Define "willing to do their part".

Is the huge disparity in emissions between the west and india/china from the industrial revolution until around 70s/80s worthy of any consideration?

It's tough to demand that all countries be treated the same moving forward without emissions from the past having any cost or consequence.

this is supposed to be a joke but actually the right is mounting a large backlash against "common core" which is a way to teach math in public schools. so you really arent too far off.

Equating common core opposition to math opposition is fairly disengenuous.

I'm pretty damn liberal and common core math seems completely rediculous to me.

It's rejection of expert opinion. Math educators probably know what they're doing, and the same sorts of complaints have been made any time methodology changes.

Climate change is a very difficult topic to discuss because the data is so corrupt and convoluted now, that it's easy for deniers to "win" that argument just by saying they don't trust the scientists.

My viewpoint is that, even if climate change isn't as severe as the doomsayers, it costs very little to keep the planet clean and sparkly. Fines for littering should be way higher than they are (Singapore has it right). Fines for companies who violate regs should be crippling. That's the only way they will follow the rules. I would even advocate prison sentences for administrators that are caught poisoning lakes, rivers, etc. When it is shown that a company's policy caused people to get cancer or die, then i would consider that a criminal act and punished accordingly. Someone dies, you are charged with negligent homicide. I'm tired of seeing people get off completely just because the company was willing to settle out of court with a nominal fine.

Considering "education experts" in the US havent had a great track record in the last 30 or so years, perhaps a bit of skepticism is warranted.

Maybe we should look to the countries that are beating us in education and learn something. After all, thats what we did in the 1800s to improve the US to an one time educational powerhouse.

You are using this evidence to argue that we should keep things the SAME?

Where have I argued for keeping things the same?

How G.O.P. Leaders Came to View Climate Change as Fake Science

Hint: it involved lots of money being thrown at conservative politicians, as long as they play ball with the fossil fuel industry!

In two years, following a 2008 campaign where John McCain ran on a platform that supported cap-and-trade and renewable/nuclear energy to reduce fossil fuel dependence, the Republican Party had completely moved against even acknowledging climate change as a problem. $$$ made sure that dissent was quashed:

From "climate change is a serious problem" to "do we even know if humans cause it", all thanks to millions in campaign donations.

I don't understand the necessity to prove that climate change is manmade as a precursor to do something about it.

The blaming of China and India for the bulk of co2 emissions also ignores not just the issue of past emissions, which abbadabba brought up, but also the issue of population.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List...xide_emissions

While China has the highest total carbon footprint, it's per capita carbon footprint is less than 1/2 the US. India's total carbon footprint is 1/2 the US while having 3x the population. So to say India and China are doing nothing is clearly untrue. Unless if you want to kill off a bunch of people, just keeping total carbon emissions at current levels is a challenge for both China and India.

While those enormous populations are a detriment to carbon reduction, the silver lining is that those large populations are also a tremendously large market for American low pollution products. China is already the largest market for American car companies, tech hardware, and select agricultural products. To lose that market share of future environmentally sound products is the most anti business idea you can think of. You're not going to export a lot of coal in the future. Can't build a pipeline to Asia either.

The idea that environmental regulation is a direct link to job loss is fairly spurious.

Environmental initiatives can just as easily create jobs and there is a tremendous opportunity in front of us.

Something is being done about it LOL. I invite you to examine carbon emission trends in the USA and Europe over the last 25 years.

Agreed China and India have tremendous economic potential. Your premise seems to be that the USA is not addressing CO2 emission reductions (which is actually not the case at all) blaming not doing so on China and India. False premise if that is your position. Not sure actually what your position is.

Quantitatively speaking, how much will having the USA pulling out of the Paris Accords effect CO2 emission trends world wide?

The consensus among math educators is what exactly?

National Council of Math Educators

Not sure what is here exactly. This is definitely a thread derail though. Worthy of a thread on its own. Perhaps I'll start one. David Sklansky has some views on this topic that are worth debating.

I haven't addressed Paris accords at all because I prefer to understand the agreement more in depth before stating a position on it.

My position is not that the US is not addressing CO2 emissions but to challenge the position that climate change is made up by foreign agents to handcuff American industry so that other nations can continue economic growth while polluting.

There seems to be more of an emphasis on creating an understanding of concepts over simplified algorithms. Parents freak out because "that's not how I learned it!"

It isn't just parents who haven't learned it that way, it's teachers too. This is what leads to a lot of bad implementation of curriculum at many schools.

Having parents help with homework at home is a good thing. If your program is such that parents are less able to help then I question it's effectiveness. You are removing a free source of educators from the equation. If the bulk of complaints are from parents who care about their child's education enough to work long hours together with them on their homework, then I take heed of what they are saying.

Daily reminder: Climate change is a hoax.

That is all.

We can lead the way without being handcuffed by a feckless agreement from politicians to whom we owe zero allegiance. We are currently at 1995 level of CO2 emissions, apparently due to fracking and natural gas production - https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/g...allgas/gas/all

Fracking was mostly about money, not CO2 reduction.

Trump used our research to justify pulling out of the Paris agreement. He got it wrong.

Gotta agree with JiggyMac on this. The climate change risks are highly speculative, and if we're being honest, have a very poor track record of coming true. The economic risks, on the other hand, are very real, and very dangerous.

When forced to choose between defending against real risks, or hypothetical risks, I'll side with the former every single time.

Your judgement here seems to be based on nothing. There is nothing "highly speculative" about many of the risks of climate change:

These are projections for the late 21st century from the IPCC AR5:

How are the economic risks real?