Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Spinner wrote: And, even if it wasn't, how is it not disturbing that the man in charge of it is standing at odds with the overwhelming scientific majority?
Because there is no 'overwhelming scientific majority'.
Don't make us go through this again Whem. There is a consensus on man-made climate change.
I'm not making you go through anything...
Well, you're parroting repeatedly disproven spin, so yes you are.
The claim that “97% of scientists agree” is in part based on 77 anonymous scientists who in a
survey. The survey started by seeking opinions from 10,257 scientists. However, it was then
whittled down to 77. So the 97% “consensus” claim is not based on thousands of scientists or
even hundreds of scientists – but only on 77 scientists. Out of those 77 scientists, 75 answered
the survey to form the mythical 97% ‘consensus.’
In 2013 and 2014, other claims of an alleged 97% climate ‘consensus’ emerged, prompting UN
IPCC lead author Dr. Richard Tol to publish a critique and declare: “The 97% is essentially pulled
from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever.” The new 97% claim by
climate activist John Cook was so “so broad that it incorporates the views of most prominent
climate skeptics.”
Another researcher, Andrew Montford, commented: “The [97%] consensus as described by the
survey is virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the current state of scientific opinion
beyond the trivial observation that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human
activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent.”
Lord Christopher Monckton’s analysis found that “only 41 papers – 0.3% of all 11,944 abstracts
or 1.0% of the 4,014 expressing an opinion -- and not 97.1%” actually endorsed the claim that
“more than half of recent global warming was anthropogenic.”
Bjorn Lomborg wrote: “Do you remember the ‘97% consensus,’ which even Obama tweeted?
Turns out the authors don’t want to reveal their data. It has always been a dodgy paper.
Virtually everyone I know in the debate would automatically be included in the 97%.”
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol: The 97‰ ‘consensus’ is a ‘bogus number’ - Some of the
mistakes in the study should be obvious to all. There are hundreds of papers on the causes of
climate change, and thousands of papers on the impacts of climate change and climate policy.
Cook focused on the latter. A paper on the impact of a carbon tax on emissions was taken as
evidence that the world is warming. A paper on the impact of climate change on the Red Panda
was taken as evidence that humans caused this warming. And even a paper on the television
coverage of climate change was seen by Cook as proof that carbon dioxide is to blame.
Cook and Co. analyzed somewhere between 11,944 and 12,876 papers – they can’t get their
story straight on the sample size – but only 64 of these explicitly state that humans are the
primary cause of recent global warming. A reexamination of their data brought that number
down to 41. That is 0.5% or less of the total, rather than 97%.
The main contention is that the Climate Alarmist from NASA, NOAA and IPCC were caught making unexplained adjustments to fit their narrative. That well has long been poisoned.
So, policy makers are pushing for changes out of that poisoned well... which is fething stupid. That's not science... that's hackery.
So I guess 90% of climate research and scientific organizations are "poisoned" are they?
See above, and yes.
There's still a huge aspect of Climate Change that still needs research and modeling are constantly being revised.
Sure it needs more research (which the republican party is wholly oppose to, but whatever), but we also have information that we can act on now, and should before it gets worse.
Not really. None of the predictive modelings either supports or disproves man-made climate change. There's still tons of criterias we don't understand.
clean air covers noise pollution as well, it covers a wide variety of things, especially relevant are emissions from cars & plants which would include CO2.
Ya the EPA just loves to trample your right to breath all the pollution you'd like. The nerve of them. And removing your right to paint with lead, such outrage.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/09 19:32:01
sirlynchmob wrote: clean air covers noise pollution as well, it covers a wide variety of things, especially relevant are emissions from cars & plants which would include CO2.
Oh I am sure it does. I have not seen where it covers climate change. Again, climate change isn't pollution in general.
Ya the EPA just loves to trample your right to breath all the pollution you'd like. The nerve of them. And removing your right to paint with lead, such outrage.
I am a big fan of the EPA as originally intended actually.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Spinner wrote: And, even if it wasn't, how is it not disturbing that the man in charge of it is standing at odds with the overwhelming scientific majority?
Because there is no 'overwhelming scientific majority'.
Don't make us go through this again Whem. There is a consensus on man-made climate change.
I'm not making you go through anything...
Well, you're parroting repeatedly disproven spin, so yes you are.
The claim that “97% of scientists agree” is in part based on 77 anonymous scientists who in a survey. The survey started by seeking opinions from 10,257 scientists. However, it was then whittled down to 77. So the 97% “consensus” claim is not based on thousands of scientists or even hundreds of scientists – but only on 77 scientists. Out of those 77 scientists, 75 answered the survey to form the mythical 97% ‘consensus.’
In 2013 and 2014, other claims of an alleged 97% climate ‘consensus’ emerged, prompting UN IPCC lead author Dr. Richard Tol to publish a critique and declare: “The 97% is essentially pulled from thin air, it is not based on any credible research whatsoever.” The new 97% claim by climate activist John Cook was so “so broad that it incorporates the views of most prominent climate skeptics.”
Another researcher, Andrew Montford, commented: “The [97%] consensus as described by the survey is virtually meaningless and tells us nothing about the current state of scientific opinion beyond the trivial observation that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas and that human activities have warmed the planet to some unspecified extent.”
Lord Christopher Monckton’s analysis found that “only 41 papers – 0.3% of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0% of the 4,014 expressing an opinion -- and not 97.1%” actually endorsed the claim that “more than half of recent global warming was anthropogenic.”
Bjorn Lomborg wrote: “Do you remember the ‘97% consensus,’ which even Obama tweeted? Turns out the authors don’t want to reveal their data. It has always been a dodgy paper. Virtually everyone I know in the debate would automatically be included in the 97%.”
UN IPCC Lead Author Dr. Richard Tol: The 97‰ ‘consensus’ is a ‘bogus number’ - Some of the mistakes in the study should be obvious to all. There are hundreds of papers on the causes of climate change, and thousands of papers on the impacts of climate change and climate policy. Cook focused on the latter. A paper on the impact of a carbon tax on emissions was taken as evidence that the world is warming. A paper on the impact of climate change on the Red Panda was taken as evidence that humans caused this warming. And even a paper on the television coverage of climate change was seen by Cook as proof that carbon dioxide is to blame. Cook and Co. analyzed somewhere between 11,944 and 12,876 papers – they can’t get their story straight on the sample size – but only 64 of these explicitly state that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming. A reexamination of their data brought that number down to 41. That is 0.5% or less of the total, rather than 97%.
So when, exactly, did I talk about that study? When did I cite 97%? It has been shown repstedly that there is a scientific consenses, going "BUT THIS ONE STUDY WAS BAD!!1!one!" doesn't disprove it.
We've discussed this before, and it was them adjusting for non-climate related changes to the measuring devices (such as them moving or changes to the area nearby like buildings). You btought this up last time, and I did post links (which I don't thin you ever responded to). And their work and research matched other, non-government, and non-US research.
See above, and yes.
Above is BS. And the idea of them all being "poisned" is infowars level delusion.
Not really. None of the predictive modelings either supports or disproves man-made climate change. There's still tons of criterias we don't understand.
And you are talking out your ass. We very much understand that climate change is both real, and (at least partially) man-made. We don't know all the specifics, but we still know of actions we can take to minimize our impact. And I'm sure your Republican party will be pushing for more research to understand the problem.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/09 19:50:53
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
sirlynchmob wrote: clean air covers noise pollution as well, it covers a wide variety of things, especially relevant are emissions from cars & plants which would include CO2.
Oh I am sure it does. I have not seen where it covers climate change. Again, climate change isn't pollution in general.
