Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL (#2)

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL (#2)
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

Previous · 1 . . . 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 . . . 25 · Next

AuthorMessage
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1497488 - Posted: 30 Mar 2014, 16:19:44 UTC - in response to Message 1497438.  
Last modified: 30 Mar 2014, 16:21:51 UTC

I.D said:
You are a damn fine man! +100! LMAO!


'If' Only 'it' 'is' trUe. 'Tis nOt. Da Bullies have tOld me sO, all my life.

However, I am a DENIER. Oh Yeah.

I DENY The Agendatizing, Bias, Ofuscating, Money Grabbing, and General Hanky Panky of Greenie/Warmist ReligiOn.

I 'Pray' 'it' will End as All Good Scams End.

fO shO fO evA

' '


Ah, you believe them ol bullies? You buy into that line of B.S. they give you about being stupid and not worth a spit? Dude, you're one of the smartest ones here. All B.S. to one side at least you have your head screwed on straight.

Ya, LOL you have pegged yourself as a denier! And---so have I.

I have a bad feeling it will end when they ruin our money system in a attempt to make things---so called 'even'. They 'the left' made rules in the 90's that gave tax breaks to move a corp overseas to China. The left, Clinton gave China "Most Favored Trade" because his wife Killery was on the board of upper management of Wal-Mart. However, there is a lot to blame the right for as well in the late 80's under the direction of WRIGHT, FOLEY, and then GINGRICH. The three matter because they allow what and which bills get allowed for a vote. [smile] Have a look who was in bed with the clintons and china? LMAO!

I also pray it will end soon, while I'm still young enough to lend a hand in the take down, and remaking.

Would you like to answer the corn question brought up by our Lady of the house?

I know how you like to CORN IT! :-)
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1497488 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1497520 - Posted: 30 Mar 2014, 17:40:00 UTC - in response to Message 1497488.  
Last modified: 30 Mar 2014, 17:40:27 UTC

Would you like to answer the corn question brought up by our Lady of the house?

I know how you like to CORN IT! :-)



Ooh..... Lady of the house? How elegant that sounds :))))))))) do you mean me ID? :) cos I was far from elegant when I was stuck in the catflap :/ ok, so how can I make this on-topic... whilst I was um... thinking about the corn thing :)
ID: 1497520 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1497580 - Posted: 30 Mar 2014, 21:19:01 UTC - in response to Message 1497488.  

I have a bad feeling it will end when they ruin our money system in a attempt to make things---so called 'even'. They 'the left' made rules in the 90's that gave tax breaks to move a corp overseas to China. The left, Clinton gave China "Most Favored Trade" because his wife Killery was on the board of upper management of Wal-Mart. However, there is a lot to blame the right for as well in the late 80's under the direction of WRIGHT, FOLEY, and then GINGRICH. The three matter because they allow what and which bills get allowed for a vote. [smile] Have a look who was in bed with the clintons and china? LMAO!


This paragraph, especially the section I have made bold, is one of the most insightful statements of yours that I have ever read. You have hit the nail on the head on what is going on.

Over 10 years ago, a friend of mine told me that I 'needed to see this!' He told me where to find it on the UN's computer network. I grabbed it, and the document was VERY educational. It was an analysis paper written back in the late 1980s on solutions to 'The problem of worldwide economic inequality'. It was recognized that there were not enough resources to bring the world's population up to a 'USA level' in their standard of living. So, to bring about equality, the USA (and the rest of the developed West) had to be economically crippled while the rest of the world was allowed to catch up.

A number of different schemes to bring this about were discussed in the paper.
In the end, the paper advocated a combination approach. It advocated accelerating the trend of manufacturing jobs being 'off-shored' to grow the economies of the 'developing' nations and raising the specter of 'human-caused climate change' to put the brakes on the Western economies.

I do not expect people to believe me on this. I no longer have the file (lost it in a hard-disk failure) and many would doubt the source anyway. But I do know what I saw.

