Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2014 - 12:50pm PT
|
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 11, 2014 - 02:30pm PT
|
Sketch, does your face resemble a jackass, because you sure act like one.
I thought you said you were done with this, but I suppose that was just another non-sincere statement from you.
Here, in the style you like, a blow-by-blow:
Lie.
I didn't quote a "blog" Sketch, try again.
Not a lie, I quoted a post on SuperTopo, and I referenced that post. Honest as can be.
However, I did later research the source of the original quote and found it didn't originate from The New Yorker magazine, as stated. And yeah, I admitted it was from a blog after I discovered the source. You might call it a lie, but it wasn't.
And why do I feel like I'm in a courtroom when you attack me? I suppose it's because you're a jackass.
No Sketch, no, that's not how this started.
Yep, and as soon as I looked deeper into it, I realized I was wrong and wrote that up in an apology. And yeah, this is a big time fault of mine, making a false claim about where you got butt-hurt. I guess it still hurts, eh?
Lie.
You fully misrepresented what I said.
And... you did misrepresent me. Funny you should bring that up (because this is one of your lies).
Poor butt-hurt Sketch. I think that not being able to sit makes him grumpy and mean spirited.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 11, 2014 - 02:38pm PT
|
HT - Still nothing on China?
Sketch, still unable to do simple research?
Hey buddy, there is this internet site called "Google." It's really good at finding stuff for the curious mind.
For example, I typed in "China reducing co2 emmissions". Heck, I found all kinda of recent articles.
Still unable to think for yourself? Here, some links from my "Google" search:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/chinas-choice/2013/nov/21/china-air-pollution-carbon-emissions
http://china.org.cn/environment/warsaw_climate_talks/2013-11/21/content_30663021.htm
http://eponline.com/articles/2014/01/13/china-regulats-co2-emissions.aspx
Hey, we all realize it's a big problem, and some of the larger polluters are starting to move in a positive direction. True, not enough soon enough, IMO, but there is some movement.
BTW, while China is still the largest CO2 polluter, it's the US who is the largest per capita.
G. O. O. G. L. E. Try it sometime. You might find it educational.
|
|
wilbeer
Mountain climber
honeoye falls,ny.greeneck alleghenys
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2014 - 02:40pm PT
|
No explanatory writing,No lies,this is what has happened.
Keep up your denial,your legacy will be affected.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 11, 2014 - 02:43pm PT
|
i,m jus say'in that the climate has changed alot in even the last 10,000 yrs.
BLUEB. This thread is thousands of posts long, and we've covered everything you've mentioned in previous posts. Go back and do some research here (and using G.O.O.G.L.E.), and come back when you can make an educated remark.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 11, 2014 - 04:51pm PT
|
Sketch, why do you find a need to continually misrepresent what I said?
Your loved ones must hate it when you do that to them.
what you really mean, but don't say is "you realized you were wrong after I repeatedly spelled it out for you"
Actually, what I didn't say is that you looked like a fool to me, asking me from where I got the quote when my post clearly stated I got it from another post. I should have known, you were baiting for an argument.
___
I'm kind of getting used to it. When Sketch posts, it usually an attack of some sorts. Then, he misrepresents what people say to bait them into arguing. I suppose whatever floats the troll's boat. But it is tiring, and that behavior pulls the whole forum down. Just look at the number of posts talking about what a hole this place has turned into.
Sketch, the guy who I'll always remember as the one who continually yelled "But you never quoted me!" Time to grow up dude.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jun 11, 2014 - 05:12pm PT
|
World leaders and those leading institutions that are permitting this crime to continue must be held accountable for their inactions. An interesting concept.
With WWII/Bosnia war crimes as a precedent. Knowingly contributing to indiscriminate mass death.
So how does one prove it was knowingly?
I mean besides the Koch Bros.
Can't expect the Faux News retards to know the facts.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 11, 2014 - 06:47pm PT
|
Misrepresent what you said?
What are you referring to?
Gosh Sketch, I highlighted in bold your misrepresentation, thinking that it would be obvious. Didn't see the bold? Here, again, is you misrepresenting what I said; a direct quote of yours:
... what you really mean, but don't say is "you realized you were wrong after I repeatedly spelled it out for you"
No Sketch, no. That is not what I really meant.
Why did you twist my words so? Doing this seems to come so naturally to you, and you don't even realize it--I have to wonder, do you do this to the people you are close to? They must hate you for that.
And you say I started with the cheap shot?
Ever notice how Sketch demands you do his research for him?
Only because so many of you lefties make bullshit claims (read: LIES).
Who took the cheap shot here, me noticing that you're always asking others to do research that you could do, or you saying "you lefties make bullshit claims ..."
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 05:30am PT
|
So china's energy use per capita is still going to be less than USA's energy use per capita for 26 more years even though it increase fast. Interesting.
I still believe that it is interesting to look at numbers per capita and also look at numbers based on what is produced in a country when comparing countries. The numbers make more sense if that is done.
My guess it that it is easier to lower pollutions if you start at a high level than if you start at a low level.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 05:49am PT
|
Only convenient to use per capita in numbers that depends on number of citizens in a country?
Why don't we just put a ceiling on maximum pollution for every country so that small countries like Island can do whatever they want and large countries like USA need to make a lot of changes?
We could say that every country only is allowed 1 million cars. No problem for island but maybe for USA?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jun 12, 2014 - 07:29am PT
|
China's pollution levels have skyrocketed since climate change became a global concern. US levels have remained unchanged, possibly falling a little. You seem to be saying China gets a pass because they missed out on the last century. China contributes 29% of the planet's CO2 emissions. China, India and Russia account for more than half.
Yes, as large "third-world" countries emerge into the 4th-world, their energy needs start to sky-rocket. Everybody wants the goods and services that we take for granted here in the firth-world of the USA.
And once you have the speed, you don't want to go back to crawling.
The problem is that the cost of the speed isn't factored in at the pump. Corporations have been getting a free ride on the "down river" costs, and they enjoy record, massive profits as a result.
Dig up and burn those resources. As long as you own the rights to the dig, you don't have to worry about hole you left behind.
Ecology of Commerce is an older book now, about factoring in the true cost of things up front. If this were the case, then consumers would make wise choices based on the reality of what things actually cost, and you would never see planned obsolescence.
As for China, factor in the real costs and Bingo, their industrial growth with be cut down with one swift backhand.
It's true, the whole world's economies would reel, and it would take a century to begin gaining on a real, sustainable standard-of-living that is anything close to what we see today. But when we don't do that, one century from now the standard-of-living is going to be like WWI in the trenches, if we're lucky.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 08:30am PT
|
It's convenient that you only seem interested in per capita comparisons to the US. Obviously, the US is one of the worst polluters on the planet. But you continually seem to be saying that China's pollution should not be criticized until it matches the US on a per capita basis.
Not really, I just find it stupid that you and many other americans seems to think that China is the main problem when you (and also many western countries) are the main problem and have been for a long time.
China's pollution levels have skyrocketed since climate change became a global concern. US levels have remained unchanged, possibly falling a little.
This is like complaining about your neighbor buying a car because you have decreased your families driving with one percent in your 3 cars.
Developing countries that also produce a lot of things are going to need to use more energy. Or do you really suggest that one car for each person and air condition should be ok where you live but other countries should only be allowed to have one scooter each and air condition should be forbidden?
You seem to be saying China gets a pass because they missed out on the last century. China contributes 29% of the planet's CO2 emissions. China, India and Russia account for more than half.
What about the per capita numbers? That 3 very large countries contributes to a large part of the world wide emissions is not really that strange when a large part of world have very low emissions.
No one should get a pass but we should also be realistic and fair.
If we're honestly interested in reducing CO2 levels, then the largest polluters need to step up.
Yes, and this should of course be based on per capita numbers. Large countries shouldn't need to do more than small countries. The boarders doesn't matter.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 09:27am PT
|
haha, I guess that per capita is just a communist concept that is invented by the conspiring scientist or something.
Large countries are the main problem! The problem is the size of the countries and not the emissions.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 09:41am PT
|
So sketch, what is your solution? That countries like, china, india, many asian countries, most of african countries and most of south american countries should not be allowed to develop, have a growing economy, live in houses at least similar to yours, own cars, etc? In short to have living conditions similar to yours. That those people need to live under a much lower standard than you do so the world can solve the problems that the western world has contributed the main part of.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 09:44am PT
|
No. It's just a convenient excuse for irresponsible behavior.
Haha, the irony.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 09:55am PT
|
You keep rationalizing China's (and India's and Russia's) escalation of the problem. They are responsible for over half of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. I'm guessing their piece of the pie is only going to get bigger. But you keep focusing on per capita and ignoring the problem. That's the ticket. These are good points. I agree China must do better. On that I've never disagreed with you. Their problem is how to make progress without internal chaos.
The point I've made more than once is that at least China has a governmental consensus that Global Warming induced Climate Change is real and will be extraordinarily disruptive economically, ecologically and sociologically.
We have no consensus, none. We've only made significant progress because a few states and Obama have taken unilateral action.
These are facts.
Please show us which Tea Baggers/Republicans have accepted the truth and proceeded to do anything about it.
Schwarzenegger being the only major Republican I can think of to give a damnm. The only way he got anything done was a Democratic Assembly and Senate.
Although if you can show others, I'll be glad to hear about them.
When we get a consensus and move forward we can start pissing on other countries, including China.
This is my opinion.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 09:56am PT
|
Because you and your friends use the total emissions for some large countries so that you can sit back and say that the other countries are the main problem instead of your own country.
|
|
raymond phule
climber
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 10:00am PT
|
To help you out, here's what I've said about the US.
Sorry, but I am not getting into some stupid, as best semantic, discussion about quotes with you. The history has shown that it is completely useless to do that with you and that you mostly post here for trolling.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 10:23am PT
|
Romney 2012
Flip flops
from Politifact
In June 2011, Romney said he believed "the world is getting warmer" and that "humans contribute to that." In October 2011, by contrast, Romney said that "we don’t know what’s causing climate change on this planet."
It’s unclear to us whether this was an inadvertent omission or a calculated attempt to say divergent things to different audiences. Because Romney, in our view, is savvy enough to know the difference between suggesting a human role in climate change and leaving it out, we think it’s reasonable to perceive Romney as taking two distinct stances in these two statements. We rate this a Half Flip.
Marco Rubio in May 2014
How much is it changing and how much of it is directly attributable to human carbon emission? There is no consensus on that, which is why the models vary so greatly, which is why, despite 17 years of dramatic increases in carbon production by humans, surface temperatures (on) the earth have stabilized." Cato Institute in response
Paul C. "Chip" Knappenberger, a scholar at the Cato Institute, said Rubio had gone too far by saying the situation had "stabilized." While global warming "certainly has slowed down considerably" over the past 16 or 17 years, Knappenberger said confirmation that the situation has "stabilized" would take "another 10 to 20 years."
"The pace will probably pick back up again at sometime in the future," Knappenberger said. "But when that will be, or what the new pace will be, are far from scientifically agreed upon characteristics."
Politifact: Congressmen who believe the climate change science, this May:
We found relatively few Republican members of Congress who accept the prevailing scientific conclusion that global warming is both real and man-made. Brown’s office didn’t return our request for comment, so we are unable to compare our evidence to any that he might have.
Rep. Michael Grimm, R-N.Y.: Grimm was a notable skeptic until April 2014, when he told MSNBC’s Chris Hayes, "The mass majority of respected scientists say that it’s conclusive, the evidence is clear. So I don’t think the jury is out. There’s no question that, you know, the oceans have risen, right? And the climate change part is, is a real part of it."
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine: Collins worked with Sen. Maria Cantwell, D-Wash., on a climate change bill in 2009 that proposed an alternative to cap-and-trade cutting carbon dioxide emissions.
Sen. Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.: "I am one senator who thinks climate change is a problem, humans are causing it, and we need to deal with it," he said at an Environment and Public Works Committee hearing in 2009.
Sen. Mark Kirk, R-Ill.: He’s called climate change a "long-term concern."
Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J.: "Climate change is a global challenge that must be addressed with a global solution," he said in 2007 as he backed a climate change provision in a House bill.
Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn.: "I accept the fact that we as a country, and we as a world, need to address this issue," he said on the Senate floor in 2008.
Sen. John Thune, R-S.D.: When asked if he thought global warming was man-made, he said, "I’m not denying that."
Rep. Rodney Frelinghuysen, R-N.J.: "Do I believe in climate change? I do, yeah," he told National Journal in 2011. "With the weather patterns over the past five years. … What causes it? Quite honestly, I don’t know. … Humans have some effect on climate change. There’s so many factors."
That’s eight out of 278, or about 3 percent. Note how few have said anything recently!
Where are Bonehead, McCant, McKernel, CantDo?
Only 8 Republicans dare speak truth to power. I'm really surprised that Corker and Thune are on that list. I'd love to know what they've said in the past 2 years.
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
|
Jun 12, 2014 - 10:27am PT
|
Sketch
per capita vs total greenhouse gas emissions is an argument of ethics, not facts. Weighing different measures of "goodness". You are in the minority, as is your right.
Due to our inaction the US is ethically and morally in the wrong.
and that's my opinion.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!