backtop


Print 137 comment(s) - last by Aloonatic.. on Feb 26 at 5:41 AM


A senior India climate negotiater has blasted climate commitments from nations such as the U.S, Japan, and Australia, calling them "pathetic". He both questions whether the nations would achieve their goals and says they aren't enough. He says developing nations shouldn't be punished for these shortcomings.  (Source: Write on New Jersey)

India's emissions are estimated to triple by 2030, even as industrialized nations cut their emissions.  (Source: Arjen.com)
Rising tech nation accuses Europe and U.S. of belittling it, coming up short with climate promises

The Copenhagen summit, a worldwide meeting to try to develop a cohesive plan to combat global warming, wrapped up last month.  The summit hosted 110 leaders from nations around the world, including U.S. President Barack Obama.  Many view the summit as a success as 55 nations met the January 31 deadline to summit their emissions plans, set in the Copenhagen Accord.  

Greenhouse gases come from diverse sources including agriculture, industry, and transportation.  The plans involve reducing the release of these gases such as carbon dioxide and methane by a set percent in order to try to keep global temperature increases within a maximum of 2 degrees Celsius.

The commitment, though, varied wildly.  The U.S. pledged to cut 17 percent of its emissions with respect to 2000 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050.  The host, the European Union, pledged even bigger cuts -- 20 percent emissions reductions with respect to 
1990 levels by 2020.

Other nations only committed to relatively minor cuts.  Australia said it would only cut emissions 5 percent by 2020.  Japan and New Zealand refused to commit to any definitive cuts unless a uniform global cut was adopted.

Now one of India's senior negotiators at the summit has aired harsh words about the industrialized nations' level of commitment to combating climate change.  Chandrashekhar Dasgupta states, "We need truly ambitious emission reduction commitments from industrialized countries. If you see figures that industrialized countries have submitted in response to the Copenhagen Accord, these are truly pathetic."

He also questioned that some of the nations would meet even their modest commitments.  He comments, "The European Union had envisaged a reduction of from 25% to 30% from developed countries, they're nowhere near this."

He and his fellow leaders in developing nations such as China have called on the industrialized nations to make 40 percent cuts by 2040, with respect to 2000 levels.  He accuses the industrialized nations of disrespecting developing nations' leaders at the summit saying he was "lectured and hectored" by them.

He vents, "We can do so much consistent with maintaining our development priorities. Beyond this, it is going to cost tens of billions of dollars. The upper end of the commitments will take us to a peaking of global emissions by about 2020, maybe a bit later."

Britain's Energy Secretary Ed Miliband refuted Mr. Dasgupta's accusations, saying the commitments from the European Union were ambitious and sufficient.  He states, "The upper end of the commitments will take us to a peaking of global emissions by about 2020, maybe a bit later. I do think the commitments made in the accord are an important step forward and I don't think they should be dismissed. The key is to get developed countries to drive up to the upper end of their commitments because that is what the world needs."

His comments illustrate a growing battle on the subject of combating climate change.  Industrialized nations say that the so-called third world and developing nations need to do more fight climate change.  Yet, they have been largely unwilling to entice these nations with financial aid.  Meanwhile developing nations largely feel that they should be able to freely expand without restrictions, as industrialized nations already got to ride the bus, so to speak.

Of the industrialized nations a handful have decreased their emissions in recent years such as France, Germany, and Great Britain, without suffering any significant economic detriment.  Others like the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Spain have instead seen significant increases in emissions.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Some facts the article left out
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 9:59:57 AM , Rating: 5
a) This is not a formal statement by India, its a statement by one Indian: Chandrashekhar Dasgupta, their delegate to the IPCC.

b) Dasgupta isn't calling for his OWN country to cap emissions. Rather, he wants wealthy Western nations to give India tens of billions of dollars in aid, ostensibly to facilitate "low carbon technologies".

c) China is already the worldest largest CO2 emitter, and in a decade India is slated to be #2. Neither of these nations are even discussing emissions reductions, which makes any action by the rest of the world moot.

d) The world stopped warming 15 years ago, despite us burning more fossil fuels now than ever before in history. So why are we even still talking about this?




RE: Some facts the article left out
By The0ne on 2/18/2010 10:09:33 AM , Rating: 4
Agree with your point #3

Both China and India are in no position to be commenting or pointing fingers. IMO, they both need to grow some balls before saying anything. That's not going to happen.

With so many coal plants being planned and constructed I'm eagerly waiting to see how China would be impacted by their actions. What I mean is how impacted their "land" is going to be. If they take things into consideration like they do with manufacturing then I can safely predict that it's going to be very bad.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By BZDTemp on 2/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: Some facts the article left out
By mdogs444 on 2/18/2010 10:15:55 AM , Rating: 4
Sounds like someone is drinking the kool-aid.

quote:
It makes good sense to help them grow while avoiding bad practices and that cost money.

How about we worry about our own economic growth instead? You know, the one that could help slow down shipping our jobs to them so their economy grows?
quote:
Looking at CO2 numbers without factoring in population size is like looking at the sign in an elevator stating max load. It makes a lot of difference whether you load the elevator with cheerleaders or football players. The US emitting a lot more per capita than India and China. In fact it is about a factor 15 when comparing the US and India. Considering this I'd say the Indians could very well say doing anything is moot as long as the US does nothing!

Who gives a $hit?
quote:
That is simply BS.

No, Global Warming is BS. It's nothing more than a charge for global government, social engineering, global taxes, and the destruction of capitalism and developed nations wealth.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By mcnabney on 2/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: Some facts the article left out
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 10:48:18 AM , Rating: 5
"Just because it is cold outside today doesn't mean global average temperatures aren't rising"

The global temperature record shows no statistically significant warming since 1995. Since 2001, it actually shows cooling...though not to a signficant degree.

"Just because it is cold outside today doesn't mean global average temperatures aren't rising"

The IPCC is predicting roughly 12 inches of sea level rise from AGW over the next century. At an average 4% grade, that equates to a loss of about 8 meters of coast....IF you take no ameliorative action whatsoever.

A quarter of Holland is feet below sea level, some of it six or more feet below -- an act they succesfully accomplished with 18th century technology. Do you really think 12 inches will bother us by the year 2100? Considering most beachfront properties are rebuilt in less time than that, we could solve the entire problem just by passing laws requiring new construction to be set 10 meters further back.


By kattanna on 2/18/2010 10:54:22 AM , Rating: 3
quote:
Considering most beachfront properties are rebuilt in less time than that, we could solve the entire problem just by passing laws requiring new construction to be set 10 meters further back.


but that doesnt have the same fear inducing ability now does it?


RE: Some facts the article left out
By jbartabas on 2/18/10, Rating: 0
By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 1:32:18 PM , Rating: 2
Your damn statistics have no place in a debate when there is BELIEF upon which we can rely!


RE: Some facts the article left out
By BZDTemp on 2/18/10, Rating: -1
RE: Some facts the article left out
By ClownPuncher on 2/18/2010 1:14:18 PM , Rating: 5
If everyone in the world liked rainbows and lollipops as much as you, your argument might hold some water.

Face it, humans are a competetive species.

Why does the USA *have* to give other countries money?


By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 1:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
It's called bribery, er, I mean international aid...you know, because we in the USA just LOVE those other countries oh so much!


RE: Some facts the article left out
By daInvincibleGama on 2/19/2010 2:48:15 AM , Rating: 2
Actually no. A competitive species would be a lion, with one male a few females living completely alone.

We are actually a very collaborative species. That is our strength. For one moment consider everything that has been done for your welfare so you don't have to go out and kill your dinner everyday. We have pretty easy lives and a high life expectancy because we are not constantly killing each other.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By ekv on 2/19/2010 3:07:09 AM , Rating: 2
You're killing me with your rapier wit! 8|

He said competition. You said killing.

Competition can involve collaboration. Take hockey for instance. Or, perhaps you've heard of the Cold War? Competition means ... what is mine is mine and what is yours is mine.

Get it?


RE: Some facts the article left out
By Spind on 2/21/2010 10:57:38 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Why does the USA *have* to give other countries money?


Are you really that ignorant?


By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 12:05:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How about we worry about our own economic growth instead? You know, the one that could help slow down shipping our jobs to them so their economy grows?


Getting rid of supranational trade bodies and 'free trade' agreements would go quite a ways toward that goal. So I can only assume you would support pulling out of the WTO and such organizations and getting rid of 'free trade agreements' in favor of traditional trade treaties.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By Aloonatic on 2/19/2010 5:01:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
No, Global Warming is BS. It's nothing more than a charge for global government, social engineering, global taxes, and the destruction of capitalism and developed nations wealth.
You're quite right about it being BS. The man made CO2 (etc) part at any rate. But you are so far wrong about the destroying developed nations bit it's untrue. Why would developed nation invent something to destroy themselves???

