IPCC Report

[Cancel 2020.1]

I demand proof of your baseless accusations.
Start providing said proof or stand down, your childishness is wearying.

Proof for what - that going completely off of carbon in the next 16 years will cost a huge # of jobs?

Seriously?

Do you think that can be done without severe mandates & restrictions? What do you think that will do to industry?

Goddamn, you are just plain dumb. Clueless & proud of it.

 

[Rune]

Hey, drama queen. Do you agree with tekky's assessment that if were are the ONLY country to make this change, "we'll have fewer expensive climate change catastrophes here."?

Please say yes, so I can conclude once & for all how clueless you are. If you're fighting "global warming," you should at least understand it.

Hey person about to be permanently ignored by me;

Start proving your claims or shut up. It is indeed you who is clueless and I who have studied alternative energy for 2 decades.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Hey person about to be permanently ignored by me;

Start proving your claims or shut up. It is indeed you who is clueless and I who have studied alternative energy for 2 decades.

I asked you a question. Do you agree w/ tekky on that, or not? What does your 2 decades of intensive study tell you?

You won't answer. You're such an intellectual lightweight.

 

[Rune]

Proof for what - that going completely off of carbon in the next 16 years will cost a huge # of jobs?

Seriously?

Do you think that can be done without severe mandates & restrictions? What do you think that will do to industry?

Goddamn, you are just plain dumb. Clueless & proud of it.

So you can offer no proof of your baseless claims whatsoever yet you continue to flap your useless gums anyway.
Sorry sir, it is indeed you who is clueless and proud of it.

 

[Cancel 2016.11]

Hey person about to be permanently ignored by me;

Start proving your claims or shut up. It is indeed you who is clueless and I who have studied alternative energy for 2 decades.

Yeah he doesn't back anything up. His new method of debate is to post sneeringly condescending insults. In fact, I don't know if that's new. I never paid attention before. He used to mostly "debate" yurt and I tuned that shit out because, you know, yurt. Who was like nails on a chalkboard to me.

Now I am thinking I overlooked a lot because of that. It's probably not a new method at all.

 

[Rune]

I asked you a question. Do you agree w/ tekky on that, or not? What does your 2 decades of intensive study tell you?

You won't answer. You're such an intellectual lightweight.

I asked you a lot of questions.
You have answered none of mine yet you demand an answer of me, like a petulant child.

Well little boy, if you look back a few posts, you will see (assuming you have sufficient reading comprehension skills) that I did indeed answer her question, in a long detailed and thoughtful response. I think it was the one you called me a drama queen for,

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

So you can offer no proof of your baseless claims whatsoever yet you continue to flap your useless gums anyway.
Sorry sir, it is indeed you who is clueless and proud of it.

A CLINTON ADMIN study found that merely stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels - what Kyoto called for, an exceedingly modest measure at the time - would cost 900,000 jobs.

And that's Kyoto. NOTHING compared to what you are suggesting.

I'd love you to sit w/ all of those families if it really happens & explain about your decades studying alternative energy.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

I asked you a lot of questions.
You have answered none of mine yet you demand an answer of me, like a petulant child.

Well little boy, if you look back a few posts, you will see (assuming you have sufficient reading comprehension skills) that I did indeed answer her question, in a long detailed and thoughtful response. I think it was the one you called me a drama queen for,

I just gave you a fact. You'll dismiss it, but I'm still waiting for your answer about tekky's claim.

Are you afraid to answer that?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

Or maybe Darla can answer for you, Rune - can you relay this to her? "If emissions go up around the world, will devastating storms still reduce in the U.S. just because we stop emissions?"

 

[Rune]

Please don't be obtuse. All I am saying is IF make this move so that the US is off carbon by 2030, it is going to hurt our economy, it is going to cost us jobs, tax revenues are going to be lost from the industries we are phasing out. IF we do all this, and China does nothing, it will not matter a bit. China pollutes almost as much as EVERY OTHER NATION ON THE PLANET COMBINED. If they continue, our reducing our carbon output will not matter a jot or tittle.

Please show what jobs will be phased out, bearing in mind that every drop of oil now being produced will still be utilised, but for manufacturing not burning. (thereby providing future manufacturing stock since at least 95% of the mass of the oil can be conserved when recycled as plastic, versus none when burned. Pleas note that the world population is increasing exponentially even as we speak.

 

[Rune]

Or maybe Darla can answer for you, Rune - can you relay this to her? "If emissions go up around the world, will devastating storms still reduce in the U.S. just because we stop emissions?"

How many times need I tell you that the plan involves the entire world including China, you deaf idiot.

 

[zappasguitar]

Have you read about the economic ramifications of climate change?

A novel came out back in 91 called "The Bridge" by John Skipp and Craig Spector.

It's all about the tipping point we will one day reach if we don't start doing something.

Now I understand it's a totally fictional story, but the idea that industrial pollution could kill us all if we don't start doing something is very real.

 

[Rune]

I just gave you a fact. You'll dismiss it, but I'm still waiting for your answer about tekky's claim.

Are you afraid to answer that?

I answered Tekkies claim in post #37 moron. This is the second time I have told you this.
Are you stoned, stupid or drunk?

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

How many times need I tell you that the plan involves the entire world including China, you deaf idiot.

Oh, it does? Well, that's good news.

Has anyone told them yet?

Now, how about the tekky question? And how about those 900,000 jobs - just for starters.

 

[Cancel 2020.1]

I answered Tekkies claim in post #37 moron. This is the second time I have told you this.
Are you stoned, stupid or drunk?

You made me read through that again. You did NOT answer the question.

Do you agree with this: if were are the ONLY country to make this change, "we'll have fewer expensive climate change catastrophes here."?

Yes or no. Don't waste time looking up posts; it's a simple question. If you had courage, you would answer.

 

[Rune]

A CLINTON ADMIN study found that merely stabilizing emissions at 1990 levels - what Kyoto called for, an exceedingly modest measure at the time - would cost 900,000 jobs.

And that's Kyoto. NOTHING compared to what you are suggesting.

I'd love you to sit w/ all of those families if it really happens & explain about your decades studying alternative energy.

Studies can be made to represent whatever who is paying for them want them to, and furthermore, Mr. Limited Intellectual Capacity, the jobs lost (or gained) wwould depend entirely upon the method of carbon output reduction.

I highly suggest you stop watching Fox News, you are stupid enough already.

 

[Socrtease]

Thing1, do you really give up doing something because your neighbor won't give up doing it?

"Gee my neighbor will just keep on murdering prostitutes, so no point in me giving it up"

Have you ever read "The Sheep Looked Up"? At the end of the book, as the USA was in flames, basically an academic was asked how to cure the world of all its shortages. The answer was "Get rid of the 200 million most wasteful people on the planet, and that's happening now"....

We should absolutely commit our country to reducing carbon emissions. Can we guarantee others will go along? nope. But that's why we meet with them and discuss it and have treaties and whatnot - to try to get them to do it. China IS going into alternative energy in a big way; others will do it eventually as well. You really want to be last kid on the block to change?

Even if no one else does it, we'll be healthier, the world will be better off, and we'll have fewer expensive climate change catastrophes here.

You say it's a sacrifice - the longer we wait, the harder it will be; if we do it now, we'll have a technology leadership that will reduce the pain.

YOur analogy sucks too. Better one. For years, you and your neighbor have been dumping waste in a pond you both share. You stop but your neighbor doesn't. Doesn't matter that you stopped does it. Might make you feel good, but your water is still polluted.

 

[evince]

but not as polluted

 

[evince]

ask the things in the lake that survive because there is LESS pollution if they are glad

 

[Rune]

You made me read through that again. You did NOT answer the question.

Do you agree with this: if were are the ONLY country to make this change, "we'll have fewer expensive climate change catastrophes here."?

Yes or no. Don't waste time looking up posts; it's a simple question. If you had courage, you would answer.

Yes Rain man, for the third and final time; any reduction in pollutant output is a good thing.