Global warming 2020

[shunyadragon]

Again, I think you're ducking the question. Please re-read.

You're ducking literally volumes of evidence from scientists world wide. You're reference was minimal, dishones and misleading.

 

[BSM1]

You're ducking literally volumes of evidence from scientists world wide. You're reference was minimal, dishones and misleading.

Okay. It's obvious you have nothing, so have a nice day.

 

[shunyadragon]

Okay. It's obvious you have nothing, so have a nice day.

My references include many societies and institutions around the globe and thousands of scientists. Your highly questionable reference refers to 500, some scientists, with no peer reviewed literature. Not much.

 

[Heyo]

You've yet to name a single scientist that had the courage to sign any document declaring "global warming/climate change" as anything more than speculation based on computer models. If you'll notice my post, you'll see just the opposite in comparison.

If all the scientists said that you have a 99% chance of dying when you jump from a 10 story building but not one of them would want to make a clear statement, would that be a reason for you to jump?

 

[shunyadragon]

Again, I think you're ducking the question. Please re-read.

Not ducking the question at all. I provided many references to support my case. Your post claiming 500 scientists, and by the way other non-scientists is no comparison to the references I gave where thousands of scientists world wide support global warming including the many scientific references I gave documenting Global Warming.

 

[BSM1]

If all the scientists said that you have a 99% chance of dying when you jump from a 10 story building but not one of them would want to make a clear statement, would that be a reason for you to jump?

Suppose no one had ever jump from a building and died, but all the scientists said, "sure, there's a 99% chance you'll die..." you would think at least one scientists would sign a statement supporting this position. But even with this non sequitur analogy, ALL the scientists do not support your CW/CC hysteria. This is evidenced by SIGNED statements from scientists refuting the ridiculousness of this claim.

Not ducking the question at all. I provided many references to support my case. Your post claiming 500 scientists, and by the way other non-scientists is no comparison to the references I gave where thousands of scientists world wide support global warming including the many scientific references I gave documenting Global Warming.

Okay...name one who has put his reputation on the line by signing (or even going on some media outlet) and personally stated that we are doomed because of this obviously subjective Global Warming/ Climate Change catastrophe (BTW, have you noticed how much your particular scare has shrank in the face of the newest global end-of-the-world bugaboo?).

 

[Heyo]

Suppose no one had ever jump from a building and died, but all the scientists said, "sure, there's a 99% chance you'll die..." you would think at least one scientists would sign a statement supporting this position. But even with this non sequitur analogy, ALL the scientists do not support your CW/CC hysteria. This is evidenced by SIGNED statements from scientists refuting the ridiculousness of this claim.

It is not that nobody has jumped from a building and died. It is that sometimes people jump from buildings and survive. To guarantee that you'll die would be unscientific.
It is also unscientific to guarantee a certain outcome of global warming. There are simply too many unknown factors. It is likewise unscientific to guarantee that global warming will not end in a catastrophe. Someone who signs such a claim is dishonest.

 

[BSM1]

It is not that nobody has jumped from a building and died. It is that sometimes people jump from buildings and survive. To guarantee that you'll die would be unscientific.
It is also unscientific to guarantee a certain outcome of global warming. There are simply too many unknown factors. It is likewise unscientific to guarantee that global warming will not end in a catastrophe. Someone who signs such a claim is dishonest.

The signatures were stating that there is no evidence of a climate panic. If there is, show me a signature.

 

[shunyadragon]

Okay...name one who has put his reputation on the line by signing (or even going on some media outlet) and personally stated that we are doomed because of this obviously subjective Global Warming/ Climate Change catastrophe (BTW, have you noticed how much your particular scare has shrank in the face of the newest global end-of-the-world bugaboo?).

The above is the usual pure nonsence! I never said anything of the sort as far as what scientists claim. By far the majority of scientists consider the the objective verifiable evidence is overwhelming that human have caused Global Warming is true,

 

[Shaul]

The U.S. CO2 emissions have been declining since 2005. Maybe you should tell the Chinese to stop increasing theirs. Good luck with that.

 

[Heyo]

The signatures were stating that there is no evidence of a climate panic. If there is, show me a signature.

"no evidence of a climate panic" - I think I could sign that. The evidence points more in the direction of a climate phlegmatism.
But I think that misses the point a bit. We are talking about the climate, you are talking about the social/political reaction to it.

 

[shunyadragon]

The U.S. CO2 emissions have been declining since 2005. Maybe you should tell the Chinese to stop increasing theirs. Good luck with that.

It is actually a world problem and not one country or the other. US emisions still are over twice that of China with a much lower population. USA remains the highest per capita production of CO2. The following interactive website provides a good perspective of CO2 emissions worldwide by country.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/

 

[shunyadragon]

The signatures were stating that there is no evidence of a climate panic. If there is, show me a signature.

Scientists do not claim a global panic, but Chicken Little is making the claim.

