Honestly, folks...

[Switch625]

Originally posted by CurtSibling


Don't give me that tired line.

We are all to blame in some way for screwing the planet up.

A large part of the global warming is due to the acts of a nation that churns out 25% of the planet's pollution,
but accounts for 5% of the planet's population.

I'll let you boys guess the name that nation...

*yawn*

Get back to me when you stop parroting junk science, okay?

 

[Greadius]

Originally posted by Hitro
By what standard can you determine that the current floods are not the result of man made pollution?

Floods exist before pollution, ergo it is entirely possible that the floods occured independant of anything humans did.
The burdon of proof is always with the accusors... especially in a circumstance like this which relies heavily on theories, junk science, hyperbole, and political grandstanding.

Originally posted by Hitro
This is not an "innocent until proven guilty" case as "proven guilty" would mean it's too late.

I think John Ashcroft is hiring people that think like you.

Originally posted by Hitro
We see a change in the climate. Floodings and other "natural" catastrophes are occuring more frequent and more severe than usual. Now "usual" is of course not too long, for simple reasons of civilization. That leaves the possibility of natural causes that we can't influence.

Which is why I'm wondering why we want to go to the Flinstone eras if we may just be rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
Out of curiosity though, where are the facts on the increased frequency and severity. I'm wondering how good the records are on that.

 

[Furry Spatula]

MrPresident, when i said blame Mexico and Asia i meant it sarcasticly, forgot the smiley . I said that because the US is being blamed by some for air polution, so why not blame the Mexicans and Asians as they are poluting more now? I agree that everybody is to blame for this mess, except maybe the Africans and Arabs who are too poor to afford anything that can polute. But to blame a country on causing floods around the world, give me a break.

Also, i remember hearing in the news, that this is the worst flooding in 100 years. So obviously there was worse flooding earlier, before global warming was this much of a "problem".

 

[Biologic]

Originally posted by NY Hoya


Total BS...

So the Kyoto agreement does not prevent global warming, but merely buys the world six years. Yet, the cost of Kyoto, for the United States alone, will be higher than the cost of solving the world's single most pressing health problem: providing universal access to clean drinking water and sanitation. Such measures would avoid 2m deaths every year, and prevent half a billion people from becoming seriously ill.

And that is the best case. If the treaty were implemented inefficiently, the cost of Kyoto could approach $1 trillion, or more than five times the cost of worldwide water and sanitation coverage. For comparison, the total global-aid budget today is about $50 billion a year."

You seem to be missing the point. Where as every other nation attending made an effort America just could not be bothered. Don't lecture me about the costs and where they could be better spent. Does this mean that when lower emmisions in America will be cheaper than providing aid to other countries it will be considered? That will take along time. I know the Kyoto conference did not set a standard to lower emmisions enough (as a point of fact a 60% reduction in world-wide emmisions was required at the time). But it is a step in the right direction. At step America refused to take.

What is not "total bull****" (as you like to say) is that America IS responsible for 1/4 of the worlds pollution. Some of the excuses are just pathetic. That if America has to cut down so should China and India. But a)they cannot afford to do so like the US CAN b) on a per capita basis, India and China's emissions are far less than the United States. At a time when a large part of India's population does not even have access to electricity, Bush would like this country to stem its 'survival emissions', so that industrialised countries like the US can continue to have high 'luxury emissions'. This amounts to demanding a freeze on global inequity, where rich countries stay rich, and poor countries stay poor, since carbon dioxide emissions are closely linked to GDP growth. Here is another fact that you might not be aware of America is not the only country on the planet.

PUT THAT IN YOUR PIPE AND SMOKE IT!

Does it seem right to you that the single most polluting country does not cut down its emmisions for the sake of the whole planet.

I've had to repeat some of the things mentioned in an early post because it would seem it went in one ear and out the other.

On a side note I am not having a 'America bash' here as the other 75% has to come from somewhere. I know it is not just Americas fault. Humans as a whole are to blame for what we are doing to the planet.

 

[AVN]

Biologic,
Great post, I concur.

 

[Biologic]

Originally posted by Switch625


*yawn*

Get back to me when you stop parroting junk science, okay?

Since when was enviromental studies 'junk science'. Either your totally ignorant to the facts or you live in your own fantasy world. Despite which you are totally wrong.

 

[Hitro]

Originally posted by AVN
Biologic,
Great post, I concur.

Me too.

And Greadius, read my last post once again. It is not about proving that pollution is as dangerous as ecologists say, that's neither my intend nor my duty.
The thing is, if someone's health gets gradually weakened with the prospect of being destroyed while the doctors are neither completely sure about the cause nor the effects but they think it could be connected to something he consumes, they would advice him to try to leave it out.
If they are right it is well, if not, bad luck, but at least it would be a try to avoid an unacceptable alternative. Now of course alot of people wouldn't do it, many smoke, drink and use drugs (I don't exclude myself here), but the difference is that every individual can (or should be able to) do with his life whatever he likes, including destroying it. But nobody should have the freedom to do that with other's lifes, so the possible chance should be taken.

 

[Becka]

Originally posted by Biologic


Since when was enviromental studies 'junk science'. Either your totally ignorant to the facts or you live in your own fantasy world. Despite which you are totally wrong.

I think you and newfangle would LOVE each other.

 

[Hitro]

So do you and Switch doubt that the US produces roughly 25% of the world's CO2?
Or even the population figure???

That's not the point of debate among scientists, the interpretation is.

 

[Becka]

Originally posted by Hitro
So do you and Switch doubt that the US produces roughly 25% of the world's CO2?
Or even the population figure???

That's not the point of debate among scientists, the interpretation is.

You mean CO2 produced from man-made sources? (Factories etc.)


The newfangle comment was directed at "Despite which you are totally wrong." A very newfangle-esque comment.

 

[Xiahou-Dun]

Originally posted by Biologic


>>EDITED OUT 75% of post dealing with the US.<<

On a side note I am not having a 'America bash' here as the other 75% has to come from somewhere. I know it is not just Americas fault. Humans as a whole are to blame for what we are doing to the planet.

Originally posted by Becka


I think you and newfangle would LOVE each other.

I have to disagree....25% away from love.

 

[Hitro]

Yes, I think so.
I mean "Junk science" would be something widely unscientific. Making a statistic about population or emission figures is relatively straight forward.
You may have doubts about the conclusions people draw out of them, but why should the statistic itself be junk science?

 

[Akka]

How amusing to see that people who usually shout about how nobody can touch theirs rights against their will (in example, the rights to bear arms, to get as many money as they can without being burdened with taxes, to not have to endure regulations ove their economy, and so on) are the first to refuse others the right to not be polluted against their will.
Guess what ? Reducing pollution would mean "less money" for the polluters.
Guess what again ? These people are all from the polluting nations.

Why am I not surprised ?

 

[insurgent]

THE GREAT CLASH OF THE CONTINENTS HAS BEGUN!

...

 

[Biologic]

Well would anyone care to answer my question? Maybe we could even have a poll on it.

Does it seem right to you that the single most polluting country does not cut down its emmisions for the sake of the whole planet?

Its a simple yes/no answer. No complications.

 

[insurgent]

Of course it's not right, but what can you do? And it doesn't mean that the US is to blame, that's preposterous. Many other nations also saw it as an excuse to abandone the treaty, so they're not much better. In the end it will make no difference. We are heading for doom, but mankind will adapt and whatever new conditions we get, we will learn to live with it.

 

[Biologic]

Thats exactly the kind of attitude that makes me ill.

What can we do about it? Well I don't sit on my arse all day whinning for no reason. You can't do anything unless you try. If your not helping then your just part of the problem. If your actualy intrested in doing something about then you have to go out into the world and find other similarly minded people.

Oh yes mankind may adapt but what about the other inhabbitants of the planet? To often people overlook the fact that we share this planet with other forms of life.

 

[Biologic]

Before I get attacked by the zealots. I'll shift my focus of attention now to Australia the second most polluting country in the world. Also the largest polluting country per person. They decided not to bother doing anything as well so if you want to help, (and it really only will take 5 minutes then follow the link below).

http://www.foe.co.uk/campaigns/climate/press_for_change/email_australia/index.html

 

[Chris85]

Originally posted by insurgent
THE GREAT CLASH OF THE CONTINENTS HAS BEGUN!

...

Who needs a war with Iraq? Americans let's all band together and call to arms to wipe out the Europeans. :soldier:

Yeah, bash the Austrailians.

 

[insurgent]

Now and them an idealist drops in here at this forum, and after a short while realises that we cannot be helped...

Of course it's wrong that some nations are not willing to agree with others on such basic things, but to fully understand the situation, you have to look at it from their side too. It's people like you who are a part of the problem. You take a stance and reject anything that deviates even slightly, provoking lots of people to take the opposite stance. The environmentalists or rather their behaviour is a part of the problem, a significant one, I'd even say.