Mark Steyn: The Ecopalypse, 96 Months Away? (Prince Charles)

[Skeptic]

In so far as the goal is to "save the planet" and not just for Westerners to prove their hearts are pure, what do we do when India and China continue not to cooperate?

Continue to dump on them for being so evil. Clearly, two and a half billion people must understand that it is God's will -- I mean, Gaia's will, I mean Prince Charles' will, I mean Gore's will, I mean "The Environment"'s will -- that they remain poor, lest their increasing consumption and use of energy ruin the planet.

Surely, if we'll talk to them nicely, they'll understand that. If not, you can always blame Bush: he didn't sign Kyoto, right? If he had only put his signature to that piece of paper, I'm SURE the billions in China and Indian would have been willing to remain serfs forever, and not want any of those toys, like cars or electricity, which Gaia had declared are for westerners only.

 

[shadron]

In case you really don't get it -- None of Gore's proposals have the slightest thing to do with "stopping climate change" except as a pretext. And everything to do with "global governance" by people like himself who will also incidentally get a whole lot richer.

Uh-huh. first of all, prove it. He can make more riches in this than, say, consulting or boarding-of-directors for a multi-national? That's where most finished politicians go; there must be a reason.

Kapeesh?

Let's see - Olmeccan? Athabaskan? Tamil? Chicagoese? I know I've heard it somewhere's afore, but printed out it's Γρεεκ to me.

And another thing

Science Fiction 'Czar'
Reason

I guess have to purge my science fiction - oops, wonder what he used for a pseudonym? Marion?

 

[shadron]

We could always make NASA stop shooting off space shuttles. I forget how many emissions a single launch puts in the atmosphere but it's staggering.

Indeed you forget. It is truly forgettable. And most certainly not very staggering, unless you are staggering already. Show some proof, like this:

http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/2000-10/973014746.Es.r.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4130980.stm
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20071117051020AAXmiOQ

 

[shadron]

In so far as the goal is to "save the planet" and not just for Westerners to prove their hearts are pure, what do we do when India and China continue not to cooperate?

Go to war to save the planet?

If it really is about saving the planet, wouldn't war be justified?

You're trying too hard. Try again.

http://www.theworld.org/2009/07/16/us-china-cooperation-on-global-warming/
http://www3.signonsandiego.com/stories/2009/jul/19/clinton-india-071909/

The burden of proof is on the "warmerers".

Not indeed warming itself, but the alleged connection between their proposed solutions and CO2 emissions.

Why not address that issue?

You can lead a horse to water...

What is your question about the connection of "CO2 emissions" and cutting back on CO2 emissions, which I believe is the foremost proposed solution? Seems pretty straightforward to me. If you allow that there is warming, then the only science out here stands behind the anthropogenic effect of CO2 (and also, to a lesser extent, some other gasses). The sun isn't doing it. Therefore, cutting back on our emissions seems to be the logical first proposed solution. Just how much "alleged" must it be? Seriously, Abdul, where have you been the last 15 years or so? You really need internet references? Scientific papers? videos, perhaps? I assure you there are many, but I wonder about your ability to absorb that if you are at this stage in the argument at this late a date.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

"Cap and trade" does not cut back on CO2 emissions.

It moves the emissions to other countries and is a speculative bubble for the enrichment of the connected.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

The whole argument boils down to

"Trust us, we're the government, we wouldn't steal would we?"

If they really believe there is warming they are even worse scoundrels for diverting resources away from finding a real solution.

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

The burden of proof is on you when you ask people to give up their freedom and prosperity for a "higher cause".

All the more so, when many of the politicians involved weren't real big on freedom ever.

 

[a_unique_person]

The burden of proof is on the "warmerers".

Not indeed warming itself, but the alleged connection between their proposed solutions and CO2 emissions.

Why not address that issue?

If warming is the unintended consequence of putting so much CO2 in the atmosphere, then not doing that undoes the consequence, but only if we start acting now.

 

[a_unique_person]

The whole argument boils down to

"Trust us, we're the government, we wouldn't steal would we?"

If they really believe there is warming they are even worse scoundrels for diverting resources away from finding a real solution.

WTF?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

If warming is the unintended consequence of putting so much CO2 in the atmosphere, then not doing that undoes the consequence, but only if we start acting now.

Emphasis added.

Evidence that cap and trade really is "not doing that" please? We're talking globally. Not this or that individual.

Bait and switch.

Interesting that the biggest proponents other than ideologues are energy middlemen isn't it?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

Again -- If India and China don't cooperate, do we go to war to "save the planet"?

Without their cooperation, it's all just posturing. Plus whatever the other effects of cap-and-trade may be on those who practise it.

Plus the effects of global warming.

If it really is life or death for the planet, why not war?

 

[a_unique_person]

Emphasis added.

Evidence that cap and trade really is "not doing that" please? We're talking globally. Not this or that individual.

Bait and switch.

Interesting that the biggest proponents other than ideologues are energy middlemen isn't it?

If you believe in market forces, then it should work. If we can make it work, then the rest of the world will follow. There are no guarantees, Chuchill didn't have any.

 

[a_unique_person]

Again -- If India and China don't cooperate, do we go to war to "save the planet"?

Without their cooperation, it's all just posturing. Plus whatever the other effects of cap-and-trade may be on those who practise it.

Plus the effects of global warming.

If it really is life or death for the planet, why not war?

They are both nuclear powers. Do you want to destroy the planet to save it?

 

[Abdul Alhazred]

I'm not suggesting war. I'm suggesting your position either makes war inevitable or does nothing for global warming.

Enough. You will not address the issues I raised, misrepresent my position and you are deliberately and insincerely playing dumb.

Back to the shadows.

 

[a_unique_person]

I'm not suggesting war. I'm suggesting your position either makes war inevitable or does nothing for global warming.

Enough. You will not address the issues I raised, misrepresent my position and you are deliberately and insincerely playing dumb.

Back to the shadows.

I'm just saying war is not an option, end of story.