You go ahead and keep kicking that strawman's ass.
You made the claim that there is no significant warming going on. I posted papers refuting it by showing the largest reservoir of heat - the ocean - is warming. Do you even know what a strawman is? Jesus Christ, Darrin. You're really ing dumb, you know that?
You have no room, you're be@ner.
He is correct in that there is no significant atmospheric or surface warming. The ocean is another matter.
With a small weiner and no balls to debate me.
If climate change is destroying the Earth like Al Gore says it is, can the Earth be saved? Is it worth saving the Earth? How are you going to convince 6 billion people that driving their cars is destroying Earth and that in order to save Earth, they have to give their cars up? Do you really think humanity is going to make a sacrifice like that?
al gore will save it if you just pay him a carbon tax!
But seriously, how is humanity going to save itself from climate change? Is it really realistic to think that every human being will give up their car just to save the planet?
on Monday’s All In show, Hayes had a good segment on “The Republican allure of climate change denialism.”
He makes the point that I have argued for the past decade, “the real reason conservatives don’t believe in climate science” is they can’t stand the solution.
Hayes plays an excerpt from remarks by hard-core denier Rep. Dana “dinosaur flatulence” Rohrabacher (R-CA):
ROHRABACHER: Just so you’ll know, global warming is a total fraud. The federal government, they want to create global government to control all of our lives. That’s what their game plan is. It’s step by step by step more and bigger control over our lives by higher levels of government. And global warming is simply that strategy in spades.
HAYES: Now, the whole “global warming is a liberal conspiracy” line is understandably a big hit among the conservative base, but in delivering that line, Congressman Rohrabacher tips his hand to the reasoning behind his global warming denialism, which basically goes like this: If global warming is real, then the government would need to intervene to fix it, but we don’t like government intervention. Therefore, global warming cannot be real.
That’s it. That is the logic behind the pervasive view on climate change on the right: We don’t like the solutions to this problem, so we officially declare this not to be a problem.
Luntz’s infamous (and still must-read) 2002 “Straight Talk” memo on climate change messaging was designed for conservatives who want to sound like they care about global warming even as they twist the knife in deeper:
Technology and innovation are the key in arguments on both sides. Global warming alarmists use American superiority in technology and innovation quite effectively in responding to accusations that international agreements such as the Kyoto accord could cost the United States billions. Rather than condemning corporate America the way most environmentalists have done in the past, they attack us for lacking faith in our collective ability to meet any economic challenges presented by environmental changes we make. This should be our argument. We need to emphasize how voluntary innovation and experimentation are preferable to bureaucratic or international intervention and regulation.
More than a decade later, the playbook is exactly the same! Basically, as Hayes shows, we progressives can talk about global warming as much as we want as long as we don’t propose anything that might actually solve the problem in a timely fashion.
http://reneweconomy.com.au/2013/why-....36Eu5CH3.dpuf
Amazing that Hayes doesn't come out and say the Real Reason conservatives don't like AGW is that they are paid by BigCarbon to deny AGW. Always Follow The Money.
Why is it America's responsibility to solve/fix global warming? You do realize it's global warming right? Not America warming.
It's not America's exclusive responsibility, but as the Biggest Baddest Carbon-spewing, Energy-consuming Planetary Empire currently, America could set the example, take leadership, but of course US's BigCarbon pre-empts that with its $Bs.
You are behind the times. China is now in the #1 spot.
Except we're not the biggest.
lol buzzwords.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...xide_emissions
His RSS feed let him down...again!
Again, what can people do to stop climate change? Do you really think it's possible or even realistic for people to give up their cars? How can someone that lives in Wyoming or Montana give up their car? You gonna buy them a horse?
You don't have to give up cars to stop/slow climate change. smh
There's likely 10,000 other targets before we even get to cars.
We are now a dent in the climate problem. We emit very few aerosols, and most the climate scientists will agree CO2 has minor impact without the magical positive feedback that cannot be demonstrated.
Look at what this study says about CO2, and how they amplify it
link: The Role of Ocean-Atmospheric Interactions in the CO2 Climate problem
They say CO2 has a direct surface effect of 1.2 W/m^2 rather than the 3.7 W/m^2 when accounting for the overlap with H2O, for a doubling of CO2. They go on to claim a total of 15.5 W/m^2 with the vapor feedback, and a 2.2 degree increase.
Note...
Their temperate increase for the doubling of CO2 without the feedback is 0.17 degrees...
No matter how much I look, it appears they model such formulas to explain a greater increase in solar energy than they want to account for. They never explain how they eliminated other possible influences properly.
There are less than 100 countries that don't use our newer technologies, and emit a substantial level of pollutions.
It depends. We're bigger than China per capita. I think thats a more important indicator, quite frankly.
Yes, we emit more pollution per capita, but less as a total.
What happens when more of China's population starts coming our of the dark ages. It's a pretty small percentage of China's population enjoying fresh water, electricity, transportation freedom, etc.
USA is not a dent
USA, thanks the to corruption of BigCarbon, cannot go to China, India, Australia and say "follow our example, we'll help you scrub are your coal burning, etc, etc. We devleoped the technology for our coal plants and will make it available"
Please note I specified aerosols, and excluded CO2. Your chart is CO2.[
USA is not a dent
USA, thanks the to corruption of BigCarbon, cannot go to China, India, Australia and say "follow our example, we'll help you scrub are your coal burning, etc, etc. We devleoped the technology for our coal plants and will make it available"
Boutons, did you notice what the chart shows and says? First off, it is a 2009 total, and compares to 2008.
China is #1, at 7,711 million tons of CO2. 13.4% greater than 2008.
The USA is #2 at 5,425 million tons, 7% less than 2008.
India is #3 at 1,602 million tons, 8.7% greater than 2008.
Russia is #4 at 1,572 million tons, 7.4% less than 2008.
Japan is #5 at 1,098 million tons, 9.7% less than 2008.
Here is a larger/readable version of it in PDF form:
link: Yale CO2 drawing
Now I don't expect the 2008 to 2009 trends to remain constant, but if they did, then China now emits 3 times more CO2 than the USA.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 08-15-2013 at 10:54 PM.
Fox Repug Propaganda network keeping its viewer broadly, deeply, accurately informed on climate
Fox News: ‘There’s No Question That The Polar Bear Is Thriving’
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/201...r-is-thriving/
If you say so.
The polar bear is another animal being hunted in excess. There First, the UN had to place hunting limits on seals, now bears. Nothing new to see here.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 08-16-2013 at 06:18 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
