Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/15/07 01:43 PM, Draconias wrote:

At 12/15/07 01:27 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 12/15/07 01:26 PM, Brick-top wrote: China is a larger emitter of CO2 than America.

I was told that china was cutting emissions and the united state was not.

http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.
cfm/newsid/39443/story.htm
China is slowing the growth of their emissions, not cutting them.

That's an old article, and China is only SAYING that you fool.

China has usurped the US as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

The United States is obviously cutting emissions, but we do so as a standard procedure, not a reaction to Global Warming.

That's because the hype about global warming has little basis in science to prove that humans are causing it.

Furthermore, people are demanding the US change its ways but they are making basically zero effort to persuade China... who is a larger emitter, and who is growing so fast that its emissions will only get perpetually higher.

At 12/15/07 11:38 AM, bcdemon wrote: The US is worried about the money factor. It's going to cost alot to save on emissions.

Interesting, is that why it was CANADA who was the last hold-out among major industrialized nations at the Bali meeting? Or is Canada magically different and has some super awesome legitimate reason for being a fucking hypocrite and rejecting the emissions cut targets longer than anyone else all while criticizing the US for being greedy?

At 12/15/07 01:27 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 12/15/07 01:26 PM, Brick-top wrote: China is a larger emitter of CO2 than America.

I was told that china was cutting emissions and the united state was not.

That's HILARIOUS!

Because China has rejected the targets at the recent Bali meeting, while the US has in fact accepted them.

And that's of course, funny that someone would defend China considering as Brick-top said, they are now the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

The difference here is, the US has accepted the targets but is going to make sure developing nations cut emissions as well.

It would be pointless for the west to reduce emissions and therefore lessen their use of fossil fuels when the fossil fuels they don't use will just be sucked up by China, thus completely negating the entire point of emissions cuts in the first place.

My original point about the USA was more an example of a country that needs to consider making more of an effort to reduce its CO2 emissions.

I agree, other Less Economically Developed Countries such as China and India (debatable), are not pulling their weight either and quite frankly its time they did!

At 12/16/07 07:25 AM, funkyjunky wrote: My original point about the USA was more an example of a country that needs to consider making more of an effort to reduce its CO2 emissions.

Why?

How do you know emissions are what is causing global warming?

In fact, suggesting this is quite absurd given the scientific evidence that indicates that global warming is a natural process that is unaffected by human activity.

There have been 4 periods of global warming similar in degree to what we are now experiencing in about the past 1000 years (go to page 16). All 4 of those periods took place long before humans had the ability to produce greenhouse gases to any significant degree.

If global warming happened back then, LONG before the advent of the automobile, the coal burning factory and so forth, where is the logic behind claiming that the global warming we're experiencing now is due to these things? Where is the logic to suggest that the US is responsible for it, or that the US is irresponsible for not changing our ways and making amends for something we are likely NOT causing?

Why should the US willingly damage its economy in order to reduce green house gases if we already know that global warming can take place and has taken place, no matter what the US does, let alone what the human race does? Furthermore, why should the US do that when countries like China will do no such thing, yet they produce more greenhouse gases than the US, and are increasing their rate of pollution faster than anybody else?

When you apply a little context to this issue, your accusations against the US are absolutely baseless. You know why that is? It's because the very foundation of the global warming HYSTERIA is propaganda, designed to frighten weak-minded people into thinking the end of the fucking world is near because of global warming.

In the process you ignore two things.

1) Global warming happened before we could possibly have caused it.
2) When it did happen, it DID NOT irreparably fuck over the earth. There was no cataclysm, no apocalypse.

Therefore every aspect of the wacky, emotionally-charged global warming movement, especially in regards to criticism of America, is completely and utterly ludicrous.

k, thanks. Have a nice day.

Even if Global warming is a natural process, emissions still need to be reduced, Sulpher Dioxide, for example also causes Acid Rain- which is also an undesirable outcome which im sure you can't argue with.

I think the picture shown of smog in inner cities in China proves that there is a problem. Smog causes lung, nose and eye irritation. Its a problem in the modern world too, London has it on some days! LA and New York too!
No its NOT a recent problem, and over time has got better - Since the introduction of greener methods of producing energy.

The only reason I mentioned the USA is that I feel that if most scientists agree that action needs taking, why cant they just agree? Ok so it will cost alot of money, but at the end of the day is it really that much considering the possible outcomes if scientists models are correct?

At 12/16/07 03:10 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/15/07 11:38 AM, bcdemon wrote: The US is worried about the money factor. It's going to cost alot to save on emissions.

Interesting, is that why it was CANADA who was the last hold-out among major industrialized nations at the Bali meeting? Or is Canada magically different and has some super awesome legitimate reason for being a fucking hypocrite and rejecting the emissions cut targets longer than anyone else all while criticizing the US for being greedy?

