Global Warming Denialists, does CO2 absorb longwave radiation?

[forkup]

A couple of things. First off, in this article, there are no outside references, so actually checking the truthfulness is impossible. Secondly this is the sentence that makes me frown.Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." How do you come to conclusions of something that hasn't happened yet. Since no actual reduction has been reported yet. So he's basically spit balling it. This makes it an assumption, not science.

Secondly this is the sentence that makes me frown.Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." How do you come to conclusions of something that hasn't happened yet. Since no actual reduction has been reported yet.

View attachment 89354

Looks like the reduction in 2009 was much more than 1%.

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2014 | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA

Lol, so if I get it correctly, you are claiming there's a connection between the reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions and the mortgage crisis? I personally believe that to be a stretch. And btw in 2002 the dot com bubble burst and emissions where going up then. So trying to tie up the 2 gets tricky right off the bat.

Lol, so if I get it correctly, you are claiming there's a connection between the reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions and the mortgage crisis?

The economy tanked, less CO2 was released.
Why is that hard to believe?
There was a smaller drop in 2000-2001, when the dotcom bubble burst. It wasn't 2002.

You are right that is logical, my obvious question then would be, how does this help your argument? You just admitted that greenhouse reduction was an effect, not a cause of the recent recessions. Making the article and this Nicolas Stern quoted, dishonest. Furthermore I want to point out that the article didn't deny Global warming but tries to question the motives of the scientist researching it. So again how does the article help the deniers?

You are right that is logical, my obvious question then would be, how does this help your argument?

My argument was that I've known that recessions reduce emissions.
What did you think my argument was?

So again how does the article help the deniers?

Which article do you mean? Could you link it again?

sorry I was answering the original poster this was the article he sourced. Sorry for the mixup.http://www.investors.com/politics/c...ants-to-fight-global-warming-with-depression/

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Secondly this is the sentence that makes me frown.Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." How do you come to conclusions of something that hasn't happened yet. Since no actual reduction has been reported yet.

View attachment 89354

Looks like the reduction in 2009 was much more than 1%.

U.S. Greenhouse Gas Inventory Report: 1990-2014 | Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions | US EPA

Lol, so if I get it correctly, you are claiming there's a connection between the reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions and the mortgage crisis? I personally believe that to be a stretch. And btw in 2002 the dot com bubble burst and emissions where going up then. So trying to tie up the 2 gets tricky right off the bat.

Lol, so if I get it correctly, you are claiming there's a connection between the reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions and the mortgage crisis?

The economy tanked, less CO2 was released.
Why is that hard to believe?
There was a smaller drop in 2000-2001, when the dotcom bubble burst. It wasn't 2002.

You are right that is logical, my obvious question then would be, how does this help your argument? You just admitted that greenhouse reduction was an effect, not a cause of the recent recessions. Making the article and this Nicolas Stern quoted, dishonest. Furthermore I want to point out that the article didn't deny Global warming but tries to question the motives of the scientist researching it. So again how does the article help the deniers?

You are right that is logical, my obvious question then would be, how does this help your argument?

My argument was that I've known that recessions reduce emissions.
What did you think my argument was?

So again how does the article help the deniers?

Which article do you mean? Could you link it again?

sorry I was answering the original poster this was the article he sourced. Sorry for the mixup.http://www.investors.com/politics/c...ants-to-fight-global-warming-with-depression/

Thanks.

Ten percent? What does this mean in terms of economic health in developed nations? It means economic disaster. Bows-Larkin herself points to the work of economist Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." But somehow she misses the depths to which her plan will take us.

He's saying the only way to get the huge reduction the warmers say we need, is to cause a huge economic contraction. I agree with him.

If the warmers really wanted to reduce emissions, without hurting economies, they'd support nuclear energy, which can give us reliable CO2-less energy, instead of unreliable wind and solar.

 

[forkup]

Lol, so if I get it correctly, you are claiming there's a connection between the reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions and the mortgage crisis? I personally believe that to be a stretch. And btw in 2002 the dot com bubble burst and emissions where going up then. So trying to tie up the 2 gets tricky right off the bat.

Lol, so if I get it correctly, you are claiming there's a connection between the reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions and the mortgage crisis?

The economy tanked, less CO2 was released.
Why is that hard to believe?
There was a smaller drop in 2000-2001, when the dotcom bubble burst. It wasn't 2002.

You are right that is logical, my obvious question then would be, how does this help your argument? You just admitted that greenhouse reduction was an effect, not a cause of the recent recessions. Making the article and this Nicolas Stern quoted, dishonest. Furthermore I want to point out that the article didn't deny Global warming but tries to question the motives of the scientist researching it. So again how does the article help the deniers?

You are right that is logical, my obvious question then would be, how does this help your argument?

My argument was that I've known that recessions reduce emissions.
What did you think my argument was?

So again how does the article help the deniers?

Which article do you mean? Could you link it again?

sorry I was answering the original poster this was the article he sourced. Sorry for the mixup.Professor Calls For A Depression To Fight Global Warming

Thanks.

Ten percent? What does this mean in terms of economic health in developed nations? It means economic disaster. Bows-Larkin herself points to the work of economist Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." But somehow she misses the depths to which her plan will take us.

He's saying the only way to get the huge reduction the warmers say we need, is to cause a huge economic contraction. I agree with him.

If the warmers really wanted to reduce emissions, without hurting economies, they'd support nuclear energy, which can give us reliable CO2-less energy, instead of unreliable wind and solar.

You can't have it both ways Todd. You can't on the 1 hand site the 10 percent number, while at the same time admitting that emission reduction is the effect of a recession, not the cause. The article can't give a causal connection between recession and emission reduction so the economic argument falls flat.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Lol, so if I get it correctly, you are claiming there's a connection between the reduction in Greenhouse Gas emissions and the mortgage crisis?

The economy tanked, less CO2 was released.
Why is that hard to believe?
There was a smaller drop in 2000-2001, when the dotcom bubble burst. It wasn't 2002.

You are right that is logical, my obvious question then would be, how does this help your argument? You just admitted that greenhouse reduction was an effect, not a cause of the recent recessions. Making the article and this Nicolas Stern quoted, dishonest. Furthermore I want to point out that the article didn't deny Global warming but tries to question the motives of the scientist researching it. So again how does the article help the deniers?

You are right that is logical, my obvious question then would be, how does this help your argument?

My argument was that I've known that recessions reduce emissions.
What did you think my argument was?

So again how does the article help the deniers?

Which article do you mean? Could you link it again?

sorry I was answering the original poster this was the article he sourced. Sorry for the mixup.Professor Calls For A Depression To Fight Global Warming

Thanks.

Ten percent? What does this mean in terms of economic health in developed nations? It means economic disaster. Bows-Larkin herself points to the work of economist Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." But somehow she misses the depths to which her plan will take us.

He's saying the only way to get the huge reduction the warmers say we need, is to cause a huge economic contraction. I agree with him.

If the warmers really wanted to reduce emissions, without hurting economies, they'd support nuclear energy, which can give us reliable CO2-less energy, instead of unreliable wind and solar.

You can't have it both ways Todd. You can't on the 1 hand site the 10 percent number, while at the same time admitting that emission reduction is the effect of a recession, not the cause. The article can't give a causal connection between recession and emission reduction so the economic argument falls flat.

You can't have it both ways Todd.

I'm not trying to have anything both ways. You're confused.

You can't on the 1 hand site the 10 percent number

That's the number the panic-mongers say we need to reduce CO2 output.

while at the same time admitting that emission reduction is the effect of a recession, not the cause.

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

So, with no recession, 1% reduction is the best we've seen.
Do you want 10%? Great, what industries should we shut down?
How much GDP will that cost us?

 

[flacaltenn]

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.

Ignore the couple of trogs who annoy people with that kind of stupidity and focus on why YOU BELIEVE -- a 2deg temperature spells the end of world...

 

[forkup]

You are right that is logical, my obvious question then would be, how does this help your argument? You just admitted that greenhouse reduction was an effect, not a cause of the recent recessions. Making the article and this Nicolas Stern quoted, dishonest. Furthermore I want to point out that the article didn't deny Global warming but tries to question the motives of the scientist researching it. So again how does the article help the deniers?

You are right that is logical, my obvious question then would be, how does this help your argument?

My argument was that I've known that recessions reduce emissions.
What did you think my argument was?

So again how does the article help the deniers?

Which article do you mean? Could you link it again?

sorry I was answering the original poster this was the article he sourced. Sorry for the mixup.Professor Calls For A Depression To Fight Global Warming

Thanks.

Ten percent? What does this mean in terms of economic health in developed nations? It means economic disaster. Bows-Larkin herself points to the work of economist Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." But somehow she misses the depths to which her plan will take us.

He's saying the only way to get the huge reduction the warmers say we need, is to cause a huge economic contraction. I agree with him.

If the warmers really wanted to reduce emissions, without hurting economies, they'd support nuclear energy, which can give us reliable CO2-less energy, instead of unreliable wind and solar.

You can't have it both ways Todd. You can't on the 1 hand site the 10 percent number, while at the same time admitting that emission reduction is the effect of a recession, not the cause. The article can't give a causal connection between recession and emission reduction so the economic argument falls flat.

You can't have it both ways Todd.

I'm not trying to have anything both ways. You're confused.

You can't on the 1 hand site the 10 percent number

That's the number the panic-mongers say we need to reduce CO2 output.

while at the same time admitting that emission reduction is the effect of a recession, not the cause.

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

So, with no recession, 1% reduction is the best we've seen.
Do you want 10%? Great, what industries should we shut down?
How much GDP will that cost us?

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You are right that is logical, my obvious question then would be, how does this help your argument?

My argument was that I've known that recessions reduce emissions.
What did you think my argument was?

So again how does the article help the deniers?

Which article do you mean? Could you link it again?

sorry I was answering the original poster this was the article he sourced. Sorry for the mixup.Professor Calls For A Depression To Fight Global Warming

Thanks.

Ten percent? What does this mean in terms of economic health in developed nations? It means economic disaster. Bows-Larkin herself points to the work of economist Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." But somehow she misses the depths to which her plan will take us.

He's saying the only way to get the huge reduction the warmers say we need, is to cause a huge economic contraction. I agree with him.

If the warmers really wanted to reduce emissions, without hurting economies, they'd support nuclear energy, which can give us reliable CO2-less energy, instead of unreliable wind and solar.

You can't have it both ways Todd. You can't on the 1 hand site the 10 percent number, while at the same time admitting that emission reduction is the effect of a recession, not the cause. The article can't give a causal connection between recession and emission reduction so the economic argument falls flat.

You can't have it both ways Todd.

I'm not trying to have anything both ways. You're confused.

You can't on the 1 hand site the 10 percent number

That's the number the panic-mongers say we need to reduce CO2 output.

while at the same time admitting that emission reduction is the effect of a recession, not the cause.

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

So, with no recession, 1% reduction is the best we've seen.
Do you want 10%? Great, what industries should we shut down?
How much GDP will that cost us?

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.

 

[forkup]

sorry I was answering the original poster this was the article he sourced. Sorry for the mixup.Professor Calls For A Depression To Fight Global Warming

Thanks.

Ten percent? What does this mean in terms of economic health in developed nations? It means economic disaster. Bows-Larkin herself points to the work of economist Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." But somehow she misses the depths to which her plan will take us.

He's saying the only way to get the huge reduction the warmers say we need, is to cause a huge economic contraction. I agree with him.

If the warmers really wanted to reduce emissions, without hurting economies, they'd support nuclear energy, which can give us reliable CO2-less energy, instead of unreliable wind and solar.

You can't have it both ways Todd. You can't on the 1 hand site the 10 percent number, while at the same time admitting that emission reduction is the effect of a recession, not the cause. The article can't give a causal connection between recession and emission reduction so the economic argument falls flat.

You can't have it both ways Todd.

I'm not trying to have anything both ways. You're confused.

You can't on the 1 hand site the 10 percent number

That's the number the panic-mongers say we need to reduce CO2 output.

while at the same time admitting that emission reduction is the effect of a recession, not the cause.

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

So, with no recession, 1% reduction is the best we've seen.
Do you want 10%? Great, what industries should we shut down?
How much GDP will that cost us?

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

 

[Brambo]

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thanks.

Ten percent? What does this mean in terms of economic health in developed nations? It means economic disaster. Bows-Larkin herself points to the work of economist Nicholas Stern, who "said that emission reductions of more than 1% per year had only ever been associated with economic recession or upheaval." But somehow she misses the depths to which her plan will take us.

He's saying the only way to get the huge reduction the warmers say we need, is to cause a huge economic contraction. I agree with him.

If the warmers really wanted to reduce emissions, without hurting economies, they'd support nuclear energy, which can give us reliable CO2-less energy, instead of unreliable wind and solar.

You can't have it both ways Todd. You can't on the 1 hand site the 10 percent number, while at the same time admitting that emission reduction is the effect of a recession, not the cause. The article can't give a causal connection between recession and emission reduction so the economic argument falls flat.

You can't have it both ways Todd.

I'm not trying to have anything both ways. You're confused.

You can't on the 1 hand site the 10 percent number

That's the number the panic-mongers say we need to reduce CO2 output.

while at the same time admitting that emission reduction is the effect of a recession, not the cause.

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

So, with no recession, 1% reduction is the best we've seen.
Do you want 10%? Great, what industries should we shut down?
How much GDP will that cost us?

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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!

 

[forkup]

You can't have it both ways Todd. You can't on the 1 hand site the 10 percent number, while at the same time admitting that emission reduction is the effect of a recession, not the cause. The article can't give a causal connection between recession and emission reduction so the economic argument falls flat.

You can't have it both ways Todd.

I'm not trying to have anything both ways. You're confused.

You can't on the 1 hand site the 10 percent number

That's the number the panic-mongers say we need to reduce CO2 output.

while at the same time admitting that emission reduction is the effect of a recession, not the cause.

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

So, with no recession, 1% reduction is the best we've seen.
Do you want 10%? Great, what industries should we shut down?
How much GDP will that cost us?

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.

 

[Brambo]

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You can't have it both ways Todd.

I'm not trying to have anything both ways. You're confused.

You can't on the 1 hand site the 10 percent number

That's the number the panic-mongers say we need to reduce CO2 output.

while at the same time admitting that emission reduction is the effect of a recession, not the cause.

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

So, with no recession, 1% reduction is the best we've seen.
Do you want 10%? Great, what industries should we shut down?
How much GDP will that cost us?

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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?

 

[Brambo]

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?

 

[Brambo]

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.

 

[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.

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.

 

[Brambo]

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.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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