The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

[NeilBlanchard]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I expect all the virtue signalers to block me when I call them out on their BS. Figure blocking me is easier than trying to explain, justify or make excuses for their own inactions to themselves and everyone else.
It's called living in denial.

You have NO FACTS to back your claims. People don't want to "discuss" facts with you, because your opinions about these facts - are meaningless.

[redneck]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Please bear in mind,that under UN,IPCC framework protocols,both China and India,as defined as 'undeveloped' nations,are exempt from certain emissions restrictions,until they attain industrial parity.They are fully authorized to build and operate the coal-fired power plants.
In the meantime,they've already exceeded the Paris Agreement,left us in the dust,with respect to alternate energy,electric car adoption,etc..The United States is the backwards nation now.

If AGW climate change was as dire as the UN/IPCC and believers say it is. It should have been an immediate “Cease and Desist Order”, not a authorization to continue to add to the problem.

The fact that they are not held to the same standard is very telling. It means that it’s probably B.S. to begin with.

What it is really about is money... (collecting money)

China - India - 3rd world = poor.... Western and 1st world = rich...

After all you can’t get blood from a turnip...

And control... (controlling where and who the money is distributed to )


The rest of your post is nothing other than optics and cover for them not addressing this.

In reality, the truth is that China and India would laugh at the UN/IPCC and tell them to go pound sand if they tried to make them play (pay) along. The UN/IPCC knows this, therefore they get a pass.




>

[aerohead]

If you'd like to compare financial equity around the globe, and see what social democracy can do,check out Gini Coefficient /wealth distribution by country for 2018.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redneck

If AGW climate change was as dire as the UN/IPCC and believers say it is. It should have been an immediate “Cease and Desist Order”, not a authorization to continue to add to the problem.

The fact that they are not held to the same standard is very telling. It means that it’s probably B.S. to begin with.

What it is really about is money... (collecting money)

China - India - 3rd world = poor.... Western and 1st world = rich...

After all you can’t get blood from a turnip...

And control... (controlling where and who the money is distributed to )


The rest of your post is nothing other than optics and cover for them not addressing this.

In reality, the truth is that China and India would laugh at the UN/IPCC and tell them to go pound sand if they tried to make them play (pay) along. The UN/IPCC knows this, therefore they get a pass.




>

I gave you all the specific information needed to understand the situation.I can't understand it for you.

[redpoint5]

Allowing a pass for developing countries to pollute and consume fossil fuels itself is an admission that fossil fuel consumption and wealth/well-being go hand and hand. If we're talking about reducing CO2 emissions, we're talking about burning less hydrocarbons, and therefore reducing wealth and well-being.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by NB

At 29yo, I was not elected to the US Congress, if that is what you're asking. And neither was anybody else here.

Apparently anyone can gain admission to Congress if they pay their cards right.

"At 29 I was working with airforce special ops command and specifically I think I was in Africa at that time 'Working on generators'".
(quotes diminished to single quotes because wrapped in quotes. Not a misquote)

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by redpoint5

Allowing a pass for developing countries to pollute and consume fossil fuels itself is an admission that fossil fuel consumption and wealth/well-being go hand and hand. If we're talking about reducing CO2 emissions, we're talking about burning less hydrocarbons, and therefore reducing wealth and well-being.

I only speak English.Let me try again.Under UN,IPCC protocols,China and India,as signatories to the climate convention are EXEMPT,as far as carbon emissions,until they reach industrial parity with the developed world.It's not a 'pass.'
And the argument is that 'energy' is associated with wealth.And energy is no longer the sole domain of fossil-fuels.

[redpoint5]

Agreed, and I anticipate an increasing share of non-hydrocarbon based energy in the future, but we're not there yet, and not even close.

I don't know what the difference between exemption and pass is, especially given that no nation has a binding agreement. Perhaps I misunderstand, that the IPCC has recommended binding agreements and also to grant exemptions to nations not meeting a certain level of per capita wealth parity?

Reading between the lines, it sounds more like a wealth redistribution scheme than a save the world scheme. The climate doesn't care if the emitters are 1st world or not.

I'd have a hard time as a voluntary member of armed forces to attack a country for refusing to honor their environmental agreements, though I suspect that is unlikely. More likely would be economic sanctions.

[oil pan 4]

Originally Posted by aerohead

Something to consider.In order to get a report together for publishing,there's a cut-off date,after which no new information can be accepted.This has meant up to 24-months in the past,making the published data obsolete on the day it's released.
Also,the IPCC has a 'range' of outcomes,predicated upon percentages of probability.Unless,as you are doing,reading the entire manuscript,most will be unaware for instance,that there's a higher likelihood that the average global temperature increase will reach 11-degrees F(4-C) by 2100,than you'll be involved in a traffic accident,or your home catching fire.

If it's settled science then why does so much change from report to report?

[redpoint5]

Science isn't a comprehensive list of absolute facts; it's a process that seeks the highest confidence for a given hypothesis. That's why it's called the scientific method.