• 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!

NYT: China, Moving to Cut Emissions, Halts Production of 500 Car Models

Jack Hays said:
Wrong all around. Most South American leaders would welcome regime change in Venezuela.
Presidents before Theodore Roosevelt avoided "international leadership." George Washington warned against international entanglements.
The evidence for AGW is surprisingly weak, and the scientific opposition is centered outside the US.

[h=2]Climate debate at the Cambridge Union - a 10 minute summary of the main problems with the standard alarmist polemic[/h]
Click to expand...

Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Excellent link! :thumbs: Shaviv writes so "non-scientists" can also "listen in" on a AGW discussion, and have no problem understanding what he's saying! Kudos to him! His statistics are valid and provable; he explains how they arrived at their scientific conclusions without belittling other scientists' work; and he never comes across as an arrogant "know-it-all" when he talks about AGW, like too many that do! That is what makes scientists like him and Svensmark so refreshing and interesting to read about!
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Excellent link! :thumbs: Shaviv writes so "non-scientists" can also "listen in" on a AGW discussion, and have no problem understanding what he's saying! Kudos to him! His statistics are valid and provable; he explains how they arrived at their scientific conclusions without belittling other scientists' work; and he never comes across as an arrogant "know-it-all" when he talks about AGW, like too many that do! That is what makes scientists like him and Svensmark so refreshing and interesting to read about!
Click to expand...

Greetings, Polgara.:2wave:

Glad you liked it.
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Jack. :2wave:

Excellent link! :thumbs: Shaviv writes so "non-scientists" can also "listen in" on a AGW discussion, and have no problem understanding what he's saying! Kudos to him! His statistics are valid and provable; he explains how they arrived at their scientific conclusions without belittling other scientists' work; and he never comes across as an arrogant "know-it-all" when he talks about AGW, like too many that do! That is what makes scientists like him and Svensmark so refreshing and interesting to read about!
Click to expand...

Shaviv's dismissal of the work of the vast majority of his fellow scientists as "alarmist polemic" is very arrogant.
 
Jack Hays said:
You're incoherent. I suppose that's easy.
Click to expand...

No analysis? No mention of even a single car model that fits your preconception? Oh, shocker!
 
Jack Hays said:
I'll waste no energy defending DJT. That does not mean I have to agree with nonsense.
The fact that Latin leaders would not want a US led war does not mean they would not welcome regime change in Venezuela.
Some US Presidents have in the past maintained relative isolation and some have imposed international order. Don't pretend either course is unprecedented.
As it happens, there's a new book detailing how that AGW consensus was manufactured. It's a political construct, not science.
Click to expand...

I'm sure they want stability in Venezuela, that doesn't mean they want violence.

There's a meaningful distinction between military isolation and diplomatic isolation. No president has ever forfeited so much power, especially not without anything meaningful to show for it.

AGW falls within the realm of science. It's not true that all science is perfectly accurate, but AGW is realistically the best available theory to explain the observations. It's more a matter of how severe the effects are from various contributors, and what other confounding variables can be activated in the process.
 
Jack Hays said:
I have no idea what you are going on about.
Click to expand...

You made an assertion about the motivations and effects of China's emissions move. However, you can't even name a single model affected by the ban, much less corroborate any favoritism found in the decision.

I can't make it any simpler.
 
Surface Detail said:
Shaviv's dismissal of the work of the vast majority of his fellow scientists as "alarmist polemic" is very arrogant.
Click to expand...

Greetings, Surface Detail. :2wave:

The interesting thing about Shaviv is that he has never been called arrogant by anyone, including his fellow scientists! :thumbs:
 
polgara said:
Greetings, Surface Detail. :2wave:

The interesting thing about Shaviv is that he has never been called arrogant by anyone, including his fellow scientists! :thumbs:
Click to expand...

That's because his fellow scientists are more polite than he is. I would call his dismissal of their work arrogant though.
 
