Losing Earth:The Decade We Almost .......

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

Human rights abuse, political prisoners, people regularly sickened by pollution, no minimum wage, no government organization to protect the environment.
The government of China has no interest in the environment or saving the world. Hell they have started using R-11 to make Styrofoam, something that hasn't been done in the US for at least 40 years.
They are in the position to do what ever they want with little to no opposition. Some times their will appears to help the environment, but most of the time it just destroys and pollutes.

*The people of a country doesn't matter.And until the UN came along,no nation would interfere in the internal affairs of another nation,regardless of what they did to their people.We didn't bomb China over Tiananmen Square.They didn't bomb us over Kent State,or the Santa Marta Massacre.
*Is it legal for them to use CFCs?
*They told us that when they're all 'warm' for the first time in human history,then they'll begin to be concerned about the environment.
Our lack of participation in the 2016 Paris Climate Accord may reveal something about the US commitment to the environment.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

Worth a link then? If it's NYT you can follow the article at https://botwiki.org/bot/nyt_diff/ and see if the story changes (they a bad at errata).



1989? He passed and everyone's mind was smoothened so that the messages of hope and wisdom for us all wouldn't take root. People are trying to reinvent World Game today.

I believe that Bill McKibben is given credit for introducing the American general public to the concept of global climate change in 1988.

[redpoint5]

Originally Posted by aerohead

China's hybrid government may allow them advantages we'll never see here.

Their main advantage is having a relatively blank slate to start with. Much easier to employ advanced techniques to infrastructure when you're initially building it, than to try to retrofit it into existing infrastructure.

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

no minimum wage

No minimum wage, if that's true, would be largely responsible for China's rapid development. Had labor been relatively expensive there, the factories would have been built elsewhere and China would continue in poverty. Minimum wage is what wealthy economies implement to ensure the undesirable jobs are done elsewhere.

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

I believe that Bill McKibben is given credit for introducing the American general public to the concept of global climate change in 1988.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

From the 1920s to the 1970s the concern was global cooling. Given what we now know about Cosmic Rays and the Beaufort Gyre, it will be interesting to see which is right. Right?

[oil pan 4]

I hope they are right about global warming.
The cooling periods are what killed off large numbers of people.

The world ban on R-11 didn't have a cause to exempt china. R-11 is one of the big Ozone destroying CFCs.

The Paris climate thing was a scam.
The United States has environmental laws and enforces them and we are reducing CO2 production.
While germany, China and Japan appear to be increasing CO2 production. If Japan isn't hasn't increased CO2 it looks like they are set to, by being afraid to restart their nuclear reactors. Their bright idea is to burn Chinese coal for power production.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by freebeard

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

From the 1920s to the 1970s the concern was global cooling. Given what we now know about Cosmic Rays and the Beaufort Gyre, it will be interesting to see which is right. Right?

*Boy,the cooling sure was a backfire! Some will never let the scientists off the hook for that one!
*I've yet to see a peer-reviewed correlation between cosmic rays and climate change.I'll just keep looking.
*Fresh melt water was the premise behind 'The Day After Tomorrow',as it would impact the 'conveyor'.Since it's a water density issue it's very relevant to water and heat transport or lack thereof,thermoclines,deep water mixing,salinity,pH,phytoplankton,zooplankton,ocean ic food chains,etc..things Guy McPherson would be acquainted with.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

I hope they are right about global warming.
The cooling periods are what killed off large numbers of people.

The world ban on R-11 didn't have a cause to exempt china. R-11 is one of the big Ozone destroying CFCs.

The Paris climate thing was a scam.
The United States has environmental laws and enforces them and we are reducing CO2 production.
While germany, China and Japan appear to be increasing CO2 production. If Japan isn't hasn't increased CO2 it looks like they are set to, by being afraid to restart their nuclear reactors. Their bright idea is to burn Chinese coal for power production.

*looks like climate change is capable of regional anomalies which could mean cooling and warming,depending.
*If China was not a signatory of the Montreal Protocol,it may not have any binding legal responsibility to forego the use of CFCs.Don't know.
*Some climatologists believe that the Paris Climate Accord would amount to very little,climate-wise,other than a goodwill gesture to the rest of the world.That would make it sort of an intellectually dishonest public relations move.I would have felt better about the US had we signed it.PR or no.
*US CO2 emissions are on a downward trajectory and that's good.
*I'll have to look the other way as to what other nations are doing.Perhaps they can look into the Thorium-based nuclear technology.I'd like to see it here.
*Coal sucks big-time! Boo-hiss!

[oil pan 4]

The Paris climate accord was an excuse for rich dictatorcrats to fly to Paris on their privet jets paid for by tax payers so they can discuss how the tax payers should be allowed the live.

[aerohead]

Originally Posted by oil pan 4

The Paris climate accord was an excuse for rich dictatorcrats to fly to Paris on their privet jets paid for by tax payers so they can discuss how the tax payers should be allowed the live.

Yes,and all their aircraft run on 'magic' Jet-A1, which never produces carbon dioxide.
(mere mortals might have 'teleconferenced' the whole meeting and skip the air travel altogether;with 'selfies' in front of a green-screen,then photo-shopped).

[freebeard]

Originally Posted by aerohead

*looks like climate change is capable of regional anomalies which could mean cooling and warming,depending.

Adding energy increases chaos.

...I would have felt better about the US had we signed it.PR or no.
*US CO2 emissions are on a downward trajectory and that's good.

Compared to the signatories trajectory heading up.