Ya the EPA just loves to trample your right to breath all the pollution you'd like. The nerve of them. And removing your right to paint with lead, such outrage.
I am a big fan of the EPA as originally intended actually.
So CO2 isn't pollution? tell that to LA, Lead is also a naturally occurring element, yet it was still lawful for the EPA to ban it.
the EPA has the power to regulate emissions, It's had that power for over 40 years now, that alone gives them power to regulate CO2 emissions. The leading cause of man made climate change. If you'd read the act, you'd see where it has the authority since it's inception, to regulate the causes of climate change.
and for whem still grasping at straws I see, here's what richard muller who wrote the technology review article said:
"If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do)"
Yet again, proving yourself wrong.
Spinner wrote: And, even if it wasn't, how is it not disturbing that the man in charge of it is standing at odds with the overwhelming scientific majority?
Because there is no 'overwhelming scientific majority'.
Don't make us go through this again Whem. There is a consensus on man-made climate change.
I'm not making you go through anything...
Well, you're parroting repeatedly disproven spin, so yes you are.
CFACT is an enterprise group that received significant primary funding from organizations like Peabody Energy...who's primary business is...coal mining.
The Climategate scandal has been subject to several separate investigations, all of which exonerated all scientists involved from any wrongdoing, and the latest data manipulation charges are a mischaracterization of standard and well-validated methods for adjusting temperature records to eliminate factors that could produce inaccurate readings.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/09 19:51:58
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
But you're getting better now. To be legal there has to be a law enabling the EPA to oversee climate change. If there isn't one, then the EPA has no authority. This could be changed with appropriate legislation.
Title I of NEPA contains a Declaration of National Environmental Policy. This policy requires the federal government to use all practicable means to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony.
Climate change is definitely an issue that sits under that.
Productive harmony is not enabling legislation. As the earlier poster noted something like the Clean Water Act is needed. Can you cite where the courts have determined there is appropriate enabling legislation?
Enabling legislation to do what? Regulate emissions? Clean air act.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
So CO2 isn't pollution?
***Nope. Its a nautrally occurring part of respiration and does not harm humans except in concentrated quantities, either short term or long term.
tell that to LA, Lead is also a naturally occurring element, yet it was still lawful for the EPA to ban it.
***You mean Los Angeles? Er what??? Lead causes physical harm when ingested. I know, I have a good bit in me.
the EPA has the power to regulate emissions, It's had that power for over 40 years now,
***Yes, particulates in the air.
that alone gives them power to regulate CO2 emissions.
***Please cite the actual law and I will agree with you.
The leading cause of man made climate change. If you'd read the act, you'd see where it has the authority since it's inception, to regulate the causes of climate change.
***Please cite the Act where this is the case and I will agree with you.
and for whem still grasping at straws I see, here's what richard muller who wrote the technology review article said:
"If you are concerned about global warming (as I am) and think that human-created carbon dioxide may contribute (as I do)"
Yet again, proving yourself wrong.
***Are you talking to me? I never doubted climate change. The climate has literally been changing since the dawn of time.
But you're getting better now. To be legal there has to be a law enabling the EPA to oversee climate change. If there isn't one, then the EPA has no authority. This could be changed with appropriate legislation.
Title I of NEPA contains a Declaration of National Environmental Policy. This policy requires the federal government to use all practicable means to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony.
Climate change is definitely an issue that sits under that.
Productive harmony is not enabling legislation. As the earlier poster noted something like the Clean Water Act is needed. Can you cite where the courts have determined there is appropriate enabling legislation?
Enabling legislation to do what? Regulate emissions? Clean air act.
please cite the language that supports your statement. If you are correct it should be simple.
Also, has the EPA actually attempted to regulate CO2 emissions based on that at this point? Not state agencies but Fed?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/09 19:53:25
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
...man, I'm not dressed right for this religious discussions.
So, I post some dissenting views and it's LOOK AT THE SITE/AUTHOR IT SUXS...without at least reading the content.
This is a problem. Both sides are digging their heels and are not participating in the debate... it's YOU THERE, ARE WRONG SIR!... NAY, IT IS YOU MY GOOD MAN IS INCORRECT.
We're on stuck on "agenda mode" and not enough discussing the merits/demerits on the topic on hand. (I'm guilty of that too).
So... ya'll believe in what you want. Carry on bros.
But you're getting better now. To be legal there has to be a law enabling the EPA to oversee climate change. If there isn't one, then the EPA has no authority. This could be changed with appropriate legislation.
Title I of NEPA contains a Declaration of National Environmental Policy. This policy requires the federal government to use all practicable means to create and maintain conditions under which man and nature can exist in productive harmony.
Climate change is definitely an issue that sits under that.
Productive harmony is not enabling legislation. As the earlier poster noted something like the Clean Water Act is needed. Can you cite where the courts have determined there is appropriate enabling legislation?
Enabling legislation to do what? Regulate emissions? Clean air act.
please cite the language that supports your statement. If you are correct it should be simple.
Also, has the EPA actually attempted to regulate CO2 emissions based on that at this point? Not state agencies but Fed?
Its interesting, its surprisingly difficult to get sourcing for legal authority of the EPA on climate change.
And... here...we....go... "In the resulting Massachusetts v. EPA, the Supreme Court addressed climate change for the first time. Over a spirited dissent , the Court found (5 to 4) that the Clean Air Act had a sufficiently broad definition of “air pollutant ”to cover carbon dioxide and the other greenhouse gases at issue. Although Congress in passing the Clean Air Act did not explicitly address climate change, the Court found that it had deliberately provided EPA with sufficient flexibility to address new air pollution threats that might arise over time. Having foun d that EPA had the regulatory authority to address greenhouse gases, the Court then turned to EPA ’s argument that, in its discretion, now was not the time to regulate greenhouse gases. There the Court found that EPA had not properly evaluated whether green house gases endangered public welfare. As you read the following excerpt, consider what exactly the Court is saying EPA must do:" (actual case is in the article after this quote)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/09 20:01:52
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
whembly wrote: ...man, I'm not dressed right for this religious discussions.
Stop with the "IT"S LIKE A RELIGION!!!!!!" gak. It doesn't help your argument at all.
So, I post some dissenting views and it's LOOK AT THE SITE/AUTHOR IT SUXS...without at least reading the content.
I did read the content, and then posted why it was wrong. I make a point to read what people post, because I know I might be wrong. But in this case the evidence is on my side.
This is a problem. Both sides are digging their heels and are not participating in the debate... it's YOU THERE, ARE WRONG SIR!... NAY, IT IS YOU MY GOOD MAN IS INCORRECT.
What is there that you want to debate about? Is the evidence not sufficient for you? What do you actually need? What proof, what information would you actually need to accept it? Because this doubt doesn't seem to be founded on any real thing beyond partisan belief.
We're on stuck on "agenda mode" and not enough discussing the merits/demerits on the topic on hand. (I'm guilty of that too).
What do you mean by that?
So... ya'll believe in what you want. Carry on bros.
I'll be honest, I don't care what you personally believe, unless those beliefs put us and future generations at risk, which is why this is an issue. It's the same with anything else, I don't care if you (for example because you called anti-vaxxers idiots too) believe that vaccines cause autism, but when unfounded beliefs start being put into law and putting people in danger, that's an issue.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whembly wrote: The better question, is what the legal description of 'Climate Change'?
Are we talking about just CO2? Methane? Or, anything-everything that can be construed as 'Climate Change'?
"Climate change" doesn't have a legal definition, greenhouse gasses do, however, have a scientific definition.
whembly wrote: ...man, I'm not dressed right for this religious discussions.
Stop with the "IT"S LIKE A RELIGION!!!!!!" gak. It doesn't help your argument at all.
Sure it does when the response is to BURN THE HERETIC when there's dissenting views.
So, I post some dissenting views and it's LOOK AT THE SITE/AUTHOR IT SUXS...without at least reading the content.
I did read the content, and then posted why it was wrong. I make a point to read what people post, because I know I might be wrong. But in this case the evidence is on my side.
No. We're engaging two sides that has experts proclaiming diametric views.
This is a problem. Both sides are digging their heels and are not participating in the debate... it's YOU THERE, ARE WRONG SIR!... NAY, IT IS YOU MY GOOD MAN IS INCORRECT.
What is there that you want to debate about? Is the evidence not sufficient for you? What do you actually need? What proof, what information would you actually need to accept it? Because this doubt doesn't seem to be founded on any real thing beyond partisan belief.
First, can we dial down the hyperbole?
Secondly, can we acknowledge BOTH that some experts are raising the alarm and other experts going 'woah, it's not that conclusive' as legitimate?
We're on stuck on "agenda mode" and not enough discussing the merits/demerits on the topic on hand. (I'm guilty of that too).
What do you mean by that?
Are you willing to be wrong?
So... ya'll believe in what you want. Carry on bros.
I'll be honest, I don't care what you personally believe, unless those beliefs put us and future generations at risk, which is why this is an issue. It's the same with anything else, I don't care if you (for example because you called anti-vaxxers idiots too) believe that vaccines cause autism, but when unfounded beliefs start being put into law and putting people in danger, that's an issue.
What unfounded beliefs are you zero'ing in exactly? What troubles you?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/09 20:42:48
It's interesting that conservatives were originally huge supporters of natural wildlife and parks as well as ecological responsibility. Over time, that position has drifted to the left as the American political right has fallen behind large industrial interests, primarily large international corporations. So now you get hunters arguing for guns, but against environmental protection, which is interesting to say the least. It is indicative of a whole strain of political thought where people are advocating positions that are adverse to their own interests but benefit the very top.
But let's not slam Texas. While the legislature is fairly termed as regressive, Texas has a strong base of academic development that does not support such backwards thinking. Likewise, there is a very strong element of environmentalism that gets more support than just Austin. Pushback against industrial pollution in major centers like Houston draws broad coalitions. While ranchers often oppose regulation, you will find that many other Texans have deep concerns over pollution and protecting Texas' natural resources.
Indeed, Texas, suffering in many areas from Republican dominated policies, is rapidly "purpling".
.
jmurph wrote: It's interesting that conservatives were originally huge supporters of natural wildlife and parks as well as ecological responsibility. Over time, that position has drifted to the left as the American political right has fallen behind large industrial interests, primarily large international corporations. So now you get hunters arguing for guns, but against environmental protection, which is interesting to say the least. It is indicative of a whole strain of political thought where people are advocating positions that are adverse to their own interests but benefit the very top.
Well part of the issue is that global warming is being used as a hammer that will effectively kill any manufacturing in the US is properly employed, and its being used crowbar the nanny state controlling every facet of our lives (regulating barbecue grilling...WTF instead of legislation to deal with the effects.
Thats my issue. Do all the GW you want and it will amount to nothing next to what is put out in growth from China or India in the next six months.
But let's not slam Texas. While the legislature is fairly termed as regressive, Texas has a strong base of academic development that does not support such backwards thinking. Likewise, there is a very strong element of environmentalism that gets more support than just Austin. Pushback against industrial pollution in major centers like Houston draws broad coalitions. While ranchers often oppose regulation, you will find that many other Texans have deep concerns over pollution and protecting Texas' natural resources.
Indeed, Texas, suffering in many areas from Republican dominated policies, is rapidly "purpling".
.
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
jmurph wrote: It's interesting that conservatives were originally huge supporters of natural wildlife and parks as well as ecological responsibility. Over time, that position has drifted to the left as the American political right has fallen behind large industrial interests, primarily large international corporations. So now you get hunters arguing for guns, but against environmental protection, which is interesting to say the least. It is indicative of a whole strain of political thought where people are advocating positions that are adverse to their own interests but benefit the very top.
Well part of the issue is that global warming is being used as a hammer that will effectively kill any manufacturing in the US is properly employed, and its being used crowbar the nanny state controlling every facet of our lives (regulating barbecue grilling...WTF instead of legislation to deal with the effects. Thats my issue. Do all the GW you want and it will amount to nothing next to what is put out in growth from China or India in the next six months.
Frazz, I got bad news for you.
China’s Roadmap for Controlling Greenhouse Gas Emissions During the Next Five Years: Strengthening control of CO2 emissions and coal consumption
The State Council released its 13th Five Year work plan to control GHG emissions (Chinese) in early November just before the Marrakech COP, reaffirming China’s commitment to do its part in combatting global climate change. The plan begins by reiterating a key climate goal: China will peak its CO2 emissions by 2030 and make its best efforts to peak earlier. To do this, the work plan sets out a range of targets and policies related to controlling and reducing CO2 emissions, including reiterating goals to reduce China’s carbon intensity (CO2 emissions per unit of GDP) by 18% by 2020 compared to 2015, reduce energy intensity by 15%, increase non-fossil energy to 15% of the energy mix (from 12 percent at the end of 2015), and increase forest stock volume and coverage to 16.5 billion cubic meters (bcm) and 23.04 percent, from 15.14 bcm and 21.66 percent as of 2015.
The GHG Control work plan also reiterates a total energy consumption cap target of 5.0 billion tons of coal equivalent and a coal consumption cap target of 4.2 billion tons for 2020. This 4.2 billion coal consumption cap target was included in the 2014-20 Energy Development Strategy Action Plan, but this is the first time that a 13th Five Year Plan has included the target. Both the GHG Control work plan and the Environmental Protection 13th Five Year Plan include strengthened policies on controlling coal consumption, given the importance of this task to controlling China’s GHG emissions and its PM 2.5 and other air pollution. The GHG Control work plan notes that severe air pollution regions and cities should continue to reduce their coal consumption after 2017, the final year of the 2013 Air Pollution Action Plan that established the original coal consumption reduction mandates for the Jing-Jin-Ji (Beijing, Tianjin, Hebei), Yangtze River Delta (Shanghai, Zhejiang and Jiangsu) and Pearl River Delta regions.
Recognizing that reducing coal consumption is key to improving air quality, the Environmental Protection 13th FYP (Chinese) adds a goal to reduce coal’s share of total energy consumption to 58 percent by 2020, compared to 64 percent in 2015. It also establishes specific coal consumption reduction targets for key air pollution regions: Beijing, Tianjin, Hebei, Shandong, Henan and the Pearl River Delta are to reduce their coal consumption by about 10 percent by 2020, compared to 2015; while Shanghai, Zhejiang, Jiangsu, and Anhui are to reduce their coal consumption by about 5 percent. Given the significant coal consumption in these regions, this will result in a reduction in coal consumption of about 140 million tons by 2020 if the regions all fulfill their targets. This would be equivalent to eliminating the annual coal consumption of South Korea, thus demonstrating the Chinese authorities’ continued focus on transitioning China’s energy structure from coal to cleaner energy.
Also under focus is reducing coal consumption in China’s cities, requiring all prefecture-level cities that do not meet China’s air quality standards to achieve an 18% reduction in their average annual PM 2.5 levels by 2020. The Environmental Protection 13th FYP specifically calls on China’s 10 cities with the worst air quality, to continue to implement their plans to reduce coal consumption. The use of “dispersed coal,” i.e., the coal for residential heating and cooking and small-scale industrial boilers, mainly in rural areas, also comes under aim, given its disproportionate contribution to air pollution. In Beijing, Tianjin and Hebei, for example, studies have found that cleaning up dispersed coal emissions could reduce PM 2.5 levels by up to 32%. The GHG Control work plan and Environmental Protection plan set targets to reduce dispersed coal use by replacing it with natural gas and electric heating, expanding district heating and green buildings, and upgrading and phasing out smaller inefficient boilers. Urban areas with district heating and natural gas networks are to ban the use of dispersed coal.
