You're growing a little repetitive. As I told you before, the IPCC does not make "predictions": it makes projections based on scenarios. Please show me a link that demonstrates they are wrong.As are you. And is not predictions and projections a semantics thing.No, that's a straw man argument. You don't buy the global warming "alarmism" because you reject the scienceActually, I was repeating what you implied. I guess the reason I doubt Kyoto is that, if as you say, the science is absolutely certain and life on earth hangs in the balance, why exempt nations like India and China? The global treaty did not care about the fact that China will be belching forth coal filth for decades, but if the US tried to put ONE coal factory online, it was a detriment to the world.http://www.c3headlines.com/2011/10/another-day-another-study...http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/hera...http://www.paulmacrae.com/It is all over the net. just the first one's that came up.I like the Hurricane predictions as well. Splat.Laughable. You're just making this up. Show me where I said thatYes, that is self-evidently trueYou deny saying something in the same post that you most clearly keep "preaching" LOL.Did you not say that all those that reject AGW where only guided by faith based beliefs? You do not remember what you typed? Your original post was mocking ALL republicans, to the letter, as being non science believers. They are non science believers as they do not subscribe to the notion that China can do as it pleases, but the US has to shut down or ramp down it's economy. And don't give me that usual bunch of links trying to convince me that China is green. Yes, they spend a lot more total dollars on green assets, but not in per capita spending. LOL... Notice people shift the benchmark once again to put the US in the worst possible light. http://www.mackinac.org/15493However, in perspective, the difference may not seem so staggering. With 1.3 billion-plus people, China is the most populated nation on Earth, with more than a billion extra souls needing energy than the United States has. In terms of investment per capita, the $21 billion in “hard asset” spending by the United States (6.8 cents of so-called “clean energy” spending per person) is nearly double that of China’s $47 billion (3.5 cents of “clean energy” spending per person).You have done your best to defend China, as I knew you would. They are the world's biggest polluter, but you throw per capita stats in our face, to put the US in the worst possible light. Well, shift the benchmark again, I suppose...use total dollars.YOu tell me I am faith based, but I tell you I am agnostic. You say the science is irrefutable, yet no one cares what China and India are doing, at least not politically. I will tell you that the US will manage to reduce our emissions and invest in so called "green" technology, all without a supranational treaty that favors China over the US. The earth is billions of years old, and it has gone through major climate change, and to think we can hasten it, or slow it down, is folly. However, we can do things to keep our air clean and our waters safer, etc. All in favor of that, but I don't want to scuttle our economy to do it, while China, Canada and Brazil do as they please without the uproar from Europe. RR
© Copyright 1998-2014, The Motley Fool Limited. All rights reserved. This material is for personal use only.The Motley Fool, Fool, and the "Fool" logo are registered trademarks of The Motley Fool, Inc.Place of Reg: England & Wales. Company Reg No: 3736872. VAT Reg No: 945 6990 68. Registered Office: 5th Floor, 60 Charlotte Street London W1T 2NU.
Page load time and server: