Is there ANYBODY in the world that still denies the severity of global warming?

[Lincoln]

I think we should me more concerned with global farming. The constant tilling of the land is disturbing the New Zealand dung beatle and that is upsetting the environment of the spotted ground hog in Quatalahara.

STOP GLOBAL FARMING

The problem is really not America, it is psuedo intellectuals who think they can solve the world's problems by destroying the economy of the world. They don't seem to realize that people will do anything to survive when they have no jobs or money. What will these know-it-alls suggest we do to keep warm when the world is in a serious recession? Clue: People will burn tires and anything else they can find in order to survive. The cloud in Asia is caused by Asians. Kind of makes you think doesn't it? And quit blaming the United States for the floods in Europe. We didn't send our water to you.

[axi]

Oh come on, most naysayers here, if they ever were to face a normal crowd with their views, they would be laughed at. Only here, in the warped forum reality, such reactionary stuff are the norm.

First... he claims that if the people were in charge, there wouldn't be a problem in the US.

Then... he claims most of us are morons...

And he wonders why nobody takes his ranting seriously...

Seems odd to me too, but it is something like a catch22. In a truly democratic political system, the political education of the citizens is the biggest priority, the citizens are more concerned, the media are unbiased and there is no one-sided propaganda. Thus, the people do not act (politically) as morons, as the capitalist status quo has the people do nowdays.


More later. I have a life you see....

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by axi
Seems odd to me too, but it is something like a catch22. In a truly democratic political system, the political education of the citizens is the biggest priority, the citizens are more concerned, the media are unbiased and there is no one-sided propaganda. Thus, the people do not act (politically) as morons, as the capitalist status quo has the people do nowdays.

If you are so educated, why can't you come up with links to support your position?

[axi]

I'm just amazed that he's capable of collapsing an incredibly complex science like climatology into a simplistic cause-and-effect relationship (American pollution --> armageddon). That takes either phenomenal skill or mind-boggling ignorance.

I didn't say that only America is polluting. However America is polluting alot and more per capita than any other nation. I also mentioned the political and economical influence that the US can have in the struggle for the reduction of the emmision of greenhouse gases. So the US is the key of the problem. It is also the only nation that is treating the whole issue in a totally irresponsible manner, even denying the existence of the problem. Believe me, if there was any chance that our concerns about the global environment were moot, no state in the world would get in the fuss of discussing the Kyoto treaty.

IMO, what really takes either phenomenal skill or mind-boggling ignorance is the line of arguments that inverstigates even the slightest chance that the obvious won't happen and uses these ifs and maybes and the statistical error margins to flatly deny any action. Of course anybody who knows elementary statistics would tell you that to reject a proposal one has to perform a much more stricter test that the one needed to accept it. So it is much more difficult for you to prove your point than for me to prove mine.

1) your nature as a person who is easily excited by many issues and makes conclusions very quickly (how much time really has passed since you first heard about global warming until you blamed it on america?)

I admit that I get easily excited, but only in contrast with other people who I see that are stubbornly insisting on being wrong. As for easy conclusions, one always has to choose a preferred hypothesis from the beginning and improve it as he learns stuff. Long ago I didn't really understand what was all the fuss about the Americans. Later, as I watched them go amock in the world (since that's what they've been doing during the last decade) anti-Americanism grew on me. It doesn't bother me, as long as I can put it in the correct basis, seing America as the vanguard-state of capitalism and as an apparatus guided by a mixture of interests of various lobbies and corporations. Likewise, since the 2nd Indifada, I found out that I am anti-Israeli too. It's not my fault that I feel that way, it's yours.

2) much of the information is first presented to you by anti-american bodies. While obviously the information it uses is usually real, the way it is first presented to you is mixed with alot of opinion and fiction.

The same thing happens everywhere. All media are slightly biased. However I have a good reason to believe that Greek media are much less biased that the US media. They have less reasons to be biased. In fact, in issues where the US-EU rivalry doesn't come into play (f.e. terrorism, peripheral wars), the Greek media are totally biased in favor of the Americans, in an effort to reduce the vivid anti-American sentiment of the population.

