Well, we're screwed.

[cpt_azad]

Just something interesting I came across. The point of no return has been passed a long time ago apparently, and no matter what we do we're screwed so say the enviromentalists and the geologists. I personally don't think its 100% accurate, I'd say 50 at best. And even if its accurate, its not gonna happen in my lifetime :)

http://www.shoutwire.com/viewstory/5180/Global_warming_has_passed_the_tipping_point

comments.

[Biggles]

Tipping point may have been passed but I am uneasy with the concept because if it hasn't been passed then those who have no desire to clean up their act will use it as an excuse along the lines of - "we are screwed anyway so what difference does it make". In fact this may already be Whitehouse policy :ph34r:

[GepperRankins]

we can't tell for sure yet :dabs:

tis happening though :dabs:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/hottopics/climatechange/

[GepperRankins]

btw, what this thing is....


that (GNN|independent) article is one of many different predictions. the point of this download is a bit like SETI@home

there are hundreds of thousands of possible paths the climate can go along now. by checking the results in a few months we can see which outcome happens from the most different predictions to find out what is most likely to happen.

imagine rolling two dice over and over again, you'd work out that 7 is the most likely outcome. that's kinda how this works.

[Cheese]

[quote=cpt_azad]I personally don't think its 100% accurate, I'd say 50 at best. /quote]

:lol:

Funny.

[Barbarossa]

[quote=cpt_azad]I personally don't think its 100% accurate, I'd say 50 at best. /quote]

:lol:

Funny.

indeed. The BBC should not waste their time and effort on a big distributed computing project, they should have just asked Cpt_Asda. :dry:

[Cheese]

Double post. Damn my common sense.

[Cheese]

indeed. The BBC should not waste their time and effort on a big distributed computing project, they should have just asked Cpt_Asda. :dry:

I agree with you, but maybe not 100%. I'd say 86% at best.

[Snee]

Wait for it. (http://www.weebl.jolt.co.uk/upgrade.htm)

[j2k4]

Tipping point may have been passed but I am uneasy with the concept because if it hasn't been passed then those who have no desire to clean up their act will use it as an excuse along the lines of - "we are screwed anyway so what difference does it make". In fact this may already be Whitehouse policy :ph34r:

Oh, ffs, Les.

"We're screwed" is the default policy for the entire world, courtesy of Mother Nature.

One half-assed volcanic eruption has more effect on global warming than has the entire Industrial Age.

We're just along for the ride, and it has never been otherwise.

[GepperRankins]

Tipping point may have been passed but I am uneasy with the concept because if it hasn't been passed then those who have no desire to clean up their act will use it as an excuse along the lines of - "we are screwed anyway so what difference does it make". In fact this may already be Whitehouse policy :ph34r:

Oh, ffs, Les.

"We're screwed" is the default policy for the entire world, courtesy of Mother Nature.

One half-assed volcanic eruption has more effect on global warming than has the entire Industrial Age.

We're just along for the ride, and it has never been otherwise.
you should get bbc4 :smilie4:

[cpt_azad]

Tipping point may have been passed but I am uneasy with the concept because if it hasn't been passed then those who have no desire to clean up their act will use it as an excuse along the lines of - "we are screwed anyway so what difference does it make". In fact this may already be Whitehouse policy :ph34r:
Oh, ffs, Les.

"We're screwed" is the default policy for the entire world, courtesy of Mother Nature.

One half-assed volcanic eruption has more effect on global warming than has the entire Industrial Age.

We're just along for the ride, and it has never been otherwise.

So are you saying that we humans have not contributed to this "natural" phenomenon by at least speeding it up?

[GepperRankins]

Oh, ffs, Les.

"We're screwed" is the default policy for the entire world, courtesy of Mother Nature.

One half-assed volcanic eruption has more effect on global warming than has the entire Industrial Age.

We're just along for the ride, and it has never been otherwise.

