The Abiding Faith Of Warm-ongers

[Boiler 45,923]

The regulations on acid rain and ozone depleting compounds have been successful in reducing those harmful chemicals in the atmosphere.

Do you have some evidence that regulations on air pollutants have not been successful in improving air quality?

You didn't read the link, did you!

[one...two...tree 2,762]

You didn't read the link, did you!

Stick with scientific data if you want a real discussion on the efficacy of regulations on air, for one. Second, Cap and Trade is a particular policy approach to reducing CO2 emissions, which I said earlier, we can discuss/debate over the best methods to reduce CO2 emissions, but there is no reasonable argument that we shouldn't.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Stick with scientific data if you want a real discussion on the efficacy of regulations on air, for one. Second, Cap and Trade is a particular policy approach to reducing CO2 emissions, which I said earlier, we can discuss/debate over the best methods to reduce CO2 emissions, but there is no reasonable argument that we shouldn't.

Sure there is a reasonable argument. NASA just said that if we do nothing the earth will only get 1.3 deg warmer when CO2 is doubled. That is well within the UN goal of keeping the rise below 2 deg. Nothing should be done because we already met the goal! NASA said so. Do you believe the scientists at NASA or don't you?

Edited January 6, 2011 by JohnSmith2007

[Boiler 45,923]

A handful of Chinese and Indian chemicals companies seemingly have the world over a barrel – or rather a large number of barrels of a super-greenhouse gas called HFC-23, which is 14,800 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

This week, apparently following Chinese threats to vent stockpiles of HFC-23 into the atmosphere, a UN panel issued two million valuable carbon credits to a company called Juhua. It has a factory in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, where the gas can be destroyed.

Nobody needs HFC-23. It is a waste by-product of the manufacture of a refrigerant called HCFC-22, used mostly in developing nations. To curb the release of HFC-23 into the atmosphere, the signatories to the Kyoto protocol agreed to pay carbon credits to refrigerant manufacturers that agree to capture and destroy it. The manufacturers can then sell the credits to western companies that want to offset their obligations to cut emissions of other greenhouse gases, under a Kyoto scheme known as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The offer only applies to HCFC-22 plants that were built before 2000. Even so it has proved highly lucrative. By some estimates, the value of the carbon credits is up to 100 times the cost of incinerating HFC-23. The resulting income of Chinese companies alone is estimated to reach $1.6 billion by 2012.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Sure there is a reasonable argument. NASA just said that if we do nothing the earth will only get 1.3 deg warmer when CO2 is doubled. That is well within the UN goal of keeping the rise below 2 deg. Nothing should be done because we already met the goal! NASA said so. Do you believe the scientists at NASA or don't you?

If you listen or read what NASA says, you would know that they aren't saying we shouldn't do anything, for one (you really should check out their website since you now accept their scientific research and findings). Second, the UN set a goal of CO2 Emission reduction based on percentages....

(WSJ)

COPENHAGEN -- The United Nations proposed that rich countries pay to help poor ones curb pollution, while cutting their own emissions by at least 75% and possibly more than 95% by 2050

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126053354299387331.html

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

A handful of Chinese and Indian chemicals companies seemingly have the world over a barrel – or rather a large number of barrels of a super-greenhouse gas called HFC-23, which is 14,800 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

This week, apparently following Chinese threats to vent stockpiles of HFC-23 into the atmosphere, a UN panel issued two million valuable carbon credits to a company called Juhua. It has a factory in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, where the gas can be destroyed.

Nobody needs HFC-23. It is a waste by-product of the manufacture of a refrigerant called HCFC-22, used mostly in developing nations. To curb the release of HFC-23 into the atmosphere, the signatories to the Kyoto protocol agreed to pay carbon credits to refrigerant manufacturers that agree to capture and destroy it. The manufacturers can then sell the credits to western companies that want to offset their obligations to cut emissions of other greenhouse gases, under a Kyoto scheme known as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The offer only applies to HCFC-22 plants that were built before 2000. Even so it has proved highly lucrative. By some estimates, the value of the carbon credits is up to 100 times the cost of incinerating HFC-23. The resulting income of Chinese companies alone is estimated to reach $1.6 billion by 2012.

Infidel!

[JohnSmith2007 353]

If you listen or read what NASA says, you would know that they aren't saying we shouldn't do anything, for one (you really should check out their website since you now accept their scientific research and findings). Second, the UN set a goal of CO2 Emission reduction based on percentages....

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB126053354299387331.html

The stated goal of the UN is to keep the rise in temps to 2 deg. The percentages is their way of meeting that goal. Now that NASA says a doubling of CO2 will only result in a 1.3 deg rise that means the goal has been met. Pretty simple unless you are wanting CO2 regulations for reasons other than stopping GW. I would be willing to bet that if NASA flat out said that regulating CO2 would have zero effect you would still want it for your political reasons. As I said, MMGW is a political problem, not a scientific one. The NASA story really points that out.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The stated goal of the UN is to keep the rise in temps to 2 deg. The percentages is their way of meeting that goal. Now that NASA says a doubling of CO2 will only result in a 1.3 deg rise that means the goal has been met. Pretty simple unless you are wanting CO2 regulations for reasons other than stopping GW. I would be willing to bet that if NASA flat out said that regulating CO2 would have zero effect you would still want it for your political reasons. As I said, MMGW is a political problem, not a scientific one. The NASA story really points that out.

You are obviously a shill for Exxon-Mobil.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

A handful of Chinese and Indian chemicals companies seemingly have the world over a barrel – or rather a large number of barrels of a super-greenhouse gas called HFC-23, which is 14,800 times more potent than carbon dioxide.

This week, apparently following Chinese threats to vent stockpiles of HFC-23 into the atmosphere, a UN panel issued two million valuable carbon credits to a company called Juhua. It has a factory in Hangzhou, Zhejiang province, where the gas can be destroyed.

Nobody needs HFC-23. It is a waste by-product of the manufacture of a refrigerant called HCFC-22, used mostly in developing nations. To curb the release of HFC-23 into the atmosphere, the signatories to the Kyoto protocol agreed to pay carbon credits to refrigerant manufacturers that agree to capture and destroy it. The manufacturers can then sell the credits to western companies that want to offset their obligations to cut emissions of other greenhouse gases, under a Kyoto scheme known as the Clean Development Mechanism (CDM).

The offer only applies to HCFC-22 plants that were built before 2000. Even so it has proved highly lucrative. By some estimates, the value of the carbon credits is up to 100 times the cost of incinerating HFC-23. The resulting income of Chinese companies alone is estimated to reach $1.6 billion by 2012.

source?

[JohnSmith2007 353]

The first line of your story Steven really says it all.

The United Nations proposed that rich countries pay to help poor ones curb pollution, while cutting their own emissions by at least 75% and possibly more than 95% by 2050

It would cost trillions for us to cut our CO2 to those levels and trillions more to help 3rd world countries curb theirs. The goal here isn't to curb CO2, it is to bring the US down to the level of the third world countries. Doing this will bankrupt the USA even faster than we are already going broke. This is why any suggestion that GW isn't as bad as first thought is met with so much scorn by the nuts. They, and you, are doing this for social engineering on a global scale. If the threat turns out to be less than they thought then their plans are out the door.

[Boiler 45,923]

There is a reason that this is in the Politics and Religion Forum.

source?

New Scientist (One of the believers)

The link above.