Addenda To Recent "global Warming" Debate

[FatBastard]

It will cost the US the most cos you pollute the most! As a nation you are extravagent wasters. And why can't we say you can afford it? Is that not true? You can find trillions for other things, and now all this bullshit talk about Mars and the Moon. If nations like the US do nothing, what is the third world to think? Western nations have to develop better methods of doing things, newer technologies, replacements for fossil fuels, etc., the rest of the world will follow. Do you seriously expect third world countries to pick up the tab, when you yourselves cause such a high percentage of the world's polution?

[j2k4]

Originally posted by FatBastard@27 January 2004 - 04:24
It will cost the US the most cos you pollute the most!  As a nation you are extravagent wasters.  And why can't we say you can afford it?  Is that not true?  You can find trillions for other things, and now all this bullshit talk about Mars and the Moon.  If nations like the US do nothing, what is the third world to think?  Western nations have to develop better methods of doing things, newer technologies, replacements for fossil fuels, etc., the rest of the world will follow.  Do you seriously expect third world countries to pick up the tab, when you yourselves cause such a high percentage of the world's polution?

Couple of things, FB:

I think we can (and should) forego the Moon and Mars for a while.

We probably spend more on pollution-control than most country's GNPs.

Third-world countries not blessed with oil or some other valuable resource will only arise from their third-world status with the advent of some sort of industry.

Nowhere have I heard anything about pollution controls being part of the bargain, and right from the get-go.

No, they are to be granted a pass on that condition due to their status as poverty-stricken.

Why is this?

Other countries of middling development are also given leave to shirk on pollution control.

Why is this?

I think we must all agree that the capability to generate electrical power is a requirement, yes?

Why do the "environmentalists" continually fight nuclear power, when oil, and coal, etc., are so dirty?

Why do they insist on windmills and similarly inefficient rubbish?

Or rather, why do they insist on propeller farms and then cry about birdkill?

One more thing:

The way all you people bitch about anything and everything having to do with the U.S., why would you want to "follow" us anywhere?

U.S. technology still suffers the stigma of being "Made in the U.S.A.", doesn't it?

How could anyone bring themselves to make use of it under that circumstance?

Of course, if it is dispensed for free, I suppose that alleviates the sting ever-so-slightly.

Can you tell me why the third-worlders shouldn't finance their own pollution control?

It is, after all, a legitimate business expense, is it not?

Are we to foster "illegitimate" business procedures in poor countries?

Isn't that what you would accuse us of doing now?


Sorry-

Don't mean to rant.

[vidcc]

Just because other countries polute it doesn't excuse our polution. We in the US polute disproportionatly to the population levels and we have no excuse for this apart from financial arguements. The technology is here and we don't use it.
I am a realist, we will never solve the problem completely however we could do better.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by vidcc@27 January 2004 - 13:43
I am a realist, we will never solve the problem completely however we could do better.

On this, at least, we can agree-

But, as I said earlier, the rhetoric deprives us of reasonable discourse and rational middle-ground in debate or action.

We are stalemated.

So you are in the states, eh?

Wasn't aware of that.

[Alex H]

the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.

Does that mean "if it had support what we were planning to do anyway, we'd go along with it, but it doesn't so it does not provide suitable guidance".

I can't BELIVE the US (and j2k4 with it) wants to have a debate on this subject! When UN want to have a debate on whether its ok to start a war with a country that supposedly has enough chemical weapons to destroy the plannet the US says "No, we have to start bombing the bastards right NOW!"

When the UN says "We think the world might have the biggest environmental problem we have ever had, we should stop polluting the earth to such an extent NOW just in case", the US wants to sit around and debate about there not being much evidence that the plannet is slowly choking on it's own filth.

Do you want to wait for the evidence to become apparent? It really is one of the most obvious questions you'll ever be asked. If you shit in the toilet, the toilet will have shit in it right?

I really don't care how many scientists say global warming is not an issue. Scientist NEVER agree on everything, it is there job to be objective - even to the point of refuting the irrefutable.

Remember 80 years ago it was generally thought in the scientific community that smoking was good for you. I'm sure there are still scientists who belive that smoking is not harmful - despite the fact that smokers die at a higher rate than non-smokers.

The last ice age was caused by a 9 degree drop in temperature. I'm prepared to accept that such a small change can have drastic effects on the world, so even a 1 degree change is worth worrying about.

j2k4 - If the America continues with their greenhouse gas emmisions, will the US government compensate countries like Micronesia when it sinks below sea level. Will the US look after these countries? Or will it be their own problem?

[hobbes]

Originally posted by Alex H@30 January 2004 - 03:31

the NAS panel essentially concluded that the IPCC's Summary for Policymakers does not provide suitable guidance for the U.S. government.

I can't BELIVE the US (and j2k4 with it) wants to have a debate on this subject! When UN want to have a debate on whether its ok to start a war with a country that supposedly has enough chemical weapons to destroy the plannet the US says "No, we have to start bombing the bastards right NOW!"

You mean after 12 years. Shame that Saddam could have avoided ALL of this. The ball was always in his court. Damn shame he had to pose, build gold toilets, and let his people die for this his delusions of granduer.

I really don't care how many scientists say global warming is not an issue. Scientist NEVER agree on everything, it is there job to be objective - even to the point of refuting the irrefutable.

Why would a scientist refute the irrefutable? That would make him a religious zealot (like the flat-Earth society). Science is based on making an assertion and having external investigators reproduce your results. Your statement is nonsensical. <span style='color:red'>Scientists NEVER agree on everything? That statement is almost comical. But it seems that you feel that general scientific community finds global warming to be an issue. </span>

Remember 80 years ago it was generally thought in the scientific community that smoking was good for you. I&#39;m sure there are still scientists who belive that smoking is not harmful - despite the fact that smokers die at a higher rate than non-smokers.

So I guess 80 years from now we will laugh at those scientists who believed in global warming. Since you accept the general community when it suits you and ridicule them when they are wrong, how should we define policy, tarot cards?

The last ice age was caused by a 9 degree drop in temperature. I&#39;m prepared to accept that such a small change can have drastic effects on the world, so even a 1 degree change is worth worrying about.

Even if nobody knows whether the change is man-made or part of the natural temperature cycle.

j2k4 - If the America continues with their greenhouse gas emmisions, will the US government compensate countries like Micronesia when it sinks below sea level. Will the US look after these countries? Or will it be their own problem?

If true, much of the US will be underwater too. Better learn to swim. I had no idea that only the US emitted greenhouse gases. Anyway, we created the greenhouse gases to plug up the hole in the ozone layer

Certainly, I am for treating the environment is a responsible way, but I think the "greenhouse effect" is a case of scientific hysteria. So many unknown variables and so much speculation. It is akin to the Y2K situation which wasted so much money and caused so much concern... and nothing ever happened.

[j2k4]

Originally posted by hobbes@29 January 2004 - 23:13

Certainly, I am for treating the environment is a responsible way, but I think the "greenhouse effect" is a case of scientific hysteria. So many unknown variables and so much speculation. It is akin to the Y2K situation which wasted so much money and caused so much concern... and nothing ever happened.

Hobbes, old buddy, you can say that &#39;til you&#39;re blue in the face; if you&#39;re American, any such statements are by default insincere.

You are capitalist swine, even if you have no capital (like me).

[FatBastard]

Hobbes, l understand what you&#39;re saying here, the point is, with this issue, we cannot afford to get it wrong. We must err on the side of caution. Once a plant or animal species becomes extinct, that&#39;s it&#33; The Earth is the same, from our point of view that is. If we fuck it up we don&#39;t have another one.

We know something is happening, we know it&#39;s man made, we know it&#39;s harmful. We can argue forever about how harmful it is, or how much damage it may cause, but we mustn&#39;t let that prevent us from trying to fix it.

The Kyoto agreement did not aim to stop the production of harmful greenhouse gasses, it sought to slow down the rate of growth in their production. It allows several years for polution levels to return to the level they were when the agreement was signed. It went nowhere near far enough. One of the reasons for this was in an effort to persuade recalcitrant countries like the US and Australia, the two worst polluters per capita, to come to the table.

This isn&#39;t just about money either, there is enough of that in the world, if we can afford to send crap to Mars at billions a time we can do more for the environment. Just think what could be done with the US defence budget for just one year&#33;

[vidcc]

Once again i state my point.


I don&#39;t give two flying f**Ks if "greenhouse gas" is causing global warming or not...... EVERY COUNTRY NEEDS TO GET THIER ACT TOGETHER AND START SERIOUS CONTROLS ON THE AMOUNT OF MY AIR THEY POLUTE. NOT JUST MY AIR BUT MY CHILDREN&#39;S AS WELL.
it doesn&#39;t matter what country we are talking about and what excuse they use we all know it&#39;s cheaper to polute. So let&#39;s make the poluters worldwide pay to clean up their mess and see how quickly they change policy about poluting in the frst place.