• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Global Action on Climate Change is Dead

Renae said:
No, we disagree. You believe in political solutions to a natural event.

Tell me, VG, what is the stable earth climate?
Click to expand...

Who said the climate is always stable?
 
Goshin said:
it never was going anywhere.

Everyone wants everyone ElSE to sacrifice and give up things and suffer for it, while they carry on as normal.

individually, and nationally. Think Algore's giving up flying on jets? Ah, no.
Click to expand...

I would give up flying on jets in a heart beat, if trains made a comeback. And why shouldn't they? Trains are cooler than airplanes any day of the week. For one, you actually get to see the countryside as you travel. That's reason enough right there.

And we can connect to Asia through Alaska, and everywhere else in the world from there. Trains are the way of the future, forget airplanes I say. If you're wondering what this has to do with anything you said, trains are the key to everything. Remember that...
 
I was just thinking of the title of this thread:

Global Action on Climate Change is Dead

Why should we do any more than what we have done as long as other countries with large capital like China d not use state of the art power plants?

Serious?

They can build modern plants but they don't. Until the rest of the words comes close to our standards, I say we have done enough, because no amount of improvement on our part will do squat as long as other countries still use old technology.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I was just thinking of the title of this thread:

Global Action on Climate Change is Dead

Why should we do any more than what we have done as long as other countries with large capital like China d not use state of the art power plants?

Serious?

They can build modern plants but they don't. Until the rest of the words comes close to our standards, I say we have done enough, because no amount of improvement on our part will do squat as long as other countries still use old technology.
Click to expand...

Yes, you would say that wouldn't you? Climate change is a global problem, which requires a global solution. Other nations around the world, including China, are investing heavily into renewable energy. As a demonstration of the worldwide consensus and commitment, I have attached the IPCC 5th assessment report:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_SPM_FINAL.pdf

Here is a list of the authors.

Drafting Authors:
Lisa V. Alexander (Australia), Simon K. Allen (Switzerland/New Zealand), Nathaniel L. Bindoff
(Australia), François-Marie Bréon (France), John A. Church (Australia), Ulrich Cubasch
(Germany), Seita Emori (Japan), Piers Forster (UK), Pierre Friedlingstein (UK/Belgium), Nathan
Gillett (Canada), Jonathan M. Gregory (UK), Dennis L. Hartmann (USA), Eystein Jansen
(Norway), Ben Kirtman (USA), Reto Knutti (Switzerland), Krishna Kumar Kanikicharla (India),
Peter Lemke (Germany), Jochem Marotzke (Germany), Valérie Masson-Delmotte (France),
Gerald A. Meehl (USA), Igor I. Mokhov (Russian Federation), Shilong Piao (China), Gian-Kasper
Plattner (Switzerland), Qin Dahe (China), Venkatachalam Ramaswamy (USA), David Randall
(USA), Monika Rhein (Germany), Maisa Rojas (Chile), Christopher Sabine (USA), Drew Shindell
(USA), Thomas F. Stocker (Switzerland), Lynne D. Talley (USA), David G. Vaughan (UK), ShangPing
Xie (USA)
Draft Contributing Authors:
Myles R. Allen (UK), Olivier Boucher (France), Don Chambers (USA), Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen
(Denmark), Philippe Ciais (France), Peter U. Clark (USA), Matthew Collins (UK), Josefino C.
Comiso (USA), Viviane Vasconcellos de Menezes (Australia/Brazil), Richard A. Feely (USA),
Thierry Fichefet (Belgium), Arlene M. Fiore (USA), Gregory Flato (Canada), Jan Fuglestvedt
(Norway), Gabriele Hegerl (UK/Germany), Paul J. Hezel (Belgium/USA), Gregory C. Johnson
(USA), Georg Kaser (Austria/Italy), Vladimir Kattsov (Russian Federation), John Kennedy (UK),
Albert M. G. Klein Tank (Netherlands), Corinne Le Quéré (UK), Gunnar Myhre (Norway), Timothy
Osborn (UK), Antony J. Payne (UK), Judith Perlwitz (USA), Scott Power (Australia), Michael
Prather (USA), Stephen R. Rintoul (Australia), Joeri Rogelj (Switzerland/Belgium), Matilde
Rusticucci (Argentina), Michael Schulz (Germany), Jan Sedláček (Switzerland), Peter A. Stott
(UK), Rowan Sutton (UK), Peter W. Thorne (USA/Norway/UK), Donald Wuebbles (USA)

Here is a very small portion of the summary:

Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s, many of the observed
changes are unprecedented over decades to millennia. The atmosphere and ocean have
warmed, the amounts of snow and ice have diminished, sea level has risen, and the
concentrations of greenhouse gases have increased.

Also:

Concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O now substantially exceed the highest concentrations recorded in ice cores during
the past 800,000 years. The mean rates of increase in atmospheric concentrations over the past century are, with very
high confidence, unprecedented in the last 22,000 years.
 
Media_Truth said:
Yes, you would say that wouldn't you? Climate change is a global problem, which requires a global solution.
Click to expand...
Yes, it does need a global solution. that's why Trump exits such talks, because they are not really striving for solutions. If so, one primary agenda would be to require all now coal plants to be the state of the art designs. Not old technology. If we are to subsidize other countries, then we only subsidize state of the art.

Yet China still plans to build old technology coal plants in the future instead of using state of the art technology. They have so many extra trillions of dollars, they should be building state of the art, but they don't.

You really don't investigate anything, do you? Not all coal plants are equal, but politicians accept China's claim to build less, not caring that China should be build with new technology.

