Climate Change(d)?

[TSwizzle]

Oh noes, we only have nine years to save the world again!!! What utter claptrap. These doomsday fantasies are so stupid.

An end of times rapture like cult.

This obsession with carbon needs to stop.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Oh noes, we only have nine years to save the world again!!! What utter claptrap. These doomsday fantasies are so stupid.

An end of times rapture like cult.

This obsession with carbon needs to stop.

You forgot the Santa Monica temperature report.

 

[pood]

Oh noes, we only have nine years to save the world again!!! What utter claptrap. These doomsday fantasies are so stupid.

An end of times rapture like cult.

This obsession with carbon needs to stop.

You forgot the Santa Monica temperature report.

All is well! As of noon it was an equable 64 F. in Santa Monica! Take that, global warmists!

 

[pood]

This obsession with carbon needs to stop.

You are just so clueless. And that is the chairtable interpretation. I don’t believe it myself.

 

[steve_bank]

Oh noes, we only have nine years to save the world again!!! What utter claptrap. These doomsday fantasies are so stupid.

An end of times rapture like cult.

This obsession with carbon needs to stop.

The rapture just feels sooooo good. You have no idea.

Sooner or later you will be part of the rapture. We have a place in the cult just for you.

 

[pood]

TSwizzle is like the idiot congressman some years back who, in the dead of winter, carried a snowball into Congress and said, in effect, “See? What global warming?”

 

[Swammerdami]

It's been obvious for a while now that the political will to actually deal with it simply doesn't exist. Nor is there even any point in trying unless places like China and India sign on--and they are showing no inclination to do so. The damage is too far down the road for those in power to care.

Recently linked in this very thread was a report that the total temperature rise is expected to be just 2.5°C or thereabouts — much less than predicted earlier — with the reduction due to planet-wide mitigation efforts. A rise of 2.5°C may be very very bad, but is still probably much better than a rise of 3.5°C.

China is pursuing important technologies, has only about one-half the per capita emissions of the U.S.A., and has more solar photovoltaic capacity than any other country. India's emissions have declined in recent years and are only about one-eighth those of the U.S.A. per capita.

Anti-Green politicians in the U.S. like to point to China or India and say "Why bother?" With the U.S. emitting almost three times France or Denmark per capita, I wonder who anti-Greens in Europe point to?

Another casualty of climate change in the PN. Higher temperatures leading to more longer lasting fies. Smole from fires bind with chemicals in grapes that can not be separated out.

Result, wine that tastes like smoke..

I am no wine connoisseur but perhaps this can be turned into advertising motifs: "the delightful scent of elderberry wood, the enchanting fragrance of smoked alder."

 

[southernhybrid]

Oh noes, we only have nine years to save the world again!!! What utter claptrap. These doomsday fantasies are so stupid.

An end of times rapture like cult.

This obsession with carbon needs to stop.

As the saying goes, "Denial ain't just a river in Egypt. But, yeah sure. One poster on IIDB knows more than scientists who seriously study the impact of carbon and methane etc. on earth's climate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's been obvious for a while now that the political will to actually deal with it simply doesn't exist. Nor is there even any point in trying unless places like China and India sign on--and they are showing no inclination to do so. The damage is too far down the road for those in power to care.

Recently linked in this very thread was a report that the total temperature rise is expected to be just 2.5°C or thereabouts — much less than predicted earlier — with the reduction due to planet-wide mitigation efforts. A rise of 2.5°C may be very very bad, but is still probably much better than a rise of 3.5°C.

How much of that "mitigation" is simply exporting the carbon production to the countries that don't care?

China is pursuing important technologies, has only about one-half the per capita emissions of the U.S.A., and has more solar photovoltaic capacity than any other country. India's emissions have declined in recent years and are only about one-eighth those of the U.S.A. per capita.

Per capita. They have a lot more capita. And they're rapidly building more powerplants.

Anti-Green politicians in the U.S. like to point to China or India and say "Why bother?" With the U.S. emitting almost three times France or Denmark per capita, I wonder who anti-Greens in Europe point to?

France is getting it right--most of their power is nuke. I don't know the situation in Denmark.

 

[Shadowy Man]

China is pursuing important technologies, has only about one-half the per capita emissions of the U.S.A., and has more solar photovoltaic capacity than any other country. India's emissions have declined in recent years and are only about one-eighth those of the U.S.A. per capita.

Per capita. They have a lot more capita. And they're rapidly building more powerplants.

Yes. One half per capita but over four times the capita means at least twice the emissions.

So, it means that if the overall standard of living in China increases then the emissions may go up much more.

 

[Ahura Mazda]

Climate clownology.... so far in here most of it is known circus. Percentages along with quoted figures mean diddly squat unless the full context of available data is quoted. That data in full belongs to the future ......

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Climate clownology.... so far in here most of it is known circus. Percentages along with quoted figures mean diddly squat unless the full context of available data is quoted. That data in full belongs to the future ......

What are you trying to say?

 

[Swammerdami]

Yes. One half per capita but over four times the capita means at least twice the emissions.

Do countries with larger populations consume and emit more than countries with lower populations? Sure. China emits more CO2 than any other country and is likely to remain #1 for many years to come. How "good of a job" are they doing at reducing their emissions? I don't know but would be happy to endorse sanctions on non-cooperative countries.

Complaints by the U.S. are like the pot calling the kettle black: The U.S. emits more absolutely than the E.U. (or EU + UK if you prefer!) despite the latter's higher population.

But it is disingenuous to focus on absolute numbers ... (unless your agenda is to mandate population reductions).

The state of Rhode Island emits much less CO2 than New York. Luxembourg emits far less than Germany. Bakersfield emits less than Los Angeles. Should those polities be exempt from mitigation because their absolute consumption is so low?

 

[atrib]

Oh noes, we only have nine years to save the world again!!! What utter claptrap. These doomsday fantasies are so stupid.

An end of times rapture like cult.

This obsession with carbon needs to stop.

That insufferable prick, Trump!!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I found a long article to "gift" that makes the claim, according to climate scientists who certainly know a lot more than the rest of us, that we have only 9 years left to avoid catastrophic effects of climate change.

It's been obvious for a while now that the political will to actually deal with it simply doesn't exist. Nor is there even any point in trying unless places like China and India sign on--and they are showing no inclination to do so. The damage is too far down the road for those in power to care.

I get sick and tired of people talking about China... the country where the West exported their emissions to. China isn't the problem, our consumption is.

 

[bilby]

I found a long article to "gift" that makes the claim, according to climate scientists who certainly know a lot more than the rest of us, that we have only 9 years left to avoid catastrophic effects of climate change.

It's been obvious for a while now that the political will to actually deal with it simply doesn't exist. Nor is there even any point in trying unless places like China and India sign on--and they are showing no inclination to do so. The damage is too far down the road for those in power to care.

I get sick and tired of people talking about China... the country where the West exported their emissions to. China isn't the problem, our consumption is.

Indeed. The city of Brisbane is a shining example of a city that emits zero carbon dioxide from electricity generation.

We get our electricity mostly from coal power plants outside the city limits.

It's those evil bastards in Tarong that need to get their act together; Their town only has 193 residents, but they're running a 1.4GW coal-burning power station. Those people are a disgrace.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I found a long article to "gift" that makes the claim, according to climate scientists who certainly know a lot more than the rest of us, that we have only 9 years left to avoid catastrophic effects of climate change.

It's been obvious for a while now that the political will to actually deal with it simply doesn't exist. Nor is there even any point in trying unless places like China and India sign on--and they are showing no inclination to do so. The damage is too far down the road for those in power to care.

I get sick and tired of people talking about China... the country where the West exported their emissions to. China isn't the problem, our consumption is.

China could build reactors rather than coal plants.

 

[bilby]

I found a long article to "gift" that makes the claim, according to climate scientists who certainly know a lot more than the rest of us, that we have only 9 years left to avoid catastrophic effects of climate change.

It's been obvious for a while now that the political will to actually deal with it simply doesn't exist. Nor is there even any point in trying unless places like China and India sign on--and they are showing no inclination to do so. The damage is too far down the road for those in power to care.

I get sick and tired of people talking about China... the country where the West exported their emissions to. China isn't the problem, our consumption is.

China could build reactors rather than coal plants.

China is doing both.

 

[Swammerdami]

I get sick and tired of people talking about China... the country where the West exported their emissions to. China isn't the problem, our consumption is.

China could build reactors rather than coal plants.

China is #3 in the world in total nuclear power production, behind only U.S.A. and France. It continues to build new reactors aggressively; will it not pass France in total capacity in a decade or so? UIAM, a majority of the world's "Generation III" nuclear energy production is in China.

It's time to stop making China the boogey-man for Americans wanting to "drag their feet" on a green agenda.

 

[steve_bank]

China's goal starting with Mao was rapid industrialization and modernization.

It is clear especially with the reecnt conference China is not going to risk economics over climate change in the short term. They are going green in the ling term, but if it takes coal to suatin economic growth so be it.

A seveer economic downturn could be catastrophic to the CCP at the top.

The west including Biden seems to contumely expect western logic, reasoning, and rationale from China.