So are you saying that we humans have not contributed to this "natural" phenomenon by at least speeding it up?
no point arguing. he says what he's told :dabs:

[cpt_azad]

I see, but I thought J2 was smarter than the average american? No sarcasm intended, that guy has a lot intelligence.

[GepperRankins]

he likes to act like it. he's never really taken the time to actually research anything about global warming. unless you count the stuff he reads on conservative blogs. this stuff originating from oil company reps whose interest it is stop people worrying about the negative effects of oil.

[j2k4]

I see, but I thought J2 was smarter than the average american? No sarcasm intended, that guy has a lot intelligence.

I am smarter than the average American.

You don't have to be smart at all to arrive at the correct conclusion, however.

I acknowledge global warming occurs (and I'll bet the fact of that has missed needle-dick Dave, because it doesn't suit his opinion of me to remember it); I do not acknowledge mankind has had more than an iota of effect on the overall bearing factors, for precisely the reason I alluded to in my previous post.

If mankind (meaning America, because as I'm sure Dave will tell you, only America pollutes, or only American pollution affects the ozone layer) were to utterly cease any sort of industrial processing, stick corks in the cows asses, and do all the other useless horseshit dictated by such as the Kyoto Treaty, it could never be determined this had even the slightest effect on global warming (and therein lies the "cover" for Dave's idiotic reasoning).

All this, and the next volcanic eruption undoes any positive effect we "might" have had, and by a factor of millions, to boot.

Dave wants to buy it, and he's welcome to it; I'll have none of it.

He is a typical utopian, believing man can overcome nature with his puny efforts; he makes, half-jokingly (but only half), statements to the effect Bush is to blame for an active hurricane season...did Bush cause the Indonesian tsunami?

On second thought, strike that; Dave will be along shortly to make a case for it, and probably blame him for volcanoes as well.

[Snee]

Oh come on, while I seriously doubt that what we've done thus so far has had such a profound effect on our climate as some would have it, the opinion that we have had, are having, and probably will be having a hand in this most recent 'bout of global warming if we do continue to pollute as we currently do, is shared by a majority of all climatologists, as far as I know.

To dismiss their consensus (altho' the research is not yet finished, I'll grant you that) is a bit much.

Man can certainly affect nature, when it comes to our climate, given what the scientists now believe.

And as for the Kyoto treaty, I reckon it's a bit arrogant to dismiss something a large part of the world has agreed on as something that dictates "useless horseshit", not to mention that's it's downright insulting that the USA rejected it, especially so since America does stand for something like a third of all pollution emissions.

[j2k4]

Oh come on, while I seriously doubt that what we've done thus so far has had such a profound effect on our climate as some would have it, the opinion that we have had, are having, and probably will be having a hand in this most recent 'bout of global warming if we do continue to pollute as we currently do, is shared by a majority of all climatologists, as far as I know.

To dismiss their consensus (altho' the research is not yet finished, I'll grant you that) is a bit much.

Man can certainly affect nature, when it comes to our climate, given what the scientists now believe.

And as for the Kyoto treaty, I reckon it's a bit arrogant to dismiss something a large part of the world has agreed on as something that dictates "useless horseshit", not to mention that's it's downright insulting that the USA rejected it, especially so since America does stand for something like a third of all pollution emissions.

Peruse the signatory roster and get back to me, SnnY.

I dismiss the consensus, research deficit or not, and will continue to do so.

It would require an awfully profound effect indeed to have the impact required to drive temperatures beyond any cyclical range we can discern historically (that is to say, well beyond that which we can currently determine, and to any degree we might reasonably postulate as "possible"), and, as I have said, if our absolute best efforts will be well undone by the next tectonic fart, I see nothing to convince me any effect we might have could be defined as anything but miniscule, and therefore of negligible benefit.

There is a little book called State of Fear authored by Michael Crichton you might enjoy; it describes the "horse shit" on both sides of the debate while expounding a sober appraisal of the reality, backed up by real data.

Think twice before you read it, though; it'll be detrimental to your ignorance. :P

[cpt_azad]

Nice post J2, but this is kind of off topic, but hell I'll ask anyway:

How many more years do you think oil will last? As far as I know we crossed the peak a long time ago, and OPEC is just optimistic, nothing else. There really isn't as much oil on/in (the) Earth (at least the oil that we can "obtain") as OPEC or other scientists claim there to be.

So, since fossil fuels (which I kinda classify as oil, don't ask) is what, a HUGE chunk of what causes emmisions (spelling!), when we run out, what do you think will happen?

As you put it J2, the pollution caused by mankind (no not just America, I'm not narrowminded thank you very much) is miniscule and at best ignorable to the grand scheme of things (nature), so when we run out of fossil fuels life will just go on? Climate change will still take place regardless of the fact that fossil fuels will cease to burn?

That's one future I don't look forward to, because:

1) When (not if) fossil fuels diminish and the weather/climate continues to deteriorate (spelling!), people are gonna be scratching their heads going "WTF? I thought we took care of this problem by switching to alternative power sources".

2) Once again mankind's inability to plan ahead will bring about yet more famine, death, and what not.

My 2 cents on that subject (1/2 of which is based on this thread, the other half being on fossil fuels running out).

I'm interested in what you have to say J2, in fact, I'm interested in what all of you have to say.

[Skillian]

Peruse the signatory roster and get back to me, SnnY.

I dismiss the consensus, research deficit or not, and will continue to do so.

It would require an awfully profound effect indeed to have the impact required to drive temperatures beyond any cyclical range we can discern historically (that is to say, well beyond that which we can currently determine, and to any degree we might reasonably postulate as "possible"), and, as I have said, if our absolute best efforts will be well undone by the next tectonic fart, I see nothing to convince me any effect we might have could be defined as anything but miniscule, and therefore of negligible benefit.

There is a little book called State of Fear authored by Michael Crichton you might enjoy; it describes the "horse shit" on both sides of the debate while expounding a sober appraisal of the reality, backed up by real data.

Think twice before you read it, though; it'll be detrimental to your ignorance. :P

Did you just dismiss the scientific community and endorse a fiction writer in the same post? Is this a thread about global warming or the art of compelling narrative? :huh:

[Snee]

Oh come on, while I seriously doubt that what we've done thus so far has had such a profound effect on our climate as some would have it, the opinion that we have had, are having, and probably will be having a hand in this most recent 'bout of global warming if we do continue to pollute as we currently do, is shared by a majority of all climatologists, as far as I know.

To dismiss their consensus (altho' the research is not yet finished, I'll grant you that) is a bit much.

Man can certainly affect nature, when it comes to our climate, given what the scientists now believe.

And as for the Kyoto treaty, I reckon it's a bit arrogant to dismiss something a large part of the world has agreed on as something that dictates "useless horseshit", not to mention that's it's downright insulting that the USA rejected it, especially so since America does stand for something like a third of all pollution emissions.

Peruse the signatory roster and get back to me, SnnY.

I dismiss the consensus, research deficit or not, and will continue to do so.

It would require an awfully profound effect indeed to have the impact required to drive temperatures beyond any cyclical range we can discern historically (that is to say, well beyond that which we can currently determine, and to any degree we might reasonably postulate as "possible"), and, as I have said, if our absolute best efforts will be well undone by the next tectonic fart, I see nothing to convince me any effect we might have could be defined as anything but miniscule, and therefore of negligible benefit.

There is a little book called State of Fear authored by Michael Crichton you might enjoy; it describes the "horse shit" on both sides of the debate while expounding a sober appraisal of the reality, backed up by real data.

Think twice before you read it, though; it'll be detrimental to your ignorance. :P

Who said I was ignorant? I've looked at what some of the scientists say, and it's pretty convincing.

