Surprise U.S.-China climate deal reverberates north and south

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,209
14,249
113
Low Earth Orbit
They have to do something, they are living in toxic smoke most days.
I know of a power company that can sell them proven systems to capture their coal CO2 to export down pipelines to extract more middle east and eastern China oil.

Cool huh?

There are hundreds $trillions to be made on CO2.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
99.9% of climate scientists agree things are f'up and getting worse and the fundamental disagreement you point out boils down to how badly and why and are divided mostly scientifically.

There is no such thing as a climate scientist. In case you haven't figured out what the deafening din about climate change is really about I will tell you, it's to take your mind off and away from the bloating world war and the tanking economy. Long before climate change kills millions billions will succumb during the coming economic reordering, climate change is diversion and nothing else.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
China is living in toxic smoke. They would shrug it off and simply say...

"You'll drown in our mucus."
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Guess that they got a problem then.

If they don't see any need to get it fixed, then don't look to me to fix it for ya

Clearly they don't see a need but would certainly take any money and technology from the west to get it "fixed".

That's what this is all about anyways... $$$$... dolla' bills ya'll.
 

grainfedpraiboy

Electoral Member
Mar 15, 2009
715
1
18
Alberta The Last Best West
How many bank transfers will it take to stem AGW?.. Is it a function of the # of transfers or the dollar amount?.. Probably both, I'd guess.

I think it is an extremely fair concern that governments might use a crisis such as climate change to their taxation advantage and to use the windfall for anything other than preventing or dealing with the affects of AGW. Given the past histories of all governments of all types I essentially agree with you here.

How much support is needed?.. How about determining that anthro sources are having the dire affects that you claim?.. This will be an excellent start.

Here is an easy one you can do yourself if you live in Canada. Go downtown with a thermometer and take the temperature and have a friend equally skeptical take a temperature standing in a field in a farm at least 20 mi from any city urban build up. Your results will vary by upwards of 5 degrees celsius depending on time of day and year. Take a measurement of the depth of snow or the amount of moisture in the soil on non irrigated land and compare it with a similar nonirrigated patch in the city. Thus you will have established as fact that at least at a micro level, mankind has an effect on the climate around us both through temperature and precipitation that you can touch and feel and see personally instead of reading dry data.

In the face of the various realities that do not support your position, your 97% consensus that initially supported Anthropogenic Global Warming (it was a fact and the debate was over, remember) swung 180 degrees to Climate Change... How very scientific... What compelling proof! Afterall, there was a 'consensus' among an elite group at a UN sponsored department that thumped their chests that only money from the West can buy our way out.

By the way, your 97% consensus is not only subject to the realities that Petros outlined, the 'climate scientists' (the original 2500) included many unrelated professional like medical doctors, etc.

You're just flat out wrong here. Reference my earlier post from NASA and the list of two hundred current scientific groups in the link which constitute almost all the world's climate scientists and feel free to refute with verifiable data to the contrary if you can.

IHere's a few items that the mental heavyweights in the IPCC and ecotard crowd have accomplished during their tenure


  • ALL models supporting AGW have failed.
  • ALL projections have not been realized.
  • AGW position specifically has no answer nor recognition for historical variations absent humanity (think multiple periods of continental glaciation).
  • Coordinated, fraudulent actions by the IPCC and East Anglia University.
  • Refusal of AGW theories to incorporate solar inputs.
  • Inability to incorporate variables associated with the oceans.
  • Corruption and abuse of the Peer Review process.
  • Refusal of the trusted inner eco-circle to consider any papers from non-supporting sources that may negate the AGW/CC hoax.
I am not a scientist but guys like Tonnington who are tell me all the time there are no absolutes in science and that it is essentially just a process of test, observe, change variable, test observe change variable and so on. As the understanding off climate becomes more sophisticated and the input values and variable are better understood new theories and directions will be pursued but overall the core of the hypothesis remains the same.


If your perception of failed scientific absolutes is what you hang your skeptical hat on you'd better reevaluate that because that type of thinking is like looking at a Hockey News assessment on the future of the league in the 21st century from 1975 and expecting it to accurately predict league expansion and labour strife.


You need to absorb things in context and be less concerned about the future predictions and how you'll think they'll fail and more concerned about the past and present realities.


And don't get too hung up on terminology like global warming or climate change. These are just words at the time to best reflect the understanding of the issue in layman's terms. The semantics of words like "crash can mean auto accident, a drop in the Stock Market, to attend a party without being invited, ocean waves hitting the shore or the sound of a cymbals being struck together". As climate change research is even still in it's infancy expect more sophisticated terminology as we learn more.


There is no such thing as a formal course of study (to produce a degree, Masters or Doctorate) in 'Climate Science', so think twice before you pile all of your eggs in that ever so fragile basket.

Classic made up style tecumshefact and easily refuted:

MIT EAPS: Graduate Program in Atmospheres, Oceans, & Climate (PAOC)
climate change | Future Graduate Students - McGill University
Masters Degree Program in Climate & Society | Earth and Environmental Sciences
https://uwaterloo.ca/environment/climate-change
Master Programme | Climate-KIC | Climate-KIC
 
Last edited:

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
How many bank transfers will it take to stem AGW?.. Is it a function of the # of transfers or the dollar amount?.. Probably both, I'd guess.



How much support is needed?.. How about determining that anthro sources are having the dire affects that you claim?.. This will be an excellent start.

In the face of the various realities that do not support your position, your 97% consensus that initially supported Anthropogenic Global Warming (it was a fact and the debate was over, remember) swung 180 degrees to Climate Change... How very scientific... What compelling proof! Afterall, there was a 'consensus' among an elite group at a UN sponsored department that thumped their chests that only money from the West can buy our way out.

Here's a few items that the mental heavyweights in the IPCC and ecotard crowd have accomplished during their tenure


  • ALL models supporting AGW have failed.
  • ALL projections have not been realized.
  • AGW position specifically has no answer nor recognition for historical variations absent humanity (think multiple periods of continental glaciation).
  • Coordinated, fraudulent actions by the IPCC and East Anglia University.
  • Refusal of AGW theories to incorporate solar inputs.
  • Inability to incorporate variables associated with the oceans.
  • Corruption and abuse of the Peer Review process.
  • Refusal of the trusted inner eco-circle to consider any papers from non-supporting sources that may negate the AGW/CC hoax.

By the way, your 97% consensus is not only subject to the realities that Petros outlined, the 'climate scientists' (the original 2500) included many unrelated professional like medical doctors, etc.




You might want to reevaluate posting this statement, at least in terms of who should be paying heed to the words



There is no such thing as a formal course of study (to produce a degree, Masters or Doctorate) in 'Climate Science', so think twice before you pile all of your eggs in that ever so fragile basket.



Did the Chinese sign a binding doc on giving you NE Nova Scotia?

Take heed my friend

No, a firm handshake is all.
 

damngrumpy

Executive Branch Member
Mar 16, 2005
9,949
21
38
kelowna bc
Looks to me that the cure requires everyone to suffer pain and I am not sure there is an illness.
I wouldn't get all steamed up about it every other climate change declaration has failed in the
past that is why we keep making new ones. China and America are both in some difficulty
its better to talk about crap that doesn't focus on the real problems.
Yes there is likely climate change and that is going to happen whether we do anything or not
climate change has been going on since the beginning of time and will continue when the
pigeons are the number one species on earth.
 

grainfedpraiboy

Electoral Member
Mar 15, 2009
715
1
18
Alberta The Last Best West
climate change has been going on since the beginning of time and will continue when the
pigeons are the number one species on earth.

Throughout most of Earth's history the earth has been uninhabitable to human beings. If you theoretically had a time machine you'd have to be very careful where you wound up as the window of climate compatibility for us is very small vs the overall length of time the earth has existed. Having said that, our species is the first that can deliberately impact climate change and by extension the process is happening faster than at anytime before whose history we can evaluate..

Shrugging your shoulders because the problem is too big to consider is not the solution and does a real disservice to future generations. We owe it to the Canadians who are coming after us to inherit a world better and cleaner and healthier than the one we did because every future generation stands on the shoulders of the previous.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
So... how many electronic bank transfers from Europe and N. America to the rest of the world will it take again?

Throughout most of Earth's history the earth has been uninhabitable to human beings. If you theoretically had a time machine you'd have to be very careful where you wound up as the window of climate compatibility for us is very small vs the overall length of time the earth has existed.


How many hundreds of millions of years?
 

grainfedpraiboy

Electoral Member
Mar 15, 2009
715
1
18
Alberta The Last Best West
There is no such thing as a climate scientist.



As a climatologist, you study weather patterns and the processes that cause them. You use long-term meteorological data such as temperature, wind speed, and precipitation to study trends, understand causes, and make predictions. Often confused with meteorologists, who study short-term weather patterns, you forecast weather changes over the span of years rather than days. Considering that long-term climate change affects every aspect of our lives and our environment, your work is crucial to sustaining and preserving the world's ecosystems.

Occupational Profiles - Climatologist | ECO Canada

Holy moly, you forgot to add a Moose Mason type "D'uh" to the end of that sentence.

It's almost impossible to have an intelligent debate about climate here but I am genuinely learning why there are so many people on TV who answer "four" when asked how many sides to a triangle or can't pick out their country on a map.

In case you haven't figured out what the deafening din about climate change is really about I will tell you, it's to take your mind off and away from the bloating world war and the tanking economy. Long before climate change kills millions billions will succumb during the coming economic reordering, climate change is diversion and nothing else.

And Bush orchestrated 9/11 to justify a war in Iraq, _____________ killed JFK because __________, and NASA faked the moon landings.

For anyone who is not a tin folier here is an interesting read on where they come from:

Why People Believe Conspiracy Theories - Scientific American


How many hundreds of millions of years?

The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old but depending on how you define "habitable" between 300-500 million years. If we don't cock things up too bad the Earth would in theory remain habitable for an additional 1.7 billion years not accounting for the periods of extinction events and their causes.
 

darkbeaver

the universe is electric
Jan 26, 2006
41,035
201
63
RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia
Throughout most of Earth's history the earth has been uninhabitable to human beings. If you theoretically had a time machine you'd have to be very careful where you wound up as the window of climate compatibility for us is very small vs the overall length of time the earth has existed. Having said that, our species is the first that can deliberately impact climate change and by extension the process is happening faster than at anytime before whose history we can evaluate..

Shrugging your shoulders because the problem is too big to consider is not the solution and does a real disservice to future generations. We owe it to the Canadians who are coming after us to inherit a world better and cleaner and healthier than the one we did because every future generation stands on the shoulders of the previous.

You sir are making bold statements that have no basis in fact.

1. The age of the earth is unknown.
2. The constituent parts of the human have been here since day one.
3. There exists innumerable histories of planetary devastation unapproachable by any present CO2 discrepancy.
4. The physical forces regulating this planets climate are so far greater magnitude than puny anthropocentric misadventures we could ever contemplate as to render them pipe dreams.
5. The non anthropocentric caused problem tagged "climate change" is the norm and always will be.
6. You cavalierly recommend maitenence of an ideal condition that has never existed and never can exist.
The evaluation of history is best undertaken maximum critical thinking fully engaged especially in light of the woefully inaccurate histories thus far foisted upon the unsuspecting masses.
7. The anthropocentric superiority complex will be found wanting against the forces conducting the physical regulation of this solar system.
8 Al Gore won a Nobel prize, that alone should direct your thinking toward the bag of sponge hammers you've purchased.
 
Last edited:

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old but depending on how you define "habitable" between 300-500 million years. If we don't cock things up too bad the Earth would in theory remain habitable for an additional 1.7 billion years not accounting for the periods of extinction events and their causes.


Dude... get a grip.


You're going to be just fine. You alarmists are so emotionally invested in this religion that you can't think straight.


The Climate has and will change.


 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Wrong. I never once said "all models." You are a liar.

Disagree? Produce a quote.

No, the bogus claim is the claim that I said "all models." Anyone is free to go back through the thread and check. You are a liar.

Got news for you, son. You make up sh*t, ascribe it to me, then argue against it, you're really just talking to yourself. And you can sit in the corner and do that. No need to contribute to global warming by lying on the internet.

gee... my mistake. I guess when you say the following you weren't implying "ALL" then, hey? So what then... only some models haven't completely accurately predicted??? Which, I guess, is you saying "some models have accurately predicted events"... good on ya then! :lol:
We have partial, conflicting data and models that have thus far completely failed to accurately predict events.

Enough to support a model that can make an accurate prediction will do it.


 

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
117,209
14,249
113
Low Earth Orbit


As a climatologist, you study weather patterns and the processes that cause them. You use long-term meteorological data such as temperature, wind speed, and precipitation to study trends, understand causes, and make predictions. Often confused with meteorologists, who study short-term weather patterns, you forecast weather changes over the span of years rather than days. Considering that long-term climate change affects every aspect of our lives and our environment, your work is crucial to sustaining and preserving the world's ecosystems.

Occupational Profiles - Climatologist | ECO Canada

Holy moly, you forgot to add a Moose Mason type "D'uh" to the end of that sentence.

It's almost impossible to have an intelligent debate about climate here but I am genuinely learning why there are so many people on TV who answer "four" when asked how many sides to a triangle or can't pick out their country on a map.



And Bush orchestrated 9/11 to justify a war in Iraq, _____________ killed JFK because __________, and NASA faked the moon landings.

For anyone who is not a tin folier here is an interesting read on where they come from:

Why People Believe Conspiracy Theories - Scientific American




The Earth is about 4.5 billion years old but depending on how you define "habitable" between 300-500 million years. If we don't cock things up too bad the Earth would in theory remain habitable for an additional 1.7 billion years not accounting for the periods of extinction events and their causes.

That's one. There are psychologists calling themselves climate scientists.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Because the agreement is worthless and holds China to nothing. We have to check back in with them in 2030!

you could say the same thing about the U.S.! Oh wait, do you think the U.S. wouldn't craft something in the agreement to ensure the Chinese are complying to meet their peak 2030 commitment? Do you actually know how these formal agreements have been structured in the past... that there are checks and balances put in to measure change, to measure emission levels? Perhaps you should check out Kyoto 1 and Kyoto 2 treaties to actually see the due-diligence components... you know, something about nations wanting to check other nations and hold the to their commitments.