Vatican Compares Trump To Flat-Earthers Over His Climate Agreement Withdrawal

[USMC_Convert]

But we will still foot the bill for his weekly golf trips to Mar–a-Lago.

Well, that seems fair. uch:

Did you complain about all of Obama’s golf trips?

 

[Tim_D]

Here are a few sobering thoughts. Before the Industrial Revolution, there were but one billion people on Earth. Now, there are seven times as many to give glory to God.

Adequate alternative sources of energy do not presently exist to meet world-wide needs. Scientists who descent from theoretical prognostications posed by well-funded alarmists are routinely denounced and suppressed.

Even if we were to accept rather dubious claims by alarmists, this costly to us treaty, and yes it is a treaty - please wake up US Senate - would accomplish quite next to nothing in terms of carbon, while energy costs here would increase to the detriment of many ordinary working people.

Interestingly, about twenty years ago, Jacque Chirac said this is all about “global governance”. Think about that.

Careful. Such sobering, intelligent, logically based opinions may may be deemed as leaving everything to be desired.

 

[lmachine]

Renewables are a pipe dream anyway. Wind farming is far too expensive. Solar panels are way too inefficient. We’ve been having rain and cloudy skies for the past 10-12 days; how would solar panels fare under such conditions? How plentiful will solar be in winter with its grey, cloudy skies?

Someone should tell Texas what a pipe dream their nation-leading renewable energy production and development is.

 

[PJH_74]

Someone should tell Texas what a pipe dream their nation-leading renewable energy production and development is.

That program is a model of how things can work bipartisanly and yes, Rick Perry has a huge buy in to this project.

 

[dvdjs]

Well, let’s see;

Petroleum based energy is plentiful, efficient, clean and cheap.

Renewable based energy is not plentiful, is not efficient, it IS clean but it is not cheap.

The past 20-30 years of renewable energy development has not produced anything worth considering in replacing petroleum-based energy. Looking to the future, what means can be employed to replace the plentiful, clean, cheap and efficient supply of our current energy demands? Logic would require that one produce a realistic alternative. So where, then, is this alternative? The bishop doesn’t have it. Do you?

Thanks. This is far better than your earlier post:

If this is the response, then it is safe to say that Trump did the right thing.

You wrote that “Petroleum based energy is plentiful, efficient, clean and cheap.
Renewable based energy is not plentiful, is not efficient, it IS clean but it is not cheap.”
In doing so you bypass the entire issue of CO2 production and climate change. That is not a detail, that is the essence of the discussion.

Renewables presently account for about 10% of US energy consumption. The big question is, what could we expect the return on hefty investments in R&D on renewables to achieve to lowers their costs, expand their role, and thereby mitigate the ill-effects fossil fuel combustion. The answer to that question is critically important to an assessment of the Paris agreement. And my not having it is not probative of anytthing.

We could make the decision to just go on using the cheap and plentiful fuels that may lead to catastrophe. Or we could make the decision to deliberately restrict our use those fuels mitigate that risk. There are many situations that we face, in which we resist the short term attraction for a more important long term benefit.

 

[ucfengr]

The thing I never got is that people in this country seem to be under the assumption that we should just burn away fossil fuels as if there is no finite limit to them; especially easy to get ones. We **know **the process of getting them in themselves causes environmental damage.

Renewables also have a long term upside of making us independent of some less than savory regimes. We spend great amounts of money on foreign entanglements and erode our best nature because of them.

Why not try to perfect renewables while fossil fuels are still inexpensive? The Chinese are going headlong into making renewables cheaper and the shear size of their economy will provide a ready market for these products. Yes I’m aware that there are accusations of them misrepresenting their current emissions to reduce their commitment, but they have still committed and we believe we are some great exception. They have notoriously bad air pollution in their large cities…they still have great incentive to reduce their emissions.

How is strip mining rare earth metals for solar cells and wind turbines, of which there is a lot more limited supply than oil and natural gas sustainable or environmentally friendly? What about clearing vast tracks of land for solar and wind farms?

 

[PatrickKen]

Trump is certainly proving to be comedy gold

 

[Tim_D]

In doing so you bypass the entire issue of CO2 production and climate change. That is not a detail, that is the essence of the discussion.

I don’t not accept the proposal that modern industry and consumer activity is causing changes to the climate that would not have occurred naturally. We know that global temperatures have increased approximately 1.00 degree celsius since 1850. It has only been since the 1960s that industrial exhaust began to put CO2 into the atmosphere in any appreciable quantity. How then, can industrial production of CO2 be responsible for a rise in global temperature for the past 150 years when industrial output has only been significant for the past 40-50 years? Also, it is a proven fact that rises in CO2 do not equate to rises in temperatures. That should be the essence of the discussion.

 

[dvdjs]

I don’t not accept the proposal that modern industry and consumer activity is causing changes to the climate that would not have occurred naturally.

Well then of course you oppose the Paris Climate Accords, investments in renewables etc.
But that is not what the best science says.

We know that global temperatures have increased approximately 1.00 degree celsius since 1850. It has only been since the 1960s that industrial exhaust began to put CO2 into the atmosphere in any appreciable quantity. How then, can industrial production of CO2 be responsible for a rise in global temperature for the past 150 years when industrial output has only been significant for the past 40-50 years? Also, it is a proven fact that rises in CO2 do not equate to rises in temperatures. That should be the essence of the discussion.

Let’s start with your sources for these claims and go from there.

 

[Tim_D]

Let’s start with your sources for these claims and go from there.

Look it up. It isn’t a secret.

 

[Faithdancer]

This is a politically-driven issue, connected to the UN global hegemony agenda.

 

[dvdjs]

Look it up. It isn’t a secret.

There is an enormous literature out there ranging from science to wildly irresponsible bloggers. You could help me narrow it down.

 

[PJH_74]

How is strip mining rare earth metals for solar cells and wind turbines, of which there is a lot more limited supply than oil and natural gas sustainable or environmentally friendly? What about clearing vast tracks of land for solar and wind farms?

Wind turbines do not necessarily need rare metals, though apparently there are some that allow them to work more efficiently through direct drive instead of a gear box. Crying foul on rare earth supplies assumes that no innovations can be found to reduce this, more reason to not sit on the sidelines on this one. What would you life look like if we gave up on R&D over the last 150 years?

As for clearing vast tracts of land, every wind turbine I have ever seen is in farmland, nothing to clear there. Neither precludes life living amongst them. In the case of the US, there is little life in the deserts. In the midwest solar could contribute to the revival of native prairies as there should be little doubt that grass grows just fine next to human structures. The other thing that you are missing is that there are plenty of roofs to put solar panels on. This is actually good in the sense that there is little line loss due to there being local power consumption. There are also wave power plants that essentially take no space.

The biggest issue you ARE missing is dealing with variables in the production of renewable power. It may not be in sync with the power demand. Essentially you must produce power in proportion to demand. There currently is research into using batteries for this. Certainly the output of renewable plants can be cut if necessary. We also have the option of natural gas powered plants which have been used for years to supplement hard to turn down or start up coal plants.

The close future is not a complete change over to renewables. The first goal should be to shut down coal plants at we can and use natural gas as a bridge to a future, hopefully renewables only can be achieved beyond that.

 

[PJH_74]

This is a politically-driven issue, connected to the UN global hegemony agenda.

Oh geez. The US is one of the permanent members of the UN security council. One vote by any permanent member kills the whole thing. If there is to be “global hegemony” we’ll be part of its approval.

 

[lmachine]

Tillerson Present as Exxon Signed Major Deal With Saudi Arabia During Trump Visit

While the $350 billion, 10-year arms deal garnered most headlines, a lesser-noticed agreement was also signed between ExxonMobil and the state-owned Saudi Basic Industries Corporation (SABIC) to study a proposed co-owned natural gas refinery in the Gulf of Mexico. Under the deal, signed at the Saudi-U.S. CEO Forum, the two companies would “conduct a detailed study of the proposed Gulf Coast Growth Ventures project in Texas and begin planning for front-end engineering and design work” for the 1,300-acre, $10 billion plant set to be located near Corpus Christi, Texas, according to an ExxonMobil press release.

In addition, ExxonMobil’s press release for the agreement mentions that Darren Woods, the company’s CEO, was in the room for the signing of the pact alongside ExxonMobil Saudi Arabia CEO Philippe Ducom and SABIC executives. Missing from that release: After the forum ended, Woods went to the Al-Yamamah Palace for an agreement-signing ceremony attended by both President Trump and recently retired ExxonMobil CEO and current U.S. Secretary of State, Rex Tillerson.

DeSmog discovered they were all present at the palace via the Saudi Press Agency’s English-language press Twitter account, which released a series of photos of Woods and Tillerson shaking hands with SABIC CEO Yousef Al-Benyan and Saudi Defense Minister Prince Mohammad bin Salman, respectively. President Trump is seen seated in the background of the photos of both Woods and Tillerson, which were taken in the same room.

As in the ExxonMobil press release, White House and State Department press releases failed to mention that Tillerson and Woods were both present when the deals were signed between the two countries at the Royal Court. Getty Images has also published the photo of Woods at the Al-Yamamah Palace, with Trump seated in the background.

Tillerson served as CEO of ExxonMobil for 10 years, heading the “private empire” until President Trump nominated him as U.S. Secretary of State in December 2016. At his January Senate confirmation hearing, Tillerson said he would recuse himself for one year from ExxonMobil-related business which comes before the State Department, and submitted a letter to the same effect on January 3 to the State Department’s Office of Legal Counsel.

 

[ucfengr]

Wind turbines do not necessarily need rare metals, though apparently there are some that allow them to work more efficiently through direct drive instead of a gear box. Crying foul on rare earth supplies assumes that no innovations can be found to reduce this, more reason to not sit on the sidelines on this one. What would you life look like if we gave up on R&D over the last 150 years?

Who’s arguing for giving up on R&D? You’re attacking a straw man.

The biggest issue you ARE missing is dealing with variables in the production of renewable power. It may not be in sync with the power demand. Essentially you must produce power in proportion to demand. There currently is research into using batteries for this. Certainly the output of renewable plants can be cut if necessary. We also have the option of natural gas powered plants which have been used for years to supplement hard to turn down or start up coal plants.

Batteries require other rare, and environmentally destructive to produce materials like lithium. I’m not sure how adding batteries to the already unsustainable plan of solar and wind is a more sustainable plan than using plentiful and cheap fossil fuels.

 

[dvdjs]

Who’s arguing for giving up on R&D? You’re attacking a straw man.

I think the sense is this: why bother if MMGW is a hoax? We’ve got all of the fossilfuelds that we need.

 

[St_Francis]

This blog post or article shows some of the problems for the US in the Paris Treaty, as well as the utter lack off effect what we do will have, given the increases permitted under the treaty for developing nations, of which China considers itself one.

The major problem I have with all these multi-national or global agreements is that it seems like the people set up to suffer are Americans who are not rich, and the poorer the Amercian, the more they will suffer. abut, hey, it’s ok as long as the GDP goes up or the world thinks we are cool, or we manage to squeeze the last iota of mileage from our cars! The costs to actual poor people, and to people who will become poor, don’t matter as long as nationally things are looking up.

 

[ucfengr]

I think the sense is this: why bother if MMGW is a hoax? We’ve got all of the fossilfuelds that we need.

Nobody is making the argument that since we have abundant sources of fossil fuels that we shouldn’t research other fuels. It’s a straw man.

 

[GEddie]

I really wish the Church would use its strength to spread its message, instead of browbeating the nations of the world for geopolitical causes.