Discussion: Global Warming, Emission Standards, and Other Environmental Issues - Part 1

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Thread Manager, May 28, 2014.

  1. Thread Manager Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 24, 2011
    Messages:
    0
    Likes Received:
    3
    This is a continuation thread, the old thread is [split]346908[/split]
     
  2. sithgoblin King of the Castle

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2000
    Messages:
    11,241
    Likes Received:
    1
    US President George W Bush's plan to cap greenhouse gases by 2025 has been dismissed as "disastrous" and "Neanderthal" by some ministers at a climate change meeting in Paris.

    Mr Bush has unveiled a plan to halt the growth of US emissions by 2025, which the US says is tougher than its previous goals.

    But delegates at the ministerial-level meeting of major carbon emitters, including the US, Australia and the European Union (EU), were less than impressed.

    Germany accused Mr Bush of turning back the clock to before last December's UN climate talks in Bali and even to before last July's G8 summit.

    In a statement entitled "Bush's Neanderthal speech," German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said: "His speech showed not leadership but losership. We are glad that there are also other voices in the United States."

    South Africa blasted Mr Bush's proposal as a disastrous retreat by the planet's number-one polluter and a slap to poor countries.

    Mr Bush's speech on Wednesday came at a key time in efforts to craft a new UN treaty for slashing the heat-trapping fossil-fuel gases that scientists fear will ravage Earth's climate system.

    The Bali talks yielded a two-year "roadmap" designed to culminate in a planetary deal that will tackle carbon emissions beyond 2013, after the present pledges in the Kyoto Protocol run out.

    These negotiations have the delicate task of bridging the US on one side and the EU and developing countries on the other - and Mr Bush's critics said his speech had provocatively staked out old positions already blamed for prolonged stalemate.

    Instead of setting a date for cutting US emissions, Mr Bush had merely outlined a year - 2025 - by which the emissions would peak, they said.

    In addition, Mr Bush renewed his attack on Kyoto-style mandatory emissions caps and pressed big emerging countries to make concessions, saying they should not get "a free ride" in the next climate treaty.

    "There is no way whatsoever that we can agree to what the US is proposing," South African Environment and Tourism Minister Marthinus van Schalkwyk said, describing the Bush administration as "isolated."

    White House spokesman Tony Fratto shrugged off what he called "hot-blooded reaction" to the Bush speech and compared what he said was the administration's record of setting goals and achieving them with those who sought "short-term political benefit" from rhetoric.

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/04/18/2220481.htm
     
  3. Doctor Evo Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Honest question: are you under the impression that climate scientists are unaware of natural climate cycles?
     
  4. Doctor Evo Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Well...about that....

    http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/503527/1/grl51035.pdf
     
  5. Destructus86 Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,684
    Likes Received:
    0
    I can't reply to someone because they are in the old closed thread now. grrr

    The question was...(roughly) do I believe climate scientists are unaware of natural climate change?

    No. I'm sure they are fully aware of it. What I do believe is that politicians are not away of it. Politicians only look for the data and research that matches their own thinking on the subject. I think you'll find very few with an unbiased opinion. How else do you explain some politicians completely ignoring the FACT that natural climate change even exists? :)
     
  6. Doctor Evo Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Can you support this assertion beyond speculation?
     
  7. Destructus86 Registered

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2011
    Messages:
    5,684
    Likes Received:
    0
    Just check out the news. Do a google search. There have been plenty of politicians..especially on the GOP side of things that have rejected climate change.
     
  8. Doctor Evo Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,241
    Likes Received:
    0
    Oh, I thought you were referring to politicians who think ACC/AGW is real.
     
  9. JeetKuneDo Guitarist

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,408
    Likes Received:
    15
    I do disagree because a human being cannot exist without food for very long. If a person exists, it means there is enough food to support their existence. It works that way for all species. This is not a complex concept.

    Oh scientists are quite aware of natural climate change. Go to 1:26: "Climate always changes. That's the missing agenda. Every climate scientist knows this. Nothing unusual about climate change. The idea that climate somehow was stable until the industrial revolution and our carbon dioxide emissions is simply silly."

    [YT]C35pasCr6KI?t[/YT]

    Even the most alarmists of scientists will allow natural climate variability into the discussion when/if the climate doesn't do what they predict. For instance, during the last year or so when it was finally admitted that there has been no warming for almost two decades (it was denied for years), natural climate variability was finally allowed into the discussion. Now....if there is any warming....natural climate variability is quickly jettisoned from the conversation and it's all about humans again.

    Jørgen Peder Steffensen on natural variabilty. At 3:26:
    http://climateclips.com/archives/132

    "The problem is that we agree completely that we've had a global temperature increase in the 20th century..yes. ...But an increase from what? Probably an increase from the lowest point we've had in the last 10,000 years. And this means that it would be very hard indeed to prove whether the increase of temperature in the 20th century was manmade or was a natural variation. It would be very hard because we made ourselves a very poor experiment. We started to observe meteorology at the coldest spot in the last 10,000 years."

    And when you see that temps began to increase before our CO2 emissions could be a factor, you have to ask what alarmists think was instead supposed to happen post-1950. Were we supposed to go back to the temps of the Little Ice Age? Was the climate supposed to stop changing for the first time in earth's history?
     
  10. Doctor Evo Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,241
    Likes Received:
    0
    To which I respond, once again:

    It's become painfully obvious that you're out of your depth here, and this conversation is no longer interesting. There's no sport in this anymore, nor is there any opportunity to educate a man who refuses to be educated.

    I'm out.
     
  11. JeetKuneDo Guitarist

    Joined:
    Apr 19, 2006
    Messages:
    2,408
    Likes Received:
    15
    Fine with me. Your continued effort to pretend people can exist without food is never going to make any sense.
     
  12. floreairfoot There's a storm coming.

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,757
    Likes Received:
    0
    I was hearing a lot of back and forth on NPR today, reguarding the new Obama "Climate Regulations".. I kept wondering where the push was suddenly coming from, since it's been a losing issue in Congress.

    It looks like I found out.. not surprisingly, it's all about the $

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/05/22/politics/steyer-climate-change-campaign/

    "An environmental advocacy group backed by hedge fund tycoon Tom Steyer is set to unleash a seven-state, $100 million offensive against Republican "science deniers" this year, a no-holds-barred campaign-style push from the green billionaire that could help decide which party controls the Senate and key statehouses come November."


    I suppose he wasn't planing on giving up any of his money without some new regulations, how else would he make the green?

    Apparently these new adds are going to bully climate change skeptics, labeling them anti-science or whatnot.
     
  13. SV Fan Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    8,165
    Likes Received:
    32
    Just out of curiosity how does Steyer stand to profit on renewable energy? He was a hedge fund manager who actually made his billions of coal and oil.
     
    #13 SV Fan, Jun 3, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2014
  14. floreairfoot There's a storm coming.

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,757
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're absolutely right, a majority of his wealth came from coal and oil.. not that it matters for a man like Steyer.

    http://freebeacon.com/politics/tom-steyer-green-energy-presents-opportunity-to-make-a-lot-of-money/

    Tom Steyer sees the opportunity to make even more money with his new "green" investments.

    His environmental stance (whatever the hell that is) also falls in line with his position on the Keystone Pipeline.. but not because he cares about the environment...

    The Keystone Pipeline would be in direct competition with TransMountain, a pipeline he's invested in.

    http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/062713-661681-obama-donor-benefits-from-keystone-demise.htm?p=fullZobacz


    Tom Steyer is a snake.
     
    #14 floreairfoot, Jun 3, 2014
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2014
  15. DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs Registered

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    25,041
    Likes Received:
    8
    Wyoming Says Teaching Climate Change Would Wreck The State's Economy

    http://trib.com/news/local/educatio...cle_5d0ec624-6b50-5354-b015-ca2f5f7d7efe.html

    It is inasane that these bible thumping wackos think they can dictate the legitimate science that hasn't been updated since 1998! It's good to see that some don't let their faith cloud their judgement though and except science without trying to ruin future generations.
     
  16. floreairfoot There's a storm coming.

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,757
    Likes Received:
    0
    Accept science? What does that even mean?
     
  17. DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs Registered

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    25,041
    Likes Received:
    8
    Yes I meant "accept science" obviously, my phone was on voice to text and sometimes it puts the wrong word in if they sound similar.

    And to accept the science would mean to go with the literal thousands of peer reviewed papers that have been done on the study that show humans are responsible for climate change and it we need to do out best to curb it in the future. Something that state doesn't want to accept because they think it will destroy their economy if they tell their youth the truth
     
  18. floreairfoot There's a storm coming.

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2011
    Messages:
    1,757
    Likes Received:
    0
    I wasn't questioning your spelling; I assumed it was a mistake.

    It's just amazing that we're at a point of not being able to question climate science.

    Obviously your example is extreme and those people are absurd.
     
  19. DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs Registered

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    25,041
    Likes Received:
    8
    How much evidence do you need? Like I said there has been not hundreds, but THOUSANDS of peer reviewed papers that show, without a doubt, that climate change is real and humanity is accelerating it. 97% of the scientific community agrees with this. They have been able to study it for decades. At this point to deny is just plain stupidity.
     
  20. DJ_KiDDvIcIOUs Registered

    Joined:
    May 7, 2012
    Messages:
    25,041
    Likes Received:
    8
    As was pointed out on last nights Daily Show the heads of the EPA under Reagan, Nixon, and both Bush's testified that they all know for a fact that climate change is real, man made, and the science on the matter definitively proves this. The only thing in question in their eyes is the pace at which it will effect us.

    Funny thing is that the Republicans STILL want to act as if it is not happening.
     
  21. Human Torch Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2012
    Messages:
    10,850
    Likes Received:
    0
    Frankly,I think the concept of "man made" climate change is a lot of stuff & nonsense.The climate has gone through periods of change throughout history.It's nothing new.God is not going to allow mankind to destroy His creation.(unfortunately,they tend to mistreat it,of course)It's the height of human arrogance to believe otherwise.Just my two cents.


    #InbeforepeoplestartwavingtheirP.H.Ds
     
  22. Doctor Evo Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,241
    Likes Received:
    0
    See, this right here is more than a little disturbing. What an irresponsible and dangerous mindset.
     
  23. SV Fan Registered

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2008
    Messages:
    8,165
    Likes Received:
    32
    And if they start causing problems he can just cause a flood and get rid of everybody, because that's how God rolls
     
  24. BestGirl Reluctantly following Vought's orders

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2008
    Messages:
    11,066
    Likes Received:
    25
    Why are you so dismissive of other people's PHDs? You don't think that makes them more knowledgeable about global warming than you?
     
  25. Doctor Evo Registered

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2012
    Messages:
    2,241
    Likes Received:
    0
    You're addressing a creationist. That should pretty much answer your question.
     

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"