Re-freezing Arctic with a submarine

[Simon]

i am not talking about guilt, just statistics, you are the one that keeps attacking me and making me sound like some hippy lunatic.

[SerieZ]

Is it OUR Manufacturing when it is under foreign legislation?
We cannot make regulations abroad (or can we?).  So what do WE do?
Move all our manufacturing back to Europe? We force people to stop buying stuff from Companies who do not comply?
What do YOU suggest (except pretending not to play the pointless blame game)?

In all cases the big badie seems to be Europe, because that just seems the easy way to see things. 

[coppice]

Ok - We revert Europe back to the Dark Ages with 0 carbon Emissions. Now what?

We did not have zero net carbon emissions in the dark ages. The human race's way of life has been unsustainable since agriculture began. Look at historical descriptions of things like the Nile's fertile crescent. It has gone. Most of the ancient areas famed for amazing farming conditions were wrecked before the dark ages. Europe was mostly forest before the middle ages. There are descriptions from the Romans of oak being the great British weed. We cleared most of that, and overworked the resulting farm land. So, when things like guano were discovered they were a relief in the face of falling fertility. Now we rely on the Haber process so much to sustain crop production its estimated that half the nitrogen in your body has been through that process. Most descriptions of primitive people living in harmony with nature are fiction. Only the pure hunter gatherers live with a sustainability comparable to the wildlife around them. From James Watt on we have massively speeded up the crunch point, but if you want things to be genuinely sustainable some very radical things need to happen.

[SerieZ]

i am not talking about guilt, just statistics, you are the one that keeps attacking me and making me sound like some hippy lunatic.

No, you get that very wrong.
I just think you look at this from an wrong angle.

There is another guy in this thread who DID end up in my block list tho.

[Simon]

Is it OUR Manufacturing when it is under foreign legislation?
We cannot make regulations abroad (or can we?).  So what do WE do?
Move all our manufacturing back to Europe? We force people to stop buying stuff from Companies who do not comply?
What do YOU suggest (except pretending not to play the pointless blame game)?

In all cases the big badie seems to be Europe, because that just seems the easy way to see things. 

So you insist on continuing to tell lies. I never suggested any such thing. I simply pointed out that the net contribution of the EU is not consolidated in the EU figure and that emissions in other countries were created in manufacturing for the EU. That simple. i did not blame anyone, I did not propose a solution simply point out 2 pages back now that you can't simply quote the 9.5% officially attributed to the EU as all that the EU causes.

We can't calculate it accurately but we can say that the total amount of emissions caused by the EU is more than the 9.5% that is emitted from within the EU. It's not an opinion, ont an argument just a simple bit of logical deduction that many will agree with.

[SerieZ]

Is it OUR Manufacturing when it is under foreign legislation?
We cannot make regulations abroad (or can we?).  So what do WE do?
Move all our manufacturing back to Europe? We force people to stop buying stuff from Companies who do not comply?
What do YOU suggest (except pretending not to play the pointless blame game)?

In all cases the big badie seems to be Europe, because that just seems the easy way to see things. 

So you insist on continuing to tell lies. I never suggested any such thing. I simply pointed out that the net contribution of the EU is not consolidated in the EU figure and that emissions in other countries were created in manufacturing for the EU. That simple. i did not blame anyone, I did not propose a solution simply point out 2 pages back now that you can't simply quote the 9.5% officially attributed to the EU as all that the EU causes.

We can't calculate it accurately but we can say that the total amount of emissions caused by the EU is more than the 9.5% that is emitted from within the EU. It's not an opinion, ont an argument just a simple bit of logical deduction that many will agree with.

I dare you to point to a LIE I told. 

You are saying that Europeans are to blame that other countries manufacture products which end up for the European Market while conveniently ignoring that these people CAN very well regulate their Market. They do not, why?
I fail to see your point.

You are correct, exact numbers of Guilt are hard to pinpoint and in my opinion absolutely useless to tackle this Issue.

[Simon]

what do you mean they need to regulate their market? whatever you produce will have an impact, depending on how you do it more or less. but the fact remains that for us to have the things we have and WANT we ARE causing more than 9.5% of the emissions.

Tell me where all of your stuff was made, not switzerland I take it. But apparently you are not the direct cause of any of the emissions outside of switzerland that were a result of you "stuff" being manufactured regardless of how good the process was. It's not a case of blame or guilt just a fact that the statistics that you are now abusing cannot and were not meant to relate the information that you claim they do. And in that you are a liar! you are misusing a statistic to say something it is not!

within the EU we emit 9.5% but that is not all of the emissions the EU is a cause of. Simple. i can't figure out a simpler plainer, non emotive, factual way of trying to explain a simple number to you, because you are deliberately misinterpreting the figures.

I had an almost similar argument with a stupid woman on fare book yesterday because she could not get hear head around the fact i was simply sharing information not blaming, not guilt tripping, just explaining how it works. I thought the users of this forum were more intelligent than the average facebook users but apparently they can be less intelligent. She eventually had the sense to shut up so that she did not start to look more and more stupid! Take the hint!

[SerieZ]

what do you mean they need to regulate their market? whatever you produce will have an impact, depending on how you do it more or less. but the fact remains that for us to have the things we have and WANT we ARE causing more than 9.5% of the emissions.

Tell me where all of your stuff was made, not switzerland I take it. But apparently you are not the direct cause of any of the emissions outside of switzerland that were a result of you "stuff" being manufactured regardless of how good the process was. It's not a case of blame or guilt just a fact that the statistics that you are now abusing cannot and were not meant to relate the information that you claim they do. And in that you are a liar! you are misusing a statistic to say something it is not!

within the EU we emit 9.5% but that is not all of the emissions the EU is a cause of. Simple. i can't figure out a simpler plainer, non emotive, factual way of trying to explain a simple number to you, because you are deliberately misinterpreting the figures.

I had an almost similar argument with a stupid woman on fare book yesterday because she could not get hear head around the fact i was simply sharing information not blaming, not guilt tripping, just explaining how it works. I thought the users of this forum were more intelligent than the average facebook users but apparently they can be less intelligent. She eventually had the sense to shut up so that she did not start to look more and more stupid! Take the hint!

Lying and Trolling implies malicious Intent and I recommend you to check yourself before the name calling you have complained yourself about earlier on, especially considering your rather insulting personal anecdote.
(Or don't)

I know where (most) of my stuff comes from, if you believe one second I fail to understand the point you are making... I do not know what to tell you.
Yes, we could and should consume less and smarter, I agree.

I still fail to see how Europeans are responsible for emission caused by other Countries, no one forces them to manufacture for us.
They do because it benefits them.

As a question to you: Do you think the Tobacco Industry should be regulated? Yes or no, and why?

What I would also like to point out is the Trend we are having. Talking about consciousness.
https://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=d5bncppjof8f9_&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&idim=country:CHE:SWE:DEU&hl=de&dl=de#!ctype=l&strail=false&bcs=d&nselm=h&met_y=en_atm_co2e_pc&scale_y=lin&ind_y=false&rdim=region&idim=country:CHE:SWE:DEU:RUS:GBR:CHN:MYS:THA:BRA:IND:USA&ifdim=region&tstart=-286592400000&tend=1417474800000&hl=de&dl=de&ind=false

Btw I have yet to hear about Climate Protest in China, id be delighted.

[Simon]

i give up, so you admit you agreed all along and go back to saying that we are not responsible for the manufacture of our goods because they happen in another country. Which one is it?

No I never said that we are responsible for all of china's emissions. But a proportion of their emissions and in fact the emissions of any other country we buy from are partly attributable to the people they trade with.

In the same way if we sell to china and we do, it may be services but that still means emissions then the impact of what we produce to supply them is attributable to them.

It's really simple. Regardless of where our stuff is made we cause those emissions. Having per country statistics on their own is actually a pointless statistic that is hardly worth making available.

[SerieZ]

i give up, so you admit you agreed all along and go back to saying that we are not responsible for the manufacture of our goods because they happen in another country. Which one is it?

No I never said that we are responsible for all of china's emissions. But a proportion of their emissions and in fact the emissions of any other country we buy from are partly attributable to the people they trade with.

In the same way if we sell to china and we do, it may be services but that still means emissions then the impact of what we produce to supply them is attributable to them.

It's really simple. Regardless of where our stuff is made we cause those emissions. Having per country statistics on their own is actually a pointless statistic that is hardly worth making available.

I do not agree all along, I see where you are coming from (something you refuse to aknowledge and resort to name calling) and I agree we can touch our own noses but emissions are done by certain people/countries and they have the control over how polluting their own Industry is. Fact of the matter, they do not seem to care quite much.
That is also the reason I asked you the question you did not respond to about the Tobacco Industry.

I find it amusing - we take your Money, produce the useless crap you buy from us AND blame you for the CO2 Emissions. Just great Mental Gymnastics all around.
(Kind of an hilarious sort of Geopolitical Gas Lightning).  (US, China and India laughing their asses of till its to late)

We are running in circles here indeed tho...

Edit: I felt the need to add a Disclaimer to the bad joke/analogy - Europe is not a Victim. 

[Simon]

I find it amusing - we take your Money, produce the useless crap you buy from us AND blame you for the CO2 Emissions. Just great Mental Gymnastics all around.

Really, pray please elaborate, why the great mental gymnastics. They don't take our money without us having a choice. Again you are trying to turn something on it's head without reason. by and large someone chooses where to manufacture. If someone came to you and asked you to make something and export it to them would you do it knowing that you are now responsible for the emissions from their stuff being made, would you be happy with it being framed that way? Would you be happy to be blamed for their consumption. things only work one way for you eh? It's completely pathetic and telling that you view is so heavily skewed that if the boot were on the other foot I bet you would change your mind......

(Kind of an hilarious sort of Geopolitical Gas Lightning).  (US, China and India laughing their asses of till its to late)

We are running in circles here indeed tho...

But we still choose to use these countries knowing that their manufacturing processes are not as they would be if made locally. So we know they do this and we don't care. And we still want to blame them fore our emissions.

You obviously want to have your cake and eat it, or have a drunk wife but still a full barrel of wine. I am afraid that you have no valid points to make. You want the benefit but to blame someone else for them. And you are misusing statistics just like a politician......

[Marco]

Individuals don't act environmentally consciously and collectively we are limited by WTO and trade agreements. We can cut our own throats by voting to go faster than Paris agreements, but all that does is ship more manufacturing to Asia. We can not force them to cut emissions faster within the framework of multilateralism.

[CatalinaWOW]

Individuals can act responsibly.  And it would be a far better solution than the coercive power of government.  I guarantee that no one will be happy with the coercive solutions.

There is even evidence that individual action will become common with younger generations.  The actions are simple and easy.  Use less.  Refuse to buy non-repairable items.  Recycle (which includes all the nasty sorting and cleaning which is non economic to do at industrial scale.) Have fewer children.

In spite of that evidence I don't really see us (anyone, the US, Europe, the world) doing this the easy way.  Coercive methods are coming.  Whether it is the governments or the environments that are doing the coercion.

[Simon]

Individuals can do litle on their own, but all idividuals changing their behaviour will make a difference. I repeat my example above. Many people are on fixed cost phone contracts and no sooner have you paid for your phone your provider offers a "free" upgrade or slightly before you have paid it off to make sure you stay locked in with them. Who really needs to change their phones this quickly? why do they take the contracts and upgrades. I use my phone as a phone and for limited web activity. I don't need a new phone ever 18 months. I buy the phone outright, use it as long as I can and shop for the best sim deal i can get. My current one is a very good deal. So in that respect i have made a difference. If everyone did that it would be significant and the same with everything else.

I think carefully before buying anything. I buy the best I can get with a view to it lasting and keep it as long as i can.

[Marco]

Have fewer children.

This is dangerous with replacement migration from underprivileged cultures. The replacements consume just as much, but they won't contribute to innovation any time soon and it will take a while for consumerism to wear thin for them too. Which first world culture does best at recycling? The most homogenous and xenophobic one ...

Individuals can do litle on their own, but all idividuals changing their behaviour will make a difference.

Most won't absent the kind of social pressure modern liberal societies are increasingly unable to impose.

Without some kind of NWO to force the world, we aren't going to move much faster than Paris. The US will probably get back to Paris once there is a democratic majority/president. A couple European nations will cut their own throat, but that will just displace manufacturing and accomplish little. Other than that, not much will happen. In theory a hard left United States could unilaterally force an advanced schedule, they are still the most important market in the world after all. I don't think any democrats really have the balls though.

[Simon]

Most won't absent the kind of social pressure modern liberal societies are increasingly unable to impose.

I know, it's called the me, me, me culture. Have to keep up with the joneses and keep up appearances. I just don't see the need for waste. I don't miss having a new phone every year. I prefer to keep the one i have as long as possible and save me having to keep setting up new phones.

[SerieZ]

I find it amusing - we take your Money, produce the useless crap you buy from us AND blame you for the CO2 Emissions. Just great Mental Gymnastics all around.

Really, pray please elaborate, why the great mental gymnastics. They don't take our money without us having a choice. Again you are trying to turn something on it's head without reason. by and large someone chooses where to manufacture. If someone came to you and asked you to make something and export it to them would you do it knowing that you are now responsible for the emissions from their stuff being made, would you be happy with it being framed that way? Would you be happy to be blamed for their consumption. things only work one way for you eh? It's completely pathetic and telling that you view is so heavily skewed that if the boot were on the other foot I bet you would change your mind......

(Kind of an hilarious sort of Geopolitical Gas Lightning).  (US, China and India laughing their asses of till its to late)

We are running in circles here indeed tho...

But we still choose to use these countries knowing that their manufacturing processes are not as they would be if made locally. So we know they do this and we don't care. And we still want to blame them fore our emissions.

You obviously want to have your cake and eat it, or have a drunk wife but still a full barrel of wine. I am afraid that you have no valid points to make. You want the benefit but to blame someone else for them. And you are misusing statistics just like a politician......

So far you have called me:

• Troll
• Liar
• Emotional
• Facebook Idiot
• Dishonest

All the while circling what I am trying to convey.
I think the conversation is over as you are not even trying but to insult me.

I am amazed you are a global Moderator here.

[Simon]

You are free to believe what you like. And this is the problem. it is all about belief not fact. You just won't accept anything but what you want to believe. When I present sensible arguments you just twist my words. Anyone else doing this to anyone else would have been banned for trolling! As it's off topic I let it go, do this in another thread and you will get banned anyway. You run out of arguments and call me a bully. Good luck.

[SerieZ]

You are free to believe what you like. And this is the problem. it is all about belief not fact. You just won't accept anything but what you want to believe. When I present sensible arguments you just twist my words. Anyone else doing this to anyone else would have been banned for trolling! As it's off topic I let it go, do this in another thread and you will get banned anyway. You run out of arguments and call me a bully. Good luck.

I understand your point and I account for the facts and I do NOT twist your words, you just claim so without a shred of evidence.
You do not engage my argument and then You retort to insults because you lack comprehension and believe yourself smarter than you actually are.

Good Luck to you as well.

[dietert1]

Yesterday i watched a youtube interview with Stefan Rahmstorf, who is a scientist in climate studies for 30 years. He seems to be a friendly person, who does not talk very much about himself or other people.

He talks about the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and that it contains enough ice to raise sea levels by 3 meters. He says that ice may be lost already. The loss is a progressive process that nobody can stop once it has passed a certain "trip point". He also talks about Greenland and its ice, enough to raise sea levels another 7 meters. He mentions that in the past they estimated cost of protection measures and found that any rise more than 1 m will force people to leave certain coastal areas. He also explains how ridiculous is the idea to build farms of snow cannons to produce more ice there. You'd also require lots of wind generators to feed the snow cannons. That's all nonsense, it can't be done. He also says that getting the 10 m sea level rise may take several hundred years.

The link is (sorry, in german)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wprwhgg8SO4&feature=youtu.be&t=3193

Now - just to illustrate the problem - the US approach seems to be: Let's wait. When it really happens we can build a 20 m high wall around New York. Yes, true. New York will then be under sea level. Now remember what happened in Fukushima. Such ideas are extremely risky. Others would say stupid.

Regards, Dieter

[Simon]

David Atenborough explained it in an interview the other day. Politicians will not do anything that will make a difference after their term in office. The effect has to be felt tomorrow.

[GeorgeOfTheJungle]

Yesterday i watched a youtube interview

I also watched a video, 20 years ago, by an IPCC climate change scientist, that said that all that ice would be melted by now. But it isn't.

[coppice]

David Atenborough explained it in an interview the other day. Politicians will not do anything that will make a difference after their term in office. The effect has to be felt tomorrow.

This is a key reason why Hong Kong grew so well under British rule from the 1960s until the British left in 1997. The Hong Kong government were long term people, with long term goals, but behind it was a democratic government in London that couldn't allow the Hong Kong government to do anything too outrageous. It worked for them, but its not a reproducible structure. The only long term plans you get under 4 or 5 year term governments are grandiose unfunded fluff, like "We will return to the moon", or "We will go to Mars". Everything else has to produce material returns by the time the next election comes around. So, you see things becoming shorter and shorter term even as those 4/5 year cycles progress.

[Simon]

Yesterday i watched a youtube interview

I also watched a video, 20 years ago, by an IPCC climate change scientist, that said that all that ice would be melt by now. But it isn't.

But the ice is melting, the general projection was correct but he misjudged the time scale.

Weather prediction is exactly the same but I don't hear anyone calling weather predictions junk science because they often don't nail it to the second. As a balloonist colleague tells us, you can predict reliably what will happen but when is harder as a change in wind speed will change the time the rain arrives at. You know for certain it will rain come, but when is less certain.

So you don't mind that predictions about what will happen in a week are not accurate but you call a prediction bullshit because it was over a 30 year time scale and they did not nail it exactly?

[PlainName]

I don't hear anyone calling weather predictions junk science because they often don't nail it to the second

BBC/Met Office predictions usually failed to nail it to several days not so long back. Seems to be better now they (the BBC) have changed supplier. Actually, thinking about it, they've been pretty spot on the last month or so. Nevertheless, their rep needs a serious boost.

You know for certain it will rain come, but when is less certain.

Yep, that bit's easy. Is it warm and dry? I predict it will turn cold and wet. Sometime. Or is it raining? Soon, it will be sunny.

Easy peasy, no science involved