Those exceptionally important facts, simple escape you, because all that your prophets speak of is numbers rather than technology difference.

Media_Truth said:
Yes, you would say that wouldn't you? Climate change is a global problem, which requires a global solution. Other nations around the world, including China, are investing heavily into renewable energy.
<material that doesn't apply snipped>
Click to expand...
I see that went over your head.

Political agendas set by diplomats, who don't really care about the environment. They will do what they can do to increase their bosses popularity, buying the public votes with policy, regardless of if its good or bad. Just look at how the environment works to their favor. Any hot button issue for that matter. Thing is, some facts have to be silenced for this to work. Therefore, they leave the public ignorant of important details, by controlling what is financed.

Would you require a law perhaps that required equal spending to opposed studies?

Since most this research grant money comes from tax dollars, I would like to see such a stipulation put on it.

How about you?

Or would you fear increased papers showing the alternate scientific views, to take your advantage away?

You think the finding by the Koch brothers, Exxon, etc. is big money? Just wait until the government has to start offering grants to these alternate views at the rate of 50 to 100 times more than what the "far right" is already finding these causes with.
 
Lord of Planar said:
I was just thinking of the title of this thread:

Global Action on Climate Change is Dead

Why should we do any more than what we have done as long as other countries with large capital like China d not use state of the art power plants?

Serious?

They can build modern plants but they don't. Until the rest of the words comes close to our standards, I say we have done enough, because no amount of improvement on our part will do squat as long as other countries still use old technology.
Click to expand...

China invests more on renewable energy than we do
 
Lord of Planar said:
Yes, it does need a global solution. that's why Trump exits such talks, because they are not really striving for solutions. If so, one primary agenda would be to require all now coal plants to be the state of the art designs. Not old technology. If we are to subsidize other countries, then we only subsidize state of the art.

Yet China still plans to build old technology coal plants in the future instead of using state of the art technology. They have so many extra trillions of dollars, they should be building state of the art, but they don't.

You really don't investigate anything, do you? Not all coal plants are equal, but politicians accept China's claim to build less, not caring that China should be build with new technology.

Those exceptionally important facts, simple escape you, because all that your prophets speak of is numbers rather than technology difference.


I see that went over your head.

Political agendas set by diplomats, who don't really care about the environment. They will do what they can do to increase their bosses popularity, buying the public votes with policy, regardless of if its good or bad. Just look at how the environment works to their favor. Any hot button issue for that matter. Thing is, some facts have to be silenced for this to work. Therefore, they leave the public ignorant of important details, by controlling what is financed.

Would you require a law perhaps that required equal spending to opposed studies?

Since most this research grant money comes from tax dollars, I would like to see such a stipulation put on it.

How about you?

Or would you fear increased papers showing the alternate scientific views, to take your advantage away?

You think the finding by the Koch brothers, Exxon, etc. is big money? Just wait until the government has to start offering grants to these alternate views at the rate of 50 to 100 times more than what the "far right" is already finding these causes with.
Click to expand...

A law requiring opposing studies? Did you just say that? Studies are not supposed to go in with a predetermined answer. Holy cow!
 
vegas giants said:
So very very much. Kind of like what you are doing in the fight against Isis.
Click to expand...

Why are you deflecting?

So, then, just running your mouth as your "very much" contribution?

What is your prescription to both control and direct the climate of the planet?
 
code1211 said:
Why are you deflecting?

So, then, just running your mouth as your "very much" contribution?

What is your prescription to both control and direct the climate of the planet?
Click to expand...
I contribute as much to the fight against AGW as you do to the fight against Isis. I was quite clear on that.

Reduce CO2
 
vegas giants said:
I contribute as much to the fight against AGW as you do to the fight against Isis. I was quite clear on that.

Reduce CO2
Click to expand...

So, are you asserting that there has been no time in the last half million years that temperatures were warmer than now?

That would seem to be a prerequisite to buying into your supposition.

CO2 is currently higher by quite a margin than it has been during the last half million years.

Please demonstrate your belief with great links. Here, I'll get you started:

climate4you welcome

The last four glacial periods and interglacial periods are shown in the diagram below (Fig.2), covering the last 420,000 years in Earth's climatic history.


VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif

Fig.2. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature. The red square to the right indicates the time interval shown in greater detail in the following figure.
 
code1211 said:
So, are you asserting that there has been no time in the last half million years that temperatures were warmer than now?

That would seem to be a prerequisite to buying into your supposition.

CO2 is currently higher by quite a margin than it has been during the last half million years.

Please demonstrate your belief with great links. Here, I'll get you started:

climate4you welcome

The last four glacial periods and interglacial periods are shown in the diagram below (Fig.2), covering the last 420,000 years in Earth's climatic history.


VostokTemp0-420000%20BP.gif

Fig.2. Reconstructed global temperature over the past 420,000 years based on the Vostok ice core from the Antarctica (Petit et al. 2001). The record spans over four glacial periods and five interglacials, including the present. The horizontal line indicates the modern temperature. The red square to the right indicates the time interval shown in greater detail in the following figure.
Click to expand...

Nasa admits temp have been higher. Do you know why they are high now?
 
vegas giants said:
China invests more on renewable energy than we do
Click to expand...

That doesn't matter if they are still going to bud dirty coal plants rather than the es using state of the art technology.

My God...

Why do you think I don't know the advertised facts that are for political correctness?
 
vegas giants said:
A law requiring opposing studies? Did you just say that? Studies are not supposed to go in with a predetermined answer. Holy cow!
Click to expand...

No, a law that requires tax money to be unbiased for the research type, and equal in distribution.

Currently, the government agencies only fund what is politically motivated for them to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom