Global Warming Denialists, does CO2 absorb longwave radiation?

[Toddsterpatriot]

How is it you think that CO2 emissions reductions decrease GDP?

Is it by reduced power consumption? Higher costs? What? Do you have an economic explanation?

How is it you think that CO2 emissions reductions decrease GDP?

They don't.


View attachment 89482

The US has reduced CO2 emissions by about 12% since about 2007. Our GDP is higher.

Do you have an economic explanation?

If you decreed a 10% reduction in US CO2 emissions in 2017, you would cause a recession.
Our economy runs on fossil fuel. No getting around it at this point.
If you want to build 30 nuke plants in the next 10 years, you could reduce emissions without forcing a recession.

No one is decree-ing a 10% reduction in CO2 emissions without some alternative. That's the point.

It's not a "contract the economy" situation or the governments would have just done it already, that's easy to do. They are bickering over how to do it without causing a recession, that's obvious...and the Paris accords supposedly has finally addressed that.

The most obvious solution is to follow Germany's Energiewende. Germany has done most of the hard work on integrating Renewables to a US-sized Interconnect.

No one is decree-ing a 10% reduction in CO2 emissions without some alternative.

This moron is.......

Earlier this month climate professor Alice Bows-Larkin said that in order to win the warming war, developed nations need to sharply cut their output while the Third World needs to increase its output.


"If you're in a country where per capita emissions are really high — so North America, Europe, Australia — emissions reductions of the order of 10% per year, and starting immediately, will be required for a good chance of avoiding the two-degree target," she said

That would cause a hell of a recession......

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

How is it you think that CO2 emissions reductions decrease GDP?

Is it by reduced power consumption? Higher costs? What? Do you have an economic explanation?

How is it you think that CO2 emissions reductions decrease GDP?

They don't.


View attachment 89482

The US has reduced CO2 emissions by about 12% since about 2007. Our GDP is higher.

Do you have an economic explanation?

If you decreed a 10% reduction in US CO2 emissions in 2017, you would cause a recession.
Our economy runs on fossil fuel. No getting around it at this point.
If you want to build 30 nuke plants in the next 10 years, you could reduce emissions without forcing a recession.

No one is decree-ing a 10% reduction in CO2 emissions without some alternative. That's the point.

It's not a "contract the economy" situation or the governments would have just done it already, that's easy to do. They are bickering over how to do it without causing a recession, that's obvious...and the Paris accords supposedly has finally addressed that.

The most obvious solution is to follow Germany's Energiewende. Germany has done most of the hard work on integrating Renewables to a US-sized Interconnect.

It's not a "contract the economy" situation or the governments would have just done it already

Governments would have just caused a deep recession, just to cut CO2?
Which ones? So they can be voted out of office....tarred and feathered....run out of town on a rail.

 

[forkup]

Again, you yourself gave the reason emission reduction and economic recession go hand in hand. Only it's not like this economist implies that emission reduction causes recession, rather that economic recession causes emission reduction.The truth its very hard to estimate what if any economic damage emission reduction would cause. You have to keep in mind that having to switch from traditional industry to ecological industry creates money to. Look at the success of Tesla or the fact that solar power has become a billion dollar industry. The point is that the sentence "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." itself seem deliberately ambiguous. Cause you can't say he's lying, recession and emission reduction are associated but not in the way the context of the article implies. Bringing me to the reason I choose to address the article to begin with.

Again, you yourself gave the reason emission reduction and economic recession go hand in hand.

Don't they?
Economy grows....emissions rise.
Economy shrinks....emissions fall.

You have to keep in mind that having to switch from traditional industry to ecological industry creates money to.

If you meant costs money and reduces GDP, I agree.

Look at the success of Tesla

Have they turned a profit yet?

or the fact that solar power has become a billion dollar industry.

Sure, waste enough tax dollars on something, you can build an industry. Doesn't make it a good idea.

said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." itself seem deliberately ambiguous. Cause you can't say he's lying,

If you can find examples of larger than 1% reductions without a recession or upheaval, you can definitely say he's lying. So can you?

Only it's not like this economist implies that emission reduction causes recession,

If you force a large enough reduction, you will cause a recession or worse.

In 2013, Swedish GHG emissions totalled 55.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents, compared with 71.8 million tonnes in 1990 – a 22 per cent reduction. Meanwhile, Sweden’s GDP grew 58 per cent during this time period.
He's lying.Sweden tackles climate change

In 2013, Swedish GHG emissions totalled 55.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents, compared with 71.8 million tonnes in 1990 – a 22 per cent reduction.

Assuming those numbers are correct, that's a 1.1% annual reduction.
I guess you could say, based on that, that 1% is a lie.

No the lie is that emission reduction has to cause a reduction in GDP . Something Republicans claim is the case. You asked for something very specific, I was able to provide it. Moving the goalposts doesn't change that fact. The article was in the very least misleading. Btw I kind of resent you questioning the numbers. I gave you the link and I'm sure you can find other sources. If you can proof they are wrong, I'll apologise and acknowledge it, but randomly questioning it without trying to disprove it, is in my view a cheap argument.

No the lie is that emission reduction has to cause a reduction in GDP

Who said it has to?
The guy in the article didn't say that.....me neither.

Something Republicans claim is the case.

How much do you want to decrease CO2 emissions, annually?
How can you do it in ways that don't decrease GDP?

You asked for something very specific, I was able to provide it. Moving the goalposts doesn't change that fact.

Yes, thanks for the link. Who moved a goalpost? Where?

Btw I kind of resent you questioning the numbers.

So what? Plenty of numbers presented here (USMB) are wrong.
I don't know your source. Never seen it before in my life.
Assuming they're correct, 1.1%. Cool!

If you can proof they are wrong

I don't care enough to try.
If they showed 3% annual reductions, I might spend 5 minutes trying.

Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval."

The guy in the article didn't say that.....me neither.

The guy in the article sure did say that emission reduction causes economic recession

How can you do it in ways that don't decrease GDP?

First show me that, emission reduction decreases GDP before you assume it will
And btw the 10 percent annually is wrong to begin with. These are the EU's goals for 2030
The 2030 climate and energy framework sets three key targets for the year 2030:

• At least 40% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (from 1990 levels)
• At least 27% share for renewable energy
• At least 27% improvement in energy efficiency

note that Sweden is ahead of it's shedule already and that the article misrepresented reality again.2030 climate & energy framework - European Commission

 

[forkup]

I love all the ignorant stupid Republicans in here who poo-poo future technology as a "bad idea". Right...where would the Nuclear Industry be without all that Government investment for decades helping it along?

Blah fucking blah.

You should invest all your money in a good solar power company.....are there any left? LOL!

Energiewende makes you look fucking stupid.

Why? Because they pay more than 3 times what we do for electricity?

That doesn't hurt their income any. Germans are way wealthier and way better off than Americans.

That doesn't hurt their income any.

LOL!

Germans are way wealthier and way better off than Americans.

Maybe.....


$46,900 (2015 est.) <<< Germany

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

$55,800 (2015 est.) <<<<< U.S.

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

But we have a larger per capita GDP (PPP) according to the CIA World Factbook

I'm Belgian myself, but I've got an American wife. Perfectly willing to compare my standard of living to most Americans.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Again, you yourself gave the reason emission reduction and economic recession go hand in hand.

Don't they?
Economy grows....emissions rise.
Economy shrinks....emissions fall.

You have to keep in mind that having to switch from traditional industry to ecological industry creates money to.

If you meant costs money and reduces GDP, I agree.

Look at the success of Tesla

Have they turned a profit yet?

or the fact that solar power has become a billion dollar industry.

Sure, waste enough tax dollars on something, you can build an industry. Doesn't make it a good idea.

said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." itself seem deliberately ambiguous. Cause you can't say he's lying,

If you can find examples of larger than 1% reductions without a recession or upheaval, you can definitely say he's lying. So can you?

Only it's not like this economist implies that emission reduction causes recession,

If you force a large enough reduction, you will cause a recession or worse.

In 2013, Swedish GHG emissions totalled 55.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents, compared with 71.8 million tonnes in 1990 – a 22 per cent reduction. Meanwhile, Sweden’s GDP grew 58 per cent during this time period.
He's lying.Sweden tackles climate change

In 2013, Swedish GHG emissions totalled 55.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents, compared with 71.8 million tonnes in 1990 – a 22 per cent reduction.

Assuming those numbers are correct, that's a 1.1% annual reduction.
I guess you could say, based on that, that 1% is a lie.

No the lie is that emission reduction has to cause a reduction in GDP . Something Republicans claim is the case. You asked for something very specific, I was able to provide it. Moving the goalposts doesn't change that fact. The article was in the very least misleading. Btw I kind of resent you questioning the numbers. I gave you the link and I'm sure you can find other sources. If you can proof they are wrong, I'll apologise and acknowledge it, but randomly questioning it without trying to disprove it, is in my view a cheap argument.

No the lie is that emission reduction has to cause a reduction in GDP

Who said it has to?
The guy in the article didn't say that.....me neither.

Something Republicans claim is the case.

How much do you want to decrease CO2 emissions, annually?
How can you do it in ways that don't decrease GDP?

You asked for something very specific, I was able to provide it. Moving the goalposts doesn't change that fact.

Yes, thanks for the link. Who moved a goalpost? Where?

Btw I kind of resent you questioning the numbers.

So what? Plenty of numbers presented here (USMB) are wrong.
I don't know your source. Never seen it before in my life.
Assuming they're correct, 1.1%. Cool!

