Greenhouse Gases DO cause Global Warming

[DC Tom]

why?

247102[/snapback]

 

Maybe for the same basic reason that taking a nice big dump in your pantry is unhealthy?

[GG]

The fun threads I miss.

 

Totally predictable for an article to link the "man made" global warming to Bush Admin's failure to sign Kyoto. Do these people actually know what the Kyoto Accord is, and what its impact on the US would be? My guess would be, no.

 

I think that empirical evidence is sufficient to believe that industrialization of the Earth has a definite impact on the envirnment. The real hard answer to the easy question, though is what reasonable measures should countries, industries & people take to slow down the human abetting of the environmental destruction.

 

Kyoto is based on the reduction of certain gases, in large part on trading carbon credits. The US is against the plan, because by its design, Kyoto would have a disproportionately worse effect on the US than other developed countries. The oft-cited statistic that US produces 25% of the world's pollutants is neglected to be followed by the fact that US produces about 30% of the world's output. That's pretty efficient.

 

A country can reduce its pollutant output not only by building new efficient plants, but by investing in new plants that exceed the Kyoto standards. EU gets a huge windfall, because it can maintain older inefficient infrastructure, while get credits for the work that's being done by Western EU companies in Eastern Europe. Thus, they would be in compliance with the "new" protocols based on works that are already happening.

 

While critics feel good about bashing Bush for not accepting Kyoto, why is no one addressing the deafening silnce from the left in the last campaign on Kyoto? Could it have been that Kyoto would devastate the Midwest industry?

 

As is the case withmany things, Bush is not for global warming. He's anti-Kyoto, which by definition is anti-US industry. If the world bodies come up with a plan that doesn't disadvantage US industries relative to other developed nations, you'd see a different tune.

[PTS]

In my senior year at UB's School of Management, I took Geography and the entire class was devoted by the Professor to bash Bush for not signing the Kyoto Accord and slam his military spending. That didn't go over well with a lot of us. My best friend took that class with me and he's in training to become an Army Ranger. Three more of his Army buddies were in that class so it was rather fun seeing the exchanges.

 

Back to your original point, the Kyoto Accord would put a Fucillo HUGE burden on the USA, and quite frankly, I got the impression that they don't know exactly if the Accord would make a drastic difference.

 

Also, if Bush did sign the Kyoto Accord how many of the people that are bashing him now for not signing it would bash him for the major job losses that would follow?

 

 

The fun threads I miss.

 

Totally predictable for an article to link the "man made" global warming to Bush Admin's failure to sign Kyoto.  Do these people actually know what the Kyoto Accord is, and what its impact on the US would be?  My guess would be, no.

 

I think that empirical evidence is sufficient to believe that industrialization of the Earth has a definite impact on the envirnment.  The real hard answer to the easy question, though is what reasonable measures should countries, industries & people take to slow down the human abetting of the environmental destruction.

 

Kyoto is based on the reduction of certain gases, in large part on trading carbon credits.  The US is against the plan, because by its design, Kyoto would have a disproportionately worse effect on the US than other developed countries.  The oft-cited statistic that US produces 25% of the world's pollutants is neglected to be followed by the fact that US produces about 30% of the world's output.  That's pretty efficient.

 

A country can reduce its pollutant output not only by building new efficient plants, but by investing in new plants that exceed the Kyoto standards.  EU gets a huge windfall, because it can maintain older inefficient infrastructure, while get credits for the work that's being done by Western EU companies in Eastern Europe.  Thus, they would be in compliance with the "new" protocols based on works that are already happening.

 

While critics feel good about bashing Bush for not accepting Kyoto, why is no one addressing the deafening silnce from the left in the last campaign on Kyoto?  Could it have been that Kyoto would devastate the Midwest industry?

 

As is the case withmany things, Bush is not for global warming.  He's anti-Kyoto, which by definition is anti-US industry.  If the world bodies come up with a plan that doesn't disadvantage US industries relative to other developed nations, you'd see a different tune.

247485[/snapback]

[Terry Tate]

where's the "proof"

i see no link to established journals documenting this

all i see is a newspaper out of south africa

 

and the way alot of this science can be manipulated in anyway way for political means...two people with two different points of view will interpret data two different ways

247354[/snapback]

I thought everyone used the 'the biggest news, classifieds and info site on the Web in South Africa' as the source for all their scientific information.

 

Here's the original UCSD press release.

[Berg]

  Maybe for the same basic reason that taking a nice big dump in your pantry is unhealthy? 

247368[/snapback]

 

I'd ask you how you know this, but instead I'll just remember to politely decline any invitations you may extend to me for dinner at your house.

 

But you still didn't answer the question...

[DC Tom]

I'd ask you how you know this, but instead I'll just remember to politely decline any invitations you may extend to me for dinner at your house.

 

But you still didn't answer the question...

247723[/snapback]

 

Basic public health: don't pollute the environment in which you live. Though the principle is most often applied on a local level (e.g. "We don't want this dioxin here...let's just bury it at Love Canal"), it certainly isn't invalid on the scale of theentire planet.

 

Though naturally, keeping the planet completely pristine is, as a practical matter, impossible...just as it's impossible to keep your house perfectly antiseptic. But just because you can't keep your house perfectly clean, it doesn't mean you throw trash on the floor, either...

[IDBillzFan]

Right.  Crichton's a great source.  And yes, I read his book...and he used data manipulated to suit his point just as everyone else does in every politically-charged topic. 

247068[/snapback]

It's a little known fact there Norm that you should not hyphenate an "-ly" modifier.

[gmac17]

"We don't want this dioxin here...let's just bury it at Love Canal")

 

yeah, but that wasn't the main problem. The problem was the whole "we don't care if there is dioxin under there, we're the school board and we want the land.....(wait 20 years)....I know we signed something saying we won't build there, but you put the dioxin in there and we have to blame someone..."

[Berg]

Basic public health: don't pollute the environment in which you live.  Though the principle is most often applied on a local level (e.g. "We don't want this dioxin here...let's just bury it at Love Canal"), it certainly isn't invalid on the scale of theentire planet.

 

Though naturally, keeping the planet completely pristine is, as a practical matter, impossible...just as it's impossible to keep your house perfectly antiseptic.  But just because you can't keep your house perfectly clean, it doesn't mean you throw trash on the floor, either...

247744[/snapback]

 

Too bad more people can't admit the only reason humans are concerned about the environment is for completely selfish reasons, rather than some grand and noble concern for "saving" the planet.

[Wacka]

The question is not that there is warming (the amount is up for debate) but if it is caused by man.

There are many instances of warming and cooling happening over a short period (100 years) that happened before humans were around. For several hundred years (from about 1600-1800) it was called the little ice age. The climate was noticably cooler over that time, with the winter that Washing crossing the Delaware being one of the worst. Remember, the climate was cooling for the first half of the 20th century.

[/dev/null]

The Kyoto Treaty won't do a bit of good as it does not cover my dad, who has released more noxious gases than exxon

[DC Tom]

Too bad more people can't admit the only reason humans are concerned about the environment is for completely selfish reasons, rather than some grand and noble concern for "saving" the planet.

249969[/snapback]

 

Uhhh...of course we are. "Saving" the planet? I don't think the planet cares...it'll be here long after we're gone, and the principle that pollution by homo sapiens is somehow an unnatural act that the planet needs to be "saved" from is as lunatic as the idea that earth needed to be saved from pollution by cyanobacteria at the end of the Paleoproteozoic era would be. What other reason could there be? Sentimental? Do you keep your house clean for your own good, or for some sentimental attachment that motivates you to "save" it?

[Berg]

Uhhh...of course we are.  "Saving" the planet?  I don't think the planet cares...it'll be here long after we're gone, and the principle that pollution by homo sapiens is somehow an unnatural act that the planet needs to be "saved" from is as lunatic as the idea that earth needed to be saved from pollution by cyanobacteria at the end of the Paleoproteozoic era would be.  What other reason could there be?  Sentimental?  Do you keep your house clean for your own good, or for some sentimental attachment that motivates you to "save" it?

250033[/snapback]

 

Yeah I know. That's the point I was making. Unfortunately, many people seem to think the planet needs saving for some ambiguous and altruistic reason.

[Alaska Darin]

Yeah I know.  That's the point I was making.  Unfortunately, many people seem to think the planet needs saving for some ambiguous and altruistic reason.

250055[/snapback]

That's because they can't grasp the simple fact that Mother Nature is a heinous B word who'll whack us all if she sees fit.

[DC Tom]

Yeah I know.  That's the point I was making.  Unfortunately, many people seem to think the planet needs saving for some ambiguous and altruistic reason.

250055[/snapback]

 

Yeah, I know. I was expanding on it for the pinheads among us... Plus, I wanted to make sure my "So we have selfish reasons, there's nothing wrong with that" attitude was clear...