Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    22 Nov '13 09:10 / 1 edit
    Some time in the past week, delegates from 130-some odd countries walked out of a UN climate change conference in Warsaw. The reason: the reluctance of developed nations to fork over cash to redeveloping nations, to, ah, "offset the effects of global warming". In other words, the climate change hoax is and always was a redistributive ruse by poorer nations to persuade rich nations to pay them. Read more here:


    Drama: Yet another round of United Nations climate talks ends in a mass walkout
    POSTED AT 2:01 PM ON NOVEMBER 21, 2013 BY ERIKA JOHNSEN


    The “drama” in my headline is purely facetious, because really, the tremendous impotence that unfailingly results when these globalist-minded, regulation-loving bureaucrats trying to dictate top-down international standards get together is about as anti-climactic as it gets. Who knows how many more times these delegates will have to head home from these farcically grandiose conferences with nothing to show for their pains before they will finally perhaps reevaluate their strategies, but as the Financial Times pointed out in an editorial earlier this week, all these futile conferences ever seem to produce are new ideas for mutual impoverishment pacts:

    Better to break a promise than to let it break you. That is apparently the view of the Japanese government, which last week said the country’s carbon emissions in 2020 would be 3 per cent higher than in 1990, not 25 per cent lower as previously pledged. The reversal, which came as the latest round of UN climate talks began in Warsaw, was widely condemned. Yet Japan has merely conceded the inevitable. The country had no plan for delivering its promised reductions – even before the Fukushima disaster closed its nuclear power stations, forcing it to burn more gas.

    Instead of berating Japan for rescinding its commitments, delegates in Warsaw should turn a critical eye towards the proceedings of which they are a part. This is the 19th meeting of its kind since the process was created at the 1992 Rio Earth Summit. The last visible progress came in 1997 in the shape of the Kyoto protocol. But the targets were modest and applied only to developed countries, the US (then the world’s biggest polluter) refused to join, and the resulting savings have been dwarfed by rising emissions in the developing world.

    Even the Kyoto Protocol, the FT editors note, hasn’t accomplished very much of anything, and searching for the next-in-line but equally ineffectual Global Climate Treaty won’t either. As if to prove the FT’s point, the two-week UN climate conference wrapping up in Warsaw this week basically fell apart on Wednesday, with more than 130 developing countries storming out when the developed nations expressed their general disinclination to funnel money out of their own countries and into developing countries’ budgets. Via HuffPo:

    With two days left, there was commotion in the Warsaw talks Wednesday after negotiators for developing nations said they walked out of a late-night meeting on compensation for the impact of global warming. …

    Contrasting views on what’s been said and done in closed discussions is not unusual in the slow-moving U.N. effort to curb global warming, which has often been held back by mistrust between rich and poor countries. The talks in Warsaw on a new global climate deal in 2015 have been going on since Nov. 11.

    The question of who’s to blame for global warming is central for developing countries, who say they should receive financial support from rich nations to make their economies greener, adapt to climate shifts and cover the costs of unavoidable damage caused by warming temperatures. …

    In Warsaw, developing nations are coming up with fresh ways to make their point. Brazil has proposed creating a formula to calculate historical blame.

    “They must know how much they are actually responsible … for the essential problem of climate change,” Brazilian negotiator Raphael Azeredo said.

    Developed nations blocked that proposal, however, saying the world should look at current and future emissions when dividing up the responsibility for global warming.

    Essentially, developing countries (including China, by the way — evidently a major ringleader in this fruitless exercise) want prosperous countries to pay them for “loss and damage,” i.e. assume legal liability for natural disasters and give them money to build up their so-called green energy infrastructures. Why developing nations would think developed nations would agree to such a redistributive arrangement, when they are themselves mired in massive debt/economic problems and fiscal reality is now forcing them to walk back their own impractically expensive green-energy commitments (looking at you, Europe!), I have no idea.

    Alas, it looks like the dream of the Great Global Climate Treaty has been thwarted once again. Sad face.


    Global socialism. The liberal endgame. Exposed and defeated.
  2. 22 Nov '13 11:02
    It's not actually clear to me that China is a victim of climate change, or at least, not every region of the country. Manchuria and Inner Mongolia, for instance, probably wouldn't suffer if annual mean temperatures rose a little.
  3. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    22 Nov '13 16:02
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    It's not actually clear to me that China is a victim of climate change, or at least, not every region of the country. Manchuria and Inner Mongolia, for instance, probably wouldn't suffer if annual mean temperatures rose a little.
    Let's be clear, China chokes its own citizens. If you go out in Beijing on a bad smog day, you can barely see across the street and every breath burns your breathing passages. They're a savage people in modern times. Absolutely savage. Their value system is something I've worked hard to understand and do not, and I've amassed a modest resume of working directly with the Chinese government.

    There are a lot of very good reasons to care about pollution. But taking hard-earned wealth from rich countries to give it to dictators with non-functioning governments in poor countries is not one of them.
  4. 22 Nov '13 16:07
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    They're a savage people in modern times. Absolutely savage. Their value system is something I've worked hard to understand and do not, and I've amassed a modest resume of working directly with the Chinese government.
    A savage people, really? A savage regime, perhaps! After all, Taiwan has basically the same culture - so does Singapore, more or less - but presumably you wouldn't call the Taiwanese or the Singaporese savage people?
  5. Standard member sasquatch672
    Don't Like It Leave
    22 Nov '13 16:20
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    A savage people, really? A savage regime, perhaps! After all, Taiwan has basically the same culture - so does Singapore, more or less - but presumably you wouldn't call the Taiwanese or the Singaporese savage people?
    Maybe. I had great respect for a 5,000-year-old culture until I started working with them. In my experience they are not to be trusted, at all.
  6. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    22 Nov '13 22:20
    Originally posted by Teinosuke
    It's not actually clear to me that China is a victim of climate change, or at least, not every region of the country. Manchuria and Inner Mongolia, for instance, probably wouldn't suffer if annual mean temperatures rose a little.
    Flooded coastlines are very bad news for China.
  7. Subscriber AThousandYoung
    It's only business
    22 Nov '13 22:25
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Maybe. I had great respect for a 5,000-year-old culture until I started working with them. In my experience they are not to be trusted, at all.
    Chinese people are the least savage on the planet in my opinion. But that doesn't make them trustworthy. Intrigue and backstabbing are very civilized traits. These are unpleasant, but very civilized phenomena.

    Conan the Barbarian stories explore this idea in a very interesting way. Conan is the archetypical savage, glorious and manly, a warrior, who doesn't trust beaurocrats, or sorcerers, or thieves, or any of that civilized crap.
  8. 22 Nov '13 23:14
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Some time in the past week, delegates from 130-some odd countries walked out of a UN climate change conference in Warsaw. The reason: the reluctance of developed nations to fork over cash to redeveloping nations, to, ah, "offset the effects of global warming". In other words, the climate change hoax is and always was a redistributive ruse by poorer n ...[text shortened]... warted once again. Sad face.


    Global socialism. The liberal endgame. Exposed and defeated.
    A few years back the emails were hacked in England. Climate change by man is clearly a hoax.
  9. Standard member Soothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    22 Nov '13 23:43
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Maybe. I had great respect for a 5,000-year-old culture until I started working with them. In my experience they are not to be trusted, at all.
    Here is where your racism is on display. You denied the accusation when Moon made it, but you've so duped yourself by your own doublethink that you cannot see it.

    She got to keep the house, right?
  10. Standard member wolfgang59
    Infidel
    23 Nov '13 00:12
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    A few years back the emails were hacked in England. Climate change by man is clearly a hoax.
    That's cleared that up.

    Next world problem?
  11. 23 Nov '13 01:31
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    That's cleared that up.

    Next world problem?
    Yes I would also like to mention I am available to answer questions for the rest of the week.
  12. 23 Nov '13 03:16
    Originally posted by sasquatch672
    Some time in the past week, delegates from 130-some odd countries walked out of a UN climate change conference in Warsaw. The reason: the reluctance of developed nations to fork over cash to redeveloping nations, to, ah, "offset the effects of global warming". In other words, the climate change hoax is and always was a redistributive ruse by poorer n ...[text shortened]... warted once again. Sad face.


    Global socialism. The liberal endgame. Exposed and defeated.
    Extracting money has long been the agenda of the chicken little crowd, even before it was designated global warming, or climate change.
  13. 23 Nov '13 10:15
    Originally posted by joe beyser
    A few years back the emails were hacked in England. Climate change by man is clearly a hoax.
    Physicists used to think that light travels though the aether. Clearly physics is a hoax.
  14. 23 Nov '13 16:47
    Originally posted by KazetNagorra
    Physicists used to think that light travels though the aether. Clearly physics is a hoax.
    If Global Warming is wrong, then all of science is wrong!

    You lefties are pathetic.
  15. Standard member finnegan
    GENS UNA SUMUS
    23 Nov '13 21:39
    Originally posted by Eladar
    If Global Warming is wrong, then all of science is wrong!

    You lefties are pathetic.
    Are we to infer from this that Science is a "leftie" domain and has been proven wrong (in its entirety) on the basis of certain inappropriate emails written by some scientists? I imagine that would make Galileo a leftie for example and wrong on the basis of these emails (exposed at last?).

    Sometimes it is hard go on... The futility of a debate like this is just so dismal.