DescentBB

the above drivel is PRECISELY why were are doomed by climate change. The worst course of action is to do nothing, support no further study of how to do anything, and that is exactly what happens with this idiocy of denial of human effect. As has been stated, the VAST preponderance of climate scientists are CERTAIN that human causation is extremely significant. But, that won't stop the Wills of the US from claiming that it's all just a gross miscalculaton, a wrong 'theory' or the like..........much like others have said about evolution of species.

callmeslick wrote:the above drivel is PRECISELY why were are doomed by climate change. The worst course of action is to do nothing, support no further study of how to do anything, and that is exactly what happens with this idiocy of denial of human effect. As has been stated, the VAST preponderance of climate scientists are CERTAIN that human causation is extremely significant. But, that won't stop the Wills of the US from claiming that it's all just a gross miscalculaton, a wrong 'theory' or the like..........much like others have said about evolution of species.

You are such a tool. I haven't suggested we take no action.
I merely was examining visions rhetoric and what may lie beneath it.

I have often said that the earth has experienced a warming trend but that the anthropogenic contribution to the rise may not be controllable and even if it was it may not be enough to change the rise.
These observations, by the way, do not contradict the findings of the consensus that is championed as 'the experts'. Please post anything they say to the contrary if you think you can find it...
I also have said that it is reasonable to question those so called 'solutions' that are not in any way effective in changing the warming trend but simply global versions of 'social justice' policy wrapped in the flag of eco-disaster.

None of what I've said is incorrect or or could lead to 'doom'. It might prevent some really bad policy and surrender of our autonomy ceding authority to a body that is quite corrupt.

Of course all that must be aggravating to you because your party relies so heavily on the dumbmasses not questioning anything because 'even if they are wrong they must be obeyed'...

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:the above drivel is PRECISELY why were are doomed by climate change. The worst course of action is to do nothing, support no further study of how to do anything, and that is exactly what happens with this idiocy of denial of human effect. As has been stated, the VAST preponderance of climate scientists are CERTAIN that human causation is extremely significant. But, that won't stop the Wills of the US from claiming that it's all just a gross miscalculaton, a wrong 'theory' or the like..........much like others have said about evolution of species.

You are such a tool. I haven't suggested we take no action.
I merely was examining visions rhetoric and what may lie beneath it.

and, in so doing, you add to the smokescreen that has been fueled by the loony right wing that will doom the nation. Thanks a bunch.Now, I will finish packing the car and head down to the lower Chesapeake Bay and see the reality of steady climate change.

callmeslick wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:

callmeslick wrote:the above drivel is PRECISELY why were are doomed by climate change. The worst course of action is to do nothing, support no further study of how to do anything, and that is exactly what happens with this idiocy of denial of human effect. As has been stated, the VAST preponderance of climate scientists are CERTAIN that human causation is extremely significant. But, that won't stop the Wills of the US from claiming that it's all just a gross miscalculaton, a wrong 'theory' or the like..........much like others have said about evolution of species.

You are such a tool. I haven't suggested we take no action.
I merely was examining visions rhetoric and what may lie beneath it.

and, in so doing, you add to the smokescreen that has been fueled by the loony right wing that will doom the nation. Thanks a bunch.Now, I will finish packing the car and head down to the lower Chesapeake Bay and see the reality of steady climate change.

While you are there look up at the clear sky and then imagine Beijing, the city in the country that is exempt from KYOTO.

click here for visual aid
then proceed to feel smug in your partisan bubble.

Will Robinson wrote:If we are in fact not causing the problem as your hypothetical proposed...

Yes, if emission of greenhouse gases were not the cause then we should discover the reason and responsibly put a stop to it. But the reality is, we are causing the problem so we need to take action. No hypothetical is needed to reinforce my point because the facts are enough.

Will Robinson wrote:I have often said that the earth has experienced a warming trend but that the anthropogenic contribution to the rise may not be controllable and even if it was it may not be enough to change the rise.

