The Trashing Of The Kyoto Treaty

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@8 December 2003 - 13:36
in my opinion...

This about sums it up.

My opinion is different.

Rat-

Your post was very long, and to my way of thinking, probably comprehensive and exhaustively thorough and persuasive to someone who heretofore had no opinion.

I scanned it pretty closely, but found no organizations that were not either part of the U.N. or of a suspect agenda, in my opinion.

Any organization can purport to be fair-minded and then proceed to solicit opinions which support an agenda they say they do not have.

Greenpeace is an example; I don't think anyone could, in conscience, say they don't have an agenda.

Again-my opinion only; I refuse to jump off the cliff of "opinion" cloaked as having been sanctioned by a non-existent majority or morality.

Believe it or not, scientific "opinion" is bought, sold and negotiated just as every other commodity, and you should beware of buying into these ideologies merely because some supposedly altruistic organization says "it is so, we have scientists who have proven it!"

If you extend the skepticism with which you view the U.S. into other areas, you'd be better off.

[Rat Faced]

j2k4...

Would you think anyone that doesnt vote automatically agree's with a certain party? and that vote should be awarded to that party?

I said in my opinion that considering something as unproven does not make it something to dismiss....if you do not agree with this then you must be a "Bleeding Heart Liberal", afterall the same argument is used to keep people in custody prior to a trial... Its not proven, but we cant dismiss it...

In this case the charge has been read, we're waiting for the trial...


The source i posted from was not a UN organisation, and included evidence of the US government and the view of the organisations against the evidence, it was trying very hard not to be biased...if you look at the source near the bottom it rewrites again and again to try and eliminate bias prior to including it.

I have yet to see any evidence posted by yourself or any other that dismiss Global warming, except "Your Opinion".....at least we're trying to find evidence.

Possibly this is because all your websites belong to organisations funded by Industry?



PS.

NASA is a UN organisation? with an Agenda

as an exapmle

Not everyone that disagrees with your views has an "Agenda"

[j2k4]

Originally posted by Rat Faced@8 December 2003 - 14:25
I have yet to see any evidence posted by yourself or any other that dismiss Global warming, except "Your Opinion".....at least we're trying to find evidence.

Possibly this is because all your websites belong to organisations funded by Industry?



PS.

NASA is a UN organisation? with an Agenda 

as an exapmle

Not everyone that disagrees with your views has an "Agenda"

Rat-

I have not got, nor do I refer to, any websites.

You would have me offer up something (a website) in which I place no credibility, to refute another website I regard as suspect.

I guess my point is that I don't regard "websites" as repositories of truth, no matter who sponsors them, and I regard the offering of them and/or their content as a vain and futile exercise-that is to say that I don't think the fact of your or my or anybody else's having googled, read or digested them to lend them any credibility whatsoever.

In any case, NASA's presence in your post was, to say the least, overwhelmed by the other organizations mentioned.

[clocker]

Out of curiousity j2, if your opinions are not based on information gathered on the web, and you dismiss out of hand those sources that support an opposing viewpoint...then where is your information coming from?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by clocker@8 December 2003 - 15:12
Out of curiousity j2, if your opinions are not based on information gathered on the web, and you dismiss out of hand those sources that support an opposing viewpoint...then where is your information coming from?

I read, as everyone else does, then apply what I already know, try to imagine what I might not know, use such common-sense as I can muster, smear a little logic on it, look at it through the lenses of several pairs of jaundice- and rose-colored glasses I keep on hand for just this purpose, and come to a conclusion.

I generally conclude it is either all bull/horse shit or a close derivative.

[Rat Faced]

Oh....your looking at it politically, my mistake.

I'll try and reduce the number of Science posts, and start on the economic

[J'Pol]

Someone once said - common sense is the sum of the prejudices we gather during our life. It may have been me, I'm not sure.

It is interesting how this discussion is so polarised. Either mankind is destroying the planet in an ever increasing orgy of greenhouse gasses, tree murders and so forth. Or we are so insignificant that whatever we do will effect the environment not one jot.

I as ever take the middle of the road position and say. Billy Dean is probably right. Why not clean up our mess anyway. Worst case scenario we have a cleaner, more efficient world. If we have to sacrifice some wealth, resulting in major job losses and poverty, then it is a price we have to pay.

It honestly isn't that easy to change the infra-structure of major industries and economies without serious ramifications. These may result in the industries failing, or having to restructure, or cut costs elsewhere, which normally means people.

I am serious when I say Billy is probably right and we should clean our act up, it can't be a bad thing. However there are two sides to the discussion. There are consequences, am I the only person willing to see both sides ?

Reasonable of Glasgow.

[hobbes]

Originally posted by J'Pol@8 December 2003 - 21:10
Someone once said - common sense is the sum of the prejudices we gather during our life. It may have been me, I'm not sure.

It is interesting how this discussion is so polarised. Either mankind is destroying the planet in an ever increasing orgy of greenhouse gasses, tree murders and so forth. Or we are so insignificant that whatever we do will effect the environment not one jot.

I as ever take the middle of the road position and say. Billy Dean is probably right. Why not clean up our mess anyway. Worst case scenario we have a cleaner, more efficient world. If we have to sacrifice some wealth, resulting in major job losses and poverty, then it is a price we have to pay.

It honestly isn't that easy to change the infra-structure of major industries and economies without serious ramifications. These may result in the industries failing, or having to restructure, or cut costs elsewhere, which normally means people.

I am serious when I say Billy is probably right and we should clean our act up, it can't be a bad thing. However there are two sides to the discussion. There are consequences, am I the only person willing to see both sides ?

Reasonable of Glasgow.

I agree with Billy as well. Unfortunately our politicians live in the moment. None are willing to be hated in their time and appreciated long after their deaths.

This is one of the inherent problems in a 4 year term versus King for life. I have been calling for a "benevolant King" for quite some time, now.

[J'Pol]

They certainly aren't likely to be popular with the large industries, supporting small business, employees and communities which their changing policies may effect.

These things can have a ripple effect way beyond the big business which people see as the enemy. As you know they do not stand (or fall) alone.

If the butterfly in the rain-forest can cause the hurricane, the hurricane can certainly effect any butterflies it meets.

[Biggles]

Like J'Pol I take a more middling view.

As I am unfortunately old enough to remember the 60s and 70s (well parts of them at least) I consider the world to be somewhat cleaner now than it was then. I appreciate that this is not the case everywhere and that there is some way to go on certain pollutants. However, if I had a choice of falling in the Clyde now or back in the 60s I would without hestitation choose now (although not in December as hypothermia has no respect for clean water).