Study: Temp Adjustments Account For ‘Nearly All Of The Warming' in Climate Data

[Hyral]

Fake Science!

[Endus]

I'm not sure you understand what is being argued here.

Lets take 2 fake countries.

Country A has 100 people. It produces 100ppm of pollution. Or 1ppm per capita.

Country B has 1 person. It produces 50ppm of pollution. Or 50ppm per capita.

You're trying to argue that Country B is cleaner because it produces less pollution because it has a smaller population.

Or the more obvious issue of Country A having 100 million people, and Country B having 10 million, and having the exact same per-capita emissions.

So you blame Country A for emissions, while giving Country B a "pass", when they're equally wasteful, it's just that Country A has more population. So your argument has nothing to do with the respective emissions policies, it's just about population, which isn't relevant to the issue (which is those emissions policies you've excluded).

[Noradin]

Let's unite the Earth into one single country - hey, per capita has reduced, we have saved the planet.

That claim only works on people who either don't think or don't know how to add up fractions.

[Elim Garak]

Attacks a bunch of people as "SJWs".
Makes up a claim that other people are attacking his person.

I didn't attack anyone as SJW. Learn to read.

By your argument, that national absolute numbers are what matter, it did.
You're straight-up admitting that your position is not based on a reasonable analysis of the numbers. Because you're looking at national totals when it's convenient to you, and not when it isn't.

I'm looking at national totals because these are the real currently existing sovereign nations who are solely responsible for their pollution. No other country can do shit about other countries pollution output. No amount of fantastical breaking down will change anything. This is the reality.

This is why everyone uses per-capita figures; it removes population size as a biasing factor completely. You just don't want to use it because it highlights the high emissions rate of the USA, and doesn't make China look bad enough for you.

per capita - is a bullshit metric that not only hides the problem but shifts the blame also.

I'm not sure you understand what is being argued here.

Lets take 2 fake countries.

Country A has 100 people. It produces 100ppm of pollution. Or 1ppm per capita.

Country B has 1 person. It produces 50ppm of pollution. Or 50ppm per capita.

You're trying to argue that Country B is cleaner because it produces less pollution because it has a smaller population.

Country A. It produces 100ppm of pollution.

Country B. It produces 50ppm of pollution.

Which country produces more pollution?

[Mormolyce]

"Per capita" is a bullshit metric in this case. Those countries are the top producers of pollution. Just because they have billions of people and their per capita is thus small - doesn't mean shit. Nothing honest about it.

So you're saying they should cull their population?

[Elim Garak]

So you're saying they should cull their population?

Population is not the source of pollution. Duh.

Any pollution that is produced by life processes of a human being is negligible because nothing can be done about it short of CULLING like you are suggesting.
There's no point in even talking about it unless you want to CULL the population.

[Mormolyce]

Population is not the source of pollution. Duh.

You just said it was.

[Chrysia]

Country A. It produces 100ppm of pollution.

Country B. It produces 50ppm of pollution.

Which country produces more pollution?

Which country produces more pollution is a product of both their population and their rate of pollution. In all cases, a larger population will produce more pollution, all things being equal. The goal is to curb the rate of pollution. Nobody's expecting a zero-pollution society, but we need to curb our current rate of pollution.

- - - Updated - - -

Let me see if another example can get it through your thick skull: Countries X and Y have similar per capita energy and industrial outputs. Country X has 3 times the population of Country Y, but produces pollution at half the rate. Their raw pollution output is 1.5 times that of Country Y.

Under your view, Country Y should do nothing and Country X should improve on their already stellar efficiency. Because improving efficiency necessarily becomes exponentially more expensive the closer you come to 100% efficiency, that's simply not feasible. Country X's most feasible solution under your raw output-centric view is literally population culling. That's why nobody focuses on raw numbers, it will always be more efficient to reduce net pollution through population reduction rather than improving efficiency.

[Elim Garak]

You just said it was.

I sure didn't, your sophistry won't work here.

Which country produces more pollution is a product of both their population and their rate of pollution. In all cases, a larger population will produce more pollution, all things being equal. The goal is to curb the rate of pollution. Nobody's expecting a zero-pollution society, but we need to curb our current rate of pollution.

It's quite clear that a country that produces 100 pollution produces more than a country that produces 50. Are you arguing against that?
You cannot curb the "pollution" that comes strictly from population unless you are feeling genocidal.
You shouldn't even think about it. It's not a part of the equation.

Let me see if another example can get it through your thick skull: Countries X and Y have similar per capita energy and industrial outputs. Country X has 3 times the population of Country Y, but produces pollution at half the rate. Their raw pollution output is 1.5 times that of Country Y.

Under your view, Country Y should do nothing and Country X should improve on their already stellar efficiency.

Nice strawman.
Under my view Country X produces more pollution and should do MORE to reduce it. Country Y should also reduce their pollution as much as they can. This is not a competition where the loser does all the work. Duh.
How thick is your skull now?

