freediver wrote on Feb 11^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:


Possibly....Then the playing field would be closer to level than it is now..

freediver wrote on Feb 10^th, 2013 at 7:57pm:


enter the now commonplace FD abuse and condescencion.

Quote:


Gizmo, what kind of game do you think this is?

Quote:


Longy, pointing out that your idiotic remarks are idiotic is not abuse. We are a long way from evidence here. You are getting tripped up on basic logic, even basic english.

Quote:


So prove it. Try putting together at least one rational argument. Or how about you try giving a straight answer for once instead of complaining that people are being mean to you? I don't think you have managed to do so once in this thread, despite 8 pages of complaining about people being mean to you about it. You just respond with more vague, meaningless gibberish. Here is an example you deflected on previously:

Anyway, in case you have forgotten, the problem with that is that it would mean that poor countries have to give money to rich countries for the right to pollute at the same levels. Would you agree that such a position is totally unworkable in international negotiations?

Can you also explain why your idea, which is completely unworkable, is somehow better than a principle that has already been accepted by most first world countries?

Quote:


Can you point out where you and gizmo have done this? Both you and gizmo have made claims that demonstrate complete inability to understand even the basics of this debate. From you:

Quote:


From Gizmo:

Quote:


(plus his latest response above - btw do you agree with gizmo that splitting China into smaller countries would render him unable to criticise Chinese emissions? Would it also render you incapable of blurting out this meaningless gibberish?)

How else are people meant to interpret these stupid remarks?

Quote:


And here is where you lose it in typical arogant fashion. GIZMO AND I HOLD AN OPINION. now google 'opinion'  and see if it can teach you what it is.  You completely ignore the right to hold an opinion. You completely negate any argument you find inconvenient and simply discard anything not to your liking. This is why so many good posters have left this place - because good argument is punished and stupidity is reward. How else do you explain DRAH's continued protected existence (and he is protected and uis unbannable by your own word).

Gizmo and I have made a case against per-capita assessment. I dont give a crap if you like it or not. I do however care that you simply state that everything is a non-argument simply because YOU didnt make it.

No one can debate with you because your attitude is one of unrelenting arrogance.  And it is why your sometimes good ideas will never get anywhere - because you do not beleive it is possible for them to be improved on.

Just as well CO2 emissions are getting increasingly discredited as a driver of the global warming that isnt happening now anyhow. It is a metpahor for the value of your increasingly silly arguments.

I suspect gizmo and longy are taking a leaf out of Tony Abbott's book - reject the science outright, but pretend to accept the need for action and follow this through with having completely absurd positions, because not believing the science justifies making no sense at all on every other aspect.

Ok you want to compare the emissions by per capita because it sounds great to raise the level of what country emits. First, per capita refers to averaging out the emissions across a populations, however, does not account to what population is actually emitting the CO2 and what proportion is not.
Is it expected that those who have minute emissions should reduce their emissions by 10% to meet your demand? Even though, they produce so little now and live a harsh life style you still expect them to reduce their emissions? You also expect to use the said ‘per capita’ figures to ask the heaviest polluters to only reduce their emission minutely, because on average they are actually polluting very little?
Or do you expect to use the other figures to determine exactly what each individual should reduce their emissions? If this is the case then you are only using an averaging figure to manipulate a population into believing something that is not actually true
‘Per capita’ figures are simply a tool for populations to scare and intimidate people into believing what politicians want you to believe. It appears you have fallen for it hook, line and sinker.
There is no reasonable argument for expecting a population to create good policy using these figures because there are so many variables not accounted for, who is actually emitting the CO2 being one of them. In fact no government in the world will use these figures to create policy, they have only used it to justify them to the easily manipulated an ill-informed… such is this thread demonstrates.

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2013 at 10:11pm:
Oh, and I thought you were such the articulate one.

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2013 at 10:11pm:
Sorry, further down the post you declare that this is exactly the system used when the Kyoto protocol was set.

The demand by AGW nutters that everybody has to reduce their emissions. This is why the 'Per Capita' figure was used to justify the Carbon Tax and people such as yourself are determined to defend it.

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2013 at 10:11pm:
However, that is not what you are portraying when you are in use of 'per capita' figures. You are portraying that each individual has the ability to reduce emissions, which is a fallacy.

For example, did you emit 4t of CO2 today? Do you emit the 'Per capita' amount on a daily basis? Then who, If not you? If you actually had any real idea of who is emitting the amount you proclaim to be an issue, you would be surprised.

freediver wrote on Feb 12^th, 2013 at 10:11pm:

I think you will find that you are very much incorrect. I also think you know very little about the agreement of the Kyoto protocol if you assume there where mandatory targets set on any country due entirely of the fact, the only agreement reached was to make agreement that something should be done.

So far you have not addressed any point raised.
Since the fact that ‘per capita’ rates do not demonstrate who is emitting the CO2, why is it a good figure to use? An example of which is China, you say that acceptable levels of CO2 emissions are due to averaging over population. However, what percentage of the population in China are emitting the CO2? Considering a very large amount of Chinese people are emitting very little emission, hardly noticeable across the national emissions, how do you know exactly what it is? For exaggerated purposes let us say 10% of the Chinese population is emitting 90%  if the CO2, then would that not be far worse than Australia where say 10% are emitting 90% of the CO2? How do you know these figures are wrong?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 13^th, 2013 at 10:41pm:


Really? Perhaps if you actually took the time to examine the protocol you would see
Quote:
from unfccc
However, to be realistic about this Quote:
from Wikki
Quote:
from kyotoprotocol dot com
If you had taken the time to understand what has actually happened, you would be aware that no limits were set. They were negotiated and agreed to. This is extremely different to your claim that they were set by the Kyoto protocol.

Also if you want a greater knowledge of what has actually occurred. You could find out what Annex 1 countries are. Then you might have some idea how they compiled the actual agreement, to decide what level is acceptable for reductions.