We need to talk about Donald – the Nightmare continues

[Forty Two]

You are just interminable. There's nothing that can be posted to refute what you say without you wasting everyone's time arguing that black is white.

Dude, you posted a link that didn't refute anything. No wonder you provided no quotes from it, or analysis or explanation of how it refuted anything - it didn't. You just left a link there, suggesting it refuted something, when it didn't.

Where is your support for 3.5 degree C reduction in temperatures? Where? You said it, but you never presented a shred of evidence.

Now, of course, you settle back into your usual bullshit about black and white and wasting "everyone's" time. Look, you are participating in this conversation. You posted a link and I explained exactly what that link said, and I showed that it did not refute the temperature reduction point Trump made, or anything else he said, besides the "Pittsburgh" mention, which is both irrelevant and a figure of speech.

But, do go on with your nonsense. It's what you do.

I'm sure if you put your emaciated brain

On with the insults. You can't win the argument, so you go about your trolling b.s. This is what you've said you do. You try to bait people and troll them, so you can drive them off the forum.

to it you can figure out why I only posted a link with no discussion.

You do that because you want the link to look like it's a refutation, when it is not. In substance, it is no refutation at all. You just want to make people think you've rebutted a point.

Discussion is pointless with you.

You don't discuss. Ever. You declare, and then claim victory. If points are addressed substantively, you insult and play derail games.

You aren't interested in discussion.

Anyone reading this thread can see otherwise. You, however, are interested only in badgering and insulting, and ending conversations you don't like.

You only interested in being a contrarian so as to maintain your biases. A "guy named Jacob" is the co-founder of the MIT climate program. This is the sort of bullshit you pull.

I cited the actual MIT paper, and quoted its co-author. I, quite clearly, pointed out that Jacoby is quoted as saying the paper is outdated, but (a) no source for that quote is provided, (b) no subsequent paper or information is cited to or linked, and (c) other fact check sources like Politifact have addressed the issue and have stated that the reference to the MIT study and .2 C reduction is "broadly accurate." Therefore, there is no "refutation" of the point.

If you would like to present any study or paper which supports your assertion - YOUR ASSERTION - that there would be a 3.5 degree drop, then you can go ahead and do it. But, you're being intellectually dishonest to claim that there has been (a) any support for your statement or (b) refutation of what Trump said such that he either dropped the ball or was "lying."

[Hermit]

What I read is that Adani has to pay full royalties on it, with no holiday.

Wrong. Royalty payments are going to be deferred for some years.

the rail line, I read, is common use, open access, meaning it is not dedicated only to Adani.

Of course the rail line is open. It is open just like sheep dips are open for people to bathe in.

I also read that Adani owns and operates the port.

Right now Adani owns nothing in Australia bar the Prime minister's ear, and it operates nothing put his mouth. Adani has a 99 year lease on the existing terminal.

I also read that the funding of the rail line is by a $900 million "loan." Loans are generally paid back with interest.

Yes. As I said, the government wants to finance the rail line. It's a subsidy because Adani's efforts to get the finance from commercial banks have been unsuccessful. None of them will touch the project, and Adani itself is way too highly geared to fund the rail line itself.

About the port, I read this - http://www.livemint.com/Companies/QwmMe ... t-Bul.html (doesn't look much like a subsidy).

That's the Glencore's sale of its control of the existing port facilities. Less than 20 million dollar's worth. Chickenfeed in comparison to the $1,947 of taxpayers' money the Queensland government had spent on the port by 2015.

The whole thing is a 419 fraud, only on a monstrously huge scale. "We give you many billion dollars later if you give us a couple or so billion dollars now." And to think our governments actually have scam advisory offices.

[pErvinalia]

What I read is that Adani has to pay full royalties on it, with no holiday.

Nup. The Queensland government has offered them a discount on the royalties.

I stand corrected on this. I see there was a decision this week to ditch the royalty discount. In any case, it shows you one of the common ways that subsidies can be and are given.

[pErvinalia]

You are just interminable. There's nothing that can be posted to refute what you say without you wasting everyone's time arguing that black is white.

Dude, you posted a link that didn't refute anything. No wonder you provided no quotes from it, or analysis or explanation of how it refuted anything - it didn't. You just left a link there, suggesting it refuted something, when it didn't.

It SPECIFICALLY refuted Trump's bogus claim about 0.2 degrees C. Literally and specifically. Only in 42 Humpty-Dumpty land can English words be interpreted to mean something totally different to what they actually say.

Where is your support for 3.5 degree C reduction in temperatures? Where? You said it, but you never presented a shred of evidence.

Keep reading, princess.

I'm sure if you put your emaciated brain

On with the insults. You can't win the argument, so you go about your trolling b.s. This is what you've said you do. You try to bait people and troll them, so you can drive them off the forum.

Stop with the incessant whining, ffs. I've addressed this too many times now to count. As I've said, if I wanted to drive you off the site I'd just fucking do it, like I did it last time. Learn some fucking logic and honesty and parse what I originally said properly.

You only interested in being a contrarian so as to maintain your biases. A "guy named Jacob" is the co-founder of the MIT climate program. This is the sort of bullshit you pull.

I cited the actual MIT paper, and quoted its co-author. I, quite clearly, pointed out that Jacoby is quoted as saying the paper is outdated,

No, I was pointing out your disingenuous rhetoric. "A guy name Jacoby". He's not just some random "guy" they found who would comment. He's an authority on the subject and one must assume the original study too.

[Forty Two]

I'll point out that YOU, pErvin, said 3.5 degrees. So, you're wrong either way.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017 ... imate-deal

The only reference there about 3.5 degrees is a misleading comment where she refers to a drop compared to "business as usual." It's a non-refutation where they refer to another projection that temperatures might rise 5 degrees by 2100, and the article shows no calculation but suggests the "drop" would be 3.5 degrees. However, as John Reilly said in the report cited, accurately, by Trump “Those pledges [the pledges in the Paris Accords] shave 0.2 C of warming if they’re maintained through 2100, compared with what we assessed would have been the case by extending existing measures [due to expire in 2020] based on earlier international agreements in Copenhagen and Cancun." Trump is accurate.

The woman quoted as saying temperatures are predicted to rise 5 degrees - she's not being completely honest there, because the data estimates cited by MIT for 2100 shows a temperature increase of 3.5 to 5 degrees, so 5 degrees is on the high end.

Further, the woman quoted in the article as saying the number is 3.5 degrees provides no support for that, and in another fact check trying to refute Trump's quote of the MIT study has "John Sterman" an MIT researcher as saying the Paris agreement would reduce the planet’s warming by the year 2100 down from 4.2 degrees Celsius (7.56 degrees Fahreheit) to 3.3 degrees Celsius (5.94 degrees Fahrenheit), or nearly a full degree. So, an MIT researcher says that Trump missed the data by saying .2 degrees instead of .9 degrees.

Jake Jacoby says, not that Trump was wrong in his reference to the MIT report -- no - Jacoby said that Trump cited an OUTDATED REPORT. But, no link you've provided, and no link or citation provided in any of the fact check sources I've found - provides a more recently dated report which shows better numbers. Without reference to a better report, he says it's 1 degree Celsius.

So, is it .2, 3.5, .9 or 1?

I'm not going point-by-point - again - on this, because you need to make your own arguments. Your habit of just dropping links around without comment is your own lazy habit.

I note this, though, where the link says "President Trump slammed the Paris agreement for letting major emitters like China and India off the hook while punishing the United States - the world’s second largest emitter." The refutation of that is that the US is one of the greatest historical contributors to greenhouse gasses and therefore we SHOULD do more. That is not at all a refutation of what Trump said - which was that emitters like China and India are off the hook. They are. These folks and you are free to say that they SHOULD be off the hook and the US should be doing more, but that is not the same as refuting what Trump said or showing that what he said was bullshit. What he said was accurate. The difference is that he thinks countries like China and India should not be let off the hook, and the people writing this article think it's fine. That's the argument.

That's a contrary view, not a refutation.

[Forty Two]

What I read is that Adani has to pay full royalties on it, with no holiday.

Wrong. Royalty payments are going to be deferred for some years.

Not wrong. What I said was accurate. Full royalties will be paid with no holiday. Deferred payments are paid with interest. I said "Adani has to pay full royalties, with no holiday." A holiday on royalty payments means there's a period where they will not pay royalties at all - a deferred payment is paid with interest, so that all the assessed royalties are ultimately paid.

I'll need a link for your data/information before going on to discuss more of this.

[Brian Peacock]

What's Trump's plan to protect the citizens of the republic from the effect of global warming - or is he hoping that the rest of the world will sort that out while the US continues unabashed.

[Animavore]

Europe to bypass Washington and work with companies and States who are on board with us. No renegotiation for Trump.

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... withdrawal

[Animavore]

Isis condemns Kathy Griffin for cultural appropriation

http://www.duffelblog.com/2017/06/kathy ... beheading/

[Animavore]

[Brian Peacock]

I'm deeply disappointed that Trudeau is playing his joker on this after the nod his government has just given the fossil fuel industry. Still, I'd bet on him in a fight with Trump.

[pErvinalia]

I'll point out that YOU, pErvin, said 3.5 degrees. So, you're wrong either way.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017 ... imate-deal

{snip bullshit}
I'm not going point-by-point - again - on this, because you need to make your own arguments. Your habit of just dropping links around without comment is your own lazy habit.

God you are a piece of work. You accused me of being wrong about the 3.5 degrees. I provided a link which references it. Stop fucking incessantly whining.

[pErvinalia]

@42, I just don't understand what is wrong with your brain. I provided a link from MIT which links to both reports that are related to this Trump fuckup. And yes, Trump was wrong as he referred to the later report (0.6-1.1 degrees) while quoting the figure (0.2 degrees) from the earlier report. It's inconceivable how you keep doing this shit. Your dishonesty is off the fucking charts. Fix your shit, ffs.

[Jason]

For those saying Trump doesn't know what he's talking about I'll just put a couple links here:

Top gainers on the NYSE for Friday June 2 (a LOT of fossil fuels):
http://www.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_30 ... ainer.html

Top losers on the NYSE for Friday June 2 (a LOT of renewable energy):
http://www.wsj.com/mdc/public/page/2_30 ... loser.html

The S&P 500 was up 0.62%, the Dow Jones Industrial Average increased 0.64%, and the Nasdaq rose 0.78% on Thursday June 1. Additionally, the S&P 500 was up another 0.37%, the Dow Jones Industrial Average was up another 0.29%, and the Nasdaq was up a whopping 0.94% today.

[JimC]

Forty Two wrote:

...and the use of massive amounts of land for wind farms...

That is a complete nonsense, of course. Every wind farm that I have seen in Oz is built on agricultural land, without any reduction in its use by farmers. Cattle and sheep happily graze under the graceful towers, while the farmers concerned (including by brother-in-law) earn a tidy sum in rental, as well as their normal farming income...