[late]

Again, no other country has had a greater impact.

But you seem to be arguing that the USA should not have to do anything unless it is polluting more than the entire rest of the world combined.

While it is amusing to watch you claim that you guys have no responsibility, this is no longer a debate.

It's also no longer sane..

"The GOP, Lofgren argued in the aftermath of the debt-ceiling debacle, increasingly resembled “an apocalyptic cult..."

[BigSteve]

Again, no other country has had a greater impact.

But you seem to be arguing that the USA should not have to do anything unless it is polluting more than the entire rest of the world combined.

While it is amusing to watch you claim that you guys have no responsibility, this is no longer a debate.

You'll not find a single post of mine in which I state the United States has no responsibility.

If you're going to post about what you think my position is, please be honest about it...

[Pants-of-dog]

It's also no longer sane..

That depends. The USA government knows full well that it depends heavily kn petroleum for a lot of its industry, and that most of the negative impacts will be felt by the global south. So, for them, they can just ignore the problem for now.

————————

@BigSteve

If you have some sort of argument to make, then do so.

I am not going to try and guess what it is, especially since you seem to be simply trying to dodge responsibility and are not actually making a logical or factual claim.

[BigSteve]

If you have some sort of argument to make, then do so.

I am not going to try and guess what it is, especially since you seem to be simply trying to dodge responsibility and are not actually making a logical or factual claim.

I've made my argument. Unsurprising that you failed to grasp it.

The United States, it's been said, produces 1/3 of all emissions. If we assume that to be true, that means that the rest of the world produces twice as much (2/3 being twice as much as 1/3) as the US.

Again, if we assume the numbers to be true, then that is a factual and irrefutable statement.

I know, math is hard...

[late]

The United States, it's been said, produces 1/3 of all emissions. If we assume that to be true, that means that the rest of the world produces twice as much (2/3 being twice as much as 1/3) as the US.

Again, if we assume the numbers to be true, then that is a factual and irrefutable statement.

The scientific debate ended 20 years ago, but before that some conservative economists were arguing it wasn't rational to ignore the situation.

You're trolling trying to piss people off. Supremely juvenile..

[Rancid]

I know, math is hard...

Clearly math is very difficult for you. You are comparing apples to oranges in your statement.

If you want to do apples-apples, you have to look at emissions per capita. On that much more reasonable & accurate comparison, Americans pollute/waste like crazy compared to the rest of the world.

[BigSteve]

The scientific debate ended 20 years ago, but before that some conservative economists were arguing it wasn't rational to ignore the situation.

You're trolling trying to piss people off. Supremely juvenile..

It's okay to admit that you understand my point. It's not trolling at all.

If we produce 1/3 of all emissions, then the rest of the world produces twice as much.

I'd love to see you show how that statement is incorrect...

[Rancid]

I'd love to see you show how that statement is incorrect...

See my statement.

[BigSteve]

Clearly math is very difficult for you. You are comparing apples to oranges in your statement.

I'm comparing our emissions with the emissions of the rest of the world...

[BigSteve]

See my statement.

So, 2/3 isn't twice as much as 1/3?

[late]

See my statement.

He's going to repeat the same idiocy in an attempt to get someone to lose their temper.

He knows better.

The point stands, until we get a Carbon Tax, we haven't even started.

[BigSteve]

He's going to repeat the same idiocy in an attempt to get someone to lose their temper.

2/3 is twice as much as 1/3.

Please explain how that statement is incorrect...

[Rancid]

So, 2/3 isn't twice as much as 1/3?

Yes, of course, but that's not the proper way to compare the numbers. I'm sensing the dunning-kurger effect with you right now (you don't realize your own incompetence).

Let me help you understand the flaw in what you are saying.

Population:
The planet has 7 billion (7,000,000,000)
USA population is about 330 million (330,000,000)

Emissions:
2/3 is the rest of the world
1/3 is the USA

That means the US is 4.7% (330million divided by 7 billion) of the global population. Thus, 4.7% of the global population is responsible for 1/3 (33%) of the emissions. Where as 95.3% are responsible for the other 2/3 (67%). If this disproportion isn't obvious now, then you really do suffer from dunning-kruger.

What the numbers above say is that the typical American emits 10x ((33/4.7)/(67/95.3)) more emissions than the typical anyone else on the planet that is not American. That is, the typical american is far more wasteful than the typical non-American by a factor of 10.

[Rancid]

He's going to repeat the same idiocy in an attempt to get someone to lose their temper.

He knows better.

The point stands, until we get a Carbon Tax, we haven't even started.

Of course, but I'll show the numbers once. I'm sure he won't get it since he clearly doesn't understand how numbers work.

One of my pet peeves is just how bad people are at math. Especially when it comes to comparing numbers like what I've showed above.

[Pants-of-dog]

I've made my argument. Unsurprising that you failed to grasp it.

The United States, it's been said, produces 1/3 of all emissions. If we assume that to be true, that means that the rest of the world produces twice as much (2/3 being twice as much as 1/3) as the US.

Again, if we assume the numbers to be true, then that is a factual and irrefutable statement.

I know, math is hard...

That is not an argument.

You are merely repeating a fact that I told you.

Let me know if you decide on an argument, or if you would like to stop ignoring the moral argument about US apathy and lack of action.

[BigSteve]

That is not an argument.

Of course it is.

You just can't refute it, so the thought of discussing it frightens you...

You are merely repeating a fact that I told you.

I don't recall you ever telling me that 2/3 was twice as much as 1/3. Can you point that out to me?

Let me know if you decide on an argument, or if you would like to stop ignoring the moral argument about US apathy and lack of action.

I don't care if we're apathetic. The rest of the world is pretty much doing dick, and the rest of the world is spewing out twice as much as we are...

[Pants-of-dog]

You previously failed to provide evidence for your claim that the rest of the world is doing nothing.

Also, I am the one who told you that the USA created one third of the total emissions that are now causing global warming. Feel free to look back in this thread to verify that.

[late]

You previously failed to provide evidence for your claim that the rest of the world is doing nothing.

Also, I am the one who told you that the USA created one third of the total emissions that are now causing global warming. Feel free to look back in this thread to verify that.

He knows. Everyone knows now.

Back in the 80s, the Kochs built the best propaganda machines the world has ever seen.

They dragged the entire country to the Right. While the country is starting to recover, there are plenty of people who lack the starch to admit they were wrong.

They don't think in terms of governance, their motivations are primal. They are trapped in a game they know they are losing, and are using their limited skill set to slow the inevitable.

[Truth To Power]

Angstroms research only works at ground level, once we took measurements at altitude in the 1950s his research didn't stack up because we discovered that:
a the wavelength of saturation widens with density,
b water vapour drops faster than CO2 as you rise through the atmosphere and

These two effects cancel each other out: density is greatest at ground level, where H2O completely dominates CO2. At altitudes where H2O has frozen out, density is so low that CO2's absorption band is narrowed. Result: CO2 has very little net effect on IR absorption in the earth's atmosphere.

c that there are gaps in the absorption bands of H20 where CO2 is active, today's levels of accuracy in spectroscopy are something Angstrom could only dream of.

But the gaps are narrow, accounting for only a tiny fraction of the total upward IR energy flux. Result: CO2 has very little effect on IR absorption in the earth's atmosphere.

That you can't defend Lindzen is clear, even using the single UAH satelite data he is way, way out.

Nonsense.

Only qualified researchers in climate science get to call themselves climate scientists.

"Qualified" by being in the pal-review clique....?

Offering up theoretical physicists is like suggesting a dentist is qualified to do a heart and lung transplant.

More nonsense. Anyone who can accurately identify relevant epistemological and methodological issues in climate research papers is qualified to do so.

Peer reviewed climate change related research papers:
Freeman Dyson : 0
William Happer : 0
Patrick Moore : 0 ( although he'd like to claim he has by avoiding the peer reviewed journals and choosing those where he is on the board).
https://decarbonisesa.com/2016/03/30/fr ... ike-moore/

There are lots of others, including many who have published papers in the peer-reviewed climate journals despite political censorship by editors and publishers.

[BeesKnee5]

These two effects cancel each other out: density is greatest at ground level, where H2O completely dominates CO2. At altitudes where H2O has frozen out, density is so low that CO2's absorption band is narrowed. Result: CO2 has very little net effect on IR absorption in the earth's atmosphere.

But the gaps are narrow, accounting for only a tiny fraction of the total upward IR energy flux. Result: CO2 has very little effect on IR absorption in the earth's atmosphere.

Nonsense.

"Qualified" by being in the pal-review clique....?

More nonsense. Anyone who can accurately identify relevant epistemological and methodological issues in climate research papers is qualified to do so.

There are lots of others, including many who have published papers in the peer-reviewed climate journals despite political censorship by editors and publishers.

I was going to give a full response but there is no point as it's unsupported waffle.

You are now resorting to invention. I have already shared this with you to show how the main absorption bands of H20 and CO2 dovetail rather than completely overlap as Angstrom believed based on his primative measurements.


I will add to that the spectra of energy the earth reflects back out into space showing the chunk CO2 takes out of it .


Something Angstrom could only dream of measuring.



Don't like me attacking your climate denying pals who have no peer reviewed papers and zero credibility because their predictions are crap. Tough, come back with one of the their peer reviewed papers rather than their untested pseudoscience and we'll discuss it.