Canada may exit Kyoto pact to save $$$$$

[Hallo Alfie]

You already know. Why don't YOU explain it.

You brought it up, I'll leave it to you - you are the expert after all.

You must admit 'though, it's pretty sneaky language, isn't it? (i.e. to "reduce carbon intensity")

 

[bit_pattern]

No, it's not sneaky at all. You would like to pretend its sneaky but for anyone who has a clue about the issue they understand what it means.

Like I said, if we all fall for this game-theory thinking that people in this thread are demonstrating, where noone will act until the other one acts, then we're pretty much up the proverbial creek without a paddle. We don't have twenty years to wait for China to turn itself around before acting, or for magical untested and unrealistic technological silver bullets to become viable in two or three decades time. We've already wasted two decades and if we get lulled into losing another decade by the delayers and deniers then we can kiss 2 degrees good-bye and say hello to a hothouse Earth for the next however many thousands of years it will take to play itself out.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

No, it's not sneaky at all. You would like to pretend its sneaky but for anyone who has a clue about the issue they understand what it means.

So here's your chance to educate us. Surely you don't want to leave this important piece of non sneaky language to be explained by a novice like me.
So please go ahead and explain what it is and why it isn't sneaky.

The floor is yours.

 

[bit_pattern]

So here's your chance to educate us. Surely you don't want to leave this important piece of non sneaky language to be explained by a novice like me.
So please go ahead and explain what it is and why it isn't sneaky.

The floor is yours.

You don't actually understand the concept of burden of proof, do you? You are making the claim that it is "sneaky", if you want to make an argument it is up to you to make it. I'm not going to make it for you.

You understand perfectly well what it means, despite your feigned ignorance, if you think it is "sneaky" then make your case.

 

[SezMe]

We've already wasted two decades...

You are too modest. It's more like five:

In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson’s Science Advisory Committee warned him that by the year 2000, there would be 25 percent more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. In the words of the Committee, the continued use of fossil fuels “will modify the heat balance of the atmosphere to such an extent that marked changes in climate, not controllable through local or even national efforts, could occur.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

We don't have twenty years to wait for China to turn itself around before acting,

But we have time to nibble around the edges of our power production with "supplemental" generation like Denmark does?

or for magical untested and unrealistic technological silver bullets to become viable in two or three decades time.

Good thing no one has suggested such a silly thing then, isn't it?

 

[bit_pattern]

You are too modest. It's more like five:

I stand corrected.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

You are too modest. It's more like five:

haha... did you read the rest of that article?

In 1964, President Johnson faked an attack by the North Vietnamese at the Gulf of Tonkin, ​

Woowoowoowoowoowoowooooooooooooooo....

Nothing to do with the topic at hand but still, whoever wrote that site is on drugs.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You don't actually understand the concept of burden of proof, do you? You are making the claim that it is "sneaky", if you want to make an argument it is up to you to make it. I'm not going to make it for you.

Fair enough I s'pose: Let's leave the "sneaky" to one side then.

But you brought "carbon intensity" into the discussion, please outline what this actually means.

 

[bit_pattern]

But we have time to nibble around the edges of our power production with "supplemental" generation like Denmark does?



Good thing no one has suggested such a silly thing then, isn't it?

What you DID suggest was that it is OK to trash the only international framework we have for combating this problem on the basis that technologies that will take decades to bring online will somehow save us.

It's an as equally absurd suggestion.

And if Canada DID invest heavily into rolling out thorium or any other kind of nuclear to achieve real emissions cuts I would support it wholeheartedly. But they're not. And it's got SFA to do with your eco-lobby conspiracy theory and everything to do with economic realities.

In fact, if they did sign up to the post-Kyoto international agreements and put a price on carbon to send the right market signals then we might see some capital investment going into developing 4G nuclear in Canada. But, despite you glib apologism, sitting on your thumbs doing nothing will achieve exactly nothing. Not for emissions reductions, not for sparking this nuclear utopia you envisage.

 

[bit_pattern]

Fair enough I s'pose: Let's leave the "sneaky" to one side then.

But you brought "carbon intensity" into the discussion, please outline what this actually means.

You know as well as I do what it is; the rate of emissions to unit of GDP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_intensity

You want to focus on the minutia and argue over semantics so you don't have to acknowledge everything else I raised in that post, like the fact that it is a physical impossibility for China to begin reducing their emissions for at least twenty years and that if we all wait for China then we'll be staring down the barrel of a warming event not seen on this planet for well over 7 million years.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

What you DID suggest was that it is OK to trash the only international framework

The framework was trash to begin with.

we have for combating this problem on the basis that technologies that will take decades to bring online will somehow save us.

I never said any such thing. You have serious issues.

And it's got SFA to do with your eco-lobby conspiracy theory

I never accused anyone of any conspiracy.

and everything to do with economic realities.

You have the most abysmal knowledge of "economic reality" of anyone who has attempted to discuss this issue.

You've claimed repeatedly that a production facility that's dormant 75% of the time and has dozens of times the raw materials costs of nuclear is more profitable than another facility that is up and running more than 3 times as often and has 1/14th the amount of government subsidies.

You don't have a bloody clue about economics.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

BTW, your implication that France has developed time travel is hysterical.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

You know as well as I do what it is; the rate of emissions to unit of GDP

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_intensity

Excellent, so as they continue and continue to expand and grow, so do their emissions. And when they talk of reductions in emission intensity, they don't actually mean emission reductions, do they? I call that sneaky.

As was this leading comment of yours:

Commit to cuts on their 2000 levels of emission output. In Australia, we've commited to a measly 5%, Europe and the UK have committed to 20%, China and India have both committed to reductions in the intensity of their resepctive emissions growth.

So.. when you said that it was quite obvious that you weren't trying to convince anyone that they were reducing emissions, were you?

 

[bit_pattern]

Excellent, so as they continue and continue to expand and grow, so do their emissions. And when they talk of reductions in emission intensity, they don't actually mean emission reductions, do they? I call that sneaky.

As was this leading comment of yours:

No, because if you actually read everything I said I was quite clear, on a number of occasions, that China will not be reducing their emissions any time in the next 20 years, although I am not at all surprised by the depth off your intellectual dishonesty that you would stoop to quote-mining my posts to make it look like I wasn't accounting for something I have accounted for.

So.. when you said that it was quite obvious that you weren't trying to convince anyone that they were reducing emissions, were you?

No, I clearly stated emissions intensity, and, unlike you apparently, I tend to assume most JREF posters are smart enough to figure it out for themselves what it means, if they don't already, and that I shouldn't have to treat them like children by holding their hands as I talk them through a glossary of every post I make. Present company excluded, naturally.

Now that the infantile semantic games are over, do you accept that it is a practical impossibility for an economy with the momentum of China to begin reducing its emissions over the next 15 years?

 

[SezMe]

haha... did you read the rest of that article?

In 1964, President Johnson faked an attack by the North Vietnamese at the Gulf of Tonkin, ​

Woowoowoowoowoowoowooooooooooooooo....

Nothing to do with the topic at hand but still, whoever wrote that site is on drugs.

That highlighted part is absolutely true.

My point was that President Johnson was briefed on global warming several decades ago. Would you like to dispute that fact or would you like to substantiate your claim that the author who wrote that quote was "on drugs"?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

No, I clearly stated emissions intensity, and, unlike you apparently, I tend to assume most JREF posters are smart enough to figure it out for themselves what it means,

You mean smart compared to someone who can't tell the difference between liquids and solids?

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Now that the infantile semantic games are over, do you accept that it is a practical impossibility for an economy with the momentum of China to begin reducing its emissions over the next 15 years?

We better cut off all funding for wind and solar and plow it all into atom smashers then.

 

[bit_pattern]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for rule 12.

 

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Edited by Tricky: 

Edited for response to modded post.

So... France, nuclear, 90g CO₂/kWh
Denmark, wind, 650g CO₂/kWh

Numbers don't lie, you do.