This is the problem I have with the Warmists. The politics of it. The Warmist leadership, the political and economic elites behind it, are fanning the flames of public fear on the issue for the EXPRESS purpose of harming the Economies of the USA and the rest of the developed West.

Am I a Denier? No, I am not. There is something to the science on the issue. BUT, it is not anywhere near as grave as the Warmist FUD portrays it. Remember your history. The best of the Big Lies ALL have a kernel of truth.

Warmism is just another Big Lie. The Warmist leadership are to blame here. The rank and file Warmists (like many here) are either sadly misled or are willingly cooperating.

You want more proof? Look at China. China was exempted from the Kyoto accord, supposedly out of fairness. Remember it is the TOTAL amount of CO2 emitted that is at issue here, not any silly 'per capita' nonsense.

In 2006, China surpassed the USA in total CO2 emissions.

In 2010, USA emitted 5.433 Billion tons of CO2.
In 2010, China emitted 8.287 Billion tons of CO2.

In 2011, USA emitted 5.420 Billion tons of CO2.
In 2011, China emitted 9.700 Billion tons of CO2.

In 2012, USA emitted 5.190 Billion tons of CO2.
In 2012, China emitted 9.860 Billion tons of CO2.

(data sources: US DoE (2010), The European Commission (2011, 2012), and The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2011, 2012)).

See the pattern?
ID: 1497580 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1497595 - Posted: 30 Mar 2014, 21:39:34 UTC - in response to Message 1497580.  
Last modified: 30 Mar 2014, 22:15:04 UTC

I have a bad feeling it will end when they ruin our money system in a attempt to make things---so called 'even'. They 'the left' made rules in the 90's that gave tax breaks to move a corp overseas to China. The left, Clinton gave China "Most Favored Trade" because his wife Killery was on the board of upper management of Wal-Mart. However, there is a lot to blame the right for as well in the late 80's under the direction of WRIGHT, FOLEY, and then GINGRICH. The three matter because they allow what and which bills get allowed for a vote. [smile] Have a look who was in bed with the clintons and china? LMAO!


This paragraph, especially the section I have made bold, is one of the most insightful statements of yours that I have ever read. You have hit the nail on the head on what is going on.

Over 10 years ago, a friend of mine told me that I 'needed to see this!' He told me where to find it on the UN's computer network. I grabbed it, and the document was VERY educational. It was an analysis paper written back in the late 1980s on solutions to 'The problem of worldwide economic inequality'. It was recognized that there were not enough resources to bring the world's population up to a 'USA level' in their standard of living. So, to bring about equality, the USA (and the rest of the developed West) had to be economically crippled while the rest of the world was allowed to catch up.

A number of different schemes to bring this about were discussed in the paper.
In the end, the paper advocated a combination approach. It advocated accelerating the trend of manufacturing jobs being 'off-shored' to grow the economies of the 'developing' nations and raising the specter of 'human-caused climate change' to put the brakes on the Western economies.

I do not expect people to believe me on this. I no longer have the file (lost it in a hard-disk failure) and many would doubt the source anyway. But I do know what I saw.

This is the problem I have with the Warmists. The politics of it. The Warmist leadership, the political and economic elites behind it, are fanning the flames of public fear on the issue for the EXPRESS purpose of harming the Economies of the USA and the rest of the developed West.

Am I a Denier? No, I am not. There is something to the science on the issue. BUT, it is not anywhere near as grave as the Warmist FUD portrays it. Remember your history. The best of the Big Lies ALL have a kernel of truth.

Warmism is just another Big Lie. The Warmist leadership are to blame here. The rank and file Warmists (like many here) are either sadly misled or are willingly cooperating.

You want more proof? Look at China. China was exempted from the Kyoto accord, supposedly out of fairness. Remember it is the TOTAL amount of CO2 emitted that is at issue here, not any silly 'per capita' nonsense.

In 2006, China surpassed the USA in total CO2 emissions.

In 2010, USA emitted 5.433 Billion tons of CO2.
In 2010, China emitted 8.287 Billion tons of CO2.

In 2011, USA emitted 5.420 Billion tons of CO2.
In 2011, China emitted 9.700 Billion tons of CO2.

In 2012, USA emitted 5.190 Billion tons of CO2.
In 2012, China emitted 9.860 Billion tons of CO2.

(data sources: US DoE (2010), The European Commission (2011, 2012), and The Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (2011, 2012)).

See the pattern?


Hi Major Kong! How are you? A very interesting post, thankyou!

I think it is getting so difficult to sift fact from the most dangerous kind of fiction (those with a kernel of truth at the core as you rightly put it) that we do have to investigate the source before we investigate the "truth" and that is often really hard and I think in some ways is becoming near impossible at times. It makes my head spin I must say.

I don't know the report you mention above at all - but I also know that a lot of off-shoring is about reducing costs, and limiting liability in incidences of chemical spillages etc. Who ever is behind that has a lot to answer for.

I have a real problem with China, though must hasten to add that every Chinese person I know, I both like and respect. My issues are what they have been doing in Africa. It is so rarely reported in the western press and it makes me so angry at times! Their human and animal rights record is abominable (except perhaps that of the panda). It is very worrying the level of bending over backwards that is done to accomodate them - and much of that is because the west are using them to bankroll their economies.

Before ending - I have a confession to make. I have just contributed more than my usual share of CO2 into the atmosphere by setting fire to my hair whilst making toast. All I can do is apologise to all concerned :/
ID: 1497595 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1497602 - Posted: 30 Mar 2014, 22:06:40 UTC - in response to Message 1497580.  

Yes sir, Mr. Kong I do see patterns. I do take a thing and store it, like the 80's cuz I lived it. Later I see patterns.

Example, I have seen 3 thunder snow events in my lifetime.

I have seen snow rollers once.

Both have been filed in my head. LOL!

I believe you Mr. Kong---I believe you. Following the money is a REAL pattern, one that more had better take a look at, just saying....

You know, or should know this is treason against our Country.
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1497602 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1497603 - Posted: 30 Mar 2014, 22:09:17 UTC - in response to Message 1497580.  

This paragraph, especially the section I have made bold, is one of the most insightful statements of yours that I have ever read. You have hit the nail on the head on what is going on.

Over 10 years ago, a friend of mine told me that I 'needed to see this!' He told me where to find it on the UN's computer network. I grabbed it, and the document was VERY educational. It was an analysis paper written back in the late 1980s on solutions to 'The problem of worldwide economic inequality'. It was recognized that there were not enough resources to bring the world's population up to a 'USA level' in their standard of living. So, to bring about equality, the USA (and the rest of the developed West) had to be economically crippled while the rest of the world was allowed to catch up.

A number of different schemes to bring this about were discussed in the paper.
In the end, the paper advocated a combination approach. It advocated accelerating the trend of manufacturing jobs being 'off-shored' to grow the economies of the 'developing' nations and raising the specter of 'human-caused climate change' to put the brakes on the Western economies.

You realize that off shoring job is the very natural thing to do in a free market capitalist system right? There is not some big world wide conspiracy aimed at slowing down economic development in the US, it is the capitalist system itself that does this.

What certain people have completely forgotten is that first of all capitalism doesn't serve specific countries. It is not there to serve the average consumer. It is not there to help the average person. It is an inherently selfish system that does not give a damn about where the jobs are and what the consequences are of anything it does. As long as the capitalist makes a profit, consequences be damned.

The second thing people keep forgetting is that the idea of constant growth is well...a fallacy. One cannot have everlasting growth, and certainly not the economic growth we used to see back in half a century ago. There is a limit to how much any given country can grow, because this world is finite. There are finite resources, therefor growth at some point stops. It stops because you have reached your maximum potential given the resources you have.

