Truth Detector

How profound of you to constantly attribute words where none have been spoken or jump off topic. But of course when you constantly avoid substantive debate and engage in your never ending trolling, can anyone expect less from you?

independent_thinker2002

You forgot "absurd.....specious.......liberals.......Comrade" .

Are you logically consistent or not?

__________________
☠☠☠☠☠

I am a Tiki Bar Tarte, you wanna mount Le Penseur Bronze

Iriemon

That MO could be applied to a lot of things about this administration -- the war on Iraq, energy policy, and the deficits and debt are a few things that come to mind.

Iriemon

You see a lot of profound thing in your world, doncha?

jfuh

Myth huh?
So just what definition of AGW fits into a myth?
Traditional? hardly.
an ideology? no
Unfounded or false notion - if you ignore the paramount of evidence it would seem like it.

Unverifiable? Nope it's quite verifiable and I've personally proved it multiple times on this site
a person or thing of imaginary existence? Nothing imaginary about it.
Why are anti-AGW crowd always in denial over science?
I assume that you think evolution is "just a theory"?

Jealousy ahh, right.

Generalizations based on mis-information so as to lay blame and ignore self responsibility.

4? Really? who are they? no seriously who are they. As for economic engine, hows that ~$5/gallon working out based on this we will not bother with alternative's, all is well and fine, nothing to see here move along mentality

Communist countries? Of course only communist countries have had a share of heavy pollution right?
And most importantly, since there are nations that are heavier polluters than we are then we are exempt from needing to concern ourselves with conservation and environmental protection right? Certainly seems like what you are eluding to.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

Truth Detector

You are suggesting that you can PROVE man caused Global Warming? Do share with me so that I may be better informed. But before you attempt to prove it is man, you will also have to explain what caused global cooling and warming before man walked the earth as well.

Again, you have to pay attention before you ramble along in a tirade, I am not questioning the fact that the earth is warming, that evidence is obvious, I am questioning and laughing at the notion that it is due to man.

But go for it, I could use some entertainment today.


I see you are adept at attributing words where none have been spoken. I never suggested we should exempt ourselves.....can you show me where I did?

Here, try to re-read what I typed with your blinders OFF:

"There are far worse polluters in this world. America is a shining example of the efforts over the last decades to balance clean air, clean water and the environment with sound policies that do not stifle the economic engine that puts food on the world’s tables, fuel in our gas tanks, heating oil for our homes and jobs for our citizens."

Carry on.

Truth Detector

You do a lot of trolling, dontchya?

shuamort

My point was that it seemed your post was from a position of unknowing the actual facts. Your statement:
I was recently in China again and visited a couple of cities, but stayed mainly in Beijing and Shanghai. I found the pollution to be on par with LA in Shanghai and Beijing similar to Chicago. More interestingly, I found the country to be far more capitalist than the United States. But, that's all from personal, first hand experience.

jfuh

I hope this is not a waste of time where you're just going to give me some nonsense response.
All too easy for before man walked the earth.
#1 atmospheric composition was not the same as it was then.
#2 orbital wobbel known as Milankovitch cycles.
#3 solar output cycles

So you have no problem with the fact that the world is indeed warming.
Fair enough that saves me time from proving that it is warming.
Then the rational is quite simple.
1. Solar output has been steady we are not at any point where there has been any observed change in solar output directly or indirectly. The sun does have 11 year maximum minimum sunspot cycles but earth's circulation and ocean currents buffer out any radical changes
2. We are not wobbeling any closer to the sun nor have we been in the last 200 years since the Industrial revolution.
3. Though volcanic eruptions do indeed release huge quantities of greenhouse gases they also release huge quantities of particles that reflect radiation back into space and actually cool rather than warm. AS well as the fact that anthropogenic output far exceeds that of planetry volcanic systems.
4. Nature emits orders upon orders of magnitude more in greenhouse gases than human beings ever produce, however, natures emissions are in equilibrium - IOW carbon neutral and can be observed in the carbon cycle.

Eleminated solar, stellar and all natural impacts on global climate for the last 200 years (where we see the warming).
By process of elimination look to your left and see the 5ton elephant in the corner. Anthropogenic sources.
Elimination not enough? Ok

Anthropogenic emissions are NOT in equilibrium with the environment. They are a net addition to what nature already produces. Planet is able to buffer out fast dramatic changes but over the course of time with incriments of greenhouse gases continuing what we see are an un-ignorable trend of the concentration of greenhouse gases coinciding precisely with temperature incriments.


I didn't say you did, I specifically said it seemed that you are eluding to.
But since that is not what you are saying then what relevance does bringing up that "other nations pollute worse than we do" have on the argument whatsoever? I hope you're not reaching for a tu quo quoi argument here.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me

jfuh

I too have been to both these cities multiple times, spanning since 1983 all the way up to 2007.
I've seen significant differences between the capitalization then and now. As well as pollution levels then and now.
China has deffinitively gotten far far worse in pollution.
But I do share the assessment of Shanghai vs LA to a certain extent.
If LA had the same humidity level that Shanghai has LA would be far worse (all else unchanged).
Chinese are far far less reliant on the internal combustion engine than Americans. The top method of getting from A to B in China is still the bicycle followed then by public transport and then followed far later by ICE's. However the car is quickly catching up and congesting cities creating an urban Ozone that traps pollution in the cities even more.
When I visited Beijing in 1998 it was terrible, I literally could not see much but sillouettes of buildings that were but a mere 100 meters away. My last visit to these two cities just last year though proved different. Beijing had seriously cleaned up - thanks largely to it's extended brand new light rail, as had Shanghai.
There are still several more rual areas that are subject to heavy industrial pollution but it is clear that they are cleaning up.
As is the case with the Shandong city of Rizhao, where get this, 99% of all heating is from solar energy and overwhelming majority of street lights get their power from solar panels.
Any such city in the US? Europe? Not that I know of.

__________________
The facts and science of the theory of anthropogenic Global warming
If you haven't already - please vote for me