Canadian vs. US Attitudes on Climate Change

[GWiz]

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.

Well, I'd say you are both right and wrong... On a per capita basis the US still easily holds the title, on a historical basis the US is a long way from being beaten out by China too...

You are right on a technical basis but it is only in this NEW century that China is placed ahead of the US as the worlds biggest polluter... Considering the very proactive approach to pollution China has adopted their "lead" of a couple of percentage points in polluting may not last... Of course China's rapid growth of their "middle class" and huge population may keep them in the lead...

You are WRONG when it comes to India with India still lagging far behind China and the US (less than 6% of world pollution vs 20% range for US and China)...

As for "restrictions"; I've already stated the difference... But I'm surprised that the US wants to be led rather than lead in the fight AGAINST pollution... Oh well, it is what it is...

"Recognizing a problem doesn't always bring a solution, but until we recognize that problem, there can be no solution." - James Baldwin

[waldo]

As for "restrictions"; I've already stated the difference... But I'm surprised that the US wants to be led rather than lead in the fight AGAINST pollution... Oh well, it is what it is...

China 'bashing' has been a prevalent theme in various MLW climate change related threads. One can repeatedly highlight all the world-leading initiatives China is taking towards sustainable energy... the bashers don't care. They'll keep beating on about "2 new coal plants" every day - of course, the bashers don't care to hear that each new coal plant is orders of magnitude more efficient than the plants that, in like turn, are being closed down. The bashers also don't want to hear about China's leading advancements in CCS - working to bring forward emission free coal plants related to actual ongoing deployments/testing... they also don't like to read that U.S. vendor partnerships exist with China firms, in China based deployments... deployments that exist within China due to a lack of U.S. political will. As I have pointed out several times, the bashers also don't like to read about developed countries outsourcing emissions to China/India... tarnishes the bash, somewhat. And, of course, as just happened here in the quote who replied to, the bashers will come forward with false statements that proponents, "couldn't give a crap about restricting (China & India)... It's only our country/countries that they wanna destroy the economies of". Of course, when you ask the bashers how they expect China to respond to it's growth needs, you hear... crickets. Perhaps you're aware of the much touted/followed China 5 year plans (renewed year to year) - here's an article that speaks to the latest 5 year plan with China announcing an annual growth target of 7% to ensure sustainable development during its new five-year plan...

China will try to slow GDP growth to ease pressure on the environment following a series of unusually stark warnings from senior ministers about the country's current mode of development.

The announcement that economic growth targets will be lowered from 8% to 7% over the next five years may mark the end of China's peak growth years as environmental constraints drive up the expense of resources and pollution control.

.

.

...from 2000-10, China's GDP grew at an annual rate of 10.4%, which took it from sixth to second place in the world. Per capita GDP in that period rose from $996 to $4,300.

China's energy demand, meanwhile, has surged by 220%, compared to a world average of 20%. Since 2006, the country has accounted for 75% of the global increase in coal consumption and 60% of the increase in oil use.

meanwhile in the U.S., the Republican "war on science", runs strong... runs deep!

[Shady]

China 'bashing' has been a prevalent theme in various MLW climate change related threads. One can repeatedly highlight all the world-leading initiatives China is taking towards sustainable energy... the bashers don't care. They'll keep beating on about "2 new coal plants" every day - of course, the bashers don't care to hear that each new coal plant is orders of magnitude more efficient than the plants that, in like turn, are being closed down.

Oh right, you're once again championing clean coal. Except of course when North America proposes to do the same thing. Then your attitude sharply changes, and the blog links, the block quotes, and the insults start flying.

Anyways, do you support clean coal technology? And do you support us using the same methods as China to curb our emissions?

[waldo]

Oh right, you're once again championing clean coal. Except of course when North America proposes to do the same thing.

I've responded to your repeated nonsense, several times over... it's an easy cut/paste.

Of course, what you continue to refuse to acknowledge is the ongoing, week-by-week, active decommissioning of old inefficient coal plants in China - replaced by newer more efficient plants... actively working towards 100% emission free CCS solutions... with the world's first active installation/deployment of this ground-breaking technological solution underway, soon to complete. Riddle me this, Professor... if the Republicans get their way with blocking the EPA, just what active decommissioning of inefficient coal plants do you think will occur in the U.S.?

as I said, as I continue to repeat, as I will continue to repeat, I pointed you to 2 lengthy posts I wrote on China, particularly highlighting it's world leading directions and deployments of sustainable energy solutions, its most recent series of 5 year plans, where coal fits and how it is being funded (percentage wise and on an ever decreasing level) in relation to all other strategies China is deploying. You were also advised to search MLW for several of my posts advocating for very particular mitigation/adaption solutions, emphasizing technology requirements/gaps, ala the AEI 40+ year Roadmap. Several of those AEI Roadmap related posts provide significant detail on the balance of technology requirements, including the fit/need for coal overall and CCS, in particular... and, again, in those China related posts I've highlighted the world-leading CCS technology initiatives that China is engaged in... actively engaged in. Your great difficulty is you simply refuse to read... you also refuse to answer the many questions I've asked of you concerning your definition of clean coal, particularly as it relates to China versus U.S. active deployments, why you refuse to acknowledge the significant level of effective emission outsourcing by Western countries to China, what actual active deployment/intent for new coal plants even exists in the U.S., etc. Just continue to be the lightweight you are - hey Professor... your ongoing comic relief is appreciated!

[Shady]

I've responded to your repeated nonsense, several times over... it's an easy cut/paste.

You've done no such thing. And it's not nonsense. I'm all for replacing old coal plants with clean coal. But you know who isn't? North American environmentalists and alarmists. They refuse to accept that as any kind of alternative. They actually run television ad campaigns claiming there is not such thing as clean coal technology. Except when it comes to China. Then China gets a pass. China's allowed to develop and use such technology. Our North American environmentalists and alarmists seek only to cripple our energy needs and our economic development.

See, there is no such thing as a state of the art clean coal facility. Or are you lying to us about Chinese clean coal? Or are the groups behind these ads lying to us? Which is it? And once again, why can't we use the same type of technology here, to replace the same kind of old coal power plants?

[GWiz]

China 'bashing' has been a prevalent theme in various MLW climate change related threads. One can repeatedly highlight all the world-leading initiatives China is taking towards sustainable energy... the bashers don't care. They'll keep beating on about "2 new coal plants" every day - of course, the bashers don't care to hear that each new coal plant is orders of magnitude more efficient than the plants that, in like turn, are being closed down. The bashers also don't want to hear about China's leading advancements in CCS - working to bring forward emission free coal plants related to actual ongoing deployments/testing... they also don't like to read that U.S. vendor partnerships exist with China firms, in China based deployments... deployments that exist within China due to a lack of U.S. political will. As I have pointed out several times, the bashers also don't like to read about developed countries outsourcing emissions to China/India... tarnishes the bash, somewhat. And, of course, as just happened here in the quote who replied to, the bashers will come forward with false statements that proponents, "couldn't give a crap about restricting (China & India)... It's only our country/countries that they wanna destroy the economies of". Of course, when you ask the bashers how they expect China to respond to it's growth needs, you hear... crickets. Perhaps you're aware of the much touted/followed China 5 year plans (renewed year to year) - here's an article that speaks to the latest 5 year plan with China announcing an annual growth target of 7% to ensure sustainable development during its new five-year plan...

meanwhile in the U.S., the Republican "war on science", runs strong... runs deep!

I'm not a proponent of coal, period, but so called "clean" coal is better than dirty coal I suppose...

Since the US with it's much smaller population and better technologies can't seem to do without coal, one must assume that China, all things considered, certainly can't...

Since that's the case I'm rather gratified that China is making a "best effort" to mitigate it's needs for coal as a prime energy source...

You may find this article interesting...

China Relying on Natural Gas to Support Development

- Today, few countries are as honest about their energy present and future as China. While American pundits and politicians have been praising China’s solar and wind forays, Han Xiaoping, an energy expert from the China Energy Net, said that “the so-called ‘new energy’ such as wind power and solar energy can never support China’s civilization process. In the next 100 years, natural gas will be the basic energy to support China’s development.”

Gas use is soaring in China. Starting from 865 Bcf in 2000, it increased by almost four-fold to 3.18 Tcf in 2009, and in a rapidly increasing energy consumption from all sources, gas’s share of primary energy went from 2% to 4%.

By 2020, gas consumption will likely exceed 10.6 Tcf, and provide about 10% of primary energy consumption. This natural gas increase, outpacing the already torrid rate of total energy increase, will last at least until 2030. -

And this -

China’s Nuclear Industry

- Accurate or not, statistics don't always tell the whole story, or even the most important part. China's nuclear industry is a good example. In 2001, the nuclear capacity for the most heavily populated country on Earth was slightly less than that of Finland. Nevertheless, the international nuclear industry is 'beating a path' to China's open door. Asia is a growth market for nuclear power.

Perhaps, no other nuclear industry is as difficult to write about as that of China. The previous China feature attempted to avoid superlatives as much as possible in an effort to maintain neutrality. Nevertheless, one superlative and seemingly exorbitant prediction came true and is still coming true. The article quoted a statement from a 1998 report: “no country in Asia (or anywhere else on the planet) is expected to grow as fast as China.” Within a few years, China’s nuclear market has expanded at such a rapid rate that this “bold statement” of the time is one of the few that has not been rendered obsolete. From 1996 to the end of 2003, not one company has brought a single new reactor on line in the United States, nor cleared a patch of ground to begin building, nor applied for a license to start construction. Since January 2002, China has brought 6 on line in China, plus one reactor in Pakistan. The question is no longer: can China’s nuclear industry maintain its current growth rate? The question now being asked is, can China accelerate that growth rate to meet the even more ambitious pace of its new energy plan? -

[waldo]

I've responded to your repeated nonsense, several times over... it's an easy cut/paste.

Of course, what you continue to refuse to acknowledge is the ongoing, week-by-week, active decommissioning of old inefficient coal plants in China - replaced by newer more efficient plants... actively working towards 100% emission free CCS solutions... with the world's first active installation/deployment of this ground-breaking technological solution underway, soon to complete. Riddle me this, Professor... if the Republicans get their way with blocking the EPA, just what active decommissioning of inefficient coal plants do you think will occur in the U.S.?

as I said, as I continue to repeat, as I will continue to repeat, I pointed you to 2 lengthy posts I wrote on China, particularly highlighting it's world leading directions and deployments of sustainable energy solutions, its most recent series of 5 year plans, where coal fits and how it is being funded (percentage wise and on an ever decreasing level) in relation to all other strategies China is deploying. You were also advised to search MLW for several of my posts advocating for very particular mitigation/adaption solutions, emphasizing technology requirements/gaps, ala the AEI 40+ year Roadmap. Several of those AEI Roadmap related posts provide significant detail on the balance of technology requirements, including the fit/need for coal overall and CCS, in particular... and, again, in those China related posts I've highlighted the world-leading CCS technology initiatives that China is engaged in... actively engaged in. Your great difficulty is you simply refuse to read... you also refuse to answer the many questions I've asked of you concerning your definition of clean coal, particularly as it relates to China versus U.S. active deployments, why you refuse to acknowledge the significant level of effective emission outsourcing by Western countries to China, what actual active deployment/intent for new coal plants even exists in the U.S., etc. Just continue to be the lightweight you are - hey Professor... your ongoing comic relief is appreciated!

You've done no such thing. And it's not nonsense. I'm all for replacing old coal plants with clean coal. But you know who isn't? North American environmentalists and alarmists. They refuse to accept that as any kind of alternative. They actually run television ad campaigns claiming there is not such thing as clean coal technology. Except when it comes to China. Then China gets a pass. China's allowed to develop and use such technology. Our North American environmentalists and alarmists seek only to cripple our energy needs and our economic development.

See, there is no such thing as a state of the art clean coal facility. Or are you lying to us about Chinese clean coal? Or are the groups behind these ads lying to us? Which is it? And once again, why can't we use the same type of technology here, to replace the same kind of old coal power plants?

instead of building strawmen, why not spend some time actually researching your supporting source details - what a concept! That video you linked to is from the "Reality Coalition"... a joint project that includes such organizations as, the Sierra Club, the National Resources Defense Council, the Alliance for Climate Protection, etc. The intent of the video was/is to highlight the lack of U.S. coal industry action/investment towards meaningful carbon capture and storage (CCS) solution/deployments. The intent of the related campaign was/is to highlight that the U.S. coal industry is/appears more intent and focused on marketing and lobbying, rather than actually devoting the resources for commercial-scale development of CCS systems; i.e. "The Clean Coal Smoke Screen"

have a look at how many times I referenced CCS in the post you've just replied to, hey? I've posted several times in the past on what China is actively engaged in towards CCS deployments... its billion dollar investments in CCS. In any case, notwithstanding your preoccupation with building strawmen, the dynamics at play suggest your strawmen are showing their age, somewhat. The recent Jan, 2011 U.S. visit of Chinese president Hu Jintao did result in a political level agreement where the U.S. and Chinese governments agreed to expand cooperation on CERC (the Clean Energy Research Center)... which includes research on carbon capture and storage (CCS). Perhaps that might actually press the U.S. coal industry to engage beyond mere marketing and lobbying... press it towards actual meaningful resource investments in resident U.S. commercial-scale CCS systems deployments.

[Shady]

I've posted several times in the past on what China is actively engaged in towards CCS deployments

You're sure willing to accept at face value the word of a totalitarian regime. This is the same country that significantly manipulates its currency, no?

[waldo]

You're sure willing to accept at face value the word of a totalitarian regime. This is the same country that significantly manipulates its currency, no?

if you consider face value to include China's active participation with foreign companies and governments... that type of "face value" tends to foster openness and transparency, particularly for a country that, at every opportunity, is keen to present itself positively. In any case, I didn't expect you to jump from strawman to boogeyman/conspiracy, as quickly as you've just done. When all else fails - hey?

[wyly]

if you consider face value to include China's active participation with foreign companies and governments... that type of "face value" tends to foster openness and transparency, particularly for a country that, at every opportunity, is keen to present itself positively. In any case, I didn't expect you to jump from strawman to boogeyman/conspiracy, as quickly as you've just done. When all else fails - hey?

the advantage of having a government as such found in China is that it can move with speed on any policy. there is no need to consult with the uneducated and uninformed denier masses to convince them of AGW...when China saw the demographic crisis of overpopulation 50 yrs in the future it moved quickly with it's one child policy and got that under control...likewise China also sees the problems CC will bring and the damage it cause to it's economy, it's being proactive in starting now and will suffer less then us when we are forced into change by our foot political dragging...the myopic idiots we have in government rule by opinion polls and see can no further ahead than the next election, the chinese plan for events 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 even 100 yrs away... Edited March 4, 2011 by wyly

[Shady]

if you consider face value to include China's active participation with foreign companies and governments...

Sweet. Would you be a proponent of North America participating with the same companies and same technology regarding clean coal?

that type of "face value" tends to foster openness and transparency

Most definitely. I know when I think of China, openness and transparency are the first things that come to mind. Anyways, when do you think newest Nobel Peace Prize winner will be released from jail there?

[lukin]

the advantage of having a government as such found in China is that it can move with speed on any policy. there is no need to consult with the uneducated and uninformed denier masses to convince them of AGW...when China saw the demographic crisis of overpopulation 50 yrs in the future it moved quickly with it's one child policy and got that under control...likewise China also sees the problems CC will bring and the damage it cause to it's economy, it's being proactive in starting now and will suffer less then us when we are forced into change by our foot political dragging...the myopic idiots we have in government rule by opinion polls and see can no further ahead than the next election, the chinese plan for events 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 even 100 yrs away...

Actually, I have to agree with wyly, believe it or not. China has become a leader in initiatives and bigtalk in hopes of saving our fragile planet. If the world follows China we will be thankful in the long run. I found an excellent photo essay that clearly explains with visual aids how China is a leader tackling environmental concerns.

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/

[Shady]

Actually, I have to agree with wyly, believe it or not. China has become a leader in initiatives and bigtalk in hopes of saving our fragile planet. If the world follows China we will be thankful in the long run. I found an excellent photo essay that clearly explains with visual aids how China is a leader tackling environmental concerns.

http://www.chinahush.com/2009/10/21/amazing-pictures-pollution-in-china/

Thanks for the post! I had no idea. At least I finally know why China gets so much praise and much more leeway from environmentalists and alarmists. They truely do put us to shame.

[waldo]

the advantage of having a government as such found in China is that it can move with speed on any policy. there is no need to consult with the uneducated and uninformed denier masses to convince them of AGW...when China saw the demographic crisis of overpopulation 50 yrs in the future it moved quickly with it's one child policy and got that under control...likewise China also sees the problems CC will bring and the damage it cause to it's economy, it's being proactive in starting now and will suffer less then us when we are forced into change by our foot political dragging...the myopic idiots we have in government rule by opinion polls and see can no further ahead than the next election, the chinese plan for events 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 even 100 yrs away...

yes, most certainly. In the face of the most significant challenges that China's rapid industrialization has brought forward, it continues to initiate aggressive, iterative 5 year plans, plans that are reaping relatively immediate results... as you say, the speed of planning development, construction, and regulatory approval for energy projects in China, is unparalleled in the world. For example, the Shidongkou CCS plant went from a grassfield to a fully operational power plant with CO2 capture in just over a years time. This recent Nature article highlights the world interest in the Shidongkou plant:

Low-cost carbon-capture project sparks interest - Consortium to determine whether price reductions seen in China can be applied abroad.

The Shidongkou No. 2 Power Plant outside Shanghai, China, has hosted a parade of foreign visitors in recent months, from academics and industry officials to US energy secretary Steven Chu. All have had one question on their minds: have Chinese engineers turned a corner on carbon-capture technology?

the significance of China's aggressive moves... it's new found leading positions... hits home when you read the recent U.S. Congressional words of U.S. energy secretary Steven Chu, testifying in regards the proposed U.S. Fiscal Year 2012 budget for the U.S. Department of Energy:

“There can be no doubt about the seriousness of the competitive challenge we face in energy. I would like to call everyone’s attention to two charts. The first chart shows that we actually spend less than China on energy R&D per unit of GDP. China is investing heavily in manufacturing and deploying wind, solar, and nuclear power plants. These investments are already translating into global sales and domestic Chinese jobs in an area where the United States once led the world. The second chart shows that our investment in energy R&D is far below other areas of our nation’s R&D. The proposed FY 2012 DOE budget for energy R&D brings us up from the 2007 figure of $1.8 billion to $4.8 billion, but still remains well below other areas of research. So I compliment the Secretary for successfully advocating for a budget that contains much that I support and I hope the Senate can fully fund many of the research and development initiatives proposed as well as that for the Energy Information Administration.

of course... the budget faces the U.S. Republicans "war on science"... which would appear to bode well for the Chinese!

[waldo]

You're sure willing to accept at face value the word of a totalitarian regime. This is the same country that significantly manipulates its currency, no?

if you consider face value to include China's active participation with foreign companies and governments... that type of "face value" tends to foster openness and transparency, particularly for a country that, at every opportunity, is keen to present itself positively. In any case, I didn't expect you to jump from strawman to boogeyman/conspiracy, as quickly as you've just done. When all else fails - hey?

Sweet. Would you be a proponent of North America participating with the same companies and same technology regarding clean coal?

uhhh... actually, lil' buddy... I was referring to the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. companies and U.S. universities. And, of course, you're still stymied over the term "clean coal"... as I said, you just don't read - do you? Is there a particular reason you continue to avoid any/all mention of CCS? Look, take your lumps over posting that video... acknowledge you didn't have a clue what the related campaign was about... accept that the video/campaign was/is, again, intended to highlight the U.S. coal industry is doing diddly in terms of actual resource investments in U.S. resident CCS deployments... but they're doing a bang up job with their marketing hype machine... the one you've completely bought into - hey?

Most definitely. I know when I think of China, openness and transparency are the first things that come to mind. Anyways, when do you think newest Nobel Peace Prize winner will be released from jail there?

well, of course, you would revert to your standard ShadyPractices routine... either step up and refute the extent of China's investments in CCS research/deployments, deny the active partnerships with foreign companies (uhhh... that includes the U.S. - hey!) ... put up something other than your boogeyman/conspiracy bullshit - hey?

[lukin]

Thanks for the post! I had no idea. At least I finally know why China gets so much praise and much more leeway from environmentalists and alarmists. They truely do put us to shame.

It's amazing what happens when a person actually seeks the truth, shady. Wyldo can live in his own little world.

I don't understand why wyly and waldo aren't foaming at the mouth with the itch to move to China, the alarmist paradise.

[Shady]

uhhh... actually, lil' buddy... I was referring to the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. companies and U.S. universities. And, of course, you're still stymied over the term "clean coal"... as I said, you just don't read - do you? Is there a particular reason you continue to avoid any/all mention of CCS? Look, take your lumps over posting that video... acknowledge you didn't have a clue what the related campaign was about... accept that the video/campaign was/is, again, intended to highlight the U.S. coal industry is doing diddly in terms of actual resource investments in U.S. resident CCS deployments... but they're doing a bang up job with their marketing hype machine... the one you've completely bought into - hey?

I don't care about the U.S. coal industry. I asked you if you would be a proponent of North America adopting the same clean coal practices of the Chinese, specifically related to CCS. Would you be in favour of us building the same type of CCS coal power plants here in Canada?

put up something other than your boogeyman/conspiracy

I wish it were just a boogeyman. And it's not at all a conspiracy theory my friend.

Jailed Chinese dissident honored at Nobel ceremony

OSLO, Norway – With a large portrait of a smiling Liu Xiaobo hanging front and center, the chairman of the Norwegian Nobel Committee crossed the dais and gently placed the peace prize diploma and medal on an empty chair. Ambassadors, royalty and other dignitaries rose in a standing ovation.

The man they honored wasn't there Friday — he is serving an 11-year sentence at Jinzhou Prison in northeastern China for urging sweeping changes to Beijing's one-party communist political system.

AP

Openness and transparency for the win!

[waldo]

uhhh... actually, lil' buddy... I was referring to the U.S. Department of Energy, U.S. companies and U.S. universities. And, of course, you're still stymied over the term "clean coal"... as I said, you just don't read - do you? Is there a particular reason you continue to avoid any/all mention of CCS? Look, take your lumps over posting that video... acknowledge you didn't have a clue what the related campaign was about... accept that the video/campaign was/is, again, intended to highlight the U.S. coal industry is doing diddly in terms of actual resource investments in U.S. resident CCS deployments... but they're doing a bang up job with their marketing hype machine... the one you've completely bought into - hey?

I don't care about the U.S. coal industry. I asked you if you would be a proponent of North America adopting the same clean coal practices of the Chinese, specifically related to CCS. Would you be in favour of us building the same type of CCS coal power plants here in Canada?

for someone now stating they don't care about the U.S. coal industry, what's your junkyard dog act been about? You've continued to beak off about North American/U.S. "clean coal"... never once mentioning CCS. Of course, you were continually challenged to actually offer your definition of "clean coal", particularly in relation to a comparative review of China versus the U.S. - the result... your reply? Crickets. Face it you didn't even have a clue as to what CCS was - do you, even yet? It was quite humorous to see you trip over yourself with your latest video link that actually reflected upon the Reality Coalition's attack on the U.S. coal industry's lack of meaningful deployed CCS resource engagement, favouring instead, marketing and lobbying over actual CCS investment. Let's replay the following post... the one that encapsulates your long running difficulty in reading/comprehension, hey?

as I said, as I continue to repeat, as I will continue to repeat, I pointed you to 2 lengthy posts I wrote on China, particularly highlighting it's world leading directions and deployments of sustainable energy solutions, its most recent series of 5 year plans, where coal fits and how it is being funded (percentage wise and on an ever decreasing level) in relation to all other strategies China is deploying. You were also advised to search MLW for several of my posts advocating for very particular mitigation/adaption solutions, emphasizing technology requirements/gaps, ala the AEI 40+ year Roadmap. Several of those AEI Roadmap related posts provide significant detail on the balance of technology requirements, including the fit/need for coal overall and CCS, in particular... and, again, in those China related posts I've highlighted the world-leading CCS technology initiatives that China is engaged in... actively engaged in.

Your great difficulty is you simply refuse to read... you also refuse to answer the many questions I've asked of you concerning your definition of clean coal, particularly as it relates to China versus U.S. active deployments, why you refuse to acknowledge the significant level of effective emission outsourcing by Western countries to China, what actual active deployment/intent for new coal plants even exists in the U.S., etc.

Just continue to be the lightweight you are - hey Professor... your ongoing comic relief is appreciated!

well, of course, you would revert to your standard ShadyPractices routine... either step up and refute the extent of China's investments in CCS research/deployments, deny the active partnerships with foreign companies (uhhh... that includes the U.S. - hey!) ... put up something other than your boogeyman/conspiracy bullshit - hey?

I wish it were just a boogeyman. And it's not at all a conspiracy theory my friend.

Openness and transparency for the win!

dumbass! Is there a reason you can't stay on topic... when your "arguments/positions" are found wanting? Is there a reason you need to revert to a ShadyPractices conflating routine? I suppose I could follow your silly buggar act and highlight such things as, ohhhh... say... the Pentagon Papers, Wikileaks, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, forced renditions, secret prisons, U.S. private security firm actions in Iraq, etc.,.... and, of course, recognizing that 'human rights' also encompasses domestic economic, social and cultural facets, one could extend a most critical eye into internal U.S. practices. But, of course, none of the aforementioned actually has anything to do with China's world-leading positions on sustainable energy and CCS research/deployment... does it, hey? None of it actually reflects upon your accusation that China is misleading the world on it's efforts/results in CCS research/deployments. You know... the accusation you were challenged on... the challenge you're now running away from with your dumbass conflation routine, hey?

[lukin]

for someone now stating they don't care about the U.S. coal industry, what's your junkyard dog act been about? You've continued to beak off about North American/U.S. "clean coal"... never once mentioning CCS. Of course, you were continually challenged to actually offer your definition of "clean coal", particularly in relation to a comparative review of China versus the U.S. - the result... your reply? Crickets. Face it you didn't even have a clue as to what CCS was - do you, even yet? It was quite humorous to see you trip over yourself with your latest video link that actually reflected upon the Reality Coalition's attack on the U.S. coal industry's lack of meaningful deployed CCS resource engagement, favouring instead, marketing and lobbying over actual CCS investment. Let's replay the following post... the one that encapsulates your long running difficulty in reading/comprehension, hey?

dumbass! Is there a reason you can't stay on topic... when your "arguments/positions" are found wanting? Is there a reason you need to revert to a ShadyPractices conflating routine? I suppose I could follow your silly buggar act and highlight such things as, ohhhh... say... the Pentagon Papers, Wikileaks, Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, forced renditions, secret prisons, U.S. private security firm actions in Iraq, etc.,.... and, of course, recognizing that 'human rights' also encompasses domestic economic, social and cultural facets, one could extend a most critical eye into internal U.S. practices. But, of course, none of the aforementioned actually has anything to do with China's world-leading positions on sustainable energy and CCS research/deployment... does it, hey? None of it actually reflects upon your accusation that China is misleading the world on it's efforts/results in CCS research/deployments. You know... the accusation you were challenged on... the challenge you're now running away from with your dumbass conflation routine, hey?

Could the moderator please warn waldo about his constant use of name-calling when someone disagrees with him?

[waldo]

well... what is it?

hey lukin...about 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?

[lukin]

Thanks for the post! I had no idea. At least I finally know why China gets so much praise and much more leeway from environmentalists and alarmists. They truely do put us to shame.

Shady, here's an article from NASA explaining more about China.

How does China plan on dealing with this major problem? By building huge wind turbines to blow it over the Pacific.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=49398&src=iotdrss

Here's how China is dealt with.

http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2011/02/11/17242546.html

I have to watch what i say because WALDO told on me and I've been warned.

Edited March 5, 2011 by lukin

[waldo]

apparently, you take exception to others highlighting China's emission levels ... apparently, you take exception to others highlighting the efforts that China is engaged in to attempt to deal with it's emission levels. But why? What do you care about emission levels - from any country? You deny they have any impact... why the concern about emission levels?

you really should concentrate on one thing at a time. Quit avoiding the repeated challenges for you to substantiate your claim. Again, what is it?

well... what is it?

hey lukin...about 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?

[lukin]

apparently, you take exception to others highlighting China's emission levels ... apparently, you take exception to others highlighting the efforts that China is engaged in to attempt to deal with it's emission levels. But why? What do you care about emission levels - from any country? You deny they have any impact... why the concern about emission levels?

you really should concentrate on one thing at a time. Quit avoiding the repeated challenges for you to substantiate your claim. Again, what is it?

waldo, I asked you 6 months ago (many times) what YOU are doing at a personal level to save the planet. You still haven't answered that because it's an answer you can't copy and paste. You are nothing but a parroting gnat.

Humans aren't causing climate change. I refuse to be a sucker.

[waldo]

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?

Humans aren't causing climate change. I refuse to be a sucker.

yes... you do refuse... refuse to substantiate your claims. If, as you say, humans aren't causing climate change, what is? You seem to have extreme difficulty in backing up your assertion that a natural, as you say, "always occurring" cycle is responsible for the post 1980 accelerated warming. However, you refuse to indicate what the forcing attribution for that natural cycle is... you refuse to provide the causal supporting mechanism. Well, what is it? Why do you refuse to state what it is? You should be loudly and proudly trumpeting that forcing, that supporting mechanism... is there a problem? Is there a reason you, as you now state, refuse?

[lukin]

yes... you do refuse... refuse to substantiate your claims. If, as you say, humans aren't causing climate change, what is? You seem to have extreme difficulty in backing up your assertion that a natural, as you say, "always occurring" cycle is responsible for the post 1980 accelerated warming. However, you refuse to indicate what the forcing attribution for that natural cycle is... you refuse to provide the causal supporting mechanism. Well, what is it? Why do you refuse to state what it is? You should be loudly and proudly trumpeting that forcing, that supporting mechanism... is there a problem? Is there a reason you, as you now state, refuse?

Well the Sun and nature are major factors.

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2008/06/army-vs-global/

http://www.friendsofscience.org/index.php?id=454

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/roy-spencer-climate-change/2010/04/26/id/356933