Do you know what anthropogenic means? Of course we can control it, but there is no desire to. People only think about the short term. And yes, it is already too late to change the rise significantly. "Doomsday" past us years and years ago and now we have to suffer the consequences of non-action. Everything we do now is considered damage control.

Will Robinson wrote:I also have said that it is reasonable to question those so called 'solutions' that are not in any way effective in changing the warming trend but simply global versions of 'social justice' policy wrapped in the flag of eco-disaster.

Is it "social justice" if we want to stop the sea from rising and literally putting inhabited islands underwater? Is it social justice if we want to stop a country's food production capabilities from wandering across their borders, thus increasing the risk of war and famine? This nonsense about climate change being some sort of contrived money-making scheme is ridiculous. Then again, if you are comfortable spending increasing billions every year to combat drought and other natural disasters instead of spending it on preventative measures, well I guess that's your choice.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I have often said that the earth has experienced a warming trend but that the anthropogenic contribution to the rise may not be controllable and even if it was it may not be enough to change the rise.

Do you know what anthropogenic means? Of course we can control it, but there is no desire to. ...

That was my point, that mans contribution (the anthropogenic portion of the problem) to the increase in temps is not going to be stopped enough to make a difference because it is an unrealistic expectation to do so. There is very little discussion of quantifying that factor. It is enough for some to see the link and then rubber stamp all sorts of policy in the name of 'saving the planet'. For some of us, the more wary types, blank check policy handed to authority is not warranted without a better accounting of the returns on that expenditure.
The left is far too fond of the 'you have to pass the Bill before we can see what's in it' approach. You seem to think I shouldn't even point out this glaring dysfunction. I think your position on that is foolish, possibly very harmful.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:I also have said that it is reasonable to question those so called 'solutions' that are not in any way effective in changing the warming trend but simply global versions of 'social justice' policy wrapped in the flag of eco-disaster.

Is it "social justice" if we want to stop the sea from rising and literally putting inhabited islands underwater? Is it social justice if we want to stop a country's food production capabilities from wandering across their borders, thus increasing the risk of war and famine? This nonsense about climate change being some sort of contrived money-making scheme is ridiculous. Then again, if you are comfortable spending increasing billions every year to combat drought and other natural disasters instead of spending it on preventative measures, well I guess that's your choice.

No. And I never suggested those goal are not credible.
I am suggesting, as I described, that policy that DOESNT solve problems should be challenged. Again you have tried to dismiss my points by attributing a different meaning/intent to them.
For someone who loves science so much you sure have a problem with logic, proof and empirical evidence that supports my actual points.
Is it that you reflexively jump to dismiss my points without thinking about them and the implications?
Can't have your team made to look bad? For you we are either all in or deniers...'either with you or against you'?

By the way, on the money issue, China and India's exemption from Kyoto is precisely about money! It is designed to let them continue to pollute until they catch up economically.

Will Robinson wrote:For some of us, the more wary types...

More wary? I thing you mean paranoid delusional. You aren't even capable of looking at a global scientific problem without framing it as some left/right bull★■◆●.

Will Robinson wrote:I am suggesting, as I described, that policy that DOESNT solve problems should be challenged.

No single policy will solve the problem. Each climate policy is a step in the right direction. And each one needs to be regularly evaluated. It does no good to say "this one policy doesn't solve climate change in it's entirely so we aren't going to follow it" because that doesn't help anything.

As I have suggested many times before and a couple of times here…it’s going to be up to the “believers” to do something about climate change, not the skeptics…but of course they make great scapegoats.

Each time I try home in on just what “believers” are willing to give up to make a difference I get the same answers…mostly along the line of insults.

See this really isn’t about believers vs. skeptics…it’s about what we “ALL” are willing to do to make things right.

And if the “believers” don’t set the examples to follow…..And I'm not talking about the government...I mean "YOU".

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:For some of us, the more wary types...

More wary? I thing you mean paranoid delusional. You aren't even capable of looking at a global scientific problem without framing it as some left/right ****.

Will Robinson wrote:I am suggesting, as I described, that policy that DOESNT solve problems should be challenged.

