I cant beleive more people are not doing anything about this. I heard they want to (and has) cut environmental protection funds. The United States didn't also sighn the kyoto treaty. I heard the oil companies are tring to keep Hybrid and hydrogencars from mass producing.

Good ol republicans can spend $500 million for an party, but they can't afford to save the world we live in.

-Clickage- (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/science.jsp?feature=newz_0205warmest_year)

Hottest year? Pfft, not where I live. It's cold as hell here (oxymoron :p ).

:violin:

Don't fool yourself, the amercian federal government is acting retarded on the issue but the states have done a good share of trying to save the environment. Look at California.

Originally posted by Rogue15
:violin:

Not only not constructive, but also a nice way to disregard something that really is a problem. I guess that's typical humans though, we can't see beyond our own life-spans :dozey:

I have a life-span? .. ;D

..
Let's face it, this planet is already gone and also noone knows what the climate would look like without us. There were dramatical climate changes in the past and they will of course happen again.

Yes, but they were slow and the changes extended over hundreds of years, even millenias while right now, in about 150 years, we managed to screw the planet.

Assumed there was for instance something like the big stone from space happening, I'm not sure if the climatic changes it causes would need to 'develop' more than 1 month. Also, I do not say we cause nothing, but how is someone going to measure how much global warming is 'made by humans' or if it's these 2°C we will 'need' in 300 years to 'prevent' the next ice-age and if it's a good idea? I don't think we should care too much about the global warming, but more about resources and the common sense for our environment. Nearly everyone of us is constantly wasting resources and polluting our world and that just because of laziness.

Originally posted by RayJones
I have a life-span? .. ;D

.. There were dramatical climate changes in the past and they will of course happen again.

Originally posted by RayJones
Assumed there was for instance something like the big stone from space happening, I'm not sure if the climatic changes it causes would need to 'develop' more than 1 month. Also, I do not say we cause nothing, but how is someone going to measure how much global warming is 'made by humans' or if it's these 2°C we will 'need' in 300 years to 'prevent' the next ice-age and if it's a good idea? I don't think we should care too much about the global warming, but more about resources and the common sense for our environment. Nearly everyone of us is constantly wasting resources and polluting our world and that just because of laziness.

...so are you saying the climat fixes itself? ...or we are doing a GOOD thing by increasing the tempature of out planet?


by the way, I heard mars was cold becuase of LACK of the greenhouse effect. if we can pump the greenhouse gasses here, we can do it there too. only on mars it will be benificial.

-clicky- (http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mars_terraform_050203.html)

The climate can't be 'fixed', I mean how is it supposed to be 'run' the right way? It changes all the time and always did. This is how it basically works. We influence it, no question, but the increase of the global temperature itself would happen anyway. And even it the global temperature would decrease, would that be a better scenario?
Maybe global warming looks not good for us but i think we have other, more important problems to solve. The main points are resources and pollution of our environment. I think that is more a danger for any life on this planet than global warming which is endangering 'only' us humans and a bunch of other species.
Needless to say that, even if we would produce no pollution and would not 'increase the increasing' of the global temperature, earth and therefore our living conditions would change anyways.

Since pretty much every country on earth has ratified kyoto except the US it wil be interesting to see if their economies get trashed in the way the US government says the US economy would be.

Or if the US gains a huge advantage by being the only one outside the system.

Though of course, kyoto doesent exactly set impressive goals, just keeping emissions a few % lower than they were when it was written. Nothing mindblowing.

It's funny because in actuality agreeing to these kinds of enviromental laws will CREATE jobs. We'll need more people to produce the items we need to follow with these laws, people to study new effective technology, etc.

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
Good ol republicans can spend $500 million for an party, but they can't afford to save the world we live in.

Good ol' Kipper, blaming all of lifes problems on the Republic Party. :p

Originally posted by Hiroki
Good ol' Kipper, blaming all of lifes problems on the Republic Party. :p Hiroki has a point, it's the neo-cons, who are mostly republican, but there are democrat neo-cons too.

To be fair, it isn't even really just hte neo-cons.. it is politicians in general who are more worried about short term effects on businesses (and therefore their election funds) than long term effects on the population.
The democrats might have been slightly better on the environment, but they would never have it high on their agenda.

It just so happens that the US is big enough to be able to ignore the international pressure/consensus that forced many of the other countries politicians into making the (minor) commitment required by kyoto.

And you would think that the chalenge of increased consumption without increased emmisions would be exactly the sort of thing to spur on new technological innovation. But what do I know.

The funny thing is that the Ill Will that NOT signing kyoto created against the US (which subsequently played a reasonable part in the anti US/iraq situation) has probably ended up costing the US more than just signing the darn thing would have.
Bush (with his ass kissing trip to europe) seems to have finally realised that if you always look out for your own interests and never compromise on issues important to others, then you shouldn't be surprised if you don't have many friends when you look around for them.

The trick with international diplomacy is to compromise on the less important issues, so that when something comes up that is REALLY important to you you have built up some good will to get others to compromise for you.

What are neo conservitives?

Good ol' Kipper, blaming all of lifes problems on the Republic Party.

My apoligies. I was talking about the purticuar polititions that favor the rich big business.

My dad told me the republicans favor the rich and most the senaters and Bu$h are in the oil busness. They just want to make money so they will do whatever is in favor of the oil companies. I'll admit there are democrats that fit into that catagory too.

I say real conservitives conserve the enviorment. real conservitives conserve resources. real conservitives conserve life and don't start wars.

Neo-conservatives agenda is making money, regardless of who it hurts.

Originally posted by InsaneSith
Neo-conservatives agenda is making money, regardless of who it hurts.

That's about it in a nutshell.

Another link to Kyoto (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0002%2F20050216%2F0756056167.htm&photoid=20050204SIN96D&ewp=ewp_news_0205global_warming)

one paragraph interesting it this one:

President Bush withdrew in 2001, saying Kyoto was too costly and wrongly excluded developing countries from the first round of targets. Bush doubts whether scientists know enough about the climate to warrant Kyoto-style caps.

well, I'll bet the scientist know more than HE does.:rolleyes:

...The Kyoto pact would reduce global tempeartures in the world by less than 1 degree celcius.

And that can change everything. Remember that you only need to go slightly above 0°C around the polar ice cap for it to start melting. It might take long, but it melts.

That's right, for the climate being a chaotic system, the result from the change for 1 degree may be significant.

Also, the main-point of the pact is more the reduce of emissions, what seems very important. And it's more than doing nothing about it.

the point of kyoto isn't really to REDUCE emissions or temperatures, it is just to keep them steady.

The only reason it now looks like a bigger reduction is that it is based on level from when it was written (1996?) not the decade or so later that it finally gets passed.

Considering the US has been moaning a lot recently about other countries not being dynamic enough and shirking their responsibilities when it comes to the war on terror (and iraq), it is slightly ironic that when the world DOES decide to do something dynamic (about a much bigger threat to life than terrorism) then the US blocks it for 10 years.

While I do think the US should have signed up with Kyoto Protocol, there are also other, possibly, more important issues that need to be taken care of as well. There's the fact that the US uses 1/3 of the world's resources. I think it is more important to lower that amount. and get people to produce less waste. Recycling stuff would save tons of money...

I think European leadership should start trying to pressure the US on these issues. Maybe show us how it's done right ;) [/rant]

Originally posted by toms
the point of kyoto isn't really to REDUCE emissions or temperatures, it is just to keep them steady.
Yes, Sir Mister Split Hairs. But basically it's keeping emissions steady by a growing number of emissioners, which means a reduce for the single one.
So, keep in mind: Don't eat beans!

...you know, you guys should buy/steal/check out State of Fear by Michael Crichton. It does a good job exposing the reality in environmental conservation.

Theres a lot of "scare tactics" that are released by the media to get your attention, so don't believe most of the crap you see on network television.

Actually, I found Crichton's novel to be a thinly disguised attempt at political commentary that suggests a wildly implausible plot (eco-terrorists modifying the weather to scare the public into believing there exists a non-existing threat of global warming?).

Crichton states at the end of the novel, "[a] novel such as State of Fear, in which so many divergent views are expressed, may lead the reader to wonder where, exactly, the author stands on these issues..."

I think it's clear that Crichton thinks global warming is a hoax and that the world's leading scientists are full of crap.

For an interesting critique of State of Fear, look at this link: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74)

A quote from the site:

One character suggests that "if CO2 didn't cause the global cooling between 1940 and 1970, how can you be sure it is responsible for the recent warming?" (paraphrased from p86) . Northern Hemisphere mean temperatures do appear to have cooled over that period, and that contrasts with a continuing increase in CO2, which if all else had been equal, should have led to warming. But were all things equal? Actually no. In the real world, there is both internal variability and other factors that affect climate (i.e. other than CO2). Some of those other forcings (sulphate and nitrate aerosols, land use changes, solar irradiance, volcanic aerosols, for instance) can cause cooling. Matching up the real world with what we might expect to have happened depends on including ALL of the forcings (as best as we can). Even then any discrepancy might be due to internal variability (related principally to the ocean on multi-decadal time scales). Our current 'best guess' is that the global mean changes in temperature (including the 1940-1970 cooling) are actually quite closely related to the forcings. Regional patterns of change appear to be linked more closely to internal variability (particularly the 1930's warming in the North Atlantic). However, in no case has anyone managed to show that the recent warming can be matched without the increases in CO2 (and other GHGs like CH4).

An interesting chart on that very site:

http://www.realclimate.org/00fig1.gif)

Cheers.

I googled and found an article from '97

http://www.americasfuture.net/1997/nov97/97-1123a.html)

EDIT: Heres another one of Kyoto.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoFactSheet.html)

"School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and death. Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like freon have been removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for extinction."

So much BS in a few sentences.

We should consume more ressources, cut down more trees, burn down the amazon forest. It should make these people happy.

Hey, let's give our cows more antibiotics so they can grow bigger and better so it helps the economy!

Of course the article says that with a straight face. That was okay in 1997.

(hint hint outdated information hint hint)

So sombody is lying. Either the enviornmentalists is in kahootz with the scientiists to control the economy, or the corperations want to put out propaganda to keep their big buisness running.

Originally posted by Dave Grohl
I googled and found an article from '97

http://www.americasfuture.net/1997/nov97/97-1123a.html)


A politcal rand by an obviosly biased guy, from 8 years ago. Hardly the most inspiring source since Michael Crichton (who also wrote about dinosaurs coming abck and us all turning to grey goo).

He offers no evidence to back his views up, except that he doesn't believe the scientists.


Originally posted by Dave Grohl
EDIT: Heres another one of Kyoto.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoFactSheet.html)


In 1982, we started The National Center to provide the conservative movement with a versatile and energetic organization capable of responding quickly and decisively to fast-breaking issues. Today, we continue to fill this critical niche through a top-flight research and communications operation driven by results and the bottom line.

In the 1980s, The National Center helped change public opinion through vocal national campaigns aimed at supporting Reagan administration initiatives concerning the USSR, arms control, Central America and human rights. With the Cold War won, The National Center now trains its sights on other issues, including:

Environmental Policy: Firm in the belief that private owners are the best stewards of the environment, The National Center's John P. McGovern M.D. Center for Environmental and Regulatory Affairs advocates private, free market solutions to today's environmental challenges. The Task Force highlights the perverse nature of many government-first environmental policies through the collection and promotion of regulatory horror stories, which attach human faces to very real problems caused by regulation.

Ahh... so an unbiased organisation who promotes their agenda therough "horror stories". Riiiight....

Global warming is a complex issue that we don't entirely understand, affected by both the world's natural cycles, man made effects and natural ones.

But the evidence is clear (even more so than in 97) that it is happening. Even if man made polution only causes say 20% of the effect, deos that mean we shouldn't try and cut down that 20%?

Even Bush's scientific advisors have now come around to the fact that global warming is a real issue (having initially denied it even existed).

The other main argument that the US seems to use is that the bill doesn't apply to developing countries. *whine*If HE doesn't have to do it, why should I???*whine*

So what? Obviously people would like them to control their emissions too, but they tend to have even more pressing issues (such as food and vaccinations), so just because we don't want to burden them yet is no reason not to do it ourselves. And we will hardly be able to lecture them in the future if we don't set a good example now.

All the other countries have signed up to do their bit, even though the US produces more emissions than most (all?) of them combined. They haven't all said "we can't make much of a difference on our own, so we won't even try". Have they?

They have also decided that the risks to jobs and the economy are either worth the benefits (or more likely totally negligible). I guess time will tell if they are correct.

----------

I could understand not focusing money and resources on kyoto targets IF, and only if, you were focussing those resources on aiding developing countries (so their economies would be better placed to combat/withstand global warming) or creating improved technologies to help on the issue.

Not focusing on the issue in order to increase us company profit margins, or give tax breaks, or to avoid US motorists paying $5 more on a tank of gas is arrogant, blinkered and reckless.

Not to mention the billions of money spent on agricultural exportation in north-western countries as means of protectionism and that slaughters the local economy of smaller nations.

In Congo, a belgian chicken costs less then one who has been produced by a local merchant.

But let's get back on topic.

Originally posted by kipperthefrog
So sombody is lying. Either the enviornmentalists is in kahootz with the scientiists to control the economy, or the corperations want to put out propaganda to keep their big buisness running. Sadly I'd say it's a mix of both. Both sides have done some wrong doings.