Global Warming Fraud

[Kamala Trump]

I know, but MD says that they were not "let off the hook".

Of course they were, the second largest "offender", and soon to be the largest totally has no responsibility to curb any greenhouse gases.

Yep. I just knew the coward would never answer you. And I wanted these facts exposed for the casual internet reader. It's sad too, because apparently this is his career. A lifetime spent on a matter, and he slinks away into the shadows at the first confrontation.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Actually Ass Hat I have a life and have more to do then post on political web sites. China under the Kyoto protocol is an AnnexII nation. That is they are a poor and developing nation. Under Kyoto they do not have the obligations of an Annex1 developed nation. But under Kyoto a nations status from Annex1 to Annex2 can be changed to "transitional" as in the case of the formver Soviet Republics and East European nations and to Annex1.

Annex2 nations, under Kyoto do not have GHG emission reduction standards to meet. They do have obligations to monitor and report their GHG emmisions and, this is critical to Kyoto. They are also required to implement GHG emmison reduction projects. When succesful projects are implemented by Annex2 nations they are awarded CEC (Carbon Emmision Credits) that they can sell at low cost to Annex1 nations to use towards future sustainable development of their developing economies. No GHG reduction projects, no investment money from CEC's. It's the old carrot and the stick approach.

The whole purpose for this is not to punish Annex1 nations but to help advance the economies of Annex2 nations who, otherwise, would have not interest in sharing in the GHG reduction responsibilites and to encourage them to implement sustainable development practices that now become economically possible for Annex two nations due to the investment flow froms the sale of CEC's to Annex1 nations. Can this be costly to Annex1 nations. It sure can, but we share an interest in Annex2 nations develop high envrionmental standards and efficient, low GHG emmitiong industries as us developed nations.

In short China and other developing signatories have tied in their own future economic development into sustainable practices, with their Annex1 trading partners through the trade of CEC's.

So to state the China is "Off the Hook" just simply shows a misunderstanding of how the intent, incentives, motivations and mecanics of Kyoto works. The whole philosophy is to create a supply and demand economic incentive, through the sale of CEC's to reduce, globally, their emmissions.

Is it an ideal system? Probably not. Does it cost more for developed nations than non-developed. Of course it does, we have the money. Is it workable? Yes, it probably is.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Actually Ass Hat I have a life and have more to do then post on political web sites. China under the Kyoto protocol is an AnnexII nation. That is they are a poor and developing nation. Under Kyoto they do not have the obligations of an Annex1 developed nation. But under Kyoto a nations status from Annex1 to Annex2 can be changed to "transitional" as in the case of the formver Soviet Republics and East European nations and to Annex1.

Annex2 nations, under Kyoto do not have GHG emission reduction standards to meet. They do have obligations to monitor and report their GHG emmisions and, this is critical to Kyoto. They are also required to implement GHG emmison reduction projects. When succesful projects are implemented by Annex2 nations they are awarded CEC (Carbon Emmision Credits) that they can sell at low cost to Annex1 nations to use towards future sustainable development of their developing economies. No GHG reduction projects, no investment money from CEC's. It's the old carrot and the stick approach.

The whole purpose for this is not to punish Annex1 nations but to help advance the economies of Annex2 nations who, otherwise, would have not interest in sharing in the GHG reduction responsibilites and to encourage them to implement sustainable development practices that now become economically possible for Annex two nations due to the investment flow froms the sale of CEC's to Annex1 nations. Can this be costly to Annex1 nations. It sure can, but we share an interest in Annex2 nations develop high envrionmental standards and efficient, low GHG emmitiong industries as us developed nations.

In short China and other developing signatories have tied in their own future economic development into sustainable practices, with their Annex1 trading partners through the trade of CEC's.

So to state the China is "Off the Hook" just simply shows a misunderstanding of how the intent, incentives, motivations and mecanics of Kyoto works. The whole philosophy is to create a supply and demand economic incentive, through the sale of CEC's to reduce, globally, their emmissions.

Is it an ideal system? Probably not. Does it cost more for developed nations than non-developed. Of course it does, we have the money. Is it workable? Yes, it probably is.

They are off the hook. Monitoring means nothing substantial. The carbon trading scheme is bullshit. It does punish "developed" nations. Fuck you and your anti-american plan.

 

[Kamala Trump]

The actual goal is to repress western economies and to allow others to dominate.

 

[Kamala Trump]

It's funny how globalists are willing to exploit the concept of distinct nations when it comes time to punish the west.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

So there, now that we've talked about Kyoto and strayed from the original point. Let's get back to the original topic of Caruba being in uninformed and ignorant hack.

 

[Kamala Trump]

So there, now that we've talked about Kyoto and strayed from the original point. Let's get back to the original topic of Caruba being in uninformed and ignorant hack.

Dude, he's right on everything. There is no proof on your side. the whole plan is merely to repress western economies. This simple truth is proven by the lopsided nature of the solutions proferred. If the goal were really environmentally related it would a be a uniform policy worldwide, but it's not; it plays favorites.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Ass Hat, he's a neophyte who doesn't know what the hell he's talking about. He has about as much authentic credibility as Mike Huckabee does on biology education.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

They are off the hook. Monitoring means nothing substantial. The carbon trading scheme is bullshit. It does punish "developed" nations. Fuck you and your anti-american plan.

Now your making assumptions. I just explained the concept of Kyoto to you and how China was not completely off the hook. It's interesting how you convienantly ignore their obligation to report and their obligation to implement GHG reduction plans.

I didn't say I supported Kyoto in total. I agree with the basic concept. GHG emmisions must be reduced for the common benefit of humanity and carbon unit trading can be an effective economic mechanism to acheive that goal. Having said that. I agree with Bill Clinton, who had it signed but who did not submit Kyoto for ratification and with the Byrd commisions "sense of the senate" which was unanimously opposed to ratification of Kyoto. The US signing Kyoto was a diplomatic measure as there was never an intent of ratifiying it giving it the status of law.

Obviosly Kyoto's major flaw is the disparity between the obligation of the worlds largest GHG emiter (the USA) and the worlds second largest emiter (China). The disparity is grossly lopsided, unfair and detrimental to US interest. That doesn't mean the solution to the problem is to have a major unilatoral snit and emberassing the USA in front of the rest of the world by behaving as diplomatic amatures as the Bushies did when they pulled out.

The disparity on Kyoto can be worked out, by diplomatic means to have met the concerns of the two most important signatories the USA and China. You can't protect your own interest however, when you have a hissy fit and take your ball and go home. Mature adults negotiate and achieve a resolution. Pouting like a spoiled child accomplishes nothing and this is to big and important an issue to act in such an embarrasing manor.

 

[Damocles]

So you are saying they have no responsibility to lower their output, even though they are one of the worst offenders? That sounds like "off the hook" to me.

In a short period of time China will have more highways, more cars, and more pollution than the US, yet they are still considered "developing" and have no real incentive to change.

 

[Kamala Trump]

Now your making assumptions. I just explained the concept of Kyoto to you and how China was not completely off the hook. It's interesting how you convienantly ignore their obligation to report and their obligation to implement GHG reduction plans.

I didn't say I supported Kyoto in total. I agree with the basic concept. GHG emmisions must be reduced for the common benefit of humanity and carbon unit trading can be an effective economic mechanism to acheive that goal. Having said that. I agree with Bill Clinton, who had it signed but who did not submit Kyoto for ratification and with the Byrd commisions "sense of the senate" which was unanimously opposed to ratification of Kyoto. The US signing Kyoto was a diplomatic measure as there was never an intent of ratifiying it giving it the status of law.

Obviosly Kyoto's major flaw is the disparity between the obligation of the worlds largest GHG emiter (the USA) and the worlds second largest emiter (China). The disparity is grossly lopsided, unfair and detrimental to US interest. That doesn't mean the solution to the problem is to have a major unilatoral snit and emberassing the USA in front of the rest of the world by behaving as diplomatic amatures as the Bushies did when they pulled out.

The disparity on Kyoto can be worked out, by diplomatic means to have met the concerns of the two most important signatories the USA and China. You can't protect your own interest however, when you have a hissy fit and take your ball and go home. Mature adults negotiate and achieve a resolution. Pouting like a spoiled child accomplishes nothing and this is to big and important an issue to act in such an embarrasing manor.

only an ignorant queef would sign such a lopsided treaty. Only an idiot would be satisfied with Phantom future restrictions which may or may not be put in place on our competitors. You're not mature, you're anti-western. there's a difference.

 

[Damocles]

Why do you think the US Senate voted 95 to 0 (yeah that is one narrow margin there) to reject a similar piece of work just months before Kyoto, MD? Was it because everybody was tricked or was it because people realize when they are being punished?

 

[Mott the Hoople]

So you are saying they have no responsibility to lower their output, even though they are one of the worst offenders? That sounds like "off the hook" to me.

In a short period of time China will have more highways, more cars, and more pollution than the US, yet they are still considered "developing" and have no real incentive to change.

I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth Rush.

 

[Damocles]

I never said that. Don't put words in my mouth Rush.

You said that they would be monitored and at some point in time in the future they may get some responsibility toward their contribution.

It means that they are off the hook and have to do nothing to contribute to the "fix".

The reality is, innovation will be what gets us out of it, not sad Kyoto which, even if totally effective, still wouldn't do what it is proposed for.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

Why do you think the US Senate voted 95 to 0 (yeah that is one narrow margin there) to reject a similar piece of work just months before Kyoto, MD? Was it because everybody was tricked or was it because people realize when they are being punished?

It wasn't similiar it was the Kyoto agreement and led by Senator Byrd, as I stated in my previous post. The sense of the Senate was unanimous (That means 95 to 0). For the record, the senate did not reject it as it never came before the senate for consideration. Did you fail to read all my post? I previously stated that I agree that Kyoto was lopsided and unfair and was not in the best interest of the USA.

But that doesn't change the issue of this thread. Caruba's is hardly qualified to have any credibility on the issue of environmentalism and though I am in no way an expert on the issue of climactic change, I am vastly more qualified on environmentalism than a partisan hack like Caruba who is profoundly ignorant on the subject of environmentalism.

 

[Damocles]

It wasn't similiar it was the Kyoto agreement and led by Senator Byrd, as I stated in my previous post. The sense of the Senate was unanimous (That means 95 to 0). For the record, the senate did not reject it as it never came before the senate for consideration. Did you fail to read all my post? I previously stated that I agree that Kyoto was lopsided and unfair and was not in the best interest of the USA.

But that doesn't change the issue of this thread. Caruba's is hardly qualified to have any credibility on the issue of environmentalism and though I am in no way an expert on the issue of climactic change, I am vastly more qualified on environmentalism than a partisan hack like Caruba who is profoundly ignorant on the subject of environmentalism.

Ah, your argument is against Caruba. Got it.

Don't care.

I actually don't care about global warming at all, I believe that there are about a million better reasons than a computer projection to clean up our additions to the atmosphere as well as the land and water. And Kyoto was never brought before the Senate because they had very recently rejected a less punitive, yet similar in intent, measure in the Senate 95-0. I didn't lie about that or something. It was rejected so soundly that Clinton wouldn't even try with Kyoto.

 

[Mott the Hoople]

You have that backwards. After Al Gore signed Kyoto President Clinton asked the Senate, led by Senator Byrd, for a "Sense of the Senate" on the Kyoto accord. The Senate voted 95 to 0 against ratification. With that being the case and with his own concerns on the China issue, it was never presented to the Senate, by the Clinton Administration, for a formal vote.

 

[Kamala Trump]

You have that backwards. After Al Gore signed Kyoto President Clinton asked the Senate, led by Senator Byrd, for a "Sense of the Senate" on the Kyoto accord. The Senate voted 95 to 0 against ratification. With that being the case and with his own concerns on the China issue, it was never presented to the Senate, by the Clinton Administration, for a formal vote.

That's an important point, Biff!

 

[Don Quixote]

it is not global warming, but global climate change

ice north of the equator is melting while ice south of the equator (mainly the antartic) is gaining

also, it appears that the temperature of the other planets is climbing

this is probably due to an increase in solar output

our planet is different from the other inner planets in that our atmosphere and oceans redistribute heat and cold at a different rate

until we can build a reliable model of our global weather, all we can do is report the odd things happening

in the area where i live, days have been cooler and so have the nights

we switched from two years of drought to flooding

what we are getting is chaos

of well

 

[Kamala Trump]

ice north of the equator is melting while ice south of the equator (mainly the antartic) is gaining

also, it appears that the temperature of the other planets is climbing

this is probably due to an increase in solar output

our planet is different from the other inner planets in that our atmosphere and oceans redistribute heat and cold at a different rate

until we can build a reliable model of our global weather, all we can do is report the odd things happening

in the area where i live, days have been cooler and so have the nights

we switched from two years of drought to flooding

what we are getting is chaos

of well

ANd it may not even be due to human activity, thus restricting human activity to a detrimental degeree is unnecessary, and restricting western nations only is revealed as clearly an unfair and punitive attack.