China

[gowlerk 1,912]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

It demonstrates how for many people it's more political than environmental.

No, it demonstrates that no one can do much except in their own backyard. 

[murps2000 86]

2 hours ago, brenthutch said:

The climate system doesn’t care how much CO2 an individual produces, only total emissions.

I thought your position was that it didn’t care at all.

[Phil1111 911]

18 minutes ago, gowlerk said:

No, it demonstrates that no one can do much except in their own backyard. 

Emissions per capita demonstrate a countries geography, gross amount of oil and gas production-refining capacity.Together with that countries advancement in energy production and inherent energy resources. Heavy industry production and to a smaller extent lifestyles.Together with the gross number of inhabitants including livestock.

Oil wells flare and leak methane, natural gas, etc. as a result of production. Qatar for example is ranked 14th in the world for oil production. It ranks sixth in the world.for gas production. Qatar is minuscule in population and geographic size.

Suggesting that these emissions are political is both pandering to stupidity and ignorant.

Edited December 22, 2021 by Phil1111

[billvon 2,400]

1 hour ago, murps2000 said:

I thought your position was that it didn’t care at all.

That was Monday.

[Coreece 190]

2 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

Suggesting that these emissions are political

What was suggested is that your eagerness to defend the biggest polluter on the planet is a bit peculiar and demonstrates a political motive more so than an environmental one.

 

[Phil1111 911]

15 minutes ago, Coreece said:

What was suggested is that your eagerness to defend the biggest polluter on the planet is a bit peculiar and demonstrates a political motive more so than an environmental one.

 

Statistics is hardly "eagerness to defend". The fact that China has more than four times as many people seems to have escaped you and Brent in your efforts to explain the American absence from climate accords until recently. The absence of the American right and the GOP to even acknowledge the existence of global warming.Or as America's number one ranking as a global polluter, see below.

Historical responsibility for climate change is at the heart of debates over climate justice.

"History matters because the cumulative amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) emitted since the start of the industrial revolution is closely tied to the 1.2C of warming that has already occurred....In first place on the rankings, the US has released more than 509GtCO2 since 1850 and is responsible for the largest share of historical emissions, Carbon Brief analysis shows, with some 20% of the global total....China is a relatively distant second, with 11%, followed by Russia (7%), Brazil (5%) and Indonesia (4%). The latter pair are among the top 10 largest historical emitters, due to CO2 from their land."

[billvon 2,400]

38 minutes ago, Coreece said:

What was suggested is that your eagerness to defend the biggest polluter on the planet is a bit peculiar and demonstrates a political motive more so than an environmental one.

No one has defended China here.  Are you sure your political views aren't getting in the way of your common sense?

[brenthutch 383]

3 hours ago, murps2000 said:

I thought your position was that it didn’t care at all.

It cares, just very very little.

[olofscience 421]

22 minutes ago, brenthutch said:

It cares, just very very little.

Until it comes to food production - then all of a sudden the effect is massive, right brent? 

[brenthutch 383]

1 hour ago, olofscience said:

Until it comes to food production - then all of a sudden the effect is massive, right brent? 

Food production and climate, although related, are two different things.  BTW I never said the impact of CO2 on global food production was “massive” I just said it was positive.  If you have evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.

[Coreece 190]

4 hours ago, Phil1111 said:

The fact that China has more than four times as many people seems to have escaped you

And the vast economic and geographical disparities throughout China and their influence on  per capita numbers has escaped you.  The mean is more like 11, not 7. 

 

4 hours ago, billvon said:

4 hours ago, Coreece said:

What was suggested is that your eagerness to defend the biggest polluter on the planet is a bit peculiar and demonstrates a political motive more so than an environmental one.

No one has defended China here. Are you sure your political views aren't getting in the way of your common sense?

Brent starts a thread about China's increased coal consumption.

Phil posts a pic:

 

 

So seriously, you look at that and the first thing that comes to mind is that "China uses 150 million metric tonnes less than it did in 2013?"  That'd be your argument?  I mean that's like something Trump would say.  Where's your way of common sense?

 

And you really don't have much room to talk.  How many people did you accuse of defending Trump when they were merely addressing discrepancies/contradictions between what the left was posting here and what their "supporting" articles actually said.

Edited December 23, 2021 by Coreece

[Phil1111 911]

11 minutes ago, Coreece said:

And the vast economic and geographical disparities throughout China and their influence on  per capita numbers has escaped you.  The mean is more like 11, not 7..

IMO Brent has you beat in intellectual curiosity and math. His ability to establish commonality in his debate is superior. But in attempts to use fact in support of argument he's well above.

Wealth & Inequality in the U.S. and China (From USC) In China "The richest 10% own an increasing share of China's total wealth and the share held by the bottom 50% own less. The U.S. was and remains more unequal in wealth distribution than China, though the gap between the two countries is narrowing.

Perhaps you will state some other mean statistic or other such fictitious variable of imagined relevance. What you don't seem to realize is that you typically post in such styles when your religious ideals have been exposed for what they are and your ego comes to the fore.

[olofscience 421]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

If you have evidence

...by which you mean a random blog post or article on the internet right?

[Coreece 190]

1 hour ago, Phil1111 said:

Wealth & Inequality in the U.S. and China (From USC) In China "The richest 10% own an increasing share of China's total wealth and the share held by the bottom 50% own less. The U.S. was and remains more unequal in wealth distribution than China, though the gap between the two countries is narrowing.

Perhaps you will state some other mean statistic or other such fictitious variable of imagined relevance. What you don't seem to realize is that you typically post in such styles when your religious ideals have been exposed for what they are and your ego comes to the fore.

Wtf does wealth inequality, ego and my religion have to do with your ridiculous defense of China's coal consumption?

 

[billvon 2,400]

3 hours ago, Coreece said:

Brent starts a thread about China's increased coal consumption.

Phil posts a pic: . . .

So seriously, you look at that and the first thing that comes to mind is that "China uses 150 million metric tonnes less than it did in 2013?"  That'd be your argument?

No, not at all.  Are you just assuming people's positions and arguing against them?  I'd suggest that's not very effective.

[Coreece 190]

5 hours ago, billvon said:

9 hours ago, Coreece said:

Brent starts a thread about China's increased coal consumption.

Phil posts a pic: . . .

So seriously, you look at that and the first thing that comes to mind is that "China uses 150 million metric tonnes less than it did in 2013?"  That'd be your argument? 

No, not at all.  Are you just assuming people's positions and arguing against them? 

That was a direct quote, but it's easy to miss when he continually bombards his own posts with irrelevant content.  I don't read most of it either, so I can't blame you.

Edited December 23, 2021 by Coreece

[Coreece 190]

24 minutes ago, RobertMBlevins said:

I am not a big fan of China. But just pointing the finger at them and trying to lay most of the blame on them for the current situation is phony.

Nobody's doing that.  The only phony here is the alarmist and his ridiculous defense of China's increasing coal consumption.

[olofscience 421]

According to Brent, China's progress is entirely due to burning coal right? Nothing to do at all with things like, WTO membership or anything like that.

If only the US burned more coal, then surely it would become Great Again(TM). That's the only thing holding you back...

/s

[brenthutch 383]

13 hours ago, olofscience said:

...by which you mean a random blog post or article on the internet right?

“In China, where more than half of global coal-fired electricity generation takes place, coal power is expected to grow by 9% in 2021”

https://www.iea.org/news/coal-power-s-sharp-rebound-is-taking-it-to-a-new-record-in-2021-threatening-net-zero-goals

IEA good enough for you?

 

[olofscience 421]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

good enough for you?

 

That has absolutely nothing to do with food production. Losing track of the discussion, are we?

[brenthutch 383]

8 minutes ago, olofscience said:

That has absolutely nothing to do with food production. Losing track of the discussion, are we?

Food production?  

You need to read the original post and get back on track my friend.

BTW thanks for the early Christmas present of a good laugh.

[olofscience 421]

1 hour ago, brenthutch said:

You need to read the original post and get back on track my friend.

Here's your full post:

17 hours ago, brenthutch said:

Food production and climate, although related, are two different things.  BTW I never said the impact of CO2 on global food production was “massive” I just said it was positive.  If you have evidence to the contrary I would love to see it.

It's good that you still get a good laugh, incoherent as you may be.

[brenthutch 383]

5 hours ago, olofscience said:

Here's your full post:

It's good that you still get a good laugh, incoherent as you may be.

Food production and climate…are two different things.  I even spell it out to keep you from being confused…”are two different things”

dif·fer·ent

/ˈdif(ə)rənt/

adjective

1. 

not the same as another or each other; unlike in nature, form, or quality.

Merry Christmas class dismissed.