Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I am sorry you don’t understand basic science... water isn’t added into the ocean, it’s just changing from a solid state to liquid state... your lake is getting water added to it via snow...
So you're saying the melting glacier ice doesn't add to the rising lake level?
The lake drains through a control weir, but the glacier is retreating rather quickly, so a summer's worth of melt, can represent many years worth of snowfall.
The oceans could be viewed as a lake without an outlet though.
It seems an odd thing to say that melting ice won't have an impact on adjacent water levels - it's a kind of "meant to be" argument, that presupposes the oceans as having some sort of natural level, that can't change by the addition or subtraction of water That really seems more religious than rational, in outlook -how do such notions become widespread, in this day and age?
1. In order to achieve the long-term temperature goal set out in Article 2,
Parties aim to reach global peaking of greenhouse gas emissions as soon as
possible, recognizing that peaking will take longer for developing country Parties,
and to undertake rapid reductions thereafter in accordance with best available
science, so as to achieve a balance between anthropogenic emissions by sources
and removals by sinks of greenhouse gases in the second half of this century, on the
basis of equity, and in the context of sustainable development and efforts to
eradicate poverty.
[red emphasis mine]
"On the basis of equity", whats wrong with being fair and impartial?
"In the context of sustainable development", whats wrong with sustainable development?
"And efforts to eradicate poverty", whats wrong with eradicating poverty?
Quote:
The stuff in red is the fun part where there is a massive redistribution of wealth from those according to their ability, to those according to their need.
You oppose the strong defending the weak and the wealthy caring for the needy. And that is not the redistribution of wealth, rather its honor, righteousness, caring and sharing with those in need.
And the real redistribution of wealth is republican supply side/trickle down policies. Like the Bush tax cuts that gave the richest 20% of Americans 67% of the tax cuts, and gave the lowest earning 20% of Americans 1% of the tax cuts. http://www.ctj.org/pdf/gwbdata.pdf
I say screw that. If the agreement was for each country to simply do the best they can to reduce emissions, that would be one thing. But most of the Paris Accord is an international welfare treaty designed to soak productive countries for the unearned and undeserved benefit of the "developing" countries.
Countries like Russia and China look after their own interests and would never join a agreement to nation build poor countries without benefits for themselves.
Quote:
Here is my message to the "developing" countries. Establish Constitutions similar to ours that define and protect individual rights. Get rid of all ties to religion and parochial culture. Respect freedom. Introduce Capitalism, the economic system of freedom recently discovered by China, of all countries. Do that, and development will follow on its own.
In short: GO DEVELOP YOURSELF!
How can countries like Peru and Sudan build modern low emission power plants?
(They can't without the help of developed countries like Germany, Russia and China. And those developed countries have agreed to help them in the Paris Accord.)
Last edited by chad3; 12-10-2017 at 02:11 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.