This is the problem I have with the Warmists. The politics of it. The Warmist leadership, the political and economic elites behind it, are fanning the flames of public fear on the issue for the EXPRESS purpose of harming the Economies of the USA and the rest of the developed West.

You realize that had the US government actually acted on global warming with a little more determination it could have actually helped the economy significantly? It would have encouraged a more long term approach to economics and it would have fostered a whole new high tech industry, which requires well established knowledge economies. We knew about global warming for decades now, had the US acted in the late 80's begin 90's, at a time where it was the only superpower in the world, it would have had a massive head start in this sector. Instead it has squandered it. The Chinese are well on their way on establishing their own knowledge economy and start building their high tech industry. They have already seen the economic benefit of it, and they are going to reap the success of it. And it won't be because of some international conspiracy against the US economy, it will be because the US was dumb enough not to act.

You want more proof? Look at China. China was exempted from the Kyoto accord, supposedly out of fairness. Remember it is the TOTAL amount of CO2 emitted that is at issue here, not any silly 'per capita' nonsense.

No because that per capita nonsense would actually mean that the US is the bigger polluter out there. China has over a billion people living within its borders, the US has what? Around 300 million? So relatively, they produce a lot more pollution. The average American pollutes a hell lot more than the average Chinese. So of course the Chinese are going to object to this. Because unlike any international conspiracy against the United States, forcing China to sign such a deal would actively harm Chinese development, as you ban them from even reaching US levels of industrial and economic development.
ID: 1497603 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1497604 - Posted: 30 Mar 2014, 22:10:52 UTC - in response to Message 1497595.  

It is very worrying the level of bending over backwards that is done to accomodate them - and much of that is because the west are using them to bankroll their economies.


Its a bit more than that. I have mentioned recently in another thread how Russia/Putin has much of Europe by the 'short and curlies' re: the natural gas situation. Well, China is in much the same position as Russia with not only Europe but also the USA and the rest of the 'West' re: certain Rare Earths (for instance, the element Neodymium, atomic number 60).

Much of modern technology (including US Military technology) depends on some of the Rare Earths to function. China has a virtual monopoly on these Rare Earths (last figures I saw was that China produces 98% of the world's supply). And they are clamping down on their exports of these Rare Earths increasingly reserving them for their own use.

So yes, we kinda ARE bending over backwards to avoid irritating the PRC right now. It will take quite a number of years to restart mining and processing facilities in the rest of the world that got closed down because 'China was cheaper'.
ID: 1497604 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1497606 - Posted: 30 Mar 2014, 22:17:18 UTC
Last modified: 30 Mar 2014, 22:18:33 UTC

No, trade is regulated by the Senate in our Country. This is done so for tariff reasons.

This is not really the case anymore, but this part of our rule of law still applies, it has not had the line drawn through it. The words remain in our Constitution, example is our tax system, the old one is the debt divided by the number of real citizens. Now we have the IRS.

Trade is regulated by our government, they lack doing so but the original words still remain.

Just because a company has gone global does not relieve them of their duty to Country. Nor, does 'personhood of a corp' relieve the owners.

Treason does apply and damn well should be applied...
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1497606 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1497612 - Posted: 30 Mar 2014, 22:43:12 UTC - in response to Message 1497606.  
Last modified: 30 Mar 2014, 22:43:33 UTC

Just because a company has gone global does not relieve them of their duty to Country. Nor, does 'personhood of a corp' relieve the owners.

Actually no. Companies have only one duty and that is to please their shareholders. They are even required by law to do so. So no, companies hold absolutely zero responsibility over what happens in the countries they operate in, nor do they have any kind of duty towards that country.

And personhood of a company means exactly that the owners are relieved of all responsibilities. That is the whole point behind making your company its own legal entity, so you are no longer responsible for anything the company does.

You would have to change the law first. But, if its just one country that does it, those companies would simply move their HQ's to countries that keep the law as it is.
ID: 1497612 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1497614 - Posted: 30 Mar 2014, 22:51:13 UTC

Now this is interesting isn't it? :) Мишель, you are right in your summation of how we are in this situation with regards capitalism. Capitalism is all about hard-profit, no more. It is neither moral nor amoral. It is an economic means to an end. It is not and should never be an ideology. With the advent of communism however it increasingly assumed an ideological cloak, and the decline of communism hasn't changed that.

Despite the packaging that comes as standard, off-shoring is very rarely about "investment" in the nation concerned. It is about profit. It is capitalist driven.

If the west had taken heed of concerns about our use of dirty fuels forty years ago - we would not be dependent on the good will of China for essentials now.

Major Kong you said:
China has a virtual monopoly on these Rare Earths (last figures I saw was that China produces 98% of the world's supply)


...and what they don't have they are ripping out of Africa.

China's weak spot is fuel. And whilst they hold many of the cards elsewhere, they can dictate the terms of their imports and push the prices up for the rest of the world.

Finally, per capita anything should always be considered when comparing statistics. Otherwise they simply don't make sense. America can definitely pat it's own back with regards to population, but it can't when it comes to consumerism - and that holds true to varying degrees for all western nations.

But that's just what I think when I have a headache :)
ID: 1497614 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1497625 - Posted: 30 Mar 2014, 23:15:37 UTC - in response to Message 1497520.  

Would you like to answer the corn question brought up by our Lady of the house?

I know how you like to CORN IT! :-)



Ooh..... Lady of the house? How elegant that sounds :))))))))) do you mean me ID? :) cos I was far from elegant when I was stuck in the catflap :/ ok, so how can I make this on-topic... whilst I was um... thinking about the corn thing :)

I guess I got demoted for not being feminine enough. :D
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1497625 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1497641 - Posted: 30 Mar 2014, 23:45:33 UTC - in response to Message 1497625.  

Would you like to answer the corn question brought up by our Lady of the house?

I know how you like to CORN IT! :-)



Ooh..... Lady of the house? How elegant that sounds :))))))))) do you mean me ID? :) cos I was far from elegant when I was stuck in the catflap :/ ok, so how can I make this on-topic... whilst I was um... thinking about the corn thing :)

I guess I got demoted for not being feminine enough. :D


:) I'm having a few problems batting my eyelids at the moment Es - burn cream welding them together - fancy stepping in for me? :) to um... you know... discuss the um... topic we're on at the moment :)
ID: 1497641 · Report as offensive
Profile KWSN - MajorKong
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jan 00
Posts: 2892
Credit: 1,499,890
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1497663 - Posted: 31 Mar 2014, 0:17:59 UTC - in response to Message 1497614.  

Finally, per capita anything should always be considered when comparing statistics.


Perhaps. But in this case (CO2/Climate Change -- you know... Warmism) 'per capita' is meaningless.

The atmosphere knows no national boundaries. It is global. It does not matter how much CO2 any one specific person emits per year. What matters is the TOTAL amount emitted.

We went from rough parity on CO2 emissions with China in 2005 to China emitting close to double what the USA emitted in 2012. In 2013, it is quite possible that they DID emit double what the USA did, but we won't know for a while (a year or so), the numbers are not in yet.

But ok, you wish to discuss something 'per capita'? Ok...

China had in 2010 a population of 1.339 Billion per the Chinese government. World population was 6.908 Billion per the U.N. in 2010. That is less than a 20% share of the world population for China. Yet, in 2010, China emitted 26.43% of the world's CO2 emissions that year. Sounds like the Chinese were responsible for more than their 'fair share' that year.

Yes, I know that people in the USA are responsible for quite a bit more than their fair share that year too... But then, The USA's emissions are declining. China's emissions are most definitely NOT.

Why is the USA being demonized at the "world's worst polluter" about to "kill the planet" when China is being given a Free Pass, essentially exempt? And CO2 isn't all... Have you seen some of the large Chinese cities lately? Oh that is right... you CAN'T see them through all the smog produced by their dirty coal fired power plants and a host of other industrial processes.

Warmism is about tearing down the economies in the developed West and building up the economies in the 'developing' world. Pure and simple. If Warmism was really about catastrophic climatic change (as so many of you mistakenly believe), there is no way in H*** that the entire rest of the world would let China get away with what it is doing. Remember, the UN is fairly well sold on Warmism. With China's veto in the Sec.Council, military action by the UN would be fairly well unlikely, but don't you think there would be weekly resolutions of condemnation from the General Assembly using VERY harsh language?
ID: 1497663 · Report as offensive
Profile Intelligent Design
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 12
Posts: 3626
Credit: 37,520
RAC: 0
United States
Message 1497669 - Posted: 31 Mar 2014, 0:25:38 UTC - in response to Message 1497663.  

+1 :-)
Must not conflict resolve by suggesting that someone should go sit on an ice pick...
ID: 1497669 · Report as offensive
anniet
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 2 Feb 14
Posts: 7105
Credit: 1,577,368
RAC: 75
Zambia
Message 1497686 - Posted: 31 Mar 2014, 1:41:40 UTC
Last modified: 31 Mar 2014, 1:43:10 UTC

Hi Major Kong! :)

The atmosphere knows no national boundaries. It is global. It does not matter how much CO2 any one specific person emits per year. What matters is the TOTAL amount emitted.


That is true - but it matters to me what I personally contribute to that - so I don't run a car, am careful with water, food, and energy use, don't go abroad etc, etc. I feel I should do that given how much travelling I did as a child with my parents.

Yet, in 2010, China emitted 26.43% of the world's CO2 emissions that year. Sounds like the Chinese were responsible for more than their 'fair share' that year.


You are preaching to the converted on that one Major Kong :)

Yes, I know that people in the USA are responsible for quite a bit more than their fair share that year too... But then, The USA's emissions are declining. China's emissions are most definitely NOT.


Again, demonising any state on this planet is not something I indulge in. I see faults everywhere, and I see just as much good too. Sometimes the good struggles to be heard, but that doesn't mean it's not there,

Why is the USA being demonized at the "world's worst polluter" about to "kill the planet" when China is being given a Free Pass, essentially exempt? And CO2 isn't all... Have you seen some of the large Chinese cities lately? Oh that is right... you CAN'T see them through all the smog produced by their dirty coal fired power plants and a host of other industrial processes.


I apologise if I have came across in that way, MJ. :( It certainly wasn't my intention. Blame games never achieve anything. Possibly why America might be being perceived that way may have something to do with the vociferousness of the argument coming out of America with regards climate change. But I don't know that for a fact, it is just one opinion. Certainly Americans can see through their air - and will always want to. The Chinese people want to too, but their powerbase has us all by the short and curlies (excuse the expression) and whilst they're using coal, not oil, that leaves more oil for the west (not just America).

Warmism is about tearing down the economies in the developed West and building up the economies in the 'developing' world. Pure and simple. If Warmism was really about catastrophic climatic change (as so many of you mistakenly believe), there is no way in H*** that the entire rest of the world would let China get away with what it is doing. Remember, the UN is fairly well sold on Warmism. With China's veto in the Sec.Council, military action by the UN would be fairly well unlikely, but don't you think there would be weekly resolutions of condemnation from the General Assembly using VERY harsh language?


I do have my doubts about your opening statement in the above quote, because I don't think it is as pure and simple as that. With regards the Chinese veto and "letting them get away with things" it does ensure they take their seat in the UN - and when you have a powerful nuclear state as inscrutable as that one is - you want to at least have opportunity for dialogue and better relations.

I would LOVE to see weekly resolutions condemning many of their actions - but I would also be worrying a little about what the repercussions would be... :/ but thanks for a very stimulating discussion. :)
ID: 1497686 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19012
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 1497757 - Posted: 31 Mar 2014, 6:39:42 UTC - in response to Message 1497748.  

The real question regarding Climate Change/Global Warming is:

How do we stop China from destroying our climate?

Awaiting answer from the UN.

The same way we are waiting for you to stop destroying ours.

Pollution travels from West to east, in the northern hemisphere.
ID: 1497757 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1497780 - Posted: 31 Mar 2014, 8:15:17 UTC - in response to Message 1497663.  

We went from rough parity on CO2 emissions with China in 2005 to China emitting close to double what the USA emitted in 2012. In 2013, it is quite possible that they DID emit double what the USA did, but we won't know for a while (a year or so), the numbers are not in yet.

Yes but again, China has almost 4 times as many citizens living within its borders. Look if you would scale up the amount of people in the US to 1.3 billion people you can be damn sure US output would also scale up.

But ok, you wish to discuss something 'per capita'? Ok...

China had in 2010 a population of 1.339 Billion per the Chinese government. World population was 6.908 Billion per the U.N. in 2010. That is less than a 20% share of the world population for China. Yet, in 2010, China emitted 26.43% of the world's CO2 emissions that year. Sounds like the Chinese were responsible for more than their 'fair share' that year.

The United States on the other hand has about 5% of the world population and is responsible for a little more than 13% of the world output of CO2 emissions. See how that number is completely out of whack compared to China? Per capita the United states produces almost two times as much CO2 as in China. In other words, you guys are much bigger polluters.

Yes, I know that people in the USA are responsible for quite a bit more than their fair share that year too... But then, The USA's emissions are declining. China's emissions are most definitely NOT.

The US is an established economy, China's economy is still developing.

Why is the USA being demonized at the "world's worst polluter" about to "kill the planet" when China is being given a Free Pass, essentially exempt? And CO2 isn't all... Have you seen some of the large Chinese cities lately? Oh that is right... you CAN'T see them through all the smog produced by their dirty coal fired power plants and a host of other industrial processes.

Because the US IS the worst polluter.

No one is giving China a free pass. But no one can force China to sign any climate deals and one has to take political and economic reality into account when trying to make these deals. It is unrealisitic to expect China to meet Western standards when China is still a developing economy and has the biggest population in the world and from that point of view isn´t as polluting yet as some other states.

Warmism is about tearing down the economies in the developed West and building up the economies in the 'developing' world. Pure and simple. If Warmism was really about catastrophic climatic change (as so many of you mistakenly believe), there is no way in H*** that the entire rest of the world would let China get away with what it is doing. Remember, the UN is fairly well sold on Warmism. With China's veto in the Sec.Council, military action by the UN would be fairly well unlikely, but don't you think there would be weekly resolutions of condemnation from the General Assembly using VERY harsh language?

Actually even with climate change being a real thing, there are plenty of ways in hell the rest of the world would let China get away with it. First of all, no one has any power to force a sovereign nation, especially not a powerful nation like China to do anything. Even if China was not in the Security Council, military action would be out of the question. It would not even be considered, because it is an utterly insane notion. And harsh resolutions of condemnation? You seem to forget that most of the world is still the 'third world'. What do they have to gain from condemning China's climate policies? And if the UN can't even get a harsh condemnation against a country like the US (for you know, starting an illegal war) or Israel (for rampaging through a dense urban area, using white phosphor artillery shells and setting up a blockade and stealing land, you really think they are going to condemn China over climate change?

But why am I even responding to this. This last part is utterly ridiculous.
ID: 1497780 · Report as offensive
Profile Julie
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 28 Oct 09
Posts: 34041
Credit: 18,883,157
RAC: 18
Belgium
Message 1497794 - Posted: 31 Mar 2014, 9:07:34 UTC

UNFCCC and Cancun Climate Change Summit


In the wake of the unsuccessful climate change conference held in Copenhagen last year, another summit is to be held in Cancun, Mexico this December. Intent on not ‘getting it wrong’ a second time, a series of meetings are to take place in the run up to Cancun, to discuss, deliberate and streamline negotiations


Doesn't look too good:(
rOZZ
Music
Pictures
ID: 1497794 · Report as offensive
Profile ML1
Volunteer moderator
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Nov 01
Posts: 20140
Credit: 7,508,002
RAC: 20
United Kingdom
Message 1497808 - Posted: 31 Mar 2014, 11:24:26 UTC - in response to Message 1497794.  
Last modified: 31 Mar 2014, 11:25:40 UTC

UNFCCC and Cancun Climate Change Summit


In the wake of the unsuccessful climate change conference held in Copenhagen last year, another summit is to be held in Cancun, Mexico this December. Intent on not ‘getting it wrong’ a second time, a series of meetings are to take place in the run up to Cancun, to discuss, deliberate and streamline negotiations


Doesn't look too good:(

And that is the destructive gulf between (financially and business corrupt) politics and reality.


Now, deny this latest reality?


Climate impacts 'overwhelming' - UN

The impacts of global warming are likely to be "severe, pervasive and irreversible", a major report by the UN has warned.

Scientists and officials meeting in Japan say the document is the most comprehensive assessment to date of the impacts of climate change on the world.

Some impacts of climate change include a higher risk of flooding and changes to crop yields and water availability. Humans may be able to adapt to some of these changes, but only within limits...

... "Before this we thought we knew this was happening, but now we have overwhelming evidence that it is happening and it is real."

Michel Jarraud, secretary-general of the World Meteorological Organization, said that, previously, people could have damaged the Earth's climate out of "ignorance". "Now, ignorance is no longer a good excuse," he said...



Climate impacts report: Key findings

... Previous studies have shown a mixture of impacts on food production, with some areas benefiting from changes, while others are hit hard. The authors say with high confidence that the negative impacts of climate change on crop yields have been more common than positive ones. ...

Throughout history, people have tried to cope with a changing climate - with varying degrees of success...



Viewpoints: Reactions to UN climate impacts report

... This is not just another report - this is the scientific consensus reached by hundreds of scientists after careful consideration of all the available evidence.

The human influence on climate change is clear. The atmosphere and oceans are warming, the snow cover is shrinking, the Arctic sea-ice is melting, sea levels are rising, the oceans are acidifying, some extreme weather events are on the rise, ecosystems and natural habitats will be upset. Climate change threatens food security and world economies.

We need rapid and substantial cuts in carbon emissions and a move away from burning fossil fuels if we are to limit global climate change below two degrees and mitigate these impacts...

... Governments across the world must stand up to the oil, gas and coal industries, and take their foot off the fossil fuel accelerator that's speeding us towards a climate disaster.




And for just one real-world recent consequence:

Network Rail plans £38bn investment in tracks and stations

... "I don't think in this century we should be having railways that are out of action for two months as we've suffered in Dawlish," Mr Carne told the BBC. "It's quite clear we need to invest further in improving the resilience of our network."

Network Rail expects the line to reopen on 4 April.

Dawlish was just one example of a town cut off from the network by bad weather, Mr Carne said. Network Rail has just reopened the line to Hastings after several weeks of closure due to landslips.

"We've suffered an enormous amount of damage to the railway right across the network...



Very much so: "Now, ignorance is no longer a good excuse,"

All on our only one planet,
Martin
See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)
ID: 1497808 · Report as offensive
Profile M5WJF
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 5 Jul 99
Posts: 147
Credit: 6,484,657
RAC: 6
United Kingdom
Message 1497830 - Posted: 31 Mar 2014, 13:25:22 UTC

I live on a hill at 72 metres ASL (approx), the rain doesn't bother me, and if people are people, and therefore stupid, then I'm quite happy to be living on beachfront property when all the ice melts, instead of a air cooled VWs I'll have various sailing boats to play with...cool
ID: 1497830 · Report as offensive
Previous · 1 . . . 12 · 13 · 14 · 15 · 16 · 17 · 18 . . . 25 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Climate Change, 'Greenhouse' effects: DENIAL (#2)


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.