Given that China’s coal consumption was 3.96 billion tons in 2013 and has continued to fall in 2014, 2015 and this year, we believe the 4.2 billion ton and 58% coal consumption cap targets can be achieved and even improved upon. The China coal consumption cap project’s research for the 13th Five Year Plan coal cap policy recommends a 2020 coal cap target of 3.5 billion tons and 55 percent of total energy consumption, achievable by reducing excess industrial capacity, expanding energy efficiency and non-fossil energy, and implementing fiscal, tax and market measures to account for coal’s environmental and climate impacts. Strengthening implementation of national, sectoral and local coal cap targets to reduce coal consumption to 3.5 billion tons (compared to the study’s reference scenario of 3.9 billion tons) would reduce PM 2.5 emissions by 1 million tons and prevent 71,000 premature air-pollution-related deaths per year, while helping China contribute greatly to addressing global climate change by avoiding 850 million tons of CO2 emissions.
So CO2 isn't pollution?
***Nope. Its a nautrally occurring part of respiration and does not harm humans except in concentrated quantities, either short term or long term.
Now we are down to anti-vaxer levels of argument. The science of the greenhouse effect is quite clear. What CO2 does is quite clear. It absolutely is a pollutant.
No. We're engaging two sides that has experts proclaiming diametric views.
No we're not. There is overwhelming evidence on one side and a few fringe disagreements alongside some debate over the details that is painted as evidence of being wrong by the deniers. There is no real dispute that climate change is happening or that it is caused by human activity among climate scientists.
insaniak wrote: Sometimes, Exterminatus is the only option.
And sometimes, it's just a case of too much scotch combined with too many buttons...
So CO2 isn't pollution?
***Nope. Its a nautrally occurring part of respiration and does not harm humans except in concentrated quantities, either short term or long term.
Now we are down to anti-vaxer levels of argument. The science of the greenhouse effect is quite clear. What CO2 does is quite clear. It absolutely is a pollutant.
Speaking of religious fanatics. What is polluting about CO2? Its a natural byproduct of life and is not harmful to life unless in substantial concentration. Water is far more harmful.
Lets assume for argument CO2 levels are causing climate change. That doesn't make it a pollutant. That makes it one factor of many that continue to impact the climate since before life began.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
WrentheFaceless wrote: If breathing it in, in large or even medium quantities, will cause injury or death, I general consider a pollutant.
Pretty sure we cant breathe CO2.
We already breath in large quantieis of CO2 and exhale it.
Following this logic oxygen is a pollutant. Those free radical pollutants.
This argument has hit Stupid Level Alpha.
Dirt is a pollutant. If we breath large quantities we get the terminal condition called "dirt nap." It must be reduced!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/09 21:26:29
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
So CO2 isn't pollution?
***Nope. Its a nautrally occurring part of respiration and does not harm humans except in concentrated quantities, either short term or long term.
Now we are down to anti-vaxer levels of argument. The science of the greenhouse effect is quite clear. What CO2 does is quite clear. It absolutely is a pollutant.
Speaking of religious fanatics. What is polluting about CO2? Its a natural byproduct of life and is not harmful to life unless in substantial concentration. Water is far more harmful.
Lets assume for argument CO2 levels are causing climate change. That doesn't make it a pollutant. That makes it one factor of many that continue to impact the climate since before life began.
Having too much of anything can be a pollutant. And, again, the greenhouse effect is a thing. It's not it's mere existence, it's that we have too much of it
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
We already breath in large quantieis of CO2 and exhale it.
Following this logic oxygen is a pollutant. Those free radical pollutants.
This argument has hit Stupid Level Alpha.
Dirt is a pollutant. If we breath large quantities we get the terminal condition called "dirt nap." It must be reduced!
CO2 is harmful to the environment, which is harmful, in turn, to us.
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
So CO2 isn't pollution?
***Nope. Its a nautrally occurring part of respiration and does not harm humans except in concentrated quantities, either short term or long term.
Now we are down to anti-vaxer levels of argument. The science of the greenhouse effect is quite clear. What CO2 does is quite clear. It absolutely is a pollutant.
Speaking of religious fanatics. What is polluting about CO2? Its a natural byproduct of life and is not harmful to life unless in substantial concentration. Water is far more harmful.
Lets assume for argument CO2 levels are causing climate change. That doesn't make it a pollutant. That makes it one factor of many that continue to impact the climate since before life began.
It makes it a pollutant when intoduced in unnaturally high concentrations through manmade processes and begins to negatively affect the climate in ways it would not be without the presence of humans producing said CO2.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
whembly wrote: ...man, I'm not dressed right for this religious discussions.
Stop with the "IT"S LIKE A RELIGION!!!!!!" gak. It doesn't help your argument at all.
Sure it does when the response is to BURN THE HERETIC when there's dissenting views.
No. We're engaging two sides that has experts proclaiming diametric views.
And, as had already been shown, one side (that climate change doesn't exist/isn't man made), is rejected by the vast majority of climate scientists. It's the same reason that Spontaneous generation
First, can we dial down the hyperbole?
Secondly, can we acknowledge BOTH that some experts are raising the alarm and other experts going 'woah, it's not that conclusive' as legitimate?
Not when, again, the vast majority of evidence supports man made climate change. It's like saying that holocaust denial is just as valid as believing in the holocaust because some historians say it didn't happen. There are disagreements on specfics, and to what amount in the general community (also known as, every piece of science ever), but man-made climate change is heavily supported by the evidence.
Are you willing to be wrong?
Yes, there are very few downsides if I am wrong. Clean air, clean water, energy independence, ect. I can't think of any real downsides besides that some companies won't make as much profit, and we'll spend some money doing things we should really do anyway. Are you however prepared to be wrong?
What unfounded beliefs are you zero'ing in exactly? What troubles you?
The unfounded belief that, despite all evidance to the countryay, 90% of the sicneitifc community is wrong about man made-climate change. Edit:And more specifically, how, honestly, did you decide it? Was it looking at the evidence, and descending which had a strong case, or what it politics? Because I think we all know the answer.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/09 21:51:18
Homosexuality is the #1 cause of gay marriage.
kronk wrote: Every pizza is a personal sized pizza if you try hard enough and believe in yourself.
sebster wrote: Yes, indeed. What a terrible piece of cultural imperialism it is for me to say that a country shouldn't murder its own citizens
BaronIveagh wrote: Basically they went from a carrot and stick to a smaller carrot and flanged mace.
Dirt is a pollutant. If we breath large quantities we get the terminal condition called "dirt nap." It must be reduced!
CO2 is harmful to the environment, which is harmful, in turn, to us.
Now you're just blowing smoke er CO2 out your ass. CO2 is not harmful to the environment. Period end of story.
It is not a toxin.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/03/09 21:50:45
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Lets assume CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Cool, ok no problem.
That doesn't make it pollution.
That doesn't make it toxic.
Giving it a a name "greenhouse gas" doesn't suddenly make it a death ray.
WITHOUT IT ALL AEROBIC LIFE ON EARTH WOULD BE DEAD.
Climate changes. Life changes. Its not harmful to life. It just forces life to change and adapt.
We've now gone to stupid level Alpha Mike (my average double tap..."wait how can that methusalah be one of the fastest guys on the course?" " Well he doesn't actually aim that second shot. Its more of a guideline...")
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
~1.5k
3000
4000 
