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

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Hey Tecumseh.

I posted some good news on modeling.

Hopefully this can help lead to more accurate assessments of future scenarios.
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,153
9,432
113
Washington DC
Hey Tecumseh.

I posted some good news on modeling.

Hopefully this can help lead to more accurate assessments of future scenarios.
Saw that. Thanks.

Not that it will make any difference to the screamers, mind. They're already convinced, and facts and reasoning ain't gonna change that.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
Saw that. Thanks.

Not that it will make any difference to the screamers, mind. They're already convinced, and facts and reasoning ain't gonna change that.

Let's just drop the emotion and find common ground.

I think we can actually agree about the primary influence, but there is nothing wrong in being skeptical about the degree of harm purported to be done to the planet.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
148
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
The fact that it has always existed is irrelevant to the argument. If you add more molecules of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, more longwave radiation is "reflected" back to the earth which warms the troposphere and cools the stratosphere. Which is what we see happening. You don't need any fancy global circulation models to determine that.


Carbon always existing is irrelevant?... Seriously?

Lightening strikes touching off forest fires that burn 1000s of hectares per event release that carbon into the system... Right now, one of the Hawaiian volcanoes is peaking in activity, releasing the evil CO2, etc.... How is it that these natural, frequently occurring events never make it on the GHG-nazis radar?

Just anthro CO2 is bad, correct?... All other CO2 is 'natural', therefore part of the cycle.

On that note, Carbon (ie CO2) has only recently been selected as the Dr. Evil of all elements.... Seems damned convenient that this is the case

I think we can actually agree about the primary influence


Ummm... This is kinda the heart of the issue.... There is no agreement
 

Tecumsehsbones

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 18, 2013
60,153
9,432
113
Washington DC
Let's just drop the emotion and find common ground.

I think we can actually agree about the primary influence, but there is nothing wrong in being skeptical about the degree of harm purported to be done to the planet.
Solar's the answer, ultimately. That, and technologies we've barely even glimpsed.

Politically, I still think the best approach is dual-purpose regulations that limit emissions of pollutants and CO2 and methane. I'm sure you'll find some folk who'll claim that toxins in the air and water are good for you, but relatively few (I hope).
 

B00Mer

Make Canada Great Again
Sep 6, 2008
47,127
8,145
113
Rent Free in Your Head
www.canadianforums.ca
Solar's the answer, ultimately. That, and technologies we've barely even glimpsed.

Politically, I still think the best approach is dual-purpose regulations that limit emissions of pollutants and CO2 and methane. I'm sure you'll find some folk who'll claim that toxins in the air and water are good for you, but relatively few (I hope).



Can't agree more.. Solar Bikini with USB connectivity :lol:
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Solar's the answer, ultimately. That, and technologies we've barely even glimpsed.
Municipalities need to lift restrictions on solar panel installations, then people need to change their thinking about ugly all those solar panels are on the house next door, or the house the realestate agent just drove you too.

Then of course we need to change our collective idea of what is aesthetically pleasing as we blanket houses, apts and landscapes with solar farms.
 

waldo

House Member
Oct 19, 2009
3,042
0
36
Instead you have chosen to dodge, duck, dance, and engage in every logical fallacy from tu quoque to argumentum ab auctoritate.

I'm not dodging a thing... I'm coming at you straight on! You continue this charade calling me a liar, yet you categorically refuse to answer the questions I've asked of you, repeatedly asked of you. The answers, your answers, to those questions would clear this up completely. You can either answer the questions or reinforce your blustering pretense. Again, just answer the following... and clear up what you meant... surely, you can't be afraid to answer a couple of questions to clarify your intent; again:
what did you mean with your statement? Are you stating that "SOME" models have correctly predicted?
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,817
471
83
It's okay.

I'm assuming you're not afraid of the part that mentions fossil fuel subsidies.


In the run-up to this week's G20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia, the London-based Overseas Development Institute has released a report showing that G20 countries spend $88 billion US a year subsidizing fossil fuel exploration.

That's just the G20. And that's just the subsidy for exploration.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
It's okay.

I'm assuming you're not afraid of the part that mentions fossil fuel subsidies.


In the run-up to this week's G20 meeting in Brisbane, Australia, the London-based Overseas Development Institute has released a report showing that G20 countries spend $88 billion US a year subsidizing fossil fuel exploration.

That's just the G20. And that's just the subsidy for exploration.
If drives the better part of the global economy.

It fuels our very lives and livings.

So they should just stop doing it now.

So much for that common ground you pretend to hypocritically seek.