But per capita is the only practical measure. This is a very misleading and somewhat dishonest claim. From your own link That is ridiculous. Firstly, the earth is only 4 billion years old. And it was not suitable for advance life for mellinia after that. In fact, even multi-cellular life didn't appear until 900 million years ago. So your billions of years comment is absurd. If you want to go back far enough, the earth was not habitable for humans. How about considering those eras? In fact, we do to the greatest extent possible. Ice core sample take us back almost a million years, with samples 1.5 million years old believed to be possible. We do. But the climate we have now didn't exist a billion years ago. We didn't even have oxygen levels needed to sustain advanced life. The notion that climate science has failed only exists in the minds of the uninformed and the trump media. Scientists debate the specifics and many disagree with particular conclusions. But climate science is fantastically complex. We expect debate and dissension. That is how science works.
It is science that studies climate...not ancient climate. There are entire fields devoted to study of these past epochs Would you use the Eurasian Steppe to explain Icelands recent eruptions?
I clearly stated my stat was per capita. And, we continue to be the highest emitter of greenhouse gasses per capita. That does make a statement of how interested we are. No, your document points out that we trail the EU in absolute emission reductions. Also, my point here has to do with the US as a whole. We are not taking the steps that most other countries have long taken. For example, ALL other industrialized nations tax gas at a rate FAR above our own rate, using the revenue to defray costs that would otherwise be paid by income tax. That has caused conservation and efficiencies that just don't exist here. NOW, we want to brag about making SOME of the changes that other nations made years ago and then claim we're doing more!! But, the fact that the EU can STILL beat us in reductions even after what they've done so far is really NOT something for us to be happy about. I'm glad to see some states making moves that count. And, I hope other states join, rather that banding together to block the moves made by CA and some other states. But, it would be FAR better if the US government did something besides blocking.
http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/science-reconsidered.376736/page-37#post-1069376408 "Seems like one of those, "the oceans are so massive our dumping garbage can't effect them" type thinking. So sure they can manage a little garbage from small, scattered populations until they grow. What of the growth of desalination factories? It is suggested hyper salty water not be recirculated back into the oceans. If left unchecked, how will factories returning hyper salty water finally effect the biome. Or water currents? Or other effects?" As we keep adding desalination factories.
Said no climate scientist, ever. Fascinating! Did you know the US Geological Society wholeheartedly endorses the overwhelming scientific consensus? What are you doing here? Shouldn't you be a keynote speaker at their conventions, telling them all how wrong they are?
We have reduced emissions by more than all of Europe combined, and we trail them in reducing emissions? OK, let me know when you want to actually discuss things, and not throw around nonsense. And yea, have everybody follow the lead of California. With the most expensive cars and gasoline in the country. With giant wind farms that are silent more and more often because of the death of birds. Which is actually disassembling green power plants because a "newer green" is suddenly the fad of the moment. Funny, because one of the other "scientists" in here is saying that is exactly what they do. This is why I take so little of this serious. You all really are just chasing the "fad of the moment". How many of you 40 years ago would have been running around screaming about the new Ice Age when that is what the alarmists were yelling? I laugh because it is all so hilarious to me, you all chase data over and over again, screaming at the top of your lungs the end is near. Then when more data says that is wrong, you simply double down and scream even louder. And in typical knee-jerk reactions of the fanatic, you attack anybody that you think does not agree with your new religion of global warming. That is also typical of fanatics.
A climate scientist? In an official capacity? No, so irrelevant. Don't try to pin your odd behavior on other people.
No it isn't, that's a shameless lie. You reject the consensus and you reject any honest effort to learn about the science, because the conclusions reached differ from one or all of the following: your superstitions, your politics, or your fetishes.
You're OWN CITE says: "Although the U.S. reduction seems low percentage-wise, it translates to a total annual reduction of about 760 million metric tons since 2005, almost as much as the reduction in the European Union as a whole (770 million metric tons)." Let me know when you want to actually read your own cite!!
Considering we are at or near a Solar Minimum, maybe we shouldn't be so eager to reduce greenhouse gases
Global Warming and Population Control https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientists-outline-between-climate-change-201100844.html In the study, the international team argues that suicide rates are already influenced by rising temperatures and predicts that impending shifts in climate will result in thousands more suicides directly linked to the hotter weather. AndAround the world, spikes in human violence correlate with unforgiving and ceaseless heat. As the planet gets hotter, scientists are questioning how peaceful societies will be increasingly disrupted by oppressive hot spells. Moi Will be as polite after the great melt?
When people get hungry, they move. Syria and Somalia are examples of civil wars where people movement played a large role. In Syria, it was farmers escaping parched farms as they moved to the cities. In Somalia it's people moving to a different country. Our DoD sees climate change as a national security threat for multiple reasons.
So what if we are? Certainly you are not under the impression that a solar minimum is going to drastically cool the planet.
It would be cheaper to Marshall Plan their area so they can thrive at home. I mean utilities, housing, infrastructure, industry, agriculture and the means of an economic base. Thus spaketh Moi
How is our axis compared to ice ages? How is our orbit compared to periods of glaciation? My interest is now in looking for a convergence of factors rather than an analysis of more solitary factors. Moi Think for yourself. They Can Not Be Trusted http://politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/can-they-be-trusted.513616/ s like it COLD
As far as their gov't, maintain security of areas Marshall Planned. Promise return of sovereignty to the gov't when . . . they can handle it. Food can be managed. It is proposed it would be cheaper per capita to keep them home, with security and aid to an independent economy, not on chronic welfare. This may introduce low water agriculture ala Israel. The Turks take advantage of Israeli agriculture consultants.
What you are proposing is colonialism. History hasn't been kind to our attempts at changing other people's governments.
Not really colonialism because there would be no rape & pillage of their economy and resources. I would term it, charity. The West is picking up the tab for the refugees. I say it would be of better value to spend to keep them home. And build an economy, not chronic welfare. That simple. And if security from their own gov't is required, do it. That simple. And always work toward returning sovereignty of the secure are to that nation.
@WillReadmore likes this Wow! Such Wisdom! And appreciated by a like. Totally in awe! I mean for the "Opinions" the two of you have uploaded here, maybe rather than share further opinions, the two of you will "ask a scientist", and please, report back. & too. Goose and Gander Rule El Moi Defender of Truthiness
The fact that you are mocking people for asking the experts instead of scouring blogs written by uneducated fools reflects more on you than it does on anyone else.
What mock. Serious. Just invited the two of you to take your own advice. One of you certainly has little Science back ground. And one of you just enjoys being a Devil's Advocate, or thorn if you will. I was asked about the advantages of Neanderthal genome. And when it was offered, "silence". Not even a like. Go figure. I have. See the first paragraph. The two of you get the last word. I will do my best not to reply.
I do get your point and it does sound good. I just don't know of any case where we've had success at installing a successful democracy. Our modern era has included a good number of cases where our actions in other countries were governed by our profit motive.