This article hints at the real reason. Just as India and China (2 massive countries with large populations and resources that could seriously challenge the West/EU/USA) come into the modern industrialised world, suddenly being an industrialised country is wrong? Oh how convenient for the West. If you don't realise that the whole point of this climate-change nonsense is to make it harder or nations like China and India to grow then I don't know what to tell you.

That's why India do not trust the UN and their research groups, with it's head quarters in NYC...

Yes Yes *sips kool-aid* ah ha ha ha *sighs*


RE: Some facts the article left out
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/19/2010 3:55:13 PM , Rating: 2
"You're quite right about it being BS. The man made CO2 (etc) part at any rate. But you are so far wrong about the destroying developed nations bit it's untrue. Why would developed nation invent something to destroy themselves???"

Same reason smokers still smoke even though they know it will kill themselves from smoking.

The West/EU/USA just want India and China to live under the same rules that they live under.... Nothing unfair there


RE: Some facts the article left out
By Aloonatic on 2/19/2010 5:45:31 PM , Rating: 2
That makes no sense. Smokers didn't invent cancer. Or if you'r coming from an addiction angle, the addictive component would be to consume more surely, not come up with a way to lead poorer lives? Maybe it's a self destructive compulsion you are referring to? However, smokers don't smoke out of some compulsion to actively harm themselves. At least, most don't. They know that it is bad, but here is a strong addictive chemical component that keeps them smoking, after social effects lead them to start, not really a free choice to keep smoking once they start however.

Anyway, back with the story. What is unfair is that the West/EU/USA got fat and rich belching all sorts of crap into the air/sea/anywhere possible, consuming whatever we wanted and positioned ourselves at the top of the tree. Also, what are we actually doing to be green? Not a lot in reality. Now that China/India feel like joining the party. Oh no, suddenly it's not fair for them to do the same as they start to grow. No, they have to do it by our rules, with our technology no doubt, but we'll keep on consuming and polluting while we decide what to do next yeah?


RE: Some facts the article left out
By porkpie on 2/19/10, Rating: -1
RE: Some facts the article left out
By Aloonatic on 2/20/2010 3:09:33 AM , Rating: 3
What drugs are you taking? Do you really think that that science, technology, the big cities, along with the life style and infrastructure that we take for granted magically appeared in the west and power/powered itself cleanly?

Second paragraph. I don't really care, that's not what I'm talking about. The west has moved medicine and science on, well done us. Longer lives mean and over population are only helping...

What we're doing to be green is not anywhere near as much as might be suggested. Less power plants being built you say? Nothing to do with large energy companies wanting it that way so that supply and demand are much closer, without an energy surplus so more money can be made. India may not be doing much either, but is it fair that we are trying to make them change their world by using only happy thoughts and fairy dust, as anything else would be contributing to CO2 levels and baaaaaddd, whilst mean while we are carrying on as we have been, maybe turning our heating down a bit?


RE: Some facts the article left out
By porkpie on 2/20/10, Rating: 0
By Aloonatic on 2/21/2010 12:33:37 PM , Rating: 3
Seriously? You are your own unique brand of moron aren't you.

Firstly, I'm not an "environmental twit". Please show me any post that I have made that would support that.

Secondly, over population is the elephant in the room that no one is willing to talk about and is the major problem retard. Oh, and that has little do do with CO2 before you get your panties all damp. It only has anything to do with world limited resources.

(Yes, I'm lowering my self to your name calling childish level, it can be fun sometimes)

All I am arguing is that the only reason why anyone in the west suddenly pretends to give a fuck about the environment (giving a greater voice to your twitish friends) is because it is a convenient way of stifling the growth of the West's economic competitors. Is that clear? DO YOU UNDERSTAND? Sadly, there is no quick and easy way to draw a diagram for you.

Porkpie, if anyone should kill themselves, please don't let it be you. Some of your posts are so stupid it brightens my day, unless you live in the UK that is, where your idiotic vote will cancel out that of an intelligent person, in which case, please do the right thing.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/24/2010 10:45:35 AM , Rating: 3
That makes no sense. Smokers didn't invent cancer. Or if you'r coming from an addiction angle, the addictive component would be to consume more surely, not come up with a way to lead poorer lives? Maybe it's a self destructive compulsion you are referring to? However, smokers don't smoke out of some compulsion to actively harm themselves. At least, most don't. They know that it is bad, but here is a strong addictive chemical component that keeps them smoking, after social effects lead them to start, not really a free choice to keep smoking once they start however.

Makes perfect sense you just not thinking... Example was simple. Human wants smoke, he knows it will harm him, but he still smokes and smokes. Human wants power (energy), the more we use it the more we want it and the more thing we use to run... If CO2 really doing the damage that alarmist claim then it would be same as smoking (slowly killing self and enjoying the ride).
You say smokers didn't invent cancer... Well human did not invent CO2 or pollution... both are just a side effect. Power is just as addictive as smoking or other things... Try to go two weeks without using power... No watches, no gas stove, no lights, no PC, no car, no train, no plane, no buying canned foods (needed power to put in can), no tooth paste, no tap water, and so on... I say, good luck to you if you try. You say smokers don't smoke out of some compulsion to actively harm themselves... Errr I never turned on every light in my house, turn on the TV, radio, PC and started to play an on-line video game to cause any harm to anything either... I was just something to do to have a little fun (playing the game - everything else well careless from time to time).
For your 2nd paragraph, by your logic, not know a law or about a law make is OK to break that law or not be responsible to respect that law. The USA has cleaners in their factories to help with having cleaner air... India does nothing at all, and unlike the USA of a 100 years ago India and China know they are straight out polluting the environment and they do not care about it. Not only do they know they are polluting and do not care, but they have the solution to at least improve to the levels of the USA. India and China have taking; business, jobs, factories, economic power, and such for free... they might as well take some environmental responsibility. If you believe it is unfair that India and China just have to match the environmentally same responsibility of the rest of the world then you are a fool. Try visiting China or India, then go to the USA, make sure you visit cities and country side of all the places... You will never say, it is Unfair that China and India have to... (whatever you want compare).
You must be pretty young or not very worldly... You have thing very twisted up in your head, if just out of college it would explain a lot. Many liberal teachers out there right now trying to paint the West/EU/USA as big evil meanies... Truth, no one is perfect, every country has an issue... One of India and China's issues are their both about the dirties and un-healthiest places on the earth.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By Aloonatic on 2/24/2010 2:42:53 PM , Rating: 2
I really don't get what you are on about? If I was supporting man made climate change and CO2, then fine. But I'm not.

I am saying that it is made-up, or at best, massively exaggerated by the west for it's own ends. So the problem of climate change is something that the west has invented. So to compare to smokers... It's like saying that smokers inventing the problem that harms them, cancer.

I didn't start the smoking analogy by the way. I understand perfectly that smokers know that it harms them to smoke and yet they keep on doing it. But we are saying that man made CO2 is not a problem, but we have invented it. Why would we invent it to harm us though? We didn't, we invented it to harm others, emerging nations. It's really not doing us a great deal of harm. A lot are even making money out of it here, because it's our game and we've invented the rules, have the "science", set the targets etc.

Please actually read my comments before assuming that because I don't support what someone else says 100% I am some long haired hippy that wants to live in a damp cave licking moss off of rocks and moister from the ceiling.

As for cleaners to clean the air, little cleaners/filters on cars etc. All token gestures (which I refered to) that feed into our economies in their own little way, but they are not major sacrifices by any stretch.

Take the UK for example, it used to be massively forested, and the industrial revolution was in many ways a terrible exploitative time (both environmentally and in human terms) that moved us on rapidly however. If we were to impose many of the rules for the environment, labour, pollution that we demand of emerging nations now, the UK would not have grown anywhere near as fast as it did. Same goes for pretty well every western industrialised nations. Non would be as rich and powerful as they are today. When the USA was growing, did it take any responsibility for the environment? Nope. The USA didn't give a flying fig. So why should India listen too? Because we suddenly and conveniently have a theory about it being bad?

to be clear;

I AM SAYING THAT THE WEST IS EXAGGERATING OR COMPLETELY MAKING UP MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE AS A WEAPON TO USE AGAINST EMERGING ECONOMIC POWERS TO STIFLE THEIR GROWTH.

I DO NOT BELIEVE IN MAN MADE CLIMATE CHANGE EITHER

Sorry for the caps, but my message doesn't seem to be getting through.

As for your patronising "not worldly" or my liberal teachers nonsense? Where do you get off on saying that sort of rubbish?

You don't like the truth though? Is that it? That America, UK and the West (I'm from the UK) all got big and fat and rich without giving a damn about the environment? Or is that something that liberal loonies or I have made up? Get real, and face up to the truth.

As you say, all countries have their issues. We are just making up more issues for other emerging and competing countries to deal with and they are seeing through it, hence this article.

Finally, as someone so worldly wise, do you really believe that the USA/UK/West are philanthropic agents that want to teach the world to sing? Or do you think that they/we are at the top of the global tree and will do whatever it takes to stay there?

Oh, and do you think that stifling India/China's economic growth will make them cleaner places? Wealth is one of the best birth control methods known to man, and as they get richer, they will get cleaner too. Just like the west did. Stopping them from getting rich wont make them cleaner, just poorer, dirtier and more overcrowded.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/24/2010 3:33:31 PM , Rating: 2
"Non would be as rich and powerful as they are today. When the USA was growing, did it take any responsibility for the environment? Nope. The USA didn't give a flying fig. So why should India listen too? Because we suddenly and conveniently have a theory about it being bad?"

If all same rules were out there when the USA started, YES, it would be just a wealthy... The people in the US is what is and has been are greatest wealth. Not the condition we work in. We in the USA are know for making things work under any condition. Oh by the way, the USA gave a MAJOR HUGH FLYING FIG about environment. We as a nation realized the problem those why we were the first nation to create national parks so to be saved for future generation and never to be touched by any one person or business.

You must not know much about the two countries... You do not understand how much wealth is in China and India... a good chunk of it coming at the expensive of the USA people (probably Europeans too....) Because of off shore working. They are paid cheap to our view of income, but these workers are very well paid in their nation, which means the average person over there has great buying power and more buying power. So the nation grows as a Economic power house. We have no way of stopping them from becoming a Economic power house. Oh by the way both nation really are already Economic power houses (more so China, India just around the corner), however the average person in these countries are not gaining large individual wealth, because their country does not want the average person to have too much money. They want the money for the Elite classes. So you are just being silly when you say, it is not fair. No we are not perfect nor should we claim to be... but like an older brother given a younger brother advice... Been there done that, this is a better road for so many reasons.... Well, the nation of China and India really do not care about the citizens of their nation, or at least many of their classes and cast of the people over there... So, they will pollute the air, knowing they can keep the air clean for very little extra money (when figured over time and value gain by healthier citizens - workers).
I think the CO2 people are a joke, but there is no reason a factory needs to dump poison and such into the air without trying to clean them... Again remember the air in China for the summer Olympics (After months of major cleaning - no factories running for 3 months). All the athletes complained about how bad the air quality is in China... However, you want to say... It's not fair. Come on already nothing is fair in life. The question is, What is the correct and right thing to do? For China and India one right thing to do would be, provided a safe and clean environment for the people to live in and raise their families..


By Aloonatic on 2/26/2010 5:41:24 AM , Rating: 2
Quite shifting the goal posts. No one would argue against clean air, but I doubt that early industrial USA/UK/Wherever had the cleanest air or pristine seas and rivers during their growth. We don't really do that well in many areas even now. FYI, what we are talking about here is man made climate change however, why it was created/promoted as an idea, and why countries like India are calling BS on the West's research and promotion of it.

China and India might be emerging "economic powerhouses" but for their size, they have some way to go yet. They could be growing much faster and cheaply without made up nonsense like man made climate-change. That is what we are talking about.

But to indulge you...

Well done for making a few national parks, so the USA is safe from any environmental criticism? They came too late for many areas, or areas that weren't pretty enough. Land turned into desserts by over intensive and poorly planned farming, cities and towns built over land that was convenient, then abandoned when no longer needed, rivers dammed, forest cut down etc. Now there are all sorts of bodies set up by the UN to monitor and tell emerging nations what they can and can't do? Fair? Oh yeah, life's not fair, so that makes it ok?

Again, quite the patronising. I am aware that "dey duk our jerbs", but what most people here don't realise is that it comes at a cost to India/China too. The west is exploiting them too here, as they are exporting wealth and knowledge at less than the going rate, as it's the only way that they are allowed to compete, and it's how you get started in the global game. That might well change soon however, as they start to make their own inroads into industries other than just auto manufacture and the dirty metal bashing that we don't want to do, and seriously get into the world of electronics and software. Then they wont be taking your jerbs, they will be the ones handing them out. Why would the west want to stifle that?

That you don't understand that elites are the people who control our nations and steer them for their own benefit above yours shows amazing naivety on your part. Do they really care about you? No, not really. If you want an example, the banking crisis is a pretty good one. Who lost out? The people who caused it at the top? No, not really. You, the tax paying peon? Yes. That There is a more sophisticated layer between those who control us and us in the west compared to what we see in China/India/Wherever, really isn't all that amazing. You've been trained to look at it through the point of few that is desirable. Just look at the state of "the family" and how people treat each other in the west, along with the terrible state of western mental health. Many in the far/middle-east pity us for the way we treat and exploit each other, sexualise/force our children to grow up too soon for profit, abandon our parents/grandparents when they become a burden etc. That is a much more toxic and damaging problem compared to some dirty air, which cannot simply be cleaned up with a few filters on a factory or two either. That we are exporting this lifestyle to them is probably the greatest cost that they will have to pay for growth in the end tho.

Ultimately, don't kid yourself that your president/prime-minister/governments and their friends who put them in power and prop them up love you, or love you all that much more than the Chinese (boo, evil commies) or Indian (the subject of this article) governments care about their people, they really don't.

So you say that we must simply do what is correct? Suddenly we care? Well surely abandoning this man made CO2 nonsense being used as an excuse to they to restrict the power-plants that they can build in China/India would be a good start? The right thing to do? But why stop there, why not actually have free trade all around the world? Get rid of tariffs and quotas? Oh no, wait a minute, I mean the only "right thing" is to do the things that are convenient for the west. Yeah, that's it, and if you have a problem, that's life bub.

By the way, I'm aware that I as a UK subject benefit to an extent from all this too, so I'm not arguing against it really, just that I can see why India and China might cry foul.


By slunkius on 2/19/2010 9:06:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Who gives a $hit?


you will, my friend. not today and not tomorrow, but you will. your current way of life is unsustainable from economical perspective (check your trade deficit) and from resource perspective (taking too much of world's resources to support your way of life).


RE: Some facts the article left out
By Reclaimer77 on 2/18/2010 10:18:07 AM , Rating: 4
There is no way to accurately measure man made Co2 emissions man. At best it's an estimate. Think about it.

quote:
The US emitting a lot more per capita than India and China. In fact it is about a factor 15 when comparing the US and India


How can you even back that up ? And please, DON'T use the Wikipedia. Give me a real reputable source please that INCLUDES the method they used to obtain such estimates.

quote:
D. That is simply BS.


Wish I had read this first. Because I could have saved the time I just spent trying to argue with an idiot who still believes in AWG. A brick wall is easier to debate with.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By holywarrior007 on 2/18/10, Rating: -1
RE: Some facts the article left out
By bdot on 2/18/2010 12:24:30 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Gallup poll data taken in 2008


Thanks for the 2 year old poll


By Reclaimer77 on 2/18/2010 12:45:27 PM , Rating: 5
LOL nice. I especially liked this part

quote:
"This is not fiction, this is science. Unchecked, climate change will pose unacceptable risks to our security, our economies, and our planet."

Barack Obama, US president, 18/12/09


AHAHH


RE: Some facts the article left out
By Sazar on 2/18/2010 2:24:18 PM , Rating: 1
Reclaimer, the US is in the top 5 in emissions I believe, right?

Now, given that the US has a population a third, or less, that of China and India, I think it is just simple math that suggests PER CAPITA, the US is one of the larger producers of CO2 emissions.

When I was looking up numbers online, I was actually surprised to see that Canada has similar or higher per capita numbers for emissions, depending on the publication. Definitely interesting reading.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By lightfoot on 2/18/2010 3:03:42 PM , Rating: 5
...so basically what you're saying is that instead of cutting our emissions, we should boost our birth rate instead? Awesome.

I can see the headline now:
"US reduces per capita emissions through the use of agressive breeding."

Maybe we should give couples a new toaster for every child they have. It worked in Russia....

Better yet! If we adopt Chinese and Indian babies, that will reduce our per capita emissions while simultanously increasing theirs! Brilliant! How many carbon credits is a Chinese baby worth?


By whiskerwill on 2/18/2010 3:59:55 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Better yet! If we adopt Chinese and Indian babies, that will reduce our per capita emissions while simultanously increasing theirs! Brilliant! How many carbon credits is a Chinese baby worth?
That should get a six.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By ekv on 2/19/2010 3:19:13 AM , Rating: 2
Adoption is good, don't get me wrong, and your idea is sheer super-genius !

However, how do I say this, there's a more personal, umm, interactive way of "boost"ing the birth rate 8)

[Only eligible Chinese females need apply. American females are cool too].


RE: Some facts the article left out
By Sazar on 2/19/2010 4:20:50 PM , Rating: 2
No, I was simply explaining about how the per-capita information can indeed show that the US may have a higher per-capita rate of emissions than China.

I personally think we all need to curb our emissions and no where am I advocating otherwise.

What is up with some of the posters on here. Y'all jump down people's throats without even reading half the stuff that person wrote.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By porkpie on 2/19/10, Rating: -1
By Reclaimer77 on 2/18/2010 5:32:41 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Reclaimer, the US is in the top 5 in emissions I believe, right?


I don't know, are we ? Once again, how are these numbers being obtained ? Is there a meter at every tailpipe, chimney, smokestack etc etc in the country measuring this stuff ??

Besides, CO2 isn't a pollutant. I have to remind myself to stop letting morons make me argue on their premises.

quote:
When I was looking up numbers online, I was actually surprised to see that Canada


People keep bringing up Canada like they are relevant. They aren't. They have a population of some 30 million people.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By Tyndel on 2/18/2010 3:21:24 PM , Rating: 3
Shouldn't this be compared on surface area more then population? The sq. footage of a country and the world is finite whereas the population can grow till the point that it starves from no food production.

I am sure it paints a different picture then per capita. Should it really be compared on the basis that having more poorer people packed into your country makes it look more carbon efficient?


By Aloonatic on 2/19/2010 5:41:21 AM , Rating: 2
LOL

I get your point about the figures being hard to actually pin down. However, do you seriously not believe that the average westerner uses far far far more energy themselves, both directly in their day to day activities and that which is invested in the many products that they buy, in comparison to the average Chinese/Indian person?

Or are you really just trying to create a diversion away from the point that you know is, in fact, closer to the truth than you want to admit?


RE: Some facts the article left out
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 10:32:07 AM , Rating: 4
"The US president is also just one man"

Dasgupta is not the president of India, however.

"The US emitting a lot more per capita than India and China."

Fallacious thinking for two reasons. First of all, if we assume the IPCC is right (which it clearly isn't, but that's another topic), this isn't some "fairness" game. If the developing world is emitting more than half of all carbon emissions, then nothing the US or Europe does can substantially reduce them. I'm surprised you don't see that.

Taking your concept of fairness to its logicla conclusion, its incorrect to say a nation with an enormous birthrate like India is allowed togenerate as much emissions as it wants, simply because it refuses to reduce its population. Why should India be allowed to emit 3 times as much as the US, just because they irresponsibly refuse to use birth control?

Of course, point D makes all this moot anyway. Luckily, carbon emissions are actually good for the world, not bad.

"That is simply BS. "

I've posted the links many times that prove the world stopped warming 15 years ago. Do you REALLY want to see them again?


RE: Some facts the article left out
By holywarrior007 on 2/18/10, Rating: -1
RE: Some facts the article left out
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 1:58:00 PM , Rating: 2
"Most of the CO2 emission has happened because of industrialization, which obviously started in West. It happened already 200 years back, and it wasn't the fault of India and Indians. "

I don't follow this logic. Someone is allowed to pollute five times as much as I am, because 200 years ago someone not related to either of us was burning coal in an area near where I am today?

What about an Indian who moves to the US? Are they allowed to pollute more because they're from India, or do they suddenly switch from "a great guy" to a "dirty rotten polluter" because they took a plane trip?

BTW, you might want to research just a little the vast benefits INDIA has received from that Industrial Revolution that began 200 years ago.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By holywarrior007 on 2/18/10, Rating: -1
RE: Some facts the article left out
By Nfarce on 2/18/2010 4:54:56 PM , Rating: 4
If you think your little fascist, sniveling, huff & puff mouth breathing, drooling, and venomous name calling here for your side of the argument is actually gaining you and your belief(s) points, by all means, please continue.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By holywarrior007 on 2/18/10, Rating: -1
By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/19/2010 3:32:19 PM , Rating: 1
Your not a good scientist are you?

P.S. to correct an earlier post of yours. The largest output of C02 is from Termites. In the rain forest of South American there is a small area of land packed with termites and other creatures. This little area of land puts out something like 3 or 4 time the level of CO2 verse all humans combined world wide. This has been going on for thousands of years... So, by your logic many of the countries in South America are to blame and should start controlling the wild life...
Just face the facts, compared to other countries India and China are very dirty industry wise. Just look at the summer Olympics in China... Even after stopping manufacturing for 3 months the air was filthy. That just does not exist in the USA. We have implemented devices to clean the air before it leaves the factories. Room for improvement... sure everything can improve, however its time India and China get off their lazy butts and clean up their mess. Stop wining like a little child and start coming up with ideas...


By Reclaimer77 on 2/18/2010 5:35:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Important thing is that this revolution has definitely destroyed the climate of planet earth and culprits are those who have been doing for last 200 years.


AHAHAHAHhhahahhaha


RE: Some facts the article left out
By holywarrior007 on 2/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: Some facts the article left out
By ClownPuncher on 2/18/2010 1:17:17 PM , Rating: 4
Why? A massive birth rate has immediate negative consequences. CO2 emissions have not been proven to be harmful in the short run NOR the long run.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By holywarrior007 on 2/18/10, Rating: -1
RE: Some facts the article left out
By whiskerwill on 2/18/2010 4:00:42 PM , Rating: 3
What 'science' do you think he's lacking? If all you can do is throw insults, don't be surprised if no one listens to you.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By holywarrior007 on 2/18/10, Rating: -1
RE: Some facts the article left out
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 4:33:55 PM , Rating: 2
Richard Lindzen, Sloan Professor of Atmospheric Science at MIT says CO2 doesn't harm the earth, I suppose he doesn't know "any of that science stuff" does he? And he's just one of 2500+ Ph.D'd geoscientists who say the same thing.

If CO2 is harmful to climate, explain why the vast majority of plant and animal life evolved during the Carboniferous period, an era when CO2 levels were 10X or more higher than they are today. (btw: that's why it's CALLED the Carboniferous period...because carbon levels were so high).


RE: Some facts the article left out
By holywarrior007 on 2/18/10, Rating: 0
RE: Some facts the article left out
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 5:53:04 PM , Rating: 5
"I can put up a list thousand scientists from other reputed places inside the US itself who would disagree with him."

I call you on that. I dispute that you can do any such thing. I can, though, put up a list of 32,000 scientists who actually DO disagree with CAGW:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/

And btw, a scientist who simply says "the earth has warmed slightly and the situation needs more study" does NOT imply he believes in CAGW.

" I am a member of the American Physical Society "

Yeah, right. A lot of APS members go around on message boards calling people "total dumbasses".

"Now please for God shake don't try to say that all more 50000 physicists of APS all are wrong "

You see, nonsense statements like this are how we know you're not an APS member. An APS resolution is not "voted on" by its members. It's passed by a board of 12 people, who never even ASK members what they think.

Oh, and what does the APS actually say, hrm? Let's take a look, shall we?

quote:
While anthropogenic climate change has not been unambiguously detected , evidence for a human effect on climate is mounting...The surface temperature of the earth has risen by about half a degree centigrade over the last century. This rate of change is similar in magnitude to natural climate changes but also well within the range of the possible effects of the historical rise in greenhouse gas concentrations... Unambiguously detecting climate change through the record of global mean temperature is not possible at this point...

Technological change and a general increase in wealth through economic growth will leave the world better able to deal with this issue in the future...A risk-averse viewpoint argues for mitigation of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as possible to avoid the possibility of harm. An opposite view advocates waiting until we are more certain about climate change effects (and more able to effect changes). This part of the debate will be better informed, but not solved, by improved science
http://www.aps.org/policy/reports/popa-reports/ene...

Hardly a call for immediate action, now is it? They admit several times to severe uncertainty, point out opposing viewpoints that we should wait to act, and the only time they DO express any level of certainty is in referring to the IPCC report -- a report we know now to be based on fraudulent claims and falsified data.

As for "all the members agreeing", I found this right here on DT:

Larry Gould, Professor of Physics at the University of Hartford and Chairman of the New England Section of the APS, called Monckton's paper an "expose of the IPCC that details numerous exaggerations and "extensive errors"

The APS is a professional society, no different than the American Bar Association or the AMA. It doesn't exist to do basic science. It exists to promote the interests of its members. Calling for "more study is needed" on the issue of climate change helps those hundreds of APS members who receive some of the billions of dollars in climate research funding. The APS is merely doing their job.

"Btw, you should some serious research about this era and see what sort of life evolved and how it evolved and in what sort of environment human life can survive"

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting life can thrive on a planet with a mean temperature of 54F, but will die on a planet with a mean temperature of 57F ? Rofl, yeah you're a physicist all right buddy. Go back to fixing that toilet.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By Reclaimer77 on 2/18/2010 6:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
+6 post.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 6:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
Ooh I see the I WANT TO BELIEVE circlejerk is going on, can I join in please?!?


By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 7:11:53 PM , Rating: 2
lol this was meant as a reply to Reclaimer and co.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By c4v3man on 2/18/2010 7:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
Lawyered.


By holywarrior007 on 2/19/2010 6:15:12 AM , Rating: 2
32 National academies of sciences of different countries, US National Academy of Sciences, American Meteorological society and Australian Coral reef Society all have supported climate change stand. You are free to count the number of scientists who work in these organization. Now if you put up a petition which is signed by 32000 people (no one knows who are these people and they may be dummy as well) to prove your point about 'scientific accuracy', the what can I say.

Regarding your link that you pasted about the APS resolution (not the complete resolution but partial) on climate change and highlighted some text. I would like to draw your attention to unhighlighted text as well. Read it carefully, I am sure you can read English.

For your claims that the APS doesn't call for any action. Here is the link. Read it here.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm

The APS is a professional society and is comprised of people who are scientists and know about science. It is idiotic to compare it with the American Bar Association. Members are free to voice their opinion and the APS reflects their opinion. The resolution was passed by the council as there is no need of voting. There is a consensus among the APS members about the climate change.

I am indeed a member of the APS and I do believe that if someone is tempering with scientific facts and opinion then he/she must be resisted in strong terms. So I would not hesitate to call you a dumb ass coz you're acting like one.

DT is not a place where scientists come and discuss their opinion about scientific issues. It is a technology forum.

Whether I will fix toilet or not in future, it is up to me to decide. For sure you will remain a total dumb ass and a flat earth skeptic for whole of your life.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By AbsShek on 2/18/2010 10:49:59 AM , Rating: 2
I clicked 'Worth reading' and somehow, you got downrated... sorry, must've been a mis-click by me.

I completely agree with you. If something needs to be done about the emissions, it should definitely be tackled on a per capita basis.

Also, what confuses me is exactly how these 'emission' metrics are made? If you mean CO2, then bah, farting cows are four times more dangerous!

Another point I want to raise, relating to the per capita emissions is about wastage. Clearly, the higher the per capita emissions, the more the wastage if compared to "high emissions, densely populated" countries right?

Should we really be concentrating on spending money on high tech solutions, or simply go low-tech and turn off an unused light every now and again?


RE: Some facts the article left out
By JediJeb on 2/18/2010 11:59:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Looking at CO2 numbers without factoring in population size is like looking at the sign in an elevator stating max load. It makes a lot of difference whether you load the elevator with cheerleaders or football players.


Actually is makes no difference if it is cheerleaders or football players, the max load is the max load in weight not number of people. From what you are saying a ton of feathers should weigh less than a ton of lead.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By nafhan on 2/18/2010 10:17:48 AM , Rating: 2
I think there is a decent chance that he's doing what he can to "guilt" us into screwing over our economy.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By mdogs444 on 2/18/2010 10:25:22 AM , Rating: 4
The same tactic used by all enviro-nazi's and people with liberal agendas. Try to make people feel guilty for driving whatever car they want, having too much money, having a nice house, eating whatever they want, etc.

They are the people who want everyone to have the same outputs, but not worry about what they actually put into the system.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 10:34:52 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
"They are the people who want everyone to have the same outputs, but not worry about what they actually put into the system."
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That quote from Karl Marx sounds eerily similar, does it not?


RE: Some facts the article left out
By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 12:08:43 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah they should learn from and focus more on the FEAR tactic of right-wing nuts. Less guilt, more world is going to end please!


RE: Some facts the article left out
By nafhan on 2/18/2010 1:58:31 PM , Rating: 2
Fear tactic of the right wing nuts? You're saying they invented and/or use it exclusively? Come on... The whole AGW thing is based on fostering public fear! The glaciers are melting, the CO2 is choking my babies, the polar bears ARE FREAKING DEAD! :)


RE: Some facts the article left out
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 2:16:24 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I think his argument is "since the Right uses fear tactics, we're allowed to invent scare stories also".

Bonus points to whomever can name the logical fallacy displayed above.


By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 2:23:40 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah man, there need to be equal rights to inventing scare tactics or creating situations which then lead to scary things!


RE: Some facts the article left out
By clovell on 2/18/2010 2:39:14 PM , Rating: 2
tu quoque.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By clovell on 2/18/2010 2:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
I just wanted to add that there's a 'false alternatives' implied in the OP we're referring to, as well.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 2:53:22 PM , Rating: 2
Mine? If so, yes, brilliant observation! There should just be more of everything - more guilt AND more fear!


RE: Some facts the article left out
By clovell on 2/18/2010 2:52:04 PM , Rating: 2
No - there's an alternative you didn't put forth - how about neither fear nor guilt. You'll find that there are moderates lurking around the boards here who, though lean to one side or the other, are quite reasonable when you can keep a level-head.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 2:51:56 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe that's the closest possible but not quite because I don't actually think it's ok for anyone to use such tactics and wouldn't seriously suggest as much (it was a joke.) But if it's effective enough to convince people to give up constitutional rights it ought to be good enough to scare them in to being environmentally conscious.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 2:53:31 PM , Rating: 2
Wait-- are you talking about the Patriot Act that Obama not only extended, but increased in authority?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/16/ob...

http://donedems.com/2009/04/14/holy-crap-obama-act...


By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 3:11:23 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah. Now, if you can please find where I said it's a good thing to extend your post might be useful as some kind of counterpoint. I'm no partisan asshat who blindly buys wholesale in to some platform, I'll call b.s. on either 'side' (which btw I kind of hate that there are even 'sides' when each topic should be taken separately as much as possible) BUT trying to hav a rational discussion about most things that are grounded in 'belief' is impossible on the internet so I just have fun with them instead.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By clovell on 2/18/2010 2:54:17 PM , Rating: 2
I'm having a tough time separating the joke-posts from the real ones w/ you today. If I jump down your throat because I guessed wrong - nothing personal.


By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 3:11:51 PM , Rating: 2
lol I don't care :p


RE: Some facts the article left out
By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 2:20:58 PM , Rating: 2
No, I just said that there should be more fear tactic less guilt since the post to which I was replying was about guilt. The {insert scary thing} is going to get us!


RE: Some facts the article left out
By nafhan on 2/18/2010 3:52:18 PM , Rating: 2
Nothing personal! Really, guilt and fear are politics as usual on both sides of the fence, which makes me sad when I take a break from cynicism.


By Aloonatic on 2/19/2010 5:33:58 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I think there is a decent chance that he's doing what he can to "guilt" us into screwing over our economy.
Yeah, because America, Britain and the rest of the west are really doing a lot aren't we? Nope, we're not doing much at all. We are (on a diplomatic level) just blowing a lot of hot air and setting targets which we have no interest in actually reaching, or even trying to reach. Apart from an excuse to raise taxes there hasn't been a great deal of actual climate-change only "screwing-over" going on. Most of what we have seen is a shift away from petrol, but that's just common sense anyway as supplies are inevitable dwindling (though not as quickly as suggested it seems) just as more and more people want to share them. Other than that, what "screwing over" has been done?

If you want to look for people screwing over our economies, there are much bigger and more obvious targets than climate-change lobbies. You might have noticed something about them in the news over the last couple of years.

As irritating as the "Climate-Nazis" are, they are not having any where near as much impact in our actual lives as the number of column inches/news minutes that their stories might suggest. I'm not saying that they are having no impact, some tokenism is going on, but they are just not causing that much "damage" in reality. If you want to start a business, then you might have to do some extra paperwork (ironically) and do an environmental study, but as long as you aren't force feeding dolphins battery acid, you'll be fine. Indeed, whole new industries have sprung up around recycling (which actually makes sense really) and other eco nonsense, using up energy and creating jobs. Oil fields are still being explored and drilled, forests are still being cut down, cheap fast-food is still available, cheap furniture is still available, cheap electronics are still available, cheap clothing's still available...

If you've lost your job recently, I would wager it has a lot more to do with investment bankers than it has to do with some hippy saying the end of the world in neigh.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By kattanna on 2/18/2010 10:47:15 AM , Rating: 2
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/industrial...

quote:
A surprising revelation from a new paper: industrial emission actually have a net cooling effect on Earth's climate. The paper that appears in the Proceeding of the National Academy of Sciences early edition attempts to apportion blame for global warming among various economic sectors. Climate impacts of CO2, tropospheric ozone, fine aerosols, aerosol-cloud interactions, methane, and long-lived greenhouse gases were all analyzed and the appropriate human activities cited. When the dust settled, two sectors turned in large net negative (i.e. cooling) forcing values: biomass burning and industry


this research shows some interesting new insights into the net heating/cooling effects of various activities.

now, im still dubious on man being the primary driver of current climate change, but this was a good read none the less.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 11:00:35 AM , Rating: 2
I saw a similar paper a couple years ago. It showed that most of the rapid warming Europe and the US saw in the 1990s wasn't due to global warming at all, but to the adoption of anti-pollution controls, which reduced sun-blocking smog and airborne particulates.

Of course, the media refused to report it, as it didn't fit their agenda.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 12:11:20 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, no one talked about global dimming /sarcasm

But hey, the solution is clear then - let's pollute more! Burn baby burn!


RE: Some facts the article left out
By bdot on 2/18/2010 12:27:41 PM , Rating: 2
Your an Id10t, no one here is promoting pollution. C02 is a GHG not a pollutant.. unless you work for the EPA i guess.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 12:26:02 PM , Rating: 2
Please try reading the post to which I was replying.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By milkyway4me on 2/18/2010 1:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
If the earth did warm a result of less smog, then it stands to reason it was warmer before the smog showed up to begin with. I know this requires actual thought and requires you to refrain from ascribing stupidity to someone like you just did with the "lets just polute to cool us back down". You're type likes to do that a lot, ascribe ignorance, make some silly accusation and then walk away thinking you actually contributed something intelligent. Did you go to school in a blue state per chance?


By ClownPuncher on 2/18/2010 2:17:11 PM , Rating: 2
Well now, let's not get carried away. We can't go from "humans can't change the climate" to "smog cools the planet". Much like CAGW, you would be hinging an entire argument of an IF.

As a side note; knocking someone's education while your own post is full of grammatical mistakes is a waste of time.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 2:14:04 PM , Rating: 2
Please try to think clearly. No one is suggesting we "need to pollute more to cool things down". Rather, we're pointing out that if the 1980-1998 warming spike was due primarily to cleaner air, then that warming should not be expected to continue, and thus nothing needs to be done whatsoever.

HYPOTHESIS CHECK: Did warming in fact stop in 1998? Yes.

If AGW was true, we should have expected to see temperatures increasing much faster today than they were 20 years ago...CO2 levels are much higher now. The fact that we do not see this is some (but by no means all) of the strongest evidence against AGW orthodoxy.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 2:44:46 PM , Rating: 2
So wait, there was warming in 1980-1998 due to cleaner air from 'lack' of or a change in human activity - cleaner emmissions - and yet there is no such thing as AGW (anthropogenic global warming/climate change)? Boy, talk about having it both ways.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 2:49:43 PM , Rating: 2
With comments like these, I'm starting to suspect you're a shill paid by oil companies to make AGW alarmists look bad.

If I'm wrong, just tell me and I'll answer your question fairly.


By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 6:32:17 PM , Rating: 2
Did you see me at the last Shills-r-us meeting? Nope. That answers your question.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 2:31:28 PM , Rating: 2
So you're saying smog and particulate pollutants are able to just show up on their own with no other substances along for the ride? That certainly does not stand to reason, it's just picking up on one side of things that favor one position while ignoring the other side. And the reason I wrote 'read the post to which I was replying' is because global dimming is what was mentioned, nothing about CO2.

Honestly, the comments on this site are just a big joke to me so all I can do is laugh and make jokes about it. Y SO SERIOUS?


RE: Some facts the article left out
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 2:41:46 PM , Rating: 2
Madman, I'm not sure if you're intentionally playing obtuse or not, but I'm going to try one more time.

Basic AGW theory began by calculating two numbers: the amount of warming seen from 1975-1995, and the increase in CO2 over the same period. The assumption was made that the vast majority of that warming was from said CO2 increase. Then a fairly simple calculation was made to predict what temperature a future CO2 rise would lead to.

Here's the rub. If the warming over that period was due to other factors, then the CO2 sensitivity calculation is all wet. In fact, we already know this is true....had the same calculation been done over the period of cooling fom 1940-1970, the result would have been that CO2 cools the planet, rather than warms it.

The IPCC has been forced to continually revise downward their climate sensitivity figure (and therefore their future predictions for temperature) in every new report they release. It's ALREADY gone from the major disaster they predicted in AR2, down to a mild annoyance they discuss in AR4. What will they say in the next report? Only time will tell.


By Charmsen on 2/18/2010 11:54:13 AM , Rating: 2
You forgot the most important fact of all!

e) Bears eat beets, bears, beats, BattleStar Galactica


RE: Some facts the article left out
By Ralos on 2/18/2010 12:55:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
d) The world stopped warming 15 years ago


Ok, so where did you get this? Your other points were good and relevant, but that last one kinda make your whole intervention forgettable.

I agree CO2 emission don't tell the whole story as most of the world seem to believe, but to just plainly (and dumbly) say that the world stopped warming 15 years ago makes you just as stupid as the others.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By swizeus on 2/18/2010 1:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
Hey, who started about Global Warming. Where does Al Gore come from.... is it from China ? Is it from India ? Developed Country just trying to sell 'environment friendly' technology by campaigning Global Warming, so that they can be RICHER. WTH with that global warming as long as 3rd world country buy the technology.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 1:03:13 PM , Rating: 2
To imply that Al Gore invented global warming is about as accurate as saying he invented the internet.


RE: Some facts the article left out
By clovell on 2/18/2010 2:43:31 PM , Rating: 2
Both of which are claims that he's proud to assert personally.


environmental topics on DT ftw?
By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 12:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
Environmental topics on DT - guaranteed to generate massive hits and frothy-at-the-mouth arguments.

I wonder if porkpie is really an individual person, and if so wtf he does all day besides spew his crap on DT environment articles?




RE: environmental topics on DT ftw?
By Suntan on 2/18/2010 12:54:26 PM , Rating: 1
If you think talking about these subjects on this site is such a waste of time, what the hell are you doing here?

Honestly man, it may be sad to sit on a webpage and armchair quarterback the actions of our elected officials, but it is absolutely pathetic to sit and passive aggressively carp about the activity on the same site.

Get a life.

-Suntan


RE: environmental topics on DT ftw?
By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 1:01:19 PM , Rating: 2
Where did I say it's a waste of time? Or for that matter even complain about such articles?


RE: environmental topics on DT ftw?
By milkyway4me on 2/18/2010 1:53:37 PM , Rating: 3
You haven't said 1 intelligent thing this whole thread. And about those you constantly malign with random hate filled bile, you probably believe all the naive generalizations you spew because that's all you've heard from your lefty professors or whatever circles you travel in.


By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 2:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
You just love me don't you ;)

Your contributions, unlike mine of course, are epic discourse that contribute greatly to mankind's understanding of climate. Thanks so much!


RE: environmental topics on DT ftw?
By clovell on 2/18/2010 2:50:14 PM , Rating: 2
Dude - if you've got a problem with porkpie, then take it off the boards. If you've got a problem with what he 'spews', then call him out and address his 'crap' with facts and a logical refutation.

But seriously - spare all of us your 'oh poor me, I'm just a poor little pussy who can't be bothered to refute a logical argument, so I'm just gonna post ad hominem bullshit and cry about it so everyone can see how much of a tool I am'. Have some f*cking dignity for chrissakes.


By MadMan007 on 2/18/2010 6:31:22 PM , Rating: 2
Such contradiction, and delivered with such vehemence! Well played, sir.


You can't have both.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/18/2010 10:14:13 AM , Rating: 4
It's not a coincidence that the more prosperous countries are generally greener, and poorer countries are dirtier. Being clean and environmentally healthy is very VERY costly.

However what's so alarming about plans like Copenhagen and the Kyoto treaty, is that the changes are SO radical and costly, that the inverse will happen. Nations will simply go bankrupt and will no longer be able to afford "going green".

I personally believe the goal of radical climate legislation is to redistribute wealth, not actually fix any problem. As an American I'm very alarmed that, even in our poor financial state, we seem to be committing ourselves to a path that will render us UNABLE to be "green" in the near future.

You can't have prosperity and a green environment while massively spending and taxing your way to it. It hasn't worked anywhere in the world. You can't have it both ways.




RE: You can't have both.
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 10:40:58 AM , Rating: 2
"I personally believe the goal of radical climate legislation is to redistribute wealth"

When the Dutch Communist Party disbanded in 1989, they stated they could "more effectively achieve their goals by working through the environmental movement".

So they merged with the Pacifist Socialist Party and renamed themselves "Greenleft", a political party now strongly represented in Dutch Parliament, and a federated member of the European Green Party.


RE: You can't have both.
By Reclaimer77 on 2/18/2010 12:43:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. It's sad, it really is.

Agendas like that should be criminal. Period.


You know the Copenhagen summit was B.S. because
By corduroygt on 2/18/2010 11:13:32 AM , Rating: 2
1. How many extra plane trips to Copenhagen and back were made for the summit? How much carbon Pelosi and her 20! aides emit?
2. How many motorcades were required for the delegates, heads of state, and obviously security?
3.How much extra carbon emissions were emitted for the beefing up of local Police and other security forces?

Add them all up and you get a lot of carbon emissions.

If they were serious about cutting their emissions, they could easily have done it via teleconferencing, which would have sent a stronger message actually. But we all know all they want is for the rest of us live in poverty, not themselves.




By porkpie on 2/18/2010 2:00:25 PM , Rating: 4
Are you freaking kidding me? Give up a free vacation to Copenhagen, just to cut carbon emissions? After all the fun they had at last year's conference on the beach in Bali?

God man, I know AGW is serious, but get your priorities straight!


By ekv on 2/19/2010 3:46:51 AM , Rating: 2
Let's not hold our breath either waiting for the cost reporting Pelosi has promised. Booze and food was estimated at something like a quarter mil.

I live not far from her district and can't even email. The witch. Whole damn thing reminds me of Orwell's other novel, Animal Farm.


Correct your facts Jason
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 10:09:04 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
a handful have decreased their emissions in recent years such as France, Germany, and Great Britain, without suffering any significant economic detriment. Others like the U.S., Canada, Australia, and Spain have instead seen significant increases in emissions.
First of all, US per capita emissions have DECLINED since the 1980s:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rlz=1T4GGLL_enU...

As for the UK, several groups say the official government accounting is incorrect, and actual emissions have grown substantially:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/jul/03/...

As for your little chestnut about "without significant economic harm", you should understand that the cuts demanded by Kyoto are -- even if the UN IPCC is correct -- expected to reduce warming by less than 1/10 of one degree over the next 100 years. Even Kyoto's most ardent supporters admit that actually cutting emissions to the point of having a real effect would be far, far more costly.




RE: Correct your facts Jason
By JasonMick (blog) on 2/18/10, Rating: -1
RE: Correct your facts Jason
By bdot on 2/18/2010 12:00:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Oh really? You expect me to replace official government metrics with speculation?


Did you read the article? a quote:
quote:
In December, a team of economists led by Dieter Helm at Oxford University, said UK progress on cutting greenhouse gases was an "illusion". Counting pollution from aviation, shipping, overseas trade and tourism, which are not measured in the official figures, meant that emissions of UK greenhouse gases – not just CO2 – have risen 19% since 1990.


The official government figures leave out "inconvenient" facts. If we move all our CO2 producing industries to another country but still consume the same amount has that really changed anything at all? It makes out Official Government documents nice and pretty anyways and we can give ourselves a nice green pat on the back i guess.

quote:

Then why wasn't it for Germany, France and Britain? One key is to embrace nuclear power -- part of France's success. And we are doing that. If we turn to cheaper alternative energy sources primarily (like nuclear), it shouldn't be as expensive as extremists would have you believe to reduce our carbon footprint substantially.


That isn't really a reply to th quote. He is talking about actual meaningful reductions,which are beyond what was mandated by kyoto.


RE: Correct your facts Jason
By porkpie on 2/18/2010 1:50:24 PM , Rating: 1
"Then why wasn't it for Germany, France and Britain? "

Official or unofficial figures, Germany, France, and Britain have NOT cut emissions by enough to even make a measureable impact on world temperatures. You rimplication that we can "solve the problem by doing what they've done" is wrong.

In any case, you still haven't justified why we'd even want to reduce carbon emissions. With the world no longer warming, and CO2 an essential plant food, why should we even care?

" One key is to embrace nuclear power "

When did YOU get on the nuclear bus? I seem to recall you knocking it heavily when you first began writing here.


RE: Correct your facts Jason
By lightfoot on 2/18/2010 2:46:40 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
a handful have decreased their emissions in recent years such as France, Germany, and Great Britain, without suffering any significant economic detriment.


France has an official unemployment rate of 9.7% and a real GDP growth rate of negative 2.1%. Germany has an official unemployment rate of 8.2% and a real GDP growth rate of negative 5%. Great Britain (United Kingdom) has an official unemployment rate of 8.0% and a real GDP growth rate of negative 4.3%. At exactly what point does economic detriment become significant? How can you tease out the direct impact that CO2 controls have had on these economies? How do you know that Kyoto was not a contributing factor to the global financial crisis? Europe as a whole has had persistently high unemployment and low growth rates for a decade. It is true that this is not entirely due to carbon controls, but it can not be ruled out either.

Get back to us about which countries can control their emissions without significant economic costs when we aren't in a global financial melt-down.

By the way - the best way to control emissions is to decimate the economy. No country can match the Carbon cuts that Russia has managed in the last 20 years - maybe we should use them as a model of how to achieve successful emission cuts.


RE: Correct your facts Jason
By whiskerwill on 2/18/2010 4:02:51 PM , Rating: 2
You're absolutely right. Cutting emissions is easy if you're willing to shrink your economy to do it.


In other words...
By nafhan on 2/18/2010 10:15:29 AM , Rating: 5
We (India) would like you (US/EU) to raise your tax rates, increase your costs to manufacture goods, and overall lower your global economic competitiveness; while we do nothing.
Hmmm, is it possible they are thinking about things other than the environment? Nah, politicians are always forthright and altruistic...




Interesting dichotomy
By Suntan on 2/18/2010 12:49:38 PM , Rating: 2
Although I make no bones about the fact that I think AGW to be a big farce, these kinds of global hysteria are interesting to see how national leaders personally feel about their policies when they have to accommodate people outside their borders.

It is no secret that Mr. Obama believes “rich” Americans should get soaked with taxes to pay for the handouts to the “struggling middle class.” Read any topic about it and you see endless percentages of income to taxes, etc. etc. that constantly insinuate that the “rich” get off scott-free while the “non-rich” are left with an overwhelming and unfair burden to deal with. Of course this is always wrapped in a distinguished flag of “socially responsible this” and “fair actions that” etc. etc. (Instead of another plausible scenario being that he is just interested in handing rich people’s money out to the dead beat, ditch diggers so that they continue to vote for his democratic causes…)

But when you get a topic like AGW (as misguided as these poor soles are in the first place) where, on the global scale, even America’s poor ditch diggers are considered to be part of the top 10% “rich” people. You would think that if Mr. Obama really cared personally about socially responsible actions and the notion that the rich should pay “there fair share,” that he would be all for substantial cuts that, even on a per-captia or per-GDP scale, far dwarf anything close to what any “developing country” would be asked to do…

(…keep in mind though, Chinese and Indian citizens don’t have a chance to vote for, or against, democratic candidates…)

-Suntan




RE: Interesting dichotomy
By radializer on 2/18/2010 4:06:56 PM , Rating: 2
An interesting point indeed ... it leads to the viewpoint that "Combating AGW" is just another facet of the struggle for global economic supremacy.

To extend this thought, one cannot, then, expect altruism (or even simple collaboration that is not-for-profit) once national borders are crossed.

The entire article just pretty much reads like exactly this.


Does JM get paid for this propaganda?
By Jalek on 2/18/2010 1:40:29 PM , Rating: 2
Really, it's nearly an article a day and it's always the same story.

This guy isn't even respected in his own country anymore after the IPCC panic report was shown to be wrong.




By Jalek on 2/18/2010 2:00:53 PM , Rating: 2
Ok, so I was thinking of Pachauri, but Chandrashekhar Dasgupta is part of The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI) — a Delhi-based company of which Dr Pachauri is director-general — that took in research money related to the unfounded claim about the melting of Himalayan glaciers. They now say they were only off by 300 years, 25 is pretty close to 325, right?

They used 16 non-peer reviewed reports from the World Wildlife Fund to base their findings, such as the unsubstantiated claim that global warming might wipe out 40% of the Amazon rainforest.

We know the former IPCC chairman has a worldwide portfolio of business interests, investing billions of dollars in organizations dependent on the IPCC’s policy recommendations, but this retired guy's not as well exposed.


If China and India can afford Nukes and Space programs
By FXi on 2/18/2010 9:12:42 PM , Rating: 2
If China and India can afford Nukes and Space programs they can afford to reduce their own emissions without money from us. And if they can't manage that on their own, they can wag their fingers in the mirror.

They feel "lectured"? They come to a world summit on reducing greed and bring their beggar bowls looking for cash. THAT is what is pathetic. They are taking our jobs, enriching their economies, building nukes and space satellites and still they come to us for more money.

They need to step up. Pointing fingers is done only to take attention away from the smog clouds and unbreathable air that hang over many of their major cities. Look at the disgusting condition of the Ganges river and you think WE have a problem? Time to practice what you preach and figure out how to clean up.




By holywarrior007 on 2/19/2010 5:41:10 AM , Rating: 2
You and your Govt. is stupid enough to let them take your jobs. You should do something about it rather than posting here your anger.


By Shig on 2/18/2010 10:14:05 AM , Rating: 2
There will be absolutely no chance of getting rid of it.

India also makes me laugh seeing as how much coal they use. I guess someone needs to give them a global economics lesson.




By RedemptionAD on 2/18/2010 11:34:22 AM , Rating: 2
The guy says 40% by 2040. The USA has said 83% by 2050. Also the UN said 20% compaired to 1990 levels that's not more than the 17% to 2000 levels the USA proposed, thats less per year, because it seems all the other compairisons are for 2000 levels. Seems like this guy is trying to guilt us into paying all the R&D costs so that when his country is a wasteland he can get the tech to fix it for cheap because we allready did the costly part of it.




DailyPolitics
By shikigamild on 2/18/2010 12:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
Why don't you just add "Politics" to the sections of the site?




A good laugh
By knutjb on 2/18/2010 6:32:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The commitment, though, varied wildly. The U.S. pledged to cut 17 percent of its emissions with respect to 2000 levels by 2020 and 83 percent by 2050. The host, the European Union, pledged even bigger cuts -- 20 percent emissions reductions with respect to 1990 levels by 2020.

What a load of bunk, the Europeans want 1990 as a base line because it was before the east bloc reunification jacked up their numbers. That line makes it sound like they "care" more than anyone else.

BTW Please tell which European country met its Kyoto pledge? The Europeans have a long history of eco promises without delivery.

As for India, this is nothing more than belligerent begging and they should be ashamed for such a demand.




LOL
By bill4 on 2/19/2010 4:20:39 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Of the industrialized nations a handful have decreased their emissions in recent years such as France, Germany, and Great Britain, without suffering any significant economic detriment.


Right, that whole near great depression thing we just went through, you know, that doesn't count.

Ans I doubt any country has reduced their emissions. Source? As far as I know all the ultra left wing EU countries emissions went up the most.

Face it Mick, our economy is dead because of CO2 restrictions, and because our economy is dead the Democrats are dead in 2010 and beyond.




Here is a good article for you MIck
By bill4 on 2/19/2010 4:26:37 AM , Rating: 2
Your climate change myth is dead, Mick

>>How can everything have gone so wrong so quickly? A year ago, the prospects for successful climate change regulation were bright: a new US president promised positive re-engagement with the international community on the issue, civil society everywhere was enthusiastically mobilising to demand that world leaders "seal the deal" at Copenhagen, and the climate denial crowd had been reduced to an embarrassing rump lurking in the darker corners of the internet.

Now there seems to have been a complete reversal. Obama is held hostage by a deadlocked Senate, which will agree to neither domestic climate legislation nor US participation in a new legally binding treaty. Copenhagen was a disaster from start to finish, and even the face-saving Copenhagen accord is winning at best lukewarm support even from the countries that helped draw it up. To add to the sense of crisis, the climate denial lobby is suddenly resurgent, and the conspiracy theories that underlie the hacked climate emails controversy are in danger of becoming popular received wisdom.

These are dark times. And the resignation of Yvo de Boer as executive secretary of the UN climate change secretariat today only compounds the sense of gathering crisis. De Boer has been a steady pair of hands guiding the international negotiations through some very rocky periods — not least the dramatic episode in Bali two years ago where he himself burst into tears on the plenary stage — and his trustworthy, solid presence will be sorely missed. Despite the official denials, there can be little doubt that this resignation indicates his frustration at the general unravelling of the process that was so depressingly evident at Copenhagen.

Whether de Boer himself should shoulder any of the blame for the Copenhagen debacle is arguable. Most of the responsibility for the conduct of the negotiations, which were marked by poor organisation, suspicion, bitterness and almost absurd levels of chaos on the final night, rests with the hosts Denmark. But the secretariat also appeared powerless to navigate past procedural blocking tactics employed by Sudan and other retrogressive developing nations, suggesting a creeping lack of confidence on the part of the UN. De Boer seemed to be losing his touch.

Even after Copenhagen was finally over, things continued to deteriorate. It was unclear what, if any, legal standing the accord actually had given that it was only "noted" by the Conference of Parties rather than adopted as a decision. And a 31 January deadline for countries to decide whether they wanted to be "associated" with the accord was allowed to slip, while governments continued to be confused as to what, if anything, they were supposed to be sending the secretariat.

In the meantime, the prospects for a legally binding new treaty being agreed at Cancun, at the next major UN climate meeting in December, seem to recede by the day. The only countries that support a new round of Kyoto targets are those that would not be bound by them — namely the developing countries.

Even the EU, Kyoto's most stalwart supporter during the Bush era, is now backing away. The more logical idea of tying the world's biggest emitters – China, the US, the EU, Russia and India, in descending order – into a single, fair framework for emissions reduction seems even less plausible, given the current political mood.

All in all, the next few months look grim. There is now no serious prospect of Obama getting legislation through the Senate, this year, or possibly ever. Following the sustained attack by climate deniers on both individual scientists and the IPCC, public confidence in climate change as an urgent issue is also steadily eroding, further reducing the room for manoeuvre by politicians. The next round of intermediate negotiations, due to start in Bonn on 31 May, look set to take place in a poisonous atmosphere of bitterness and rancour.

No wonder Yvo de Boer wanted to get out.




By Seemonkeyscanfly on 2/19/2010 1:29:50 PM , Rating: 2
Hello Pot speaking...

Hi Pot this is kettle calling. You're Black!!

The US has made big steps in lowering out put and Europe too... It's pretty rude of someone from India to make such a statement when they have some of the worst conditions on the planet.




for u porkpie
By gabru on 2/20/2010 9:43:32 AM , Rating: 2
Looks like you've done some research so I thought I'd further your knowledge on the subject. Excerpts from http://environment.nationalgeographic.com/environm...

1. Scientists often use the term "climate change" instead of global warming. This is because as the Earth's average temperature climbs, winds and ocean currents move heat around the globe in ways that can cool some areas, warm others, and change the amount of rain and snow falling. As a result, the climate changes differently in different areas.
(don't let that blizzard fool you into thinking otherwise porkie)

2. Occasionally, other factors briefly influence global temperatures. Volcanic eruptions, for example, emit particles that temporarily cool the Earth's surface. But these have no lasting effect beyond a few years. Other cycles, such as El Niño, also work on fairly short and predictable cycles.
Now, humans have increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by more than a third since the industrial revolution. Changes this large have historically taken thousands of years, but are now happening over the course of decades.

3. According to the IPCC, eleven of the twelve hottest years (since thermometer readings became available) occurred between 1995 and 2006.

You can throw articles and facts around much as u want, but we all stand to loose if it were to come true. I can't remember but I think it was TLC that said we need three earths just to sustain the american style of living!

India on the other hand is greener (per capita) just because its poor, not to mention their sense of responsibility once they get richer like their brothers on the other side of the ball.

And US only gives aid to Pakistan, not India certainly not china. India btw is giving aid to afghanistan, and whole lot of other African countries, so zip that argument.




The Indians are right
By BZDTemp on 2/18/2010 10:01:02 AM , Rating: 1
COP15 never had a chance of becoming significant.




"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki