organizations and no wrongdoing was found. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c...
This is one of those situations where you should be shaking your head, even if you're a climate change denying conservative or a fussil fuel industrial interest. The Paris pact was pretty toothless: it was a step forward, but heavily aspirational. Indeed, one of the stated complaints of conservatives was that it did nothing to enforce compliance. The Trump Administration could have just as well ignored it without for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd hope our counterparts from other nations would be sophisticated enough about our Constitutional system to understand that what one President can agree to without enshrining it in law through Congress, a later President can just as easily disregard.
Irrelevant. I don't care why your country is not trustworthy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Look, I don't know what "virtue signaling" is, but parent seems like a real, red-blooded American, like me. Not some politically-correct, hypersensitive four-eyes. A guy I can just kick back with some cold brews and watch the game with.
You want to have a beer with someone who disparages "elitist liberal virtue signaling"? Enjoy. BTW I have to wear glasses to write this, sorry about being a filthy "four-eyes".
I'll never understand the people who can talk about liberal elites and virtual signalling in one sentence, and "real americans" in the next.
This is one of those situations where you should be shaking your head, even if you're a climate change denying conservative or a fussil fuel industrial interest. The Paris pact was pretty toothless: it was a step forward, but heavily aspirational. Indeed, one of the stated complaints of conservatives was that it did nothing to enforce compliance. The Trump Administration could have just as well ignored it without for…
So if say China were to commit to something with more teeth, the US would in essence be complying since we buy much of our good from there. Would that be a fair statement?
That said, one aspect that sort of touches on that is now the USA has no say in the agreement as it evolves. If China and the EU keep on building on their strengths in green tech, they could very easily ratchet up the agreement to be much more favorable to their economies, plausibly including heavy fees on all exports from noncompliant countries. (That's one major reason fossil fuel interests mostly wanted us to stay in it.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would that be the 'Nobel prize winner' Dr Mann, who massaged the so-called hockey stick data leading to all this climate change/global warming hysteria in the first place? Hardly a credible source of anything IMHO.
False. That is "skeptic" nonsense. Note the quotes around skeptic because I don't consider climate denialists true skeptics. "Climategate" was reviewed extensively by numerous organizations and no wrongdoing was found. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_c...
By the way, Mann was forced to stop calling himself a 'Nobel Prize recipient', after it was found out that he wasn't directly awarded the prize; it was awarded to the IPCC.[2]
[1] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/03/29/reflections-on-mark-s...
[2] http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/331738/michael-manns-fa...