Climate scientists keep getting it wrong

[Wild Bill]

What a pile BS. Canada became wealthy because it created a society where businesses and entrepreneurs could succeed. All of the tools and benefits that Canada had available were available to any other country. The fact that we have seen country after country get wealthy by adopting many of the same policies proves this. So if a country is poor today it is their own fault. They, as a society, made the wrong choices. The idea that Canada or any other nation owes the developing world anything is nonsense.

There was a great editorial cartoon published in a British newspaper nearly 100 years ago Tim that illustrates perfectly how socialism works.

It shows some socialists in silk stockings and top hats riding on the back of a pig. They are drinking its blood from a tube inserted into its body, from champagne glasses.

In the next panel, the pig dies, obviously from blood loss. The socialists have all hopped off and are skipping along to hop on the back of another pig!

[waldo]

How about I resort to your level of debate?

your level of debate is to showcase your unsubstantiated opinion... and demand it be addressed/refuted. You have yet to drop any links/any quotes to support anything you've stated. Even the types of questions you ask... that showcase your mindless, numbing naivety - you're not even in the game, buddy! It's quite refreshing to see you as a noob denier projecting such an air of confidence in your displayed ignorance... while acting the pompous fool. You're the poster boy for know-nothing denier bravado! Well done!

[wyly]

So in other words "no you can't"

How about I resort to your level of debate?

Would that be more to your liking?

WWWTT

debate at my level?...yes please, critical thinking, logic an sound science if its not too difficult for you that is..

Edited September 25, 2012 by wyly

[Moonbox]

you introduced economics to the debate right? now you want to avoid it because it's inconvenient?

Avoid it!? I want to dive right into it, because this is where you and your little buddy have everything all screwed up! You've spent the last 30 pages telling everyone how serious climate change is getting, and I'm asking how are we going to reduce emissions if countries like China and India (which account for 30% and growing of world emissions) aren't included in the solution? Your rationale for this is that the west prospered and polluted heavily, so China should be given an equal opportunity to pollute and prosper?

This is infantile, school yard logic and it doesn't help get emissions reduced. Nobody outside of China gives a shit about China's prosperity, nor about the fairness of them not being able to pollute like we did. If we're interested in meaningful emissions reductions, all of the big players need to be included.

4 times wow! that's really impressive for a country with 40 times our population

They have 12 times the emissions and you're claiming they spend more money on emissions reductions than us...whatever that means. I was trying to highlight that China's massive scale makes your statement meaningless. I'm not expecting you to actually think that through critically, however, since you clearly couldn't when you made the statement in the first place.

what's cringe worthy is watching the contortions you put yourself through when you encounter issues you've never thought out beforehand...

This is your response? I call your mental gymnastics cringe-worthy, and you come back with what's essentially, "No YOU!" ??

Glad to know what I'm dealing with.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Moonbox

[wyly]

Ahh no actually to burden of responsibility is on the one accusing!

Even if it was on me,how bout giving us a freebe and telling us where you are getting your numbers that have convinced you?

WWWTT

oh no, you're the one that challenged accepted science, ...thats the way it goes with scientific theory...once established as true its up to deniers to prove accepted theory is wrong...

Edited September 25, 2012 by wyly

[waldo]

The idea that Canada or any other nation owes the developing world anything is nonsense.

There was a great editorial cartoon published in a British newspaper nearly 100 years ago Tim that illustrates perfectly how socialism works.

It shows some socialists in silk stockings and top hats riding on the back of a pig. They are drinking its blood from a tube inserted into its body, from champagne glasses.

In the next panel, the pig dies, obviously from blood loss. The socialists have all hopped off and are skipping along to hop on the back of another pig!

guys, guys, c'mon... your wealth distribution boogeyman/strawman isn't complete unless you top it off with the world government meme.

clearly you want the developed world cumulative emissions to be ignored... why you even want to ignore the outsourcing of developed world emissions. The $100 billion a year 'climate fund' must really rub you... raw, hey? I never fail to be amazed by you literal isolationists who feel Canada's atmosphere is a private bubble atmosphere, that Canada's oceans are removed from the rest of the world, that global temperature rise has no impact/affect on Canada, that Canada's security isn't impacted, that affects on global agriculture/food won't affect Canada, that increasing weather extremes won't affect Canada, etc.,. Just keep your blinders on, throw a silly rant against "socialism" (really!)... look for cartoons... and yuk it up. Rinse, repeat!

[Moonbox]

Ignore cumulative emissions? Absolutely. What's the logic here?

"We're not going to do anything about our pollution because we haven't polluted NEARLY as much as you guys yet!"

That's a brilliant position to take.... If that's what you believe and what you're going to propose then good luck, because nobody gives a shit about fairness and we're certainly not going to put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage with China on the basis that they have 'catching up to do' in terms of prosperity and emissions. This lag is certainly not based on any moral high ground. They can thank glorious Chairman Mao for that.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Moonbox

[waldo]

The idea that Canada or any other nation owes the developing world anything is nonsense.

guys, guys, c'mon... your wealth distribution boogeyman/strawman isn't complete unless you top it off with the world government meme.

clearly you want the developed world cumulative emissions to be ignored... why you even want to ignore the outsourcing of developed world emissions. The $100 billion a year 'climate fund' must really rub you... raw, hey? I never fail to be amazed by you literal isolationists who feel Canada's atmosphere is a private bubble atmosphere, that Canada's oceans are removed from the rest of the world, that global temperature rise has no impact/affect on Canada, that Canada's security isn't impacted, that affects on global agriculture/food won't affect Canada, that increasing weather extremes won't affect Canada, etc.,. Just keep your blinders on, throw a silly rant against "socialism" (really!)... look for cartoons... and yuk it up. Rinse, repeat!

Ignore cumulative emissions? Absolutely. What's the logic here?

"We're not going to do anything about our pollution because we haven't polluted NEARLY as much as you guys yet!"

That's a brilliant position to take.... If that's what you believe and what you're going to propose then good luck, because nobody gives a shit about fairness and we're certainly not going to put ourselves at a competitive disadvantage with China on the basis that they have 'catching up to do' in terms of prosperity and emissions. This lag is certainly not based on any moral high ground. They can thank glorious Chairman Mao for that.

still struggling, hey Moonbox? Didn't you just a few posts back ask/challenge me to clarify a delay/do nothing approach? How many times do you need to ask the same question?

perhaps you should read the exchange you're objecting to again; clearly, your comprehension difficulty is even more acute than usual. Apparently you don't recognize a distinction between emission reduction targets/approaches versus 'polluter pay' transfer payments to address adaptation/mitigation requirements for developing countries, right? You do realize, for instance, that Africa contributes but 4% to the total yearly growth in global emissions... yet Africa is the continent most susceptible to the negative impacts of climate change. So, ya... polluter pays in terms of monetary transfer payments into the 'climate change fund(s)' to help assist developing countries. The same way there are negotiations involved to address per country emission reduction target levels, there are negotiations involved to address per country monetary transfer payments to assist developing countries with adaptation/mitigation needs - and a part of those negotiations requires a historical perspective on just how contributing respective developed countries have been to the overall historical cumulative emission total. The latter seems to be where your confusion/comprehension difficulty stems.

[WWWTT]

...thats the way it goes with scientific theory...once established as true its up to deniers to prove accepted theory is wrong...

"once established as true"?

Actually a theory must be proven.Then independently verified in order to be accepted.

The only way for global warming to be proven is for the entire Earth to simultaneously warm up.

True some areas are warmer than normal,but then there are other areas of the Earth that are cooler.

Climate always changes and I have not seen evidence telling me that the entire globe is warming.

WWWTT

[Rocky Road]

One point I would like to make in this agrument is: Scale and Complexity make this very difficult to be specific about.

[WWWTT]

It's quite refreshing to see you as a noob denier

Hey buddy what gives you the right to start calling me names!

You think your above the forum rules here and you can indiscriminately call me names.

I'm going to report you every time you keep calling anyone here names buddy!

WWWTT

[Michael Hardner]

Climate always changes and I have not seen evidence telling me that the entire globe is warming.

You haven't seen the data showing average global temperatures increasing, then ?

[WWWTT]

You haven't seen the data showing average global temperatures increasing, then ?

Yes that's right.

Nor have I seen evidence that any such climate changes would be deemed unusual for the planet.

How old is the Earth?

4 billion?4.5 billion years?

How long have humans been accurately studying Earths climate?

20,30,40 years?

But somehow,in just a few decades,scientists have come to the conclusion that we are destroying the planet.

Oh no but it's ok because if we tax,control and regulate CO2,CO2 will no longer be a problem.(that's at least the impression that I get)

WWWTT

[CPCFTW]

This is the first I've heard of "cumulative emissions" and it is the most laughable GW position I've ever heard.

What's next? Letting Japan drop a nuke on us to make up for the "cumulative radiation" difference?

I still think I posted a workable solution in this thread:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=21561

Why not just reduce HST and make carbon tax a consumption tax?

Fill up a tank of gas, or buy an iPhone manufactured and flown in from China = big carbon tax

Buy a milk imported from a local dairy farm = low carbon tax

The tax amount will be based on the amount of CO2 created by buying the product/service.

The carbon tax component of consumption taxes can be built into the retail price, and we can let consumers reduce emissions with their wallets.

Also this could potentially restore domestic manufacturing.

Problem solved.

Edited September 25, 2012 by CPCFTW

[waldo]

This is the first I've heard of "cumulative emissions" and it is the most laughable GW position I've ever heard.

ya, the cumulative buildup of emissions in the atmosphere over time... not emissions in any particular year - radical concept!

[waldo]

It's quite refreshing to see you as a noob denier

Hey buddy what gives you the right to start calling me names!

You think your above the forum rules here and you can indiscriminately call me names.

I'm going to report you every time you keep calling anyone here names buddy!

get a grip - you weren't called any names; given your recent posting history, the term/label was most apropos:

- noob denier

=> noob; i.e., new... new to MLW - you came out

=> denier; i.e., someone who ignores facts and evidence; someone who doesn't critically examine any evidence or hypotheses; someone who, without question, embraces any counter proposal, no matter how transparently absurd or false

[cybercoma]

Yes that's right.

Nor have I seen evidence that any such climate changes would be deemed unusual for the planet.

How old is the Earth?

4 billion?4.5 billion years?

How long have humans been accurately studying Earths climate?

20,30,40 years?

But somehow,in just a few decades,scientists have come to the conclusion that we are destroying the planet.

Oh no but it's ok because if we tax,control and regulate CO2,CO2 will no longer be a problem.(that's at least the impression that I get)

WWWTT

So to satisfy you, all you need is about 4-4.5 billion years worth of data?

[TimG]

I never fail to be amazed by you literal isolationists who feel Canada's atmosphere is a private bubble atmosphere

You obviously don't understand what was written.

First, the developing world has benefited tremendously from the technology, capital and markets in the developed world. No developing countries has lifted itself from poverty without taking full advantage of these. Even where development has been slow the benefits of developed world technology pervade the poorest Africa state (cell phone anyone?). What this means is the emissions from the first world countries have benefited the entire world and therefore the first world countries have no special debt or obligation as a result of those emissions.

Second, developing countries are developing (a good thing). This means that their emission increases will quickly swamp any decreases in emissions in the developed world. So it is completely useless to talk about an emission reduction scheme that does not restrict emissions in developing countries.

Bottom line it is not a isolationist view but rather a rejection of the crude attempt to use the 'guilt train' to justify income redistribution policies that cannot be justified on their practical merits.

[TimG]

I still think I posted a workable solution in this thread:

It is a non starter because the people pushing for "action" on CO2 are adamantly opposed to tax increases that impact anyone other than the mythical "rich". Any carbon tax acceptable to these people would have to come with rebates/subsidies/exclusions for the majority of people that destroy whatever incentive to change that it could create.

[eyeball]

I am not the one making the claim that we are destroying the Earth through the use of fossil fuels,am I?

WWWTT

Destroying the Earth? Get a grip, we're simply making it a far more inhospitable and dangerous place for a lot of things to live in and for the foreseeable future including a lot of us.

It's not the actual end of the world, it's just a really severe shit-kicking is all.

To destroy it you'd need to drop it into the sun or something.

[dre]

It is a non starter because the people pushing for "action" on CO2 are adamantly opposed to tax increases that impact anyone other than the mythical "rich". Any carbon tax acceptable to these people would have to come with rebates/subsidies/exclusions for the majority of people that destroy whatever incentive to change that it could create.

Thats a silly generalization.

1. Lots of people would support legislation that didnt exempt everyone besides the wealthy.

2. Many of the wealthy are in the business of selling products and services to consumers, and those taxes would simply get passed onto consumers anyways.

[dre]

So it is completely useless to talk about an emission reduction scheme that does not restrict emissions in developing countries.

No its not useless you accidentally pointed out why in this very post, when you talked about the technology that the first world has shared with everyone else. If you restrict emissions in the first world they will engineer solutions that allow them produce more stuff with less emissions and those solutions can be shared with the developing world. Even just the public perception and the potential threat of restricted emissions has companies engineering low emissions solutions, creating designs for cleaner plants, and flooding the market with scads of products designed to reduce emissions.

[TimG]

If you restrict emissions in the first world they will engineer solutions that allow them produce more stuff with less emissions and those solutions can be shared with the developing world.

And why would developing countries buy such technology if they have no limits to meet? You also forget that if the developing world is not restricted then the the cheaper solution is often to relocate production than to actually reduce emissions. Edited September 26, 2012 by TimG

[dre]

And why would developing countries buy such technology if they have no limits to meet? You also forget that if the developing world is not restricted then the the cheaper solution is often to relocate production than to actually reduce emissions.

Countries would use those technologies because they are the state of the art modern designs.

An example of this is China is starting to build IGCC coal plants - a technology developed mostly in the west - that at some point might allow us to keep using the worlds large coal reserves without producing CO2 and sulphurous pollutants that currently make China gross to live in.

[TimG]

Countries would use those technologies because they are the state of the art modern designs.

Only because it is cheaper. If it is cheaper there is no need for regulation. Regulation is only need to force people to use more expensive technology and without limits there is no incentive.

An example of this is China is starting to build IGCC coal plants - a technology developed mostly in the west

They are using this technology because they have a real pollution problem to deal with (i.e. particulates). Ironically, it is impossible to use this technology in developed countries because the anti-CO2 lobby makes it more economic to extend the life of existing inefficient plants than to develop new clearer ones.