Michael Chrichton, on the other hand is not someone I'd look to for a convincing interpretation of real data. He's good at fiction, but I'm not so sure about his takes on science :dabs:

Even tho' a volcano eruption might have a more extensive effect on the environment, and even tho' we might not have had as great an effect on the environment as some have said, is that really a good reason not to try and make things better?

I'd rather side with the scientists on this.

As for the treaty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kyoto.png

I see "signed" was the wrong choice of word, ratified was what I meant.
Bloke like you ought to have gotten that, tho'.

[GepperRankins]

can i say the straw that broke the camels back?


shirley you'll understand what i mean

[j2k4]

Did you just dismiss the scientific community and endorse a fiction writer in the same post?

Hmmm...Let me check...

















Yes, I did.

Read the book.

[j2k4]

Peruse the signatory roster and get back to me, SnnY.

I dismiss the consensus, research deficit or not, and will continue to do so.

It would require an awfully profound effect indeed to have the impact required to drive temperatures beyond any cyclical range we can discern historically (that is to say, well beyond that which we can currently determine, and to any degree we might reasonably postulate as "possible"), and, as I have said, if our absolute best efforts will be well undone by the next tectonic fart, I see nothing to convince me any effect we might have could be defined as anything but miniscule, and therefore of negligible benefit.

There is a little book called State of Fear authored by Michael Crichton you might enjoy; it describes the "horse shit" on both sides of the debate while expounding a sober appraisal of the reality, backed up by real data.

Think twice before you read it, though; it'll be detrimental to your ignorance. :P

Who said I was ignorant? I've looked at what some of the scientists say, and it's pretty convincing.

Michael Chrichton, on the other hand is not someone I'd look to for a convincing interpretation of real data. He's good at fiction, but I'm not so sure about his takes on science :dabs:

Even tho' a volcano eruption might have a more extensive effect on the environment, and even tho' we might not have had as great an effect on the environment as some have said, is that really a good reason not to try and make things better?

I'd rather side with the scientists on this.

As for the treaty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kyoto.png

I see "signed" was the wrong choice of word, ratified was what I meant.
Bloke like you ought to have gotten that, tho'.


I wasn't picking on that last; ratified, signed, either is good.

I was desirous of your noting the other former signatories who have vacated the treaty.

Let me put it this way:

You are well aware statistical evidence (the much-vaunted science) can be subtly skewed to achieve effect and/or influence opinion, especially with someone predisposed to a certain point-of-view, and by this I mean someone of whom it might be said, "He cares about the environment, as we all should".

This is all well and good, until the person in question confronts an issue which is superficially so persuasive as to skate past normal healthy skepticism, and this subject has been tailored to that very end.

I consider myself somewhat a student of the game, and my antenna have been up on this right from the beginning.

I have lived most of my life in cooler climes and various locales on the Great Lakes.

I am 47 years old.

I have lived through an impending Ice Age to no ill effect, only to be confronted with the same scenario in reverse.

In the early to mid-seventies, the scientific "consensus" was forecasting the lakes would, by the late-'80s/early '90s, be frozen over entirely, and stay that way for the next few hundred years, minimum.

Oh, and let's not forget-the Cold War was still burgeoning, and the threat of nuclear war pushed the scenario from catastrophic to apocalyptic: Anyone remember Nuclear Winter?

Anyway, I got through all that in pretty good shape, managing to get a tan each and every summer, swimming and recreating in and on the lakes, the levels of which fluctuated fairly drastically year after year, along with the requisite moaning about erosion, property values rising and falling, until I became bored and forgot about all of it.

You really should have been there.....but you weren't, and you haven't the benefit of my brand of hindsight; nor can I effectively communicate it to you. ;)

[Skillian]

Did you just dismiss the scientific community and endorse a fiction writer in the same post?

Hmmm...Let me check...

Yes, I did.

Read the book.

I've read the reviews on Amazon, thats the best I can do without spending £4.99.

It does sound interesting and well referenced, and apparently there's an earthquake machine in there somewhere which sounds fun, but I would imagine its most useful contribution to the climate change issue is to encourage the readers to seek further information from scientific sources.

Then again, you never claimed it was a comprehensive source of information so there's no real reason for me to take issue with your post.

[j2k4]

Nice post J2, but this is kind of off topic, but hell I'll ask anyway:

How many more years do you think oil will last? As far as I know we crossed the peak a long time ago, and OPEC is just optimistic, nothing else. There really isn't as much oil on/in (the) Earth (at least the oil that we can "obtain") as OPEC or other scientists claim there to be.

So, since fossil fuels (which I kinda classify as oil, don't ask) is what, a HUGE chunk of what causes emmisions (spelling!), when we run out, what do you think will happen?

As you put it J2, the pollution caused by mankind (no not just America, I'm not narrowminded thank you very much) is miniscule and at best ignorable to the grand scheme of things (nature), so when we run out of fossil fuels life will just go on? Climate change will still take place regardless of the fact that fossil fuels will cease to burn?

That's one future I don't look forward to, because:

1) When (not if) fossil fuels diminish and the weather/climate continues to deteriorate (spelling!), people are gonna be scratching their heads going "WTF? I thought we took care of this problem by switching to alternative power sources".

2) Once again mankind's inability to plan ahead will bring about yet more famine, death, and what not.

My 2 cents on that subject (1/2 of which is based on this thread, the other half being on fossil fuels running out).

I'm interested in what you have to say J2, in fact, I'm interested in what all of you have to say.


Let's see how quickly I can do this.

If we are indeed at the "tipping-point" (as well we may be...who knows?), what I know of that indicates we are beyond redemption, pollution-wise, as well as being closer to the genuine end of the geologic supply string than we are to the beginning.

Now...back to the volcanic-event equation for a moment:

If, as is commonly agreed to be true, the Mt. St. Helens eruption in 1980 gave forth a level of pollution well in excess of the entirety of man's activities to that point in history, a rough correlation can be drawn between that event and the amount of pollution yet to be derived from man's use/abuse of the world's remaining supply of fossil fuel.

This in turn means that, should we immediately forego any further use of fossil fuels, we bring to bear a minimally positive effect the equivalent (again, roughly) of the world's next semi-significant volcanic event.

Anyone want to bet when that'll be?

When fossil fuels are becoming demonstrably depleted and that fact begins to seriously effect the market (this has not happened yet, not by a long shot), other sources of energy will become viable.

I am not worried this will cause pain beyond moderate inconvenience, however, the mere thought of any other than self-propelled wheels under one's ass can drive some to contemplate suicide, I hear.

So be it.

The market will provide, though it may provide differently.

Life is supposed to be an adventure, isn't it? :)

[Tempestv]

There is a little book called State of Fear authored by Michael Crichton you might enjoy; it describes the "horse shit" on both sides of the debate while expounding a sober appraisal of the reality, backed up by real data.

Think twice before you read it, though; it'll be detrimental to your ignorance. :P

I read the reviews on that book, to see if it was to be a waste of time, and some four reviews that I read on it before deciding that I had read enough about it all said that the whole book was conservitive propoganda. Sorry, but when I want to read about real events, I don't read fiction.

[j2k4]

There is a little book called State of Fear authored by Michael Crichton you might enjoy; it describes the "horse shit" on both sides of the debate while expounding a sober appraisal of the reality, backed up by real data.

Think twice before you read it, though; it'll be detrimental to your ignorance. :P

I read the reviews on that book, to see if it was to be a waste of time, and some four reviews that I read on it before deciding that I had read enough about it all said that the whole book was conservitive propoganda. Sorry, but when I want to read about real events, I don't read fiction.

Do you prefer liberal propaganda?

How would you know the difference?

Would you ask an "expert"?

Consult the World-Wide-Web?

Do you reject ALL books purported to be important or relevant if they are novels?

Would you prefer Uncle Tom's Cabin never to have been written?

How about Atlas Shrugged?

How would you know whether that which you do read (presented as non-fictional fact, of course) is not a nicely-packaged collection of lies?

Have you read my sig?

I rather like it.

Perhaps you might present us with your own reading list relative to global warming and other issues so that we might parse it for accuracy and truthfulness.

[vidcc]

It seems to me that the more profit that can be made by polluting the louder the argument against the reality of global warming. I find it hard to give environmental arguments credibility when they include parallel arguments about cost, profit and jobs. Sure those arguments may be true but they don’t discredit the science. So this group possibly believe that man is having an effect but just don’t care because to them the bottom line is more important and the real problem will not be theirs, but later generations.

Another group that tend to deny the science do so because of religious beliefs. How could mere men influence God’s creation? Some fanatical religious types believe it is their duty under the word of the bible to use the earth and that environmentalists are going to prevent this.

Of course not everyone that doubts man’s role in global warming fits into these groups but they are a minority IMO.

Climate does indeed change naturally but this fact doesn’t discredit mans influence in speeding up the process.

[MagicNakor]

...Would you prefer Atlas Shrugged never to have been written?

God, yes. Did anyone really need to be subjected to Galt's fifty-odd page speech? :blink:

If that's not possible, can we just get her an editor?

:shuriken:

[Biggles]

Historically, volcanoes are associated with cooling, poor summers and starvation. This occurred in the late stone age/early bronze age again in the early Dark Ages (500ADs) and at other discernable points in history too.

In other words they do impact on climate and they do have serious reprecussions. However, they are not generally considered to be vehicles for global warming.

The rise in CO2 in the atmosphere is measureable and can be compared with core samples taken for various periods in the past. We have impacted on the atmosphere and the Greenland ice sheet is melting. As far as I can see the predictive models do struggle with all the permutations. The indications appear to be that the UK, for example, is likely to get colder (this is a bit of a bummer in my view). Of course natural cycles have occurred and these have in the past self corrected. The inordinately warm period in the 12th century was followed in the 14th to 17th centuries with a mni-ice age. It may be that if we have messed up the balance Mother Nature will spank everything back into shape (although not necessarily in a way to our liking).

[Skillian]

My impressions of the Michael Crichton book was that many scientists and scientific journals have an agenda that means they bury studies that question man's effect on climate change.

Out of interest, I went to the nature website and searched the articles for climate change. The very first result included this in its abstract:

"We find that, for some regions, the impacts of human-induced climate change by 2050 will be undetectable relative to those due to natural multi-decadal climate variability. If misleading assessments of—and inappropriate adaptation strategies to—climate-change impacts are to be avoided, future studies should consider the impacts of natural multi-decadal climate variability alongside those of human-induced climate change."

Therefore, I still feel that scientific research and studies are the best way of learning about the issue - actually I don't think there's any other way, apart from becoming a climatologist yourself and conducting your own study, and that's gonna take you a good 15 years.

[j2k4]

Climate does indeed change naturally but this fact doesn’t discredit mans influence in speeding up the process.

Neither does it attempt to QUANTIFY man's "influence in speeding up the process", if you'll notice...;)

[j2k4]

...Would you prefer Atlas Shrugged never to have been written?

God, yes. Did anyone really need to be subjected to Galt's fifty-odd page speech? :blink:

If that's not possible, can we just get her an editor?

:shuriken:

Smartass. :P

And Uncle Tom's Cabin?

[j2k4]

My impressions of the Michael Crichton book was that many scientists and scientific journals have an agenda that means they bury studies that question man's effect on climate change.

Out of interest, I went to the nature website and searched the articles for climate change. The very first result included this in its abstract:

"We find that, for some regions, the impacts of human-induced climate change by 2050 will be undetectable relative to those due to natural multi-decadal climate variability. If misleading assessments of—and inappropriate adaptation strategies to—climate-change impacts are to be avoided, future studies should consider the impacts of natural multi-decadal climate variability alongside those of human-induced climate change."

Therefore, I still feel that scientific research and studies are the best way of learning about the issue - actually I don't think there's any other way, apart from becoming a climatologist yourself and conducting your own study, and that's gonna take you a good 15 years.

Quite right.

Consider ALL the science, not just that which fits the favored preconception, while also keeping in mind that every model has it's flaws.

No one can be sure what will happen, even roughly, and anyone who tells you otherwise has an agenda.

[vidcc]

Climate does indeed change naturally but this fact doesn’t discredit mans influence in speeding up the process.

Neither does it attempt to QUANTIFY man's "influence in speeding up the process", if you'll notice...;)

I would accept this arguement more if the people that point to natural cycles didn't do so to deny mans influence :rolleyes:
Usually those that do this also misrepresent what the scientist are saying.

[j2k4]

Neither does it attempt to QUANTIFY man's "influence in speeding up the process", if you'll notice...;)

I would accept this arguement more if the people that point to natural cycles didn't do so to deny mans influence :rolleyes:
Usually those that do this also misrepresent what the scientist are saying.

Not moi.

I haven't noticed this trend you mention, in fact it seems just the opposite; those who would have us quaking in fear over global warming want to browbeat everyone into sharing their conviction that it is all man's fault, and if he would only mend his ways, the warming trend would recede to manageable dimensions.

Kyoto gives the impression all would be made well if the U.S. pays all the fines it would levy on American industry.

It is naught but a mechanism for taxation, much like our I.R.S.

[vidcc]

Usually those that do this also misrepresent what the scientist are saying.



Not moi. Oh really


I haven't noticed this trend you mention, in fact it seems just the opposite; those who would have us quaking in fear over global warming want to browbeat everyone into sharing their conviction that it is all man's fault, and if he would only mend his ways, the warming trend would recede to manageable dimensions.:rolleyes: And in the same post as well.

It appears that political rhetoric has certainly been influential.


Kyoto gives the impression all would be made well if the U.S. pays all the fines it would levy on American industry.

It is naught but a mechanism for taxation, much like our I.R.S.

I agree that all countries should be cutting down on emissions and none given a pass for economic developement reasons. However your arguement against Kyoto would hold more weight if those that reject it actually wanted to cut emissions at all. We hear the arguement that "the science is flawed", when the rejection has nothing to do with science and everything to do with profit margins. It is equivilent to the tobbacco industry saying there is no evidence connecting cigarrettes with lung cancer.
There is no interest in cutting emissions, but plenty of misleading "programs" that make people think there is.

Call something the "clear skies initative"....who could be against that? I mean everyone wants clear skies. It brings to mind birds chirping and the scent of fresh medows. Fact is the "clear skies initative" actually allows far more polution than the statue it replaced.
Allow 3 times the previously allowed amount of mercury to enter our water table and to make it easier, reterm waterways to allow easier use of the new limits.

[j2k4]

Not moi. Oh really


I haven't noticed this trend you mention, in fact it seems just the opposite; those who would have us quaking in fear over global warming want to browbeat everyone into sharing their conviction that it is all man's fault, and if he would only mend his ways, the warming trend would recede to manageable dimensions.:rolleyes: And in the same post as well.

It appears that political rhetoric has certainly been influential.


I was commenting on the easily noted compulsion of the opposition to twist/omit/obscure the findings of science.

The pro-Kyoto environmentalists are much more media-savvy and focused than any pro-industry types, possibly because they have no jobs apart from being anti-industry and anti-U.S.

[vidcc]

I was commenting on the easily noted compulsion of the opposition to twist/omit/obscure the findings of science.
Conservatives are your opposition :unsure:



The pro-Kyoto environmentalists are much more media-savvy and focused than any pro-industry types, possibly because they have no jobs apart from being anti-industry and anti-U.S.

Yeah right :rolleyes:

But again, this is an economic arguement to deny mans influence on global warming and has nothing to do with the science.

BTW nice touch implying that those who care about the enviroment are "anti industry" they are not anti industry, they are against unchecked polution. and "anti U.S."??? oh yes that's it...they just hate us...the enviroment has nothing to do with it.

[j2k4]

Conservatives are your opposition :unsure:



The pro-Kyoto environmentalists are much more media-savvy and focused than any pro-industry types, possibly because they have no jobs apart from being anti-industry and anti-U.S.

Yeah right :rolleyes:

But again, this is an economic arguement to deny mans influence on global warming and has nothing to do with the science.

BTW nice touch implying that those who care about the enviroment are "anti industry" they are not anti industry, they are against unchecked polution. and "anti U.S."??? oh yes that's it...they just hate us...the enviroment has nothing to do with it.

Let's get this straight:

I myself am pro-environment, but not indiscriminately or irresponsibly so, as you seem to be, vid.

I do not feel that knuckling under to Kyoto is choosing between being pro-environment or pro-business/industry;

I am against "unchecked pollution", and you know what?

Unchecked pollution is not "the norm", nor is it "rampant", "endemic" , or any other adjective you care to apply to U.S. industry.

I'll believe you're barking up the right tree when you start a thread about Chinese or Indian pollution and what should be done about that.

Hell, you're close enough to California to skip on over there and picket for hybrid cars, alternative fuels, car-pooling, mass transit and all that stuff...be warned, however:

There are Los Angelinos who do not want anything done about their smog problem because cleaning it up would deprive them of their beautiful sunsets. :dry:

[vidcc]

Let's get this straight:

I myself am pro-environment, but not indiscriminately or irresponsibly so, as you seem to be, vid.

indiscriminately or irresponsibly :lol:

I do not feel that knuckling under to Kyoto is choosing between being pro-environment or pro-business/industry;

I am against "unchecked pollution", and you know what?

Unchecked pollution is not "the norm", nor is it "rampant", "endemic" , or any other adjective you care to apply to U.S. industry.

relaxing of controls is at the moment though, and industry is trying to get those controls loosened even more, republican lawmakers, moist and gooey eyed are willing minions.... I'm sure "market forces" will solve the problem :rolleyes:


I'll believe you're barking up the right tree when you start a thread about Chinese or Indian pollution and what should be done about that.

I agree that all countries should be cutting down on emissions and none given a pass for economic developement reasons. Just to put that arguement to bed :rolleyes:

Hell, you're close enough to California to skip on over there and picket for hybrid cars, alternative fuels, car-pooling, mass transit and all that stuff...be warned, however:

There are Los Angelinos who do not want anything done about their smog problem because cleaning it up would deprive them of their beautiful sunsets. :dry: next you'll be telling me to move to mars if I am so against earth polution.:rolleyes:

[j2k4]

relaxing of controls is at the moment though, and industry is trying to get those controls loosened even more, republican lawmakers, moist and gooey eyed are willing minions.... I'm sure "market forces" will solve the problem :rolleyes:


I'll believe you're barking up the right tree when you start a thread about Chinese or Indian pollution and what should be done about that.

I agree that all countries should be cutting down on emissions and none given a pass for economic developement reasons. Just to put that arguement to bed :rolleyes:

Hell, you're close enough to California to skip on over there and picket for hybrid cars, alternative fuels, car-pooling, mass transit and all that stuff...be warned, however:

There are Los Angelinos who do not want anything done about their smog problem because cleaning it up would deprive them of their beautiful sunsets. :dry: next you'll be telling me to move to mars if I am so against earth polution.:rolleyes:

Have you given it any thought? :P