Xi Humiliates U.S. and Kerry While Kerry Grovels over "Climate Change"

[Twilight Hue]

Why? Smoking is harmful becomes false because a lot of doctors smoke?

Let's just say it's just not that serious an issue for them.

 

[exchemist]

So much for their trust in science.

I wonder how many climate scientists actually drive EVs, and have gone completely electric themselves , givin the dire and apoplectic times we are in, I'm sure they all do, right? They are not bull****ting people right?

After all , they do have frrontline knowledge and information and are immediately themselves reacting to the seriousness of their own findings right?

Yes, let’s introduce an irrelevant ad hominem, to enable you to avoid dealing with the issue.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Yes, let’s introduce an irrelevant ad hominem, to enable you to avoid dealing with the issue.

Don't like the reality of it all I see. OK.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Like usual. Nothing of substance is posted.

That was in response to, "It's not an ad hom, it's just an observation about your post. It would be an ad hom if I said it invalidated your argument, but wait, you didn't make an argument." He was trying to teach you something about the academic use of the term. Name-calling separate from an argument is insult. Insult intended to falsify an argument by discrediting its source is a logical fallacy called an ad hominem fallacy. In your defense, the phrase as you used it seems to be coming into vogue and will be considered acceptable usage eventually if not already, but one should still be aware of the original meaning and how it differs from this newer one, and making that clear cannot be called, "nothing of substance."

I use real actual world evidence via a different way, my canary in the mines, also called the leadership. It's what the leadership itself does in real life that tells the real truth.

You're looking at the wrong evidence. The reactions of lay people are not a proxy for the scientific evidence, although I think recent air conditioner sales under the heat dome compared to data from a few years ago might be a useful proxy there.

You can continue making your activist doomsday statements, make your activist doomsday signs and make failed doomsday predictions till the cows come home.

Just don't be the last to wake up if you own a home in an area that is becoming less habitable and therefore less desirable to live in due to worsening heat, fire, drought, tornadoes, hurricanes, etc.. Right now, there are plenty of climate deniers to buy your insurable home at full value, and you can get top dollar probably most everywhere in the States. You can still sell coastal property in Florida at a high price, but when that property becomes uninsurable, which is already happening, it will become a game of musical chairs to see who gets stuck with it and has to watch it be destroyed uninsured. How long do you think Mar-a-Lago has before a hurricane destroys it?

I wonder how many climate scientists actually drive EVs, and have gone completely electric themselves

That would be a poor proxy even for following what other people do as your guide. EVs and charging stations are just becoming viable options, and many can't afford them or aren't ready for a new car yet. Our friends in San Diego just bought a Tesla and had a charging station installed into their garage, but went solar years ago. So did we, but we're not ready for a new car and won't purchase an electric vehicle until we need a new car. Should you interpret that as meaning that I don't practice what I preach and therefore the science must be wrong?

That's true, the climate has changed. The question is, how dire or bad is it?

We know, or we can know, but one needs to look at the proper evidence and know how to interpret it. Things are quite dire NOW in ways positively linked to greenhouse gas emissions. We have already passed the first tipping point. We've gone from catastrophe is coming to catastrophe has arrived for some and are on our way to more widespread catastrophe.

 

[Yerda]

No. I'm waiting for people to actually practice what they preach.

They are preaching for national level intervention and international industrial cooperation to mitigate the risks. The scientists are doing their part, the public are mostly doing their part, but public policy all over the world is log-jammed by the denial industry.

Just to reiterate, the message is not that everyone should buy electric cars (though I'm sure this would make a small positive impact) it is that breaching certain limits in terms of atmospheric carbon comes with huge risks. The only way to mitigate these risks is through international cooperation between governments.

I can understand that you don't want to accept something that renders your worldview completely absurd. I'd probably struggle with that too.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Then it's a matter of seeing what those people are actually doing on a personal level to reflect what they are saying.

That would be different argument. If they are suggesting a different policy for themselves than everyone else, that would be hypocritical or elitist. It doesn't change the matter of needing to do something to mitigate the damage.

 

[Father Heathen]

They don't use electric power themselves, then they are clearly hypocrites and not to be used as an example as to how dire it is.

And how do you know this about the scientists?

 

[exchemist]

Don't like the reality of it all I see. OK.

Not at all. The "reality" is what I have been describing, i.e. the major action that has been, and is, and will be, taking place on regulation and investment in low carbon technology, by governments and industry. Personally, since you seem to determined to make this about individuals, rather than the issue, I am actually quite encouraged to see the seriousness with which this is now being taken, right across the globe, though there is a lot more to be done - and urgently.

Whereas your whining about imagined hypocrisy (for which you have zero evidence) by climate scientists is utterly beside the point.

I am no eco-warrior by the way. I had a career with Shell for over 30 years. But that has given me an insight into the fuel and technology needs of transport and the power generation industry, which is why I am perhaps better informed than some on this topic, and why it interests me. As it happens, I have taken prudent steps myself to reduce my carbon footprint, spending about £20k on getting a heat audit of the house, improving insulation etc., but I can't go further until our government makes up its mind what it wants to do on home heating. My next car will be electric, but as I only clock up about 3000miles/yr, using the bicycle and (electric) public transport for most purposes, there is no carbon advantage in changing my 19 yr old, 1.4litre engine VW for an electric one, due to the carbon intensity of the manufacturing of a new car. My best bet is to run this car as long as I can and then buy electric. This will allow for the charging network to develop further, too. Electricity in the UK is now about 30% carbon-free and climbing, the rest being gas which, as I've previously mentioned, has 60% of the carbon emissions of coal.

You, I imagine, sit fatly in your armchair, hunting for more excuses to do nothing and complain .

 

[Twilight Hue]

Not at all. The "reality" is what I have been describing, i.e.the major action that has been, and is, and will be, taking place on regulation and investment in low carbon technology, by governments and industry.

Whining about imagined hypocrisy (for which you have zero evidence) by climate scientists is utterly beside the point.

Like I said, not at all important.

People don't trust hypocritical climate scientists, study finds

 

[Twilight Hue]

That would be different argument. If they are suggesting a different policy for themselves than everyone else, that would be hypocritical or elitist. It doesn't change the matter of needing to do something to mitigate the damage.

That's why you need leadership by example. Not a leadership going by just talking points and nothing else.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Not at all. The "reality" is what I have been describing, i.e. the major action that has been, and is, and will be, taking place on regulation and investment in low carbon technology, by governments and industry. Personally, since you seem to determined to make this about individuals, rather than the issue, I am actually quite encouraged to see the seriousness with which this is now being taken, right across the globe, though there is a lot more to be done - and urgently.

Whereas your whining about imagined hypocrisy (for which you have zero evidence) by climate scientists is utterly beside the point.

I am no eco-warrior by the way. I had a career with Shell for over 30 years. But that has given me an insight into the fuel and technology needs of transport and the power generation industry, which is why I am perhaps better informed than some on this topic, and why it interests me. As it happens, I have taken prudent steps myself to reduce my carbon footprint, spending about £20k on getting a heat audit of the house, improving insulation etc., but I can't go further until our government makes up its mind what it wants to do on home heating. My next car will be electric, but as I only clock up about 3000miles/yr, using the bicycle and (electric) public transport for most purposes, there is no carbon advantage in changing my 19 yr old, 1.4litre engine VW for an electric one, due to the carbon intensity of the manufacturing of a new car. My best bet is to run this car as long as a I can and then buy electric. This will allow for the charging network to develop further, too. Electricity in the UK is now about 30% carbon-free and climbing, the rest being gas which, as I've previously mentioned, has 60% of the carbon emissions of coal.

You, I imagine, sit fatly in your armchair, hunting for more excuses to do nothing and complain .

I'm still going to use fossil power until proper leadership arrives that leads by personal example and not just their mouths.

Sorry Charlie.

If it's not pressing for them, it's not pressing for me.

 

[exchemist]

I'm still going to use fossil power until proper leadership arrives that leads by personal example and not just their mouths.

Sorry Charlie.

If it's not pressing for them, it's not pressing for me.

What ballocks. "Leadership" on an issue as big as this comes from political leaders.

And you have no evidence of hypocrisy by climate change scientists. All there is in that article you linked was something about flying. In the USA there is no realistic alternative to that, as the article in fact concedes. And since flying is only responsible for 2% of carbon emissions, as I previously pointed out, it is not that big an issue. You have no evidence of any other behaviour by climate scientists that is inconsistent with climate change goals.

 

[Twilight Hue]

What ballocks. "Leadership" on an issue as big as this comes from political leaders.

And you have no evidence of hypocrisy by climate change scientists. All there is in that article you linked was something about flying. In the USA there is no realistic alternative to that, as the article in fact concedes. And since flying is only responsible for 2% of carbon emissions, as I previously pointed out, it is not that big an issue. You have no evidence of any other behaviour by climate scientists that is inconsistent with climate change goals.

Again just your opinion.

COP27: A Parade Of Climate Hypocrisy

The current UN climate summit in Egypt offers more breathtaking hypocrisy than usual, because the world’s rich are zealously lecturing poor countries about the dangers of fossil fuels—after devouring massive amounts of new gas, coal, and oil.

www.forbes.com

There's plenty of evidence of hypocrisy. Even some admitted their own behavior can be scrutinized.

Climate Scientists' Personal Carbon Footprints Come Under Scrutiny - Inside Climate News

Abigail Swann makes a point of telling students what she’s doing to reduce her own carbon footprint when teaching about potential climate change solutions—such as biking to work or eating less meat. Swann, an assistant professor of atmospheric science and biology at the University of Washington...

insideclimatenews.org

You just refuse to acknowledge it and pretend it isn't there. Plugging your ears and covering your eyes and going la la la la I suppose?

 

[jbg]

I hate to say this, but you don't know what you're talking about and seem oblivious to the overwhelming scientific analysis and consensus on this.

That "scientific analysis and consensus" is much like the bankruptcy bar's (of which I am a proud "member" since it's not official) "mutual admiration society" when professionals support each other's fees and praise work to the sky that they attacked weeks before.

 

[metis]

That "scientific analysis and consensus" is much like the bankruptcy bar's (of which I am a proud "member" since it's not official) "mutual admiration society" when professionals support each other's fees and praise work to the sky that they attacked weeks before.

Oh, I see, it's all just a conspiracy theory and you know better, right?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yea , well then you can ride your no trick gish gallop pony into the sunset.

Bye bye.


.

Don't get mad just because you were wrong. I gave you options. You were unwilling to accept any of them.

If you do not like this sort of treatment there is an easy cure: Avoid improper debating techniques in the future.

When one has to use improper debating techniques it only tells others that one has no evidence for one's beliefs.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why? Smoking is harmful becomes false because a lot of doctors smoke?

Yes. And I have proof!

And not just doctors Dentists too:

 

[Father Heathen]

That's true, the climate has changed. The question is, how dire or bad is it?

If a scientist or politician spouts off the urgency for drastic measures and the need to reduce carbon emissions or whatever, and then goes off and drives off in his or her fossil fuel vehicle, it pretty much shows how serious that person him or herself is taking it.

If they don't take it seriously, and don't seem all that concerned on a personal level by way of their habits in spite of what they are saying to others, then there is absolutely no valid reason why anyone else should either.

Lead by example, or don't lead at all.

Again, lone individuals don't produce the amount of carbon that whole industries do. Your expectations are nonsensical. And calling it "alarmist" while we're actively observing and experiencing melting ice caps, rising sea levels, and record high temperatures that are resulting mass die-offs of wildlife is beyond idiotic.

Seriously, why lick the boots of fossil fuel lobbyists? Is it tasty or something?

 

[exchemist]

Again just your opinion.

COP27: A Parade Of Climate Hypocrisy

The current UN climate summit in Egypt offers more breathtaking hypocrisy than usual, because the world’s rich are zealously lecturing poor countries about the dangers of fossil fuels—after devouring massive amounts of new gas, coal, and oil.

www.forbes.com

There's plenty of evidence of hypocrisy. Even some admitted their own behavior can be scrutinized.

Climate Scientists' Personal Carbon Footprints Come Under Scrutiny - Inside Climate News

Abigail Swann makes a point of telling students what she’s doing to reduce her own carbon footprint when teaching about potential climate change solutions—such as biking to work or eating less meat. Swann, an assistant professor of atmospheric science and biology at the University of Washington...

insideclimatenews.org

You just refuse to acknowledge it and pretend it isn't there. Plugging your ears and covering your eyes and going la la la la I suppose?

No it's not just my opinion, it's a fact. That article you linked has no evidence of any hypocritical behaviour. All it says is that perceptions of hypocritical behaviour turn people off. Which is hardly surprising, but an important point for those educating the public to bear in mind.

Of course the degree to which individuals have adapted their lifestyles will vary greatly. For a start, their options are limited by what is available to them, at a cost they can personally afford. Which comes back to actions of governments and actions of industry, as I have been saying all along. For anyone in the business of publicising the science in the USA, there is little alternative to getting on a plane. It's a huge country with lousy railways. And if you don't publicise the science, the message won't get through, - and then the governments (at state and federal level) won't pass the necessary measures through the legislature, and then industry won't see the level competitive playing field that motivates them to make the changes required to their products.

This nonsense of yours here is merely the last in a line of excuses you have been putting forward for pretending to yourself the problem can be ignored. But what you think doesn't matter. The changes are happening, whether you like them or not, because government and industry can see the danger, even if people like you refuse to:

 

[Twilight Hue]

No it's not just my opinion, it's a fact. That article you linked has no evidence of any hypocritical behaviour. All it says is that perceptions of hypocritical behaviour turn people off. Which is hardly surprising, but an important point for those educating the public to bear in mind.

Of course the degree to which individuals have adapted their lifestyles will vary greatly. For a start, their options are limited by what is available to them, at a cost they can personally afford. Which comes back to actions of governments and actions of industry, as I have been saying all along. For anyone in the business of publicising the science in the USA, there is little alternative to getting on a plane. It's a huge country with lousy railways. And if you don't publicise the science, the message won't get through, - and then the governments (at state and federal level) won't pass the necessary measures through the legislature, and then industry won't see the level competitive playing field that motivates them to make the changes required to their products.

This nonsense of yours here is merely the last in a line of excuses you have been putting forward for pretending to yourself the problem can be ignored. But what you think doesn't matter. The changes are happening, whether you like them or not, because government and industry can see the danger, even if people like you refuse to:

View attachment 79876

Again just your opinion.