If you can proof they are wrong

I don't care enough to try.
If they showed 3% annual reductions, I might spend 5 minutes trying.

Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval."

The guy in the article didn't say that.....me neither.

The guy in the article sure did say that emission reduction causes economic recession

How can you do it in ways that don't decrease GDP?

First show me that, emission reduction decreases GDP before you assume it will
And btw the 10 percent annually is wrong to begin with. These are the EU's goals for 2030
The 2030 climate and energy framework sets three key targets for the year 2030:

• At least 40% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (from 1990 levels)
• At least 27% share for renewable energy
• At least 27% improvement in energy efficiency

note that Sweden is ahead of it's shedule already and that the article misrepresented reality again.2030 climate & energy framework - European Commission

The guy in the article sure did say that emission reduction causes economic recession

Can you cut and paste from the article where he said that?

And btw the 10 percent annually is wrong to begin with.

The goofy woman in the article said 10% immediately.
Did she want them to be steady after that? Or reduced more?
I don't know. Never heard of her before.

note that Sweden is ahead of it's shedule already

Yeah, they're awesome. I wish them luck with their Muslim issues.
If the Muslims take over, and kill or enslave all the productive non-Muslims,
that'll really drop their CO2 output!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You should invest all your money in a good solar power company.....are there any left? LOL!

Energiewende makes you look fucking stupid.

Why? Because they pay more than 3 times what we do for electricity?

That doesn't hurt their income any. Germans are way wealthier and way better off than Americans.

That doesn't hurt their income any.

LOL!

Germans are way wealthier and way better off than Americans.

Maybe.....


$46,900 (2015 est.) <<< Germany

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

$55,800 (2015 est.) <<<<< U.S.

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

But we have a larger per capita GDP (PPP) according to the CIA World Factbook

I'm Belgian myself, but I've got an American wife. Perfectly willing to compare my standard of living to most Americans.

Great. Post up your per capita GDP.

 

[forkup]

In 2013, Swedish GHG emissions totalled 55.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents, compared with 71.8 million tonnes in 1990 – a 22 per cent reduction. Meanwhile, Sweden’s GDP grew 58 per cent during this time period.
He's lying.Sweden tackles climate change

In 2013, Swedish GHG emissions totalled 55.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents, compared with 71.8 million tonnes in 1990 – a 22 per cent reduction.

Assuming those numbers are correct, that's a 1.1% annual reduction.
I guess you could say, based on that, that 1% is a lie.

No the lie is that emission reduction has to cause a reduction in GDP . Something Republicans claim is the case. You asked for something very specific, I was able to provide it. Moving the goalposts doesn't change that fact. The article was in the very least misleading. Btw I kind of resent you questioning the numbers. I gave you the link and I'm sure you can find other sources. If you can proof they are wrong, I'll apologise and acknowledge it, but randomly questioning it without trying to disprove it, is in my view a cheap argument.

No the lie is that emission reduction has to cause a reduction in GDP

Who said it has to?
The guy in the article didn't say that.....me neither.

Something Republicans claim is the case.

How much do you want to decrease CO2 emissions, annually?
How can you do it in ways that don't decrease GDP?

You asked for something very specific, I was able to provide it. Moving the goalposts doesn't change that fact.

Yes, thanks for the link. Who moved a goalpost? Where?

Btw I kind of resent you questioning the numbers.

So what? Plenty of numbers presented here (USMB) are wrong.
I don't know your source. Never seen it before in my life.
Assuming they're correct, 1.1%. Cool!

If you can proof they are wrong

I don't care enough to try.
If they showed 3% annual reductions, I might spend 5 minutes trying.

Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval."

The guy in the article didn't say that.....me neither.

The guy in the article sure did say that emission reduction causes economic recession

How can you do it in ways that don't decrease GDP?

First show me that, emission reduction decreases GDP before you assume it will
And btw the 10 percent annually is wrong to begin with. These are the EU's goals for 2030
The 2030 climate and energy framework sets three key targets for the year 2030:

• At least 40% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (from 1990 levels)
• At least 27% share for renewable energy
• At least 27% improvement in energy efficiency

note that Sweden is ahead of it's shedule already and that the article misrepresented reality again.2030 climate & energy framework - European Commission

The guy in the article sure did say that emission reduction causes economic recession

Can you cut and paste from the article where he said that?

And btw the 10 percent annually is wrong to begin with.

The goofy woman in the article said 10% immediately.
Did she want them to be steady after that? Or reduced more?
I don't know. Never heard of her before.

note that Sweden is ahead of it's shedule already

Yeah, they're awesome. I wish them luck with their Muslim issues.
If the Muslims take over, and kill or enslave all the productive non-Muslims,
that'll really drop their CO2 output!!!

The level of ignorance you show in these post is staggering.

Energiewende makes you look fucking stupid.

Why? Because they pay more than 3 times what we do for electricity?

That doesn't hurt their income any. Germans are way wealthier and way better off than Americans.

That doesn't hurt their income any.

LOL!

Germans are way wealthier and way better off than Americans.

Maybe.....


$46,900 (2015 est.) <<< Germany

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

$55,800 (2015 est.) <<<<< U.S.

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

But we have a larger per capita GDP (PPP) according to the CIA World Factbook

I'm Belgian myself, but I've got an American wife. Perfectly willing to compare my standard of living to most Americans.

Great. Post up your per capita GDP.

26

Belgium 44,100 2015 est.
That's not the only indicator.
life expectancy for instance is almost 2 years more
Btw it's about bedtime for me so I'll reply again tomorrow.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In 2013, Swedish GHG emissions totalled 55.8 million tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalents, compared with 71.8 million tonnes in 1990 – a 22 per cent reduction.

Assuming those numbers are correct, that's a 1.1% annual reduction.
I guess you could say, based on that, that 1% is a lie.

No the lie is that emission reduction has to cause a reduction in GDP . Something Republicans claim is the case. You asked for something very specific, I was able to provide it. Moving the goalposts doesn't change that fact. The article was in the very least misleading. Btw I kind of resent you questioning the numbers. I gave you the link and I'm sure you can find other sources. If you can proof they are wrong, I'll apologise and acknowledge it, but randomly questioning it without trying to disprove it, is in my view a cheap argument.

No the lie is that emission reduction has to cause a reduction in GDP

Who said it has to?
The guy in the article didn't say that.....me neither.

Something Republicans claim is the case.

How much do you want to decrease CO2 emissions, annually?
How can you do it in ways that don't decrease GDP?

You asked for something very specific, I was able to provide it. Moving the goalposts doesn't change that fact.

Yes, thanks for the link. Who moved a goalpost? Where?

Btw I kind of resent you questioning the numbers.

So what? Plenty of numbers presented here (USMB) are wrong.
I don't know your source. Never seen it before in my life.
Assuming they're correct, 1.1%. Cool!

If you can proof they are wrong

I don't care enough to try.
If they showed 3% annual reductions, I might spend 5 minutes trying.

Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval."

The guy in the article didn't say that.....me neither.

The guy in the article sure did say that emission reduction causes economic recession

How can you do it in ways that don't decrease GDP?

First show me that, emission reduction decreases GDP before you assume it will
And btw the 10 percent annually is wrong to begin with. These are the EU's goals for 2030
The 2030 climate and energy framework sets three key targets for the year 2030:

• At least 40% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (from 1990 levels)
• At least 27% share for renewable energy
• At least 27% improvement in energy efficiency

note that Sweden is ahead of it's shedule already and that the article misrepresented reality again.2030 climate & energy framework - European Commission

The guy in the article sure did say that emission reduction causes economic recession

Can you cut and paste from the article where he said that?

And btw the 10 percent annually is wrong to begin with.

The goofy woman in the article said 10% immediately.
Did she want them to be steady after that? Or reduced more?
I don't know. Never heard of her before.

note that Sweden is ahead of it's shedule already

Yeah, they're awesome. I wish them luck with their Muslim issues.
If the Muslims take over, and kill or enslave all the productive non-Muslims,
that'll really drop their CO2 output!!!

The level of ignorance you show in these post is staggering.

Why? Because they pay more than 3 times what we do for electricity?

That doesn't hurt their income any. Germans are way wealthier and way better off than Americans.

That doesn't hurt their income any.

LOL!

Germans are way wealthier and way better off than Americans.

Maybe.....


$46,900 (2015 est.) <<< Germany

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

$55,800 (2015 est.) <<<<< U.S.

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

But we have a larger per capita GDP (PPP) according to the CIA World Factbook

I'm Belgian myself, but I've got an American wife. Perfectly willing to compare my standard of living to most Americans.

Great. Post up your per capita GDP.

26

Belgium 44,100 2015 est.
That's not the only indicator.
life expectancy for instance is almost 2 years more
Btw it's about bedtime for me so I'll reply again tomorrow.

The level of ignorance you show in these post is staggering.

Yes, pointing out all the errors here is exhausting.

26

Belgium 44,100 2015 est.

So you're below the US and Germany. Good to know.

That's not the only indicator.

Anyone who claimed it was would be wrong.

life expectancy for instance is almost 2 years more

When you back out crime ridden minority populations in the US, we're equivalent to yours.

 

[forkup]

No the lie is that emission reduction has to cause a reduction in GDP . Something Republicans claim is the case. You asked for something very specific, I was able to provide it. Moving the goalposts doesn't change that fact. The article was in the very least misleading. Btw I kind of resent you questioning the numbers. I gave you the link and I'm sure you can find other sources. If you can proof they are wrong, I'll apologise and acknowledge it, but randomly questioning it without trying to disprove it, is in my view a cheap argument.

No the lie is that emission reduction has to cause a reduction in GDP

Who said it has to?
The guy in the article didn't say that.....me neither.

Something Republicans claim is the case.

How much do you want to decrease CO2 emissions, annually?
How can you do it in ways that don't decrease GDP?

You asked for something very specific, I was able to provide it. Moving the goalposts doesn't change that fact.

Yes, thanks for the link. Who moved a goalpost? Where?

Btw I kind of resent you questioning the numbers.

So what? Plenty of numbers presented here (USMB) are wrong.
I don't know your source. Never seen it before in my life.
Assuming they're correct, 1.1%. Cool!

If you can proof they are wrong

I don't care enough to try.
If they showed 3% annual reductions, I might spend 5 minutes trying.

Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval."

The guy in the article didn't say that.....me neither.

The guy in the article sure did say that emission reduction causes economic recession

How can you do it in ways that don't decrease GDP?

First show me that, emission reduction decreases GDP before you assume it will
And btw the 10 percent annually is wrong to begin with. These are the EU's goals for 2030
The 2030 climate and energy framework sets three key targets for the year 2030:

• At least 40% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (from 1990 levels)
• At least 27% share for renewable energy
• At least 27% improvement in energy efficiency

note that Sweden is ahead of it's shedule already and that the article misrepresented reality again.2030 climate & energy framework - European Commission

The guy in the article sure did say that emission reduction causes economic recession

Can you cut and paste from the article where he said that?

And btw the 10 percent annually is wrong to begin with.

The goofy woman in the article said 10% immediately.
Did she want them to be steady after that? Or reduced more?
I don't know. Never heard of her before.

note that Sweden is ahead of it's shedule already

Yeah, they're awesome. I wish them luck with their Muslim issues.
If the Muslims take over, and kill or enslave all the productive non-Muslims,
that'll really drop their CO2 output!!!

The level of ignorance you show in these post is staggering.

That doesn't hurt their income any. Germans are way wealthier and way better off than Americans.

That doesn't hurt their income any.

LOL!

Germans are way wealthier and way better off than Americans.

Maybe.....


$46,900 (2015 est.) <<< Germany

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

$55,800 (2015 est.) <<<<< U.S.

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

But we have a larger per capita GDP (PPP) according to the CIA World Factbook

I'm Belgian myself, but I've got an American wife. Perfectly willing to compare my standard of living to most Americans.

Great. Post up your per capita GDP.

26

Belgium 44,100 2015 est.
That's not the only indicator.
life expectancy for instance is almost 2 years more
Btw it's about bedtime for me so I'll reply again tomorrow.

The level of ignorance you show in these post is staggering.

Yes, pointing out all the errors here is exhausting.

26

Belgium 44,100 2015 est.

So you're below the US and Germany. Good to know.

That's not the only indicator.

Anyone who claimed it was would be wrong.

life expectancy for instance is almost 2 years more

When you back out crime ridden minority populations in the US, we're equivalent to yours.

So you're below the US and Germany. Good to know.

Yes where below, on the other hand GDP is an average and since we have few ultra rich people skewing that average I'm not entirely sure our GDP is that different if you discount those ultra rich people.List of countries by income equality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This shows what I mean.

Anyone who claimed it was would be wrong.

It's not that you claimed it. It's that, when I say compare standard of living the only thing you ask is GDP so you sure try to imply it.

When you back out crime ridden minority populations in the US, we're equivalent to yours.

You have figures to proof this of course? And you seem to try to make a statement here claiming we have no minorities that commit a disproportionate amount of crimes and have a harder time fully integrating in society. We don't have African Americans but we do have North Africans who have the same social and economical issues.
I'll tell you why our life expectancy is longer. We have a more inclusive and efficient healthcare system.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No the lie is that emission reduction has to cause a reduction in GDP

Who said it has to?
The guy in the article didn't say that.....me neither.

Something Republicans claim is the case.

How much do you want to decrease CO2 emissions, annually?
How can you do it in ways that don't decrease GDP?

You asked for something very specific, I was able to provide it. Moving the goalposts doesn't change that fact.

Yes, thanks for the link. Who moved a goalpost? Where?

Btw I kind of resent you questioning the numbers.

So what? Plenty of numbers presented here (USMB) are wrong.
I don't know your source. Never seen it before in my life.
Assuming they're correct, 1.1%. Cool!

If you can proof they are wrong

I don't care enough to try.
If they showed 3% annual reductions, I might spend 5 minutes trying.

Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval."

The guy in the article didn't say that.....me neither.

The guy in the article sure did say that emission reduction causes economic recession

How can you do it in ways that don't decrease GDP?

First show me that, emission reduction decreases GDP before you assume it will
And btw the 10 percent annually is wrong to begin with. These are the EU's goals for 2030
The 2030 climate and energy framework sets three key targets for the year 2030:

• At least 40% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (from 1990 levels)
• At least 27% share for renewable energy
• At least 27% improvement in energy efficiency

note that Sweden is ahead of it's shedule already and that the article misrepresented reality again.2030 climate & energy framework - European Commission

The guy in the article sure did say that emission reduction causes economic recession

Can you cut and paste from the article where he said that?

And btw the 10 percent annually is wrong to begin with.

The goofy woman in the article said 10% immediately.
Did she want them to be steady after that? Or reduced more?
I don't know. Never heard of her before.

note that Sweden is ahead of it's shedule already

Yeah, they're awesome. I wish them luck with their Muslim issues.
If the Muslims take over, and kill or enslave all the productive non-Muslims,
that'll really drop their CO2 output!!!

The level of ignorance you show in these post is staggering.

That doesn't hurt their income any.

LOL!

Germans are way wealthier and way better off than Americans.

Maybe.....


$46,900 (2015 est.) <<< Germany

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

$55,800 (2015 est.) <<<<< U.S.

The World Factbook — Central Intelligence Agency

But we have a larger per capita GDP (PPP) according to the CIA World Factbook

I'm Belgian myself, but I've got an American wife. Perfectly willing to compare my standard of living to most Americans.

Great. Post up your per capita GDP.

26

Belgium 44,100 2015 est.
That's not the only indicator.
life expectancy for instance is almost 2 years more
Btw it's about bedtime for me so I'll reply again tomorrow.

The level of ignorance you show in these post is staggering.

Yes, pointing out all the errors here is exhausting.

26

Belgium 44,100 2015 est.

So you're below the US and Germany. Good to know.

That's not the only indicator.

Anyone who claimed it was would be wrong.

life expectancy for instance is almost 2 years more

When you back out crime ridden minority populations in the US, we're equivalent to yours.

So you're below the US and Germany. Good to know.

Yes where below, on the other hand GDP is an average and since we have few ultra rich people skewing that average I'm not entirely sure our GDP is that different if you discount those ultra rich people.List of countries by income equality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This shows what I mean.

Anyone who claimed it was would be wrong.

It's not that you claimed it. It's that, when I say compare standard of living the only thing you ask is GDP so you sure try to imply it.

When you back out crime ridden minority populations in the US, we're equivalent to yours.

You have figures to proof this of course? And you seem to try to make a statement here claiming we have no minorities that commit a disproportionate amount of crimes and have a harder time fully integrating in society. We don't have African Americans but we do have North Africans who have the same social and economical issues.
I'll tell you why our life expectancy is longer. We have a more inclusive and efficient healthcare system.

It's that, when I say compare standard of living the only thing you ask is GDP

You could give other numbers, if you'd like.

You have figures to proof this of course?

I've seen them, somewhere.

And you seem to try to make a statement here claiming we have no minorities that commit a disproportionate amount of crimes

Pretty sure we have more.

I'll tell you why our life expectancy is longer. We have a more inclusive and efficient healthcare system.

Okay.

 

[forkup]

The guy in the article sure did say that emission reduction causes economic recession
First show me that, emission reduction decreases GDP before you assume it will
And btw the 10 percent annually is wrong to begin with. These are the EU's goals for 2030
The 2030 climate and energy framework sets three key targets for the year 2030:

• At least 40% cuts in greenhouse gas emissions (from 1990 levels)
• At least 27% share for renewable energy
• At least 27% improvement in energy efficiency

note that Sweden is ahead of it's shedule already and that the article misrepresented reality again.2030 climate & energy framework - European Commission

The guy in the article sure did say that emission reduction causes economic recession

Can you cut and paste from the article where he said that?

And btw the 10 percent annually is wrong to begin with.

The goofy woman in the article said 10% immediately.
Did she want them to be steady after that? Or reduced more?
I don't know. Never heard of her before.

note that Sweden is ahead of it's shedule already

Yeah, they're awesome. I wish them luck with their Muslim issues.
If the Muslims take over, and kill or enslave all the productive non-Muslims,
that'll really drop their CO2 output!!!

The level of ignorance you show in these post is staggering.

I'm Belgian myself, but I've got an American wife. Perfectly willing to compare my standard of living to most Americans.

Great. Post up your per capita GDP.

26

Belgium 44,100 2015 est.
That's not the only indicator.
life expectancy for instance is almost 2 years more
Btw it's about bedtime for me so I'll reply again tomorrow.

The level of ignorance you show in these post is staggering.

Yes, pointing out all the errors here is exhausting.

26

Belgium 44,100 2015 est.

So you're below the US and Germany. Good to know.

That's not the only indicator.

Anyone who claimed it was would be wrong.

life expectancy for instance is almost 2 years more

When you back out crime ridden minority populations in the US, we're equivalent to yours.

So you're below the US and Germany. Good to know.

Yes where below, on the other hand GDP is an average and since we have few ultra rich people skewing that average I'm not entirely sure our GDP is that different if you discount those ultra rich people.List of countries by income equality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This shows what I mean.

Anyone who claimed it was would be wrong.

It's not that you claimed it. It's that, when I say compare standard of living the only thing you ask is GDP so you sure try to imply it.

When you back out crime ridden minority populations in the US, we're equivalent to yours.

You have figures to proof this of course? And you seem to try to make a statement here claiming we have no minorities that commit a disproportionate amount of crimes and have a harder time fully integrating in society. We don't have African Americans but we do have North Africans who have the same social and economical issues.
I'll tell you why our life expectancy is longer. We have a more inclusive and efficient healthcare system.

It's that, when I say compare standard of living the only thing you ask is GDP

You could give other numbers, if you'd like.

You have figures to proof this of course?

I've seen them, somewhere.

And you seem to try to make a statement here claiming we have no minorities that commit a disproportionate amount of crimes

Pretty sure we have more.

I'll tell you why our life expectancy is longer. We have a more inclusive and efficient healthcare system.

Okay.

You could give other numbers, if you'd like.

Ok
1. better education, we lead in all 3 catagories. Programme for International Student Assessment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. better healthcare system, we live longer while spending less money on healthcare.List of countries by total health expenditure per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. less income inequality. List of countries by income equality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4. More people bying there own houses
List of countries by home ownership rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
5. less people getting murdered. List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Those are a few numbers. Now, of course I cherry pick. We have issues of course. High population density, not a lot of nature because of that. Bad weather, atrocious traffic. High tax rates, to name a few. On average though, and remember I have actual experience on both sides of the Atlantic. An average Belgian lives in a safer, healthier and generally speaking more inclusive and social country.

Pretty sure we have more.

Yes you do actually. Using it as an argument, without being able to provide meaningful numbers and without even being able to establish a link between minorities, crime and death rates, enough to detract almost 2 years of live to ours, seems a failed argument .
http://kff.org/other/state-indicato...e=0&sortModel={"colId":"White","sort":"desc"} this puts the life expectancy of WHITE Americans at 78.9 percent

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The guy in the article sure did say that emission reduction causes economic recession

Can you cut and paste from the article where he said that?

And btw the 10 percent annually is wrong to begin with.

The goofy woman in the article said 10% immediately.
Did she want them to be steady after that? Or reduced more?
I don't know. Never heard of her before.

note that Sweden is ahead of it's shedule already

Yeah, they're awesome. I wish them luck with their Muslim issues.
If the Muslims take over, and kill or enslave all the productive non-Muslims,
that'll really drop their CO2 output!!!

The level of ignorance you show in these post is staggering.

Great. Post up your per capita GDP.

26

Belgium 44,100 2015 est.
That's not the only indicator.
life expectancy for instance is almost 2 years more
Btw it's about bedtime for me so I'll reply again tomorrow.

The level of ignorance you show in these post is staggering.

Yes, pointing out all the errors here is exhausting.

26

Belgium 44,100 2015 est.

So you're below the US and Germany. Good to know.

That's not the only indicator.

Anyone who claimed it was would be wrong.

life expectancy for instance is almost 2 years more

When you back out crime ridden minority populations in the US, we're equivalent to yours.

So you're below the US and Germany. Good to know.

Yes where below, on the other hand GDP is an average and since we have few ultra rich people skewing that average I'm not entirely sure our GDP is that different if you discount those ultra rich people.List of countries by income equality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This shows what I mean.

Anyone who claimed it was would be wrong.

It's not that you claimed it. It's that, when I say compare standard of living the only thing you ask is GDP so you sure try to imply it.

When you back out crime ridden minority populations in the US, we're equivalent to yours.

You have figures to proof this of course? And you seem to try to make a statement here claiming we have no minorities that commit a disproportionate amount of crimes and have a harder time fully integrating in society. We don't have African Americans but we do have North Africans who have the same social and economical issues.
I'll tell you why our life expectancy is longer. We have a more inclusive and efficient healthcare system.

It's that, when I say compare standard of living the only thing you ask is GDP

You could give other numbers, if you'd like.

You have figures to proof this of course?

I've seen them, somewhere.

And you seem to try to make a statement here claiming we have no minorities that commit a disproportionate amount of crimes

Pretty sure we have more.

I'll tell you why our life expectancy is longer. We have a more inclusive and efficient healthcare system.

Okay.

You could give other numbers, if you'd like.

Ok
1. better education, we lead in all 3 catagories. Programme for International Student Assessment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2. better healthcare system, we live longer while spending less money on healthcare.List of countries by total health expenditure per capita - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
List of countries by life expectancy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
3. less income inequality. List of countries by income equality - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
4. More people bying there own houses
List of countries by home ownership rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
5. less people getting murdered. List of countries by intentional homicide rate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Those are a few numbers. Now, of course I cherry pick. We have issues of course. High population density, not a lot of nature because of that. Bad weather, atrocious traffic. High tax rates, to name a few. On average though, and remember I have actual experience on both sides of the Atlantic. An average Belgian lives in a safer, healthier and generally speaking more inclusive and social country.

Pretty sure we have more.

Yes you do actually. Using it as an argument, without being able to provide meaningful numbers and without even being able to establish a link between minorities, crime and death rates, enough to detract almost 2 years of live to ours, seems a failed argument .
http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/life-expectancy-by-re/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel={"colId":"White","sort":"desc"} this puts the life expectancy of WHITE Americans at 78.9 percent

better education, we lead in all 3 catagories

Awesome!
See my earlier comment about minorities.

better healthcare system, we live longer while spending less money on healthcare

Awesome!
It's amazing how much money you can spend on that when someone else does most of your military spending and pays for most of the new drug research.

less income inequality.

Less capitalism, so fewer rich, fewer minorities, so fewer poor.

More people bying there own houses

Yeah, the government tried to work on that and kinda tanked the world economy.
Our houses are bigger though.

less people getting murdered

Minorities, etc.

Using it as an argument, without being able to provide meaningful numbers and without even being able to establish a link between minorities, crime and death rates, enough to detract almost 2 years of live to ours, seems a failed argument .

If I give a shit enough to prove it on a CO2 thread, I'll post it, if I don't, assume I just lost interest.......

 

[ScienceRocks]

I'm seriously fighting some stupid holocaust deniers that don't believe there are experiments that prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So take it here, tell the WHOLE forum what you holocaust deniers believe about CO2.

Do you believe CO2 absorbs longwave radiation or not?

Put up or shut up and eat shit.

The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Tell that to the diarrhea stained used PMS rags claiming that there are no experiments showing CO2 to be a greenhouse gas.

Man there's a lot of foolish libertarians in this country. I feel like i am surrounded by morons.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm seriously fighting some stupid holocaust deniers that don't believe there are experiments that prove CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

So take it here, tell the WHOLE forum what you holocaust deniers believe about CO2.

Do you believe CO2 absorbs longwave radiation or not?

Put up or shut up and eat shit.

The greenhouse gas qualities of carbon dioxide have been known for over a century. In 1861

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?

Tell that to the diarrhea stained used PMS rags claiming that there are no experiments showing CO2 to be a greenhouse gas.

Man there's a lot of foolish libertarians in this country. I feel like i am surrounded by morons.

I feel like i am surrounded by morons.

Seeing as you're a moron, you should feel comfortable in your surroundings.

 

[skookerasbil]

The OP still doesn't get it.........nobody is caring. Well.....the internet OCD's on the science crap might be but regular folks don't give a rats ass. For 10 years, Ive been watching the AGW k00ks in here posting up thread, after thread, after thread of the same nonsense thinking the landscape is going to change in the real world.......haven't moved the ball but a yard on the playing field. And you know what they say.......about those who do things over and over expecting a different result.

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/Nobody%20cares.gif.html][/URL]

 

[skookerasbil]

Yo Brambo.........please show us on this chart where the science is mattering?

[URL=http://s42.photobucket.com/user/baldaltima/media/solarfail.png.html][/URL]

 

[BlindBoo]

The OP still doesn't get it.........nobody is caring.

Exactly. Better to plan for adapting to a warmer world.

 

[Brambo]

Yo Brambo.........please show us on this chart where the science is mattering?

About 1/3rd of energy comes from Renewables and is a growing share of the electricity production.

Why are you so fucking stupid?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yo Brambo.........please show us on this chart where the science is mattering?

About 1/3rd of energy comes from Renewables and is a growing share of the electricity production.

Why are you so fucking stupid?

About 1/3rd of energy comes from Renewables

Your math is amazingly bad.

Why are you so fucking stupid?

I'll come back when you're done talking to yourself.

 

[Brambo]

Yo Brambo.........please show us on this chart where the science is mattering?

About 1/3rd of energy comes from Renewables and is a growing share of the electricity production.

Why are you so fucking stupid?

About 1/3rd of energy comes from Renewables

Your math is amazingly bad.

Why are you so fucking stupid?

I'll come back when you're done talking to yourself.

Sorry let me rephrase because I didn't mean renewables as "solar/wind" I meant it as non-Carbon sources.

I was counting Nuclear, in that list, and I am OK with counting Nuclear.

I may be highly anti-Nuclear in the long run, the longer you run nuclear the higher the chance of world ending catastrophy.

But it's safe enough to get away with in the short run to find a better energy solution or provide the bridge from coal to renewable.