60 Leading Scientists: Kyoto is Pointless, human impact impossible to distinguish

[Patroklos]

Unfortunetly (or fortunetly I guess), it seems the research says we really don't have a choice in the matter.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
I am not sure about you, but I reckon most people won't want the earth to turn into a Venus.

Yeah, right, those evil Venusians didn't cut their emissions and look what happened.

As for DDT - The banning of DDT has killed countless souls- lost to malaria. 100 people die from mosquito bites every 20 minutes.

Even Greenpeace and the WWF admit that DDT is a life-saver:

"If there's nothing else, and it's going to save lives, we're all for it. Nobody is dogmatic about it" - Rick Hind, Greenpeace

'I called the World Wildlife Fund, thinking I would get a fight, but Richard Liroff, its expert on toxins, said he would accept the use of DDT when necessary in anti-malaria programs. "If the alternative to DDT isn't working, as they weren't in South Africa, geez, you've got to use it. In South Africa it prevented tens of thousands of malaria cases and saved lots of lives."' - Nicholas Kristof, NY Times

DDT is not hazardous to humans or the environment. Tests conducted by Dr Philip Butler, director of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Sabine Island Research Laboratory, found that '92 per cent of DDT and its metabolites disappear' from the environment after 38 days. And humans have nothing to worry about when it comes to small exposures to DDT.

Africans need DDT, not blah blah blah

Rachel Carson, holier-than-thou author of Silent Spring, which caused the DDT scare and subsequent banning, has more blood on her hands than your average mass-murdering despot.

That's what I call regressive.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
We have got global scale fiascos such as CFC and DDT, and yet people still refuse to learn from history.

Yeah, its like the Roman Empire's use of DDT didn't teach us anything.

[Sandman]

The cost of implementing Kyoto for the US would have been a fraction of the cost of the Iraq adventure. Still, those WMDs might still turn up.

Edit - and the Telegraph isn't exactly the most reliable source.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Woohoo! Let's spend money combating something that 60 leading scientists aren't really sure exists anyway!

Hmm, that actually sounds like business as usual for the US Government.

[Provost Harrison]

No other interesting Spink threads like 'Burn all wogs' or something? His visit was rather boring this time...

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Spink

??

[Odin]

PA must think ID people are "leading scientists" too.

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Really?

We have got global scale fiascos such as CFC and DDT, and yet people still refuse to learn from history.

We have to study the anti-gravity properties of the Chlorofluorocarbon molecule.

Originally posted by JellyBean

"The most significant greenhouse gas is carbon dioxide, the concentration of which has increased by 40% since we started industrialising. The causal link between human industry and CO2 concentration is pretty solid - judging by the amount of material we've burned, we'd expect CO2 levels to go up by about as much as they have. The link between CO2 levels and rising global temperatures is less well established, but we've got definite, measurable rises in both, and a plausible mechanism for one causing the other.

from the 19th century alone, the amount of fuel burned should have caused this run away melt down spiral. that is if the current models which only deal with CO2 are to be believed(assuming theres no water or other factors on the earth, the sun doesn't get warmer or colder periodically,etc).

[Whaleboy]

Who exactly were these scientists? It's pretty hard to judge the worth of this when we don't know the credentials of the person that said it. At the very least, where are their arguments and evidence?

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Who exactly were these scientists? It's pretty hard to judge the worth of this when we don't know the credentials of the person that said it. At the very least, where are their arguments and evidence?

Which side are you on cause that applies to both sides.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
Woohoo! Let's spend money combating something that 60 leading scientists aren't really sure exists anyway

Because the consensus among the vast majority of scientists is for the opposing view.

Only moronic right wingers deny it, and they are so skull-****ingly stupid that there's no point trying to convince them.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
No other interesting Spink threads like 'Burn all wogs' or something? His visit was rather boring this time...

Hey, this is the Kyoto treaty, remember? As in foreign. "Remember, It's Still a Mud-Person's Fault." (TM)

[MRT144]

1 guy in seattle thinks PA is a closet homo! CONCENSUS!

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Agathon


Because the consensus among the vast majority of scientists is for the opposing view.

Only moronic right wingers deny it, and they are so skull-****ingly stupid that there's no point trying to convince them.

I'm neither right-wing, nor a moron, nor are many eco-sceptics. There's actually a genuine difference of scientific opinion here, but some people so closely resemble religious fundamentalists, that trying to prise them away from their preferred tactics of abuse is a waste of time.

Once upon a time, leftism represented progressive, humanist values. Too bad those values got replaced by reactionary eco-fanaticism.



(edit : OTBOT sucks!)