Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

Saudi Arabia accused of trying to wreck Paris climate deal

+4
Wordslinger
Joanimaroni
TEOTWAWKI
boards of FL
8 posters

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 1]

boards of FL

boards of FL

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/08/saudi-arabia-accused-of-trying-to-wreck-the-paris-climate-deal


Saudi Arabia stood accused on Tuesday of trying to wreck the Paris climate summit in order to protect its future as one of the world’s largest oil producers.

As the talks entered the home stretch, developing country negotiators and campaigners became increasingly vocal in their complaints that the kingdom was getting in the way of a deal.

“They are seeing the writing on the wall,” said Wael Hmaidan , director of Climate Action Network, the global campaign group. “The world is changing and it’s making them very nervous.”

Those concerns about the future for an economy almost entirely dependent on fossil fuels was reflected in the negotiations, other observers said.

“Anything that would increase ambition or fast forward this energy transition that is already taking place is something that they try to block,” Hmaidan said.

Saudi Arabia did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

Until it was eclipsed by the US, the Saudi kingdom was the world’s largest oil producer and currently ranks as the 10th largest polluter, according to Enerdata .

Saudi Arabia has long played a high-profile presence at annual climate summits operating from the luxuriously appointed pavillions of the Gulf Co-operation Council – and over the years has regularly been accused of blocking action on climate change.

In the run-up to the Paris summit, however, the kingdom adopted a more amenable posture. Last month it delivered a plan to fight climate change, pledging a “significant deviation” in emissions, but was the last G20 country to submit its offer to the United Nations, and analysts described the targets as opaque.

Last May, Ali al-Naimi acknowledged the global economy was moving away from fossil fuels – and said that Saudi Arabia was prepared to move with it.

“In Saudi Arabia, we recognise that eventually, one of these days, we are not going to need fossil fuels. I don’t know when, in 2040, 2050 or thereafter,” he said.

Oil analysts note the kingdom also faces enormous domestic pressure to diversity its electricity supply. Nearly all of Saudi Arabia’s domestic electricity supply comes from oil, and keeping the lights on and air conditioners humming is taking up a growing share of production that would otherwise have been sold for export.

Behind the closed doors of negotiating sessions, however, the Saudis have strenuously resisted efforts to enshrine ambitious goals into the text of a Paris agreement.

The Saudis objected even to the mention of 1.5C – a new more ambitious target for limiting warming now endorsed by more than 100 countries including vulnerable low-lying states and big polluters such as the European Union and US.

The kingdom balked at the goal of decarbonising the economy by 2050.

The Saudis have also objected to demands for periodic reviews of climate plans, according to accounts from negotiators and observers. Saudi delegates complain that submitting a climate plan before Paris was difficult enough.

“It is unacceptable for developing countries, like my own, to be asked to participate in this so called ratchet mechanism,” the Saudis were reported to have told the session.

“It was tough, we had to go to every ministry, every part of government. We developing countries don’t have the capacity to do this every five years. We are too poor, we have too many other priorities. It’s unacceptable,” a Saudi delegate said.

And although Saudia Arabia ranks as the world’s 15th largest economy, it has resisted efforts to grow the Green Climate Fund to help poorer countries cope with global warming – insisting only industrialised countries contribute.

Saudi negotiators have also demanded that if tiny islands like Kiribati be compensated for climate change, they should also be protected from loss of future oil income, and they have sought financial aid to acquire new green energy technology.

By Tuesday, the Saudi obstruction had even begun to rankle with other members of the Arab League, campaign groups said.

Egypt officially embraced the 1.5C goal at the start of the talks. However, Arab countries as a bloc have yet to endorse the more ambitious target – even though countries such as Morocco are hosting next year’s UN talks and have been praised as a progressive country on climate change.

“We feel Saudi Arabia is playing a bully role in undermining the position of other Arab countries,” Hmaidan said. “It is unfortunate that the Arab group is the only group opposing 1.5C.”


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

Lol... what a fucking joke. Given billions of years of geologic history... when it's been much hotter and much colder... today it's a degree or two too hot... and the reason is humans. Hahahaha... it's impressive what you can swallow.

What if your political solution to lower temperature thew off the natural cycle? What if higher co2 is natural at this level during a natural sun cycle that there's no way we know from our limited record keeping? What was the mini ice age and medieval warming periods? What caused those?



Last edited by PkrBum on 12/8/2015, 7:13 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : *higher)

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:Lol... what a fucking joke. Given billions of years of geologic history... when it's been much hotter and much colder... today it's a degree or two too hot... and the reason is humans. Hahahaha... it's impressive what you can swallow.

What if your political solution to lower temperature thew off the natural cycle? What if lower co2 is naturally at this level during a natural sun cycle that there's no way we know from our limited record keeping? What was the mini ice age and medieval warming periods? What caused those?



Look, everyone.  PkrBum - the guy who can't coherently communicate his own political beliefs at lengths greater than a few sentence fragments - feels he is knowledgeable enough on the subject of climate science that his very opinion - which, again, he can't completely put into words - trumps that of the unanimous consensus that exists among the world's scientific community.

Think about that for a second.  All over the world, there exist PhDs who have devoted their lives to studying our planet and climate patterns.  These devoted individuals spend their days out in the field conducting research, writing about that research, and then subjecting that research to an incredibly stringent peer-review process.  And after decades upon decades of this process taking place all over the world, there is not a single scientific organization of reputable standing that will deny the idea of anthropogenic climate change.  Zero.  Not one.

But nevermind all of that.  Here we have a random internet guy who makes comments such as this one...

PkrBum wrote:No... that hasn't been her pattern. I would call her more hawkish that several of the pub candidates.

...and he can't even identify who he is talking about!  And I do mean that literally.  PkrBum isn't capable of identifying who the "pub candidates" are in the above statement - that he himself made.  Put another way, PkrBum can't even be looked to as a reliable source in clarifying comments that were made by....yes...PkrBum himself.  

Let me restate this.  PkrBum can't even offer a solid clarification about his own speech, and yet here he is asking everyone who is reading this thread to disregard the unanimous consensus that exists among the world scientific community in favor of his take on the subject.  

Ask yourself, "Who should I believe?  Who is more credible in this regard?"   Well, on one hand we have every single scientific organization on the planet.  And on the other hand, we have PkrBum, a guy who can't even tell you want he was talking about five minutes ago.  A guy who is such a dumbass, he can't even fully explain what his views are on this very thread that he just contributed to.  Watch.

Hey, PkrBum.  You say that climate change isn't real.  Being that the case, how do you explain the fact that the there is a unanimous scientific consensus on that subject?  How is it that every scientific organization on the planet has this wrong, and it is only yourself, Saudi Arabia, and fossil fuel lobbyists who have this right?  Can you simply put your theory into a coherent explanation?  There must be some sort of conspiracy going here, correct?  We've had three decades of peer reviewed research that all leads to the same conclusion.  If not by way of conspiracy, how can you possibly explain that?  Can you give us any coherent explanation of what you believe with respect to climate change that accounts for the fact that there is a unanimous scientific on the subject that is counter to your views?

I mean, if your doctor tells you that you have cancer and I say "Hahahaha.  What a moron.  You don't have cancer!" wouldn't you expect an explanation as to why a doctor would diagnose you as such?  What if you visited every doctor on the planet and they all agreed - unanimously.  And what if I said "Hahahah.  Yeah.  They're all wrong.  Every one!" wouldn't you expect extraordinary evidence for that extraordinary claim?  Hell, forget evidence, wouldn't you at the very least expect to hear a coherent theory that accounts for such a phenomena as a unanimous scientific consensus among every reputable organization on the planet?

So let's hear it, PkrBum.  What is your own personal opinion on this?  I'll even give you some examples of what a straightforward response would look like, just to show you that you're not being asked to write a book here.

Example:

Well, I believe that any climate fluctuations are purely natural.  Human activities simply do not account for the changes that we're seeing.  And the reason why the scientific consensus says otherwise is because they're all part of a massive, three-decades long, world-wide conspiracy.  (insert entity) is most likely behind all of this, and their ultimate goal is to (insert goal)


Seems simple enough.

The floor is yours, PkrBum.


_________________
I approve this message.

Guest


Guest

You didn't answer the questions.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

I think man bear pig has found an intern.....

Saudi Arabia accused of trying to wreck Paris climate deal Bear10

Joanimaroni

Joanimaroni

Boards. ....do you feel better now? We all want you to be able to feel that superiority you crave.

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

PkrBum wrote:Lol... what a fucking joke. Given billions of years of geologic history... when it's been much hotter and much colder... today it's a degree or two too hot... and the reason is humans. Hahahaha... it's impressive what you can swallow.

What if your political solution to lower temperature thew off the natural cycle? What if higher co2 is natural at this level during a natural sun cycle that there's no way we know from our limited record keeping? What was the mini ice age and medieval warming periods? What caused those?

Pushing your opinion on the subject are a few scientists with research grants paid by fossil fuel companies. On our side, virtually all credible scientists, forecasters, etc., plus every major country in the world -- including Russia and China --- they ALL believe global warming is a serious threat.

I think I'll listen to the people who know ...

Wordslinger

Wordslinger

Joanimaroni wrote:Boards. ....do you feel better now?   We all want you to be able to feel that superiority you crave.

You and all your global warming disbelieving friends are as whacked out on this subject as you are on choosing a presidential candidate. Do any of you actually believe you should be taken seriously ... on ANYTHING?

Guest


Guest

Wordslinger wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Lol... what a fucking joke. Given billions of years of geologic history... when it's been much hotter and much colder... today it's a degree or two too hot... and the reason is humans. Hahahaha... it's impressive what you can swallow.

What if your political solution to lower temperature thew off the natural cycle? What if higher co2 is natural at this level during a natural sun cycle that there's no way we know from our limited record keeping? What was the mini ice age and medieval warming periods? What caused those?

Pushing your opinion on the subject are a few scientists with research grants paid by fossil fuel companies. On our side, virtually all credible scientists, forecasters, etc., plus every major country in the world -- including Russia and China --- they ALL believe global warming is a serious threat.

I think I'll listen to the people who know ...

Did the fossil fuel companies invent the cambrian? Co2 15 times current... got to six or seven degrees warner.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian

It lead to the greatest diversification and proliferation of life in the history of earth. Btw... it's still technically an ice age.

The poles have been unfrozen for the vast majority of earths history. We're fortunate to live in a warming trend.

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

The kingdom balked at the goal of decarbonising the economy by 2050.

"Decarbonization" is not going to happen by 2050. Those near-term "tipping points" again.....

Ten calories of fossil-fuels are used to produce one food calorie for an American to consume. That means that before 2050, heavy farming equipment and farm-transport will need to be electric only or hybrid.

You will be eating a lot of "Landfill Salad," if you are able to eat at all, if the world's climate-change planners have their way. It probably will be easier to just let mass starvation eliminate large swaths of the human population, so the remaining population can be sustained by the gross reduction in food production resulting from "Decarbonization."


Saudi Arabia accused of trying to wreck Paris climate deal Landfi10

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

ZVUGKTUBM

ZVUGKTUBM

Enjoy your charcoal or gas grills while they are still legal to use, and while beef and chicken farming are not outlawed. "Decarbonization" by 2050 is going to mean a host of new restrictive regulations.

Scientists Say You Should Stop Using Your Charcoal Grill Immediately

http://mic.com/articles/91303/scientists-say-you-should-stop-using-your-charcoal-grill-immediately

http://www.best-electric-barbecue-grills.com

knothead

knothead

Not sure what everyone is so upset about I mean we are simply talking about the existence or extinction of . . . . . . wait for it . . . . . THE PLANET!!!!

2seaoat



There is not debate on climate change in the scientific community. Why do we think we can do a better job here. Man is changing the climate. As a Geology major who studied all the ages in geology, it is a moot point. The last five hundred years are relevant as to how civilization has populated this planet. Sadly, the Cambrian sea levels are irrelevant to the discussion. Man's survival depends on our respecting the environment. This is not very difficult.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:There is not debate on climate change in the scientific community. Why do we think we can do a better job here. Man is changing the climate. As a Geology major who studied all the ages in geology, it is a moot point. The last five hundred years are relevant as to how civilization has populated this planet. Sadly, the Cambrian sea levels are irrelevant to the discussion. Man's survival depends on our respecting the environment. This is not very difficult.

The mini ice age lasted until the middle of the nineteenth century... of course it followed the medieval warming.

The Little Ice Age (LIA) was a period of cooling that occurred after the Medieval Warm Period (Medieval Climate Optimum). [1] While it was not a true ice age,the term was introduced into the scientific literature by François E. Matthes in 1939. [2] It has been conventionally defined as a period extending from the sixteenth to the nineteenth centuries, [3][4][5] or alternatively,from about 1300 [6] to about 1850, [7][8][9] although climatologists and historians working with local records no longer expect to agree on either the start or end dates of this period,which varied according to local conditions. The NASA Earth Observatory notes three particularly cold intervals: one beginning about 1650,another about 1770, and the last in 1850,each separated by intervals of slight warming.

Several causes have been proposed: cyclical lows in solar radiation, heightened volcanic activity,changes in the ocean circulation,an inherent variability in global climate,or decreases in the human population.

_____________________________

The Medieval Warm Period (MWP), Medieval Climate Optimum,or Medieval Climatic Anomaly was a time of warm climate in the North Atlantic region that may also have been related to other climate events around the world during that time,including China [1] and other areas, [2][3]

lasting from about AD 950 to 1250. [4] It was followed by a cooler period in the North Atlantic termed the Little Ice Age. Some refer to the event as the Medieval Climatic Anomaly as this term emphasizes that effects other than temperature were important. [5][6]

Despite substantial uncertainties,especially for the period prior to 1600 for which data are scarce,the warmest period of the last 2,000 years prior to the 20th century very likely occurred between 950 and 1100. Proxy records show peak warmth occurred at different times for different regions, indicating that the Medieval Warm Period was not a time of globally uniform change. [7] Temperatures in some regions matched or exceeded recent temperatures in these regions,but globally the Medieval Warm Period was cooler than recent global temperatures. [4] Temperatures were probably between 0.1 °C and 0.2 °C below the 1961 to 1990 mean and significantly below the level shown by instrumental data after 1980.

Possible causes of the Medieval Warm Period include increased solar activity,decreased volcanic activity,and changes to ocean circulation. [8]

Guest


Guest

And I take exception with conclusions used in the last paragraph of the medieval warming. .1 or .2 falls inside of the ipcc margin of error even with the latest data "smoothing". More bs pseudo-science. That isn't how real science works.

2seaoat



Again.....there is no debate. When civilization and population centers are in lower areas impacted by sea level changes, pollution matters. Nothing can be argued here which has not been argued effectively with consensus among those who are most knowledgeable. Historic climate change periods in the this discussion are moot. They have zero relevance.

Guest


Guest

Lol... you used 500 yrs earlier. It's very convenient to use the start date at 1850... as the mini ice age ended. It does also begin the industrial age... but as a baseline it sucks. But even if you want to use that date... 165 yrs... worthless in geologic scale.

Markle

Markle

Wordslinger wrote:
PkrBum wrote:Lol... what a fucking joke. Given billions of years of geologic history... when it's been much hotter and much colder... today it's a degree or two too hot... and the reason is humans. Hahahaha... it's impressive what you can swallow.

What if your political solution to lower temperature thew off the natural cycle? What if higher co2 is natural at this level during a natural sun cycle that there's no way we know from our limited record keeping? What was the mini ice age and medieval warming periods? What caused those?

Pushing your opinion on the subject are a few scientists with research grants paid by fossil fuel companies.  On our side, virtually all credible scientists, forecasters, etc., plus every major country in the world -- including Russia and China --- they ALL believe global warming is a serious threat.
I think I'll listen to the people who know ...

You know well that is a bunch of malarkey. Why do you hang on to such lies?

Saudi Arabia accused of trying to wreck Paris climate deal 69d74526-818e-455c-b628-ad5ce7381bb2

boards of FL

boards of FL

PkrBum wrote:You didn't answer the questions.


Ah.  Sorry about that.  The answer to your questions is as follow: That would be bad, though highly unlikely.  The solutions being offered are slow-acting, long term solutions.  X% carbon reduction by the year 2050.   Being that the case, it is highly unlikely that - if what you're suggesting began to happen - we wouldn't have to time to change course and correct the situation.   The solutions being prescribed are comparable to an obese person eating healthy and running on a treadmill every day in order to lose weight.  They are not the akin to sawing off a leg in order to lose weight, which, I agree could potentially be disastrous.   But beyond that, isn't your narrative that human activities have virtually zero impact on climate?  If that is the case, how could your argument against policies aimed at addressing climate change be rooted in the idea that human activities exhibit a dangerous level of influence on climate?   Imagine if you didn't believe that there were any correlation between obesity and diet.  After all, there are simply "too many variables" in the human body, right?  Then imagine if the AMA came out with a consensus that said "We need to employ a diet that is lower in fat content than the current diet" and your argument against that is "But what happens if we go too far in the other direction?  Huh?"  In order to even make that argument, you first have to concede that there is in fact a correlation between diet and obesity.  

I have no idea what the warming periods were that you're asking about offhand, and the questions appear to be rhetorical anyways, so I'll just let you state those yourself and simply make whatever point you'd like based upon that information.


There, I answered your questions.  Now that that is out of the way, here is my post for you again.   You're an adult participating in an online political discussion.  Are you capable of simply communicating your substantive beliefs in a coherent statement?:


PkrBum wrote:Lol... what a fucking joke. Given billions of years of geologic history... when it's been much hotter and much colder... today it's a degree or two too hot... and the reason is humans. Hahahaha... it's impressive what you can swallow.

What if your political solution to lower temperature thew off the natural cycle? What if lower co2 is naturally at this level during a natural sun cycle that there's no way we know from our limited record keeping? What was the mini ice age and medieval warming periods? What caused those?



Look, everyone.  PkrBum - the guy who can't coherently communicate his own political beliefs at lengths greater than a few sentence fragments - feels he is knowledgeable enough on the subject of climate science that his very opinion - which, again, he can't completely put into words - trumps that of the unanimous consensus that exists among the world's scientific community.

Think about that for a second.  All over the world, there exist PhDs who have devoted their lives to studying our planet and climate patterns.  These devoted individuals spend their days out in the field conducting research, writing about that research, and then subjecting that research to an incredibly stringent peer-review process.  And after decades upon decades of this process taking place all over the world, there is not a single scientific organization of reputable standing that will deny the idea of anthropogenic climate change.  Zero.  Not one.

But nevermind all of that.  Here we have a random internet guy who makes comments such as this one...

PkrBum wrote:No... that hasn't been her pattern. I would call her more hawkish that several of the pub candidates.

...and he can't even identify who he is talking about!  And I do mean that literally.  PkrBum isn't capable of identifying who the "pub candidates" are in the above statement - that he himself made.  Put another way, PkrBum can't even be looked to as a reliable source in clarifying comments that were made by....yes...PkrBum himself.  

Let me restate this.  PkrBum can't even offer a solid clarification about his own speech, and yet here he is asking everyone who is reading this thread to disregard the unanimous consensus that exists among the world scientific community in favor of his take on the subject.  

Ask yourself, "Who should I believe?  Who is more credible in this regard?"   Well, on one hand we have every single scientific organization on the planet.  And on the other hand, we have PkrBum, a guy who can't even tell you want he was talking about five minutes ago.  A guy who is such a dumbass, he can't even fully explain what his views are on this very thread that he just contributed to.  Watch.

Hey, PkrBum.  You say that climate change isn't real.  Being that the case, how do you explain the fact that the there is a unanimous scientific consensus on that subject?  How is it that every scientific organization on the planet has this wrong, and it is only yourself, Saudi Arabia, and fossil fuel lobbyists who have this right?  Can you simply put your theory into a coherent explanation?  There must be some sort of conspiracy going here, correct?  We've had three decades of peer reviewed research that all leads to the same conclusion.  If not by way of conspiracy, how can you possibly explain that?  Can you give us any coherent explanation of what you believe with respect to climate change that accounts for the fact that there is a unanimous scientific on the subject that is counter to your views?

I mean, if your doctor tells you that you have cancer and I say "Hahahaha.  What a moron.  You don't have cancer!" wouldn't you expect an explanation as to why a doctor would diagnose you as such?  What if you visited every doctor on the planet and they all agreed - unanimously.  And what if I said "Hahahah.  Yeah.  They're all wrong.  Every one!" wouldn't you expect extraordinary evidence for that extraordinary claim?  Hell, forget evidence, wouldn't you at the very least expect to hear a coherent theory that accounts for such a phenomena as a unanimous scientific consensus among every reputable organization on the planet?

So let's hear it, PkrBum.  What is your own personal opinion on this?  I'll even give you some examples of what a straightforward response would look like, just to show you that you're not being asked to write a book here.

Example:

Well, I believe that any climate fluctuations are purely natural.  Human activities simply do not account for the changes that we're seeing.  And the reason why the scientific consensus says otherwise is because they're all part of a massive, three-decades long, world-wide conspiracy.  (insert entity) is most likely behind all of this, and their ultimate goal is to (insert goal)


Seems simple enough.  

The floor is yours, PkrBum.


_________________
I approve this message.

2seaoat



I used the five hundred years because it represents current population trends and the development of coastal cities worldwide. I really do not care what the climate impact was on early man in Africa four thousand years ago. That is just another example how completely lacking in common sense your approach is to the current climate change problem. An analysis of the impact on these civilized coastal low areas is common sense. What the climate was for a human in a cave is again of NO relevance to the existing problem and developing solutions which will minimize the current climate change caused by man.

Again.....there is NO debate among scientist. NONE. If you are a proponent of pollution and believe that the climate when men lived in caves is relevant to the current discussion, I can only reply with a simple........ok......but please do not expect any intelligent person to give one second of their time being wasted on such nonsense. We need to reduce man made carbon contributions to the atmosphere. The problem is defined, and the prioritization of solutions is the discussion.........not whether a problem exists......that is simply beyond what an intelligent person would even consider.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 1]

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum