Canadian vs. US Attitudes on Climate Change

[lukin]

you are so clueless... you actually think you're relevant. There isn't a single thing... not one thing... that you've been correct about. Then again, what have you actually attempted to be right about with your incessant lukinWay™ pattern of dropped links, added without any relevancy and/or attached commentary? As for time, don't worry... it quite literally takes a minute to dispense with any tripe you parrot.

here... you can run... but you can't hide. Is there a reason you're avoiding this:

well... what is it?

Again you continue to babble. Waldo, why is this forum you life?

I suppose this is over your head. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/gw-spectrum-summary1.jpg

http://www.hk-climate.org/ice.html

Waldo, you are a useless tool.

Edited March 1, 2011 by lukin

[waldo]

here... you can run... but you can't hide. Is there a reason you're avoiding this:

let's also not lose the opportunity to highlight you failed to provide the substantiation to your claim that a natural, as you say, "always occurring" cycle is responsible for the post 1980 accelerated warming. As I stated, "

you don’t identify its supporting mechanism. A change in global energy balance must be attributed to some type of forcing, natural and/or otherwise. You have not attributed that forcing, that causal supporting mechanism you would attribute to a natural, as you say, “always occurring” cycle. What is it?

" ... well... what is it?

well... what is it?

Again you continue to babble. Waldo, why is this forum you life?

I'm here responding to your every post... is this forum... your life? But really, is there a problem? Is there a reason you don't boldly, loudly and proudly, pronounce the attribution for your claimed natural, as you say, "always occurring", cycle... the one you state associates to today's accelerated warming? Is there a problem, you continue to avoid answering the request... is there a reason you're ducking it? Is there a problem?

I suppose this is over your head. http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/gw-spectrum-summary1.jpg

http://www.hk-climate.org/ice.html

Waldo, you are a useless tool

do you have something relevant to state, ala your lukinWay™ dropped link references? Do you have a point you'd like to make, an argument you're presenting? Are you so challenged that you can't actually offer a synopsis of your dropped links... something related/relevant to the topic... something you're offering as a point of discussion... a reference for debate? Let me acquaint you with one of the MLW board rules; a rule that you consistently, over and over and over, are breaking... that you've broken, repeatedly, for months and months on end. I trust at some point, board moderation will actually see fit to enforce it:

POSTING CONTENT

All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted.

keep dropping those 'out of the blue', unrelated and irrelevant link references... your lukinWay™ "ta da" specials... I long ago quit opening them. I mean, after all - you can't be bothered to actually frame a point of discussion, position an argument or set-up a debate angle. Why should anyone give your denier, blog science, bullshit dropped link references the time of day? At this point, I certainly don't; I've long since quit opening them. Keep breaking the quoted MLW rule... it's what you do... it's the only thing you do.

[lukin]

You don't read my links because they prove how wrong you are. You are afraid of opposition. It's easier for you to continue with your ignorant methods. Each of my links is just another piece in the puzzle explaining why humans aren't causing climate change.

Have a nice day, hermit.

Edited March 1, 2011 by lukin

[waldo]

keep dropping those 'out of the blue', unrelated and irrelevant link references... your lukinWay™ "ta da" specials... I long ago quit opening them. I mean, after all - you can't be bothered to actually frame a point of discussion, position an argument or set-up a debate angle. Why should anyone give your denier, blog science, bullshit dropped link references the time of day? At this point, I certainly don't; I've long since quit opening them. Keep breaking the quoted MLW rule... it's what you do... it's the only thing you do.

POSTING CONTENT

All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted.

You don't read my links because they prove how wrong you are. You are afraid of opposition. It's easier for you to continue with your ignorant methods. Each of my links is just another piece in the puzzle explaining why humans aren't causing climate change.

Have a nice day, hermit.

a simple cut and paste will deal with your ongoing sham/charade, hey? Another handy bookmarked link that you will see repeatedly played back to you - enjoy!

There isn't a single thing... not one thing... that you've been correct about. Then again, what have you actually attempted to be right about with your incessant

lukinWay™

pattern of dropped links, added without any relevancy and/or attached commentary?

keep dropping those 'out of the blue', unrelated and irrelevant link references... your

lukinWay™

"ta da" specials... I long ago quit opening them. I mean, after all - you can't be bothered to actually frame a point of discussion, position an argument or set-up a debate angle. Why should anyone give your denier, blog science, bullshit dropped link references the time of day? At this point, I certainly don't; I've long since quit opening them. Keep breaking the quoted MLW rule... it's what you do... it's the only thing you do.

POSTING CONTENT

All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted.

here... you can run... but you can't hide. Is there a reason you're avoiding this:

let's also not lose the opportunity to highlight you failed to provide the substantiation to your claim that a natural, as you say, "always occurring" cycle is responsible for the post 1980 accelerated warming. As I stated, "

you don’t identify its supporting mechanism. A change in global energy balance must be attributed to some type of forcing, natural and/or otherwise. You have not attributed that forcing, that causal supporting mechanism you would attribute to a natural, as you say, “always occurring” cycle. What is it?

" ... well... what is it?

well... what is it?

well... what is it?

[lukin]

Actually I found the "ode of waldo". :lol:

:lol: Edited March 1, 2011 by lukin

[GWiz]

...or Martin or Chretien...they completely blew off Kyoto, while the Americans, who never even ratified the treaty, slowed the growth in emissions far better than in Canada. Go figure.

But then the US couldn't BUY our dirty oil...

The rest - if Canada was 100% "pollution free" the planet wouldn't notice - 'cause

EVERYBODY KNOWS the U.S. of A. is the world's BIGGEST POLLUTER!

[waldo]

But then the US couldn't BUY our dirty oil...

The rest - if Canada was 100% "pollution free" the planet wouldn't notice - 'cause

EVERYBODY KNOWS the U.S. of A. is the world's BIGGEST POLLUTER!

slowed the growth in emissions by outsourcing them to China & India

[waldo]

:lol:

:lol:

well... what is it? Is there a problem? Is there a reason you continue to avoid providing the substantiation to your claim that a natural, as you say, "always occurring" cycle is responsible for the post 1980 accelerated warming? In all your bluster/fluster, somehow, you can't seem to find the time to provide the forcing attribution that would substantiate your claimed causal tie to the mechanism you would associate to a natural, as you say, "always occurring" cycle. What is it?

here... you can run... but you can't hide. Is there a reason you're avoiding this:

let's also not lose the opportunity to highlight you failed to provide the substantiation to your claim that a natural, as you say, "always occurring" cycle is responsible for the post 1980 accelerated warming. As I stated, "

you don’t identify its supporting mechanism. A change in global energy balance must be attributed to some type of forcing, natural and/or otherwise. You have not attributed that forcing, that causal supporting mechanism you would attribute to a natural, as you say, “always occurring” cycle. What is it?

" ... well... what is it?

well... what is it?

well... what is it?

[lukin]

well... what is it? Is there a problem? Is there a reason you continue to avoid providing the substantiation to your claim that a natural, as you say, "always occurring" cycle is responsible for the post 1980 accelerated warming? In all your bluster/fluster, somehow, you can't seem to find the time to provide the forcing attribution that would substantiate your claimed causal tie to the mechanism you would associate to a natural, as you say, "always occurring" cycle. What is it?

Once again "an ode to waldo" superhermit. :lol:

[waldo]

:lol:

well... what is it?

well... what is it? Is there a problem? Is there a reason you continue to avoid providing the substantiation to your claim that a natural, as you say, "always occurring" cycle is responsible for the post 1980 accelerated warming? In all your bluster/fluster, somehow, you can't seem to find the time to provide the forcing attribution that would substantiate your claimed causal tie to the mechanism you would associate to a natural, as you say, "always occurring" cycle. What is it?

here... you can run... but you can't hide. Is there a reason you're avoiding this:

let's also not lose the opportunity to highlight you failed to provide the substantiation to your claim that a natural, as you say, "always occurring" cycle is responsible for the post 1980 accelerated warming. As I stated, "

you don’t identify its supporting mechanism. A change in global energy balance must be attributed to some type of forcing, natural and/or otherwise. You have not attributed that forcing, that causal supporting mechanism you would attribute to a natural, as you say, “always occurring” cycle. What is it?

" ... well... what is it?

well... what is it?

well... what is it?

[lukin]

well... what is it?

Waldo, you know nothing about climate science. You do nothing but post boring, useless quotes fro the likes of george Moonbat. You have no credibility. Move on and get a life.

until then, enjoy your tribute.

[GostHacked]

slowed the growth in emissions by outsourcing them to China & India

Your article does not say the emissions are dropping.

[waldo]

slowed the growth in emissions by outsourcing them to China & India

Your article does not say the emissions are dropping.

dropping? I believe the words 'slowed growth' were used... words that reflected upon the quote/statement that GWiz was replying to... point in fact is that U.S. CO2 emissions today have declined 2.1% from 2007 levels due to the recession, increased use of natural gas, sustainable energy and efficiencies (source: NRDC). However, a 2.1% reduction is bupkis for the world's number one consumer nation... as stated several times in other MLW threads, the effective static level of emissions the U.S. realizes, in the face of having no formalized domestic emissions reduction strategy/plan, results from having outsourced emissions to China/India... see linked article.

[GostHacked]

dropping? I believe the words 'slowed growth' were used... words that reflected upon the quote/statement that GWiz was replying to... point in fact is that U.S. CO2 emissions today have declined 2.1% from 2007 levels due to the recession, increased use of natural gas, sustainable energy and efficiencies (source: NRDC). However, a 2.1% reduction is bupkis for the world's number one consumer nation... as stated several times in other MLW threads, the effective static level of emissions the U.S. realizes, in the face of having no formalized domestic emissions reduction strategy/plan, results from having outsourced emissions to China/India... see linked article.

Industrialized slow growth does not mean a reduction in C02 emissions. It means that the rate of new carbon emissions is slowing. Emissions overall are still going up.

Emissions have been decreased in North America, but that decrease is negated by other countries taking up the slack and then even emitting even more.

Try again Waldo.

[lukin]

Industrialized slow growth does not mean a reduction in C02 emissions. It means that the rate of new carbon emissions is slowing. Emissions overall are still going up.

Emissions have been decreased in North America, but that decrease is negated by other countries taking up the slack and then even emitting even more.

Try again Waldo.

Oh great gosthacked. I foresee massive blockquotes very soon.

[waldo]

Industrialized slow growth does not mean a reduction in C02 emissions. It means that the rate of new carbon emissions is slowing. Emissions overall are still going up.

Emissions have been decreased in North America, but that decrease is negated by other countries taking up the slack and then even emitting even more.

Try again Waldo.

huh! Look, buddy... let me help your comprehension difficulty... you were the one that first brought up a dropping reference... and now you're the first to speak of global emissions. The post GWiz responded to was with respect to U.S. emissions... GWiz's reply was with respect to U.S. emissions... my reply was with respect to U.S. emissions. So - you've now reached twice beyond what was being discussed/referenced; i.e., now displayed your comprehension difficulty, twice.

my reference to slowed U.S. growth reflected upon the outsourcing emissions angle (again, read the linked reference); however, on the strictest level I spoke to sourced statistics from the NRDC (since 2007) that spoke of a 2.1% decline in U.S. CO2 emissions - which, as stated, were attributed to everything but policy; i.e., the recession, increased use of natural gas, sustainable energy and efficiencies.

however, in your zeal to show your comprehension difficulty, I've brought you more recent statistics (from 2009)... from the U.S. EIA: where we see, for the first time, that world emissions have reduced (down 0.3% on 2008 levels). I trust you will also take note of the detail rankings as well as the reference to the U.S. reduction (with the pointed comment, "The decline has matched the country’s economic woes which have seen it only just emerge from recession"). So, again, and... of course... a U.S. reduction realized not through policy - since none exists.

would you like a do-over?

[bush_cheney2004]

Hey...that's 8...count 'em... 8 "U.S."'s in one post...pretty impressive!

[GWiz]

Hey...that's 8...count 'em... 8 "U.S."'s in one post...pretty impressive!

Alway's happy when the US get's noticed, even for the worst of reasons, eh...

[GostHacked]

huh! Look, buddy... let me help your comprehension difficulty... you were the one that first brought up a dropping reference... and now you're the first to speak of global emissions. The post GWiz responded to was with respect to U.S. emissions... GWiz's reply was with respect to U.S. emissions... my reply was with respect to U.S. emissions. So - you've now reached twice beyond what was being discussed/referenced; i.e., now displayed your comprehension difficulty, twice.

Well, you are looking at a narrow set of data, something you accuse the 'deniers' of everytime we bring up a cold spell, or the global cooling thing, or the medieval warming period. Being too narrow focused is something you accused me and JBG of.

my reference to slowed U.S. growth reflected upon the outsourcing emissions angle (again, read the linked reference); however, on the strictest level I spoke to sourced statistics from the NRDC (since 2007) that spoke of a 2.1% decline in U.S. CO2 emissions - which, as stated, were attributed to everything but policy; i.e., the recession, increased use of natural gas, sustainable energy and efficiencies.

If it's anthropogenic, then you must look at total global stats. Something you keep harping on everyone else for. Sure there is a decline in the USA. No doubt. However, countries like India and China are taking up the slack and emitting MORE, so there is still a net increase in CO2 output. I am surprised this is lost on you, because that would kind of support your overall stance on climate change being anthropogenic.

however, in your zeal to show your comprehension difficulty, I've brought you more recent statistics (from 2009)... from the U.S. EIA: where we see, for the first time, that world emissions have reduced (down 0.3% on 2008 levels). I trust you will also take note of the detail rankings as well as the reference to the U.S. reduction (with the pointed comment, "The decline has matched the country’s economic woes which have seen it only just emerge from recession"). So, again, and... of course... a U.S. reduction realized not through policy - since none exists.

Now see, that's better. And I agree a recession might help with reduction of CO2 since less production means less emissions.

would you like a do-over?

Nah, keep it, you are gonna need it.

[waldo]

Well, you are looking at a narrow set of data, something you accuse the 'deniers' of everytime we bring up a cold spell, or the global cooling thing, or the medieval warming period. Being too narrow focused is something you accused me and JBG of.

you truly are obtuse! This wasn't/isn't a discussion that reflects upon trending... GWiz quoted a member who stated, "the U.S. had slowed the growth in emissions far better than in Canada"... no timeframe was alluded to. I didn't miss the opportunity, as I've done several times in the past, to highlight the effective outsourcing of developed countries emissions to China/India (drawing attention to the same linked article that's been referenced and discussed at length in another MLW thread)... and, again, no timeframe was alluded to.

since you didn't comprehend and decided to challenge the article by stating it, "does not say the emissions are dropping" (even though no mention of dropped emissions had been made to that point... only slowed growth/rate), I did reference NRDC statistics that showed a decline in U.S. emissions since 2007; specifically, a decline of 2.1% from 2007 levels due to the recession, increased use of natural gas, sustainable energy and efficiencies... and, of course, the reason I highlighted that was to impress the point that the minuscule reduction did not result from policy directives. When you further showcased your comprehension difficulty, I went to more recent statistics from the EIA; specifically:

...

from the U.S. EIA

: where we see, for the first time, that world emissions have reduced (down 0.3% on 2008 levels). I trust you will also take note of the detail rankings as well as the reference to the U.S. reduction (with the pointed comment, "

The decline has matched the country’s economic woes which have seen it only just emerge from recession

"). So, again, and... of course... a U.S. reduction realized not through policy - since none exists.

If it's anthropogenic, then you must look at total global stats. Something you keep harping on everyone else for. Sure there is a decline in the USA. No doubt. However, countries like India and China are taking up the slack and emitting MORE, so there is still a net increase in CO2 output. I am surprised this is lost on you, because that would kind of support your overall stance on climate change being anthropogenic.

thanks braniac... if you had actually read the quote stream you would have realized the discussion centered entirely on U.S. emissions. But what's your game here... what do you care about CO2 emissions... you deny AGW - what's your concern troll interest? If the point is lost on you, there are obvious reasons to be looking at the particular emission rates for countries, particularly those of the world's second largest emitter. But thanks for explaining the "global" aspect... here I thought each respective country had its own atmosphere - go figure!

[Shady]

POSTING CONTENT

All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted.

It's funny to see somebody that breaks forum rules constantly, have the nerve to post forum rules directed toward somebody else!

It's the WaldoWay™!

EVERYBODY KNOWS the U.S. of A. is the world's BIGGEST POLLUTER!

If by everybody you mean the uninformed. Then yes. However, informed people know that China is the world's biggest polluter. Soon to be followed by India. Two countries the global warming alarmists couldn't give a crap about restricting. It's only our country/countries that they wanna destroy the economies of. My theory is that they're really Chinese spies posing as environmentalists.

[lukin]

It's funny to see somebody that breaks forum rules constantly, have the nerve to post forum rules directed toward somebody else!

It's the WaldoWay™!

So true!!! :lol:

We all know waldo is the cut and past king. Who has time to sift through his useless blather? But that is the WaldoWay™ :lol:

Edited March 3, 2011 by lukin

[Charles Anthony]

Guys,

Stop the personal attacks.

If you can not focus on the topic, do not post at all.

Ch. A.

[waldo]

Thanks Charles - without consensus science behind them, or an inability to articulate their "thoughts" as channeled via blindly dropped link references, the personal attack is, of course, one of their only remaining outlets... it is, effectively, their raison d'etre! I trust we will see a more strident enforcement of the MLW rule:

POSTING CONTENT

All posts must contain some aspect of an argument or attempt to stimulate discussion. Simply posting a URL to an outside source or posting statements that are only one or two sentences long will not be tolerated and the post will be deleted.

[waldo]

actually lukin, the "my way" you refer to is one focused on challenging unsubstantiated claims - in particular, most recently, the claim you've made several times - the claim you refuse to provide any substantiation for:

let's also not lose the opportunity to highlight you failed to provide the substantiation to your claim that a natural, as you say, "always occurring" cycle is responsible for the post 1980 accelerated warming. As I stated, "

you don’t identify its supporting mechanism. A change in global energy balance must be attributed to some type of forcing, natural and/or otherwise. You have not attributed that forcing, that causal supporting mechanism you would attribute to a natural, as you say, “always occurring” cycle. What is it?

" ... well... what is it?