There is no Global Warming

Of course it is. For those who didn't catch my sarcasm throughout this thread let me spell it out. If you put lawyers, politicians and a whole lot of money in a room and tell them to put it to good use the debate will go on forever with no resolution until bit by bit the money disappears. The only good reason for doing anything is because it's the right thing to do, but for those who worship the dollar there is no right thing. It's wrong to destroy the Amazon rain forest. It's wrong to pollute our waters, land and air, but for those who only see dollars there will never be any way to make them understand. There will always be a rationalization. So to debate it is a joke. I'll cheer when an idealist makes some headway, but I won't be surprised when he doesn't.

No need for time travel the signs are all around us.

Vey well said NYCAP.​

All of the first world countries have gotten incredibly cleaner. However all of the second/third world countries have gotten incredibly dirtier 3 fold of how much we've gotten cleaner. So if nothing is done to regulate the emissions of those countries, it's absolutely pointless to regulate the first world countries further to where your negatively impacting their way of being able to produce goods and services. only to have to further purchase/manufacture those products in countries that are creating emissions to the effect 1st world countries were in the early 1900's. It's a never ending loss and going down a rabbit hole.

If people want to stop the problem. STOP trying to buy the cheapest product in every category that's manufactured IN countries like China and India and etc. Buy products made in 1st world countries that abide by emissions output laws.

So you KNOW what's going to happen. That's not science.

So because you can't fix all fix none? If my neighbor's house is a dump should I let mine be a dump because I can't change his? Let me know when people stop buying by price. I suspect it'll be right after world peace and the end of all disease is declared.

No, we have fixed what we can fix it 1st world countries. 1st world countries are pretty **** clean in emissions if you look at any report on it. IF you restrict emissions any further in 1st world countries to where it kills what manufacturing of what they do manufacture. That manufacturing will be pushed to third world countries which will produce 3x the emissions to manufacture the same products. So unless you do something about third world country emissions, either by regulation, import taxes, OR by not buying those products, you're just making the situation 3x worse, but moving the pollution to a different Country who spews 3x the emissions to produce the same goods because they have no regulation.

NOW, you also have to look at natural occurances. The California wild fires put out more greenhouse gas than China did in a year, and part of that is simply a natural cycle. It's a natural cycle to have forest fires (from Lightening etc.) and that is how nature keeps a forest from being too densly populated. Same with volcano's. Basically there is no global warming (or global cooling) that's any worse than it has been during a global episode in the past 1,000's of years. It's the same. LOOK at the chart posted by AMG in post #9, this peak is less than the last 2 peaks in the last 400,000 years, when men were cavemen and the entire Earth didn't have a single factory on it. It's a NORMAL EARTH CYCLE. Yet lots of companies and countries wouldn't get billions of dollars if they admitted that.

Just can't give the politics a break can you. IT'S OVER!!! DONE!!! Catch uo to today. It's 11/14 not 10/14.

So what do we do if some nations tell us to go screw? (and there's a lot more countries on the list you cite than you named. They're just not as politically noteworthy) Do we give up on the world or do we do what we can without them?

Not yet, but will let you know.

Easy put trade tariffs on their imports like we did with China. Make it hurt in their pocket books and their goods cost more so more people buy goods from clean countries. Then use that tax income towards cleanup.

You know exactly what I'm referring to, So stop the B.S. unless you're trying to get this thread locked.

You do understand that the only ones hurt in that will be the consumers (us) and the people doing the work (who are already starving) in many of these nations. I believe the daily wage in places like Bangladesh is about $0.52 a day. We pulled out of the Paris accord. Should the world slap us with tariffs? This is nothing but a game being played by people way above our pay grade. And you think the money from tariffs will be put towards our environmental efforts? Don't be foolish. So is your opinion that we should continue trying to clean up the world despite others not or should we abandon the effort since others have? Should we let smog cover L.A. because China let it happen to Beijing?

Don't put words in my mouth. I said that we have already exhausted all reasonable efforts of making our emissions very clean and we have SUCCEEDED. BUT, we shouldn't go overboard. I saw some ad that by 2030 that all cars will be electric here, think it was some BS political ad, well HOW is that electricity made, and WHERE would we get the electricity from since they aren't building more power companies and a lot of cities don't produce enough now. California has made it impossible to produce more electricity, yet at the same token pushing for more use of it (electric cars). A lot of these politicians push agendas that hurt manufacturing and their own people.

Take the IMO tier III emissions ordeal. At this time it's impossible to fit the engines into a 90-120' boat and make it work. Viking is dropping the build of any yacht/SF over 90' because they can't make it work, several other builders are also.....American included. That's a lot of jobs lost in that. We can't put further restrictions in place that kill American manufacturing to where it's impossible to produce and push that manufacturing to a dirty country. If the guy in Bangledesh loses his job because of tariff's, it means someone in our country or another 1st world country is gaining a job. If that means less emmissions spewed into the air and someone in the U.S. or 1st world country gains that job, I'm good with that. Jobs and manufacturing should've stayed here in the 70's until now and never went to those countries, but that's another matter.

And you KNOW it's a scam when the worst polluters are given exemptions. There is no reason for any country to be exempt from this if true. But it's not, and they know it.

The carbon footprint of the electric cars is profound, both in the manufacture, recharging, maintenance, and recycle. Now, electric cars may replace combustion, but that's relative to performance, not emissions. The emissions of electric cars doesn't lessen the impacts. It only rearranges the math.

Which is why WE exited it in the first place, it's a scam. I also agree with you on the electric cars. I feel that sometime in my lifetime that will change, but the technology isn't there yet.

Problem is that you cannot clean up the mess they're making. We empower the mess. We subsidize the mess. They're a communist country that doesn't even let you in to assist with a plandemic. How are you getting in to clean? You must ban their products on a national scale to force the change. Other nations have to join, but if you don't destroy your manufacturing in the process of empowering them, you can do just fine without their goods.

Hell, I'm a willing buyer of an electric vehicle, purely based upon performance. But when folks discuss sea levels, I usually laugh and tell them I've been running aground for decades whenever I miss NW Channel Light. It's not getting any deeper. (Note: I don't miss the light)

Folks that demand MM Climate Change is settled science don't ever want to discuss the impacts of a significant earthquake event upon the rotational axis of the earth, and the impacts from similar shifts have upon tides and gravitational forces. The water might seem to be rising in one's back yard, but that doesn't mean land isn't growing somewhere else in the world. Same discussion re: Ice.