A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Space Science » Policy
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Houston Houston, do you hear me?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old September 14th 17, 10:05 PM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,199
Default Houston Houston, do you hear me?

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-09-13 09:29, Fred J. McCall wrote:

The US produces a smaller share of world CO2 than it does of world
GDP. Nations like India and China, on the other hand, produce a much
larger share of world CO2 than they do of world GDP.


Consider euqal pay for eaual work. Women makes less than men for same
work, strike deal to ensure their pay rises to match men.


Great. Let's do that.


Same for developping nations. Their CO2 production per GDP or per
population is still much lower than the USA. They want equality. They do
not accept that one country (USA) (or more generally western nations)
should have the right to higher CO2 ratios than they should.


This is false. Their CO2 production per GDP is generally much higher
than the USA. It is only when they make having failed to control
their populations into a virtue that there is a 'problem'. Even when
you adjust for price parity, China produces twice as much CO2 per PPP
$ as the United States. India is equal to the US, but only because
they get such an advantage from the price parity adjustment.


The USA abrogating on its climate leadership means these countries can
also abrogate and raise their levels to whatever they want.


The USA abrogating on its "climate leadership" means that we don't
have to pay out the billions of dollars to the rest of the world that
the agreement mandates. Since the agreement already allows these
countries to raise their levels to whatever they want, they have no
desire to abrogate.


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
Ads
  #62  
Old September 15th 17, 03:17 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Scott M. Kozel[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default Houston Houston, do you hear me?

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 10:07:30 PM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2017-09-14 17:05, Fred J. McCall wrote:

the agreement mandates. Since the agreement already allows these
countries to raise their levels to whatever they want, they have no
desire to abrogate.


You obviously do not want to hear the truth. Stating that India/China
can raise their levels to whatever they want is proof you are not
interested in getting the real story just like your buddy Donald and his
puppet masters at Fox and Breitbart.


You're obviously high on reefer.
  #63  
Old September 15th 17, 08:14 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,199
Default Houston Houston, do you hear me?

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-09-14 17:05, Fred J. McCall wrote:

the agreement mandates. Since the agreement already allows these
countries to raise their levels to whatever they want, they have no
desire to abrogate.



You obviously do not want to hear the truth. Stating that India/China
can raise their levels to whatever they want is proof you are not
interested in getting the real story just like your buddy Donald and his
puppet masters at Fox and Breitbart.


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.


--
"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less remote from the
truth who believes nothing than he who believes what is wrong."
-- Thomas Jefferson
  #64  
Old September 15th 17, 08:15 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,199
Default Houston Houston, do you hear me?

"Scott M. Kozel" wrote:

On Thursday, September 14, 2017 at 10:07:30 PM UTC-4, JF Mezei wrote:
On 2017-09-14 17:05, Fred J. McCall wrote:

the agreement mandates. Since the agreement already allows these
countries to raise their levels to whatever they want, they have no
desire to abrogate.


You obviously do not want to hear the truth. Stating that India/China
can raise their levels to whatever they want is proof you are not
interested in getting the real story just like your buddy Donald and his
puppet masters at Fox and Breitbart.


You're obviously high on reefer.


It would explain his mayfly-like memory...


--
"You keep talking about slaying like it's a job. It's not.
It's who you are."
-- Kendra, the Vampire Slayer
  #65  
Old Yesterday, 01:36 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,199
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
  #66  
Old Today, 02:10 AM posted to sci.space.policy
Fred J. McCall[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 9,199
Default Houston Houston, do you hear me?

JF Mezei wrote:

On 2017-09-22 20:36, Fred J. McCall wrote:

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 costs of repairing damage from weather is far greater. The cost to
argiculture industry due to either excessive flooding or drought is greater.

The cost of rebuilding tunnels in New York because salt water got in and
ruined everything is greater (and impacts people during the years it
takes - note, one subway tunnel has ior is soopmn closing in NYC causing
lots of transit headaches).


Well, when you have a model with actual predictive power outside the
range it was tuned over and have some evidence that the storms you
want to cite have ANYTHING to do with global warming (and you'd have
to differ with the folks who study hurricanes to make that statement)
do get back to me.


Global warming isn't just about the waters not feeling so cold when it
first reaches your toes on the beach. There are real consequences to the
economy


Not so far as anyone can demonstrate, no.


Climate deniers only look at oil/coal company short term profits.


Bull****.


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


They are reducing the intensity, not the net amount. If the USA has the
right to polute x based on its GDP, then every other nation has the
right to raise its polliution intensity to match the USA's.


China's "pollution intensity" is currently double ours.


During the Bush Jr era, developping nations all pointed to the USA not
having ratified Kyoto as excuse to not participate in climate talks.


This was because without the US giving them money there was nothing in
it for them. Well, there's nothing in it for us.


This is why it was very important for the USA to get on board in order
to get countries whose potential to pollute is far greater than the
USA's to agree to limit themselves to at least the USA's levels. (and
the lower the USA agrees to move its own levels, the less developping
nations can grow theirs).


But that's not true. China (or any other 'less developed' country is
allowed to do pretty much whatever they want. We're not required to
reduce 'intensity'. We're required to reduce actual levels, which
means we're required to reduce our share of global GDP. We're also
required to throw billions of dollars into a black hole at the same
time. So where's the up side for us, again?


--
"Some people get lost in thought because it's such unfamiliar
territory."
--G. Behn
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
AIAA Houston Al Space Station 0 October 31st 07 07:27 PM
Houston, You Have a Problem Danny Deger Space Shuttle 101 July 25th 07 12:07 AM
Houston, You Have a Problem Danny Deger Space Shuttle 9 July 21st 07 02:42 AM
Houston, You Have a Problem Danny Deger Space Station 9 July 21st 07 02:42 AM
"Houston, we've got a problem" jjustwwondering Policy 0 March 7th 04 08:38 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2017 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.