Ahh I see, you're wondering why I mentioned that it would cost the US alot of money and didn't mention Canada, right?
Well read the fucking question that was asked you retard, "Why Won't America Agree to Climate Change Emission Cuts proposals?" You may or may not notice that the topic stater doens't even mention Canada...That and I don't support our governments decision to hold out. Unlike you who are so fucking blindly patriotic to the gov you defend their stance no matter what it is.
And the US rejected a proposal by developing countries to clarify their responsibilities.

At 12/16/07 09:15 AM, bcdemon wrote: " You may or may not notice that the topic stater doens't even mention Canada..."

Umm...no i didn't! - for the reason that I do not know Canada's policies on Climate change!

At 12/16/07 03:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/15/07 01:27 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote:

At 12/15/07 01:26 PM, Brick-top wrote: China is a larger emitter of CO2 than America.

I was told that china was cutting emissions and the united state was not.

That's HILARIOUS!

Because China has rejected the targets at the recent Bali meeting, while the US has in fact accepted them.

And that's of course, funny that someone would defend China considering as Brick-top said, they are now the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

The difference here is, the US has accepted the targets but is going to make sure developing nations cut emissions as well.

It would be pointless for the west to reduce emissions and therefore lessen their use of fossil fuels when the fossil fuels they don't use will just be sucked up by China, thus completely negating the entire point of emissions cuts in the first place.

I don't defend china because i hold a special place in my heart for them, i say whatever i have been told, and expect that logically, if it is false, somone will point at it and blast it apart, like rocks and dynamite.

In 2006 The US and China, were 1st and 4th respectivly in the countries sorted by their gross domestic product (GDP), the value of all final goods & services from a nation in a given year.

So if the US has 27% of the Worlds GDP - (13 trillion pounds) - An someone mentioned that it would cost the US 1% of this to cut emmisions at the proposed, is that a major problem?

Im 15 and not an economics expert but in my eyes thats a hell of a lot of money which is not used on Global Warming!

At 12/16/07 03:10 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Blah blah blah

So, to sum up that string of posts:

- Hey guys China pollutes so we shouldn't worry about ourselves
- What about Canada they hesitated so they are pretty much worse than us
- Check out this fuckin' chart guys haha
- What do all of these scientists know about science?
- I mean climate change is just propaganda and all the real scientists are persecuted for saying it doesn't exist

That was a pretty textbook argument against all things climate change, but you forgot blame Bill Clinton for something.

You guys forget that some people say that the largest greenhouse gas(by far) is not CO2, CH4. Methane gas from farm Animals is the #1 cause of global warming according to some scientists(too lazy to look for the link).

It is argued that the entire world population became vegetarian, the whole global warming thing would cease to exist. Screw that. I like meat.

At 12/16/07 03:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: And that's of course, funny that someone would defend China considering as Brick-top said, they are now the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Although I won't deny that China is the biggest contributor, I think one thing has to be noted:
China's population is over 1.3 billions. The US population is around 300 millions.

At 12/16/07 08:17 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/16/07 07:25 AM, funkyjunky wrote: My original point about the USA was more an example of a country that needs to consider making more of an effort to reduce its CO2 emissions.

Why?

How do you know emissions are what is causing global waring?

Since almost all scientific data found approves of this, and none directly prohibits it.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1 /index.htm

Also, it is worth to note that there is a big scientific consensus about this. Unfortunately, no studies has been done since 2004, but back then there was a study.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/30 6/5702/1686.pdf

At 12/16/07 02:52 PM, RommelTJ wrote: You guys forget that some people say that the largest greenhouse gas(by far) is not CO2, CH4. Methane gas from farm Animals is the #1 cause of global warming according to some scientists(too lazy to look for the link).

It is argued that the entire world population became vegetarian, the whole global warming thing would cease to exist. Screw that. I like meat.

Nah. That is taking it a bit to far. Although methane gas IS worse than CO2, the meat industry stands for about 20% of the greenhouse gas discharges (is that word correct to use here? My lexicon seems to say so, but it feels wrong). This IS the single largest contributor, but everyone being a vegetarian wouldn't automatically solve the problem. It needs to be worked for on several levels. However, being a grasseater as myself is somewhere to start.

Turning Everyone Veggie isnt easier than Cutting Greenhouse gas emissions!
And Im sure if there was NO proof that greenhouse gases cause global warming, there wouldnt be any talks within the UN of what to do!

At 12/16/07 09:15 AM, bcdemon wrote:

At 12/16/07 03:10 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/15/07 11:38 AM, bcdemon wrote: The US is worried about the money factor. It's going to cost alot to save on emissions.

Interesting, is that why it was CANADA who was the last hold-out among major industrialized nations at the Bali meeting? Or is Canada magically different and has some super awesome legitimate reason for being a fucking hypocrite and rejecting the emissions cut targets longer than anyone else all while criticizing the US for being greedy?

Ahh I see, you're wondering why I mentioned that it would cost the US alot of money and didn't mention Canada, right?

No, I'm showing how you're a fucking hypocrite and everything you ever say is based on ignorance or hypocrisy.

And the US rejected a proposal by developing countries to clarify their responsibilities.

WOW are you that stupid?

The US rejected a proposal by developing countries because it gave them immunity from emissions cuts.

At 12/16/07 03:02 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 12/16/07 03:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: And that's of course, funny that someone would defend China considering as Brick-top said, they are now the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Although I won't deny that China is the biggest contributor, I think one thing has to be noted:
China's population is over 1.3 billions. The US population is around 300 millions.

And that means precisely jackshit if global warming supposedly is a global problem and has global catastrophic consequences now doesn't it?

Not only do people like you swallow the GW nonsense due to your political bias. Not only do you mindless accept all the bullshit because it gives you ammunition against the US. But now you're also justifying the behavior of someone who, according to the very basis of the global warming nonsense, is causing more of a problem than the US is. Thus showing your entire perception has nothing to do with a heart-felt quest to save the world, but rather just a new source of perpetuating your anti-US stance.

At 12/16/07 03:11 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 12/16/07 08:17 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/16/07 07:25 AM, funkyjunky wrote: My original point about the USA was more an example of a country that needs to consider making more of an effort to reduce its CO2 emissions.

Why?

How do you know emissions are what is causing global waring?

Since almost all scientific data found approves of this, and none directly prohibits it.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1 /index.htm

There are no specifics about how much global warming is caused by human behavior. Nor does it even address the fact that global warming happened long before humans could have caused it (according to its theory about what causes global warming)

Also, it is worth to note that there is a big scientific consensus about this. Unfortunately, no studies has been done since 2004, but back then there was a study.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/30 6/5702/1686.pdf

Wow that is one hilariously biased article.

Same thing, there's not much substance there. There is no open, objective interpretation of global warming. The entire basis is that humans are causing it, that isn't even being debated. And it states the whole thing with a criticism of the US.

Nice source there.

At 12/16/07 09:07 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Not only do people like you...

Ooh, a "you want to believe in global warming because of your rampant European hate for the U.S." argument. That sure is new. But until you blame something on Clinton, you won't have completed a textbook armchair scientist argument against global warming.

At 12/16/07 10:39 PM, Sigma-Lambda wrote:

At 12/16/07 09:07 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Not only do people like you...

Ooh, a "you want to believe in global warming because of your rampant European hate for the U.S." argument. That sure is new.

Yeah, and I showed how reasonable a conclusion it is considering the scientific evidence shows that global warming happened long before humans could have caused it.

And, this is in addition to the fact that even though China is now the world's largest emitter, and refuses to adopt emissions cuts, people still only blame the US.

Thus showing that the reason behind their idiocy is due to a political bias. They are motivated by a political agenda first and foremost. This is the reason they don't address the facts, because living in a perpetual state of delusional and just swallowing the politically-driven global warming movement is more convenient for them. They WANT to be able to blame the US, they WANT something to rally behind even if the very foundation of their global warming hysteria is complete and utter farce.

But until you blame something on Clinton, you won't have completed a textbook armchair scientist argument against global warming.

Your denial and complete disregard for the facts wouldn't have been complete unless you tried to discredit it by suggesting that my objective analysis of the issue has anything to do with distaste for Bill Clinton.

Ok, Bill Clinton is popping up in this thread alot. What could someone arguing against global warming and for a politcal bias against american interest use Bill Clinton for? If I recall he was enviromentaly friendly, and in no position of power when global warming was even thought to be an issue.

Crimes Against Nature by Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
this book is your answer

an excerpt

"In a March 2003 memo to party leadership, Republican pollster Frank Luntz noted:
"The environment is probably the single issue on which Republicans in general and President Bush in particular are most vulnerable."
He cautioned that the public is inclined to view Republicans as being "in the pockets of corporate fat cats who rub their hands together and chuckle maniacally as they plot to pollute America for fun and profit." If that view were to take hold, Luntz warned, "not only do we risk losing the swing vote, but our suburban female base could abandon us as well." In essence, he recommended that Republicans don the sheep's clothing of environmental rhetoric while continuing to wolf down our environmental laws.

read here

At 12/16/07 09:00 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/16/07 09:15 AM, bcdemon wrote: Ahh I see, you're wondering why I mentioned that it would cost the US alot of money and didn't mention Canada, right?

No, I'm showing how you're a fucking hypocrite and everything you ever say is based on ignorance or hypocrisy.

How am I being hypocritical or ignorant? The fact is it would cost a lot of money to meet the emissions cuts, right? And I stated I didn't agree with my gov holding out, so that rules out me being hypocritical. You try and save face by resorting to insults, "A" for effort, but you fail.

And the US rejected a proposal by developing countries to clarify their responsibilities.

The US rejected a proposal by developing countries because it gave them immunity from emissions cuts.

The proposal was non-binding and open to future negotiations. Unlike war, the US just wants to talk and talk without taking action.
You seem to complain a lot about China and their CO2 emissions, you also seem to forget they have a massive population. Per capita, the US emits almost 4 times the amount of CO2 than China does.

At 12/16/07 09:07 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/16/07 03:02 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 12/16/07 03:15 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: And that's of course, funny that someone would defend China considering as Brick-top said, they are now the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

Although I won't deny that China is the biggest contributor, I think one thing has to be noted:
China's population is over 1.3 billions. The US population is around 300 millions.

And that means precisely jackshit if global warming supposedly is a global problem and has global catastrophic consequences now doesn't it?

Not only do people like you swallow the GW nonsense due to your political bias. Not only do you mindless accept all the bullshit because it gives you ammunition against the US. But now you're also justifying the behavior of someone who, according to the very basis of the global warming nonsense, is causing more of a problem than the US is. Thus showing your entire perception has nothing to do with a heart-felt quest to save the world, but rather just a new source of perpetuating your anti-US stance.

First off, I were aware of the global warming problem far before I had taken any political standpoints in my life, secondly, I'm not in any way defending China's action (if there is one single country that I dislike more than any other, it's China, not the US). I really want the Chinese people to as much as possible keep away from greenhouse gas-

The reason why it is so important is because I personally see beyond nationalities. I thought individualism was the great thing about your so-loved capitalism, isn't it? The average chinese (is it called that?) gives out less greenhouse gasses than the average american (and less than the average Gothenburger AFAIK, which is why I try to push the gotheburg rulers to increase the public transport, and of course personally keep away from car, meat, and other such things).

At 12/16/07 03:11 PM, Sajberhippien wrote:

At 12/16/07 08:17 AM, cellardoor6 wrote:

At 12/16/07 07:25 AM, funkyjunky wrote: My original point about the USA was more an example of a country that needs to consider making more of an effort to reduce its CO2 emissions.

Why?

How do you know emissions are what is causing global waring?

Since almost all scientific data found approves of this, and none directly prohibits it.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1 /index.htm

There are no specifics about how much global warming is caused by human behavior. Nor does it even address the fact that global warming happened long before humans could have caused it (according to its theory about what causes global warming)

Of course there can't be an exact number, but then again, you can't say how much of the sky is blue (since you don't see the whole sky) but you do know that there is a sky anyway, and that it's mostly blue.

Of course global warming happened before humans can have caused it. The theories doesn't say that man is needed for global warming to occur, just that man is to a great part or fully responsible for THIS case of global warming.

Also, it is worth to note that there is a big scientific consensus about this. Unfortunately, no studies has been done since 2004, but back then there was a study.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/reprint/30 6/5702/1686.pdf

Wow that is one hilariously biased article.

Same thing, there's not much substance there. There is no open, objective interpretation of global warming. The entire basis is that humans are causing it, that isn't even being debated. And it states the whole thing with a criticism of the US.

Nice source there.

You can't say that something is biased just because it doesn't agree with you. If you post a source on the sky BEING BLUE (to support a hypothetical claim), I couldn't just say "it's biased, 'cause it states that the sky is blue here in Sweden to, but I don't like blue so it can't be since Sweden is great and would never have blue skies!".
That's not the way it works. Okay, you may say it's a weak source, but it is a source nevertheless, and if it's so bad, then it should be easy for you to find a better source with statistics proving the opposite.
This well-sourced wiki article would also give you an idea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_
opinion_on_climate_change#Intergovernmen tal_Panel_on_Climate_Change_.28IPCC.29_2 007

At 12/16/07 10:47 PM, cellardoor6 wrote:

Not only do people like you...

Ooh, a "you want to believe in global warming because of your rampant European hate for the U.S." argument. That sure is new.

Yeah, and I showed how reasonable a conclusion it is considering the scientific evidence shows that global warming happened long before humans could have caused it.

You know, that reasoning could lead to thinking that 9/11 was just a natural thing, since explosions existed before humans could fly airplanes. It wasn't humans causing it. -.-