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

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
4,413
Reaction score
1,517
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
It's not that simple. If you look at the per capita carbon emissions of every nation on earth, none are the same:
Why are you using "per capita"? ... where did you get this chart? ... this chart gives a total emissions of 35 gigatonnes ... where does all this CO2 go every year? ...
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,937
Reaction score
1,449
Points
245
Location
Virginia
It's not that simple. If you look at the per capita carbon emissions of every nation on earth, none are the same:
Why are you using "per capita"? ... where did you get this chart? ... this chart gives a total emissions of 35 gigatonnes ... where does all this CO2 go every year? ...
ding was equating population with CO2 admissions. If that were true every country would have the same per capita output.

 

Orangecat

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 22, 2020
Messages
1,902
Reaction score
2,164
Points
1,893
Yes, climate change is related to evolution. Unfortunately, Trump with his Neanderthal limited cranial capacity hasn’t evolved enough to get it. This is the guy who disses science, then gets free socialized medical care from the science based treatments to recover. Talk about being all over the map. His supporters are delusional at best and a biological threat to every sane person at worse.

Just like after Bush fiasco, just lose the election, move aside,hide in your closet and let the educated people take over and SYA or save your ass again.
You've been beaten down so badly that you're incapable of non-emo logical thought. Sad and funny at the same time.
 

Dagosa

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
730
Points
198
Way over your head. Try to stay awake during science class in your next life.
Sure thing, dunce. Enjoy the next four years of Trump and try not to wet yourself whenever the wind blows.
Perfect statement that shows Trump supporters are in the bubble.
Yes, climate change is related to evolution. Unfortunately, Trump with his Neanderthal limited cranial capacity hasn’t evolved enough to get it. This is the guy who disses science, then gets free socialized medical care from the science based treatments to recover. Talk about being all over the map. His supporters are delusional at best and a biological threat to every sane person at worse.

Just like after Bush fiasco, just lose the election, move aside,hide in your closet and let the educated people take over and SYA or save your ass again.
You've been beaten down so badly that you're incapable of non-emo logical thought. Sad and funny at the same time.
More pigeon logic. Drop a little poop. Strut around, declare yourself a winner, then fly away. The absolute only others who agree, are other pigeons dropping bird shit everywhere.
 

Dagosa

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 22, 2012
Messages
2,066
Reaction score
730
Points
198
You’re a self proclaimed PUTIN Pigeon. Live with it.
You’re a self proclaimed imbecile. Live with it.
You’re just name calling and violating posting rules.
I‘m showing evidence of supporter self abuse and ignorance. Who else would parade around in MAGA hats and align themselves PUTINS. Hilarious self description.
 

ReinyDays

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
4,413
Reaction score
1,517
Points
210
Location
State of Jefferson
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 ...
 

alang1216

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

Graphic comes from here.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,465
Reaction score
5,688
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
No matter how poor you are, you don't rob from yourself. The key is private ownership for things like solar panels.
Horsefeathers ... give a man a car who can't afford gasoline ... that man will sell that car ... give a man a solar panel who doesn't own any electric appliances ... that man will sell that solar panel ...

If someone gave you a Lear Jet ... would you keep it and pay the tie-down rental at the local airport? ... knowing you could never pay for the FAA required annual inspection ... God forbid starting one of the engines ...
Gee, maybe we should give solar panels to people who actually use electricity! No one would have thought of that.
So you believe people who don't use electricity are the ones responsible for a 1 billion ton per year per year increase in carbon emissions?

C'mon man.
Do they burn wood, coal, or gas? How do they cook their food or heat their homes?
Why? Are you offering to pay for their solar?
Sure.
Then why all the secrecy about it? Why not just come out into the open and say look, we want to solve a problem that doesn't exist by paying for the infrastructure of other nations?

I'll tell you why? You know that would never fly. So you use dishonesty instead. It's dishonesty all the way down.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,465
Reaction score
5,688
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
First, I have no idea how you connect sea level rise to firewood. Do you?
You didn't answer my question ... do you agree we should substantially increase our CO2 emissions for the humanitarian purposes that would serve? ...

Second, you have no background in the dynamics of coastlines like those of the US East Coast. Every inch of sea level rise will act to push the barrier islands inland and flood the coastal plains. A rise of a foot may translate to a mile of lost land (I don't know the exact relationship). That is one mile all along the thousand of miles of US coasts. Sea walls will only be a temporary solution.
That's why we replenish the beach sand there on a regular basis ... we have maps of the coastline from the Revolutionary War ... and we've seen 2 feet sea level rise since then ... and it "may" erode a mile of coastline in a few places, so maybe find out the exact relationship if you're such an expert and coastal erosion ... are you seriously suggesting New York City was two miles removed from the ocean when it was founded? ...

Not a problem on The West Coast ... where mountains meet the sea ...
NYC has been extensively reclaimed from the sea so it's coast is now man-made. I do know that it suffered some major flooding when hit by a hurricane a few years ago, the first I recall. They are now spending billions to secure a small part of the city. Not every city can afford to do that.
Storm surges are typically in the 5 to 10 ft range. You are equating a 3 mm/yr rise in sea level - which has been occurring for the last 6,000 years and before that was occurring at a much greater rate - to surge produced by a hurricane?

Have you even looked at a topographical map of New York to visualize what a one foot rise in sea level actually means?
What has been the rise in the last 25 years?

Looks to me 1/2 of Brooklyn and Long Island may disappear.
So I am curious... do you believe you even understand the problem and what should be done about it real terms?

If so, can you tell me how you would solve the problem?
The first thing we need to do is get our heads out of our butts and face facts. I'd guess there is no simple solution since it is a complex problem. We need to find the low-hanging fruit and continue to explore more dramatic solutions.
The first thing people - who are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist - need to do is to be honest about what the problem is. Something I have yet heard anyone from your "camp" do. The second thing people - who are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist - need to do is to be honest about the solution. Also something I have yet heard anyone from your "camp" do. Now the only reason that I can think of why they haven't done those things is because if they do those things, people like yourself who support solving a problem that doesn't exist would actually start to question what they have been told.
I always question what I'm told. For instance, you have not provided convincing evidence so I question your statements.
Do you deny that the increases in CO2 emissions is coming from the less developed, poorer regions of the world?

View attachment 406132

View attachment 406133

View attachment 406134
Looks like it.
So... what's the problem?
It's called global warming, not local warming in a foreign country that wouldn't affect me here.
Stop being obtuse. The problem is that population growth is driving carbon emissions in the less developed and poorer regions of the planet and that's why global carbon emissions are increasing at a rate of 1 billion tons per year per yer. That's the problem.

Was this problem statement beyond your ability to identify? Because if it was I will apologize for saying you were being obtuse.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,465
Reaction score
5,688
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
First, I have no idea how you connect sea level rise to firewood. Do you?
You didn't answer my question ... do you agree we should substantially increase our CO2 emissions for the humanitarian purposes that would serve? ...

Second, you have no background in the dynamics of coastlines like those of the US East Coast. Every inch of sea level rise will act to push the barrier islands inland and flood the coastal plains. A rise of a foot may translate to a mile of lost land (I don't know the exact relationship). That is one mile all along the thousand of miles of US coasts. Sea walls will only be a temporary solution.
That's why we replenish the beach sand there on a regular basis ... we have maps of the coastline from the Revolutionary War ... and we've seen 2 feet sea level rise since then ... and it "may" erode a mile of coastline in a few places, so maybe find out the exact relationship if you're such an expert and coastal erosion ... are you seriously suggesting New York City was two miles removed from the ocean when it was founded? ...

Not a problem on The West Coast ... where mountains meet the sea ...
NYC has been extensively reclaimed from the sea so it's coast is now man-made. I do know that it suffered some major flooding when hit by a hurricane a few years ago, the first I recall. They are now spending billions to secure a small part of the city. Not every city can afford to do that.
Storm surges are typically in the 5 to 10 ft range. You are equating a 3 mm/yr rise in sea level - which has been occurring for the last 6,000 years and before that was occurring at a much greater rate - to surge produced by a hurricane?

Have you even looked at a topographical map of New York to visualize what a one foot rise in sea level actually means?
What has been the rise in the last 25 years?

Looks to me 1/2 of Brooklyn and Long Island may disappear.
So I am curious... do you believe you even understand the problem and what should be done about it real terms?

If so, can you tell me how you would solve the problem?
The first thing we need to do is get our heads out of our butts and face facts. I'd guess there is no simple solution since it is a complex problem. We need to find the low-hanging fruit and continue to explore more dramatic solutions.
The first thing people - who are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist - need to do is to be honest about what the problem is. Something I have yet heard anyone from your "camp" do. The second thing people - who are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist - need to do is to be honest about the solution. Also something I have yet heard anyone from your "camp" do. Now the only reason that I can think of why they haven't done those things is because if they do those things, people like yourself who support solving a problem that doesn't exist would actually start to question what they have been told.
I always question what I'm told. For instance, you have not provided convincing evidence so I question your statements.
Do you deny that the population growth is occurring in the less developed regions of the world?

View attachment 406129
Cause or correlation? No idea.
Really? You don't understand the simple concept that every person has a carbon footprint?

This is you being dishonest.
We all have carbon footprints but I don't know that it is the number of people that is the problem so much as how they live. If we each cut our individual carbon footprint in 1/2 but doubled our population there would be no additional carbon emitted.
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?
 

alang1216

Pragmatist
Joined
Jun 21, 2014
Messages
11,937
Reaction score
1,449
Points
245
Location
Virginia
No matter how poor you are, you don't rob from yourself. The key is private ownership for things like solar panels.
Horsefeathers ... give a man a car who can't afford gasoline ... that man will sell that car ... give a man a solar panel who doesn't own any electric appliances ... that man will sell that solar panel ...

If someone gave you a Lear Jet ... would you keep it and pay the tie-down rental at the local airport? ... knowing you could never pay for the FAA required annual inspection ... God forbid starting one of the engines ...
Gee, maybe we should give solar panels to people who actually use electricity! No one would have thought of that.
So you believe people who don't use electricity are the ones responsible for a 1 billion ton per year per year increase in carbon emissions?

C'mon man.
Do they burn wood, coal, or gas? How do they cook their food or heat their homes?
Why? Are you offering to pay for their solar?
Sure.
Then why all the secrecy about it? Why not just come out into the open and say look, we want to solve a problem that doesn't exist by paying for the infrastructure of other nations?

I'll tell you why? You know that would never fly. So you use dishonesty instead. It's dishonesty all the way down.
Secrecy?? We already provide aid to other nations and most scientists believe it is a real problem. If you are looking for dishonesty you don't have to look farther than the nearest mirror
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,465
Reaction score
5,688
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
First, I have no idea how you connect sea level rise to firewood. Do you?
You didn't answer my question ... do you agree we should substantially increase our CO2 emissions for the humanitarian purposes that would serve? ...

Second, you have no background in the dynamics of coastlines like those of the US East Coast. Every inch of sea level rise will act to push the barrier islands inland and flood the coastal plains. A rise of a foot may translate to a mile of lost land (I don't know the exact relationship). That is one mile all along the thousand of miles of US coasts. Sea walls will only be a temporary solution.
That's why we replenish the beach sand there on a regular basis ... we have maps of the coastline from the Revolutionary War ... and we've seen 2 feet sea level rise since then ... and it "may" erode a mile of coastline in a few places, so maybe find out the exact relationship if you're such an expert and coastal erosion ... are you seriously suggesting New York City was two miles removed from the ocean when it was founded? ...

Not a problem on The West Coast ... where mountains meet the sea ...
NYC has been extensively reclaimed from the sea so it's coast is now man-made. I do know that it suffered some major flooding when hit by a hurricane a few years ago, the first I recall. They are now spending billions to secure a small part of the city. Not every city can afford to do that.
Storm surges are typically in the 5 to 10 ft range. You are equating a 3 mm/yr rise in sea level - which has been occurring for the last 6,000 years and before that was occurring at a much greater rate - to surge produced by a hurricane?

Have you even looked at a topographical map of New York to visualize what a one foot rise in sea level actually means?
What has been the rise in the last 25 years?

Looks to me 1/2 of Brooklyn and Long Island may disappear.
So I am curious... do you believe you even understand the problem and what should be done about it real terms?

If so, can you tell me how you would solve the problem?
The first thing we need to do is get our heads out of our butts and face facts. I'd guess there is no simple solution since it is a complex problem. We need to find the low-hanging fruit and continue to explore more dramatic solutions.
The first thing people - who are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist - need to do is to be honest about what the problem is. Something I have yet heard anyone from your "camp" do. The second thing people - who are trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist - need to do is to be honest about the solution. Also something I have yet heard anyone from your "camp" do. Now the only reason that I can think of why they haven't done those things is because if they do those things, people like yourself who support solving a problem that doesn't exist would actually start to question what they have been told.
I always question what I'm told. For instance, you have not provided convincing evidence so I question your statements.
Do you deny that the population growth is occurring in the less developed regions of the world?

View attachment 406129
Cause or correlation? No idea.
How about now?

.

Still no idea?
It's not that simple. If you look at the per capita carbon emissions of every nation on earth, none are the same:
I just explained this to you. Again... 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.

What part of the US could go to zero emissions overnight and the poorer, less developed regions would replace it in 5 short years do you not understand?

I can't figure out if you are in denial or are being deceitful.
 

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
75,465
Reaction score
5,688
Points
1,855
Location
Houston
No matter how poor you are, you don't rob from yourself. The key is private ownership for things like solar panels.
Horsefeathers ... give a man a car who can't afford gasoline ... that man will sell that car ... give a man a solar panel who doesn't own any electric appliances ... that man will sell that solar panel ...

If someone gave you a Lear Jet ... would you keep it and pay the tie-down rental at the local airport? ... knowing you could never pay for the FAA required annual inspection ... God forbid starting one of the engines ...
Gee, maybe we should give solar panels to people who actually use electricity! No one would have thought of that.
So you believe people who don't use electricity are the ones responsible for a 1 billion ton per year per year increase in carbon emissions?

C'mon man.
Do they burn wood, coal, or gas? How do they cook their food or heat their homes?
Why? Are you offering to pay for their solar?
Sure.
Then why all the secrecy about it? Why not just come out into the open and say look, we want to solve a problem that doesn't exist by paying for the infrastructure of other nations?

I'll tell you why? You know that would never fly. So you use dishonesty instead. It's dishonesty all the way down.
Secrecy?? We already provide aid to other nations and most scientists believe it is a real problem. If you are looking for dishonesty you don't have to look farther than the nearest mirror
You should do the math for providing infrastructure for 4 billion people. You are talking about a drop in a bucket to justify not saying what the only solution to the problem is. The rich nations must pay for the development of the poor nations. There it is. Now own it.
 

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.
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top