It really is just about politics, and not saving the planet.
POSTED BY: AURaptor
UPDATED: Saturday, May 4, 2019 20:41
VIEWED: 17379
PAGE 1 of 2
UN Climate Chief Says Communism is Best Way to Fight Global Warming
Climate change has been a popular topic of conversation lately and it appears the United Nations is taking a stand on the environmental changes. The UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres, also apparently knows about how government systems affect the climate. Oh wait, no she doesn’t.
She stated earlier this week that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. She also said that communist China is instead the best model.
Even though China is the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggles with major pollution issues of their own, apparently Ms. Figueres thinks that means they are “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming.
“Figueres added that the deep partisan divide in the U.S. Congress is “very detrimental” to passing any sort of legislation to fight global warming. The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, can push key policies and reforms all on its own. The country’s national legislature largely enforces the decisions made by the party’s Central Committee and other executive offices.”
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/heatherginsberg/2014/01/19/un-climate-chi
ef-says-communism-is-best-way-to-fight-global-warming-n1779973
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!
As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies
And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster.
I feel so vindicated.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Hey, Rap.
Looks like someone's trolling on your thread.
Wanna post some stupid picture?
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Hey, Rap.
Looks like someone's trolling on your thread.
Wanna post some stupid picture?
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
It's clear ( unlike this stream in China ) that some on this board talk about saving the planet, but really don't give a damn, at all. It's 100% pure politics with them.
See this ? This is the UN's idea of a working solution for global warming. Yesindeedy. COMMUNISM ! Just breathe in that fresh air and drink up those crystal clear waters ! Mmm mmm !!!
Top o' the mornin' to ya, comrade !!
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!
As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies
And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster.
I feel so vindicated.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So hey geezer - what makes you think this is trolling? It's my actual response to rappy's posts. And yours.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!
As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies
And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster.
I feel so vindicated.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So hey geezer - what makes you think this is trolling? It's my actual response to rappy's posts. And yours.
Text book definition of a troll. Right here. Going out of ones way NOT to reply to topic, and instead adding meaningless animosity to thread.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
troll
One who posts a deliberately provocative message to a newsgroup or message board with the intention of causing maximum disruption and argument
RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!
As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies
And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster.
I feel so vindicated.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Text book definition of a troll. Right here. Going out of ones way NOT to reply to topic, and instead adding meaningless animosity to thread.
"...you truly are 1 god damn stupid mother fucker."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Well, I don't think I fall into quite that category of troll as your above example. Though obviously rappy does, since that was his post you quoted. My 'insults' are non-existant.
First of all, I tell them that I don't give a shit - which I don't. Then I mention Limbaugh is a blue pill addict - which he is. On top of that I QUOTE THEM BOTH. Of all the insults, BEING QUOTED has got to be the worst. Oh the horror of being quoted ...
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Telling a thread that you don't give a shit is the exact opposite of what you're doing when you post that in a thread. If it really is of no concern to you, just don't post. Period. But instead, you overtly ignore the ISSUE being discussed in the thread, and then intentionally insult the poster by CLAIMING ( falsely )
indifference. There mere fact you posted in the thread shows otherwise.
Quote:Not germane to the topic, at all. Or ANY topic in which you constantly post that as part of your sig. You're just trying to interject disparaging remarks about a radio personality, in a petty attempt to besmirch his character.
Then I mention Limbaugh is a blue pill addict - which he is.
Quote:You MISQuote, first of all, and then frame quotes in the most absurd and false characterization for the purpose of painting a false image , simply because you lack the intellectual substance to even TRY to have an adult, rational dialogue.
On top of that I QUOTE THEM BOTH.
Quote:
Of all the insults, BEING QUOTED has got to be the worst. Oh the horror of being quoted ...
Lying about what others say , for the sole purpose of trying to insult them, shows extremely low character. Since you value none of that which is honest, decent or sincere, pointing these things out to you was a complete waste of time. But it is what it is.
So, does anyone have anything to say about the UN's *climate chief* coming straight out and saying that Communism, instead of free market capitalism, is the way to fight the fictitious issue of AGW, and that China, which is the world's biggest polluter, is the model which should be followed ?
Anyone ? Anyone ?
( really, a climate chief ? Is that what we're paying for ? )
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by ElvisChrist:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Text book definition of a troll. Right here. Going out of ones way NOT to reply to topic, and instead adding meaningless animosity to thread.
"...you truly are 1 god damn stupid mother fucker."
Again, completely out of context, but still true. There was a on going discussion which preceded that remark. Posting only the final few words, out of context, conveys a false impression of what was actually said.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
It's clear ( unlike this stream in China ) that some on this board talk about saving the planet, but really don't give a damn, at all. It's 100% pure politics with them.
Yep.
Point out that China already produces more carbon emissions then the U.S., and are on track to double their emissions in less than ten years, all you get from them is "But the U.S. should do something", ignoring that the U.S. carbon emissions are stable or decreasing.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Not even weighing in here on any political discussion. Just stating my personal facts....
So far this winter my gas/heat expenditures are up 35% from last year.
I've had more snow in one month than I've seen in the last 5 years.
The 10 day forecast is looking even worse.....
Hey... maybe this shit weather IS caused by Global Warming?
Maybe it was the last time it happened 20 years ago when I was snowed in for three days and we just ran around making snowmen and having snowball fights.
All I'm saying is that ANY dickhead from EITHER side that weighs in with their ill-informed opinion is nothing more than shit for brains with diarrhea dripping from their lips.
All I know is, I'm fking cold now, and the next few nights I'm going to be bundled up in my home with a hat and a hoodie and 3 layers of clothing and my blankets and I'm still going to be cold. At least I know how to keep my pipes from freezing this time and know the exact temperatures I need to take drastic measures.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
UN Climate Chief Says Communism is Best Way to Fight Global Warming
Climate change has been a popular topic of conversation lately and it appears the United Nations is taking a stand on the environmental changes. The UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres, also apparently knows about how government systems affect the climate. Oh wait, no she doesn’t.
She stated earlier this week that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. She also said that communist China is instead the best model.
Even though China is the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggles with major pollution issues of their own, apparently Ms. Figueres thinks that means they are “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming.
“Figueres added that the deep partisan divide in the U.S. Congress is “very detrimental” to passing any sort of legislation to fight global warming. The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, can push key policies and reforms all on its own. The country’s national legislature largely enforces the decisions made by the party’s Central Committee and other executive offices.”
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/heatherginsberg/2014/01/19/un-climate-chi
ef-says-communism-is-best-way-to-fight-global-warming-n1779973
You've used quotation marks there, but it doesn't actually seem to be a direct quote. Why highlight it? What did this woman actually say?
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Kpo - I added no quotes. I underlined for emphasis only.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
...Arguably, the pollution in China has as much blame in the push by the party to industrialize as it is a result of exploitation by western powers who don't give a damn if they poison the Chinese in the process (and possibly want to do so because they might still see China as a threat).
Neither option is actually a very good deterrent for pollution. Both options, however, would be the end result of a power grab from a group of people who only care about their ambitions.
This is why we need to get off our asses and make with the space ships already. Because screw these people, they'll kill us all and salt the Earth before they see the peons of the world have any power or agency. They want Earth so badly, they can have it.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Question, Geezer - do even you buy your bullshit?
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Point out that China already produces more carbon emissions then the U.S., and are on track to double their emissions in less than ten years,
Yes, as you say at every opportunity... But:
Quote:
all you get from them is "But the U.S. should do something", ignoring that the U.S. carbon emissions are stable or decreasing.
You say that "all" you get back, - please, show ONE instance where anyone here responded as such.
"Goram it kid, let's frak this thing and go home! Engage!"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Question, Geezer - do even you buy your bullshit?Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Point out that China already produces more carbon emissions then the U.S., and are on track to double their emissions in less than ten years,
Yes, as you say at every opportunity... But:Quote:
all you get from them is "But the U.S. should do something", ignoring that the U.S. carbon emissions are stable or decreasing.
You say that "all" you get back, - please, show ONE instance where anyone here responded as such.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=56247
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
China is seeking sources of natural gas to replace coal plants. (That will be thru Kyrgystan.) The central committee will require that the actual number of motor vehicles will decrease by a few million by 2015. They're building inter-regional ultra-high voltage DC lines (UHVDC) to carry power from areas of natural generation- wind and hydro- to areas of consumption. Their solar panel manufacturing far exceeds ours, as does their wind power.
In fact, this year China agreed to carbon targets by 2016. Overall, China is doing more than we are to reduce carbon emissions while maintaining 7-10% growth, instead of experiencing passive reduction through manufacturing collapse.
So stop obsessing about China. What about doing what WE can do... since our energy waste is so much higher. We can put more pressure on China if we're talking from an honest position, instead of our usual hypocrisy.
ETA: And all through the thread cited, we have folks making excuses for China, India, etc. while demanding that the U.S. should cut emissions by as much as 50%.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Because the US put most of the carbon dioxide up there. So maybe we should solve the part of the problem we did cause.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/co2-emissi
ons-historical
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Keep trying Marky, don't get down on yourself. One of these days you might hit the target.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!
As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies
And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster.
I feel so vindicated.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
On the bright side, I managed to avoid talking at length about the snowball earth events, which means everyone wins.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
On the bright side, I managed to avoid talking at length about the snowball earth events, which means everyone wins.
http://s3.amazonaws.com/tp-prod/pictures/3252/100_3486_medium.JPG
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
My food is problematic. :(
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
ON TOPIC REPOST:
Because the US put most of the carbon dioxide up there. So maybe we should solve the part of the problem we did cause.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/co2-emissi
ons-historical
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Kpo - I added no quotes. I underlined for emphasis only.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
Ok lol, it seems that 'quote' was quoting another right-wing article. You like your news twice-spun now do you Auraptor?
And it turns out the only direct quote in the first article is this:
"“They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest."
I suppose you'll go and find out what this woman actually said now, huh Auraptor? Go and check that she actually said what you think she said?
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
ON TOPIC REPOST:
Because the US put most of the carbon dioxide up there. So maybe we should solve the part of the problem we did cause.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/datablog/2009/sep/02/co2-emissi
ons-historical
Also, to state the obvious, the US has much higher per-capita emissions than China, and much higher GDP per-capita. And it has refused to sign up to binding emissions targets in the past.
Put all of this together and you see that a climate deal hinges on the US FIRST, and China second. There is no way to expect China to sign up if the US doesn't.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Kpo - I added no quotes. I underlined for emphasis only.
Ok lol, it seems that 'quote' was quoting another right-wing article. You like your news twice-spun now do you Auraptor?
Huh? You're being ridiculous. Nothing I posted was 'spun' Not once, not twice. I quoted the article, as it appeared. At least admit that, instead of accusing me of that which I did NOT do, and then going to great lengths to keep from admitting YOU were wrong.
Quote:
And it turns out the only direct quote in the first article is this:
"“They actually want to breathe air that they don’t have to look at,” she said. “They’re not doing this because they want to save the planet. They’re doing it because it’s in their national interest."
Wrong. From the Bloomberg site itself...
Quote:http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-01-13/top-global-emitter-china-best
China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, is also the country that’s “doing it right” when it comes to addressing global warming, the United Nations’ chief climate official said.
-on-climate-change-figueres-says.html
You see, you can't even get THAT right. And although interesting, it's not germane to the issue at hand. The ISSUE is the UN 'Climate Chief ' stating the Communism is the way. It's beyond laughable. Or should be.
Quote:
I suppose you'll go and find out what this woman actually said now, huh Auraptor? Go and check that she actually said what you think she said?
Already have. And as I've cited sources, and you haven't, I feel no need to do any further work. How about you just own up to YOUR mistake, first and then we can move forward.
Mmmkay ?
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:We emit more "per capita" (Uh, do you know what that means? It means more per person) than China. In a 50-year history, we've emitted A LOT MORE per capita than everyone else. So when we get DOWN to the Chinese per capita energy consumption/ per capita carbon dioxide emissions, THEN I'll start complaining about China.
ETA: And all through the thread cited, we have folks making excuses for China, India, etc. while demanding that the U.S. should cut emissions by as much as 50%.
But we'd have a long way to go, and you'd be bitching and whining all the way. God, it'd be like a long car trip with antsy kids in the back seat.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Huh? You're being ridiculous. Nothing I posted was 'spun' Not once, not twice.
Your source was a conservative article that quoted another conservative article that quoted the bloomberg article. I find it funny that a particular news event has to go through two lots of right wing spin before it gets to you.
Quote:
Wrong. From the Bloomberg site itself...
Quote:
China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, is also the country that’s “doing it right” when it comes to addressing global warming, the United Nations’ chief climate official said.
I don't consider three words inserted in someone else's sentence to be a direct quote, do you?
Quote:
The ISSUE is the UN 'Climate Chief ' stating the Communism is the way
So says the right wing spin - but not the bloomberg article, and not the lady's actual quotes.
What did she actually say? That China is 'doing it right' investing heavily in green techs? That it's one party system avoids the partisan gridlock seen in the US? Is any of this supposed to be controversial..?
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Huh? You're being ridiculous. Nothing I posted was 'spun' Not once, not twice.
Your source was a conservative article that quoted another conservative article that quoted the bloomberg article. I find it funny that a particular news event has to go through two lots of right wing spin before it gets to you.
It doesn't. That's simply how the news came to me. But , to quote your gal Hillary, " What difference , at this time, does it make ? ". None! And the point is, YOU claimed I added quotes, when I in fact never did. You're still dodging THAT erroneous claim. Wanna see to that ?
Quote:
Quote:
Wrong. From the Bloomberg site itself...
Quote:
China, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, is also the country that’s “doing it right” when it comes to addressing global warming, the United Nations’ chief climate official said.
I don't consider three words inserted in someone else's sentence to be a direct quote, do you?
Yes, I do. They were HER words.
Quote:
Quote:
The ISSUE is the UN 'Climate Chief ' stating the Communism is the way
So says the right wing spin - but not the bloomberg article, and not the lady's actual quotes.
The words as quoted by Bloomberg itself ? Really ?
Quote:
What did she actually say? That China is 'doing it right' investing heavily in green techs? That it's one party system avoids the partisan gridlock seen in the US? Is any of this supposed to be controversial..?
It absolutely IS controversial. She's saying exactly what she's accused of having said. You're attempting to pick nits here, when in fact, you're glorifying the totalitarian rule of 1 party over any and all opposition. And especially on matters such as this, where massive govt control over the freedom of the people ( remember THOSE words ? ) will amount to nil in impacting global climate. Not now, not in 10 years, not in 100 years, not EVER !
Seriously, why are we still talking about this ?
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!
As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies
And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster.
I feel so vindicated.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!
As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies
And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster.
I feel so vindicated.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!
As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies
And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster.
I feel so vindicated.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
It doesn't. That's simply how the news came to me.
That's simply my point.
Quote:
I don't consider three words inserted in someone else's sentence to be a direct quote, do you?
Yes, I do. They were HER words.
So your direct quote is the three words "doing it right". Wow. Dynamite.
Quote:
in fact, you're glorifying the totalitarian rule of 1 party over any and all opposition.
By saying that China's system of government avoids partisan gridlock? Stating facts is glorifying communism, and totalitarian rule now?
Quote:
Seriously, why are we still talking about this ?
Good question. Kiki has the right approach to this thread.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Stubbornly ignore the opposition and cling to that which can't be supported by logic or reason ?
This is disturbing, to see adults acting like toddlers and pitching tantrums by perpetually trolling instead of engaging in actual discussion.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Here we see the Sarcastic Fringehead in it's natural habitat, engaging in it's favourite activity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarcastic_fringehead
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
ON TOPIC REPOST:
Because the US put most of the carbon dioxide up there. So maybe we should solve the part of the problem we did cause.
Also, to state the obvious, the US has much higher per-capita emissions than China, and much higher GDP per-capita. And it has refused to sign up to binding emissions targets in the past.
Put all of this together and you see that a climate deal hinges on the US FIRST, and China second. There is no way to expect China to sign up if the US doesn't.
And as I noted in the thread cited above...
"But the biosphere doesn't care about per capita or if emissions are 'defensible'. It cares about total emissions. By 2016, China looks to be producing 3 billion tonnes a year, twice as much as the U.S. Even if the U.S. were to cut carbon emissions in half, to 750 million tonnes, That's just the amount of China's probable increase in yearly emissions between 2010 (2.25 billion tonnes) and 2016.
As noted above, the U.S. has held steady or decreased carbon emissions - depending on who you ask - since the mid-1990s. Other countries have signed on to these deals, and then broken them. I noted examples of China's failure to keep their commitments above."
China dodged the Kyoto accords because it was a "developing country". It sure has developed. It now burns 47% of the world's entire coal production.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/01/30/china-s-obscene-addic
tion-to-coal.html
I could also note that the U.S. did not ratify the Kyoto Treaty precisely because it allowed China and India to get away with having no emissions goals set at all.
Quote:
Just before the Kyoto Protocol was finalized, the U.S. Senate unanimously passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States".
http://www.rockhousemountain.org/system/rmi-environment/86-china-and-k
yoto
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Geezer, the Left only see the world through the lens of " equality ". Be it income redistribution or per capita pollution. "REAL" numbers are not their concern.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh posh, you don't give conservatives enough credit. Conservatives both care about equality AND ignore real numbers just as often as liberals do.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Since the thread is turning away from a conversation about environmentalism and totalitarianism to social equality and welfare issues, here is a thing I found out about yesterday that I'd never even HEARD of.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2013/12/20/republican_state_gives_fr
ee_houses_to_moochers_cuts_homelessness_by_74_percent.html
Here in Utah even. Go figure.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Oh posh, you don't give conservatives enough credit. Conservatives both care about equality AND ignore real numbers just as often as liberals do.
Note just equality, but equal outcome. There IS a big difference.
As for homes for moochers getting 'free' govt stuff, Seattle's 11 Million $ 'drunk hotel' comes to mind.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=042_1183770249
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
I could also note that the U.S. did not ratify the Kyoto Treaty precisely because it allowed China and India to get away with having no emissions goals set at all.
Not the case any more.
To answer the rest of your post Geezer, I'll just restate my argument:
1. A climate deal hinges on China signing up, for all the reasons you've said.
2. China signing up hinges on America signing up, for all the reasons I'VE said.
Hence, US participation in a future climate treaty is key, and where it could all break down (given that it has snubbed treaties in the past, and one of its two main parties is rife with climate denialism). Do you support the US being a part of a global treaty (including your beloved China, and everyone else) with binding emissions targets?
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Let's see... If we could go through every RWED thread concerning climate change and add up how many posts by our righties even obliquely mentioned the health of the planet as something of the slightest, vaguest interest to them, versus how many focused on the evil baaad politics of leftie liberals...
Then we went back and counted how many posts by the non-RWAs focused on Earth-y subjects like plants and animals and oceans and air and didn't even mention a politician...
Whadya think we'd find, hmm?
The troll fails again.
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
MAL4PREZ: Clearly [The Rap]'s doing nothing but trolling now.
STORYMARK: And not even cleverly.
RAPPY: [My trolling] did its job, did it not? Easiest marks in the 'verse.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=57146
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
I could also note that the U.S. did not ratify the Kyoto Treaty precisely because it allowed China and India to get away with having no emissions goals set at all.
Not the case any more.
To answer the rest of your post Geezer, I'll just restate my argument:
1. A climate deal hinges on China signing up, for all the reasons you've said.
2. China signing up hinges on America signing up, for all the reasons I'VE said.
What reasons have you said?
Quote:
Hence, US participation in a future climate treaty is key, and where it could all break down (given that it has snubbed treaties in the past, and one of its two main parties is rife with climate denialism). Do you support the US being a part of a global treaty (including your beloved China, and everyone else) with binding emissions targets?
And again from the previously cited thread.
Quote:
Also, as noted here
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/03/china-to-exceed-planned-carbon-di
oxide-emissions/
and here
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/oct/06/china-carbon-emissi
on-forecasts-economy
China has a history of promising carbon reductions it can't meet.
I don't expect them to do anything different now.
Show evidence that China would actually make a substantial reduction in emissions if the U.S. signed onto a future climate treaty, or shut up.
As you are fond of saying, look at the data.
Go here...
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/CO2_Emission/timeseries/national
...and look at the amount of China's emissions and the rate of increase. Tell me they're going to reduce their emissions. Hell, tell me they're going to substantially reduce the rate of increase. If you're honest, you can't.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Let's see... If we could go through every RWED thread concerning climate change and add up how many posts by our righties even obliquely mentioned the health of the planet as something of the slightest, vaguest interest to them, versus how many focused on the evil baaad politics of leftie liberals...
Then we went back and counted how many posts by the non-RWAs focused on Earth-y subjects like plants and animals and oceans and air and didn't even mention a politician...
Whadya think we'd find, hmm?
The troll fails again.
That's quite a nice little delusion bubble you've made.
Again, " RWA's " ? Right Wing Americans ? Odd term, but on well.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
If addition, the title and OP of this thread prove that it is the troll who is all politics and nothing about the Earth. And, as usual, he/it worships authority and can't imagine both agreeing and disagreeing with an authority figure/group/system.
So what if someone said that a single policy of Commies has a good result? They didn't say that all of communism is right. If I compliment a woman's haircut, I didn't just say that I love her madly and she's perfect. I can think she's a huge bitch, but I can still like her hair.
Well, to a RWA like the troll, he would never say anything positive about someone he has decided to hate. And clearly he'd think any woman with nice hair is a slut, because why else would a woman do her hair other than to entice poor innocent hot blooded manly men, right? ;)
Anyhoo, any offhand statement about how a certain policy might benefit the Earth is not a statement about the Earth to our lead RWA troll, and the possible benefits to the Earth are not his topic to be discussed and debated. All he/it focuses on is the politics. And like a good RWA, he accuses others of what he is obviously doing himself. It's a shame that "irony" does not exist in the Tea Partier dictionary.
As usual, his posts only reveal what a sad, blind litte RWA troll he is. Again.
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
MAL4PREZ: Clearly [The Rap]'s doing nothing but trolling now.
STORYMARK: And not even cleverly.
RAPPY: [My trolling] did its job, did it not? Easiest marks in the 'verse.
http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.aspx?bid=18&tid=57146
*-------------------------------------------------------------*
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Just checking CDIAC, and see they have preliminary 2012 carbon emissions figures in.
China went from 2.259 billion tons in 2010 to 2.625 billion tons in 2012 (16% increase).
The U.S. went from 1.481 billion tons in 2010 to 1.396 in 2012 (5% decrease).
Looks like China should be producing double the carbon emissions of the U.S. when the 2013 figures come out.
Now THAT'S leadership in the climate control field.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:
Let's see... If we could go through every RWED thread concerning climate change and add up how many posts by our righties even obliquely mentioned the health of the planet as something of the slightest, vaguest interest to them, versus how many focused on the evil baaad politics of leftie liberals...
Then we went back and counted how many posts by the non-RWAs focused on Earth-y subjects like plants and animals and oceans and air and didn't even mention a politician...
Whadya think we'd find, hmm?
The troll fails again.
That's the most brainless, empty and convoluted connection of imaginary dots I've seen here in... days, at least. I don't even know what any of that is suppose to mean, it's so nonsensical.
Bravo.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Just checking CDIAC, and see they have preliminary 2012 carbon emissions figures in.
China went from 2.259 billion tons in 2010 to 2.625 billion tons in 2012 (16% increase).
The U.S. went from 1.481 billion tons in 2010 to 1.396 in 2012 (5% decrease).
Looks like China should be producing double the carbon emissions of the U.S. when the 2013 figures come out.
Now THAT'S leadership in the climate control field.
RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!
As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies
And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster.
I feel so vindicated.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
That's the most brainless, empty and convoluted connection of imaginary dots I've seen here in... days, at least. I don't even know what any of that is suppose to mean, it's so nonsensical.
Bravo. <
RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!
As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies
And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster.
I feel so vindicated.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Facts do confuse her so very much.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
Facts do confuse her so very much.
And here's some more.
Per the 2010 CDIAC report, China has higher PER CAPITA emissions than Iceland, Spain, France, Sweden, Hungary, Switzerland, Portugal, Mexico, and most of the countries in South America.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2010.cap
And here's a funny article from 2011.
Quote:
China’s official newspaper China Daily recently reported that China would soon release detailed plans to achieve the goal of reduction of carbon intensity. The plans would address the short-term goal of reducing carbon intensity by 17% over 2005 levels by 2015 and a medium-term goal of 40-45% reduction by 2020.
http://agneyablog.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/chinas-carbon-intensity-red
uction-plan/
So let's see.
Using CDIAC figures throughout, China's carbon emissions in 2005 were 1.579 billion tonnes. A 17% reduction would cut .268 billion tonnes for a 2015 total of 1.311 billion tonnes. China's 2012 carbon emissions were 2.259 billion tonnes, and have been going up 5% to 8% per year for several years.
Think they're gonna meet their goal?
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Show evidence that China would actually make a substantial reduction in emissions if the U.S. signed onto a future climate treaty, or shut up.... Hell, tell me they're going to substantially reduce the rate of increase. If you're honest, you can't.
Once again, you're asking someone to do the impossible, which is to "prove" something. The only way to do hypothesis -testing, if that's what you want to do- is to frame the hypothesis in a way that it can be disproved.
So, one way to frame this is to say China has no intention of/ cannot manage to decrease it(s) per capita carbon dioxide emissions. (This is just an example; you'll have to restate this to match up with your opinion)
Then (by example) if China actually reduces its emissions or reduces its rate of emissions growth (or whatever metric you care to apply) the hypothesis is disproved and you need to form a new one.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Once again, you're asking someone to do the impossible, which is to "prove" something.
Bullshit.
I can prove that China has been increasing carbon emissions just by citing the CDIAC reports. I can prove their per capita emissions are higher than France, Spain, Switzerland, e.g., from the same source.
While I can't yet prove that they'll be unable to reduce their 2015 carbon emissions by 17% from 2005 levels(as they have claimed they will), I can show that it's very unlikely, given that they've actually increased emissions by around 43% per year since 2005. In about two years I expect that I'll be able to prove this as well.
I wish you'd quit playing your little games to try and divert attention from the obvious, which is that China is the major driver of carbon emissions, and based on historical data (and their inability to even come close to keeping their promises about carbon reductions), are likely to be so for the foreseeable future.
The "Blame America and excuse China" theme you and KPO continue to push seems to me to indicate that for you, it really is just about politics, and not saving the planet.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I'm not about to use what China does as an excuse for our own lack of action. Imagine that 100 people are in a lifeboat, and five of them have half-filled the lifeboat with water. (That's us). Now 25 people have decided to do what we're doing... only they're doing less of it per person than we are. And we have decided that since they're following our example, we're not going to change. Meanwhile, the lifeboat continues to fill with water.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Once again, you're asking someone to do the impossible, which is to "prove" something. The only way to do hypothesis -testing, if that's what you want to do- is to frame the hypothesis in a way that it can be dis proved.
In a logical argument, there can be logical proofs, however, the burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Which in an internet argument, EVERYONE makes claims, so using that as a rule of thumb is just grounds to derail the argument into who is making what claim and so why they're the ones who have to prove it.
Asking for proof is also often subject to either moving the goalposts or the other person will actually manage to sufficiently support their point, resulting in either frustration or painful humiliation. Which is why I usually never ask people to prove something.
As such, I endorse a system divorced from the concept of proof, truth, facts, or logic, that hinges entirely upon a single test: do I really want to argue about this?
The answer is usually no. And if it is no, I proceed to engage in a diabolical series of sophistry with just enough apparent on-topic-ness and citations to see how long I can keep someone responding to my ridiculous idiocy until such time that I become bored or annoyed.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I'm not about to use what China does as an excuse for our own lack of action.
Neither am I. I've proposed increased efficiency, renewables, and reductions in carbon emissions several times (something you repeatedly and conveniently forget).
Quote:
Imagine that 100 people are in a lifeboat, and five of them have half-filled the lifeboat with water. (That's us). Now 25 people have decided to do what we're doing... only they're doing less of it per person than we are. And we have decided that since they're following our example, we're not going to change. Meanwhile, the lifeboat continues to fill with water.
The problem with this is, even if we five stopped completely, the 25 people are adding twice as much water per unit of time as we ever did, so the lifeboat continues to fill with water. Besides, per the experts, the lifeboat's already sinking, so unless you can figure how to sequester more carbon than the world is making, it's too late. Time to put on the lifejackets and blow up the inflatable rafts.
That's the point. China is producing as much carbon emissions at two Americas. They're not slowing down. They're not keeping any of the promises that they make to slow down. You can make all the suspect analogies, you want, but you can't deny these facts.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The answer is usually no. And if it is no, I proceed to engage in a diabolical series of sophistry with just enough apparent on-topic-ness and citations to see how long I can keep someone responding to my ridiculous idiocy until such time that I become bored or annoyed.
So YOU taught this to SignyM and KPO?
I take back 37.4% of the nice things I've said about you.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Maybe if we started bailing that would be a good idea. There are a number of ways to safely sequester carbon, including farming, forestry, and wetland practices that increase the carbon content of the soil and reduce wildfires.
Also, economic incentives are a pretty powerful tool for getting nations to come on board. Tariffs on high-carbon goods, or just an out-and-out carbon tax would work pretty universally.
Oh, BTW, if you see less of me around it's not that I'm coming to the right-wing view of things, it's just that I am (or should be, at least) really busy.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The answer is usually no. And if it is no, I proceed to engage in a diabolical series of sophistry with just enough apparent on-topic-ness and citations to see how long I can keep someone responding to my ridiculous idiocy until such time that I become bored or annoyed.
So YOU taught this to SignyM and KPO?
I take back 37.4% of the nice things I've said about you.
Pretty sure they were here before I was, also, that they're serious.
But thank you. Your hate makes me more powerful.
And 37.4% is a nice round number. I approve.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:My point was that you can't prove a hypothesis, not that you can't prove facts. Here is a link on hypothesis testing
Bullshit. I can prove that China has been increasing carbon emissions just by citing the CDIAC reports. I can prove their per capita emissions are higher than France, Spain, Switzerland, e.g., from the same source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
2. China signing up hinges on America signing up, for all the reasons I'VE said.
What reasons have you said?
Reasons, given earlier in the thread:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
Because the US put most of the carbon dioxide up there.
Also, to state the obvious, the US has much higher per-capita emissions than China, and much higher GDP per-capita.
Would you say it's fair to expect China to sign up to a climate treaty if the US doesn't, in light of those facts?
Quote:
Quote:
Also, as noted here
http://chinadigitaltimes.net/2008/03/china-to-exceed-planned-carbon-di
oxide-emissions/
and here
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2011/oct/06/china-carbon-emissi
on-forecasts-economy
China has a history of promising carbon reductions it can't meet.
It was a simple, Yes/No question, and I guess the answer is no, you don't support the US signing up to a global climate treaty - even one that includes China and everyone else.
As for the point you just made, the first link makes no mention of China exceeding any kind of carbon pledge, only projections, and the second one appears to be broken. Would you like to try again, backing up your claim that China makes carbon pledges it can't keep? And then crucially, can you show that those targets were binding (the kind of targets we would be talking about in a global climate deal)?
Quote:
Show evidence that China would actually make a substantial reduction in emissions if the U.S. signed onto a future climate treaty, or shut up.
Reasons why China might sign up to a future climate treaty, and be able to reduce its emissions, or slow their growth (off the top of my head):
1. It has pledged to, in principle
2. It's invested heavily in green techs, and is now a (the?) global leader
3. It's invested heavily in nuclear, according to your link
4. Climate change will affect China, like everyone else. This will be disruptive, and expensive
5. China wants to be considered a global leader, not a reckless giant pariah that is warming the planet for everyone else
6. China's economy won't be on fire forever - with reduced economic output comes reduced emissions
7. China's emissions are partly high because it is a workshop of the world. But it won't stay that way forever - it will get richer and manufacturing will go elsewhere. Also China is actively trying to change its economic model from one of purely export-driven growth (to one of increasing domestic consumption).
Quote:
Go here...
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/CO2_Emission/timeseries/national
...and look at the amount of China's emissions and the rate of increase. Tell me they're going to reduce their emissions. Hell, tell me they're going to substantially reduce the rate of increase. If you're honest, you can't.
Well my first point is that graphs like that are why it's so important for China, and by extension the US, to sign up to a global climate deal.
China's emissions ARE going to stabilise, just like all other developed countries have. That's a pretty safe prediction. I would say almost certainly the curve will start to bend soon, and that it probably has already. The question is whether the curve will bend in time to avert major climate change. And the answer to that is probably not. Not on its own, not without a climate deal with binding emissions targets. Not without a cost on carbon.
As for your 'look at the data' quip: strangely enough there isn't data for 2020, and 2030, and beyond. No, we're talking about predictions here, and reasons for those predictions. What reason do you have to think that China's emissions will keep shooting up at the same rate that they have over the last 10 (remarkable) years?
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Maybe if we started bailing that would be a good idea. There are a number of ways to safely sequester carbon, including farming, forestry, and wetland practices that increase the carbon content of the soil and reduce wildfires.
Only so much arable land available that's not already either forested or farmed, especially in the U.S. Then figure that to prepare and farm land takes plenty of machinery that will for the foreseeable future, burn oil.
Quote:
Also, economic incentives are a pretty powerful tool for getting nations to come on board. Tariffs on high-carbon goods, or just an out-and-out carbon tax would work pretty universally.
Might also wreck quite a few economies.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:Quote:My point was that you can't prove a hypothesis, not that you can't prove facts. Here is a link on hypothesis testing
Bullshit. I can prove that China has been increasing carbon emissions just by citing the CDIAC reports. I can prove their per capita emissions are higher than France, Spain, Switzerland, e.g., from the same source.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
However, you can make a convincing case for a hypothesis.
For example.
China's carbon emissions have been going up every year since, say, 1998 (288 million tonnes that year) when the signed the Kyoto Protocol, by an average of 200 million tonnes per year through 2012 (2.625 billion tonnes that year), and the increase has not appreciably slowed.
The U.S. carbon emissions in 1998 were 1.487 billion tonnes, went up to 1.587 in 2007, and by 2012 they decreased to 1.396 billion tonnes, for an average decrease of around 6.5 million tonnes a year.
From this data, I can reliably expect that within the next two years China will be producing twice as much Carbon emissions as the U.S.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
Would you say it's fair to expect China to sign up to a climate treaty if the US doesn't, in light of those facts?
So it's about what you consider "fair", not saving the planet. Does the level of carbon in the atmosphere care about what's fair?
Quote:
It was a simple, Yes/No question, and I guess the answer is no, you don't support the US signing up to a global climate treaty - even one that includes China and everyone else.
Which treaty? Kyoto put no limits on the Chinese. Do you have a particular treaty, with specific binding targets, in mind?
Quote:
As for the point you just made, the first link makes no mention of China exceeding any kind of carbon pledge, only projections, and the second one appears to be broken. Would you like to try again, backing up your claim that China makes carbon pledges it can't keep?
From above.
http://agneyablog.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/chinas-carbon-intensity-red
uction-plan
Of course this is "plans to reach a goal", but it's an example of a goal that was not met.
Quote:
And then crucially, can you show that those targets were binding (the kind of targets we would be talking about in a global climate deal)?
Any treaties on the horizon that would implement binding limits on China?
Quote:
Reasons why China might sign up to a future climate treaty, and be able to reduce its emissions, or slow their growth (off the top of my head):
1. It has pledged to, in principle
Cite? ETA: How does this relate to a 75% increase in coal-fired generator capacity, as noted below?
Quote:
2. It's invested heavily in green techs, and is now a (the?) global leader
In making them for sale. And their "green" includes projects like the Three Gorges dam, which displaced 1.3 million people and is causing all sorts of ecological problems.
Quote:
3. It's invested heavily in nuclear, according to your link
But no reduction in emissions yet.
Quote:
4. Climate change will affect China, like everyone else. This will be disruptive, and expensive
Then they should be doing something about it now, not waiting for a treaty. If the U.S. can reduce emissions without binding treaties, why not China?
Quote:
5. China wants to be considered a global leader, not a reckless giant pariah that is warming the planet for everyone else
See #4.
Quote:
6. China's economy won't be on fire forever - with reduced economic output comes reduced emissions
And this will occur when, exactly? Tomorrow? 30 years? 50 years? 2100?
Quote:
7. China's emissions are partly high because it is a workshop of the world. But it won't stay that way forever - it will get richer and manufacturing will go elsewhere. Also China is actively trying to change its economic model from one of purely export-driven growth (to one of increasing domestic consumption).
So the pollution moves somewhere else eventually.
Quote:
China's emissions ARE going to stabilise, just like all other developed countries have. That's a pretty safe prediction. I would say almost certainly the curve will start to bend soon, and that it probably has already.
You have data through 2012. Show where the curve over, say, five years, has flattened.
Quote:
The question is whether the curve will bend in time to avert major climate change. And the answer to that is probably not. Not on its own, not without a climate deal with binding emissions targets. Not without a cost on carbon.
You keep saying this, but I see no evidence that China will agree to a treaty with binding emissions targets, especially ones that require reduction rather than smaller increases. I also see no evidence that they will stick to their binding targets.
Note that a number of signatories to the Kyoto Accords that have
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Why is anyone bothering with the troll named Geezer? Do you think he's REALLY here to discuss anything? Or do you think he's just here to run his propaganda machine? Just sayin' ...
And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster.
I feel so vindicated.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, and more about this:
Quote:
And here's a funny article from 2011.Quote:
China’s official newspaper China Daily recently reported that China would soon release detailed plans to achieve the goal of reduction of carbon intensity. The plans would address the short-term goal of reducing carbon intensity by 17% over 2005 levels by 2015 and a medium-term goal of 40-45% reduction by 2020.
http://agneyablog.wordpress.com/2011/08/16/chinas-carbon-intensity-red
uction-plan/
So let's see.
Using CDIAC figures throughout, China's carbon emissions in 2005 were 1.579 billion tonnes. A 17% reduction would cut .268 billion tonnes for a 2015 total of 1.311 billion tonnes. China's 2012 carbon emissions were 2.259 billion tonnes, and have been going up 5% to 8% per year for several years.
Think they're gonna meet their goal?
-----------------------------------------------
Per this story...
http://environment.about.com/b/2009/11/26/china-promises-to-cut-greenh
ouse-gas-emissions.htm
...China's pledge was in response to President Obama's 2009 pledge to cut U.S. emissions by 17% from 2005 amounts by 2020.
I've noted China's actuals above.
The U.S., on the other hand, would have to reduce their emissions from the 2005 level of 1.589 billion tonnes to 1.319 billion tonnes by 2020. The 2012 figure is 1.396 billion tonnes, so we have to reduce current emissions by 77 million tonnes per year in eight years to meet Pres. Obama's pledge.
Sounds a bit more doable.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
When the discussion gets more involved than mere bumper sticker sloganeering, the Lefties break out the 'troll' replies. It never fails.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!
As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies
And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster.
I feel so vindicated.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
So it's about what you consider "fair", not saving the planet.
Of course fairness matters. But it especially matters if it's the difference between China signing up to a climate deal or not. It would be a tough sell to China's domestic population if they sign up to binding targets when the US doesn't. It makes something already politically difficult, much harder.
Quote:
Which treaty? Kyoto put no limits on the Chinese.
I said 'a' treaty. Do you, in principle, support the idea of the US signing up to a treaty with binding targets, along with China and everyone else?
Quote:
Using CDIAC figures throughout, China's carbon emissions in 2005 were 1.579 billion tonnes. A 17% reduction would cut .268 billion tonnes for a 2015 total of 1.311 billion tonnes. China's 2012 carbon emissions were 2.259 billion tonnes, and have been going up 5% to 8% per year for several years.
This analysis is wrong, China's targets were per unit GDP. And... China's GDP will have grown substantially by 2015. This is the graph you want:
So you're back to square 1 in proving that China has a history of breaking emissions promises.
Quote:
Any treaties on the horizon that would implement binding limits on China?
Of course any future climate deal would involve binding targets for China. Have I not stressed enough to you the importance of binding targets?
Quote:
1. It has pledged to, in principle
Cite?
From Wiki:
"In the non-binding 'Washington Declaration' agreed on 16 February 2007, heads of governments from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa agreed in principle on the outline of a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. They envisaged a global cap-and-trade system that would apply to both industrialized nations and developing countries, and initially hoped that it would be in place by 2009."
Quote:
the Three Gorges dam, which displaced 1.3 million people and is causing all sorts of ecological problems.
Are you making points just to bash China now? As for them selling green techs - is that supposed to be a bad thing?
Quote:
If the U.S. can reduce emissions without binding treaties, why not China?
Seriously? You need me to answer that? For one thing, it's relatively easy to cut emissions when your emissions are so high per capita. For another, for the US it's not a trade off between cutting emissions and raising millions out of poverty. I can keep going.
Quote:
You have data through 2012. Show where the curve over, say, five years, has flattened.
Done.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-24742770
On 2012: " Emissions from China increased by 3% but this was a significant slowdown compared to annual increases of around 10% over the past decade."
Quote:
You keep saying this, but I see no evidence that China will agree to a treaty with binding emissions targets,
Your talking of 'evidence' is nonsensical. We're talking about something that hasn't happened yet - what evidence am I supposed to produce? All I can show is a list of reasons why it might be feasible, and in China's interest to sign up to a deal and cut its emissions (or at least dramatically bend the curve). To be clear, I'm not claiming with certainty that China will sign up, only saying that it MIGHT. And if there's a chance, we should push for it. You however are saying, with no more evidence and much less logic and reasoning than I, that there's NO CHANCE of China signing up to a deal, and that we shouldn't even bother trying. You're the one irrationally jumping to conclusions here, not me.
Quote:
Does it seem likely to you that China would invest in a 75% increase in coal-fired generator capacity if they were planning to reduce their coalNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I suggest you keep track of this post for the next time Geezer posts his arguments. Because it will be the exact same tripe all over again.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Indeed. That man is as mentally flexible as a brick.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SIGNYM:
Indeed. That man is as mentally flexible as a brick.
A good foundation needs to be strong.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!
As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies
And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster.
I feel so vindicated.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
So it's about what you consider "fair", not saving the planet.
Of course fairness matters. But it especially matters if it's the difference between China signing up to a climate deal or not. It would be a tough sell to China's domestic population if they sign up to binding targets when the US doesn't. It makes something already politically difficult, much harder.
The point of the articles you and Auraptor posted above was that the Central Committee can act without having to worry about what the population thinks, unlike in the West, where the government can be voted out if the people are unhappy enough.
Quote:Quote:
Which treaty? Kyoto put no limits on the Chinese.
I said 'a' treaty. Do you, in principle, support the idea of the US signing up to a treaty with binding targets, along with China and everyone else?
Depends on the treaty terms, and what the binding targets are. For them to do any good, China has to at least meet the same reduction targets as the U.S. and other developed nations. If they don't produce actual reductions, the treaty is worthless in terms of reducing global carbon emissions.
Quote:
This analysis is wrong, China's targets were per unit GDP. And... China's GDP will have grown substantially by 2015. This is the graph you want:
So you're back to square 1 in proving that China has a history of breaking emissions promises.
Well, if you factor in GDP, it's really a promise to increase emissions.
China's GDP in 2005 was $2.24 trillion. It's carbon emissions were 1.579 billion tonnes. So that's .70 billion tonnes of emissions per trillion dollars of GDP(lets abbreviate to BTPTD).
China's GDP for 2013 was $9.181 trillion. It's emissions for 2013 look to be around 2.70 billion. So for 2013 that's .29 BTPTD. Quite a reduction in BTPTD. Nevertheless, China's actual annual emissions have increased by 1.121 billion tonnes (70%).
Now if China really did cut that 2005 figure of .70 BTPTD by 40%, that would be around .42 BTPTD. Even assuming that their GDP stayed the same between 2013 and 2020 instead of increasing, that would allow China to increase their carbon emissions by almost 50% over today's figures by 2020.
This article...
http://environment.about.com/b/2009/11/26/china-promises-to-cut-greenh
ouse-gas-emissions.htm
...notes the bait and switch by mentioning that many news sources give the wrong impression of China's promise by failing to include the GDP reference. But even they apparently didn't do the math.
Quote:Quote:
Any treaties on the horizon that would implement binding limits on China?
Of course any future climate deal would involve binding targets for China. Have I not stressed enough to you the importance of binding targets?
What binding targets for China would you find appropriate?
Quote:Quote:
1. It has pledged to, in principle
Cite?
From Wiki:
"In the non-binding 'Washington Declaration' agreed on 16 February 2007, heads of governments from Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Brazil, China, India, Mexico and South Africa agreed in principle on the outline of a successor to the Kyoto Protocol. They envisaged a global cap-and-trade system that would apply to both industrialized nations and developing countries, and initially hoped that it would be in place by 2009."
"Non-binding" And what's happened to the "Washington Declaration" since 2007? Apparently not in place since 2009,
Per the rest of the Wiki article, the latest idea is a treaty, a legally binding deal comprising all countries, to be developed by 2015, and implemented by 2020.
Looks like you got your treaty.
Quote:
[quNOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
The point of the articles you and Auraptor posted above was that the Central Committee can act without having to worry about what the population thinks, unlike in the West, where the government can be voted out if the people are unhappy enough.
You really think that the Chinese Communist Party does not fear domestic opinion?
Quote:
Depends on the treaty terms, and what the binding targets are.
Of course it depends what the terms are, whether or not you find the treaty acceptable - that's true for everyone, myself included... Can I take this as a YES, that you do in principle agree to the US signing up to a well-crafted, fair, climate treaty with binding targets (if all can agree and accept what constitutes fair, etc.)?
Quote:
For them to do any good, China has to at least meet the same reduction targets as the U.S. and other developed nations.
Are you classing China as a developed country? Or saying that developing countries should not have it any easier, even though they're wrestling with poverty, and people with no electricity etc.?
Quote:
If they don't produce actual reductions, the treaty is worthless in terms of reducing global carbon emissions.
You're saying it's not acceptable for China simply to hold their emissions steady, or significantly slow their growth? They have to show 'reductions'? Well I imagine the Chinese response to that would be to delay signing a climate deal for another 5-10 years, build all the coal plants that they want for their energy-hungry economy, and THEN sign a climate deal that reduces their emissions SLIGHTLY from a very high level. There's your 'reduction' President Geezer. Way to be tough on China, and thanks for screwing the planet!
Quote:
This article...
http://environment.about.com/b/2009/11/26/china-promises-to-cut-greenh
ouse-gas-emissions.htm
...notes the bait and switch by mentioning that many news sources give the wrong impression of China's promise by failing to include the GDP reference.
Bait and switch... by who? China, or the liberal media? The simple explanation of course, is that a lot of journalists are not very smart.
Quote:
But even they apparently didn't do the math.
Why? Because it says that China's target was 'an aggressive goal', and talks about the strong efforts China has made in the direction of renewables?
Quote:
"Non-binding"
Yes, China has signed a non-binding declaration pledging its support, in principle, to a binding climate treaty. Exactly as I said.
Quote:
Okay. So you're admitting that China can't actually reduce emissions.
No. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to expect a relatively poor country with relatively low emissions per capita to cut emissions at the same rate as a rich country with higher emissions per capita.
Quote:
In 2012, they were 2.62 billion tonnes. I'd call that a 6% increase.
It's possible there's different sets of figures out there.
Quote:
China does have slight dips in the rate of increase every few years, but historically, it goes right back up.
That goes against the analysis in that BBC article. Can I take that as a prediction?
Quote:
Trends, historical data, extrapolations, You know, what I've been showing.
To extrapolate is senseless. You shouldn't be allowed near graphs. If you're determined to look at graphs, and ignore most of the facts on the ground in the process, look at graphs of emissions of other countries that have ALREADY rapidly industrialised, into developed economies: Korea, Japan etc - did their emissions keep on rising ever higher towards infinity?? Or did they plateau??
Quote:
I have plenty of evidence of China's increase in emissions, and their ability to spin things like emissions vs. GDP to look good when they're actually setting a goal of increasing emissions.
There is sense in linking emissions to GDP, and it's an accepted and adop
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
You really think that the Chinese Communist Party does not fear domestic opinion?
You really need to ask ?
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
"China has a history of promising carbon reductions it can't meet."
A cite with a statement about China's reduction goals with data. Required. Or your argument, your credibility and my interest in anything you have to post - gone forever. And you and your rapfacts end up in rappyland
RUSH LIMBAUGH is a BLUE PILL ADDICT!
As evidence of "rape mentality"
Tuesday, July 30, 2013 8:11 PM
MAL4PREZ
And just remember, according to Rappy, the term befitting a women who wants the insurance she pays for to cover medications affecting her reproductive organs is whore
Wednesday, July 31, 2013 4:23 PM
little rappy
The term applies
And this is Geezer being non-partisan ... HAHAHA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...
Dem Super Pac slams Obamacare because it really sucks and will cause herpes
Geezer
So some Democrats are running on pointing out that the Healthcare.gov rollout was an unmitigated disaster.
I feel so vindicated.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
You see KPO, this is what Geezer is. He claims a past that doesn't exist. That is despite your valiant attempts to bring facts to the argument, since he ignores them completely in favor of his propaganda (which he will repeat ad nauseum).
He will never be able to show a reference for his claim because it's not true.
These are China's treaty goals:
Action Commitment
By 2020, China has committed to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions per unit of GDP by 40 to 45 percent from 2005 levels and use non-fossil fuels for about 15 percent of its energy. China has also committed to increase forest cover by 40 million hectares and forest stock volume by 1.3 billion cubic meters by 2020 (from 2005 levels).
As per your chart, they are on their way, showing significant decreases.
His claims? Completely untrue.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
You really think that the Chinese Communist Party does not fear domestic opinion?
You really need to ask ?
That would be an example of why they should, and do, fear domestic opinion. Even their military sometimes thinks the oppression used against the civilians is extreme. And that's not even getting into their even more oppressed ethnic minorities.
The whole thing about Tiananmen Square, and why it's famous in the West and why it's been purged of all mention over in China was because it was a student revolution that a lot of the population joined in on, and when China sent in the military to quell the dissent, the average soldiers sympathized with the civilians.
Tank Man was a potent image of this resistance because he stood in front of the oncoming tanks, and instead of the tanks mowing him down, they tried to go around him because they did not WANT to harm the civilians. And he kept stepping in their way, forcing the tanks to keep stopping. Shortly afterward, he was disappeared, and the tanks were able to continue.
China is not nearly the united front that they would have us believe they are.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
You really think that the Chinese Communist Party does not fear domestic opinion?
They seem to manage public opinion pretty well by a combination of censorship, imprisonment of dissidents, and violent reaction to public demonstrations.
Quote:Quote:
Depends on the treaty terms, and what the binding targets are.
Of course it depends what the terms are, whether or not you find the treaty acceptable - that's true for everyone, myself included... Can I take this as a YES, that you do in principle agree to the US signing up to a well-crafted, fair, climate treaty with binding targets (if all can agree and accept what constitutes fair, etc.)?
I've never had a problem with a treaty that is well-crafted, fair, and has binding targets. I doubt that China will sign one if they have to reduce their rate of increase in emissions substantially.
Quote:Quote:
For them to do any good, China has to at least meet the same reduction targets as the U.S. and other developed nations.
Are you classing China as a developed country? Or saying that developing countries should not have it any easier, even though they're wrestling with poverty, and people with no electricity etc.?
I'm saying that, given the rate at which China is generating emissions, and their rate of increase, if they don't make substantial cuts, no treaty anyone else will accept will do anything significant about climate change.
Quote:Quote:
If they don't produce actual reductions, the treaty is worthless in terms of reducing global carbon emissions.
You're saying it's not acceptable for China simply to hold their emissions steady, or significantly slow their growth? They have to show 'reductions'? Well I imagine the Chinese response to that would be to delay signing a climate deal for another 5-10 years, build all the coal plants that they want for their energy-hungry economy, and THEN sign a climate deal that reduces their emissions SLIGHTLY from a very high level. There's your 'reduction' President Geezer. Way to be tough on China, and thanks for screwing the planet!
Actually, you're describing pretty much what I expect China to do, regardless of what kind of treaty they sign. As I noted above, the next chance at a treaty is for a 2015 signing and 2020 implementation, so there's your five years of buildup right there.
Quote:Quote:
This article...
http://environment.about.com/b/2009/11/26/china-promises-to-cut-greenh
ouse-gas-emissions.htm
...notes the bait and switch by mentioning that many news sources give the wrong impression of China's promise by failing to include the GDP reference.
Bait and switch... by who? China, or the liberal media? The simple explanation of course, is that a lot of journalists are not very smart.
So you don't disagree that the Chinese pledge to cut emissions related to GDP is really a pledge to increase emissions?
Quote:]Quote:
But even they apparently didn't do the math.
Why? Because it says that China's target was 'an aggressive goal', and talks about the strong efforts China has made in the direction of renewables?
Because they didn't seem to realize that China's pledge was actually to increase emissions by at least 50% by 2020.
Quote:Quote:
Okay. So you're admitting that China can't actually reduce emissions.
No. I'm saying that it's ridiculous to expect a relatively poor country with relatively low emissions per capita to cut emissions at the same rate as a rich country with higher emissions per capita.
So the biosphere knows that China's emissions are lower per capita than the U.S., even though they're greater overall, and will react to China's carbon differently?
ETA: And you're apparently ignoring my note above that China now has higher emissions per capita that several de
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
And you still are unable to back up your claim. Remember? It's this one: "China has a history of promising carbon reductions it can't meet."
I get that you just make shit up when the facts are clearly against you. As does everyone else.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nice to see that someone figured out the double-talk in China's pledge to cut emissions per unit of GDP.
Quote:
China's State Council said that by 2020 the country would reduce its carbon-dioxide emissions per unit of gross domestic product (GDP) by 40 percent to 45 percent compared with levels in 2005.
This is "a voluntary action based on our own national conditions" and "is a major contribution to the global effort in tackling climate change," the State Council said.
While China's cuts are welcomed, Greenpeace China said the targets did not go far enough, considering China's emissions are expected to continue rising. A pledge in the 45 percent to 50 percent range would have been better, they said.
And China's GDP is expected to grow, so its total emissions might not drop.
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2010365251_chinacarbon27.html
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
But then, it's their pledge. Which they are on their way to meeting.
Now, wasn't that your argument for why the US shouldn't sign binding agreements? B/c you can't trust those dirty commies to meet their goals? B/c "China has a history of promising carbon reductions it can't meet." Yanno, your claim that you've been completely unable to back up.
How's that argument working for ya'?
So tell me again - WHY shouldn't the US sign ANY binding agreements?
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
So, to continue on by myself since Geezer can't reply -
While he likes to pretend the problem is about current emissions, the fact is it's about CO2 that was put into the atmosphere since the dawn of coal burning. (Now, I think this may be too complicated for Geezer, but the rest of you will understand - burning vegetation doesn't add MORE carbon into the carbon cycle. Burning coal - or other FOSSIL fuel - does. That's because it takes carbon which has been sequestered underground for millions of years and puts it into the surface carbon cycle.)
Industrialized nations have put about 75% of the excess CO2 into the atmosphere since coal started being used as a fuel. That is according to the Kyoto Accord. That means, to be both fair and effective, industrialized nations should reduce their emissions 75%.
I wonder how long it will take us to get a 75% reduction by just twiddling our thumbs.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
But then, it's their pledge. Which they are on their way to meeting.
One more time.
China pledges to "reduce" their emissions per unit of GDP by 40% from 2005 levels by 2020.
As noted above, China's 2005 emissions per unit of GDP was around .70 billion tonnes per trillion dollars of GDP (BTPTD), so a 40% reduction is .42 BTPTD.
Now China expects it's GDP to grow by 7% annually. it's 2013 GDP was 9.181 trillion dollars so it's expecting 2020 GDP of around 15.75 trillion dollars.
Multiply that by the .42 BTPTD and you get 6.615 billion tonnes of emissions per year in 2020. Considering that expected 2013 emissions for China are around 2.70 billion tonnes, That's about a 2.45 times increase over current levels, and around 4.75 times what the U.S. will be producing.
Are you okay with this?
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
ETA: Quotes around "reduce", and clarify "China's 2005 emissions" in the third sentence. Emissions figures are from CDIAC throughout.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
You really think that the Chinese Communist Party does not fear domestic opinion?
They seem to manage public opinion pretty well by a combination of censorship, imprisonment of dissidents, and violent reaction to public demonstrations.
*shakes head*
Quote:
I doubt that China will sign one if they have to reduce their rate of increase in emissions substantially.
The cynic in me thinks that China would be happy to dramatically increase its emissions over the next 10 years, and then sign a deal to curb them at a much higher, more comfortable point. I think ideally a climate treaty would take into account the level of a country's development, and not punish emissions in developing countries as heavily. Such a deal would be more likely to get China on board sooner - which as you've shown, is critical. The sooner China's emissions policy gets influenced by binding commitments of a climate treaty, the better. That to me is being pragmatic, and fair.
Quote:
So you don't disagree that the Chinese pledge to cut emissions related to GDP is really a pledge to increase emissions?
Pledge to increase emissions? I hope you realise that this is completely wrong, and are just saying it because you think it sounds good. China's target is essentially to grow their economy faster than their emissions. They don't have to increase emissions to achieve that.
Quote:
So the biosphere knows that China's emissions are lower per capita than the U.S., even though they're greater overall, and will react to China's carbon differently?
CO2 emissions are of pressing importance, but they are not the only important issue in this world. Poverty is also an important issue, and carbon zeal should not come at the expense of efforts to lift people out of poverty. If it's down to a poor village getting electricity from coal, or no electricity at all, I will support the village getting electricity from coal. This is a dichotomy you have in developing countries (including parts of China), but not developed countries, so developing countries should get off easier. If that seems 'unfair' to you, just think of all the decades rich countries like ours have been pumping out CO2 (which is still up there), while these poorer countries have had no electricity at all.
Quote:
Look at the CDIAC data. you'll see that some years have greater increases over the previous year, and some less. Except for the period of political unrest from 1998 and 2000, it goes up every year
Your prediction is noted.
Quote:
Korea. Never increased at the same rate as China is now.
That point is irrelevant. Here's the graph for Korea, it's emissions have definitely started to plateau:
And Japan's have been steady for years, until as you say, Fukushima.
Want to change your prediction that China's emissions will go up and up at the same rate indefinitely? Perhaps you can give an example of a developed country that is doing that?
Quote:
And just out of curiosity, how long will it be until you consider China an "industrialized, developed" country? 10 years? 100 years?
My guess? Certainly no more than 20. Barring a really severe hard landing.
Quote:
No. But I don't trust them as much as you apparently do.
I trust them why? Because I think they might sign up to a deal with binding emissions targets, that it will cost them if they miss? This is the thing with cynicism, even when it's dumb, it thinks of itself as wise, just because it's 'cynical'.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:Quote:
You really think that the Chinese Communist Party does not fear domestic opinion?
You really need to ask ?
That would be an example of why they should, and do, fear domestic opinion. Even their military sometimes thinks the oppression used against the civilians is extreme. And that's not even getting into their even more oppressed ethnic minorities.
The whole thing about Tiananmen Square, and why it's famous in the West and why it's been purged of all mention over in China was because it was a student revolution that a lot of the population joined in on, and when China sent in the military to quell the dissent, the average soldiers sympathized with the civilians.
Tank Man was a potent image of this resistance because he stood in front of the oncoming tanks, and instead of the tanks mowing him down, they tried to go around him because they did not WANT to harm the civilians. And he kept stepping in their way, forcing the tanks to keep stopping. Shortly afterward, he was disappeared, and the tanks were able to continue.
China is not nearly the united front that they would have us believe they are.
And how has the freedom fighting inside of China been going ever since then ?
Fearful ? Perhaps. But they have, to date, a tried and true method of dealing with such public sentiment. Wonder how long countries like that can keep the masses under foot and in the dark ,with the interwebs age only getting more and more ubiquitous.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:
You really think that the Chinese Communist Party does not fear domestic opinion?
They seem to manage public opinion pretty well by a combination of censorship, imprisonment of dissidents, and violent reaction to public demonstrations.
*shakes head*
http://www.wtop.com/233/3551685/Chinese-court-finds-2-grassroots-activ
ists-guilty
Quote:Quote:
So you don't disagree that the Chinese pledge to cut emissions related to GDP is really a pledge to increase emissions?
Pledge to increase emissions? I hope you realise that this is completely wrong, and are just saying it because you think it sounds good. China's target is essentially to grow their economy faster than their emissions. They don't have to increase emissions to achieve that.
So you are completely ignoring the fact that China's pledge, as noted in the post above, allows them to increase annual emissions by 2.45 times over the next seven years.
Once again:
One more time.
China pledges to "reduce" their emissions per unit of GDP by 40% from 2005 levels by 2020.
As noted above, China's 2005 emissions per unit of GDP was around .70 billion tonnes per trillion dollars of GDP (BTPTD), so a 40% reduction is .42 BTPTD.
Now China expects it's GDP to grow by 7% annually. it's 2013 GDP was 9.181 trillion dollars so it's expecting 2020 GDP of around 15.75 trillion dollars.
Multiply that by the .42 BTPTD and you get 6.615 billion tonnes of emissions per year in 2020. Considering that expected 2013 emissions for China are around 2.70 billion tonnes, That's about a 2.45 times increase over current levels, and around 4.75 times what the U.S. will be producing.
Are you okay with this?
Quote:
CO2 emissions are of pressing importance, but they are not the only important issue in this world. Poverty is also an important issue, and carbon zeal should not come at the expense of efforts to lift people out of poverty. If it's down to a poor village getting electricity from coal, or no electricity at all, I will support the village getting electricity from coal. This is a dichotomy you have in developing countries (including parts of China), but not developed countries, so developing countries should get off easier. If that seems 'unfair' to you, just think of all the decades rich countries like ours have been pumping out CO2 (which is still up there), while these poorer countries have had no electricity at all.
Any evidence that the electricity from all these coal plants is going to the villages, instead of the cities and factories? Have you seen much evidence that the Chinese government is really interested in improving the life of villagers? Not just slogans and promises, but actual evidence? I doubt that all the money politicians and oligarchs have stashed in off-shore accounts is being saved up for rural electrification.
Quote:Quote:
Korea. Never increased at the same rate as China is now.
That point is irrelevant. Here's the graph for Korea, it's emissions have definitely started to plateau:
Based on a few years. Who's extrapolating now?
Quote:
Want to change your prediction that China's emissions will go up and up at the same rate indefinitely? Perhaps you can give an example of a developed country that is doing that?
Never said indefinitely, but I expect for quite a while. When climate change folks talk about us already being at the tipping point, I find it hard to believe that you don't consider China increasing its emissions by 2.45 times in the next seven years problematic.
Quote:Quote:
And just out of curiosity, how long will it be until you consider China an "industrialized, developed" country? 10 years? 100 years?
My guess? Certainly no more than 20. Barring a really severe hard landing.
And in 20 years, China's a
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Multiply that by the .42 BTPTD and you get 6.615 billion tonnes of emissions per year in 2020. Considering that expected 2013 emissions for China are around 2.70 billion tonnes, That's about a 2.45 times increase over current levels, and around 4.75 times what the U.S. will be producing.
1. Your emissions total is high, by my calcs, but that doesn't matter because
2. Your own figures show that China has reduced BTPTD from 0.70 in 2005 to 0.29 in 2013. So why are you projecting that China's BTPTD will go back up to 0.42 in 2020?
I can go further, but at this point I don't feel I need to.
Quote:
Are you okay with this?
I don't think anyone is 'okay' with China's CO2 increases. But to a large extent it's inevitable: economic growth needs energy, and China, unfortunately, is reliant on coal. As I've said, the sooner we get them on board with a climate deal the better, and then they can at least use their coal more cleanly.
Quote:
Any evidence that the electricity from all these coal plants is going to the villages, instead of the cities and factories? Have you seen much evidence that the Chinese government is really interested in improving the life of villagers? Not just slogans and promises, but actual evidence?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8a576f22-fbd0-11e1-af33-00144feabdc0.html#ax
zz2rnS6m0bH
"Thanks to this investment, 95 per cent of Chinese villages now have roads, electricity, running water, natural gas and phone lines..."
Quote:
Based on a few years.
Based on decades. Korea's emissions more than doubled from the mid eighties to the mid-nineties, and then increased by only about 20% in the subsequent decade. You're just being pig-headed now, the trend on the graph is obvious, and conforms with all other developed countries whose emissions have stabilised.
Quote:
And in 20 years, China's annual emissions could be seven times what they are now, close to 19 billion tonnes.
I treat this with even less respect than your earlier projection. The hope is that China's emissions peak relatively soon: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/07/16/us-china-carbon-iea-idUSTRE66
F2XC20100716
But a climate deal will almost certainly be needed for this to happen.
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by kpo:Quote:
Multiply that by the .42 BTPTD and you get 6.615 billion tonnes of emissions per year in 2020. Considering that expected 2013 emissions for China are around 2.70 billion tonnes, That's about a 2.45 times increase over current levels, and around 4.75 times what the U.S. will be producing.
1. Your emissions total is high, by my calcs...
Let's see them.
Quote:
2. Your own figures show that China has reduced BTPTD from 0.70 in 2005 to 0.29 in 2013.
Yep. They reduced BTPTD, but actual emissions went from 1.578 billion tonnes in 2005 to 2.62 billion tonnes in 2012. A 66% increase in seven years.
Quote:
So why are you projecting that China's BTPTD will go back up to 0.42 in 2020?
Because that's their stated goal, to have a BTPTD that's 40% less than the 2005 figure of .70 BTPTD. If their GDP were staying constant, that'd be a great thing, but it's going up an average of 19% annually since 2005, and 15.8% annually over the last 32 years.
Quote:
I can go further, but at this point I don't feel I need to.
Please. Go ahead.
Quote:
Are you okay with this?
I don't think anyone is 'okay' with China's CO2 increases. But to a large extent it's inevitable: economic growth needs energy, and China, unfortunately, is reliant on coal. As I've said, the sooner we get them on board with a climate deal the better, and then they can at least use their coal more cleanly.
So controlling climate change by reducing emissions is pretty much out the window, as far as you're concerned.
Quote:Quote:
Any evidence that the electricity from all these coal plants is going to the villages, instead of the cities and factories? Have you seen much evidence that the Chinese government is really interested in improving the life of villagers? Not just slogans and promises, but actual evidence?
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/8a576f22-fbd0-11e1-af33-00144feabdc0.html#ax
zz2rnS6m0bH
"Thanks to this investment, 95 per cent of Chinese villages now have roads, electricity, running water, natural gas and phone lines..."
Good. Then they can stop increasing emissions.
Quote:Quote:
And in 20 years, China's annual emissions could be seven times what they are now, close to 19 billion tonnes.
I treat this with even less respect than your earlier projection.
If they extend their latest five year plan's goals for GDP growth past 2020, they could generate this much emissions and still keep their pledge to "reduce" emissions per unit of GDP by 40%.
Quote:
The hope is that China's emissions peak relatively soon: http://uk.reuters.com/article/2010/07/16/us-china-carbon-iea-idUSTRE66
F2XC20100716
But a climate deal will almost certainly be needed for this to happen.
IEA's hope. Reading the article, China expresses skepticism. They're politely saying no.
"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Oh, give me a break..................puh-leeeeeeze!
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
UN Climate Chief Says Communism is Best Way to Fight Global Warming
Climate change has been a popular topic of conversation lately and it appears the United Nations is taking a stand on the environmental changes. The UN climate chief, Christiana Figueres, also apparently knows about how government systems affect the climate. Oh wait, no she doesn’t.
She stated earlier this week that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. She also said that communist China is instead the best model.
Even though China is the world’s top emitter of carbon dioxide and struggles with major pollution issues of their own, apparently Ms. Figueres thinks that means they are “doing it right” when it comes to fighting global warming.
“Figueres added that the deep partisan divide in the U.S. Congress is “very detrimental” to passing any sort of legislation to fight global warming. The Chinese Communist Party, on the other hand, can push key policies and reforms all on its own. The country’s national legislature largely enforces the decisions made by the party’s Central Committee and other executive offices.”
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/heatherginsberg/2014/01/19/un-climate-chi
ef-says-communism-is-best-way-to-fight-global-warming-n1779973
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SHINYGOODGUY:
Oh, give me a break..................puh-leeeeeeze!
SGG
I'm not McDonald's, so no. You don't deserve a break today.
speaking of which...
Notice what all these kids are doing ? EXERCISING ! Playing football, @ cheer practice, roller skating, etc ... And this was LONG before Michelle's National " Obama Youth - Let's Move" program.
Imagine that.
Fathom the hypocrisy of a government that requires every citizen to prove they are insured... but not everyone must prove they are a citizen
I'm just a red pill guy in a room full of blue pill addicts.
" AU, that was great, LOL!! " - Chrisisall
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
1. Your emissions total is high, by my calcs...
Let's see them.
Not that it matters, but:
9.181 x (1.07)^7 X 0.42 = 6.2 billion tonnes.
Quote:
Quote:
So why are you projecting that China's BTPTD will go back up to 0.42 in 2020?
Because that's their stated goal
This is a low for you Geezer. When countries set emissions targets obviously the aim is to come in anywhere below that target, not try and hit it dead on.
Quote:
So controlling climate change by reducing emissions is pretty much out the window, as far as you're concerned.
No, but setting emissions targets that make poor countries sacrifice economic growth is a non-starter. Setting emissions targets that see poor countries minimise emissions, while their economies grow, and developed countries cut emissions to offset this growth, is workable, and could produce a sustainable global fall in emissions quite soon.
Quote:
Good. Then they can stop increasing emissions.
Very rich for America to tell China to stop growing its economy and stop increasing emissions, when it still has far more wealth and CO2 emissions per person than China. But I've made this point before...
Quote:
IEA's hope. Reading the article, China expresses skepticism. They're politely saying no.
As I said, a climate deal would be needed...
It's not personal. It's just war.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME