How will Canada keep warm now?!?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn


Ned. If you can't see how lowering polluting emmisions might lead to cleaner air, then you truly are an without a clue.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/kyoto/costs.html

IIRC Kyoto isn't about lowering 'polluting emmisions'. It is instead exclusively about lowering CO2 emissions. CO2 like anything can be harmful in large qunatities but life could not fucntion without it's presence in the atmosphere and it is absurd to claim that efforts aimed exclusively at reducing CO2 emissions are somehow equivalent to efforts to lower polluting emissions. Under Kyoto, If I could design an engine that would take in CO2 and spew out chlorine gas that engine would get the thumbs up and even allow me to trade credits for the CO2 removed from the atmosphere, but it could hardly be considered a reduction of polluting emissions now could it?

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn

Now, Ned. Go away. No one takes you seriously.

Originally posted by JimmyCracksCorn
But don't worry. When I see you on the street, gasping for clean air, I'll remind you of how dumb you are and laugh.

You claim that not signing Kyoto will lead to Ned gasping for clean air on the street and then talk about nobody taking him seriously?

[alva]

Originally posted by DanS


I just don't know what will happen -- assuming that global warming is real -- and neither do you. Neither do the scientists, because they're basing their work on models of unknown validity. I find it incredible that you have so much faith in the outlines of a phenomenon about which we don't know much.

You're a religious fanatic.

Hmmm, to me, common sence says that: doing less of a bad thing is a good thing.
Don't really need to be nobel laureate to figure that one out, do you.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Asmodean
He doesn't care. I am amazed that the the U.S. administration has actually succeeded in convincing the U.S. public that global warming is a big hoax conjured up to steal U.S. money.

It's more a fault of the hippie eco-nuts giving the conservatives an excuse to ignore the actual scientists. Common tactic of the Right, make eveyone you don't like look like a nut.

[DanS]

Hmmm, to me, common sence says that: doing less of a bad thing is a good thing.
Don't really need to be nobel laureate to figure that one out, do you.

And what precisely does that have to do with this discussion?

[Dinner]

Originally posted by alva
Just to let you know but vette does not sounds like a cool car. Not that American cars are any good or cool to begin with but you're sure not helping it by calling it that.

Vette sounds like a loud, fat, trailler trashy, dumb....hmmm, never mind.

Shall I pull out another quality study showing what pieces of **** Euro cars are compared to American cars? Not even your luxury brands are put together as well as our econo brands. You Euros need to learn how to put together a quality car.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by alva

Hmmm, to me, common sence says that: doing less of a bad thing is a good thing.
Don't really need to be nobel laureate to figure that one out, do you.

dumping CO2 isn't a bad thing or a good thing it's just a 'thing'

dumping too much CO2 is the bad thing and you do have to be about as educated as a nobel laureate to determine just how much CO2 that is.


For the record I do think we are probably dumping too much CO2 in the atmosphere but even that does not make CO2 emissions in and of themselves 'bad'.

[alva]

That less pollution is better(read:less worse) for the eviroment than polluting more.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Geronimo
dumping CO2 isn't a bad thing or a good thing it's just a 'thing'

dumping too much CO2 is the bad thing and you do have to be about as educated as a nobel laureate to determine just how much CO2 that is.

You see now you're using logic. That's no good since they love to run around in fits of hysteria. They'd love to forget about the hysterical claims about the Ozone layer being gone by 2000 or the Amazon rain forest being gone in 1995. There are always these dire prodictions about the end of the world that never come true and which can be averted by very small changes. Over reacting and having tantrums usually does more harm then good.

[Odin]

Originally posted by DanS


I just don't know what will happen -- assuming that global warming is real -- and neither do you. Neither do the scientists, because they're basing their work on models of unknown validity. I find it incredible that you have so much faith in the outlines of a phenomenon about which we don't know much.

You're a religious fanatic.

Yep, all scientific data you don't like is false.

The ice cores show that the average world temperature and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere match each other. During glacial episodes the level of CO2 is 180ppm, during interglacials it is 280ppm, now it is 380ppm. Get your head out of the sand and look at the actual data, not propaganda regurgitated by the fossil fuel industry.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by alva
That less pollution is better(read:less worse) for the eviroment than polluting more.

If CO2 is a pollutant then every living organism on the planet is a net polluter.

[DanS]

alva: That's all well and good as far as it goes. I see our streams and rivers muddied with all sorts of pollution, and it makes sense to me to clean them up. And we are cleaning them up slowly and spending a whole lot of money to do it.

But carbon dioxide is not a very harmful gas. It's more than a little dishonest to describe it as pollution. It's a rhetorical overeach that I just don't buy. It might fly in Europe with all of you crazies, but it doesn't fly over here in most part.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by alva
That less pollution is better(read:less worse) for the eviroment than polluting more.

Kyoto doesn't discuss pollution though does it? only CO2.

We can say less pollution is better than more pollution but it is inaccurate to say that less overall CO2 is intrinsically better than more overall CO2. If we could somehow reverse the trend so that CO2 was steadily removed from the atmosphere so that atmospheric levels of CO2 steadily dropped, we'd eventually be in some serious **** if we didn't interrupt that trend.

[alva]

Originally posted by Oerdin

If CO2 is a pollutant then every living organism on the planet is a net polluter.

You know what I mean.

[Odin]

Originally posted by Oerdin


You see now you're using logic. That's no good since they love to run around in fits of hysteria. They'd love to forget about the hysterical claims about the Ozone layer being gone by 2000 or the Amazon rain forest being gone in 1995. There are always these dire prodictions about the end of the world that never come true and which can be averted by very small changes. Over reacting and having tantrums usually does more harm then good.

Remember, the actual concerned scientists who are studying this are not the same as eco-nuts who believe that The Day After Tomorrow is going to happen.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Odin
The ice cores show that the average world temperature and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere match each other. During glacial episodes the level of CO2 is 180ppm, during interglacials it is 280ppm, now it is 380ppm. Get your head out of the sand and look at the actual data, not propaganda regurgitated by the fossil fuel industry.

OK, I'm a geologist and I'm going to tell you that you are full of crap. Atmospheric CO2 changes widely depending upon organic activity and, most importantly, volcanism. When Krakatoa went off temperatures world wide went down 5-10 degrees and CO2 went up 10%-15%.

That's how insignificant we are in the big picture. One volcano can put out more then all humans combined. A portion of this warming is likely natural and a portion is likely man made (mostly from deforestation not industry). Lowering emissions will help some what if you can do it globally (not bloody likely) instead if you really want to do the most good instead you should plant a tree.