Future Environmental Disasters

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc@13 January 2004 - 13:54
GW Bush refused to sign the kyoto agreement because it wasn't in "american" intrests to do so (by american read corporate political fund donators). America is a huge poluter of the world there is no denying that fact, so are many other countries.

---

vidcc-

I suggest you google the following, anent the Kyoto Agreement:

1. Those who also never signed on.

2. Those who backed out.

3. Those who are still bound by Kyoto.

And I don't want to hear about other countries (like Russia) who are "following America's lead".

Give them credit for knowing their own minds and making their own decisions.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+13 January 2004 - 18:53--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 13 January 2004 - 18:53)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@13 January 2004 - 13:54
GW Bush refused to sign the kyoto agreement because it wasn&#39;t in "american" intrests to do so (by american read corporate political fund donators). America is a huge poluter of the world there is no denying that fact, so are many other countries.

---

vidcc-

I suggest you google the following, anent the Kyoto Agreement:

1. Those who also never signed on.

2. Those who backed out.

3. Those who are still bound by Kyoto.

And I don&#39;t want to hear about other countries (like Russia) who are "following America&#39;s lead".

Give them credit for knowing their own minds and making their own decisions. [/b][/quote]
what are you talking about? read the post for heavens sake. i said "as are other countries."
i have never said or even suggested or could even be misinterpreted as saying in any subject whatsoever that anyone "follows america&#39;s lead"

My post was indicative of the fact that MAN polutes too much and as GW Bush (the president of MY country) is probably the most famous leader to refuse to sign and also happens to be one of the worlds most prominent perveyers of the capitalist profits before people doctrine he was a just and appropriate example.

READ READ READ

or i&#39;ll set busyman on you :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by vidcc+13 January 2004 - 15:14--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc &#064; 13 January 2004 - 15:14)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@13 January 2004 - 18:53
<!--QuoteBegin-vidcc

---

Quote:

---

@13 January 2004 - 13:54
GW Bush refused to sign the kyoto agreement because it wasn&#39;t in "american" intrests to do so (by american read corporate political fund donators). America is a huge poluter of the world there is no denying that fact, so are many other countries.

---

vidcc-

I suggest you google the following, anent the Kyoto Agreement:

1. Those who also never signed on.

2. Those who backed out.

3. Those who are still bound by Kyoto.

And I don&#39;t want to hear about other countries (like Russia) who are "following America&#39;s lead".

Give them credit for knowing their own minds and making their own decisions.

---

what are you talking about? read the post for heavens sake. i said "as are other countries."
i have never said or even suggested or could even be misinterpreted as saying in any subject whatsoever that anyone "follows america&#39;s lead"

My post was indicative of the fact that MAN polutes too much and as GW Bush (the president of MY country) is probably the most famous leader to refuse to sign and also happens to be one of the worlds most prominent perveyers of the capitalist profits before people doctrine he was a just and appropriate example.

READ READ READ

or i&#39;ll set busyman on you :lol:[/b][/quote]
I apologize-

We had just recently gone &#39;round about Kyoto; I thought I remembered you being there for it.

There was an attempt to create the notion any non-participants in Kyoto (including Russia and Japan) were merely the minions of the U.S.

I thought you were re-hashing-again, sorry. :)

accepted... :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4+--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>Let me try to make this very simple for you, lefty:

If I say it&#39;s a reason, and you say it&#39;s not, there is no debate.

If I say it is logical, and you say it&#39;s not, there is no debate.[/b]

---

Yes there is a debate, I would have to provide a logical reason as to why your reasoning is not logical. Making blanket statements without providing any evidence or reasoning seems to be your area of expertise.

<!--QuoteBegin-j2k4
Your natural deficit as to both reason and logic dictates you adopt this as a tactic, then scream for a debate, the rules of which are entirely yours to define.

I suggest, therefore, that you give up any pretense of terming what you attempt to do here as debate.

That&#39;s all there is to it. [/quote]

Excellent. :) I&#39;m glad to see you&#39;ve abandoned the topic and resorted to your favourite tactic of spitting insults at those who disagree with you.

Its very obvious to all but the most biased of readers that you quickly stooped to this level when I asked a couple of pertinent questions about your conspiracy theory.

Your actions do more damage to your position on this topic than any of my &#39;inconvenient&#39; questions ever could. I should probably be thanking you :)

Providing one doesn&#39;t think the Earth is 6000 years old and is going to end next Tuesday, my view is the following.

Looking back over the history of the Earth it does not take much to discern that climate fluctuates wildly. We have have been living in a warmer inter-glacial period. During these perids, which geologoically are quite short, the temperature can rise quickly and, in previous inter-glacials, higher temperatures than we have now were reached (usually prior to turning very nippy indeed).

So what does it mean for us? Well carbon emissions could speed up what is a natual process and we certainly have emitted a lot of carbons into the atmosphere. So controlling our pollution could slow things down

On the other hand we could just be going into a natural phase and there is damn all we can do about it.

Sea levels between full ice age and the warmest periods vary by hundreds of feet. There was not much of a North Sea during the last ice age and no Mediteranean or Black Sea. As temperatures rise further sea levels will rise but bear in mind most of the rising has already occurred. However, if you live by the sea, as I do, this is little comfort; 30 feet and I will be growing sea weed not shrubs.

It will not end civilisation and it is not entirely clear who will be winners and who will be losers if things do get warmer. Records suggest that a warmer world is good news for the UK, back in the 11th century we had vineyards as far north as York. Far worse than a warm world, would be a return to an ice age which would not be good news for the developed world. A cooler world would be ok for North africa and the ME which no doubt would go back to being the cradle of civilisation.

I believe the evidence is there to say we are entering a warm phase. Time will tell if this is a temporary fluctuation or one of Earth&#39;s longer transitional phases - if it is the latter we may never know to what extent we caused it, but those who predicted it will get the kudos anyway :)

Skimming through the posts above I saw a comment that cows emit more methane than cars - I should hope so too. If cows start emitting carbon monoxide from their rears the world will have come to a pretty pass. :blink:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Biggles@13 January 2004 - 18:18
Providing one doesn&#39;t think the Earth is 6000 years old and is going to end next Tuesday, my view is the following.

Looking back over the history of the Earth it does not take much to discern that climate fluctuates wildly. We have have been living in a warmer inter-glacial period. During these perids, which geologoically are quite short, the temperature can rise quickly and, in previous inter-glacials, higher temperatures than we have now were reached (usually prior to turning very nippy indeed).

So what does it mean for us? Well carbon emissions could speed up what is a natual process and we certainly have emitted a lot of carbons into the atmosphere. So controlling our pollution could slow things down

On the other hand we could just be going into a natural phase and there is damn all we can do about it.

Sea levels between full ice age and the warmest periods vary by hundreds of feet. There was not much of a North Sea during the last ice age and no Mediteranean or Black Sea. As temperatures rise further sea levels will rise but bear in mind most of the rising has already occurred. However, if you live by the sea, as I do, this is little comfort; 30 feet and I will be growing sea weed not shrubs.

It will not end civilisation and it is not entirely clear who will be winners and who will be losers if things do get warmer. Records suggest that a warmer world is good news for the UK, back in the 11th century we had vineyards as far north as York. Far worse than a warm world, would be a return to an ice age which would not be good news for the developed world. A cooler world would be ok for North africa and the ME which no doubt would go back to being the cradle of civilisation.

I believe the evidence is there to say we are entering a warm phase. Time will tell if this is a temporary fluctuation or one of Earth&#39;s longer transitional phases - if it is the latter we may never know to what extent we caused it, but those who predicted it will get the kudos anyway :)

Skimming through the posts above I saw a comment that cows emit more methane than cars - I should hope so too. If cows start emitting carbon monoxide from their rears the world will have come to a pretty pass. :blink:

---

AHA&#33;

And what if I demand you prove every shred of what you claim; all this frothing about climactic fluctuations and such&#33;

Your post is idiotic and contemptuous of known fact; where do you come up with such bollocks, and how do you excuse your lack of studies (preferably by private concerns)?

Huh? HUH??&#33;&#33;?

If you don&#39;t have studies and links and googles and stuff, your post is invalid&#33;&#33;&#33;

You are wrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrongwrong.........



:P Sorry, buddy. I just wanted to see what that felt like.

Vandalous&#33;

I&#39;m with you all the way, Biggles&#33; :)

I will make the case.

Clearly in this graph, you can see that the world is the green, and the rest is the moon. Notice the difference?
http://www.eccm.uk.com/climafor/imag...estudyarea.gif

-Moving On

This picture shows what the Earth will look like if we ignore carbon emissions.

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/images/galax...raph_hires.jpg

-Moving On

This next graph shows a human heart beat in 50 years if we ignore global warming&#33;&#33;

http://www.finx.fi/automation/amlc-graph.gif

-Moving On

This is a depiction of what the c02 layer may look like in 50 years.

http://erc.msh.org/quality/graphics/triangle.gif

Thank you for your time :)

I&#39;m afraid I don&#39;t......um.....could you repeat that? :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by j2k4@12 January 2004 - 08:30
By-and-large, they are anti-capitalist, anti-industry, anti-government, anti-tech; basically anti-"everything that made America great".

---

america wasn&#39;t great before the arrival of capitalism, industry, government, and technology? the definition of greatness would vary wildly, depending on whom you ask, no? the natives prolly thought it was plenty great, without all of those things-- they certainly had no use for things like, say, banks, railroads, mayors, or gatling guns.

on a different note, this thread has been sorely lacking in real, accurate info about the danger posed to our planet by trees.

Quote:

---

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles." --Ronald Reagan, 1980

---