Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

Discussion in 'Too Hot for Swamp Gas' started by G8trGr8t, Jul 10, 2013.

  1. candymanfromgc
    Offline

    candymanfromgc Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,285
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +267
    He chose to miss it because it would rock his world of smugness.
  2. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,743
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    You're missing my point. In order to actually do anything useful, the whole world needs to be involved. Anything done in piecemeal is either symbolic or an attempt at seeding a snowball. China is certainly costing themselves money by doing either, but they still are. And this was candy's point. That only the US was spending money on this, but that simply isn't true.
  3. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,743
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    Yes, my world of smugness, coming from the guy who refers to other's posts as "absurd" and worlds of "smugness". If you ever want to take the task of understanding climate change seriously, rather than just throw out insults, let me know.
  4. LittleBlueLW
    Offline

    LittleBlueLW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,257
    Likes Received:
    717
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +986
    Your point was clear enough but thanks.

    Pissing away money on a failed carbon trading scheme sounds splendid! Lets have some more of that.
  5. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,743
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    Didn't seem so with the way that you mischaracterized it, but I'll take your word for it.

    I don't recall ever advocating that, so you might want to save your good sarcasm for someone else.
  6. LittleBlueLW
    Offline

    LittleBlueLW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,257
    Likes Received:
    717
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +986
    In other words your reading comprehension is lacking and your memory of what you actually wrote and linked is not clear.

    Ok.
  7. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,743
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    Wow you are a pleasant one. No, I meant that I never advocated that solution, which I have not.
  8. LittleBlueLW
    Offline

    LittleBlueLW Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    5,257
    Likes Received:
    717
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +986
    You linked and article after referencing Chinas approach and now claim you never supported that approach?

    Baffling.
  9. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,743
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    Yes, and I explained it to you above. I was simply trying to show candyman that China is spending money on limiting emissions.
  10. Gatorrick22
    Offline

    Gatorrick22 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    32,552
    Likes Received:
    2,454
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Ratings Received:
    +4,273
    Wrong again... I see that the MAJORITY of scientists now doubt AGW. Read the story in the OP.
  11. G8trGr8t
    Offline

    G8trGr8t Premium Member

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    Messages:
    13,543
    Likes Received:
    918
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    SW Florida
    Ratings Received:
    +1,662
    and they are collecting billions in fraudulent carbon reduction claims in the process. you need to dig deeper and realize that the chinese are just playing the world and cashing much bigger checks than they are writing when it comes to solar and wind

    http://shanghaiist.com/2010/10/29/chinese_chemical_companies_28_billi.php

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/8290533/The-great-carbon-trading-scandal.html

    http://journal.probeinternational.org/2011/01/21/media-roundup-fraud-in-carbon-markets-continues/
  12. mdgator05
    Online

    mdgator05 Premium Member

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2010
    Messages:
    6,267
    Likes Received:
    119
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +446
    You really should realize by now that the story in the OP is a false interpretation of a research project. The authors of the study already took apart this article in a comment reply to the article:

    I know, they must be commies too for insisting that people interpret their research correctly.
  13. GatorRade
    Offline

    GatorRade Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2007
    Messages:
    6,743
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ratings Received:
    +569
    I have no doubt that some companies are gaming the systems, and even that some regulators are captured by special interests. I think the same thing would happen here, if we instituted such a system, but the right would never complain that Shell or Exxon is behind it all. We'd only hear about Obama. Regardless of the scandals, China's paying a price to run these programs.

Share This Page