Skepticism about Climate Change

[Alan Klein]

No one says America spends more on defense per capita than anyone else.  We compare on a nation basis.  You're using the per capita "game" to explain away China's producing more than double the CO2 of what America produces.  Yet they don't have t do anything about it.  You also refuse to address my questions regarding China and India:

Can someone explain why Paris let them off the hook?  Can someone explain how you're going to accomplish any reduction without these two countries who are in fact increasing their CO2?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

If human farts would count toward "global warming" the way cow farts do, THEN it would make sense to count it per capita (per asinus?)

[Peter McLennan]

If human farts would count toward "global warming" the way cow farts do, THEN it would make sense to count it per capita (per asinus?)

Are you ever going to explain my "lack of reading comprehension"?  That's a pretty intense accusation you made.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Are you ever going to explain my "lack of reading comprehension"?  That's a pretty intense accusation you made.

Seriously!?

You really want to go there!?

In my post #1000 I used 800+ words, trying to explain what "treating science like religion" means. You seem to lack basic logical reasoning skills, as you keep, since page 1 of this thread, insisting that science is different from religion, which nobody disputes. It is a basic logical rule, known as non sequitur (or "doesn't follow'). If someone says "some people treat science as a new religion" it doesn't follow that such a statement equates science and religion in general. If you do not get such basic stuff, and after several posts (and posters) explaining it, then you do lack basic comprehension skills.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

FYI

The scientific method made easy
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j12BBcKSgEQ

Cheers,
Bart

[pegelli]

No one says America spends more on defense per capita than anyone else.  We compare on a nation basis.  ?

No, not in general. Per capita the US is #4 in military spending. Only Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Israel are ahead of you

[pegelli]

Can someone explain why Paris let them off the hook?  Can someone explain how you're going to accomplish any reduction without these two countries who are in fact increasing their CO2?

Several times Bart gave a good explanation in this thread. Just look them up.

[Alan Klein]

No, not in general. Per capita the US is #4 in military spending. Only Saudi Arabia, Singapore and Israel are ahead of you

No one  talks about per capita defense spending.    You just made that up for the China CO2 issue.   Everyone talks about how America spends many times more than the next multiple countries combined.   That's how we should've onlook at CO2.

[pegelli]

No one  talks about per capita defense spending.    You just made that up for the China CO2 issue.   Everyone talks about how America spends many times more than the next multiple countries combined.   That's how we should've onlook at CO2.

And you just made up the "Total CO2 per country" as reasonable benchmark to hide the worst CO2 performance for many, many years and have an excuse to point your finger at China. There's ~193 countries that have less CO2 emissions then the US and 1 which has more. How does that make you feel on this scale? You can only point the finger at one, all other countries can also point at the US. At least when you accept the per capita scale there's 5 other countries you could point at (but not China )

[pegelli]

And it's not as uncommon as you think to find references on Military spending per capita.

A few examples (1 minute of googling)

https://www.slideshare.net/MekkoGraphics/military-spending-per-capita

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_per_capita

http://www.wikiwand.com/en/List_of_countries_by_military_expenditure_per_capita

http://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Military/Expenditures/Dollar-figure-per-capita

I could go on, but just test google for yourself. So it's not me who made this up as a measure that is looked at by people

[Peter McLennan]

Seriously!?

You really want to go there!?

In my post #1000 I used 800+ words, trying to explain what "treating science like religion" means. You seem to lack basic logical reasoning skills, as you keep, since page 1 of this thread, insisting that science is different from religion, which nobody disputes. It is a basic logical rule, known as non sequitur (or "doesn't follow'). If someone says "some people treat science as a new religion" it doesn't follow that such a statement equates science and religion in general. If you do not get such basic stuff, and after several posts (and posters) explaining it, then you do lack basic comprehension skills.

So, you said in post #1000
 "2) Because it fits their various causes, they have created an atmosphere in which the science cannot be questioned. They have elevated it to the status of religion or cult. It is to be taken, with all the ideological and non-scientific baggage, as gospel and without question. To do so invites ridicule and accusation. It has lead to many, though far from a majority according to the polls, to accept the science faithfully, while having little or no understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of it. And this is a problem for the real science because there is no science that is above question. That is the nature of science, it is ALWAYS open to re-evaluation.

Yet I've repeatedly said that the reason science is so preferable to religion is that it's always open to self re-evaluation.  Frankly, I don't see where we disagree or where I don't understand what you wrote.

To clarify: science is not a religion, nor to I treat it as such.  Nor do we dissenters here use it to advance our so-called "political agendas".  Most of us have none, other than ensuring that we quit destroying our only home.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Regarding China, the country is making a huge effort to address climate change primarily because of the rampant air pollution that has plagued the country.  they are now the leading manufacturer of solar panels in the world.  Here is but one reference to their efforts:  http://www.businessinsider.com/china-green-energy-plan-2017-5?r=UK&IR=T

[Alan Klein]

And you just made up the "Total CO2 per country" as reasonable benchmark to hide the worst CO2 performance for many, many years and have an excuse to point your finger at China. There's ~193 countries that have less CO2 emissions then the US and 1 which has more. How does that make you feel on this scale? You can only point the finger at one, all other countries can also point at the US. At least when you accept the per capita scale there's 5 other countries you could point at (but not China )

You still haven't explained why the worst polluter China does not have to participate in lowering their CO2 until 2030.  You still haven;t explained how the Paris Accord will help the earth regarding CO2 without China (and India). 

[pegelli]

You still haven't explained why the worst polluter China does not have to participate in lowering their CO2 until 2030.  You still haven;t explained how the Paris Accord will help the earth regarding CO2 without China (and India).

See my post # 1106, the rest of the work you have to do yourself. Since you're only asking the question to divert attention from the real issue I'm not going to help you further on that. I haven't read the article in Alan G's post above, maybe that can give you some answers as well, who knows

[Peter McLennan]

Cars, too.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/09/11/to-promote-electric-cars-china-considers-move-to-ban-gas-guzzlers/#e39c93c51b73

China is making big moves on several fronts to combat global warming. 

There. I said it. I'll say it again. Global Warming. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... China is making big moves on several fronts to combat global warming...

They are combating pollution that is immediately killing or seriously harming its people. And no one is against combatting pollution.

For many of us who lived or visited many places and countries in Eastern Europe and Russia, coming to the United States was like a breath of fresh air. Literally.

[Alan Klein]

Cars, too.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/kenrapoza/2017/09/11/to-promote-electric-cars-china-considers-move-to-ban-gas-guzzlers/#e39c93c51b73

China is making big moves on several fronts to combat global warming. 

There. I said it. I'll say it again. Global Warming. 

They're not doing it to combat global warming.  They're doing it because even Communists have to breathe. Frankly, they're choking to death with all their coal production and gas fired cars.  They have the worse pollution in the world.  Although it might not be as bad as I say if you look at it on a per capita basis.   

[Peter McLennan]

They are combating pollution that is immediately killing or seriously harming its people. And no one is against combatting pollution.

But they're not in favour of combating climate change?

For many of us who lived or visited many places and countries in Eastern Europe and Russia, coming to the United States was like a breath of fresh air. Literally.

Of course. Welcome to clean air.  You should have seen LA in the 70s. And what caused those changes? 

Regulations. Regulations that Trump and his industry buddies are systematically removing.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

But they're not in favour of combating climate change?...

Only The Delusionals are "combating'" it. The Chinese are rather realistic.

[Alan Klein]

But they're not in favour of combating climate change?

Of course. Welcome to clean air.  You should have seen LA in the 70s. And what caused those changes? 

Regulations. Regulations that Trump and his industry buddies are systematically removing.

The Chinese will do nothing that will hurt their economy.  Sure they'll reduce pollution because they have to breathe. But all efforts regarding coal and industrial production is geared to support their industry and economic expansion.  Climate control be damned.  Joining Paris was only window dressing for them.  They hoodwinked the world in Paris but Trump is no fool.

Trump is not removing all regulations.  Only some of those that have gone too far in damaging our economy.  We want to breathe too; so does Trump.  There has to be a balance.  Regarding LA, cleaning up the smog there was a State of California effort.  The Los Angelenos had to breathe too.