- Joined
- Mar 18, 2018
- Messages
- 51,481
- Reaction score
- 17,732
- Location
- San Diego
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Being a liberal you wouldn't recognize a point if you tripped over it.
Being a liberal you wouldn't recognize a point if you tripped over it.You never had a point. Let's start from there, shall we?
What the hell do "bible thumpers" have to do with weather science. You're just spewing random LW blather.No they won't. Agreeing with others because that's where the science led them is not "anti-science". That's the territory of bible thumpers who don't understand science and therefore 'god did it' is their lame claim.
What about his sneakers, his watches and his fake guitars?Not true. You love the propaganda huh....
The hats you find at trumps site are made in the USA. If you buy from Amazon, you get someone profiting from counterfeit hats. Don't you ever verify any facts before you post, or do you like it when people prove you are pushing lies?
Are Donald Trump's “Make America Great Again” Caps Made in China?
Viral image suggests Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" hats are manufactured in China.www.snopes.com
View attachment 67575781
Thankfully the US elected the most anti intellectual and anti science regime possible that also wants to scrap FEMA. And the states that helped usher this in, totally aren’t the ones that will be hit the hardest by this.
Also thankfully the NWS is being gutted as well and this totally won’t impact the ability to track any of this weather accurately.
But hey, as long as developers and oil executive scum keep hoarding wealth to then hide in their apocalypse bunker, then everything is good and that’s all that matters.
The US was the greatest emitter of CO2 for about 150 years.EU and US are no longer the problem in this regard and haven't been for quite some time. And we are doing better year to year.
If you don't like global warming then take it out on China, Russia, India and Asia in general nowadays.
If you take US then it is more or less 25% of world gdp, if you take all of Europe excluding Russia and not just European Union we are also more or less 25% of world GDP. But we barely have any emissions by those numbers.
So while we are around 50% of global gdp, we are 30% of global CO2 emissions(actually less but lets say 30), perhaps we are not the problem?
you are right
because little humans don't impact global temperatures and there is absolutely no plan/target on degree's other than to use the fluctuations for a trillion dollar industry
The US was the greatest emitter of CO2 for about 150 years.
China didn't become the largest emitter until 2005 when it was rapidly indutrializing
It is disingenuous to wash our hands of over a century of putting CO2 into the atmosphere and then say we shouldn't lead the way because of China.
It makes little sense.
This comment doesn’t seem to reflect reality. Yes, China has been adding coal power plants, but they have been adding renewables faster so to say that they don’t care about the environment doesn’t ring true.The elephant in the room that the left refuses to address with respect to greenhouse gasses is China. (and to a lesser extent, India). Those countries keep pumping out more greenhouse gasses, and adding new energy sources that will generate them long into the future (like inefficient coal plants). All of the work the US and other countries have done to reduce emissions is more than offset by those countries. China is now producing about half the world's greenhouse gasses, as well as a tremendous portion of particulate matter and other pollutants.
The thing is that the US's reliance on trade with them is subsidizing that pollution. China is able to produce things cheaply because they don't care about things like the environment, their people, intellectual property rights, etc. Ironically, one of the best things we could do to combat this is to make their goods more expensive (tariffs) and then tie it to them addressing those things. Trump at least got it half right.
China has a large area for hypro power. We hav no more viable places for hydro. We used it long ago.Comparing renewables in the US (23%) vs China (31%), China is way ahead and Trump will see to it that their lead only widens:
When you bring more power to China and bring more people into the modern world, China's emissions well be greater per capita than ours.When you look at CO2 emissions on a per capita basis the US ( 14.22) is way more than China (8.89). India mentioned above is at a tiny 1.89. Saying that a country is bad from an environmental perspective only because it has way more people doesn’t make sense.
They don't understand science because their 'god' did it and that's all they need to know, and the religious nuts tend to be the most vocal, and ignorant, deniers of climate change.What the hell do "bible thumpers" have to do with weather science. You're just spewing random LW blather.
Lomborg has his opinions. He's a political scientist, not a climatologist-and neither does he have qualifications in any discipline relevant to climate change.LOL...
Are you channeling them?
Do you rrad the science journals?
Wow...
LOL...
The guy they talk to here is a real climate scientist:
Nonsense; China is investing tens of billions toward addressing both pollution and greenhouse emissions. Likewise India.You continue to miss the point. And yes, the US is one of the leaders in finding ways to reduce CO2 emissions and particulates.
China and India aren't trying.
I had him confused with another scientist when I found that. Regardless. Nobody has been able to discredit his book regarding the climate. He has studied environmental sciences too. He has a firm grasp on the topic.Lomborg has his opinions. He's a political scientist, not a climatologist-and neither does he have qualifications in any discipline relevant to climate change.
You're right, it makes NO sense, as in none, for your continued focus on the past.The US was the greatest emitter of CO2 for about 150 years.
China didn't become the largest emitter until 2005 when it was rapidly indutrializing
It is disingenuous to wash our hands of over a century of putting CO2 into the atmosphere and then say we shouldn't lead the way because of China.
It makes little sense.
How do you know "nobody has discredited his book"? In any event he is in agreement that AGW is happening; what he does have issues with is how global economy may or may not be affected.I had him confused with another scientist when I found that. Regardless. Nobody has been able to discredit his book regarding the climate. He has studied environmental sciences too. He has a firm grasp on the topic.
It Is the reality. Repeating - you can't reduce global CO2 emissions without addressing China.This comment doesn’t seem to reflect reality.
Yes, they don't care about the environment. They've been pumping out an ever increasing amount of greenhouse gasses and particulate matter, and even as you point out, have a heavy reliance on coal. Again, the percentages of renewables even are based on China's statements (and they lie).Yes, China has been adding coal power plants, but they have been adding renewables faster so to say that they don’t care about the environment doesn’t ring true.
Even as coal plants multiply, and coal burning edges upwards, the average plant is also burning less coal. In the early 2000s, Chinese coal plants were running roughly 70 percent of the time, but today they are running only around 50 percent of the time. In competition with cheap solar and wind, a large share of coal plants are now operating at a loss.
As renewables continue to grow in China, writes Oxford data scientist Hannah Ritchie, coal generators will increasingly serve as “peaker” plants, meeting spikes in demand or gaps in supply. “Most of the world is used to gas playing that role. But China has never embraced gas,” she writes. “So, coal is the ‘flexible’ or ‘peaker’ fuel of choice.”
I already discussed the predictable response of per capita emissions previously. To summarize: 1) If you are worried about global emissions, you have to address the people pumping it out, 2) The US is reducing emissions while China is increasing, 3) Looking at per GDP (which would make more sense) China is terrible.When you look at CO2 emissions on a per capita basis the US ( 14.22) is way more than China (8.89). India mentioned above is at a tiny 1.89. Saying that a country is bad from an environmental perspective only because it has way more people doesn’t make sense.
I already linked you to what China-and India-are doing (post #212) You would do yourself a favour by actually reading what you are presented with, instead of persisting with posting falsehoods.It Is the reality. Repeating - you can't reduce global CO2 emissions without addressing China.
Yes, they don't care about the environment. They've been pumping out an ever increasing amount of greenhouse gasses and particulate matter, and even as you point out, have a heavy reliance on coal. Again, the percentages of renewables even are based on China's statements (and they lie).
Even with renewables they show a disregard for the environment. The bulk of this is hydroelectric, and even there they build dams in the most environmentally destructive ways possible. This would NEVER be allowed in the US, and without destructive dam building the US lacks the resources to add significant capacity in hydroelectric - arguably one of the easiest and cleanest form of energy.
I already discussed the predictable response of per capita emissions previously. To summarize: 1) If you are worried about global emissions, you have to address the people pumping it out, 2) The US is reducing emissions while China is increasing, 3) Looking at per GDP (which would make more sense) China is terrible.
Here is the full chart that was linked earlier.Yeah but that exactly shows that we have improved. And why we are not the problem anymore and somewhere else is.
If you want to do something about global warming or climate change then you have to accept it and put pressure now on places that produce far more emissions than both US and EU put together aka China, India, Russia and Asia in general.
That is just the reality of it.
THe only thing that matters apparently is the past 20 years.You're right, it makes NO sense, as in none, for your continued focus on the past.
It's very much akin to the slavery discussion that was renewed here, by the Democrats, to avoid the issues/problems of today as it allows you to blame others.
Put the blame where the blame lies.
Not nonsense. Reality. And investing in renewables isn't the same thing. Even their hydroelectric energy is created in the most destructive way possible. And repeating - you can't address greenhouse gasses on a global scale without addressing those countries.Nonsense; China is investing tens of billions toward addressing both pollution and greenhouse emissions. Likewise India.
I addressed #212 separately.I already linked you to what China-and India-are doing (post #212) [deflection removed]
Really the issue is the last 40 years. Yes, the US and other countries benefitted from the industrial revolution - as did the world as a whole. But then we also had a shift and awareness of the impact of pollution, and started addressing it in the 70's-80's, and countries also learned to rely on and harness less destructive forms of energy, and cleaner technology. Again, most of the world benefitted from this. You started to see a shift downward across the board - US, Europe, and other countries - decreased emissions and increased output.THe only thing that matters apparently is the past 20 years.
Ignore the 150 years before that.
Who isnt in agreement? Do you gave a point?How do you know "nobody has discredited his book"? In any event he is in agreement that AGW is happening; what he does have issues with is how global economy may or may not be affected.
The last 40 years has been a faction funded by oil companies that have denied that climate change is a thing so no one would have to take action on it and now it is well.... we can't do anything until China does even though the US put the vast majority of CO2 into the air.Really the issue is the last 40 years. Yes, the US and other countries benefitted from the industrial revolution - as did the world as a whole. But then we also had a shift and awareness of the impact of pollution, and started addressing it in the 70's-80's, and countries also learned to rely on and harness less destructive forms of energy, and cleaner technology. Again, most of the world benefitted from this. You started to see a shift downward across the board - US, Europe, and other countries - decreased emissions and increased output.
Some countries like China and India said 'screw it, we're using coal' and countered all of those improvements. Not because they couldn't, or didn't no how, or why it was important, but because they didn't care.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?