• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Inconvenient climate change math

KLATTU

KLATTU

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 2, 2013
Messages
19,259
Reaction score
6,900
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
www.americanthinker.com

How to tell that the climate alarmists aren't serious

It's the math! I ask you: if someone proposes a (ridiculous) solution to an
www.americanthinker.com www.americanthinker.com

"Today, China accounts for 42% of the emissions from the top 10 CO2 emissions–producers. If man-made climate change is the existential problem of our time, you would assume that China would be a mandatory participant in the climate accords to cut emissions, but you would be wrong. China is not. As a matter of fact, China plans to increase its CO2 emissions, and by one account, it would average 13,800 over the next five years (the estimate for China's CO2 emissions are 12,900 to 14,700 Million MtCO2e).
China will become 50+% of the top 10 within 5 years, and overall emission will increase 4% from the top 10, and that assumes that India and Russia follow through on their commitments.

What do these data really tell us? China's projected increase in emissions will overwhelm the projected decrease in emissions if the other top 9 achieve their 15% goals."

So....let's review. The chances that China's CO2 emissions will increase as projected-highly likely.
The chances that the other 9 countries will reach their 15 % decrease -Highly unlikely.
Highly unlikely because that would mean liberals would have to turn their AC down in the summer and heat down in the winter. And take the bus. WE all know that ain't happenin.
 
KLATTU said:
www.americanthinker.com

How to tell that the climate alarmists aren't serious

It's the math! I ask you: if someone proposes a (ridiculous) solution to an
www.americanthinker.com www.americanthinker.com

"Today, China accounts for 42% of the emissions from the top 10 CO2 emissions–producers. If man-made climate change is the existential problem of our time, you would assume that China would be a mandatory participant in the climate accords to cut emissions, but you would be wrong. China is not. As a matter of fact, China plans to increase its CO2 emissions, and by one account, it would average 13,800 over the next five years (the estimate for China's CO2 emissions are 12,900 to 14,700 Million MtCO2e).
China will become 50+% of the top 10 within 5 years, and overall emission will increase 4% from the top 10, and that assumes that India and Russia follow through on their commitments.

What do these data really tell us? China's projected increase in emissions will overwhelm the projected decrease in emissions if the other top 9 achieve their 15% goals."

So....let's review. The chances that China's CO2 emissions will increase as projected-highly likely.
The chances that the other 9 countries will reach their 15 % decrease -Highly unlikely.
Highly unlikely because that would mean liberals would have to turn their AC down in the summer and heat down in the winter. And take the bus. WE all know that ain't happenin.
Click to expand...
China spends more on green energy than any country on earth
 
Thanks for the tacit admission to AGW. I'm sure it wasn't intended.
 
KLATTU said:
www.americanthinker.com

How to tell that the climate alarmists aren't serious

It's the math! I ask you: if someone proposes a (ridiculous) solution to an
www.americanthinker.com www.americanthinker.com

"Today, China accounts for 42% of the emissions from the top 10 CO2 emissions–producers. If man-made climate change is the existential problem of our time, you would assume that China would be a mandatory participant in the climate accords to cut emissions, but you would be wrong. China is not. As a matter of fact, China plans to increase its CO2 emissions, and by one account, it would average 13,800 over the next five years (the estimate for China's CO2 emissions are 12,900 to 14,700 Million MtCO2e).
China will become 50+% of the top 10 within 5 years, and overall emission will increase 4% from the top 10, and that assumes that India and Russia follow through on their commitments.

What do these data really tell us? China's projected increase in emissions will overwhelm the projected decrease in emissions if the other top 9 achieve their 15% goals."

So....let's review. The chances that China's CO2 emissions will increase as projected-highly likely.
The chances that the other 9 countries will reach their 15 % decrease -Highly unlikely.
Highly unlikely because that would mean liberals would have to turn their AC down in the summer and heat down in the winter. And take the bus. WE all know that ain't happenin.
Click to expand...
You’re forgetting that the point of most western climate change policy advocacy isn’t about getting results. It’s about delivering emotional satisfaction for the advocates.
 
NatMorton said:
You’re forgetting that the point of most western climate change policy advocacy isn’t about getting results. It’s about delivering emotional satisfaction for the advocates.
Click to expand...
Prove it
 
KLATTU said:
www.americanthinker.com

How to tell that the climate alarmists aren't serious

It's the math! I ask you: if someone proposes a (ridiculous) solution to an
www.americanthinker.com www.americanthinker.com

"Today, China accounts for 42% of the emissions from the top 10 CO2 emissions–producers. If man-made climate change is the existential problem of our time, you would assume that China would be a mandatory participant in the climate accords to cut emissions, but you would be wrong. China is not. As a matter of fact, China plans to increase its CO2 emissions, and by one account, it would average 13,800 over the next five years (the estimate for China's CO2 emissions are 12,900 to 14,700 Million MtCO2e).
China will become 50+% of the top 10 within 5 years, and overall emission will increase 4% from the top 10, and that assumes that India and Russia follow through on their commitments.

What do these data really tell us? China's projected increase in emissions will overwhelm the projected decrease in emissions if the other top 9 achieve their 15% goals."

So....let's review. The chances that China's CO2 emissions will increase as projected-highly likely.
The chances that the other 9 countries will reach their 15 % decrease -Highly unlikely.
Highly unlikely because that would mean liberals would have to turn their AC down in the summer and heat down in the winter. And take the bus. WE all know that ain't happenin.
Click to expand...
LMAO!!!

Talk about your "daily chuckle"...
 
vegas giants said:
China spends more on green energy than any country on earth
Click to expand...
Yes, they naturally spend more. They have 18.47% of the worlds population, the USA has 4.25%. India is in 2nd place with 17.7%.

They are developing. They are staring new. They still have places to build large scale hydropower. Naturally, having the largest population in the world, they should be spending the most.

Do you have a relevant point?
 
vegas giants said:
China has over three times our population.

Per capita the US has FAR more co2 emissions
Click to expand...
Yes, and when they bring more and more of their population into 1st world living standards, they will generate so much more yet.
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, they naturally spend more. They have 18.47% of the worlds population, the USA has 4.25%. India is in 2nd place with 17.7%.

They are developing. They are staring new. They still have places to build large scale hydropower. Naturally, having the largest population in the world, they should be spending the most.

Do you have a relevant point?
Click to expand...
We produce more co2 per capita. We are the problem
 
vegas giants said:
Yet we produce far more co2 per capita and they spend more on green energy
Click to expand...
And we would too if we had the need for more power and the money to do it with.

We are paying for their green and dirty power, because we buy so many things from China. We don't have enough money to keep subsidizing people on the government teat and rebuild an entire infrastructure.
 
Lord of Planar said:
And we would too if we had the need for more power and the money to do it with.

We are paying for their green and dirty power, because we buy so many things from China. We don't have enough money to keep subsidizing people on the government teat and rebuild an entire infrastructure.
Click to expand...
We buy things from China because we want to subsidize their green energy?


Hahahahahaha
 
American Stinker! LAFFTRIOT!
 
Quote:

I ask you: if someone proposes a (ridiculous) solution to an "existential problem" that has no chance of success, should we be forced to take the problem seriously?
----

Should anyone take this American Stinker article seriously? No!
 
Quote:

For those who say the globalists have a plan ... unless this solution is really a financial reordering. China seems to be the only country truly benefiting from the current green plans.
 
Quote:

Personally, I will continue the work on the math problems and real science to dispel the myth of "man-made climate change."
----

What garbage.
 
Antiwar said:
Quote:

For those who say the globalists have a plan ... unless this solution is really a financial reordering. China seems to be the only country truly benefiting from the current green plans.
Click to expand...
They have Clinton's global free trade working for them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom