Obama to Meet With World Leaders

[Kutnupe14]

There's big money in climate change.

Always follow the money

In which direction? There's lots of money involved in belief and denial. Personally, I believe in climate change (global warming), and find it odd that if it's not true that only the US is the only nation smart enough to know it.... and that, amongst American scientists, a minority of them believe it isn't true.

 

[BugI02]

So does Trump speak for America or does he speak for the set of interests that hold his levers right now?

Disingenuous. Remember the "bitter clingers". Obama spoke for his 33% [62.3% of eligible voters voted, and he won 52.9% of them] Trump speaks for his 28% [60.2% eligible of which he won 46.4%]

It's not like either one can claim to speak for America, but it's obvious that the Progs are only interested in the president representing all Americans when they are out of power and talking about the other side

 

[Leadeye]

The greenenergy/industrial complex made lots of cash under president Obama's administration, so it doesn't surprise me that those people who run it would want to talk to him now that he's out of office. Like I said earlier, they aren't getting much traction out of Al these days. Whether you believe in global warming or not, there are a lot of european companies with big investments in this tech and they aren't interested in seeing it go away. One of the big wind farm outfits in Indiana is headquartered in Texas but owned and managed by a european company.

 

[BugI02]

From: https://www.technologyreview.com/s/527196/how-much-will-it-cost-to-solve-climate-change/
MIT TECHNOLOGY REVIEW: How Much Will It Cost to Solve Climate Change?

Switching from fossil fuels to low-carbon sources of energy will cost $44 trillion between now and 2050, according to a report released this week by the International Energy Agency.

Last month a major report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that efforts to stabilize levels of greenhouse-gas emissions would require investments of about $13 trillion through 2030. It also noted that reducing emissions would reduce the rate of economic growth (as a result of such factors as higher energy prices).

I wonder who they were expecting to pay for most of this? Anyone? Anyone?

 

[Kutnupe14]

The greenenergy/industrial complex made lots of cash under president Obama's administration, so it doesn't surprise me that those people who run it would want to talk to him now that he's out of office. Like I said earlier, they aren't getting much traction out of Al these days. Whether you believe in global warming or not, there are a lot of european companies with big investments in this tech and they aren't interested in seeing it go away. One of the big wind farm outfits in Indiana is headquartered in Texas but owned and managed by a european company.

Isn't the opposite also true, concerning companies that harm the environment? They would stand to lose massive amounts of money if they were required to retool their businesses to be more eco friendly. It's fiscally in their interests to oppose such measures. Green energy is't well established enough, and doesn't have nearly enough money to pay off 97% of world scientists to see things their way, traditional businesses and that other 3%....? It's doable.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Isn't the opposite also true, concerning companies that harm the environment? They would stand to lose massive amounts of money if they were required to retool their businesses to be more eco friendly. It's fiscally in their interests to oppose such measures. Green energy is't well established enough, and doesn't have nearly enough money to pay off 97% of world scientists to see things their way, traditional businesses and that other 3%....? It's doable.

You don't have to pay all of the scientists, just the critical relative few who determine the orthodoxy on any given subject.

 

[Leadeye]

I think the essence of the post was about why president Obama is in Paris talking about US leadership on climate change.

Regarding the subject of global warming itself, the arguments I always hear are phrased as man made activities are contributing to the problem, but no amounts are given.

 

[Woobie]

In which direction? There's lots of money involved in belief and denial. Personally, I believe in climate change (global warming), and find it odd that if it's not true that only the US is the only nation smart enough to know it.... and that, amongst American scientists, a minority of them believe it isn't true.

The climate changes. We've got tons of data from thousands of years telling us so. But Anthropogenic climate change is preying on fear for profit, and has no solid basis in science. It's just a lot of manufacturing causation out of some correlations pulled from a mountain of variables. It isn't a believe or disbelieve situation, and more "believers" does not make it true. Europe fancies itself more evolved, but in the last hundred years they have given the world communism, two world wars, and a lousy intracontinental semi-sovereign government. They should stick to food and tourism.

 

[IndyDave1776]

The climate changes. We've got tons of data from thousands of years telling us so. But Anthropogenic climate change is preying on fear for profit, and has no solid basis in science. It's just a lot of manufacturing causation out of some correlations pulled from a mountain of variables. It isn't a believe or disbelieve situation, and more "believers" does not make it true. Europe fancies itself more evolved, but in the last hundred years they have given the world communism, two world wars, and a lousy intracontinental semi-sovereign government. They should stick to food and tourism.

 

[Woobie]

Oh, and I think both sides of this argument are following the money into the wrong hole. This is about government control. The smaller governments want to chip away at the US, and making us pay for carbon is a method. Many American politicians want the control over our population and want in on the game.

 

[Twangbanger]

So does Trump speak for America or does he speak for the set of interests that hold his levers right now?

Every President works primarily for whoever is holding the levers of his party, including Trump. It has never been different. Obama was Tech, Education, Green Energy, and Health Insurance. Trump seems to have swung the nozzle back to Real Estate and Energy. Do you want the same people running things 100% of the time? The pendulum always has to be someplace. It was time to change directions.

...There's lots of money involved in belief and denial. Personally, I believe in climate change (global warming), and find it odd that if it's not true that only the US is the only nation smart enough to know it.... and that, amongst American scientists, a minority of them believe it isn't true.

When this much wealth is being placed in the center of the table and carved up by government action, ​

everybody has an interest in it. The United States is the "fatted calf" in this arrangement. Because we're better off than anybody, it's not surprising that everybody else sees it different from us. That's to be expected. Many who are not so well off as us, are eager to see us pay. Or, in their parlance, they're eager to see us "lead." They're trying to find a scientific basis for what is basically an economic argument for transferring wealth from rich nations to poor ones. Well, screw them. I want our interests to be appropriately looked after by our government. I want _all_ the science to be looked at, not just a small, cherry-picked slice of geologic time being manipulated to fit an agenda. Including the science buried in the ground under our feet, leading geologists to believe we were glaciated 15,000 years ago. I don't want things that are already happening naturally, anyway, being twisted to support some world economic agenda.

...Green energy is't well established enough, and doesn't have nearly enough money to pay off 97% of world scientists to see things their way, traditional businesses and that other 3%....? It's doable.

Oh, I don't know...the "world-savers" had the means to award a Nobel Prize to a President whom they admitted hadn't yet done anything to deserve it. That was obviously an attempt to buy off policy and affect outcomes. What about Goldman Sachs? They were positively licking their chops at the prospect of being a major player in the operation of the Carbon Exchange, which they expected would soon be created by Cap 'n Trade legislation in the U.S. (a measure which even the GOP stated at the time was a matter of "when," not "if"...they were on-board with everybody else). The wolves were lining up for the kill. The number of companies who profit from fossil energy is greatly exceeded by the number who stand to benefit from what comes _after_ it, if they can just get themselves positioned properly in relation to the government. They didn't get their kill last time; but they're still hungry, and still circling in the shadows, waiting for their next chance at mandatory government action which will swing the nozzle of government policy in their direction.

 

[Leadeye]

Back when carbon exchange was a hot item, it had it's headquarters for the US in Chicago. The parent company however was european and the board was made up almost entirely of european merchant bankers.

 

[IndyDave1776]

Back when carbon exchange was a hot item, it had it's headquarters for the US in Chicago. The parent company however was european and the board was made up almost entirely of european merchant bankers.

Give me a second to work up my shocked face.

 

[BugI02]

Obama emerges from the Paris meeting with an agreement on "Greenhouse gas reduction for our time"


View attachment 61451