The world versus 40 Republican Senators: climate change

[Craig234]

I read it, I don't agree with him or you.

I'm telling you there are Dem Senators who WON'T vote for it. I'm saying they probably can NOT get 50 votes, this renders moot the whole "40" votes argument.

If you're right about more than 10 non-Republican Senators being obstructionist, the Republcans are stil as bad as I said, but we need to expand the list. If that's the case.

Umm, you either typing or reading too fast. Go back and look again, I'm saying those nations are DEMANDING money, not paying it.

Fern

TO be clear, you're claiming Europe did not offer money to the developing world for cleaning up pollution from the developed world, but instead Europe was demanding money for themselves from the US?

 

[nick1985]

I wonder if someday Craig will realize just how dumb the global warming scare really was

 

[Darwin333]

That's the best comment in a response yet. Another goof reason, it would be off-topic.



Can we afford the impact of not doing it? We couldn't afford sending a man to the moon or WWII either, but we did them. You suggest we not do this and have far worse things happen after all these leaders are out?



You got me there, I said what you said I was going to. But you haven't address the issue either.

President Franklin R. Darwin announced to day the US cannot afford WWII and will surrender immediately.

Come on, let's talk real numbers. I haven't seen them crazy. What did we spend on enriching Wall Street to keep the economy from crashing they blackmailed us with?

The damned forum ate my post and I really don't feel like typing it all over again but the short version is:

If you want to start a thread about why we have been fucked with this situation I would be more than happy to participate but the fact is we are here. We don't have it and can't get anywhere near necessary so where does it come from?

 

[IGBT]

you guys are just frothing at the mouth to get your alarmist hoax generating revenue. eco-KOOKS unite to SLAVE the planet and use rope-a -dope fraud to make it all happen.

 

[StageLeft]

The US responded to those offers with an offer to reduce its emissions *4%* from 1990 levels, and they're a 'scapegoat'. THats all they could offer because of the 40 Republicans limiting their options.

4% is pathetic, but yes the scapegoat. If things are as bad as some say 30% is also pathetic. If Europe is pissed that the US won't take the leadership role it can do so and forge ahead reducing.

 

[charrison]

4% is pathetic, but yes the scapegoat. If things are as bad as some say 30% is also pathetic. If Europe is pissed that the US won't take the leadership role it can do so and forge ahead reducing.

Of course China now puts out more co2 than the US and they have no plais of slowing their growth to reduce co2 emissions. And man made c02 is such a small fraction of green house gases it makes you wonder if any reduction is worth it.

 

[monovillage]

Of course the 40 Republicans arenot acting like mindless cattle.

They're behaving much more evilly, putting political benefit and oil donors ahead of mankind.

Well it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about in regards to climate change. Try to stay off the topic if all you're going to do is lie.

 

[GoPackGo]

Again, this is why all the raw data and its source/date/time, all the source code, all the models, etc...need to be made public and open source. When all there is is light...there is no where to hide.

Taxpayers worldwide pay for the research and have rights to this information.

 

[Craig234]

Well it's obvious that you don't know what you're talking about in regards to climate change. Try to stay off the topic if all you're going to do is lie.

The complete lack of substance in your post as usual speaks to what a joke it is.

 

[Craig234]

Again, this is why all the raw data and its source/date/time, all the source code, all the models, etc...need to be made public and open source. When all there is is light...there is no where to hide.

Taxpayers worldwide pay for the research and have rights to this information.

Not that many are qualified to review it, I agree with you this science should be open. What's not?

 

[charrison]

Not that many are qualified to review it, I agree with you this science should be open. What's not?

So far it looks like a good deal has not been available till recently. And to top it off they claim to have lost the raw data, which kills any credibility even if they are right because their results are no longer reproducible.

 

[Craig234]

So far it looks like a good deal has not been available till recently. And to top it off they claim to have lost the raw data, which kills any credibility even if they are right because their results are no longer reproducible.

Hm. With all the global support for these conclusions, you would expect there to be a plethora of information.

Have any credible sources been raising questions about the things you mentioned, are maintstream scientific bodies talking about questioning the conclusions?

 

[charrison]

Hm. With all the global support for these conclusions, you would expect there to be a plethora of information.

Have any credible sources been raising questions about the things you mentioned, are maintstream scientific bodies talking about questioning the conclusions?

Well lets start with the leaked email from the CRU that state they were fighting FOI requests and would rather delete the data than share it. They have only been recently publican shamed into releasing their code/data. And yes they do admit to losing the raw data. And it is also pretty easy to prove they have been manipulating the data to prove their point.

Read the article I posted by burt rutan, he gives a pretty good rundown of how they are mistreating the data.

 

[Craig234]

Well lets start with the leaked email from the CRU that state they were fighting FOI requests and would rather delete the data than share it. They have only been recently publican shamed into releasing their code/data. And yes they do admit to losing the raw data. And it is also pretty easy to prove they have been manipulating the data to prove their point.

Read the article I posted by burt rutan, he gives a pretty good rundown of how they are mistreating the data.

That's not what I'm asking though. I'll stick with national academies of science - have any said anything about this undermining their endorsement on the issue?

Burt Rutan? The privatized space flight guy? I can't stand him, he's an anti-government ideological zealot.

He's talented in his field, but I watched him talk about his work - most of his comments were about how NASA's moon landing was incredibly incompetent compared to his incredible private team.

I walked out on him disgusted while he spoke, sending a message what I thought.

 

[charrison]

That's not what I'm asking though. I'll stick with national academies of science - have any said anything about this undermining their endorsement on the issue?

so far not much has changed, but there do appear to cracks forming in the consensus that existed.

Burt Rutan? The privatized space flight guy? I can't stand him, he's an anti-government ideological zealot.



He's talented in his field, but I watched him talk about his work - most of his comments were about how NASA's moon landing was incredibly incompetent compared to his incredible private team.

I walked out on him disgusted while he spoke, sending a message what I thought.

You may not like him, but his article is worth reading. He goes over the data in a very non political way. Data does not sides. If you choose to ignore what he has to say, you will rely on getting on 1/2 truths from those that do not wish the other data to be visible.

Read it, it wont hurt you.

 

[Craig234]

so far not much has changed, but there do appear to cracks forming in the consensus that existed.



You may not like him, but his article is worth reading. He goes over the data in a very non political way. Data does not sides. If you choose to ignore what he has to say, you will rely on getting on 1/2 truths from those that do not wish the other data to be visible.

Read it, it wont hurt you.

Drop the attitude in that last line.

Do you have a link to Ratan's 'nonbiased' information?

I'll takea moment to restate, funny enough, that I've never reached a firm conclusion on global climate change - I lack the expertise to do so and it's a very complicated topic.

But I have taken -and take - the position that it makes sense to look at the crediblt experts, and to give them a lot of weight, and that my survey hgas shown a strong consensus for the issue.

I'm in favor of siding with them, and with taking action based on that. However, I've also always supported continued research, and if there are any suspicions of error - intentional or not - investigate.

But recognize there is big money that has paid for propaganda to lie against the issue.

Number of GCC critics I've seen who say one word acknowledging the lies: zero. Not good for the credibility. If they pretend there is no propaganda, how are they not falling for it?

Give me a critic who says "there's been a lot of false criticism paid for by the bil oil companies, but this is different", and they get my attention - and it will be the first such critic I've seen.

Putting forth one of the biggest anti-government zealots quick to throw out passionate and biased science for his cause - Ratan, not the best guy to use as your spokesman. But I'll take a look.

I'd looked at other links in this thread and didn't see his.

 

[Craig234]

4% is pathetic, but yes the scapegoat. If things are as bad as some say 30% is also pathetic. If Europe is pissed that the US won't take the leadership role it can do so and forge ahead reducing.

I see that over and over. The US doing nothing is not right, and not going to do what you say. From one of the articles linked in this thread, it shows the opposite:

The Copenhagen fiasco will undoubtedly trigger a rethinking of the European climate policy. Especially East European member states ? but probably also the Italian and German governments ? will be demanding a drastic reassessment of unilateral climate targets which are turning into an economic liability and a  political risk. They are already putting a heavy burden on European economies as well as driving ever higher the costs for energy, industrial output and the general public.

Unlateral reductions, expensive, by the most responsible nations aren't the answer.

You need to deal with the roadblock to cooperation,

 

[charrison]

Craig this it he link I posted in the other climate thread.

http://rps3.com/Files/AGW/Rutan.AGWdataAnalysis v11.pdf

 

[shiner]

Drop the attitude in that last line.

Pot, meet kettle.

Anyone who disagrees with your point is an idiot in your mind and not worth listening to. That alone tells everyone here all they need to know about you. You are a child running around screaming BS at the top of your lungs and when someone presents you with information contrary to your view of the world you immediately turn into:

 

[DrPizza]

Oh yeah? China and India going to curb pollution? China has agreed to improve their economic efficiency, not stop increasing pollution. That is a no brainer. Like any market, more efficiency the better.

Just in one particular action, China has done a ton in reducing the use of resources & reducing its energy needs: population control.

i have a very very very hard time that the US is a bigger polluter than China. In fact i would venture out and say per capita we are probably the cleanest country on the planet.

You need to travel more.

What I posted was about the way that NCDC and GISS rigged and manipulated the data to get the results they wanted. Nothing more or less. If you want to give me a few of those 10,000 reasons then go ahead, we'll see who uses sound science and who uses propaganda and FUD.

I'll give you an easy one: where are the glaciers going?

 

[Descartes]

Sadly, like almost everything on P&N and political discussions offline, no point is discussed and instead people get in a frenzy and start throwing feces at everyone like a bunch of monkeys.

The point is that our government is anemic. 60%, 50%, who cares. We can't accomplish anything worth a damn, because both Republicans and Democrats sit on their respective perches drawing arbitrary lines through the sand.

I'm a broken record at this point, but the fact that we all sit here and bitch about silly things makes ALL of us stupid, not just the OP. More concerned with seeing your team win the race, you don't care how it's won.

sigh.

 

[charrison]

Just in one particular action, China has done a ton in reducing the use of resources & reducing its energy needs: population control.

China emissions are growing on a massive scale due to their industrialization and lack of any pollution control laws. And they dont much care about pollution either. They passed the US in CO2 output.

I'll give you an easy one: where are the glaciers going?

I guess You dont want to talk about sea ice right now?

 

[ccbadd]

Discussing the global climate by talking about the temperature in your city is like discussing the national economy by discussing what your raise was this year. Meaningless.

What a dipshit! Talking about the Earth's climate in terms a a couple hundred years is even more stupid. Then idiots like you follow trumped up models and call them science, cry the sky is falling and the rest of the Lib-tard morons follow like lemmings. It's funny to see the dumbest people in the world on a crusade to save us all from fiction.

 

[StageLeft]

Drop the attitude in that last line.

YOU call everybody an idiot.

Anyway, this consensus you talk about among scientists is nothing more than a general agreement that human activity is influencing the earth and warming it. There is no consensus as to the degree it's warming it, how much damage (or benefit) it's giving, or how to reverse it.

You reverse straw man everything; you say "the scientific community" says something like mankind is warming the planet and then make the impossible jump to specifics, which are infrequently given by the scientific community to begin with and when they are they are in great disharmony.

 

[monovillage]

Just in one particular action, China has done a ton in reducing the use of resources & reducing its energy needs: population control.


You need to travel more.


I'll give you an easy one: where are the glaciers going?

Which glaciers? Some are growing, some are stable and some are declining.

http://www.iceagenow.com/List_of_Expanding_Glaciers.htm