You know, we should chat about global warming

[Colibri]

@GIGObuster

And so my job here is done, as in I’m not feeding the troll here as per the request of Smeghead.

Ditto.

[wolfpup]

Curse you GIGO for beating me to it – but I’m going to post the news anyway, because it’s helpful to put it in juxtaposition with the ignorant blatherings of our resident troll …

@doorhinge

@wolfpup

It appears that you’re as clueless about current events as you are about climate science. You see the world as comprised of deniers like yourself but those are in fact the few remaining ignorant dregs. The world has long since moved on. You’re apparently not aware that on November 30, the UN climate conference (formally,the UNFCCC COP21) opens in Paris with 50,000 participants of whom 25,000 are official government delegates including the heads of state of 190 countries. President Obama heads up the US delegation and energy secretary Ernest Moriz is one of the keynote speakers. The conference will formally have the goal of achieving a legally binding and universal international agreement on climate, for the first time with the specific aim of keeping global warming below 2°C.

COP21 will talk about what the man-made-CO2-is-evil zealots need to do in order to sell the idea of bad anthropomorphic global warming to the public. Just like COP20, COP19, COP18, COP17, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. As you imagine, COP’s have been so successful in controlling the creation of man-made CO2 that man-made-CO2-is-evil regulation is now the law of the land/planet and no new COP’s will be needed. Bwahahahaha… You guys can’t seem to close the deal.

COP21 reached a historic agreement today after an emergency one-day extension to the negotiations. Nearly 200 countries signed the deal, including traditional holdouts China, India, and Saudi Arabia. This is breaking news all over the world – President Obama is scheduled to address the nation right about now.
Paris (CNN) After years of buildup and weeks of negotiations, the final draft of an ambitious, global climate change agreement was formally accepted on Saturday in Paris.

The final draft of the Paris agreement, which the French foreign minister described as “fair … and legally binding,” was issued earlier in the day. The accord sets a goal of halting average warming at no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial temperatures – and of striving for a limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius if possible.

“A month ago tomorrow, Paris was the victim of the deadliest terror attack in Europe for more than a decade,” British Prime Minister David Cameron wrote in a Facebook post. “Today, it has played host to one of the most positive global steps in history.”

Obama: Climate agreement ‘best chance we have’ to save the planet | CNN

[Trinopus]

Yeah, but the U.S. Senate?

Can it even conceivably be ratified here?

[Colibri]

@Trinopus

Yeah, but the U.S. Senate?

Can it even conceivably be ratified here?

It doesn’t need to be.

A senior administration official told CNN that Congress doesn’t have to vote on the plan.

“This agreement does not require submission to the Senate because of the way it is structured,” he said. “The targets aren’t binding.”

The pieces that are binding are already part of existing agreements, the official said.

[Trinopus]

Cool! That is (literally!) the best news I’ve heard all day! Thank you!

[doorhinge]

@GIGObuster

A lie as the judge also clarified that the overall point of the documentary was scientifically correct. Another lie of yours is also on your declaration that the warnings are about the politics, no, it was about some scientific points that now are clarified to the students.

@Kimstu

Wrong. What the UK judge decreed was that the film had to be accompanied by additional, updated information which includes solid scientific corroboration of the film’s overall findings as well as correcting some minor errors in a few statements within the film.

In other words, the court’s ruling did not say that the movie had to be flagged as a mere partisan polemic, as you are dishonestly trying to imply. What it said is that the movie had to be placed in a broader scientific context which overwhelmingly confirms the movie’s basic stance on climate science.

So by all means, doorhinge, keep talking.

(post shortened)

Thanks.

We all agree that Al Gore’s incontinent truth, as a stand alone product, CAN NOT be shown to British school children. It must be accompanied by government mandated warning/guidance/clarification/requirement to provide a balanced presentation of opposing views.

[doorhinge]

@wolfpup

…COP21 reached a historic agreement today after an emergency one-day extension to the negotiations. Nearly 200 countries signed the deal, including traditional holdouts China, India, and Saudi Arabia. This is breaking news all over the world – President Obama is scheduled to address the nation right about now.
Paris (CNN) After years of buildup and weeks of negotiations, the final draft of an ambitious, global climate change agreement was formally accepted on Saturday in Paris.

The final draft of the Paris agreement, which the French foreign minister described as “fair … and legally binding,” was issued earlier in the day. The accord sets a goal of halting average warming at no more than 2 degrees Celsius (3.6 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial temperatures – and of striving for a limit of 1.5 degrees Celsius if possible.

“A month ago tomorrow, Paris was the victim of the deadliest terror attack in Europe for more than a decade,” British Prime Minister David Cameron wrote in a Facebook post. “Today, it has played host to one of the most positive global steps in history.”
http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/12/world/global-climate-change-conference-vote/index.html

Another agreement by another COP is not the end of your journey.

As I said before, “COP21 will talk about what the man-made-CO2-is-evil zealots need to do in order to sell the idea of bad anthropomorphic global warming to the public. Just like COP20, COP19, COP18, COP17, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. As you imagine, COP’s have been so successful in controlling the creation of man-made CO2 that man-made-CO2-is-evil regulation is now the law of the land/planet and no new COP’s will be needed. Bwahahahaha… You guys can’t seem to close the deal.”

I wasn’t aware that there are 200 countries. Are you sure that number is correct? Or doesn’t it matter - to you?

[Gyrate]

@doorhinge

(post shortened)

Thanks.

We all agree that Al Gore’s incontinent truth, as a stand alone product, CAN NOT be shown to British school children. It must be accompanied by government mandated warning/guidance/clarification/requirement to provide a balanced presentation of opposing views.

Nope. You’re still not getting it right. Keep trying.

[septimus]

@doorhinge

(post shortened)

incontinent.

