Its all our (US) fault !

[SteamWake]

The Obama administration continues its "apologize for America tour"

Hillary Clinton


"We acknowledge now with President Obama that we have made mistakes in the United States, and we along with other developed countries have contributed most significantly to the problem that we face with climate change," she said. "We are hoping a great country like India will not make the same mistakes."


http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5g3lGTbp2KLrD4mzkA_ebmlLJFg7wD99GR47G1

Now I admit that the US produces a goodly amount of pollutants however when compared to some other, less regulated countries such as China, India and others we are slackers.

I might also point out that the US has the tightest regulations and have spent more money and effort to reduce emissioins than any other country on eatrh.

So much for leading by example.

[Letum]

the US has the tightest regulations


I'm highly skeptical of that.

[SteamWake]

I'm highly skeptical of that.

Really? Okay who does regulate emissions stronger than the US ?

[breadcatcher101]

America has indeed made many mistakes in her past.

The latest one was in electing him as president.

[Letum]

Really? Okay who does regulate emissions stronger than the US ?

Holland.

[mookiemookie]

Saying America has never made a mistake is pretty arrogant.

I might also point out that the US has the tightest regulations and have spent more money and effort to reduce emissioins than any other country on eatrh.

As they say on Wikipedia: [citation needed]

[SteamWake]

Holland :rotfl:

Meh ...India isnt having anything to do with it anyhow.


“There is simply no case for the pressure that we, who have been among the lowest emissions per capita, face to actually reduce emissions,” Jairam Ramesh, India’s environment minister told Mrs Clinton. “And as if this pressure was not enough, we also face the threat of carbon tariffs on our exports to countries such as yours.”


http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/741cc2f0-748f-11de-8ad5-00144feabdc0.html

[Stealth Hunter]

Really? Okay who does regulate emissions stronger than the US ?

Before we delve into this any further, where did you find your reference for the claim that "the US has the tightest regulations and has spent more money and effort to reduce emissioins than any other country on eatrh"?

Out of curiosity, have you ever downloaded the Google Toolbar for your Internet browser? It comes with a spellchecker.

[SteamWake]

Before we delve into this any further, where did you find your reference for the claim that "the US has the tightest regulations and has spent more money and effort to reduce emissioins than any other country on eatrh"?

Out of curiosity, have you ever downloaded the Google Toolbar for your Internet browser? It comes with a spellchecker.

How about this, you prove me wrong. I tried to do a little searching and found it very very difficult to get past global warming propaganda and find actual facts. Only thing I keep getting is how the US leads in Co2 emissions :doh:

But call it a gut feeling in the meantime. Its the reason we are so dependant on forigen oil, cannot build nuclear facilitys, why cars are so damn expensive, and industrys scramble to comply with these 'lax' requiements often finding it financially un-sustainable and shut their doors.

In the meantime I dont really give a crap about my bad spelling in a forum.

[mookiemookie]

How about this, you prove me wrong.
You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.

I tried to do a little searching and found it very very difficult to get past actual facts and find something that backs up my wild assertation.

Fixed that for you.

[SteamWake]

You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you.
.

Nah not really its not worth my time. Just pass it off as a 'wild accusation'. :doh:

[Stealth Hunter]

How about this, you prove me wrong.

You were the one who made the original claim, ergo you must provide evidence. I have made no such claim; I simply have asked for evidence. It's quite simple really. If you can't provide it, then your statement is useless, not to mention baseless and evidently absent of factual backing.

I tried to do a little searching and found it very very difficult to get past global warming propaganda and find actual facts.

Dig and find it, or admit it was not based around cold, hard facts and merely personal feeling/opinion.

But call it a gut feeling in the meantime.

So it isn't based on hard fact. You can't apparently can't find sources either.

Thank you for clearing this issue up.

Its the reason we are so dependant on forigen oil, cannot build nuclear facilitys, why cars are so damn expensive, and industrys scramble to comply with these 'lax' requiements often finding it financially un-sustainable and shut their doors.

And this is still based around your original claim that "the US has the tightest regulations and has spent more money and effort to reduce emissioins than any other country on eatrh", which still remains without a source of any kind.

We aren't drilling off our opposing coasts for oil because of the environmental ecosystem implications it would have, not because of CO2 levels; this has caused us to become dependent on foreign imports more than anything.

Additionally, nuclear facilities emit very low levels of CO2. The main problem with them is the waste they produce must be disposed of in a safe manner, and even then you'll be contaminating the environment to some extent. They're also expensive to build (takes a long time to construct them, too; up to a decade at the cost of several billion dollars; here's a fine example: http://www.tampabay.com/news/business/energy/article701322.ece), maintain, and decomission.

Cars are now expensive because of inflation, not because of environmental laws revolving around the CO2 issue. It's not just cars though. When was the last time you went to the market? EVERYTHING has gotten higher in cost.

What industries? I haven't heard of any. Can you list some with a news article on the issue?:hmmm:

In the meantime I dont really give a crap about my bad spelling in a forum.

You should. People will have a hard time understanding you.:up:

Nah not really its not worth my time.

No really it is. Otherwise, what reason do we have to trust what you say? Moreover, WHY should we trust you?:hmmm:

[SUBMAN1]

Really? Okay who does regulate emissions stronger than the US ?

California. 'nough said... :yawn: They are their own country, right? No one on this planet can hold a candle to them.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

You made the claim. The burden of proof is on you....

Wrong!!! You are the one that challenged that assertion. You should be the one putting your money where your mouth is.
:hmmm:

Why is everyone so backwards here when it comes to crap like this? Are you all just too lazy to bring something to the table? I imagine a bunch of opinionated fat people sitting around a computer challenging something without wanting to put the effort in.

-S

[SUBMAN1]

And since I'm at it, I'm deeply concerned about our president running around and telling the world that we are bad people. He is running around to Arabs and telling them that we are in the wrong and they are in the right. Now this! He is making people that hate us hate us worse for no reason!

WTH is he up to?

-S

[mookiemookie]

Wrong!!! You are the one that challenged that assertion. You should be the one putting your money where your mouth is.
:hmmm:

Why is everyone so backwards here when it comes to crap like this? Are you all just too lazy to bring something to the table? I imagine a bunch of opinionated fat people sitting around a computer challenging something without wanting to put the effort in.

-S

The sky is polka dotted.

By your logic, I'm right. Assertions pulled out of someone's ass aren't taken as fact.

[SUBMAN1]

The sky is polka dotted.

By your logic, I'm right. Assertions pulled out of someone's ass aren't taken as fact.

Unless you can back that up, I disregard your allegations.

-S

[mookiemookie]

Unless you can back that up, I disregard your allegations.

-S

To quote someone:

Wrong!!! You are the one that challenged that assertion. You should be the one putting your money where your mouth is.
:hmmm:

Sooooo....Exactly. Thank you for proving my point. :D

[SUBMAN1]

To quote someone:



Sooooo....Exactly. Thank you for proving my point. :D

How exactly? You have proved that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, but that's about it. :D

-S

[mookiemookie]

How exactly? You have proved that you don't know what the hell you are talking about, but that's about it. :D

-S

Explain why not. You said the burden of proof for someone making an assetion was on someone who found fault with it. To rebut that, I made an assertion, and now you say you disregard my assertion unless I can prove it.

You can't have it both ways, my friend.

[SUBMAN1]

Explain why not. You said the burden of proof for someone making an assetion was on someone who found fault with it. To rebut that, I made an assertion, and now you say you disregard my assertion unless I can prove it.

You can't have it both ways, my friend.

He made a statement that sounds logical. You however provided a challenge with such a wide berth that you could fit an aircraft carrier through it. So prove it instead of beating around the bush here.

I've yet to see you do it once! You make a lot of wild claims, but once I'd like to see a source back up your claims! Just once! :salute: Two or three times would be good, but once would be fine for now.

The point being, I'm tired of your accusations while avoiding the need to provide the burden of proof. You have yet to get that mouse rolling and actually click on Google (Bing works better BTW).

Maybe it is the fact that you are funny because you challenge something without having a clue? You have absolutely no clue who has the strictest emissions! None!

Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if any country in this entire world could pass the restriction limitation on California. They constantly make jokes about Kalifornia in the newspapers about restrictions on everything from cars to lawn-mowers out there. They are trying to put catalytic converters on lawn mowers now for gods sake!

Show me a damn country that needs a damn catalytic converter for a lawn mower, and I'll back down!!! :haha::haha::haha: Good luck!

-S

[mookiemookie]

He made a statement that sounds logical. You however provided a challenge with such a wide berth that you could fit an aircraft carrier through it. So prove it instead of beating around the bush here.

I've yet to see you do it once! You make a lot of wild claims, but once I'd like to see a source back up your claims! Just once! :salute: Two or three times would be good, but once would be fine for now.

The point being, I'm tired of your accusations while avoiding the need to provide the burden of proof. You have yet to get that mouse rolling and actually click on Google (Bing works better BTW).

Maybe it is the fact that you are funny because you challenge something without having a clue? You have absolutely no clue who has the strictest emissions! None!

Quite frankly, I'd be surprised if any country in this entire world could pass the restriction limitation on California. They constantly make jokes about Kalifornia in the newspapers about restrictions on everything from cars to lawn-mowers out there. They are trying to put catalytic converters on lawn mowers now for gods sake!

Show me a damn country that needs a damn catalytic converter for a lawn mower, and I'll back down!!! :haha::haha::haha: Good luck!

-S

So....

"He makes a claim I like. I'll accept it at face value. You make a claim I don't like. You need to prove it."

Am I right here? :roll:

[SUBMAN1]

So....

"He makes a claim I like. I'll accept it at face value. You make a claim I don't like. You need to prove it."

Am I right here? :roll:

No. You provided nothing to counter. Quit trying to narrow your massive scope.

Find a lawn mower with a catalytic converter yet?

-S

[Letum]

Wrong!!! You are the one that challenged that assertion. You should be the one putting your money where your mouth is.


If I make an assertion:
"There is a invisible unicorn in my garden."
And you challenge that assertion:
"Unicorns don't exist; there can not be on in your garden"
Where do you think the burden of proof is?
If it is with "the one that challenged that assertion", then good looking
finding the invisible unicorn; it is very, very small.

The burden of proof is always with the person who makes the assertion.
If someone challenges him, it is up to person who makes the assertion
to prove them wrong, not the other way around.

It is up to me to prove I have a unicorn, not up to you to prove I don't.

[Stealth Hunter]

No need to get worked up about Subman, guys. It appears that I've misjudged him in the past. He really does know nothing about intelligent debates or what makes them so. I gave him more credit than he deserves. Furthermore, why don't we all just disregard what he posts? Maybe then he'll go away lol.

As it stands, I'm still waiting for a citation, SteamWake.:up:

[Max2147]

I actually think that mookie's claim about the polka-dotted sky is more credible than SteamWake's claim about the US having the toughest emission regulations. Now what, Subman?

Honestly, the facts matter. By their very nature, facts can't be something that you make up. Otherwise, what's the point of your fact if I can just make up another fact to counter it?

SteamWake makes up the "fact" that the US has the toughest emission regulations out there? Fine. I make up the "fact" that the US has the weakest emission regulations in the entire world, worse than China, India, Zimbabwe, and Somalia. If he doesn't have to back up his "fact" then I shouldn't have to back up mine.

[Stealth Hunter]

Well played, Max.:salute:

[antikristuseke]

Wrong!!! You are the one that challenged that assertion. You should be the one putting your money where your mouth is.
:hmmm:

-S

No, SUBMAN1, you are wrong here, very wrong in fact. The burden of proof allways rests on the one making a claim, regardless of how lagical said claim is it is only evidence that can validate it. Not taking assertions at face value, regardless of wether you like them or not, is called being concistent, something you seem to have trouble with.

Edit: Damnit, should hare read the rest of hte thread before having a knee jerk reaction at subbies post, aparently everything I say in this post has llready been told him ad nauseum and he still doesnt listen, imagine that.

[Takeda Shingen]

No, SUBMAN1, you are wrong here, very wrong in fact. The burden of proof allways rests on the one making a claim, regardless of how lagical said claim is it is only evidence that can validate it. Not taking assertions at face value, regardless of wether you like them or not, is called being concistent, something you seem to have trouble with.

Edit: Damnit, should hare read the rest of hte thread before having a knee jerk reaction at subbies post, aparently everything I say in this post has llready been told him ad nauseum and he still doesnt listen, imagine that.

Without getting into the polemics* of this thread, what you have said is absolutely the truth. In the scientific and academic tradition, the party making the assertion is the same that holds the burden of proof. In the case above, it is the owner of the garden who must prove the existence of his invisible unicorn. In the scope of the original argument, the burden rests upon SteamWake.


*used very liberally here

[SteamWake]

Don't know about legislation but:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_ capita

This is the type of thing I find. No where is it called out whom has the 'tightest' regulations on emissions. Just lists on 'quantitys of emissions' most of which are not broken down per capita making the US stand out like a sore thumb.

As to regulatory actions by nation its just not documented in such a manner. However I stand by my claim that United States take more steps, spend more money, have more regulations regarding emission standards than any other nation on earth. I know people whom work in the oil industry and the anicdotes I've heard would make your jaw drop. What other nation has 'fuel blends' based not only on which state the fuel is going to but also based on season?

Sorry I cant 'prove' my claims, even more curious that no one can disprove them. Its quite curious how difficult it is to quantify this claim. I'm sure if someone could have they would have by now.

Again all I come accross is quantitys of emissions nothing regarding regulatory requirements by nation.

[Max2147]

If you can't quantify or back up your claim, you probably shouldn't make the claim in the first place.

[SteamWake]

Well at least you're being honest in saying that you make unsubstantiated claims, I guess that a plus for you.
But, given that the US per capita emissions are in the top 10 highest it's safe to say that no matter the level of regulations (that you don't know about), it's not that tight.

LOL indeed in the top ten... number 10 in fact ! But this cuts off at 2004 :doh:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_ capita

Someone needs to get on Qatar's case :rotfl:

Hey look Canada beat us !

Number 10 for the largest industrialized nation on earth is pretty good I would think.

[SteamWake]

It's "per capita", it has nothing to do with the size of a nation. Your emissions are twice as high as those of the UK or Germany, and 3 times higher than those of Italy Spain and France. Now you can always take the worse as a reference and say "we're not that bad", but anyway your claims aren't better off.

Last time I checked the US has a few more citizens that the UK or Germany. Sorry I dont have a link to substantiate that but again I believe it to be true.

Furthermore I do believe the industrial output in the US is a good deal greater than the mentioned EU countrys at least for the time being. Im pretty sure thats factual as well.

I did note the abscence of chunks of data from a 'comprable' nation such as Russia. Also again I noticed it cuts off at 2004, why?

[Max2147]

Last time I checked the US has a few more citizens that the UK or Germany. Sorry I dont have a link to substantiate that but again I believe it to be true.

Furthermore I do believe the industrial output in the US is a good deal greater than the mentioned EU countrys at least for the time being. Im pretty sure thats factual as well.

I did note the abscence of chunks of data from a 'comprable' nation such as Russia. Also again I noticed it cuts off at 2004, why?
Russia is on there, down in 30th place. Their number is about half of ours. China is in 91st place, with a number less than 20% of ours.

[SteamWake]

Ah I see what they did now Russia has been 'split' in two one for russia and another for the soviet union. Isnt that cute :rotfl:

[Max2147]

Ah I see what they did now Russia has been 'split' in two one for russia and another for the soviet union. Isnt that cute :rotfl:
What does that have to do with the data?

[SteamWake]

What does that have to do with the data?

Well it put the soviet union in last place. Might say it skewed it a tad :03:

[Letum]

I stand by my claim that United States take more steps, spend more money, have more regulations regarding emission standards than any other nation on earth.

[...]

Sorry I cant 'prove' my claims, even more curious that no one can disprove them.

I can disprove them if I stick to your standards.

In May 2008 over 8.3 billion scientists agreed at a 2 day summit in
Luxembourg that the USA did not have the world's tightest emission
controls.

Sorry I cant 'prove' my claims, even more curious that no one can
disprove them.

[SteamWake]

I can disprove them if I stick to your standards.

In May 2008 over 8.3 billion scientists agreed at a 2 day summit in
Luxembourg that the USA did not have the world's tightest emission
controls.

Sorry I cant 'prove' my claims, even more curious that no one can
disprove them.

Linkage ? :rotfl:

8.3 billion might be a tad excessive.

[Max2147]

Well it put the soviet union in last place. Might say it skewed it a tad :03:
The USSR isn't in last. It's at the bottom because it's not part of the ranking, since it's not a state anymore.

If you sort it by 1990 numbers (when the USSR was still a state) it comes in about 20th. Its 1990 number (12.8) is still well behind the USA's 1990 number (18.9).