EbylHusker

Something tells me your dad wasn't a public figure and potential role model to millions.

As for the point of no return, I would say there is enough uncertainty in climate science and prediction to not know for sure. There are some who believe that, and others who do not. It's clear we're having an impact, there really isn't any scientifically based doubt on that. But where the point of no return might be and when we mgiht reach it is a totally different tangle. I'd say the uncertainty is high enough that it's worth attempting to curb reductions for no other reason than we may still be able to come in under the point of no return. Not to mention, it can always get worse than what is predicted if we don't do anything.

You're still parroting Fox News. That's their line of bullsh#t. You may not be getting it from Fox News, but it's still Fox News levels of utter bullsh#t. Edit - Keep in mind I've never been speaking about wages. The environmental emissions reductions stuff linked to the collapse of the middle class through overseas job loss is straight up Fox News bullsh#t. Once again, you may not get it from them, but that is one thing they push, so you are siding with them. Ouch.

With or without the increased emission reduction for the US by 2030, we're still going to have issues with losing jobs to developing nations. That's been going on a long time and is tied to far more things than just environmental controls and costs. Upping the emissions reduction isn't going to make a dramatic impact on figures like that. But work can be done domestically to further encourage corporations to stay here, not to mention growth in sectors that aren't at nearly as much risk of going overseas, etc. The end result is that we're not going to screw middle class jobs by strengthening the reduction by 2030.

Ok, that's close enough. So my post did encapsulate what you are saying, but it has nothing to do with wages. I'm not talking about wages either, which is fine.

Here, let's start over. Why don't you state exactly what you're claiming in your following post. Take your time, make it clear.

Let me break down what your post said in context. I said we're reducing emissions because we're in a position to, and while China is only capping emission by 2030 because that's what is realistically possible. You said f#*k middle class jobs until then (2030). This implies that our reduction of emissions will screw middle class jobs here while China continues unhindered growth. Neither of those are true.

Pretty sure you connected them right there.

And once again, it's entirely possible for the US to improve the job sector domestically while reducing emissions. Fox News, whether you watch them or not, wants people to believe it's not possible and the country will implode if we continue to reduce emissions. False, not to metnion retarded. China is taking a major step and it's a huge deal. Our competitiveness with China is more dependent on other things than whether we're working to further reduce emissions by 2030.

I didn't say they were mutually exclusive. And, since neither one of us watches or respects Fox News....why bring them up? You're parroting Fox News whether you know it or not. Thumbs up, buddy.

Who gives a sh#t if China overtakes us economically? Must we always be playing the "who has a bigger penis?" with countries? They have 1.3 billion people or some ridiculous number and are industrializing. It's a good bet they're going to overtake us, so get f'ing used to it. And as already mentioned by another, they will not be running "full bore" until 2030. They'll have to start taking steps immediately to begin leveling off until they reach the cap.

No, there are plenty of things we can do to continue to improve job growth and opportunties for people here at the same time. They're not mutally exclusive. Fox News wants you to believe they're mutually exclusive, but like always, they're pushing their agenda rather than anything based in reality.

Jesus f#*k... We are in a position to actually further reduce our emissions. China is not, but they are in a position to start cutting the rate of increase of their emissions until they cap them. That is f'ing reality. It isn't perfect, but it's a huge step in the right direction. But hey, I guess there's always something to bitch about. Must feel good.

I take the wording to mean there isn't a specific, firm stipulation that emissions must begin falling after that. But the intent is that China would be working to actually reduce emissions.

Yes, so it's a big deal. The size of their country and population, coupled with the insane growth of their emissions, is rather scary. In addition, the AP reports that China's emissions are expected to begin falling once the peak is reached. This should also really ramp up the pressure on other countries to make commitments if they haven't already (India, for example).

Any progress with China on that front is good news. It's not a topic (politically or scientifically) where you can say, "Hey, your rate of increase in carbon emissions is really, really high. We'd like you to reach peak carbon emissions by 2020, and by 2030 cut those total emissions by 25%. Not realistic.

Yeah, although in that case the show was playing it up like Tyreese had gone through with it to further his story arc (aka depussification). They took a few extra steps in trying to convince people Tyrese had actually finished him.

Nah, they were just maintaining the game they play with words rather than actually trying to cover anything up. They weren't spoiling anything, as I already explained with my post.

I doubt it was any kind of a slip. Based on the show's track record, there's no reason to think Eugene is dead. It's not the kind of show where a guy takes a few big punches, bangs his head on the ground, and dies. If they did go that route, it would be the most retarded death in the show by miles, and probably the single most retarded thing the show had ever done. I would equate it to Daryl deciding to eat a stuffed teddy bear and choking to death.

Nope.

Chances are good I'd have to be taken from that event in an ambulance.