Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #538974 > unrolled thread

After Paris: Now what for world climate?

Started bySam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
First post2015-12-13 20:51 -0600
Last post2015-12-14 03:34 +0000
Articles 10 — 5 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  After Paris: Now what for world climate? Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 20:51 -0600
    Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-13 21:25 -0600
    Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-13 22:40 -0500
      Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-13 23:04 -0600
      Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 07:49 -0500
        Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 13:55 +0100
          Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 08:26 -0500
            Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? Poutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 15:19 +0100
              Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? Wally W. <ww84wa@aim.com> - 2015-12-14 22:14 -0500
    Re: After Paris: Now what for world climate? jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 03:34 +0000

#538974 — After Paris: Now what for world climate?

FromSam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-13 20:51 -0600
SubjectAfter Paris: Now what for world climate?
Message-ID<9rCdnUnucdwHs_PLnZ2dnUU7-audnZ2d@giganews.com>
After Paris: Now what for world climate?
> http://phys.org/news/2015-12-paris-world-climate.html
> http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2015/thefirststep.jpg

> 'It has to be affordable'

> The United States, for example, wants pledges to be purely voluntary
> to avoid being obliged to take the accord to a hostile Congress for
> ratification.
>
> China, India and other developing nations, in turn, wanted to make
> their commitments conditional on assurances of finance to the tune of
> billions of dollars in the coming decades to help them switch from
> cheap and abundant fossil fuels to costly renewable sources like
> solar and wind.
>
> Another part of the problem was fear of failure—negotiators were keen
> to avoid a repeat of the 2009 UN climate conference in Copenhagen
> which didn't even come close to sealing a global deal.
>
> Instead of a top-down approach of apportioning emissions targets, it
> opened the way to a bottom-up approach: nations would set their own
> emissions-cutting targets and timelines.
>
> The UN's climate science panel says greenhouse-gas emissions have to
> drop 40-70 percent between 2010 and 2050, and to zero by 2100.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#538984

Fromgilber34 <fafa@invalid.com>
Date2015-12-13 21:25 -0600
Message-ID<n4lcqi$rfb$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#538974
On 12/13/2015 8:51 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> After Paris: Now what for world climate?
>> http://phys.org/news/2015-12-paris-world-climate.html
>> http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2015/thefirststep.jpg
>
>> 'It has to be affordable'
>
>> The United States, for example, wants pledges to be purely voluntary
>> to avoid being obliged to take the accord to a hostile Congress for
>> ratification.

US people must be heard !!
why should they pay 3rd world dictators their $$$$ tax money to buy 
solar panels (that work for only 30 years, and will have NO effect on a 
gas) and let those people starve, do with out sanatation, and water ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#538993

FromWally W. <ww84wa@aim.com>
Date2015-12-13 22:40 -0500
Message-ID<hees6b5lj05sho1g6pltamfka6domshn2n@4ax.com>
In reply to#538974
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:51:05 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:

>After Paris: Now what for world climate?

What is a "world climate?"

Is that what exists in Antarctica; or in Hawaii?

One would hope that after the failure Paris, the greenies would
finally shut up; and that MSM would ignore them.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#539000

Fromgilber34 <fafa@invalid.com>
Date2015-12-13 23:04 -0600
Message-ID<n4like$4h2$1@speranza.aioe.org>
In reply to#538993
On 12/13/2015 9:40 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:51:05 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>> After Paris: Now what for world climate?
>
> What is a "world climate?"
>
> Is that what exists in Antarctica; or in Hawaii?
>
> One would hope that after the failure Paris, the greenies would
> finally shut up; and that MSM would ignore them.
>

the good weather places MUST PAY the bad weather places !!

(socialism at the extreme!)


Hawaii MUST PAY Antarctica !! BILLIONS !


it is not "poor weather" Antarctica's fault, and the "rich weather" that 
greedy Hawaii keeps.

Hawaii must SHARE ! !

(same logic as global wormers)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#539041

FromWally W. <ww84wa@aim.com>
Date2015-12-14 07:49 -0500
Message-ID<9ket6bh0muulr7l8e5bk2ko3qa730hkq3i@4ax.com>
In reply to#538993
On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 22:40:44 -0500, Wally W. wrote:

>On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:51:05 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>
>>After Paris: Now what for world climate?
>
>What is a "world climate?"
>
>Is that what exists in Antarctica; or in Hawaii?
>
>One would hope that after the failure Paris, the greenies would
>finally shut up; and that MSM would ignore them.

Sam, don't you want to discuss?

Please start by defining your terms: What does "world climate" mean?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#539042

FromPoutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-14 13:55 +0100
Message-ID<n4me43$u38$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#539041
On 12/14/2015 01:49 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 22:40:44 -0500, Wally W. wrote:
> 
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:51:05 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>
>>> After Paris: Now what for world climate?
>>
>> What is a "world climate?"
>>
>> Is that what exists in Antarctica; or in Hawaii?
>>
>> One would hope that after the failure Paris, the greenies would
>> finally shut up; and that MSM would ignore them.
> 
> Sam, don't you want to discuss?
> 
> Please start by defining your terms: What does "world climate" mean?
> 

Why to define own terms ?

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#539044

FromWally W. <ww84wa@aim.com>
Date2015-12-14 08:26 -0500
Message-ID<1pgt6blqur67m1smgvtj4o82ndmo3mri6p@4ax.com>
In reply to#539042
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:55:53 +0100, Poutnik wrote:

>On 12/14/2015 01:49 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 22:40:44 -0500, Wally W. wrote:
>> 
>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:51:05 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>
>>>> After Paris: Now what for world climate?
>>>
>>> What is a "world climate?"
>>>
>>> Is that what exists in Antarctica; or in Hawaii?
>>>
>>> One would hope that after the failure Paris, the greenies would
>>> finally shut up; and that MSM would ignore them.
>> 
>> Sam, don't you want to discuss?
>> 
>> Please start by defining your terms: What does "world climate" mean?
>> 
>
>Why to define own terms ?

I think your reply is ophered. Don't you agree?

Do you know what I mean by "ophered?"

Don't you need it defined before you can say you agree or not?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#539053

FromPoutnik <Poutnik4NNTP@gmail.com>
Date2015-12-14 15:19 +0100
Message-ID<n4mivv$hrb$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#539044
On 12/14/2015 02:26 PM, Wally W. wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:55:53 +0100, Poutnik wrote:
> 
>> On 12/14/2015 01:49 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 22:40:44 -0500, Wally W. wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:51:05 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> After Paris: Now what for world climate?
>>>>
>>>> What is a "world climate?"
>>>>
>>>> Is that what exists in Antarctica; or in Hawaii?
>>>>
>>>> One would hope that after the failure Paris, the greenies would
>>>> finally shut up; and that MSM would ignore them.
>>>
>>> Sam, don't you want to discuss?
>>>
>>> Please start by defining your terms: What does "world climate" mean?
>>>
>>
>> Why to define own terms ?
> 
> I think your reply is ophered. Don't you agree?
> 
> Do you know what I mean by "ophered?"
> 
> Don't you need it defined before you can say you agree or not?
> 

Do you need to define real number
if it is already defined ?

-- 
Poutnik ( the Czech word for a wanderer )

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#539252

FromWally W. <ww84wa@aim.com>
Date2015-12-14 22:14 -0500
Message-ID<fb1v6bt04sg0nbpm89jtbknvlbjca97uqo@4ax.com>
In reply to#539053
On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 15:19:01 +0100, Poutnik wrote:

>On 12/14/2015 02:26 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>> On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 13:55:53 +0100, Poutnik wrote:
>> 
>>> On 12/14/2015 01:49 PM, Wally W. wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 22:40:44 -0500, Wally W. wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sun, 13 Dec 2015 20:51:05 -0600, Sam Wormley wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> After Paris: Now what for world climate?
>>>>>
>>>>> What is a "world climate?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Is that what exists in Antarctica; or in Hawaii?
>>>>>
>>>>> One would hope that after the failure Paris, the greenies would
>>>>> finally shut up; and that MSM would ignore them.
>>>>
>>>> Sam, don't you want to discuss?
>>>>
>>>> Please start by defining your terms: What does "world climate" mean?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Why to define own terms ?
>> 
>> I think your reply is ophered. Don't you agree?
>> 
>> Do you know what I mean by "ophered?"
>> 
>> Don't you need it defined before you can say you agree or not?
>> 
>
>Do you need to define real number
>if it is already defined ?

Non sequitur.

Who has defined "world climate?"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#538996

Fromjimp@specsol.spam.sux.com
Date2015-12-14 03:34 +0000
Message-ID<fvp1kc-ke8.ln1@mail.specsol.com>
In reply to#538974
Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> After Paris: Now what for world climate?
>> http://phys.org/news/2015-12-paris-world-climate.html
>> http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2015/thefirststep.jpg
> 
>> 'It has to be affordable'

It can not be by any stretch of the imagination or it would already
be being done.

>> The United States, for example, wants pledges to be purely voluntary
>> to avoid being obliged to take the accord to a hostile Congress for
>> ratification.

Translation: no one in their right mind would be willing to pay for
this nonsense.

>> China, India and other developing nations, in turn, wanted to make
>> their commitments conditional on assurances of finance to the tune of
>> billions of dollars in the coming decades to help them switch from
>> cheap and abundant fossil fuels to costly renewable sources like
>> solar and wind.

Translation: send us money and we will provide you with eye wash.

>> Another part of the problem was fear of failure?negotiators were keen
>> to avoid a repeat of the 2009 UN climate conference in Copenhagen
>> which didn't even come close to sealing a global deal.

And didn't accomplish anything either.

>> Instead of a top-down approach of apportioning emissions targets, it
>> opened the way to a bottom-up approach: nations would set their own
>> emissions-cutting targets and timelines.

As in none.

>> The UN's climate science panel says greenhouse-gas emissions have to
>> drop 40-70 percent between 2010 and 2050, and to zero by 2100.

Pure stupidity.

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web