#Barack Obama ready to offer target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
cut-target
Barack Obama ready to offer target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions
President Barack Obama is considering setting a provisional target for
cutting America's huge greenhouse gas emissions, removing the greatest
single obstacle to a landmark global agreement to fight climate change.
The Observer has learnt that administration officials have been
consulting international negotiators and key players on Capitol Hill
about signing up to a provisional target at the UN global warming summit
in Copenhagen, now less than three weeks away.
Todd Stern, the state department climate change envoy, said the
administration recognised that America had to come forward with a target
for cutting its emissions. The US, which with China is responsible for
40% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, is the only major developed
nation yet to table an offer.
"What we are looking at is to see whether we could put down essentially a
provisional number that would be contingent on our legislation," Stern
said from Copenhagen, where he was meeting Danish officials. "We are
looking at that, there are people we need to consult with."
A provisional target – if accepted by other nations – would solve Obama's
dilemma. The Senate will not have passed a domestic law before
Copenhagen, meaning that, if he makes an offer there, it could
subsequently be rejected in Washington. But if he makes no offer, the
deal is likely to crash anyway, and with it hopes of rapidly combating
global warming.
Stern did not go into detail on the level of emissions cuts being
considered, but it is thought likely that a provisional target would be a
reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 14-20% by 2020, compared with
2005 levels. The White House and state department have also discussed the
idea of putting forward a range of targets rather than a specific figure.
"I think the president has several options," said Jonathan Lash,
president of the World Resources Institute. "One which seems to be under
discussions inside the administration is to offer a range: to say "here
is what we hope to be able to propose" and that range might go from what
the president has always committed to since his campaign – 14% – to the
highest number in any pending legislation, which is 20% in the Senate."
The House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill in June that would
cut US emissions by 17%. A proposal now before the Senate would cut
emissions by 20%, but a number of key Democratic senators have said the
target is too stringent.
Even at the higher end, such figures fall short of the emissions targets
adopted by other industrialised countries in Europe and Japan, and
recommended by scientists to avoid the worst ravages of climate change.
Many negotiators are frustrated with America – especially given the high
expectations for the Obama presidency. "One could perhaps argue that this
could have been a much higher priority and this should perhaps have been
pushed before any of the other initiatives the administration has taken,
particularly given the fact that there was a deadline of December for
getting an agreement," said RK Pachauri, chairman of the intergovernment
panel on climate change.
Obama and other world leaders have already conceded that Copenhagen will
not produce a legally binding treaty. But the leaders are looking to the
meeting to seal firm political agreement about specific action plans by
the industrialised and rapidly emerging economies that can go into
immediate effect.
But ensuring success at Copenhagen carries a risk that could ultimately
defeat efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, Lash warned.
Setting too strong a provisional target could provoke a backlash from
Congress, which might damage efforts to pass climate change laws in the
US.
"Without the US passing legislation, we can't move an overall agreement,"
Lash said. "My greatest concern is that the administration does nothing
in Copenhagen, because that ultimately undercuts everybody's efforts to
achieve an international agreement."
Democratic leaders in the Senate are growing increasingly wary about
taking up a controversial climate change bill. The Senate majority
leader, Harry Reid, said that leaders would not turn to a bill until
March 2010 – but even that date is in doubt because of congressional
elections in November.
On Thursday, John McCain, Obama's presidential opponent and a sponsor of
past climate change legislation, said about the backers of the current
bill: "Obviously, they're going nowhere."
Despite the paralysis in the Senate, Obama has been edging towards a
concrete commitment to cutting America's emissions. During his summit in
Beijing with China's Hu Jintao, Obama said America would come forward
with emission reductions targets so long as China offered specific
measures of its own.
But the administration is mindful of a re-run of the 1990s, when the
Senate voted down ratification of the Kyoto treaty by 99-0, despite the
US having already committed to it internationally.
Such concerns make it more likely that other nations would view
favourably a more modest provisional target at Copenhagen. Stern said
there was a generally positive reaction in the international community to
the idea of a provisional target.
"On the one hand, people are keen on having the United States put a
number down," Stern said. "On the other hand, people are extraordinarily
keen on getting [US] legislation done and don't want us taking steps that
will make that more difficult."
--
Slavery: The belief that people can be property
Corporatism: The belief that property can be people.
Escape_the_Cult_Now
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/16694
"The Reality Behind Green
Al Gore and his sycophants (includes nearly all Democrats, Pelosi, state
governors, big business, and Obama) huddle together to make mighty money at
our expense. Behind the whole charade, as always, is money and power."
..."Save the World? Marketing Drivel!
Everything we see happening is the result of overwhelming Marxist-Fascist
machinations to bring about world rule. 'Saving the World' is just a cute
marketing ploy used to hide the reality of political violence against the
people. The tools of Marxism-Fascism include loss of freedoms - which is why
most western countries are now snowed-under by PC laws and demands; loss of
choice of energy supplies and types; genocide, especially of Third World
peoples - hence the refusal of greens to allow Africa to use coal and gas;
increasingly crippling taxation"
...
"Pseudo-Science, the Fall Guy
The front for all this is pseudo-science, the supposed science of
environmentalism. That is, tree-huggers are trying to make their insanity
into a living, breathing system!"
'The Global Green Agenda', Barry Napier. Published, Petra Press, 2009.
Foreword by Dr Tim Ball.
ISBN 978-0-9559908-1-6 Available Amazon and book stores.
Follow link to longer article.
jr92
wrote:
Global warming. The greatest hoax ever perpertrated on mankind.
Even if the stupid co2 increase theory that you so espouse IS true,
how much impact does the US have today?
Unemployment in double digits in America; few people here today are
working, or even have the ability to contribute to your GW nonsense.
China and India, on the other hand, are putting vast amounts more of
this evil Co2 than we could ever hope to do, but somehow are getting a
free pass.
Wonder why??????
While the end result will be nothing, as far as man made climate
change is concerned, and even if it were, the good old USA will get
the blame, and forced to pay the price, while other contries will
either get off with a free pass, or pay a lot less for something that
they or not causing, nor is evening happening to begin with.
CB
right mind would turn over Energy sovereignty to another power.
Obama is a fool and will be Impeached for his treason
"5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09" <de...@dead.com> wrote in message
news:0YmdnawzAIrtT5XW...@posted.carinet...
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/nov/22/obama-greenhouse-gas-
> cut-target
>
>
> Barack Obama ready to offer target for cutting greenhouse gas emissions
>
>
> President Barack Obama is considering setting a provisional target for
> cutting America's huge greenhouse gas emissions, removing the greatest
> single obstacle to a landmark global agreement to fight climate change.
>
> The Observer has learnt that administration officials have been
> consulting international negotiators and key players on Capitol Hill
> about signing up to a provisional target at the UN global warming summit
> in Copenhagen, now less than three weeks away.
>
> Todd Stern, the state department climate change envoy, said the
> administration recognised that America had to come forward with a target
> for cutting its emissions. The US, which with China is responsible for
> 40% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions, is the only major developed
> nation yet to table an offer.
>
> "What we are looking at is to see whether we could put down essentially a
> provisional number that would be contingent on our legislation," Stern
> said from Copenhagen, where he was meeting Danish officials. "We are
> looking at that, there are people we need to consult with."
>
> A provisional target - if accepted by other nations - would solve Obama's
> dilemma. The Senate will not have passed a domestic law before
> Copenhagen, meaning that, if he makes an offer there, it could
> subsequently be rejected in Washington. But if he makes no offer, the
> deal is likely to crash anyway, and with it hopes of rapidly combating
> global warming.
>
> Stern did not go into detail on the level of emissions cuts being
> considered, but it is thought likely that a provisional target would be a
> reduction in greenhouse gas emissions of 14-20% by 2020, compared with
> 2005 levels. The White House and state department have also discussed the
> idea of putting forward a range of targets rather than a specific figure.
>
> "I think the president has several options," said Jonathan Lash,
> president of the World Resources Institute. "One which seems to be under
> discussions inside the administration is to offer a range: to say "here
> is what we hope to be able to propose" and that range might go from what
> the president has always committed to since his campaign - 14% - to the
> highest number in any pending legislation, which is 20% in the Senate."
>
> The House of Representatives narrowly passed a bill in June that would
> cut US emissions by 17%. A proposal now before the Senate would cut
> emissions by 20%, but a number of key Democratic senators have said the
> target is too stringent.
>
> Even at the higher end, such figures fall short of the emissions targets
> adopted by other industrialised countries in Europe and Japan, and
> recommended by scientists to avoid the worst ravages of climate change.
>
> Many negotiators are frustrated with America - especially given the high
> expectations for the Obama presidency. "One could perhaps argue that this
> could have been a much higher priority and this should perhaps have been
> pushed before any of the other initiatives the administration has taken,
> particularly given the fact that there was a deadline of December for
> getting an agreement," said RK Pachauri, chairman of the intergovernment
> panel on climate change.
>
> Obama and other world leaders have already conceded that Copenhagen will
> not produce a legally binding treaty. But the leaders are looking to the
> meeting to seal firm political agreement about specific action plans by
> the industrialised and rapidly emerging economies that can go into
> immediate effect.
>
> But ensuring success at Copenhagen carries a risk that could ultimately
> defeat efforts to reduce global greenhouse gas emissions, Lash warned.
> Setting too strong a provisional target could provoke a backlash from
> Congress, which might damage efforts to pass climate change laws in the
> US.
>
> "Without the US passing legislation, we can't move an overall agreement,"
> Lash said. "My greatest concern is that the administration does nothing
> in Copenhagen, because that ultimately undercuts everybody's efforts to
> achieve an international agreement."
>
> Democratic leaders in the Senate are growing increasingly wary about
> taking up a controversial climate change bill. The Senate majority
> leader, Harry Reid, said that leaders would not turn to a bill until
> March 2010 - but even that date is in doubt because of congressional
Phlip
gotta just say
having a black person telling you what you can and can't do has sure
got to SUCK for you these days, huh?
Kevin Cunningham
Notice, what bunkie can't do is site a, that's a, paper that shows
that global warming is just wrong. There have been hundreds of papers
published that show that global warming is right. The morons can't
get it through their heads that if they published the real facts, the
fact that they claim to have, they would be Nobel prize winners, they
would be famous.
One problem though....
They don't have any facts. They are asked to produce the facts and
they can't do it. No facts, no respect.
Aaaahhhh, can't you come up with *a* fact?
5279 Dead, 412 since 1/20/09
In absolute terms, it's the second worst polluter, behind China.
>>
>> Unemployment in double digits in America; few people here today are
>> working, or even have the ability to contribute to your GW nonsense.
>>
So you're saying that America is too broke to save its economy from utter
devastation?
>> China and India, on the other hand, are putting vast amounts more of
>> this evil Co2 than we could ever hope to do, but somehow are getting a
>> free pass.
>>
China has more than four times as many people, and only barely exceeds US
emissions. What does that tell you, bubbles?
jr92
You have got to be the dumbest so-called intellect to ever wander (in
your case, "wander" fits you well) the earth.
I mean, how dumb, or if not dumb, how anti US can you
be?????????????????????
>
According your last statement, China EXCEEDS US
EMISSIONS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Barley, or otherwise.
That means, according to you, they produce more emissions than the US.
In CC regards, that is a bad thing!
If America is such a terrible producer of these so-called CO2
producers, then why is China, which is , according to you, which emits
EVEN MORE CO2 THAN THE US, allowed to produce MORE CO2??????????????
Is it ok for them to do so???????????
Are there co2 emissions, somehow LESS harmfull than the same emissions
that the US emits????????????
If I understand you lunatics,
More co2 emmisions equals BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
China emits more c02 than the US.
They are more bad than the US, if this is true.
Go after them first, because it that is the case, if you want to get
rid of the worst Co2 emitters, then go after CHINA
>
> >> Wonder why??????
>
> >> While the end result will be nothing, as far as man made climate change
> >> is concerned, and even if it were, the good old USA will get the blame,
> >> and forced to pay the price, while other contries will either get off
> >> with a free pass, or pay a lot less for something that they or not
> >> causing, nor is evening happening to begin with.
>
> > Notice, what bunkie can't do is site a, that's a, paper that shows that
> > global warming is just wrong. There have been hundreds of papers
> > published that show that global warming is right. The morons can't get
> > it through their heads that if they published the real facts, the fact
> > that they claim to have, they would be Nobel prize winners, they would
> > be famous.
>
> > One problem though....
>
> > They don't have any facts. They are asked to produce the facts and they
> > can't do it. No facts, no respect.
>
> > Aaaahhhh, can't you come up with *a* fact?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
jr92
>
It tells me that if your stupid climate change, and the CAUSE, of
such, if you believe it, is caused by the Chinese, who, according to
you, emit MORE emissions than the US, BARLEY, or
otherwise!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Bubbles. if the US is devastating the earth as much as the likes of
you say, then China must be doing it EVEN MORE!!!!!!!!!!
Well, maybe just maybe only "barely"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
Maybe you should go after the LARGEST problem, which you admit, is
CHINA!!!!!!!!!!
Just be careful, if you choose to protest the CHICOMS, please avoid
those tanks when they try to run over you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
IOW, idiot, You just said CHINA EMITS MORE EMISSIONS THAN THE
US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Guess who contibutes the most you your "climate
change"????????????????????
> >> Wonder why??????
>
> >> While the end result will be nothing, as far as man made climate change
> >> is concerned, and even if it were, the good old USA will get the blame,
> >> and forced to pay the price, while other contries will either get off
> >> with a free pass, or pay a lot less for something that they or not
> >> causing, nor is evening happening to begin with.
>
> > Notice, what bunkie can't do is site a, that's a, paper that shows that
> > global warming is just wrong. There have been hundreds of papers
> > published that show that global warming is right. The morons can't get
> > it through their heads that if they published the real facts, the fact
> > that they claim to have, they would be Nobel prize winners, they would
> > be famous.
>
> > One problem though....
>
> > They don't have any facts. They are asked to produce the facts and they
> > can't do it. No facts, no respect.
>
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
I'm impressed. It only took you four lines of utterly wasted text to
figure that out.
You must not pay much attention to what's actually going on in global
warming. Yes, America is expected to set an example, since American
idiots keep pretending that America is the world's leader. But China is
what has everyone scared, because they want to be the next America with
1.6 billion people. They're already one of the most polluted countries
on earth, and they are just about where America was in the 1970s, waking
up to the fact that pollution was becoming a national crisis.
>
>
> In CC regards, that is a bad thing!
>
>
> If America is such a terrible producer of these so-called CO2 producers,
> then why is China, which is , according to you, which emits EVEN MORE
> CO2 THAN THE US, allowed to produce MORE CO2??????????????
>
The Chinese government is getting immense pressure from the rest of the
world on emissions: they're presently building a new coal power plant
every third day. If you didn't spend all your time whining in self-pity,
you might have known that.
>
>
> Is it ok for them to do so???????????
>
>
> Are there co2 emissions, somehow LESS harmfull than the same emissions
> that the US emits????????????
>
>
> If I understand you lunatics,
>
>
> More co2 emmisions equals BAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
>
>
> China emits more c02 than the US.
>
>
> They are more bad than the US, if this is true.
>
>
> Go after them first, because it that is the case, if you want to get rid
> of the worst Co2 emitters, then go after CHINA
>
Let me know when you're done with your rant, bubbles, and then I'll
explain to you why China polluting doesn't give the US the right to
pollute.
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
I'm still shaking my head and grinning at the fact that you've taken it
upon yourself to be an "expert" for the denialists, and yet you didn't
know that very basic fact about human emissions of CO2.
jr92
I'm unimpressed.
It took me four wasted lines to text what I, and most others, ALREADY
KNOW!!!!!!
Just because you are obviously slow to begin with, I'll restate what
is true.
China is the worst polluter, and largest co2 emitter, on the face of
the earth.
If, the Global warmng, climate change, or whatever the hell they are
calling theirselve's these days people believe the crap that they are
shoveling out, then they must admit China must be dealt with first, in
order to provide the most "bang for the buck", in terms of dealing
with this "crisis."
Of course, suddenly the rules of the game changes, as listed in your
next response:
Can't believe that the intellect that you are, didn't pick up on this.
> You must not pay much attention to what's actually going on in global
> warming. Yes, America is expected to set an example, since American
> idiots keep pretending that America is the world's leader. But China is
> what has everyone scared, because they want to be the next America with
> 1.6 billion people. They're already one of the most polluted countries
> on earth, and they are just about where America was in the 1970s, waking
> up to the fact that pollution was becoming a national crisis.
>
Although, admittidly, we are NOT the largest cause of the CW scam, we
still have to 'set the example"
That is really what it boils down to, isn't it,
socialist??????????????
"Setting the example" means higher taxes for Americans, as well giving
up a lot of our freedoms, as well.
And, they are "waking up to the fact" that pollution is becoming a
"national crises" by snubbing their nose at the rest of the world.
They gonna do what they wanna do,and no one can stop them!!!!!
Before I go on, a couple of points I need to make:
1. There is a difference between "pollution" and global warming.
We really need to understand that.
You goons point that out to me repeatedly!!!!!!!!!!!!!
2. Global warming, while it is the LARGEST HOAX EVER PERPERTRATED ON
MANKIND, should be dealt with on a consistant basis with all
"offenders".
The largest "offender" should not be given a free pass over the
smaller offenders.
That is, if the alarmist who really DO beileve in this hoax want to
get GW under control.
"Specially, since you goons keep reminding me of this.
> > In CC regards, that is a bad thing!
>
> > If America is such a terrible producer of these so-called CO2 producers,
> > then why is China, which is , according to you, which emits EVEN MORE
> > CO2 THAN THE US, allowed to produce MORE CO2??????????????
>
> The Chinese government is getting immense pressure from the rest of the
> world on emissions: they're presently building a new coal power plant
> every third day. If you didn't spend all your time whining in self-pity,
> you might have known that.
>
Read what you post, idiot. If they are, indeed, building a new COAL
PLANT (gosh, that has to be the worst enemy to good old mother earth),
every third day, then the "pressure" of the rest of the world really
has them shaking in their boots, does't it???? ( Read my obove
response about the Chicoms "snubbing their nose" at the rest of the
world)
jr92
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am shaking my head and grinning over your love affair with any
connection regarding co2 and global warming, or climate change.
Hell, you cant even decide what NAME to blame co2 on!!!
Or even WHAT co2 causes, or DOESN'T cause.
More hurricanes, or less?????
The INTENSITY of the more, or fewer hurricanes????????
Does co2 cause either of these, and if so, is mankind to blame for
something we can't even decide on in the first place????????????????
Warner temps, or the cooler temps we have witnessed since the "peak"
of 1998??????????????
Did we really CAUSE the 'high" of 1998, and did our actions suddenly
cause the temps to reverse over the last 11 years?????????
Are the Artic Ice Caps REALLY gonna be gone by the summer of
2015????????????????? I am trying to increase my retirement by betting
ANY CG guy that this WON'T happen, no one takes me up on this bet.
Are we actually causing the Anartica ice to melt at one end of the
continent, but at the same time, causing the ice to INCREASE at the
other end???
Has the Eastern seaboard of the US gone under water yet by this as yet
undecided if it really is happening sea rise due to the undecided
melting of ice in the Artics??????????? If not, how much HAS the
water risen, and how soon can we expect NYC to be underwater, and how
come we don't have the ability or know how to build flood walls,
dikes, or whatever you wanna call it to stop the floodling, no matter
WHAT happens??????????????
All lies.
It don't exist.
You know it as well.
Just dont want to believe it.
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
Blind denial. Well, it doesn't look like you really have anything to say.
>
>
> Hell, you cant even decide what NAME to blame co2 on!!!
>
Not me, bubbles. I use 'em both. "Climate change" is the more accurate
of the two, in that it's what results from global warming.
>
> Or even WHAT co2 causes, or DOESN'T cause.
>
No, that's beyond any possible dispute.
>
> More hurricanes, or less?????
>
No, nobody's ever claimed that. It's the FEROCITY of the hurricanes that
is expected to worsen, based on the fact that over the past 30 years, it
HAS worsened.
> The INTENSITY of the more, or fewer hurricanes????????
Exactly. Very good.
>
> Does co2 cause either of these, and if so, is mankind to blame for
> something we can't even decide on in the first place????????????????
>
Yes, CO2 causes global warming which leads to higher ocean surface
temperatures which leads to bigger and stronger hurricanes. And nobody
is seriously disputing that except the strange little cultists of the
denialist movement.
>
> Warner temps, or the cooler temps we have witnessed since the "peak" of
> 1998??????????????
>
The "peak year" the denialists like to claim is actually 1997, which is
tied with 2007 for hottest year on record. But the years in between make
up eight of the ten hottest years on record.
>
> Did we really CAUSE the 'high" of 1998, and did our actions suddenly
> cause the temps to reverse over the last 11 years?????????
>
Nope. Normal fluctuation. But the overall trend is up, and the trend is
getting steeper.
>
> Are the Artic Ice Caps REALLY gonna be gone by the summer of
> 2015????????????????? I am trying to increase my retirement by betting
> ANY CG guy that this WON'T happen, no one takes me up on this bet.
>
Not that I've heard. I've heard there could be total summer melt-back of
the sea ice by 2025, but that's as close as any prediction I've heard
comes. I bet the Washington Nationals won't win the Super Bowl this
year.
>
> Are we actually causing the Anartica ice to melt at one end of the
> continent, but at the same time, causing the ice to INCREASE at the
> other end???
>
Yup. That's why some people shy away from the term "global warming":
they're afraid idiots will think it means consistent warming in all
places at the same rate. The evidences suggests they have a point.
>
> Has the Eastern seaboard of the US gone under water yet by this as yet
> undecided if it really is happening sea rise due to the undecided
> melting of ice in the Artics??????????? If not, how much HAS the water
> risen, and how soon can we expect NYC to be underwater, and how come we
> don't have the ability or know how to build flood walls, dikes, or
> whatever you wanna call it to stop the floodling, no matter WHAT
> happens??????????????
>
The oceans so far have risen about one and a half inches. We can start
to see really significant problems in about 25 years.
>
> All lies.
>
Poor little cultist.
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
Ah. Quite. And if the Chinese behave like pigs, that gives YOU the
right to behave like a pig.
I see.
>
>
> If, the Global warmng, climate change, or whatever the hell they are
> calling theirselve's these days people believe the crap that they are
> shoveling out, then they must admit China must be dealt with first, in
> order to provide the most "bang for the buck", in terms of dealing with
> this "crisis."
>
China is being dealt with. They are under immense pressure from the rest
of the world, they fact potential revolts at home, and they just agreed
to commit emissions cuts at Copenhagen.
>
> Of course, suddenly the rules of the game changes, as listed in your
> next response:
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Can't believe that the intellect that you are, didn't pick up on this.
>> You must not pay much attention to what's actually going on in global
>> warming. Yes, America is expected to set an example, since American
>> idiots keep pretending that America is the world's leader. But China
>> is what has everyone scared, because they want to be the next America
>> with 1.6 billion people. They're already one of the most polluted
>> countries on earth, and they are just about where America was in the
>> 1970s, waking up to the fact that pollution was becoming a national
>> crisis.
>>
>>
>
>
>
> Although, admittidly, we are NOT the largest cause of the CW scam, we
> still have to 'set the example"
>
>
Yes. You want to be the world leader? Then lead!
jr92
You miss my point by a mile. Well, really you don't, but you don't
care.
You really DO understand the hyprocity that I am point out here.
China is MUCH more of a polluter than the US is, and the gap is
getting wider every single day.
Yet the good old US is the villian, according to CC idioits.
Here, I WILL give the Chinese credit.
They contribute the same to climate change as the US does.
EXACTLY nothing!
Man made climate change doesnt exist.
We don't have the ability to do so.
Greatest hoax ever pertertrated on mankind.
OTOH, China is a major contributor to over-all pollution, but gets a
free pass on this.
> I see.
>
> > If, the Global warmng, climate change, or whatever the hell they are
> > calling theirselve's these days people believe the crap that they are
> > shoveling out, then they must admit China must be dealt with first, in
> > order to provide the most "bang for the buck", in terms of dealing with
> > this "crisis."
>
> China is being dealt with. They are under immense pressure from the rest
> of the world, they fact potential revolts at home, and they just agreed
> to commit emissions cuts at Copenhagen.
>
>
Yeah, they really are under a lot of pressure.
You really believe this stuff your saying???
Protesters there get run over by tanks, and if they are lucky, simply
get sent to prision.
And, while they maybe have agreed to cut emmisions, they also have
agreed to allow their citizens basic human rights,and have also agreed
to not send weaponds to Iran or North Korea, or other terrorist
states.
They have a lot of credibility here, as well, don't they?
>
>
>
> > Of course, suddenly the rules of the game changes, as listed in your
> > next response:
>
> > Can't believe that the intellect that you are, didn't pick up on this.
> >> You must not pay much attention to what's actually going on in global
> >> warming. Yes, America is expected to set an example, since American
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
5292 Dead, 425 since 1/20/09
Actually, China's 1.7 billion produced about 1% more CO2 last year than
did America's 300 million. The gap is getting wider, I agree.
>
>
> Yet the good old US is the villian, according to CC idioits.
>
You keep saying that. You just want to be the poor little victim, don't
you?
>
> Here, I WILL give the Chinese credit.
>
> They contribute the same to climate change as the US does.
>
Yup. And they will get worse unless things change.
>
> EXACTLY nothing!
>
Are you HOPING for that? Just how nuts are you?
> Man made climate change doesnt exist.
>
OK, you're nuts.
> We don't have the ability to do so.
>
> Greatest hoax ever pertertrated on mankind.
>
>
> OTOH, China is a major contributor to over-all pollution, but gets a
> free pass on this.
>
If global warming doesn't exist, then why would you care?
>
>
>
>
>> I see.
>>
>> > If, the Global warmng, climate change, or whatever the hell they are
>> > calling theirselve's these days people believe the crap that they
>> > are shoveling out, then they must admit China must be dealt with
>> > first, in order to provide the most "bang for the buck", in terms of
>> > dealing with this "crisis."
>>
>> China is being dealt with. They are under immense pressure from the
>> rest of the world, they fact potential revolts at home, and they just
>> agreed to commit emissions cuts at Copenhagen.
>>
>>
>>
> Yeah, they really are under a lot of pressure.
>
They are. Did you not hear their announcement the other day?
>
> You really believe this stuff your saying???
>
The stuff I'm saying, or the nonsense you're trying to pretend I'm saying?
>
> Protesters there get run over by tanks, and if they are lucky, simply
> get sent to prision.
>
>
Most people don't need to be thrown in prison after being run over by a
tank. It's redundant, not to mention a health hazard.
>
> And, while they maybe have agreed to cut emmisions, they also have
> agreed to allow their citizens basic human rights,and have also agreed
> to not send weaponds to Iran or North Korea, or other terrorist states.
>
>
> They have a lot of credibility here, as well, don't they?
Bad news, bubbles. Copenhagen is dealing with CO2 emissions. Not human
rights, and not export of weapons--something no American has a moral
platform to discuss, by the way.
jr92
Actually, that means that China produces MORE co2 than the US.
Minimize it any way you want to. They produce more. Pressure should
start there, directed at the one's most responsible for your non-
existant CC.
Second place should be pressured in a secondary manner, if the climate
change idiots really believe in their agenda, unless the "agenda" is
directed at the US in the first place,which of course, it is.
And, of course, I stand by what I say in that China does not affect CC
any more than the US does.
Man made CC does not exist.
> > Yet the good old US is the villian, according to CC idioits.
>
> You keep saying that. You just want to be the poor little victim, don't
> you?
>
Not victim, liberal, the REST of the world is victims, we are the
VILLIANS, because they are victims, in liberals eyes, don't play with
words.
Maybe if I replace the word "or" instead of "and" you might better
understand what I'm saying?????????????
Well, you really do,but are just trying to be cute.
You aren't cute.
Just as ugly as you are stupid.
The Chinese protesters
who don't get run over by tanks simply get sent to prison for
protesting.
Is that better?????
>
> > And, while they maybe have agreed to cut emmisions, they also have
> > agreed to allow their citizens basic human rights,and have also agreed
> > to not send weaponds to Iran or North Korea, or other terrorist states.
>
> > They have a lot of credibility here, as well, don't they?
>
> Bad news, bubbles. Copenhagen is dealing with CO2 emissions. Not human
> rights, and not export of weapons--something no American has a moral
> platform to discuss, by the way.
>
Copenhagen is a great big joke to the rest of the world, execpt,
possibly, the US, who, under the right liberal leadership, might give
in to these crooks.
And bubbles, I never suggested the Chicoms exports weapons dispite a
Copenhagen treaty, agreement, summit, or whatever.
They will just do so in spite of ANY treaties, anywhere.
jr92
Yeah, they really got the Chi-Coms shaking in their boots at
Copenhagen.
Looks to me like China told the rest of the world to KMA.
Of course, in the end, along with the good ole US of A winding up
sending untold Billions of dollars to the rest of the world, China
will probably be the reciptiant of a few green-backs from Uncle Sam,
as well, all in the name of making the world even colder than it
already is.
And, all the while, going about their own agenda, thumbing their noses
at everyone else.
>
>
>
> > Of course, suddenly the rules of the game changes, as listed in your
> > next response:
>
> > Can't believe that the intellect that you are, didn't pick up on this.
> >> You must not pay much attention to what's actually going on in global
> >> warming. Yes, America is expected to set an example, since American
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -