[Pants-of-dog]

Hey pants, since evolution is now proven....what's left is how and why it happens, right? The theory is the how and why, evolution itself is a fact.

So global warming in the last 19000 years is a fact, now we get to argue why and how?

Evolution is a fact.

The theory of evolution through natural selection is a very well supported theory.

Climate change is a fact.

The theory of anthropogenic climate change through pollution related to fossil fuels is a very well supported theory.

I hope that clarifies things.

[Social_Critic]

Sure does. I wanted to give you a chance to pontificate. Where I got a problem is the current emphasis on unilaterally cutting down CO2 when China is burning so much coal and weather models are incomplete.

[Pants-of-dog]

Sure does. I wanted to give you a chance to pontificate. Where I got a problem is the current emphasis on unilaterally cutting down CO2 when China is burning so much coal and weather models are incomplete.

I am getting bored of people quoting my posts or otherwise referring to me, and then ignoring what I wrote so that they can post some irrelevancies or unsupported garbage.

Feel free to not quote me again.

[Social_Critic]

I didn't quote you, pants. And I'm hurt because you think I haven't hit the spot, when I think I have. Chinese emissions are increasing anyway, so why bother? It would make more sense to help them build cleaner coal burning plants.

[Pants-of-dog]

I didn't quote you, pants. And I'm hurt because you think I haven't hit the spot, when I think I have. Chinese emissions are increasing anyway, so why bother? It would make more sense to help them build cleaner coal burning plants.

Detroit has a much higher murder rate than Toronto. Should Toronto then stop trying to cut down its murder rate because those Detroit guys are just going to keep doing it anyways? That's what you're saying, essentially.

But you know what? China's per capita emissions are less than the per capita emissions of any developed nation. If the developed world managed to cut down its per capita emissions to the Chinese level, then we could make a difference.

[Social_Critic]

Pants the problem as I see it is that neither you nor anybody else can quantify reliably the benefits from a massive cut in CO 2 emissions. The USA has already cut them but Europe has to change policies. And the cut to Chinese levels would impose a huge economic penalty. Because the cost can not be justified, then it won't happen. Or do you really think people will support it given the lack of solid proof the sacrifice is justified?

[Pants-of-dog]

I can honestly say that even if you provided proof that global warning is happening, the powers that be would still do nothing unless you showed them how to make a short term profit off it.

[Churchills Legacy1]

Ok

[Churchills Legacy1]

You left wingers are retty sensitive. DBM, what's with the names? Just have a discussion.

[ralfy]

They deny it because "business as usual" cannot take place without more oil consumption. Hence,

[youtube]IaKm89eVhoE[/youtube]

"Climate Risks Have Been Underestimated for the Last 20 Years"

http://www.alternet.org/environment/cli ... t-20-years

The catch:

[youtube]YK730U0Q4NU[/youtube]

[DBM]

You left wingers are retty sensitive. DBM, what's with the names? Just have a discussion.

I think I did a pretty good job bringing substance along with aggression. I seriously thought you might be a troll....

[Kman]

Climate change is a fact.

The theory of anthropogenic climate change through pollution related to fossil fuels is a very well supported theory.

Just because you with your limited mind considers it well supported does not mean it is a fact.

But you know what? China's per capita emissions are less than the per capita emissions of any developed nation. If the developed world managed to cut down its per capita emissions to the Chinese level, then we could make a difference.

How much of a difference? 0.00005 degrees?

[Pants-of-dog]

Just because you with your limited mind considers it well supported does not mean it is a fact.

Climate change is an observable fact. People observe it.

How much of a difference? 0.00005 degrees?

The European Union emits 4,177,817,000 tonnes total. It has a population of 503,679,730.

China emits 5.3 tonnes per capita. 5.3 times 503,679,730 is 2,669,502,569.

2,669,502,569/4,177,817,000=0.639.

So, you would get a 36% reduction in pollution if the EU adopted China's emissions rate.

[RhetoricThug]

Climate change is deranged, haven't you heard, the people who speak for invention what an interest rate before you debate, they wish to castrate. Commit yourself to the FED, go to bed just to repeat your actions, infractions causing you dementia, leave it to the centra, because they will solve your problems? Earn each merit, or else you devolve them. Who do I speak for, and who is them? The them is the elite and the ones venting my pen. I commend actions brought upon intentions that criminalize inter- decisions. You will not carry on, it done/gone like a cashed bong.

[Kman]

The European Union emits 4,177,817,000 tonnes total. It has a population of 503,679,730.

China emits 5.3 tonnes per capita. 5.3 times 503,679,730 is 2,669,502,569.

2,669,502,569/4,177,817,000=0.639.

So, you would get a 36% reduction in pollution if the EU adopted China's emissions rate.

I didnt ask for a percentage, I asked for how much you could change temperature, lets say we reduce Co2 emissions by 50%, how much would that lower the average temperature exactly?

[Pants-of-dog]

I didnt ask for a percentage, I asked for how much you could change temperature, lets say we reduce Co2 emissions by 50%, how much would that lower the average temperature exactly?

I realise that. However, I did not want to support your strawman, so I discussed what I actually meant instead.

I assume you agree that my math is correct and that if the developed world managed to cut down its per capita emissions to the Chinese level, then we could make a difference.

[Kman]

I realise that. However, I did not want to support your strawman, so I discussed what I actually meant instead.

I assume you agree that my math is correct and that if the developed world managed to cut down its per capita emissions to the Chinese level, then we could make a difference.

I dont give a shit about your talking point about ''making a difference'', I could off myself and reduce the CO2 emissions I create but that is such a miniscule effect that it is not even worth thinking about. I know why you refuse to answer the simple question though and that is because the whole climate change science is a fraud and even huge reductions in Co2 would only have microscopic effects according to the models so you dont want to give me a number on this simple question because you know how ridicilous it would make you look.

[Pants-of-dog]

I dont give a shit about your talking point about ''making a difference'', I could off myself and reduce the CO2 emissions I create but that is such a miniscule effect that it is not even worth thinking about. I know why you refuse to answer the simple question though and that is because the whole climate change science is a fraud and even huge reductions in Co2 would only have microscopic effects according to the models so you dont want to give me a number on this simple question because you know how ridicilous it would make you look.

If you want to believe that go ahead.

The truth is that you are asking for a single number answer to a problem that involves many variables. If I were to try to answer your strawman question, I would have to ignore many climate variables and assume (incorrectly) that there is some sort of easily quantifiable equation between carbon dioxide and global temperature.

Climate sensitivity is more complicated than that.

[DBM]

Climate sensitivity is more complicated than that.

NO.....SIR!! YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND!!! Climate science must be straight forward and easily digested by a layman or ITS JUST NOT TRUE!

[Kman]

If you want to believe that go ahead.

The truth is that you are asking for a single number answer to a problem that involves many variables. If I were to try to answer your strawman question, I would have to ignore many climate variables and assume (incorrectly) that there is some sort of easily quantifiable equation between carbon dioxide and global temperature.

Climate sensitivity is more complicated than that.

So what is the range then? How inaccurate are you guys?

NO.....SIR!! YOU DO NOT UNDERSTAND!!! Climate science must be straight forward and easily digested by a layman or ITS JUST NOT TRUE!

You are like a religious fanatic bowing down to his priest ''DONT WORRY GUIZ, THE PRIEST KNOWS BEST, HE DOESNT HAVE TO EXPLAIN HIMSELF''.

Edit: Also isnt the pursuit of knowledge (aka Science) about knowing the variables? If you cannot tell me how much thrust you need to escape the earth's atmosphere for example then you are pretty useless as a rocket scientist arent you?