It is a Global problem, not a Local one. If you can't accept even that there's no point continuing the discussion.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
bull. as you said, just a start. if the european countries impliemented it, nothing would happen? i don't think so, they'd atleast have a cleaner enviroment and the moral high ground and leadership. if its the right thing to do, why does it matter if others dont. it would be just a start. the european countries didn't impliement it because they knew it was just an antiamerican political move. with giant double standards for other polluting countries like china to be completely exempt from the law. if its a global problem then allowing exemptions should make it pointless. well.. thats true. its quite pointless and unfair.Originally posted by: sandorski
Something had to be done and Kyoto was to be just a start. Without certain key players the attempt becomes pointless as the problem is Global and not Local. AFAIK many European countries will still implement it, but unless others do something outside of Kyoto, the implementation will be in vain.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
he's just comparing fluff to fluff. which of course doesn't justify fluff.Originally posted by: sandorski
Meaning?Originally posted by: daniel1113
Two words... Kyoto Accord.Originally posted by: Napalm
I am not a global warming expert, but I am a scientist - so I feel that I am qualified to make a couple of simple points regarding the article:
1) Not a single point in the article is properly referenced - the norm for any scientific paper
2) It was not originally published by a peer reviewed journal - the norm for any scientific paper
3) It was published by the Wall Street Journal - a source that might have some sort of commercial bias in slagging global warming
4) The authors were chemists - not experts in climate change
Fluff IMHO...
N
but really, u'd think europe would adopt and impliment kyoto regardless of whether others did it if it were so good and reasonable. they do have controlling green parties after all. course they didn't, its just another anti american bash effort.
Originally posted by: sandorski
It is a Global problem, not a Local one. If you can't accept even that there's no point continuing the discussion.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
bull. as you said, just a start. if the european countries impliemented it, nothing would happen? i don't think so, they'd atleast have a cleaner enviroment and the moral high ground and leadership. if its the right thing to do, why does it matter if others dont. it would be just a start. the european countries didn't impliement it because they knew it was just an antiamerican political move. with giant double standards for other polluting countries like china to be completely exempt from the law. if its a global problem then allowing exemptions should make it pointless. well.. thats true. its quite pointless and unfair.Originally posted by: sandorski
Something had to be done and Kyoto was to be just a start. Without certain key players the attempt becomes pointless as the problem is Global and not Local. AFAIK many European countries will still implement it, but unless others do something outside of Kyoto, the implementation will be in vain.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
he's just comparing fluff to fluff. which of course doesn't justify fluff.Originally posted by: sandorski
Meaning?Originally posted by: daniel1113
Two words... Kyoto Accord.Originally posted by: Napalm
I am not a global warming expert, but I am a scientist - so I feel that I am qualified to make a couple of simple points regarding the article:
1) Not a single point in the article is properly referenced - the norm for any scientific paper
2) It was not originally published by a peer reviewed journal - the norm for any scientific paper
3) It was published by the Wall Street Journal - a source that might have some sort of commercial bias in slagging global warming
4) The authors were chemists - not experts in climate change
Fluff IMHO...
N
but really, u'd think europe would adopt and impliment kyoto regardless of whether others did it if it were so good and reasonable. they do have controlling green parties after all. course they didn't, its just another anti american bash effort.
Doom and gloom, doom and gloom. According to some estimates the cost of doing nothing and continuing on the path we are on is 5 trillion dollars (about half the US GDP). The cost of doing something about it ranges from 8trillion to 33 trillion (depending on how severe the measures are). From simply an economic perspective it will damage the world economy more to try to stop global warming than the global warming itself.Originally posted by: Wolfdog
Just this last year the ozone hole split into two. We have drastic ice melting in the arctic regions, with weather and climate changes everywhere. Ice shelfs are melting away and no one seems to care. The Robinson report is wrong, plain and simple. Made by morons, for the morons that believe them. We have the technology to cut emmisions vastly, but won't since it costs money. If not now then when? When the planet is so screwed up that it won't matter? We have seen the direct result of this these few last summers. They are getting hotter and hotter a few tenths of degrees every year. Winter weather is also been shown to be shifting. By people in the know.
Even if you cast all that aside, the environment is getting flushed down the toilet. There is acid rain killing natural habitants in lakes and rivers. Now I'm not a environmentalist by any means, but I would like to see some overall improvement in the way that things are done. This is the US and we should be leading the way in technology. There is no wonder why cancer rates are increasing, we are pumping more into the air and into the water than most of the other industrialized nations combined. The report was probably paid by Bush, since he didn't even care about the kyoto treaty. Which would have helped curb pollution on a worldwide scale. Oh it costs too much. Way to lead the way Bush!![]()
Sigh. China and others were exempt to allow for Economic developement. Though they would eventually become a problem, by the time they were a problem the Industrialized world would have(probably) developed the technologies needed to address the problem. At that time China and others could use that technology, if they hadn't already started to use it.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: sandorski
It is a Global problem, not a Local one. If you can't accept even that there's no point continuing the discussion.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
bull. as you said, just a start. if the european countries impliemented it, nothing would happen? i don't think so, they'd atleast have a cleaner enviroment and the moral high ground and leadership. if its the right thing to do, why does it matter if others dont. it would be just a start. the european countries didn't impliement it because they knew it was just an antiamerican political move. with giant double standards for other polluting countries like china to be completely exempt from the law. if its a global problem then allowing exemptions should make it pointless. well.. thats true. its quite pointless and unfair.Originally posted by: sandorski
Something had to be done and Kyoto was to be just a start. Without certain key players the attempt becomes pointless as the problem is Global and not Local. AFAIK many European countries will still implement it, but unless others do something outside of Kyoto, the implementation will be in vain.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
he's just comparing fluff to fluff. which of course doesn't justify fluff.Originally posted by: sandorski
Meaning?Originally posted by: daniel1113
Two words... Kyoto Accord.Originally posted by: Napalm
I am not a global warming expert, but I am a scientist - so I feel that I am qualified to make a couple of simple points regarding the article:
1) Not a single point in the article is properly referenced - the norm for any scientific paper
2) It was not originally published by a peer reviewed journal - the norm for any scientific paper
3) It was published by the Wall Street Journal - a source that might have some sort of commercial bias in slagging global warming
4) The authors were chemists - not experts in climate change
Fluff IMHO...
N
but really, u'd think europe would adopt and impliment kyoto regardless of whether others did it if it were so good and reasonable. they do have controlling green parties after all. course they didn't, its just another anti american bash effort.
if you can't save all the burning buildings, why save any at all right? why use catylitic converters in car or non leaded gasoline when others won't stop huh? the eu esp france always wants to be the leader, well here was their chance, and they pissed it all away. why not set an example if the protocol is reasonable? you fail to address this. only capable of doing the right thing when others do too? thats no excuse for anything. a global problem? then why allow certain countries to pollute through double standards? defeats the entire purpose as you've said. if you can't admit that kyoto was rife with politics, and double standards that would allow poorer countries to pollute, theres no point in discussing this with you.
They were going ahead with it until Russia pulled out.Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
just a lot of double talk justifying the lack of backbone by the EU. why the EU? chief promoters of kyoto and denouncers of america for not adopting the protocal. and allowing certain groups to skate by on their responsibility on a global issue that as you have already stated would be pointless if not everyone was aboard is a rather inconsistent. its rather desperate. the arguement that one will not and should not adopt a good enviromental policy because others will not is a rather pathetic arguement. an unworkable and fundamentally flawed protocol is not worth fixing and the EU knew that. they just needed to blame someone else so they could reject it under cover.