FRIHOSTFORUMSSEARCHFAQTOSBLOGSCOMPETITIONS
You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!


Kyoto?? Bah! China Blows by USA in CO2 Emissions.





Billy Hill
Quote:
In 2006, the total of China's CO2 emissions from fossil fuels increased by 9%. In the USA in 2006, emissions decreased by 1.4%.


China flew right by the US in Co2 emissions last year, growing from 2 percent less than the US in 2005, to 8 percent MORE in 2006.

They increased their own emissions by 9 percent, and the US REDUCED theirs by almost 1.5%.

Anyone still think the US' failure to sign Kyoto means we want to pollute more? Even after we have reduced our emissions?

Any other countries want to step up with their increase or reduction numbers over the last couple years? Or shall we just go ahead and take the US right off the list of environmental destroyers? Wink

http://www.edie.net/news/news_story.asp?id=13174&channel=0
ocalhoun
Although I do not doubt the conclusions reached because of other information in the article, This quote:

Billy Hill wrote:
Quote:
In 2006, the total of China's CO2 emissions from fossil fuels increased by 9%. In the USA in 2006, emissions decreased by 1.4%.


Is an abuse of statistics. In order to get a real feel for the data from this information, you need to add to it both countries' original and final CO2 emissions either as a solid number or as a percentage of the world's.
Billy Hill
ocalhoun wrote:
Although I do not doubt the conclusions reached because of other information in the article, This quote:

Billy Hill wrote:
Quote:
In 2006, the total of China's CO2 emissions from fossil fuels increased by 9%. In the USA in 2006, emissions decreased by 1.4%.


Is an abuse of statistics. In order to get a real feel for the data from this information, you need to add to it both countries' original and final CO2 emissions either as a solid number or as a percentage of the world's.


Ok, I'll pretend I didn't use any numbers, and just say that China's total Co2 emissions went up (and actually passed the US's total emsissions (China now produces more Co2 than any other country), and the US' Co2 emissions went down. I'll go on to say that the rate of increase for China was considerably more/faster than "many pundits expected".

How's that? Wink
ocalhoun
Much better!
jameszog
The chinese Ministry of Forign affairs disavow the case, they said CO2emission should be averaged by country's population.
actually,chinese is the biggest Confused victim to the CCP absolutist.
thealpha
U.S. always have double standard. It is not fair.
Billy Hill
jameszog wrote:
The chinese Ministry of Forign affairs disavow the case, they said CO2emission should be averaged by country's population.
actually,chinese is the biggest Confused victim to the CCP absolutist.


They can disavow all they want, but the fact still remains that China is the largest polluter in the world. If they've got the most people, perhaps they should be held more accountable and try to do something about it. China was exempt from from the restrictions of Kyoto. Gee, I wonder why?
Bondings
Some statistics, albeit about 2003 and apparently China now has more emissions than the USA, indeed. Fact is, this is partly due (difference between numbers) to the creation of lots of cement for roads and buildings. This is mostly a one-time emission as this won't continue for long. Also, another part is due to the production of items for Western countries (and with more pollution than Western factories, of course).

But I have to agree with you, Billy Hill, that China (and India) shouldn't be exempt from Kyoto and their continued increase in CO2 (and other) emissions is a threat to the environment. Apart from CO2, China is a very polluted country at the moment with a lot of stories reaching the world press. They will definitely regret it in the future.

That doesn't change the fact that the USA have the biggest emissions per capita, apart from some small oil-producing countries. And blaming the worst examples of other countries to make up that fact isn't a good idea, in my opinion. The USA should at least sign and accept the Kyoto treaty. The decrease (if the statistics are correct) is probably due to some states that are working on it, while others don't care - and that's where a federal accept of the treaty would help, it is to make the other states comply.
Tim Graham
I'm pretty sure Australia is actually the worst per-capita with regard to CO2 - cities at various ends of the continent with a lot of empty space in between, as well as very spread out cities (many of which with quite poor public transport, except for buses) has led to a dependence on cars and planes to get around.

We also produce most of our electricity from coal.

___

I think that China and India have a right to develop (within reason) and as such need a bit of slack with regard to emmissions targets - I think it's the developed countries with plenty of money that should be looking at doing much more - European countries have set a great example with regard to setting targets and taking action to reach them, as opposed to arguing about the technicalities of treaties and pointing the finger at others.

Just get on with it and do something, I say.
babumuchhala
Bondings wrote:
Some statistics, albeit about 2003 and apparently China now has more emissions than the USA, indeed. Fact is, this is partly due (difference between numbers) to the creation of lots of cement for roads and buildings. This is mostly a one-time emission as this won't continue for long. Also, another part is due to the production of items for Western countries (and with more pollution than Western factories, of course).

But I have to agree with you, Billy Hill, that China (and India) shouldn't be exempt from Kyoto and their continued increase in CO2 (and other) emissions is a threat to the environment. Apart from CO2, China is a very polluted country at the moment with a lot of stories reaching the world press. They will definitely regret it in the future.

That doesn't change the fact that the USA have the biggest emissions per capita, apart from some small oil-producing countries. And blaming the worst examples of other countries to make up that fact isn't a good idea, in my opinion. The USA should at least sign and accept the Kyoto treaty. The decrease (if the statistics are correct) is probably due to some states that are working on it, while others don't care - and that's where a federal accept of the treaty would help, it is to make the other states comply.
WOW you stole all my points and also the points Razz

Anyways, what you are saying is absolutely correct. We are just moving them from one part to another.

And for the record, India & China are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol. Infact they have ratified it. Whereas USA & Australia have not even done anything.

Another fact is that companies from UK are buying carbon credits from Indian & Chinese firms because their plants are much much more efficient and less polluting.
Tim Graham
babumuchhala wrote:
And for the record, India & China are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol. Infact they have ratified it. Whereas USA & Australia have not even done anything.
Depending on the outcome of our upcoming election this year that could very easily change in Australia's case - the US, I understand, are taking steps to completely remove themselves from the treaty altogether.
Bondings
Tim Graham wrote:
babumuchhala wrote:
And for the record, India & China are signatories to the Kyoto Protocol. Infact they have ratified it. Whereas USA & Australia have not even done anything.
Depending on the outcome of our upcoming election this year that could very easily change in Australia's case - the US, I understand, are taking steps to completely remove themselves from the treaty altogether.

I actually heard the opposite. Even Bush seems to be changing his mind a bit on this issue.
Billy Hill
Bondings wrote:
That doesn't change the fact that the USA have the biggest emissions per capita,


So the fact that the US's emissions are in decline, while just about everyone else is going up doesn't matter. The US is still the bad guy and don't care about the environment. Wink
bartdou
USA has emitted, CHINA is emitting, when China emits enough, it will stop by itself,
Billy Hill
bartdou wrote:
USA has emitted, CHINA is emitting, when China emits enough, it will stop by itself,


So China can still continue to increase pollution until they reach a certain quota, then everything stops?? Shocked
smarter
Billy Hill wrote:

Anyone still think the US' failure to sign Kyoto means we want to pollute more? Even after we have reduced our emissions?

Any other countries want to step up with their increase or reduction numbers over the last couple years? Or shall we just go ahead and take the US right off the list of environmental destroyers? Wink


yeah, right! Laughing

It's like a serial killer who usually has 10 victims every year and one year it happens to murder only 9 people. ... and proudly says to himself "I am a nice guy, aren't I?" Laughing

but a young killer arrives in town... 11 victims... the old killer thinks "They should give me a medal! And build me a statue too! 'cause I usually kill ONLY 10!"

comparison by country total is ludicrous (populous countries will always look bad) ... if you want to make comparisons use emissions per capita!
ocalhoun
Billy Hill wrote:
The US is still the bad guy and don't care about the environment. Wink

*cough*generalizationsborderingonflaming*cough*
Sure, everybody loves to hate the USA, but we did reduce emissions, despite having other things to worry about.
LumberJack
Billy Hill wrote:
jameszog wrote:
The chinese Ministry of Forign affairs disavow the case, they said CO2emission should be averaged by country's population.
actually,chinese is the biggest Confused victim to the CCP absolutist.


They can disavow all they want, but the fact still remains that China is the largest polluter in the world. If they've got the most people, perhaps they should be held more accountable and try to do something about it. China was exempt from from the restrictions of Kyoto. Gee, I wonder why?


The USA should have joined Kyoto and stopped the restrictions from happening. I blame the entire situation on America. Kinda reminds me of WWII, and how America was hiding as long as possible. ::sarcasm::

If you are all hot and bothered about China not being more environmentally friendly, DON'T BUY CHINESE GOODS. Make your congress boycott their goods, tax them.

Don't use the excuse, they aren't doing it so I don't have too either. It is just childish.

If you ignore global warming, you are just digging your own grave Smile
babumuchhala
ocalhoun wrote:
Sure, everybody loves to hate the USA, but we did reduce emissions, despite having other things to worry about.

But just how, did you reduce your emissions? Yes I agree the industries are talking pro-active action to reduce their emissions, but I don't see the government doing much.

Also most of your reduction is of the fact that you are shutting down factories in the US and moving them to China.

Plus I think this is a Global problem and we should not get bogged down by nationalistic feelings, we should all work together to reduce pollution levels in any level possible.
Billy Hill
babumuchhala wrote:
ocalhoun wrote:
Sure, everybody loves to hate the USA, but we did reduce emissions, despite having other things to worry about.

But just how, did you reduce your emissions? Yes I agree the industries are talking pro-active action to reduce their emissions, but I don't see the government doing much.


The government doesn't run everything Rolling Eyes

Quote:
Also most of your reduction is of the fact that you are shutting down factories in the US and moving them to China.


How's that for an opinion dressed up as fact after being pulled from an unspoken orifice? Shocked
ocalhoun
babumuchhala wrote:

But just how, did you reduce your emissions? Yes I agree the industries are talking pro-active action to reduce their emissions, but I don't see the government doing much.

Plus I think this is a Global problem and we should not get bogged down by nationalistic feelings, we should all work together to reduce pollution levels in any level possible.

The industries themselves are where the change should happen. I'm in favor of maintaining a free country (and even restoring some lost freedom). This means: less government services, less taxes, and less legislation/regulation. Smaller role of government all together. To that end, corporations (and individuals) reducing their own emissions on their own initiative is the ideal case.
A very good point. Corporations and individuals the world over should reduce their emissions. Why do governments need to be involved at all? (Except to force those who would not cooperate, something I don't agree with. As far as I'm concerned, it would be fine if the governments try to persuade people to do their part, but it would be wrong for the governments to force it, except in dire need.)

Global warming isn't the greatest threat to the environment anyway. Some more pressing concerns:
*Deforestation
*Population Growth
*Toxic Dumping (on land and at sea)
*Overfishing
Bondings
But Ocalhoun, why does a company care about the environment? Most commercial companies have as sole goal to make profits - that's the nature of a company. Unless there is some regulation and punishment (which only the government is able to do), there is no reason for a company to reduce pollution and CO2 emissions, as long as it doesn't directly harm the company (which it usually doesn't).

The problem is that public goods like the environment (quality of water, air, ...) are not calculated into the cost of production of companies. It could be that a product that makes 1$ of profit for a company causes thousands of dollars of damage to the environment in the form of pollution, like infecting the drinking water of millions of people. If the government would let the company pay for the damage in the form of taxes, then this product would never be made as it would cause huge losses to the company. And if the profit would still be higher than the damage/taxes, then the damage would be able to be undone/repaired by the government with the money from the taxes. I'm sure most economics would agree with this, at least this is what I've been taught.

When you say that the emissions decreased, then - if it were true, which I doubt - it isn't because companies themselves wanted it. It's rather because they were forced by the state they were located in and because they outsourced their factories to Asia.
inphurno
i find it funny when people wag their finger at india and china when it comes to Greenhouse gas emissions. its kinda like the older bully that beats on a kid for not giving him some money when he already took him lunch money earlier.

maybe that not exactly the case but we know that most indian/chinese citizens are not responsible for those emissions (directly or indirectly). [/b]the massive increase in emissions caused by those 2 countries are cause mainly by american multinationals moving their production to places where they can pay people less and polute more.

multinationals have moved their production to places where it costs them less to make whatever it is that they want to make. [b]2/3s (or more probably) of chinese citizens are not enjoying any significant change in their standard of living even with china's continous economic expansion.
the majority of chinese residents are not creating these emissions and the reason they need all those coal factories is to make goods that will be sold in the industrialized nations of the world.

it is the industrialized nations of the world that have outsourced their emissions because they have outsourced their industrial production.


the problem is that the emissions that come from the industrialized countries are caused by the actions taken everyday by all of its citizens since the majority of these emissions come through consumption choices.

i think maybe its more of a case of the pot calling the kettle black....

Revvion
Dous it really matter, its a problem of the world and as it stance we are all going to die and frankly i hope humankiend dies because if we cant solve this mess because of money its just playn pattetic.
quex
Yay statistics. Good catch, everyone who shot a second look at the numbers.

China is an interesting case, depending as they do upon massive amounts of coal and oil, and with so much of the country still in abject poverty. It's definitely more difficult to tell China to stop burning so much damn coal when they depend so heavily on it with no viable alternative available at the moment. The US, however, does not have the same excuse. On the whole Americans are wasteful with energy. The same old doctrine from the energy crunch in the 70s should still be applied today -- lights off when you leave the room, don't fall asleep with the TV on, drop the thermostat a few degrees in winter and wear a sweater, or open the windows and cut the air conditioning overnight in the summer.

Revvion, while I can't say I agree with your spelling, I can sympathize with your world view. How many of us, I wonder, have just thrown up our hands at one time or another and wished for the end of mankind? Definitely me, at least a dozen times.
lyddi8
Per capita, the US still has the highest CO2 rates in the world.
inphurno
quex wrote:

Revvion, while I can't say I agree with your spelling, I can sympathize with your world view. How many of us, I wonder, have just thrown up our hands at one time or another and wished for the end of mankind? Definitely me, at least a dozen times.


for those of you who have the same opinion as Revvion and quex, i would suggest doing something positive to help reduce your personal impact on climate change instead of waiting for everyone to die.

go to our website, use our calculator to find out what's your impact on climate change and follow the 5 simple steps we have outlined on our site to reduce your CO2 emissions in a significant way:

http://www.whatsyourimpact.co.nr
Billy Hill
inphurno wrote:
quex wrote:

Revvion, while I can't say I agree with your spelling, I can sympathize with your world view. How many of us, I wonder, have just thrown up our hands at one time or another and wished for the end of mankind? Definitely me, at least a dozen times.


for those of you who have the same opinion as Revvion and quex, i would suggest doing something positive to help reduce your personal impact on climate change instead of waiting for everyone to die.

go to our website, use our calculator to find out what's your impact on climate change and follow the 5 simple steps we have outlined on our site to reduce your CO2 emissions in a significant way:

http://www.whatsyourimpact.co.nr



Wait, let me guess... you're selling, *cough* carbon credits? *cough* ???

Bua.

Buahhahahah!

BUAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAhahahahahahaha

Laughing

Sorry. I'm back now.

I used up all my carbon credits raising the temps on Mars wiff my SUV. Besides, you still owe me credits from 30 years ago when it was global COOLING. Rolling Eyes
inphurno
Billy Hill wrote:


Wait, let me guess... you're selling, *cough* carbon credits? *cough* ???

I used up all my carbon credits raising the temps on Mars wiff my SUV. Besides, you still owe me credits from 30 years ago when it was global COOLING. Rolling Eyes


Actually we are not selling carbon credits or carbon offsets or selling anything else on our website, nor will we in the future. Our non-profit organization goals are to help inform people about what is really causing climate change, what is their impact on climate change and what can they do help reduce their emissions.


thanks for your comments Billy Hill
Billy Hill
inphurno wrote:


Actually we are not selling carbon credits or carbon offsets or selling anything else on our website, nor will we in the future. Our non-profit organization goals are to help inform people about what is really causing climate change, what is their impact on climate change and what can they do help reduce their emissions.




Oh.

Cuz I only saw one side of the story on your web site. And most things on your site are highly debated as being factual.

For example, you say most will be hurt by SLIGHTLY warmer temps, which is what's happening overall. Bottom line is likely the opposite, but you refuse to go in to that. Just as you refuse to put up both sides of any of the issues. How fortunate for you that most people will take your word for it without finding out the other side of the story.

You even go as far as to contradict yourself on your very own web site. Here, let me explain it to you in the hopes that you will remove this very obvious error.

Quote:
The reality of the matter is that the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence.1


You reference this:

Quote:
According to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), this era of global warming "is unlikely to be entirely natural in origin" and "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence of the global climate."


You forgot to look up the word discernible. It means

Quote:
dis·cern·i·ble (dĭ-sûr'nə-bəl, -zûr'-) Pronunciation Key
adj. Perceptible, as by the faculty of vision or the intellect. See Synonyms at perceptible.


Something that is PERCEPTIBLE is by NO means a MAJORITY. But you take it one step further. You say IT IS NOT A NATURAL OCCURRENCE.

How sad indeed that you not only have to lie, but you do it so obviously on your own web site.

Laughing
smarter
inphurno wrote:
i find it funny when people wag their finger at india and china when it comes to Greenhouse gas emissions. its kinda like the older bully that beats on a kid for not giving him some money when he already took him lunch money earlier.

wow, you live in a twisted world, bro!

Quote:
maybe that not exactly the case but we know that most indian/chinese citizens are not responsible for those emissions (directly or indirectly). [/b]the massive increase in emissions caused by those 2 countries are cause mainly by american multinationals moving their production to places where they can pay people less and polute more.

of course, they all are innocent! Laughing

Quote:
multinationals have moved their production to places where it costs them less to make whatever it is that they want to make. [b]2/3s (or more probably) of chinese citizens are not enjoying any significant change in their standard of living even with china's continous economic expansion. the majority of chinese residents are not creating these emissions and the reason they need all those coal factories is to make goods that will be sold in the industrialized nations of the world.

it is the industrialized nations of the world that have outsourced their emissions because they have outsourced their industrial production.

you don't need to repeat yourself! we've got your message. we now know the source of evil!

Quote:

the problem is that the emissions that come from the industrialized countries are caused by the actions taken everyday by all of its citizens since the majority of these emissions come through consumption choices.

i think maybe its more of a case of the pot calling the kettle black....

oh, yes, the surprising conclusion: All Westerners... guilty! Chinese, Indians ... completely innocent! Laughing

Brainwashed? Self-hater? Oh, no! An activist! Wink
bri4n5
Hey, I found this stats in NationMaster.com and i think i'll be useful for you.

Here's the link:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-environment-co2-emissions
inphurno
We are not looking to debate whether climate change is happening or not through our website. As i explained earlier we talk about the 4 main greenhouse gases, what are the main sources of emissions of those gases and through that what can individuals do to help reduce their emissions.

Our calculator is there as a tool to help people understand how they are personally impacting climate change but no where on the site do we go into the details of climate change because there are already many sites on the net to discuss/debate this. if you want to do that i suggest you go to those sites and if you dont beleive that climate change is happening well too bad.

now lets go into the part where you call me a liar. first of all both of the portions of text that you copied from my site are quotes and are not writen by me but by members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which is a scientific research group setup to analyse climate change studies and data from around the world. now lets look at what you claim is a contradiction:

1) "the balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on the global climate."
2) "the vast majority of scientists agree that global warming is real, it’s already happening and that it is the result of our activities and not a natural occurrence."


Billy Hill wrote:

Something that is PERCEPTIBLE is by NO means a MAJORITY. But you take it one step further. You say IT IS NOT A NATURAL OCCURRENCE.


the problem with your claim is that you try to make a false link between the scientific data and the actual scientists. the scientific data shows that there is a discernible human influence on climate change. by human influence they mean anthropogenic i.e. made by people or resulting from human activities and thusly IT IS NOT A NATURAL OCCURRENCE. that means that numerically it can be proven that climate change is being caused by humans and that this is PERCEPTIBLE by anyone with some intellect (as per your definition).

the fact that there is a majority of scientists (across many disciplines, that have written open letters through newspapers and magazines that can easily be found online) that beleive there is a PERCEPTIBLE problem, is not a contradiction and just because it is PERCEPTIBLE (and not flagrant or glaring) doesnt mean that a majority of people whether they are scientist or otherwise cant agree with the data.

i hope this clarifies in better terms what was trying to be explained on the site and thank you again for your comments
inphurno
smarter wrote:

inphurno wrote:

we know that most indian/chinese citizens are not responsible for those emissions (directly or indirectly).

oh, yes, the surprising conclusion: All Westerners... guilty! Chinese, Indians ... completely innocent! Laughing


in your quote of my post you can clearly see that i wrote "most indian/chinese citizens", so your twisting of the words that i wrote to come to the sarcastic and simplisticly false conclusion that what i was trying to say was: "All Westerners... guilty! Chinese, Indians ... completely innocent!" is typical right-wing propaganda.

the fact that i was trying to expose is that most people in the west are not aware of what is really causing emissions in india/china which is the transfer of multinational industrial production towards those countries. only a small amount of western, chinese and indian citizens are to blaim for the current state of affairs. the fact that most westerners are misinformed is mostly caused by the fact that if ever someone should have a different opinion than the right-wing they are instantly ridiculed just like you did in your post.
inphurno
bri4n5 wrote:
Hey, I found this stats in NationMaster.com and i think i'll be useful for you.

Here's the link:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/env_co2_emi-environment-co2-emissions


thanks bri4n5, i'll try to incorporate this information in the site!
Billy Hill
inphurno wrote:
no where on the site do we go into the details of climate change because there are already many sites on the net to discuss/debate this. if you want to do that i suggest you go to those sites and if you dont beleive that climate change is happening well too bad.


Oh. So the part where your site says

Quote:
... it is the result of our activities ...


or

Quote:
...After you have accepted the facts about climate change,...


or

Quote:
Some people like to pretend that climate change (which is caused by global warming) is not happening or that the changes that are happening are a part of the normal cycle of nature.


... it doesn't really mean that global warming is a, um... result of our activities It's not really saying that we, as humans, are mostly responsible for it....????

Then what does it mean??

Wink
inphurno
i think i clearly indicated through my posts and the website that global warming and through that climate change are cause by anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gas emissions. this not my opinion, it is a scientific fact and unless you are a scientist and you have load of scientific data/studies to prove otherwise, like i said before too bad

i said and you can also clearly read it in your quote of my post that we do not go into the details (ie with data or studies)of proving/discussing the facts about climate change. i make statements about climate change, like those you quoted from the website, but we don't and we won't go into the details of climate change. we do how ever discuss in a complete manner greenhouse gases, their main sources and how you can reduce your own emissions.

i fell like when i answer your posts i am repeating myself often. i dont know if your doing this on purpose to harrass me but unless you have real questions about the website and the information presented in it, i dont think i'm going to answer your posts. i also will not debate with you anything about climate change because i am not a scientist that specialises in climate change reasearch and i really doubt that you are either. thanks again for your comments
wxzt
China is only a developing country !

But USA. is not !

China is developing!

China has 1.3 billion people. Maybe, most of CO2 is from Chinese !
Billy Hill
inphurno wrote:
i fell like when i answer your posts i am repeating myself often.


Kind of like the way you're re-reading your own web site and not seeing the same lie I pointed out over and over??

Wink
inphurno
sure sure i'm lying about climate change... it doesnt exist little billy, do you feel better about yourself now?
Billy Hill
inphurno wrote:
sure sure i'm lying about climate change... it doesnt exist little billy, do you feel better about yourself now?


Reading and comprehension are key. I never NEVER said it didn't exist. But YOU (via your web site, which you refuse to acknowledge) said it WAS CAUSED BY MAN.

THAT IS NOT KNOWN. PERIOD! THEREFORE, YOU LIED ON YOUR WEBSITE.

Why is the English language so hard to understand?
inphurno
Billy Hill wrote:
Reading and comprehension are key. I never NEVER said it didn't exist. But YOU (via your web site, which you refuse to acknowledge) said it WAS CAUSED BY MAN.

THAT IS NOT KNOWN. PERIOD! THEREFORE, YOU LIED ON YOUR WEBSITE.


i'll say it again, anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change and this is on the website. there are coutless scientific studies backed by analysis and data that prove this fact that anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gas emissions are causing climate change. if you dont want to beleive that thats ok Laughing
Billy Hill
inphurno wrote:
there are coutless scientific studies backed by analysis and data that prove this fact


There are just as many that say the amount is negligible. If you don't want to believe that, that's up to you. But trying to persuade the general (ignorant) public that this hypothesis is fact when it clearly is NOT is wrong.

BTW, more and more of your "countless" scientists are changing their stories about what the main causes of climate change are. Wink
inphurno
Billy Hill wrote:
inphurno wrote:
there are coutless scientific studies backed by analysis and data that prove this fact


There are just as many that say the amount is negligible. If you don't want to believe that, that's up to you. But trying to persuade the general (ignorant) public that this hypothesis is fact when it clearly is NOT is wrong.

BTW, more and more of your "countless" scientists are changing their stories about what the main causes of climate change are. Wink


great news! Applause i'll go change the site now... Laughing btw i have to thank you, not only are you increasing my points and posts i'm getting more Frih$ss Dancing
Billy Hill
inphurno wrote:
Billy Hill wrote:
inphurno wrote:
there are coutless scientific studies backed by analysis and data that prove this fact


There are just as many that say the amount is negligible. If you don't want to believe that, that's up to you. But trying to persuade the general (ignorant) public that this hypothesis is fact when it clearly is NOT is wrong.

BTW, more and more of your "countless" scientists are changing their stories about what the main causes of climate change are. Wink


great news! Applause i'll go change the site now... Laughing btw i have to thank you, not only are you increasing my points and posts i'm getting more Frih$ss Dancing


A small price to pay for you to keep up your crusade of mis-information and scare tactics. Very Happy
inphurno
Billy Hill wrote:


A small price to pay for you to keep up your crusade of mis-information and scare tactics.


its funny cause when i think of crusades i think of christians killing people... i didnt know that the website was going to have that much of an impact... Laughing Laughing Laughing
Billy Hill
inphurno wrote:
Billy Hill wrote:


A small price to pay for you to keep up your crusade of mis-information and scare tactics.


its funny cause when i think of crusades i think of christians killing people... i didnt know that the website was going to have that much of an impact... Laughing Laughing Laughing


It's starting to make sense. You're understanding of English is lacking.

Dictionary.com Looked up CRUSADE and wrote:
any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc.:
inphurno
Billy Hill wrote:


Dictionary.com Looked up CRUSADE and wrote:
any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc.:


i guess killing people can be seen by some people like you as non aggressive... Dancing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing
and then you talk about my english Rolling Eyes at least i dont have to quote a dictionary every five seconds to make a point Wink Mr. Green Mr. Green Mr. Green Mr. Green
Billy Hill
inphurno wrote:
[at least i dont have to quote a dictionary every five seconds to make a point[/b]


At least I don't have to lie to make a point. Laughing Laughing Laughing
Billy Hill
Looks like Al Gore is AGAIN refusing to DEBATE GLOBAL WARMING!!! And that's too bad, because it's getting so bad...

We've infected the rest of the planets! Laughing Laughing Laughing


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pe8QjCfIFs

Quote:
Monday, Aug. 6, 2007 9:59 p.m. EDT

Gore Refuses to Debate Global Warming Theory


Best-selling author Dennis Avery is the next prominent figure to challenge the facts Al Gore is promoting in his global warming crusade. Mr. Avery is co-author of "Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1,500 Years." Both Al Gore and Dennis Avery have New York Times best-selling books on global warming, but with opposite conclusions.

The list of Al Gore detractors continues to grow as his extreme rhetoric and conclusions get dissected by scientists, economists, and researchers. Avery joins Lord Christopher Monckton (former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher advisor), Bjorn Lomborg (Danish economist), author Michael Crichton, Prof. S. Fred Singer (former director of the U.S. National Weather Service), Tim Ball, Ph.D. (historical climatologist), Prof. Ian Clark (University of Ottawa), and Prof. Richard Lindzen (MIT) among others.

Gore claims recent climate change is the result of human activities, and society must give up most of its energy supply to prevent global catastrophe. Conversely, Avery amassed physical evidence of past warming/cooling cycles and experimental evidence demonstrating variations in solar activity affect Earth's constantly varying temperatures.

"My book says our warming is natural, unstoppable -- and not very dangerous anyway," stated Avery.

"These books represent the two leading explanations for the Earth's recent temperature changes-and they conflict. If global warming truly is the most important public policy issue of our day, then it is high time the public got to hear the arguments from both sides matched up against each other," continued Avery.

Gore has refused all debate challengers to date. Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, noted, "Maybe it's because climate alarmists tend to lose when they debate climate realists. Or because most scientists do not support climate alarmism." The Heartland Institute has run more than $500,000 of ads in the Wall Street Journal, New York Times, and Washington Times promoting a debate.



Independent scientists have been taking apart the Global warming is mankind’s fault theory for some time now. The media can only sell alarmist hype so only one side of the story appears in the news. Plus few journalists can do the math or understand the technical language needed to determine who is telling the truth. Most media types are certainly not critical thinkers. Even O’Reilly can’t make his way through the tech talk.

None of the ‘Its man’s fault’ people will debate the ‘It’s natural warming’ people.

The ‘Its man’s fault’ people are doing everything they can to avoid debate and stop discussion. Attempts are being made to define anti-global warming speech as hate speech and make it illegal. Bye, bye free speech.



The claim that most scientist agree it is mankind’s fault is true. But only when you include all scientists from all fields. So, nuclear physicists, biologists, chemists, medical doctors, computer scientists, rocket scientists, and similar non-weather/climate related fields tend to buy what they hear in the news and agree. They don’t really know anything about it, but they agree. The fact that these types know a lot does not make them smart or any less gullible. When you limit the field of scientists to those that know something about the weather, the numbers turn around. Plus more and more of those that study weather and nearly all professional scientists in weather related fields and studying global climate change are on the side of ‘it’s natural’.

The most telling single fact is pointed out most dramatically by a Fred Thompson video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pe8QjCfIFs

Gosh the other planets are warming too!

Write Al Gore and ask him to debate global warming with one of the heavy weights in the field.

HONORABLE AL GORE

2100 West End Avenue

Suite 620

Nashville, TN 37203



Mr. And Mrs. Gore have no direct email address according to the Al

Gore Support Center.



AL GORE SUPPORT CENTER

http://algoresupportcenter.com/contactal.html



AL GORE.ORG

http://www.algore04.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=143&Itemid=78
LumberJack
<In reply to Billy Hill>

Denis Avery is sponsored and funded by the Heartland Institute, those same morons that are trying to convince us that smoking is not bad for you, and they are being taxed too much.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10594

Furthermore, Avery seems to be nothing special. Go hear for a critique of his so called book:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/avery-and-singer-unstoppable-hot-air/



Gore shouldn't be debating climate change with an idiot. I think I saw someone say that it would be the equivalent of Alan Greenspan debating economics with a communist party.

P.S. A crappy You tube video isn't really good support for your arguement Wink
inphurno
i think this is an excelent video to respond to Fred Thompson's video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-pe8QjCfIFs

this video is as dramatically telling if not more so in my opinion, but hey i'll let you guys decide:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=wZPj1ITLyDQ

youtube is one of the best places in the world to get videos, full of interesting stuff to watch!
Billy Hill
http://www.environmentaltalk.com/its-not-rocket-science/ wrote:
Remember how scared you were when, sitting in a darkened theater, Al Gore told you that nine of the 10 hottest years in history had occurred since 1995? Turns out you didn’t have to worry and you should have gone to see The Departed like you wanted to.

The NASA revisions for the hottest years now shake out like this:

Quote:
Four of the top 10 are now from the 1930s: 1934, 1931, 1938 and 1939, while only 3 of the top 10 are from the last 10 years (1998, 2006, 1999). Several years (2000, 2002, 2003, 2004) fell well down the leaderboard, behind even 1900.


80% of man-made CO2 emissions have occurred after 1940. This remains one of the more bothersome facts that keeps getting in the way of the whole humans-cause-global-warming theory.

Kudos to NASA for investigating and admitting the mistake. It couldn’t have been easy for them in the current political environment.

And shame on the continued attempts by climate change advocates to attempt to stifle dissent on a complex and unsettled topic.


Oh, um... Oops.
Billy Hill
LumberJack wrote:
Denis Avery is sponsored and funded by the Heartland Institute, those same morons that are trying to convince us that smoking is not bad for you, and they are being taxed too much.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10594


You discredited yourself very early on.

You should read a bit before you open your mouth and insert foot. On the very page of the link you provided, it clearly states that

Quote:
Defending smokers is a thankless task in today’s politically correct environment, and Bast doesn’t deny that smoking is an unhealthy habit. But today’s taxes and bans go far beyond a reasonable public policy response to a public health problem. Bast asks for a reasoned debate that respects the rights of smokers and the owners of bars and restaurants.


You lied.

Or you just talk talk talk without doing any, you know, reading beyond headlines? Rolling Eyes
Billy Hill
Billy Hill wrote:

You lied.


:crickets:

Dammit!

Quote:
two weeks ago they drilled for core samples in the ocean floor at Antarctica and found
Quote:
fluctuations that can shed light on what we can expect from global warming.



More evidence that the effects of this man-made global warming is traveling time backwards.

Laughing Laughing Laughing
LumberJack
Billy Hill wrote:
LumberJack wrote:
Denis Avery is sponsored and funded by the Heartland Institute, those same morons that are trying to convince us that smoking is not bad for you, and they are being taxed too much.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10594


You discredited yourself very early on.

You should read a bit before you open your mouth and insert foot. On the very page of the link you provided, it clearly states that

Quote:
Defending smokers is a thankless task in today’s politically correct environment, and Bast doesn’t deny that smoking is an unhealthy habit. But today’s taxes and bans go far beyond a reasonable public policy response to a public health problem. Bast asks for a reasoned debate that respects the rights of smokers and the owners of bars and restaurants.


You lied.

Or you just talk talk talk without doing any, you know, reading beyond headlines? Rolling Eyes


Now Now, not everyone lives on this forum. You need to be a bit more patient.

As for my article, it does prove my point. You just need to read the entire arguement. By calling it an unhealthy habit is the authors way of diminishing the hazards of smoking. It is very carefully scripted vocabluary to try and give their arguement some sort of credibility.

Unhealthy is eating too much. Putting a poison in your body is potentally deadly. Huge difference. They argue to eliminate the taxes and bans on smoking because it hinders smokers from enjoying smoking... thereby advocating smoking by eliminating the deterants of smoking.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if you replace smoking with Crystal Meth, would we? If the author claims Crystal Meth is "unhealthy" for you, and should be decriminalized and allowed in certain places, it would be clear that it still would be advocating it.

They are good writers, they can fool people that their arguement has some sort of merit.
LumberJack
Billy Hill wrote:
LumberJack wrote:
Denis Avery is sponsored and funded by the Heartland Institute, those same morons that are trying to convince us that smoking is not bad for you, and they are being taxed too much.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10594


You discredited yourself very early on.

You should read a bit before you open your mouth and insert foot. On the very page of the link you provided, it clearly states that

Quote:
Defending smokers is a thankless task in today’s politically correct environment, and Bast doesn’t deny that smoking is an unhealthy habit. But today’s taxes and bans go far beyond a reasonable public policy response to a public health problem. Bast asks for a reasoned debate that respects the rights of smokers and the owners of bars and restaurants.


You lied.

Or you just talk talk talk without doing any, you know, reading beyond headlines? Rolling Eyes


Now Now, not everyone lives on this forum. You need to be a bit more patient.

As for my article, it does prove my point. You just need to read the entire arguement. By calling it an unhealthy habit is the authors way of diminishing the hazards of smoking. It is very carefully scripted vocabluary to try and give their arguement some sort of credibility.

Unhealthy is eating too much. Putting a poison in your body is potentally deadly. Huge difference. They argue to eliminate the taxes and bans on smoking because it hinders smokers from enjoying smoking... thereby advocating smoking by eliminating the deterants of smoking.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if you replace smoking with Crystal Meth, would we? If the author claims Crystal Meth is "unhealthy" for you, and should be decriminalized and allowed in certain places, it would be clear that it still would be advocating it.

They are good writers, they can fool people that their arguement has some sort of merit.
Billy Hill
LumberJack wrote:
Billy Hill wrote:
LumberJack wrote:
Denis Avery is sponsored and funded by the Heartland Institute, those same morons that are trying to convince us that smoking is not bad for you, and they are being taxed too much.

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=10594


You discredited yourself very early on.

You should read a bit before you open your mouth and insert foot. On the very page of the link you provided, it clearly states that

Quote:
Defending smokers is a thankless task in today’s politically correct environment, and Bast doesn’t deny that smoking is an unhealthy habit. But today’s taxes and bans go far beyond a reasonable public policy response to a public health problem. Bast asks for a reasoned debate that respects the rights of smokers and the owners of bars and restaurants.


You lied.

Or you just talk talk talk without doing any, you know, reading beyond headlines? Rolling Eyes


Now Now, not everyone lives on this forum. You need to be a bit more patient.

As for my article, it does prove my point. You just need to read the entire arguement. By calling it an unhealthy habit is the authors way of diminishing the hazards of smoking. It is very carefully scripted vocabluary to try and give their arguement some sort of credibility.

Unhealthy is eating too much. Putting a poison in your body is potentally deadly. Huge difference. They argue to eliminate the taxes and bans on smoking because it hinders smokers from enjoying smoking... thereby advocating smoking by eliminating the deterants of smoking.

We wouldn't be having this conversation if you replace smoking with Crystal Meth, would we? If the author claims Crystal Meth is "unhealthy" for you, and should be decriminalized and allowed in certain places, it would be clear that it still would be advocating it.

They are good writers, they can fool people that their arguement has some sort of merit.


The back-peddling begins... Laughing

It's funny how when people get caught with their pants down and their dobber in the apple pie they try to deter from the facts. Wink

You were wrong. Admit it.

If you want any shred of respect, you should quickly and accurately detail just how, like you said, these people are trying to say smoking isn't bad for you.

... I'll be waiting in my frisuite, because we all know I'm a post-****** here, after 2 years and a couple hundred posts. Rolling Eyes
LumberJack
Because their entire article contradicts that sentence for the reasons stated in my post. Actions speak louder than words Billy Smile I am sorry you don't understand it. You might want to save some of those FRIH$ for yourself, you will need a lot to buy the common sense you need.
Soulfire
Um, so?

China also has what ... some 700 million more people than the U.S.? So, per capita, the United States is the world's worst polluter.
Billy Hill
Soulfire wrote:
Um, so?

China also has what ... some 700 million more people than the U.S.? So, per capita, the United States is the world's worst polluter.


Perhaps you missed the part where I said

Billy Hill wrote:
Quote:
In 2006, the total of China's CO2 emissions from fossil fuels increased by 9%. In the USA in 2006, emissions decreased by 1.4%.


(For those not as skilled with math or english, that means the US amount of pollution is GOING DOWN while China's is GOING UP.)

Laughing Laughing

In even more simpleton terms.

US pollution is decreasing..
China's pollution is increasing.

Kyoto... lmao. What a joke.
inphurno
Billy Hill wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
Um, so?

China also has what ... some 700 million more people than the U.S.? So, per capita, the United States is the world's worst polluter.


Perhaps you missed the part where I said

Billy Hill wrote:
Quote:
In 2006, the total of China's CO2 emissions from fossil fuels increased by 9%. In the USA in 2006, emissions decreased by 1.4%.




its funny how soulfire was talking about per capita emissions and you billy answered with information about total emissions, which dont really have any relevence... and i dont know if you know anything about math billy since you seem to be such an expert in everything but an increase or decrease of 1% isnt really something to be mentioned since statistical error could easily account for most of this whopping decrease of emissions... Applause Dancing Liar Razz Laughing Laughing Laughing
Billy Hill
inphurno wrote:
Billy Hill wrote:
Soulfire wrote:
Um, so?

China also has what ... some 700 million more people than the U.S.? So, per capita, the United States is the world's worst polluter.


Perhaps you missed the part where I said

Billy Hill wrote:
Quote:
In 2006, the total of China's CO2 emissions from fossil fuels increased by 9%. In the USA in 2006, emissions decreased by 1.4%.




its funny how soulfire was talking about per capita emissions and you billy answered with information about total emissions, which dont really have any relevence... and i dont know if you know anything about math billy since you seem to be such an expert in everything but an increase or decrease of 1% isnt really something to be mentioned since statistical error could easily account for most of this whopping decrease of emissions... Applause Dancing Liar Razz Laughing Laughing Laughing


Oh, gee... I guess the Kyoto Treaty works on a per capita basis?

Um. No. It doesn't.

It works on a per country basis. So trying to dismiss it's relevance is only a sign of ignorance and/or desperation. Shocked

Oh, gee... did I say 1%?

Well, yes, but I also said 9%.

You're right, I'm no math expert, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night, and I'd say 9% was well over the margin of error for China going up, and even if the US is below the margin, they're still at least not increasing. Wink

The problem with facts and lying about them, is that the more you try to prove you're right, the more wrong you become.
Related topics
climate change - hot topic (excuse the punn)
Kyoto Protocol
environment
Global Warming
Al Gore = :OWNED: (again)
Global Warming
African Exports to USA/China
Oceans may rise over 4 1/2 feet by 2100
global warming
Global Warming? are we at worlds end?
Tidal Waves Harnessed as Green Energy
UK Co2 emissions tax
currency war betwent china & usa
Climate: Forest in Europe and CO2 emissions 2012
Reply to topic    Frihost Forum Index -> Lifestyle and News -> Discuss World News

FRIHOST HOME | FAQ | TOS | ABOUT US | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
© 2005-2011 Frihost, forums powered by phpBB.