[ati87]

How thick is your skull now?

I dont think you can call anybody thick when you freaking ignore the population.

By this logic people in China would be richer then people in Europe because the GDP is bigger...ignoring that the large poor population because you know ''absolute numbers is used to judge things'' (so GDP per capita)

This kind of shortsightedness is either trolling or stupidity if you don't mind me to be blunt, the idea that you can compare absolute numbers is silly at best and no serious self respecting scientist, economist, CEO or anybody working with numbers will just compare absolute numbers

[Mormolyce]

I sure didn't, your sophistry won't work here.

Are you on a word a day dictionary?

[stomination]

For some reason I doubt that is true. I can't provide anything to back me up, but I just don't see why would governments do that.

Depends who is in charge of the government. One side can gain votes by making it an issue. But it will take more email leaks to find this out.

[Chrysia]

I sure didn't, your sophistry won't work here.


It's quite clear that a country that produces 100 pollution produces more than a country that produces 50. Are you arguing against that?
You cannot curb the "pollution" that comes strictly from population unless you are feeling genocidal.
You shouldn't even think about it. It's not a part of the equation.


Nice strawman.
Under my view Country X produces more pollution and should do MORE to reduce it. Country Y should also reduce their pollution as much as they can. This is not a competition where the loser does all the work. Duh.
How thick is your skull now?

Country X already is doing more to reduce their pollution. You're literally asking someone already addressing the issue to try harder even though they're lightyears ahead of their neighbors. It's insane.

[Ivanstone]

Nice strawman.
Under my view Country X produces more pollution and should do MORE to reduce it. Country Y should also reduce their pollution as much as they can. This is not a competition where the loser does all the work. Duh.
How thick is your skull now?

Ok. And what if country X is working hard to reduce their pollution and country Y is not only failing to reduce their emissions but actively wants to increase it? Country Y claims that it can do do because it would wreck their economy if they don't and blames country X for being worse.

[Elim Garak]

I dont think you can call anybody thick when you freaking ignore the population.

What about population is so important here?

By this logic people in China would be richer then people in Europe because the GDP is bigger...

This is your logic. This is not about GDP, this is about pollution and how per capita is bullshit metric for POLLUTION.

Country X already is doing more to reduce their pollution. You're literally asking someone already addressing the issue to try harder even though they're lightyears ahead of their neighbors. It's insane.

How is it insane to make someone who pollutes the most to work harder to reduce the pollution? Who should work harder to reduce that pollution?

Ok. And what if country X is working hard to reduce their pollution and country Y is not only failing to reduce their emissions but actively wants to increase it? Country Y claims that it can do do because it would wreck their economy if they don't and blames country X for being worse.

That's what per capita is doing. A country that pollutes the most but has huge population finds itself within the accepted norms and doesn't need to do anything.
Forcing countries to do something about it - is not the topic of this discussion.

[Chrysia]

@Elim Garak in a hypothetical future where humanity has reached a technological plateau of efficiency and every country has adopted that technology, China would not be more responsible for breaking through that technological plateau. China will always produce more waste in raw numbers than every other country unless we achieve 100% efficiency, which is ludicrously unlikely.

[Elim Garak]

@Elim Garak in a hypothetical future where humanity has reached a technological plateau of efficiency and every country has adopted that technology, China would not be more responsible for breaking through that technological plateau. China will always produce more waste in raw numbers than every other country unless we achieve 100% efficiency, which is ludicrously unlikely.

In that future there will be no pollution problem, there's no need for 100% efficient waste-less production - we only need means to get rid of the waste that is being generated (re-purposing it for instance - we do something similar even now by turning trash into products) - and technological plateau for that is way way higher than for 100% efficiency.

[Chrysia]

In that future there will be no pollution problem, there's no need for 100% efficient waste-less production - we only need means to get rid of the waste that is being generated (re-purposing it for instance - we do something similar even now by turning trash into products) - and technological plateau for that is way way higher than for 100% efficiency.

In any case, your bitching about China is stupid because they're already the lead investor in green technology, by far.

[Elim Garak]

In any case, your bitching about China is stupid because they're already the lead investor in green technology, by far.

I wasn't bitching about China, even once. My gripe was about the usage of "per capita" for pollution.

[Ivanstone]

That's what per capita is doing. A country that pollutes the most but has huge population finds itself within the accepted norms and doesn't need to do anything.

I was not making a "per capita" argument. You said Country X should work harder and Country Y should do some work. I posted a counter example of Country X working hard but Country Y wants to only work hard at making their problem worse. Which is much closer to the reality of the situation.

Forcing countries to do something about it - is not the topic of this discussion.

If its not the topic of this discussion then why do you say things like this:

How is it insane to make someone who pollutes the most to work harder to reduce the pollution? Who should work harder to reduce that pollution?