The Progs will DENY SCIENCE when it comes to record snowfalls, that havent happened like this over 100 years.

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,465
Reaction score
5,688
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
ding was equating population with CO2 admissions. If that were true every country would have the same per capita output.
Qatar burns off all the natural gas that comes up with the crude oil they pump ... small number of people, large number of oil wells ... ridiculous comparing the per capita output to Mali or Chad ...

Trinidad and Tobago is 2nd? ... that needs a citation ... or it's all faked ...

Using "per capita", we can easily show the United Kingdom is the single most violent country on the planet ... folks there are the most likely to be victims of a violent crime ... this is a trick of statistics in that we're including simple assault in Scotland ... two Scots get into a fist-fight and they're both victims of a violent crime ... take that away and indeed we find the UK as safe as anyplace ...

"Lies, damn lies and statistics" -- Benjamin Disraeli ...
I can't believe this guy is being so obtuse. You can see how the less developed nations are driving emission by the number of people because as the total emissions increase the per capita numbers are flattening out.

The per capita emission is lower for the poorer, less developed regions than it is for the richer, more developed regions which is why the per capita number flattened out. But as they develop the per capita emissions of the poorer, less developed regions will approach the per capita emissions of the richer more developed regions.

Per-Capita-World-Carbon-Emissions.jpg
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,465
Reaction score
5,688
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
The per capita emission is lower for the poorer, less developed regions than it is for the richer, more developed regions but as they develop the per capita emissions of the poorer, less developed regions will approach the per capita emissions of the richer more developed regions.

I don't really understand how you can argue what you are arguing. You have seen the population and carbon emissions by regions. The problem is in the poorer developing regions.

You want to rob peter to pay for paul without actually admitting that is what the plan is. How is that not dishonest?
You can make all the predictions and assumptions you want but I think, with our help, these developing countries could develop more carbon-neutral economies and not become dependant on finite resources.
You don't understand. We won't be helping them. We will be paying for everything. Try adding that to the climate debate and see how many people start asking more questions about the "science" behind global warming. They are being intentionally deceitful in their messaging of the problem and solution. They want people to believe we are the problem. We aren't. Our emissions are decreasing.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,937
Reaction score
1,449
Points
245
Location
Virginia
The per capita emission is lower for the poorer, less developed regions than it is for the richer, more developed regions but as they develop the per capita emissions of the poorer, less developed regions will approach the per capita emissions of the richer more developed regions.

I don't really understand how you can argue what you are arguing. You have seen the population and carbon emissions by regions. The problem is in the poorer developing regions.

You want to rob peter to pay for paul without actually admitting that is what the plan is. How is that not dishonest?
You can make all the predictions and assumptions you want but I think, with our help, these developing countries could develop more carbon-neutral economies and not become dependant on finite resources.
You don't understand. We won't be helping them. We will be paying for everything. Try adding that to the climate debate and see how many people start asking more questions about the "science" behind global warming. They are being intentionally deceitful in their messaging of the problem and solution. They want people to believe we are the problem. We aren't. Our emissions are decreasing.
The problem is that this is a GLOBAL problem. If we give a family in Africa a solar cooker so they don't have to burn trees or dung we help them and we help ourselves.

The science is the science regardless of the cost. We are a part of the problem and can afford to be a greater part of the solution.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,937
Reaction score
1,449
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Outliers don't negate the general validity.

Graphic comes from here.
So you're just throwing out any data that doesn't validate your claim ... clever ... useless but clever ...
Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of college but are very successful. Should everyone now enrolled drop out of college?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,465
Reaction score
5,688
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
The per capita emission is lower for the poorer, less developed regions than it is for the richer, more developed regions but as they develop the per capita emissions of the poorer, less developed regions will approach the per capita emissions of the richer more developed regions.

I don't really understand how you can argue what you are arguing. You have seen the population and carbon emissions by regions. The problem is in the poorer developing regions.

You want to rob peter to pay for paul without actually admitting that is what the plan is. How is that not dishonest?
You can make all the predictions and assumptions you want but I think, with our help, these developing countries could develop more carbon-neutral economies and not become dependant on finite resources.
You don't understand. We won't be helping them. We will be paying for everything. Try adding that to the climate debate and see how many people start asking more questions about the "science" behind global warming. They are being intentionally deceitful in their messaging of the problem and solution. They want people to believe we are the problem. We aren't. Our emissions are decreasing.
The problem is that this is a GLOBAL problem. If we give a family in Africa a solar cooker so they don't have to burn trees or dung we help them and we help ourselves.

The science is the science regardless of the cost. We are a part of the problem and can afford to be a greater part of the solution.
I disagree it's a problem. An ice age would be a problem. 580 ppm is better than 400 ppm.

The science is the science but computer models are not science. I disagree with assumptions of positive water vapor feedback in the computer models. So the outcome is still in question. They can't predict the weather let alone the climate. I don't disagree the planet is warming. It's an interglacial cycle and that's what happens in an interglacial cycle. The planet warms. We are still in the normal range of previous interglacial cycles, so I disagree with the perception that CO2 is driving this warming. CO2 is reinforcing this warming. The trigger for glacial cycles is northern hemisphere glaciation. If the ocean cooled it would suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and when atmospheric CO2 reached 280 ppm would trigger an ice age. The farther away we are from 280 ppm the better.

I believe your perception of burning trees or dung as the cause for the acceleration of carbon emissions is incorrect. I suspect it is commercial/industrial development in the poorer regions that is the culprit for increasing emissions. You know... like China. There are about 1 billion people without electricity. I can't imagine that those 1 billion people are the cause for a 1 billion ton per year per year acceleration in carbon emissions. Can you?

But putting that aside, you still can't force yourself to admit that the solution is to force richer nations to pay for the infrastructure of poorer nations so their acceleration of carbon emissions is halted.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,465
Reaction score
5,688
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Ice sheets up to 4km thick blanketed much of northern Europe, Canada, northern America and northern Russia. Today, these ice caps would displace around 250 million people and bury cities such as Detroit, Manchester, Vancouver, Hamburg, and Helsinki.

I sure do hope Mexico doesn't build a wall.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,465
Reaction score
5,688
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Outliers don't negate the general validity.

Graphic comes from here.
So you're just throwing out any data that doesn't validate your claim ... clever ... useless but clever ...
Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of college but are very successful. Should everyone now enrolled drop out of college?
No because the data suggests that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are outliers. Something you might not have known if you discarded data.

But I do want to commend you on providing the perfect analogy. By discarding data that doesn't validate one's claim, one could wrongly conclude that everyone now enrolled should drop out of college. :)
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,937
Reaction score
1,449
Points
245
Location
Virginia
The per capita emission is lower for the poorer, less developed regions than it is for the richer, more developed regions but as they develop the per capita emissions of the poorer, less developed regions will approach the per capita emissions of the richer more developed regions.

I don't really understand how you can argue what you are arguing. You have seen the population and carbon emissions by regions. The problem is in the poorer developing regions.

You want to rob peter to pay for paul without actually admitting that is what the plan is. How is that not dishonest?
You can make all the predictions and assumptions you want but I think, with our help, these developing countries could develop more carbon-neutral economies and not become dependant on finite resources.
You don't understand. We won't be helping them. We will be paying for everything. Try adding that to the climate debate and see how many people start asking more questions about the "science" behind global warming. They are being intentionally deceitful in their messaging of the problem and solution. They want people to believe we are the problem. We aren't. Our emissions are decreasing.
The problem is that this is a GLOBAL problem. If we give a family in Africa a solar cooker so they don't have to burn trees or dung we help them and we help ourselves.

The science is the science regardless of the cost. We are a part of the problem and can afford to be a greater part of the solution.
I disagree it's a problem. An ice age would be a problem. 580 ppm is better than 400 ppm.

The science is the science but computer models are not science. I disagree with assumptions of positive water vapor feedback in the computer models. So the outcome is still in question. They can't predict the weather let alone the climate. I don't disagree the planet is warming. It's an interglacial cycle and that's what happens in an interglacial cycle. The planet warms. We are still in the normal range of previous interglacial cycles, so I disagree with the perception that CO2 is driving this warming. CO2 is reinforcing this warming. The trigger for glacial cycles is northern hemisphere glaciation. If the ocean cooled it would suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and when atmospheric CO2 reached 280 ppm would trigger an ice age. The farther away we are from 280 ppm the better.

I believe your perception of burning trees or dung as the cause for the acceleration of carbon emissions is incorrect. I suspect it is commercial/industrial development in the poorer regions that is the culprit for increasing emissions. You know... like China. There are about 1 billion people without electricity. I can't imagine that those 1 billion people are the cause for a 1 billion ton per year per year acceleration in carbon emissions. Can you?

But putting that aside, you still can't force yourself to admit that the solution is to force richer nations to pay for the infrastructure of poorer nations so their acceleration of carbon emissions is halted.
You may be 100% right on the science, I don't really know, or care, just don't expect me to take your word over the consensus of the climatologists community. Sorry.

Whatever the reasons for warming, natural or not, if one reason is increasing CO2 in the air then helping poor Africans convert from wood to solar is in everyone's interest. I never said it was the only solution or even the best one but it would be a relatively painless step forward.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,937
Reaction score
1,449
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Outliers don't negate the general validity.

Graphic comes from here.
So you're just throwing out any data that doesn't validate your claim ... clever ... useless but clever ...
Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of college but are very successful. Should everyone now enrolled drop out of college?
No because the data suggests that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are outliers. Something you might not have known if you discarded data.

But I do want to commend you on providing the perfect analogy. By discarding data that doesn't validate one's claim, one could wrongly conclude that everyone now enrolled should drop out of college. :)
One of us is confused. If we keep the outliers, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, we could wrongly conclude that everyone now enrolled should drop out of college. It is only when we discard data about them do we see dropping out is not a good choice.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,465
Reaction score
5,688
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
The per capita emission is lower for the poorer, less developed regions than it is for the richer, more developed regions but as they develop the per capita emissions of the poorer, less developed regions will approach the per capita emissions of the richer more developed regions.

I don't really understand how you can argue what you are arguing. You have seen the population and carbon emissions by regions. The problem is in the poorer developing regions.

You want to rob peter to pay for paul without actually admitting that is what the plan is. How is that not dishonest?
You can make all the predictions and assumptions you want but I think, with our help, these developing countries could develop more carbon-neutral economies and not become dependant on finite resources.
You don't understand. We won't be helping them. We will be paying for everything. Try adding that to the climate debate and see how many people start asking more questions about the "science" behind global warming. They are being intentionally deceitful in their messaging of the problem and solution. They want people to believe we are the problem. We aren't. Our emissions are decreasing.
The problem is that this is a GLOBAL problem. If we give a family in Africa a solar cooker so they don't have to burn trees or dung we help them and we help ourselves.

The science is the science regardless of the cost. We are a part of the problem and can afford to be a greater part of the solution.
I disagree it's a problem. An ice age would be a problem. 580 ppm is better than 400 ppm.

The science is the science but computer models are not science. I disagree with assumptions of positive water vapor feedback in the computer models. So the outcome is still in question. They can't predict the weather let alone the climate. I don't disagree the planet is warming. It's an interglacial cycle and that's what happens in an interglacial cycle. The planet warms. We are still in the normal range of previous interglacial cycles, so I disagree with the perception that CO2 is driving this warming. CO2 is reinforcing this warming. The trigger for glacial cycles is northern hemisphere glaciation. If the ocean cooled it would suck CO2 out of the atmosphere and when atmospheric CO2 reached 280 ppm would trigger an ice age. The farther away we are from 280 ppm the better.

I believe your perception of burning trees or dung as the cause for the acceleration of carbon emissions is incorrect. I suspect it is commercial/industrial development in the poorer regions that is the culprit for increasing emissions. You know... like China. There are about 1 billion people without electricity. I can't imagine that those 1 billion people are the cause for a 1 billion ton per year per year acceleration in carbon emissions. Can you?

But putting that aside, you still can't force yourself to admit that the solution is to force richer nations to pay for the infrastructure of poorer nations so their acceleration of carbon emissions is halted.
You may be 100% right on the science, I don't really know, or care, just don't expect me to take your word over the consensus of the climatologists community. Sorry.

Whatever the reasons for warming, natural or not, if one reason is increasing CO2 in the air then helping poor Africans convert from wood to solar is in everyone's interest. I never said it was the only solution or even the best one but it would be a relatively painless step forward.
Again... you are presuming poor africans burning wood is the reason for a 1 billion ton per year per year acceleration in carbon emissions. What you will really be funding is their commercial and industrial development. I don't see how that is painless to the ones being forced to pay for it.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,465
Reaction score
5,688
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Outliers don't negate the general validity.

Graphic comes from here.
So you're just throwing out any data that doesn't validate your claim ... clever ... useless but clever ...
Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg dropped out of college but are very successful. Should everyone now enrolled drop out of college?
No because the data suggests that Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg are outliers. Something you might not have known if you discarded data. It's called statistics. :)

But I do want to commend you on providing the perfect analogy. By discarding data that doesn't validate one's claim, one could wrongly conclude that everyone now enrolled should drop out of college. :)
One of us is confused. If we keep the outliers, Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg, we could wrongly conclude that everyone now enrolled should drop out of college. It is only when we discard data about them do we see dropping out is not a good choice.
You would be excluding everyone but the outliers to arrive at the conclusion that dropping out was good.

No data should be discarded. You can still conclude that dropping out is a bad choice even with the outliers in the dataset.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,937
Reaction score
1,449
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Again... you are presuming poor africans burning wood is the reason for a 1 billion ton per year per year acceleration in carbon emissions. What you will really be funding is their commercial and industrial development. I don't see how that is painless to the ones being forced to pay for it.
Are you saying there is NO additional CO2 from Africans burning wood?

It is in our interests to foster commercial and industrial development in poor countries. This generally results in slower population growth (and less CO2 emissions) and creating new markets for our products.

Does foreign aid benefit the U.S. or foreigners?
BOTH. Foreign aid typically aims to support security as well as the economic, social, and political development of recipient countries and their people. At the same time, such assistance also advances one or all of the following overriding U.S. interests:
  • Contributing to U.S. national security by supporting allies in promoting regional and global stability and peace.
  • Reflecting the core U.S. value of caring for others in need—providing humanitarian assistance to victims of war, violence, famine, and natural disasters.
  • Advancing U.S. and recipient economic interests by building economies and markets.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,465
Reaction score
5,688
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Again... you are presuming poor africans burning wood is the reason for a 1 billion ton per year per year acceleration in carbon emissions. What you will really be funding is their commercial and industrial development. I don't see how that is painless to the ones being forced to pay for it.
Are you saying there is NO additional CO2 from Africans burning wood?

It is in our interests to foster commercial and industrial development in poor countries. This generally results in slower population growth (and less CO2 emissions) and creating new markets for our products.

Does foreign aid benefit the U.S. or foreigners?
BOTH. Foreign aid typically aims to support security as well as the economic, social, and political development of recipient countries and their people. At the same time, such assistance also advances one or all of the following overriding U.S. interests:
  • Contributing to U.S. national security by supporting allies in promoting regional and global stability and peace.
  • Reflecting the core U.S. value of caring for others in need—providing humanitarian assistance to victims of war, violence, famine, and natural disasters.
  • Advancing U.S. and recipient economic interests by building economies and markets.
No. I am saying africans burning wood isn't the reason for a 1 billion ton per year per year acceleration of carbon emissions.

The definition of foster is encourage or promote the development of (something, typically something regarded as good). Seems disingenuous for peter to rob paul and call it fostering.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,465
Reaction score
5,688
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
I have a sneaking suspicion that the price tag is tens of trillions of dollars.

Why else would they be so dishonest with their intentions?
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,937
Reaction score
1,449
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Again... you are presuming poor africans burning wood is the reason for a 1 billion ton per year per year acceleration in carbon emissions. What you will really be funding is their commercial and industrial development. I don't see how that is painless to the ones being forced to pay for it.
Are you saying there is NO additional CO2 from Africans burning wood?

It is in our interests to foster commercial and industrial development in poor countries. This generally results in slower population growth (and less CO2 emissions) and creating new markets for our products.

Does foreign aid benefit the U.S. or foreigners?
BOTH. Foreign aid typically aims to support security as well as the economic, social, and political development of recipient countries and their people. At the same time, such assistance also advances one or all of the following overriding U.S. interests:
  • Contributing to U.S. national security by supporting allies in promoting regional and global stability and peace.
  • Reflecting the core U.S. value of caring for others in need—providing humanitarian assistance to victims of war, violence, famine, and natural disasters.
  • Advancing U.S. and recipient economic interests by building economies and markets.
No. I am saying africans burning wood isn't the reason for a 1 billion ton per year per year acceleration of carbon emissions.

The definition of foster is encourage or promote the development of (something, typically something regarded as good). Seems disingenuous for peter to rob paul and call it fostering.
Is there any foreign aid that is not robbing peter?
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,465
Reaction score
5,688
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
Again... you are presuming poor africans burning wood is the reason for a 1 billion ton per year per year acceleration in carbon emissions. What you will really be funding is their commercial and industrial development. I don't see how that is painless to the ones being forced to pay for it.
Are you saying there is NO additional CO2 from Africans burning wood?

It is in our interests to foster commercial and industrial development in poor countries. This generally results in slower population growth (and less CO2 emissions) and creating new markets for our products.

Does foreign aid benefit the U.S. or foreigners?
BOTH. Foreign aid typically aims to support security as well as the economic, social, and political development of recipient countries and their people. At the same time, such assistance also advances one or all of the following overriding U.S. interests:
  • Contributing to U.S. national security by supporting allies in promoting regional and global stability and peace.
  • Reflecting the core U.S. value of caring for others in need—providing humanitarian assistance to victims of war, violence, famine, and natural disasters.
  • Advancing U.S. and recipient economic interests by building economies and markets.
No. I am saying africans burning wood isn't the reason for a 1 billion ton per year per year acceleration of carbon emissions.

The definition of foster is encourage or promote the development of (something, typically something regarded as good). Seems disingenuous for peter to rob paul and call it fostering.
Is there any foreign aid that is not robbing peter?
Not on a tens of trillions of dollars scale, there's not.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,465
Reaction score
5,688
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
I have a sneaking suspicion that the price tag is tens of trillions of dollars.

Why else would they be so dishonest with their intentions?
That's a lot of solar cookers!!!
Here's the thing... I have brought up things to you in this discussion that you have never thought of before. You can't unread what you have read.
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,937
Reaction score
1,449
Points
245
Location
Virginia
Again... you are presuming poor africans burning wood is the reason for a 1 billion ton per year per year acceleration in carbon emissions. What you will really be funding is their commercial and industrial development. I don't see how that is painless to the ones being forced to pay for it.
Are you saying there is NO additional CO2 from Africans burning wood?

It is in our interests to foster commercial and industrial development in poor countries. This generally results in slower population growth (and less CO2 emissions) and creating new markets for our products.

Does foreign aid benefit the U.S. or foreigners?
BOTH. Foreign aid typically aims to support security as well as the economic, social, and political development of recipient countries and their people. At the same time, such assistance also advances one or all of the following overriding U.S. interests:
  • Contributing to U.S. national security by supporting allies in promoting regional and global stability and peace.
  • Reflecting the core U.S. value of caring for others in need—providing humanitarian assistance to victims of war, violence, famine, and natural disasters.
  • Advancing U.S. and recipient economic interests by building economies and markets.
No. I am saying africans burning wood isn't the reason for a 1 billion ton per year per year acceleration of carbon emissions.

The definition of foster is encourage or promote the development of (something, typically something regarded as good). Seems disingenuous for peter to rob paul and call it fostering.
Is there any foreign aid that is not robbing peter?
Not on a tens of trillions of dollars scale, there's not.
Got a link for that number or are you pulling from where the sun don't shine?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top