No single policy will solve the problem. Each climate policy is a step in the right direction. And each one needs to be regularly evaluated. It does no good to say "this one policy doesn't solve climate change in it's entirely so we aren't going to follow it" because that doesn't help anything.

Why do you continue to misrepresent what I said so that you can then point out the flaw in what I didn't say?!?

Look at this: "policy that DOESNT solve problems"...that is what I actually said.

Tell me how that became "doesn't solve climate change in it's entirely" as you implied it does?

Pathetic attempt vision.

What ecological/environmental problem does China's exemption from the Kyoto Protocol solve? Does it benefit China economically?

Spidey wrote:...it’s going to be up to the “believers” to do something about climate change, not the skeptics…

You are incorrectly using the word skeptic. When you refuse to accept evidence proven over and over again you are a denier, not a skeptic of climate change.

Spidey wrote:Each time I try home in on just what “believers” are willing to give up to make a difference I get the same answers…mostly along the line of insults.

I'm willing to go far and already have. Over the years I've cultivated a conservative lifestyle and I use far less water and electricity than average. While I am sad to report owning an automobile for work, I am proud to say that so far this year I have only put gas in it twice, and not even a full tank. I walk everywhere. I bike to save time. I use public transit when necessary. Luckily I live where it doesn't get too hot or cold because my place doesn't have heat or air conditioning, and that's fine with me. I'm constantly looking for more ways to conserve. We all should.

Will Robinson wrote:What ecological/environmental problem does China's exemption from the Kyoto Protocol solve? Does it benefit China economically?

One of the reasons China and India were exempt has to do with the fact that way back in the mid 90's when Kyoto was first drafted both countries were not considered the environmental danger they are today, nor were they projected to be. There are many different criteria for determining who are the worst emitters. One metric measures carbon per capita. 20 years ago, both China and India with a combined 2 billion people had a carbon footprint far smaller than the United States 250 million. Can you see why there was a lot of pressure on us and not them? Even today the United States is bad, bad, bad across all metrics. But you know, "Democrats" want to take your freedom.

Did exemptions benefit China economically? No, because even binding targets held no consequences for failure (Thanks Al Gore, you fucker). Want to know what helped China economically? The USA making them our new Detroit. This also happens to be the thing that makes China and India such huge polluters, so you really can't blame them without taking some responsibility. That's part of what signing Kyoto was about -- taking responsibility, which we never had intention of.

And you keep using Kyoto as some sort of crutch, like, "whaaa carbon policies are so unfair" *cry cry* No one gives a ★■◆● about Kyoto because we set a bad example for it right from the start. It is clear the only ones who care about the planet are the Europeans and Islanders of the world. The next 100 years is a roulette game and the winner is the one who winds up with all the food and guns. But it will be a Pyrrhic victory because even after billions are dead the planet will just keep getting warmer.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:What ecological/environmental problem does China's exemption from the Kyoto Protocol solve? Does it benefit China economically?

One of the reasons China and India were exempt...

I cut out the bull★■◆● excuses you had here....and put the truth in its place:

China was the #2 producer of greenhouse gasses at the time the US Senate voted unanimously to not ratify the treaty. At the same time we were going to have to pay through the nose in real money to avoid the consequences or kill our economy by complying China was going to not only be exempt from compliance but receive payment!

vision wrote:And you keep using Kyoto as some sort of crutch, like, "whaaa carbon policies are so unfair" *cry cry* No one gives a **** about Kyoto because we set a bad example for it right from the start. ...

No, no crutch. It is a perfectly accurate example.
You and I both apparently see it the same way...a bad thing.
The difference is I have called it what it really is and you feel a need to discredit the example because it gives a perfect illustration of my point.
It is bad policy designed to redistribute economic power and net wealth and doing nothing to stop some of the biggest contributors to the problem.
Of course I point at it! It is the epitome of corrupt implementation of a 'solution'.

Will Robinson wrote:China was the #2 producer of greenhouse gasses at the time the US Senate voted unanimously to not ratify the treaty.