[axi]

If you are so educated, why can't you come up with links to support your position?

This has nothing to do with MY education, or yours. As for the links, what do you need them for? All I do is express an opinion, I am neither providing information or trying to prove anything. Nature provides me with all the proof I need.

Btw, today it is a rainy day over here. It was raining earlier today when I went to the beach. I have had a sea bath in the rain only 2-3 times before in my life.

[Lemmy]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/sci_tech/2001/climate_change/default.stm

from here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...change/usa.stm

The US pollutes more, absolutely and per head, than any other country (it also produces more wealth). Its greenhouse emissions have risen by more than 11% since 1990: its Kyoto commitment was to reduce them by 6%.

from here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/sta...ange/china.stm

China is an Annex II country, not yet required to cut its emissions. But it is reported to have cut its emissions of the main gas listed in the protocol, carbon dioxide, by 17% since the mid-1990s. In the same period its economy has grown by one-third.

And China emits just more than half as much co2 as the US, and India even less than a quarter.

[FlameFlash]

I unfortunately don't have the full time to read this entire thread, but I would like to point out the fact that global warming is one of the highest funded studies in the US today.

In other words... we're looking into it!

I'll try to find some statistics to back this up if I get the time... or somebody could find some to refute that statement

Oh, and guess what they're finding, a lot of them: that we don't have enough computing power nor enough data to yet predict if what is happening actually is human-done. With only about 100-150 years of actually recording and caring about these kinds of things we have no idea if this is just the beginning of another Earth cycle or if we actually are causing it.

The report I did for school mentioned the fact that many researchers say that we need about 20 more years studying it, and for computers to evolve another 20 years, before they have enough data and processing power to properly predict and figure out if humans are even doing anything to cause this.

[Adam Smith]

Originally posted by axi
Nature provides me with all the proof I need.

See my initial post yesterday disputing your "proof"

Originally posted by axi All I do is express an opinion

Which isn't worth much without a factual basis.

Originally posted by Lemmy
China is an Annex II country, not yet required to cut its emissions. But it is reported to have cut its emissions of the main gas listed in the protocol, carbon dioxide, by 17% since the mid-1990s. In the same period its economy has grown by one-third.

I was in China in February, 1996 and again in July, 1998. I find this very hard to believe given
1. The rapid shift in personal transportation from bicycles to combustion powered vehicles (which have essentially none of the pollution controls found in developed countries);
2. The rapid growth in airline travel; and
3. Chinese coal consumptiton has declined recently due to the asian economic crisis and closure of inefficient state industries. However, this trend will soon be reversed as coal-fired electricity generation increases. China consumes about 25 percent more coal than the US, and their coal is softer, which means it generates more CO2 per ton of coal burned.

I suspect this is another case of the Chinese government cooking the books. IIRC, most parties recognize that monitoring is somewhat of a problem under Kyoto.

[axi]

The fact that he says we are a cause of global warning doesn't offend me. We, LIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD, are causing it. I am offended when he calls us morons... and takes a hollier than thou attitude implying America is the only cause of global warming And that is why this is just a stupid and moronic troll... and one that has been done before as well...

Well, Ming, since you accept that there is a problem, you obviously do not belong to the morons I'm talking about. OTOH, you declare believe in the sincerity of the Bush administration's objections to signing the treaty (which is to be expected as you are a Republican IIRC).

But I guess you are not REALLY intersted in the problem, are you? Why would you be, anyway. You live well inside a continent, in a area with lots of water and other resources, you are neither a farmer nor something else climate-related, you are rich enough to install A/C even in your dog's house, so why worry? Cheap gas is all you hav to worry about.

OTOH, if you were say a landless farmer in Banghladesh and you were living along with 1000 other people on a tiny strip of land inside the delta of a huge river, knowing that tomorrow there is a big chance that this land will be washed away, along with one or two of your kids perhaps, THEN you would be REALLY interested. Only then you wouldn't have an internet connection to talk about it.

As for my hollier than thou attitude... Hmm, I guess I am not really concerned about the issue either. I may be poorer than you and I may live in a more sensitive area, but still, I am fathoms away of suffering any major disaster in my life because of global warming (at least I think I am). Nevertheless, I feel that it is woth it to support a just cause only because of an idealistic sense of duty. Specially if this cause puts you at odds with the powers that be, then such an attitude is much more dignified in my book than just conforming. I'm used to speak against the norm and against my interests - it doesn't bother me as long as I'm speaking in line with my ideals and my own perception of the truth.

[mactbone]

You know that during the middle ages Europe was actually warmer than it is now.

That a veeeerrrrry long time ago the whole Earth was a Tropical Paradise.

That there was a time when most of the Earth was a lot colder than it is now.

Hmmm, cyclical? Could be...

[Jac de Molay]

OTOH, if you were say a landless farmer in Banghladesh and you were living along with 1000 other people on a tiny strip of land inside the delta of a huge river, knowing that tomorrow there is a big chance that this land will be washed away, along with one or two of your kids perhaps, THEN you would be REALLY interested. Only then you wouldn't have an internet connection to talk about it.

You're assuming that this phenomena would be a direct result of global warming, and fail to consider any other cause for what you describe. The range of potential effects from global warming goes from quite beneficial to catastrophic, yet you assume that the chances of a worse-case scenario are extremely high when the converse is true.

The cost of enforcing Kyoto- $150 to 300 billion a year- is simply unacceptable for POSSIBLY staving off the situation you describe. With that chunk of change, you could provide the entire Third World with sanitary drinking water and provide a profound increase in public health service to these same countries. A colossal waste of money and resources, IMO.

[Ming]

Originally posted by axi
But I guess you are not REALLY intersted in the problem, are you? Why would you be, anyway.

More proof that this is just a moronic troll... I guess you didn't even bother to read YOUR own thread... If you had decided to actually discuss vs your senseless silly and anti american trolling, you would have taken the time to see that I had posted the following:

My POV on this subject is actually quite different.

The agreement is flawed. I wouldn't have signed it as currently written either. However, I would have stayed at the table to work out an agreement that wasn't flawed... and then, once a more realistic and non-flawed treaty was developed, I would cram it down the Senate's throat.

So stop trying to "guess" what people think or believe.
You are just proving that you have no debating skills, and that you are just blowing smoke.

You talk about truth... you wouldn't know truth if it slapped you across the back of the head... as proven by the fact that you didn't even bother to read through your thread before posting more moronic crap. To know truth, you need to at least look for it instead of just making it up.

Have a nice day

[Wraith]

--"However America is polluting alot and more per capita than any other nation."

Would mind defining pollution for us? You see, I thought this thread was primarily about Kyoto, and Kyoto is about CO2 emissions. The problem here is that C02 is essential to life on Earth, so it's kind of hard to label it as pollution.

Unless you're in one of those ban dihydrogen monoxide groups.

--"So it is much more difficult for you to prove your point than for me to prove mine."

Nope. You're arguing things backwards. I say that climate change is always happening. The climate is not a static system. These changes are natural. So now please refute this.
See, that sort of argument cuts both ways...

Wraith
"Interesting how the need for substance in an unexamined life often times leads to gulibility."
"Forget Mother Mirabelle. This crowd needs father Thorazine."
-- Cornfend and Duckman (Duckman)

[connorkimbro]

My ignore list just grew by 1. Frickin idiot.

[alofatti]

"The cost of enforcing Kyoto- $150 to 300 billion a year- is simply unacceptable for POSSIBLY staving off the situation you describe. With that chunk of change, you could provide the entire Third World with sanitary drinking water and provide a profound increase in public health service to these same countries. A colossal waste of money and resources, IMO."

Then, why don´t they spend it in Third World countries??