Simply Global Warming as caused by human CO2 and other Global Warming are the cause, and there are Global consequences like rising sea level.

 

[Shaul]

It is actually a world problem and not one country or the other. US emisions still are over twice that of China with a much lower population. USA remains the highest per capita production of CO2. The following interactive website provides a good perspective of CO2 emissions worldwide by country.

https://ourworldindata.org/co2/country/

Which doesn’t eliminate the fact that the U.S. has been reducing its emissions while China’s continues to increase. Per capita is irrelevant absent considering how much production per unit of emission is made. The U.S. simply produces more commodities per unit of emissions than most countries, including China. In other words, in order to maximize production of goods while reducing emissions countries should follow the U.S. lead.

 

[shunyadragon]

Which doesn’t eliminate the fact that the U.S. has been reducing its emissions while China’s continues to increase. Per capita is irrelevant absent considering how much production per unit of emission is made. The U.S. simply produces more commodities per unit of emissions than most countries, including China. In other words, in order to maximize production of goods while reducing emissions countries should follow the U.S. lead.

Look at the graph in the reference and you will see that the emissions of CO2 in China has not increased, but leveled off. No, China produces more commodities per unit of emissions and we buy them. We are a net importer, and China is a net exporter.

China is on a more aggressive program of alternate energies than the USA.

 

[Shaul]

Look at the graph in the reference and you will see that the emissions of CO2 in China has not increased, but leveled off. No, China produces more commodities per unit of emissions and we buy them. We are a net importer, and China is a net exporter.

China is on a more aggressive program of alternate energies than the USA.

Simple arithmetic contradicts this. The U.S. economy is 50% larger than China’s. It’s CO2 emissions are about a half of China’s. U.S. produces more with half the emissions.

 

[Heyo]

Simple arithmetic contradicts this. The U.S. economy is 50% larger than China’s. It’s CO2 emissions are about a half of China’s. U.S. produces more with half the emissions.

The problem with simple arithmetic is that it isn't applicable to complex problems. There are many factors that have to be considered. Just looking at the GDP doesn't cut it.
As @shunyadragon hinted at, when you consider where the products get used (imported) the numbers change dramatically. China is an export country. IOW if we'd produce all the things currently coming from China ourselves, those things wouldn't only be more expensive but the production would add to our emissions and be subtracted from Chinas.
The next thing is that the US doesn't have sinking CO2 emissions because of an active climate politics but in spite of a non existing one. The US as a nation is not a good example, the states that have reduced the emission are.

 

[shunyadragon]

Simple arithmetic contradicts this. The U.S. economy is 50% larger than China’s. It’s CO2 emissions are about a half of China’s. U.S. produces more with half the emissions.

The economy it self measured by GDP does not produce CO2 emissions. Yes the financial and services economy are much larger than China.

Manufacturing output* in China is the highest in the world combined with the size of the population are the major factors of CO2 emissions. The USA is the highest assembly industry, which contributes less to CO2 output. The manufacture of car parts produces more CO2 than the assembly of cars.

*Mapping Countries Manufacturing Output: China's Superpower vs. the World

China's manufaturing output is 4 trillion dollars, and the USA is 2.3 .trillion dollars. Asia is 52% of world manufacturing output, and North America is 18%, and Europe is 22%

 

[Shaul]

The problem with simple arithmetic is that it isn't applicable to complex problems. There are many factors that have to be considered. Just looking at the GDP doesn't cut it.
As @shunyadragon hinted at, when you consider where the products get used (imported) the numbers change dramatically. China is an export country. IOW if we'd produce all the things currently coming from China ourselves, those things wouldn't only be more expensive but the production would add to our emissions and be subtracted from Chinas.
The next thing is that the US doesn't have sinking CO2 emissions because of an active climate politics but in spite of a non existing one. The US as a nation is not a good example, the states that have reduced the emission are.

Nope. In this case the simple arithmetic is sufficient. The equation is simple, total production (GDP) divided by emissions gives production per emission. Attempts at misdirection won’t change those facts. “Export country”, “active climate politics”[sic], blah, blah. Nice try.

 

[shunyadragon]

Nope. In this case the simple arithmetic is sufficient. The equation is simple, total production (GDP) divided by emissions gives production per emission. Attempts at misdirection won’t change those facts. “Export country”, “active climate politics”[sic], blah, blah. Nice try.

ENRON bookkeeping does not help your argument.

he economy it self measured by GDP does not produce CO2 emissions. Yes the financial and services economy are much larger than China.

Manufacturing output* in China is the highest in the world combined with the size of the population are the major factors of CO2 emissions. The USA is the highest assembly industry, which contributes less to CO2 output. The manufacture of car parts produces more CO2 than the assembly of cars.

*Mapping Countries Manufacturing Output: China's Superpower vs. the World

China's manufaturing output is 4 trillion dollars, and the USA is 2.3 .trillion dollars. Asia is 52% of world manufacturing output, and North America is 18%, and Europe is 22%