27 Nov 09
Originally posted by sh76Talk about a Dog Bites Man story.
Is it or is it not true that an agreement to reduce emissions without India or China being involved will be ineffective at solving the problem of man made global warming?
So having ventured forth with "fault and history and per capita calculations are irrelevant" you now retreat behind the blandest of bland assertions - plucked from its geopolitical context and the recent background history of this issue - and presented as a trite yes or no answer.
Do India and China need to be on board?
Yes. You think anyone thinks otherwise? Even China and India are going to answer 'yes'.
Is that your 'point' on this thread?
27 Nov 09
Originally posted by sh76China's attitude can be summed up in one word. "Arrogence". Most large and powerful nations are guilty of this.😏
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hlFHlfH4ch0M4bTr15oijjInyyPgD9C6OO580
China will seek binding pollution targets for developed countries and reject similar requirements for itself at an international climate summit next month, China's top climate envoy said Wednesday.
I understand that China's per capita emissions are still lower t ...[text shortened]... r Copenhagen will be as worthless as Kyoto.
And that, my friends, is saying something.
27 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by sh76Well I have. And now I will top it off with a bit of sh76 "analysis", adapted for the nations concerned: Well, yes, it is unfortunate that China and India are not perfect. Human nature is human nature and China and India are not exempt from it. There. Nailed a difficult issue. Now do we see eye to eye?
If you're really interested in "getting to the heart of it," you'll answer that question.
28 Nov 09
2 edits
Originally posted by Wajomamore precisely it cooled while it got warmer because there were no environmental regs in place which meant that particulate matter which was a byproduct of CO2 production helped produce a dimming effect in the atmosphere. The knowledge that we were choking on our own filth made goverment regulate industry to clean up its exhaust which took away the particulate matter which took away the cooling effect. Unfortunately certain skeptics have looked at satellite data when if incorrectly weighted can give the impression of global cooling. The truth is that satellites do not measure actual temperatures but only measure reflection, which has to be interpreted in order to produce a usable result. Depending on the assumptions that form the algorithm you use to convert the satellite data into temperature you either end up with reading that show cooling trends or readings that closely correlate with the earth station readings, so to make a long story longer -......
So let me get this straight, when it's cooling it's warming and when it's warming it's cooling?
When its cooling its warming cause they under read their data , and when its warming its cooling cause they've let the air get dirty or vice versa depending on how you intended your seeming conundrum.
28 Nov 09
Originally posted by kmax87Or they're just covering their ass, because there has not been any substantial warming, this way they've got it either way as when it was changed from "Global Warming Inc" (trdmk) to "Climate Change Inc" (trdmk), but still has the whole doomsday thing going, something like Phil Jones, although to date a bit more smooth.
more precisely it cooled while it got warmer because there were no environmental regs in place which meant that particulate matter which was a byproduct of CO2 production helped produce a dimming effect in the atmosphere. The knowledge that we were choking on our own filth made goverment regulate industry to clean up its exhaust which took away the particulat ...[text shortened]... ey've let the air get dirty or vice versa depending on how you intended your seeming conundrum.
I should have known better than to ask a straight question of you, the last time was how many windmills = one nuke station, oh gawd, the writhing.
28 Nov 09
Originally posted by WajomaRefresh my memory please. Or a link. I wish I had the time to trawl back to find that you have done your usual side-step and inverted the role of who the fish on dry land was.
I should have known better than to ask a straight question of you, the last time was how many windmills = one nuke station, oh gawd, the writhing.
28 Nov 09
Originally posted by kmax87Here are the questions from just one page before. If you can't remember them, well, I rest my case.
Refresh my memory please. Or a link. I wish I had the time to trawl back to find that you have done your usual side-step and inverted the role of who the fish on dry land was.
How much has the temp gone up.
How much of that rise (if any) is man responsible for.
What difference would something like KP, which let's face it was an abject failure, have made to the above?
28 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by Wajomasince 1978 the world has warmed about 0.5 deg C.
Here are the questions from just one page before. If you can't remember them, well, I rest my case.
How much has the temp gone up.
How much of that rise (if any) is man responsible for.
What difference would something like KP, which let's face it was an abject failure, have made to the above?
99.99% of the increase is anthropogenic.
Kyoto which was signed in 1997 based its snapshot of world emission levels taken at 1990 of which America was responsible for 36.1% of all emissions. By not signing to the protocol on some feigned notion of all in or no show, how much further could the world have approached real change in the way that energy is made. Instead the world held on to oil that little much longer as China was built up into the creditor nation that it had to be and had so much cash that it loaned it back to anyone who could be sold the idea of having a house which built the bubble which became the global financial crises we had to have. But I digress. Now we have a US presence in an oil rich region of the world because it seems fighting with no end in sight while facilitating a permanent US presence in the region, seems far more desirable than actually tackling the worlds energy problems and reducing America's dependence on foreign machinations. GO TEAM GO BIG OIL. And if America had used reason, they would have signed up to Kyoto and taken the lead on climate change and the electric vehicles that will only go on sale in two years time would be everywhere right now and a lot of the bailout money that has gone to Detroit would have not been necessary.
But hey who would have thought that doing the right thing would have been its own reward.
28 Nov 09
Originally posted by kmax87You sure do digress, digress and bs.
since 1978 the world has warmed about 0.5 deg C.
99.99% of the increase is anthropogenic.
Kyoto which was signed in 1997 based its snapshot of world emission levels taken at 1990 of which America was responsible for 36.1% of all emissions. By not signing to the protocol on some feigned notion of all in or no show, how much further could the world have a ...[text shortened]... .
But hey who would have thought that doing the right thing would have been its own reward.
28 Nov 09
Originally posted by Wajomaexcept that in this world the demographics that elect power are not necessarily swayed by rational scientific argument anymore because they simply will not stay the course and follow through and join all the dots. No they want 5 word soundbites and endless horizon dreaming where everything's possible and no one wants to pay the piper......at that point the only game left is bluffing with bs............
A fitting metaphor for the current climategate.
28 Nov 09
1 edit
Originally posted by kmax87From the horses mouth. (Four words)
except that in this world the demographics that elect power are not necessarily swayed by rational scientific argument anymore because they simply will not stay the course and follow through and join all the dots. No they want 5 word soundbites and endless horizon dreaming where everything's possible and no one wants to pay the piper......at that point the only game left is bluffing with bs............
kmax, tries to justify the lies.
29 Nov 09
Originally posted by FMFOn this issue, yes, we see eye to eye. We both agree that China and India cannot be exempt from this coming agreement if this agreement is going to be effective.
Well I have. And now I will top it off with a bit of sh76 "analysis", adapted for the nations concerned: [b]Well, yes, it is unfortunate that China and India are not perfect. Human nature is human nature and China and India are not exempt from it. There. Nailed a difficult issue. Now do we see eye to eye?[/b]
See, that wasn't so hard.