China also had four times the number of people and still produced almost 50% less pollution in second place, so what's your point? If you live in a single family home and produce two bags of garbage per week, and the family of four next door only produces one bag, who is the biggest polluter? Can you do math? Even today, China's per capita emissions are far lower than the US.

Will Robinson wrote:It is bad policy designed to redistribute economic power and net wealth and doing nothing to stop some of the biggest contributors to the problem.

We are the biggest contributers and we decided nothing will stop us. Go ahead and blame China and India all you want. The US still pollutes more than them. And what is this "policy designed to redistribute economic power" crap? There are many countries that met their binding targets with no damage to their economy. We've been over this before, I've already debunked your claim.

I doubt the planet gives a ★■◆● about per capita pollution.

Well I believe the basic science behind climate change, but I become a skeptic when I hear all of the DOOM & GLOOM predictions, and then I become a super skeptic when I hear some of the dumb solutions offered…

Example:

The Carbon Tax…

So the industries that emit carbon will pay a tax for the amount of carbon they emit, those industries will in turn pass these extra expenses on to the consumer, who will then face even more outrageous energy, and cost of living prices.

But the questions is…yea, but how do we stop the pollution?

In the 70s people were asked to reduce their energy usage because of the “energy crisis” so they did…the result…higher prices, due to the lack of demand…when demand returned to normal…did the price return to normal?

I’m sorry but I just can’t blindly buy into some of the crap I hear, in this debate.

China's emissions have surpassed the U.S. since 2006. This was by design according to the Kyoto Protocol.
Do you think it was wise to exempt the #2 polluter who was obviously on track to become the #1 if your goal was simply to reduce emissions?

It is obvious that the Kyoto Protocol was designed to do more than simply set a limit. It set a limit based on some arbitrary perception of each countries position on the prosperity scale.

If you are going to include all sorts of considerations other than pollution to set the pollution standards then include ALL of them...

Some of us don't think 'universal fairness' is a good goal. I don't think paying China money to help them get better off AND allowing it to pollute more while they build their strength on the back of slave labor that cuts into our productivity, pirate our intellectual property etc. is a good policy. Their model is not worthy of such considerations!

This doesnt mean I don't respect your position on the dangers of climate changing but stop propping up the extortion ploy that is wrapped in the flag of your genuine and laudable ecological concerns.
Grow a pair and own up to what you are advocating by trying to kill dissent.

Surely you know that humans by their very existence will have a carbon footprint? Surely you can see a difference between the carbon footprint of a country full of obese people driving SUVs and one where people have inadequate food and shelter? Surely you know there are safe limits of emissions? These are some of the reasons Kyoto was shaped to leave developing countries some freedom. Policies that don't consider the true cost to people are bad. The United States and that ass Al Gore are the ones who pulled the teeth on the treaty. Kyoto was a perfect opportunity to show how awesome the US-of-A was. We could have been a leader and role model, but instead we said "go screw yourselves" to the rest of the world. What problem would have Kyoto solved? The problem of international agreement and commitment to a better world. Instead we we showed the world what we are made of -- the same corrupt politicians and bankers and CEO who commit crimes and avoid justice. Sure Kyoto had flaws. Did the US come up with something better? No. Would Kyoto have put us on the right path anyway? Yes, if everyone was serious about it. But even for it's failures it still did good because lessons were learned.

Also, about this doom and gloom stuff. If there is one thing to be worried about in this world, it's climate change. People live and die. Countries rise and fall. But this... This is all we have and it is royally fucked up. Western culture is a product of Greek civilization 3000 years ago. What we have done to the Earth will take thousands more years to clean up if we don't come up with a solution.

vision wrote:Surely you know that humans by their very existence will have a carbon footprint? Surely you can see a difference between the carbon footprint of a country full of obese people driving SUVs and one where people have inadequate food and shelter?

Yes and surely you know that the Chinese government wont take the money they get from us and use it to solve their human rights issues...or even their pollution issues...they are much more interested in production, exports, military strength, etc.

So I don't see Kyoto as solving much of anything over there.

Russia only signed because they were in the tank economically so their base line was far above their emissions at the time...they had a 0 adjustment.
China, poised to be the worlds factory with no concern for the workers was glad to be exempt as they got paid to turn up the output!

America would have taken a huge hit economically. EVERY Senator said no!
Surely you know a bad deal when you see it? And we have reduced our output of emissions even though we didn't buy into the rest of it.

vision wrote:Surely you know there are safe limits of emissions? These are some of the reasons Kyoto was shaped to leave developing countries some freedom. Policies that don't consider the true cost to people are bad. The United States and that ass Al Gore are the ones who pulled the teeth on the treaty.

Pulled the teeth but tried to open up a Carbon Credit brokerage firm to get a management fee on all that extortion fund...
what concerned citizen of the world he is flying around in his private jet cashing in on the fear he mongers.

vision wrote:Kyoto was a perfect opportunity to show how awesome the US-of-A was. We could have been a leader and role model, but instead we said "go screw yourselves" to the rest of the world. What problem would have Kyoto solved? The problem of international agreement and commitment to a better world. Instead we we showed the world what we are made of -- the same corrupt politicians and bankers and CEO who commit crimes and avoid justice.

More like a way to show how stupid we were! That whole international agreement thing? It isnt enough to have international agreement! You first have to have something viable and worthy of an agreement. Jim Jones had a unanimous agreement among his followers, they all agreed to drink the poison Kool-aid!

vision wrote:Sure Kyoto had flaws. Did the US come up with something better? No.

Yes we did, for the U.S. it was better to work on reducing emissions using viable goals.

vision wrote:Also, about this doom and gloom stuff. If there is one thing to be worried about in this world, it's climate change. People live and die. Countries rise and fall. But this... This is all we have and it is royally **** up. Western culture is a product of Greek civilization 3000 years ago. What we have done to the Earth will take thousands more years to clean up if we don't come up with a solution.

The same scientists that are warning about global warming are also predicting another ice age and the exemptions Kyoto had for the worlds largest polluter are not going to help us if this prediction is correct. We dont have the thousands of years to fix it. Apparently we need to find the new fuel source yesterday or we will all freeze to death.

Will Robinson wrote:The same scientists that are warning about global warming are also predicting another ice age and the exemptions Kyoto had for the worlds largest polluter are not going to help us if this prediction is correct. We dont have the thousands of years to fix it. Apparently we need to find the new fuel source yesterday or we will all freeze to death.

Did you not read the article? It will be at about 2,000 years before we see any effects from an Ice Age, if it happens on schedule. A pending Ice Age has no effect on how we approach the problem we are in the midst of today.

The article pretty clearly stated we have passed the chance to not push emissions to danger level and even if we now reduce to our best viable levels we get warming but if we don't get a clean fuel that replaces fossil fuels soon and get the world retooled to use it we freeze to death.

So instead of crushing innovation and entrepreneurship by punishing the place best known for it so China can burn coal with impunity....let's get America working on that replacement fuel with all the money we won't pay the UN to pay China to ★■◆● us....

Will Robinson wrote:...if we don't get a clean fuel that replaces fossil fuels soon and get the world retooled to use it we freeze to death.

Do you understand that it takes many thousands of years for an Ice Age to drop the temperature a few degrees, but we are raising the temperature at least that much in a couple hundred? You think we won't have alternative energy in 2,000 years? There is essentially zero chance of humans freezing to death in the next Ice Age. I've never seen a bigger red herring thrown to excuse our woefully inadequate response to climate change.

Yes, we should invest more in alternative energy, but you know, your team isn't into it. INB4 Solyndra.

You are so consumed with finding a typical left-right argument that you can't see the point.
The last two paragraphs spell it out but if you think I'm offering that perspective as a 'forget-about-global-warming' position then it is pointless to continue.

Context is king....what is the context of the discussion that brought us here? Bad policy wrapped in the flag of saving the planet...
Who is more likely to develop an alternative fuel source? Slaves in a Chinese factory or free thinking entrepreneurs in America?

Use the damn warming problem to get us focused on the fuel problem instead of letting global politicians try to co opt the situation to do all sorts of selfish things.

You know, like our president used Solyndra to launder mountains of money into his campaign fund using government funding to prop up his donor friends in that business as they pocketed the loan money and hung up the bankruptcy sign on the way out the back door!

You just see Solyndra as solar solution and blindly accept the rhetorical smokescreen...lol....wake up and smell the bull★■◆●!
No one is conserving energy from panels rolling off Solyndra factory lines! There are no Solyndra factories making anything.
Obama got his money and the top guys there who were his donors got their money back from Obama's government loans inspite of having declared bankruptcy and being completely unqualified to receive them. They paid themselves millions in bonuses, fired the help and locked the doors. Now the taxpayer is paying the bill and the willful accomplices in the media cover Obama's ass with the story you swallowed...meanwhile the earth is still warming.

And do you know why Solyndra failed? China built the same product for less money!

Solyndra?!? ★■◆● that noise.

You know Will, if you spent half as much time making something of yourself as you do posting these same arguments on this bb, you might be worth something one day. Slick, Vision, how do you have the stamina to deal with this stuff? You realize you're dealing with a group of men that have the combined mental capacity of a retarded giraffe right? They're exactly like Sean Hannity, they merely wait for you to finish talking so they can tell you why (they think) you're wrong. I'm so incredibly glad I gave up trying to convince people about politics; I'm horrified to think that at one point I sounded like these total douchebags.

Z, if you ever had any kind of substantive contribution to offer maybe you wouldn't have found it so frustrating but I imagine you would be frustrated acting like a monkey tossing his feces and wondering why he didn't get positive results.

At least monkeys have the excuse that they are less evolved and we can presume it is a primitive attempt at communication.

Personally I'm pleased my comments cause you to try also.

Will Robinson wrote:Who is more likely to develop an alternative fuel source? Slaves in a Chinese factory or free thinking entrepreneurs in America?

The most promising alternative energy is solar* and the Chinese are ahead of us in that department. In fact, we aren't even competing with them because it's been decided to focus on complimentary technology and sponge off Chinese advancements. So, make what you will of that.**

*Solar is where the greatest advancements in efficiency have been made and some countries are already getting more than 50% of their energy needs met by solar.

**Sorry I'm too busy to cite this post, got a long workday ahead.

vision wrote:

Will Robinson wrote:Who is more likely to develop an alternative fuel source? Slaves in a Chinese factory or free thinking entrepreneurs in America?

The most promising alternative energy is solar* and the Chinese are ahead of us in that department. In fact, we aren't even competing with them because it's been decided to focus on complimentary technology and sponge off Chinese advancements. So, make what you will of that.**

*Solar is where the greatest advancements in efficiency have been made and some countries are already getting more than 50% of their energy needs met by solar.

**Sorry I'm too busy to cite this post, got a long workday ahead.

Exactly, vision. The Chinese will grow faster in developing and implementing new technologies based on alternative energy sources. Because most terrible nightmare USA - this solar-powered aircraft carriers. Because two military super monster, as the U.S. and Russia will long to be dependent on oil for the global balance of military deterrence each other and other countries.

The country that harnesses the fusion reaction without blowing themselves up wins. The sun is too far away to be a viable source of energy to run ships, cars, homes and industry, unless we can come up with a better way to collect and store it more efficiently.

China might be working on solar but they can do it with their own money. I don't have any reason at all to think they have had an epiphany towards altruism.

They surpassed the US a few years ago in emissions....they currently consume as much coal as the rest of the world combined....in three more years they will have increased pollution to the point where they put out TWICE our emissions.

Here is a good read on it: clicky

I love the line where he says 'we could help them by doing better ourselves'.

Yea? How?
Like the way we influenced them in human rights?

They are going to keep looking out for their own interests regardless of any examples outsiders set.
They are the runaway train of climate disaster and they get exemptions and subsidies for their 'efforts'.