Moonbox

No. With the industrialization of the developing world, emissions are going to accelerate. That's why it's so critically important to be researching an alternative to fossil fuels. Instead we're wasting monumental amounts of money on idiotic endeavors like bio-fuels, immature solar technology and doomed-to-failure climate treaties.

That's so unbelievably dense I'm genuinely feeling sorry for you. Read my last post again. Your request for a citation was stupid on the most fundamental level. You're requesting a citation proving the non-existence of something, namely the non-existent ability of climate scientists to accurately measure how responsible carbon emissions are for climate related disaster. This is monumentally stupid. It's like asking me to prove that aliens don't exist on another world, or that you weren't dropped on your head when you were a baby. It's not possible to prove their non-existence. Do you understand yet? The only thing more pathetic than failing this basic test of common sense is that you still didn't understand after it was plainly explained to you.

LOL! Now who's cherry-picking quotations!? Again folks, here's another example of waldo's favorite tactic: misdirection/redirection We can boil down this sub-argument into the following: Me: Nobody can accurately measure what % of weather related disasters are directly attributed to man made climate change. Waldo, clarify for us how climate scientists have determined this. Waldo: Citation please. Let me give you a quick lesson in basic logic, because you're clearly struggling. When you're arguing something, particularly when it comes to whether something exists or whether something previously happened, the burden of proof lies on the positive side of the argument. That's why defendants are innocent until proven guilty. You've probably heard that term before? If, for example, I claimed that you didn't know how to speak Spanish, how would this argument be solved? You, it seems, would demand citations proving that you did not speak Spanish, but this is absurd. How could I prove that? The only way this argument could be solved is by speaking Spanish to me. Similarly, I'm claiming that climate scientists, for various reasons I hope you can fathom, aren't able to accurately determine which % of climate-related disasters are attributed to man-made climate change. If this is not true, then please show us, because I cannot prove that something did not happen/does not exists. I had an idea of how your mind worked already, but your last post was just beautiful. You're not disappointing my expectation of chuckles.

The measurement of the monetary impact of climate change on these countries is at best inaccurate and leaning more towards abitrary. I'd love for you to provide us some insight on how climate scientists are able to determine which % of hurricane/typhoon/drought/flooding disasters can be attributed to man-made climate change and which is just pure random weather patterns. Citations please. I'm not sure about jbg, but my black-hole remark is not so much directed at fraud or misappropriation, but rather at this being good money chasing after bad. Much like helping out an incompetent relative with cash problems, throwing money from outside at Africa is going to have disappointing results. The money could be better used elsewhere.

Because the Climate Fund is a backwards-looking, misguided waste of funds directed more towards 'feel good' outcomes instead of actual results. Spending billions in countries that, relatively speaking, aren't even part of the problem doesn't reduce our overall emissions. The fact that many of these countries are veritable 'black holes' when it comes to development aid makes it worse. $100B/year could be better spent on clean and renewable energy research. These are things that could actually REDUCE emissions moving forward. For $100B annually we could duplicate the Manhattan Project in terms of scale and resources and make Fusion Power a reality.

After the recent attack on the French embassy in Iran, it appears shutting down the Canadian one showed excellent foresight. This was a good idea.

So as of August 31st there was ~18B delivered, more than half from Japan, with 4 months to go! http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2012/cop18/eng/inf01.pdf Yes! Are you?!? If we can't put together more than ~18B (let's even say 20) in two and a half or more years, and we have to scramble in the last 4 months to (hopefully) meet the ridiculously modest $30B target, I'm not particularly confident about the long term prospects, especially when half of it comes from Japan! So 4-5 years after Copenhagen we finally manage to launch the long-term fund. Bravo everyone! Let's see how long that red tape will stretch!

Fellow posters, here is an excellent example of "misdirection". Waldo won't answer the question: How much has the Green Climate Fund collected thus far? Knowing that the answer does not reflect well on the world's commitments, he's decided his best defence is to angrily demand citations showing that results have been disappointing. To humour him, at least maybe I can offer this, which confirms almost exactly what I'd been saying several pages back: http://practicalaction.org/blog/climate_change/changing-the-green-climate-fund/ Waldo, if that citation isn't good enough for you, please provide your own showing otherwise, otherwise quit your crying. Pick your poison. Whether it be the fast track financing agreed upon at Copenhagen (back in 2009), or cumulative long-term financing, show us some numbers. As far as I can dig up, both are failing to meet targets, which bodes poorly for the initiative's future success. "so far only about $30 billion has been pledged and just $11 billion raised" Since you've apparently decided you're the solemn authority on the subject, surely you can dig up something that says otherwise right? Surely your only defence isn't that you don't like our Google searches...... Doesn't this tell you something? If they take three years of stalling/bureaucracy to even get the official ball rolling, can you imagine how much more self-imposed red tape these master bureaucrats can pull together? Lol. You're really sore about that aren't you? Did highlighting to everyone how incompetently your posts were written bruise your ego? For all my stumbling etc, you've tripped and stuttered and danced around the one question I've been asking you for the last 5+ pages. How much has the Green Climate Fund collected thus far? Choose whatever starting point you want. Use the fast-start funds, the long-term funds or whatever you want. I just want to know how much money has been collected since 2009. You can natter and bore us all you want but if you're going to refuse to answer then we can all assume you've nothing else to say on the subject. I'll be sure to cross-post this 6 months from now so everyone can see how badly you were out-debated...That's what you like to do right!?

Seems someone's getting their panties twisted. Three times I've specifically asked how much has been collected for the Green Climate Fund. Three times the answer has that the fund has received: "You-have-no-understanding" amount of money. That's cute. Right...The fact that the fund has collected next to nothing over the first two years has no bearing whatsoever on its success thus far, nor on the likelihood that the "commitments" will ever be met. That's interesting "logic". The industrialized world, you see, needs several years to stall gear up for this sort of commitment. I mean, it's not as if anyone's saying this is urgent or anything... Cancun was winter 2010. They couldn't even put together HALF of the planned $30B in fast-start financing in nearly two years!! I typically don't interest myself much in other posters' grammar. Your writing, however, is incompetent to the point where people barely understand what you're saying. I wish you understood the irony of someone who regularly insults other posters' intelligence, yet can't unravel the mysteries of what makes a proper sentence.

Nuclear fusion will save the world within my lifetime.

Pretty sure the left won't make a martyr out of him. Maybe they'll criticize the conservatives for how he was handled (poorly) but even the NDP isn't dumb enough to support some kid who tossed a grenade at some US soldiers.

I asked you numerous times, in numerous different ways, how much money the Green Climate Fund has collected so far. I'll ask one more time, without teasers, without mockery: How much money has the Green Climate Fund collected so far? I can't ask the question any more clearly than that. The answer will give you a good indication on how tepid the support is for it, but I doubt you want to know or talk about that. Seems so! Imagine if every second sentence was written this poorly! That would make a great read wouldn't???

I'm not sure why you think this tactic is effective. Pretending that I'm outraged instead of just happily highlighting how brain-dead your posts are, proves what? It takes a very special type of person to mock proof-reading. I believe I asked you several times now how much money was collected over the last two years. You keep asserting that this is an important and legal agreement, so please prove it. Show us how firmly the West has committed to this and how successful it's been. I already provided my updated.

Oooh! Except here you are, nattering and nattering and quoting and re-quoting against pretty much anyone who pokes their head in. I think you're full of ****. Are you talking about the part where he quoted ME questioning the financing of the fund? As for editing, I edit all my posts, often immediately after I write them. It's pretty much always to fix errors. You should consider doing it yourself. Please look back a couple pages and notice how he's quoting ME If you think it would help, link a calendar, sure. How about you do something productive instead though, and do the math. That funding is going to have to grow 50% every year for the next 7 years to make the mark. That won't happen. Don't take my word for it though. Look back at this conversation in 2020 and remember this: I'll be laughing at you. I don't need to be an expert on climate negotiation to know something about pragmatism and about basic human nature. Do I need to link you a long history of failed international treaties? I can if you like. These treaties also had far bigger teeth than neutered ones like Copenhagen (which was an utter failure by the way). I'll also give you an update on the fund. It's not doing so hot!

Do you know what distinction means? It doesn't appear that you do. I'm merely highlighting that nobody has any moral high ground here. It's funny how you're insulting everyone's intelligence in this thread. I suggest you stop. Learn the arcane mysteries of the period, comma and semi-colon, and perhaps you won't look like the petulent, barely-coherent child you appear to be. The above paragraph is just a nightmare to read. Here's a tip: Don't ever use semi-colons. Most people can't use them properly and you can't even get the period or comma right so this is well beyond you. I've already asked you: How much money has been collected for the Green Climate Fund so far? By 2020 it's supposed to be $100B/year. The answer should tell you how much the West is committed to these toothless treaty negotiations and how far off your wishful thinking is from reality.

$100B/year by 2020, and how much has been collected so far...$10-12 total for 2010-2012? The English language keeps escaping you. The fact that you keep using words you don't even understand speaks volumes, both about how desperate you are to sound smart and then how far off the mark you end up being. The entire last paragraph of your response is almost incoherent. I barely have a clue as to what you're saying, so any attempt at a response is pretty pointless.

The alternative is that the state looks after the caring for this child. Since the state did not put its schlong in the hole, and the man did, it seems more fitting that the man pay for the consequences of his actions rather than the state. That's pretty basic logic I think. Lesson to learn: Don't put your weiner in strange holes without protection. I'll acknowledge that it's much harder than it sounds, but it's something you have to think of before you forget your name drinking.

It is, but you can't stop either. Nobody is condoning it, but it's dumb and naive to pretend it doesn't exist or that it can be eliminated.

It's sad, comical and infuriating all at the same time. It's starting to sould like Chinese or Soviet-style bureaucracy. The Minister for the Regulation of Safety Standards for Toilet Seats...I await the day.

I think it takes a special set of qualities to make it to the top of politics, and a lot of these are not conductive to an honest way of life. They say power corrupts, and I'm sure that's true to an extent, but I also think that the people who seek political power are also the same type who'll abuse it.

I am satisfied, but fairly annoyed that they would have such a tool as the Minister for the Status of Women. The Conservative Party's track record is pretty sketchy in that regard, and you start to wonder why the number of ministers was expanded so much when you're just bringing idiots like Maxime Bernier, Bev Oda and this tool to fill the positions.

I knew it! The light of cynicism has finally opened your mind! This is a proud day.

Having a 'scientific' debate about this is ridiculous proposition. The debate would be idealogically driven and having it in the first place implies that the current rights of women are in question. Ministers have a commitment to their constituents but that doesn't overshadow basic human rights. The masses can come up with all sorts of stupid ideas and a good minister will ignore most of them. As for sacking, she sets a pretty horrible standard as the Minister of the Status of Women or whatever it is. She's made the position farcical, and she should be shuffled out of cabinet at the earliest possible moment.

Not when it involves taking away someone else's rights. As a minister she should be sacked. Harper doing so would send a strong message to the Bible-thumping morons in his party about how far this debate is going to go with him in charge.

I isolate parts of your response because you write poorly, you over-quote and you try and win your arguments through long-winded brute force and exhaustive nattering rather than making clear points. The distinction you're making between emissions reduction targets and transfer payments for mitigation/adaptation is noted. It simply has no bearing on my argument. The disparity is obvious but the emissions were simply a bi-product of being wealthy and industrialized. The attitude seems to be that the USA nefariously churned out pollution and in became wealthy by polluting, as if this in itself is a profitable business. The developing world didn't pollute because they were under-developed and poorly governed, not because of any strong moral stance. When claiming that long-industrialized countries should 'pay' for their past emissions, we're complicating a debate which for all intents and purposes has only one goal: reducing current and future emissions. Reference levels and overall reduction targets are going to be ham-fisted and fairly arbitrary. No agreement will be reached if it's based on the instistence that old polluters pay meaningfully for past pollution. This is not a statement on the fairness of the situation, but merely a practical assessment of human selfishness, particularly on a macro/geo-political level. If climate change is such a big concern, an agreement should be reachable based on emission reduction alone. The only way we're going to reduce emissions is to tax emissions themselves to the point where industry/consumers start to alter their behaviour. This, however, has to be universal or it's going to be pointless. The revenues from this can be pooled centrally and re-distributed to clean energy research and, if necessary, mitigation for countries coping with climate change, but moreso the first as far as I'm concerned, as it leads us towards an actual solution rather than damage control.