@ Mods - Can you close this thread and bring back the other guy? At least he was continent.

[HookerChemical]

@doorhinge

I wasn’t aware that there are 200 countries. Are you sure that number is correct? Or doesn’t it matter - to you?

What are you doubting here? Do you doubt that there are nearly 200 countries? (Nice omission of “nearly” or “almost,” Captain Reading Comprehension.) Can you not googlethat quickly enough to avoid embarrassing yourself? Come on! Put the tiniest bit of effort into a discussion so you don’t come off as a lazy, incompetent jackass.

[Lobohan]

@doorhinge

(post shortened)

Ice cream? Are you suggesting that ice cream creates global warming? Or do you believe that ice cream creates CO2?

No, please don’t dishonestly paraphrase what I said. My post was very clear, and if you can’t understand it, that’s really a problem with you.

[Kimstu]

@doorhinge

[An Inconvenient Truth] must be accompanied by government mandated warning/guidance/clarification/requirement to provide a balanced presentation of opposing views.

Wrong. It’s not “opposing views” to the film’s scientific claims that the contextual classroom guidance materials are presenting, because the views opposing the film’s scientific claims are unscientific bullshit.

No matter how you try to distort and evade it, doorhinge, the fact is that the judge ruled that the basic facts and arguments of Al Gore’s film and the overwhelming majority of the claims it makes are scientifically valid. The accompanying guidance materials mostly provide contextual detail that explains why and how the film’s claims are supported by science, as well as correcting a few minor errors of fact and identifying debatable points in its policy recommendations (not in its scientific claims).

Let’s look again at what the court’s own ruling actually said about the film’s scientific claims:

The following is clear:
i) It is substantially founded upon scientific research and fact, albeit that the science is used, in the hands of a talented politician and communicator, to make a political statement and to support a political programme.
ii) As Mr Chamberlain persuasively sets out at paragraph 11 of his skeleton:

“The Film advances four main scientific hypotheses, each of which is very well supported by research published in respected, peer-reviewed journals and accords with the latest conclusions of the IPCC:
(1) global average temperatures have been rising significantly over the past half century and are likely to continue to rise (“climate change”);
(2) climate change is mainly attributable to man-made emissions of carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide (“greenhouse gases”);
(3) climate change will, if unchecked, have significant adverse effects on the world and its populations; and
(4) there are measures which individuals and governments can take which will help to reduce climate change or mitigate its effects.”

These propositions, Mr Chamberlain submits (and I accept), are supported by a vast quantity of research published in peer-reviewed journals worldwide and by the great majority of the world’s climate scientists.

[doorhinge]

@Lobohan

No, please don’t dishonestly paraphrase what I said. My post was very clear, and if you can’t understand it, that’s really a problem with you.

Communication is a two-way street. A garbled transmission does not mean a clear reception. No matter how hard you stomp your feet. You always have the option of making another attempt.

[doorhinge]

@Kimstu

…No matter how you try to distort and evade it, doorhinge, the fact is that the judge ruled that the basic facts and arguments of Al Gore’s film and the overwhelming majority of the claims it makes are scientifically valid. The accompanying guidance materials mostly provide contextual detail that explains why and how the film’s claims are supported by science, as well as correcting a few minor errors of fact and identifying debatable points in its policy recommendations (not in its scientific claims).

And the court still ruled that Al Gore’s incontinent truth could not be shown to British school children without the court ordered additional information/clarification/guidance.

As a stand alone product, the movie can’t be shown.

[Lobohan]

@doorhinge

Communication is a two-way street. A garbled transmission does not mean a clear reception. No matter how hard you stomp your feet. You always have the option of making another attempt.

I said it as plain as possible. If you can’t understand it, that’s a defect in you, not in what I said. Everyone else in this thread could handle it. Why do you think that you’re the only one who found it mystifying? Because you have trouble reasoning.

[doorhinge]

@HookerChemical

What are you doubting here? Do you doubt that there are nearly 200 countries? (Nice omission of “nearly” or “almost,” Captain Reading Comprehension.) Can you not googlethat quickly enough to avoid embarrassing yourself? Come on! Put the tiniest bit of effort into a discussion so you don’t come off as a lazy, incompetent jackass.

Have you seen the signatures? Did every country send representatives to COP21?

[doorhinge]

@Lobohan

I said it as plain as possible. If you can’t understand it, that’s a defect in you, not in what I said. Everyone else in this thread could handle it. Why do you think that you’re the only one who found it mystifying? Because you have trouble reasoning.

You’re the one trying to change the status quo. I would think that you would be delighted to take a moment to clarify your position. Little wonder you have trouble convincing others to accept your version of man-made-CO2-is-evil. Won’t you even make an attempt. After all, it’s for the children.

[Lobohan]

@doorhinge

You’re the one trying to change the status quo. I would think that you would be delighted to take a moment to clarify your position. Little wonder you have trouble convincing others to accept your version of man-made-CO2-is-evil. Won’t you even make an attempt. After all, it’s for the children.

You’re changing the subject, bitch. Please lets keep talking about how you can’t understand simple concepts.

[bobot]

I have been playing a drinking game since I’ve come home from work today. Browse through The Pit looking at doorhinge involved threads, and slamming down beer (Today: Lagunitas Imperial Pils. A light colored, yet malty hopped up pilsner. Thick white head, and warm alcohol finish. 8.6% ABV) whenever doorhinge uses the phrase “hahahaha” or reasonably close variants. I am just about shitfaced.

[doorhinge]

@Lobohan

You’re changing the subject, bitch. Please lets keep talking about how you can’t understand simple concepts.

Hahahaha. If your goal is to convince MORE people to buy what you’re selling, global warming-wise, you really need to make more of an effort.