View Single Post
  #65  
Old September 23rd 17, 01:36 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 10,018
Default Houston Houston, do you hear me?

jacob navia wrote:

Le 15/09/2017 à 09:14, Fred J. McCall a écrit*:

Go read the actual agreement, you ignorant ****. Both China and India
have goals to reduce "CO2 intensity" but no goals to actually reduce
(or even control) CO2.


Yes, and that is why the U.S. should go on polluting even more isn't it?


Well, it's certainly not a good reason for us to hurt ourselves
economically. Categorizing something as a 'pollutant' for political
reasons is, well merely political.


The reasoning of Mr McCall leads to a situation where everybody loses,
except, of course, oil companies.


The reasoning of Mr Navia is where WE lose, which is apparently just
fine with him.


"Other countries are polluting even more". Yes, China is the first
polluter with 29.51% of total mankind emissions.


There level is also increasing faster than ours and the Paris Accord
contains NOTHING that requires them to reduce it.


China: 29.51% of CO2 emissions, 7.7 Tons per habitant.
U.S. 14.34% of CO2 emissions 16.1 Tons per habitant.


Which is, of course, irrelevant unless you consider past failures to
control population to constitute an excuse for failing to control
emissions.

snip political ramble


Houston, Florida, Porto Rico, just in a month.


Weather, not climate change. Care to explain last year? Or the year
before that? Or the year before that? Or...


New phenomena appear: a tropical storm growths to a Category 5 hurricane
in a few hours, less than a day. This is plain physics (hurricanes need
warm waters) but even this basic facts are denied by this president.


Once again, hurricane frequency and power is much more related to La
Nina and decadal oscillation than it is to mere water temperature.


McCall, has changed his "arguments" and doesn't deny that there is a
warming of the planet but argues that this is not due to CO2 but to
other mysterious reasons. No need to change anything, just let's go
polluting. Who cares about the future?


I haven't changed anything. You're a liar. I also don't argue that
it's not due to CO2. I argue that the models of the Global Climate
Changists lack predictive power outside the interval they're tuned to.
Again, you're a liar.


People protesting against enviromental destruction are simply killed,
like here in France with the student Remy Fraise. Around 4 ecologists
are killed every week in the world.

"You sound like a raving lunatic." said Mr Jeff Finley in this newsgroup.

s

Only because you do.


And I think that he is right of course. I am mad at him and at all
people like him.


Of course he's right. The difference is that you think raving is a
virtue.


--
"Ordinarily he is insane. But he has lucid moments when he is
only stupid."
-- Heinrich Heine