Deuce said:
You made an assertion about the motivations and effects of China's emissions move. However, you can't even name a single model affected by the ban, much less corroborate any favoritism found in the decision.

I can't make it any simpler.
Click to expand...

I provided you a link to illustrate how China works. I don't care enough about the topic to do more.
 
Lord of Planar said:
You mean by doing what they could have all along?

I'll bet they allowed cars without modern pollution controls on them, and these are the models affected.

They still are a long ways from catching up with the USA on pollution control.
Click to expand...

Yes. They are still a long ways from catching up, but now they're moving in the right direction. Better than still doing the same old thing.
 
Jack Hays said:
I provided you a link to illustrate how China works. I don't care enough about the topic to do more.
Click to expand...

I know, that's what I'm pointing out ;)
 
Soopairik said:
Yes. They are still a long ways from catching up, but now they're moving in the right direction. Better than still doing the same old thing.
Click to expand...

Maybe they are moving in - what you call - the right direction because the American market will shrink for them and they have to look at the European one?!?
 
Barnacle said:
Maybe they are moving in - what you call - the right direction because the American market will shrink for them and they have to look at the European one?!?
Click to expand...

How is the American market shrinking?
 
Soopairik said:
Yes. They are still a long ways from catching up, but now they're moving in the right direction. Better than still doing the same old thing.
Click to expand...

China should not be praised for doing what they should have done long ago.
 
[h=2]Here is what’s holding back China’s plans for world domination[/h]
Australia may be the worlds largest exporter of coal, sending out 388 million tons in 2015, but China’s production of coal the same year was 3,747 million tons — nearly ten times as much, and nearly half of global coal production. But the Chinese coal boom is turning. David Archibald describes the geopolitical ramifications. For me, the next question is what stops China doing nukes? — Jo
PS: There is a rumor that Australia has only 4-5 days of fuel stocks today, and is especially low on aviation fuel. Anyone with info, please comment or email joanne AT this site.
________________________________________________________
[h=3]Here is what’s holding back China’s plans for world domination[/h]Guest post By David Archibald
One of the reasons that China produces the world’s cheapest solar panels, for example, is because it has some of the world’s cheapest coal-fired power
​
There is no doubt that China wants to subjugate Asia, echoing Japan’s role during World War II. For those who think China’s economy might overtake the United States economy, and thus make China a more formidable adversary, this article aims to provide detail on China’s main constraint in that ambition: that its domestic coal production is near its peak and will then go into long-term decline.
Even if China can keep its energy supply constant with an accelerated expansion of its nuclear power sector, the cost of producing coal from deeper mines will mean that the costs of industrial production will rise due to higher feedstock costs. One of the reasons that China produces the world’s cheapest solar panels, for example, is because it has some of the world’s cheapest coal-fired power. German solar panel-producers are hobbled by that country’s energiewende, which, translated from the German, means the miracle required to replace coal and nuclear power with sunbeams and breezes and still have a functioning economy.
Figure 1: The United States and China: Primary Energy Consumption by fuel in 2016.
​
To put China’s situation in perspective, Figure 1 shows the contributions to total energy supply in China and the United States in 2016 expressed in millions of tonnes of oil equivalent (data from the 2017 BP Statistical Review of World Energy). [Editor's note: One tonne, or metric ton, is equal to about 1.102 U.S. tons.] Coal absolutely dominates China’s energy supply. This would be good for China if its coal were going to last a long time. But China is depleting is coal endowment rapidly.
Figure 2: World Coal Production, 1830-2014.
​
One of the reasons why the U.K. dominated the Industrial Revolution is because it was the major coal-producer on the planet at the time. China now dominates world coal production with half the total.
…
​
Figure 3: UK Coal and Oil Production, 1853-2016.
What goes up in fossil fuel production must eventually come down. A classic case of that is the U.K., which provides two fossil fuel production peaks. That country’s coal production peaked in 1913 and, over the subsequent century, fell to a little over one hundredth of the peak production rate.
Keep reading →









 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom