I'll give you break on the "force" issue the instant you say you won't forcibly impose solutions on others. You can't just erase the nature of a behavior by ignoring it.
Second, I'm not trying to suggest "doom and gloom". A complete, forced elimination of industrial carbon emissions will not kill off humanity. It will simply undo nearly everything humanity has gained from the processes behind those emissions. Furthermore, a partial elimination will not undo all those things. It will, however, be a debt against them that must be paid in equal part. These are the inescapable facts of core economic theory, and you cannot erase them by ignoring them either.
Of course!
Pollution is not a disease. Pollution is the symptom of short-sighted production and foolish consumption. Those are the roots of the problem. So, you can attack producers, or you can shoot the consumers, or you could simply get out of the way of the far-sighted producers and the wise consumers and then watch the others follow.
We can say that CO2 is the main cause of global warming with as much certainty as we can say anything. Global warming is an accepted fact, it is the anthropogenic influence that is debated. And I understand why the anthropogenic influence causes concern, because our way of life depends on CO2 emissions, not only for electricity and transportation but for just about anything we do on a large scale. You're right, reducing CO2 emissions enough to do any good will do a lot more than just cost us more money. It needs to be done gradually enough to allow new technologies to be adapted, but even so it will completely change our world. There's not much that heavy industry can do without churning out CO2. We're in a tough situation, and there's not much doubt that it's going to cost us. I do not dismiss the 'inescapable facts of core economic theory', this is why I am against any radical measures. I don't believe I've suggested such at all. But the fact remains that there is a problem than can't be ignored concerning AGW and pollution.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Your position is obviously much more honest and thoughtful than most on this issue, and I'm not accusing you of coming to conclusions by "blind default".
However, I am concerned when you ask a question like this:
"Minus the complicated science and the exaggerated 'predictions of doom', do you feel cleaning up the environment and reducing pollution behooves us?"
That question is still completely absent of purpose and, despite the caveat at the beginning, echoes the philosophies of environmentalist and Catholic dogmas regarding man's role as Earth-steward. Man is not Nature's employee. Nature is Man's employee, by her design.
It was a simple question to get you to look at the issue without injecting your dogma. I was trying to discern if you felt that it was an issue worth addressing at all. You read much more into it.
Haha, I've never been accused of taking a Catholic approach. I am unfamiliar with the catholic doctrine, but I personally agree that it behooves us to be a bit more wise in our consumption.
As for, 'Nature is Man's employee, by her design', well, I think you already know that I disagree with this. I actually found the statement quite comical, so I thank you for that.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
We can say that CO2 is the main cause of global warming with as much certainty as we can say anything.
Can you? You can also say that global warming is the main cause of CO2 with a lot of certainty as well. It's easy to find perceived causation. It's a bit trickier to find actual causation.
Global warming is an accepted fact, it is the anthropogenic influence that is debated. And I understand why the anthropogenic influence causes concern, because our way of life depends on CO2 emissions, not only for electricity and transportation but for just about anything we do on a large scale. You're right, reducing CO2 emissions enough to do any good will do a lot more than just cost us more money. It needs to be done gradually enough to allow new technologies to be adapted, but even so it will completely change our world. There's not much that heavy industry can do without churning out CO2. We're in a tough situation, and there's not much doubt that it's going to cost us. I do not dismiss the 'inescapable facts of core economic theory', this is why I am against any radical measures. I don't believe I've suggested such at all. But the fact remains that there is a problem than can't be ignored concerning AGW and pollution.
I completely agree with all of this. And here's a very "radical" solution I would propose:
Stop subsidizing the production of CO2 by consumers and corporations.
Put a complete and total end to government subsidies to oil companies, car manufacturers and consumers of these products. Make them compete on equal footing with technologies that produce no emissions. A $6 gallon of gas will make a very large difference in this problem.
it has to do with our eliptical orbit. we should be going into a cooling period now. we're moving to the "back side" of our orbit and things should be getting colder. when we get to the orbit where we are coming closer to the sun; we'll fry because of the damage we've done.
anyway; this eliptical orbit is the explanation for the natural heating and cooling of the earth/climate.
Now that's an argument that makes some logical sense.
How long is this cooling phase supposed to last and how extensive will it be? If it's supposed to be an ice age and last for tens of thousands of years, then perhaps it's wise to encourage a little global warming.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Can you? You can also say that global warming is the main cause of CO2 with a lot of certainty as well. It's easy to find perceived causation. It's a bit trickier to find actual causation.
Yeah, I can. I'm pretty confident in my conclusions from all the studies I've read. Like I said, GW is not up for debate, AGW is.
I completely agree with all of this. And here's a very "radical" solution I would propose:
Stop subsidizing the production of CO2 by consumers and corporations.
Put a complete and total end to government subsidies to oil companies, car manufacturers and consumers of these products. Make them compete on equal footing with technologies that produce no emissions. A $6 gallon of gas will make a very large difference in this problem.
Interesting approach, ffg. Again, I think we need to consider all the ramifications, but without researching those, I admit, the idea is interesting and start.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
It was a simple question to get you too look at the issue without injecting your dogma. I was trying to discern if you felt that it was an issue worth addressing at all. You read much more into it.
Your question didn't even list a problem, baraka.
Haha, I've never been accused of taking a Catholic approach. I am unfamiliar with the catholic doctrine, but I personally agree that it behooves us to be a bit more wise in our consumption.
FROM GENESIS
28 God blessed [man] and said to [men], "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
This is the foundation of the Christian ideology of Man-as-Earth-steward. The concept dominates Western ideology regarding Man's relationship to nature from both the leftist and the rightist perspective.
As for, 'Nature is Man's employee, by her design', well, I think you already know that I disagree with this. I actually found the statement quite comical, so I thank you for that.
You're quite welcome. If you actually think about the statement, along with what you ate today, what you're wearing on your body, and what stands over your head, it might be less funny and more truthful
That question is still completely absent of purpose and, despite the caveat at the beginning, echoes the philosophies of environmentalist and Catholic dogmas regarding man's role as Earth-steward. Man is not Nature's employee. Nature is Man's employee, by her design.
I also wanted to add this. People have a problem with perception, that 'environmentalism' is a radical notion. Maybe it was. But now that the climatologists tells us there is, indeed, a problem, we need to get past that. I can't blame people for dismissing the environmentalist movement in general. There has been too many distortions and foolish claims, too many idiotic demands made by people who don't know what they're talking about, and too much lumping together of unrelated issues. 'Environmentalists' has been made a bad word and that's a shame.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
I also wanted to add this. People have a problem with perception, that 'environmentalism' is a radical notion. Maybe it was. But now that the climatologists tells us there is, indeed, a problem, we need to get past that. I can't blame people for dismissing the environmentalist movement in general. There has been too many distortions and foolish claims, too many idiotic demands made by people who don't know what they're talking about, and too much lumping together of unrelated issues. 'Environmentalists' has been made a bad word and that's a shame.
If environmentalism stopped at the words of climatologists, then I'd agree with you on the "perception" issue. Now, the rest of this I completely agree with. "Environmentalist" is not and should not be a "bad word". But if enough fools start teaching algebra, "mathematician" will become a bad word too.
The politicized nature of this is what is destroying the movement. Reason has been sacrificed for control, and the very idea that a 3.6 degree difference in temperature represents a perceived end-of-times scenario demonstrates how little people think about the issue at this point. If humanity in its current form cannot rationally deal with fluctuations in temperature, be them manmade or otherwise, climate-driven doomsdays are nothing more than redundant.
It was a simple question for the reasons I stated before. There are a lot of people that dismiss the notion that there is a problem at all, probably due to my last post about 'environmentalism'. Are you one of those people? Although you did not answer my question directly, you did answer it in a round-about-way.
FROM GENESIS
28 God blessed [man] and said to [men], "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
This is the foundation of the Christian ideology of Man-as-Earth-steward. The concept dominates Western ideology regarding Man's relationship to nature from both the leftist and the rightist perspective.
I wasn't anticipating a lesson in scripture from you, but ok. I agree somewhat with the Christian, 'Man-as-steward' position. I will say this position is NOT only a Christian position. Many non-religious people believe this and I suggest you will find many Christians that don't live by this rule.
You're quite welcome. If you actually think about the statement, along with what you ate today, what you're wearing on your body, and what stands over your head, it might be less funny and more truthful
How about a more 'symbiotic' approach, ffg?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
It was a simple question for the reasons I stated before. There are a lot of people that dismiss the notion that there is a problem at all, probably due to my last post about 'environmentalism'. Are you one of those people? Although you did not answer my question directly, you did answer it in a round-about-way.
My answer is simple: when pollution or environmental distress threaten the lives and happinesses of humanity, then yes there is a problem. When pollution simply exists, there is not a problem.
Significant changes in global temperatures certainly threaten the lives and happinesses of most people on this planet. But when the solutions to those problems represent nothing more than new threats to those things, they will carry little weight as far as I am concerned.
I wasn't anticipating a lesson in scripture from you, but ok. I agree somewhat with the Christian, 'Man-as-steward' position. I will say this position is NOT only a Christian position. Many non-religious people believe this and I suggest you will find many Christians that don't live by this rule.
Certainly!
Man was not created to "steward" this earth. Man was created by this earth, and is tasked by his very nature to shape his environment to his needs. That is man's design, prescribed by the very thing these stewards are professing to protect.
How about a more 'symbiotic' approach, ffg?
Hehe...the term "symbiotic", if violated by carbon emissions, would suggest that Nature suffers or is separate from said emissions. I fail to see how that argument makes any sense.
If environmentalism stopped at the words of climatologists, then I'd agree with you on the "perception" issue. Now, the rest of this I completely agree with. "Environmentalist" is not and should not be a "bad word". But if enough fools start teaching algebra, "mathematician" will become a bad word too.
The politicized nature of this is what is destroying the movement. Reason has been sacrificed for control, and the very idea that a 3.6 degree difference in temperature represents a perceived end-of-times scenario demonstrates how little people think about the issue at this point. If humanity in its current form cannot rationally deal with fluctuations in temperature, be them manmade or otherwise, climate-driven doomsdays are nothing more than redundant.
I just realized that I must be really bad at debating or getting my point across. Your first paragraph, as well as the first sentence in your second paragraph, is exactly my problem with 'the movement' and I thought I made that clear. I even took it step further when I gave you the example of air pollution in China. The politicized nature is hurting the cause.
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Now that's an argument that makes some logical sense.
How long is this cooling phase supposed to last and how extensive will it be? If it's supposed to be an ice age and last for tens of thousands of years, then perhaps it's wise to encourage a little global warming.
unfortunately; it's not an ice age. just a cooling thrend because we're a little further from the sun. the real problem will occur when the warming trend starts again. for an ice age to develope; we must have a catastrophic event that would block the sun; such as a meteor or nuclear winter.
I just realized that I must be really bad at debating or getting my point across. Your first paragraph, as well as the first sentence in your second paragraph, is exactly my problem with 'the movement' and I thought I made that clear. I even took it step further when I gave you the example of air pollution in China. The politicized nature is hurting the cause.
I understand that you think that, and I wasn't trying to setup the statements as fundamental disagreements. I simply see you coming at this from two angles: rationality and political bias. In one sentence you seem to reject political statements, and then soon after you seem to grasp onto their concepts. But perhaps I'm simply ascribing to you positions you don't hold, and for that I would certainly apologize.
unfortunately; it's not an ice age. just a cooling thrend because we're a little further from the sun. the real problem will occur when the warming trend starts again. for an ice age to develope; we must have a catastrophic event that would block the sun; such as a meteor or nuclear winter.
So all ice ages were caused by meteors or some other catastrophic event, and without those we do not have ice ages?
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
So all ice ages were caused by meteors or some other catastrophic event, and without those we do not have ice ages?
you can't make a blanket statement like that. the permian extinction was caused by the siberian flats warming the earths temperature to the point where frozen methane started melting. this raised the temperature another 4 to 5 degrees killing 95% of life on the planet. the dinosaur extinction is believed to be caused by a meteor. other causes are volcanic activity putting dust into the air blocking sunlight. there's a reason behind everything.
America as a whole will not care about Global Warming until New York and Los Angeles end up like New Orleans.
End of story.
Quite possibly...and probably only because boat engines are less gas consuming than car engines
The pseudo-American dream...a hummer in every driveway...big mac combo's baby...supersize my assfat... lol
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
china puts out much more pollution than the us. in fact; they say the pollution in LA is from china. the winds bring it accross the ocean.
Probably... As well, all the carbon soot from China is floating up and settling on the Greenland glaciers turning them brown which in turn makes them melt faster...
nasty...it a global problem...everyones doing it.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
i'll find the links when i have a few minutes. you do realize that china is a coal burning nation right? and that the reason they signed kyoto is because it excludes them from compliance. developing nations are exempt and china is considered a developing nation.
I understand that you think that, and I wasn't trying to setup the statements as fundamental disagreements. I simply see you coming at this from two angles: rationality and political bias. In one sentence you seem to reject political statements, and then soon after you seem to grasp onto their concepts. But perhaps I'm simply ascribing to you positions you don't hold, and for that I would certainly apologize.
Perhaps, although I challenge you to show where I've expressed such in this thread. I never suggested that I had the appropriate approach to this problem and understand the far-reaching implications. I suggest you point that political bias finger at yourself, since you were the one that opened that door by injecting your ideology into the debate.
I did suggest if the earth is heating up, we need to be concerned with measures that might slow the cooling. I also asked you what consequences you envision by assuming GW is real and basing some policy on this assumption. Is this where you see my political bias?
The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance,
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
i'll find the links when i have a few minutes. you do realize that china is a coal burning nation right? and that the reason they signed kyoto is because it excludes them from compliance. developing nations are exempt and china is considered a developing nation.
i do know that ... i also do know that the US is a coal burning nation as well and one that has a car per what? ... 2 people? ... compared that to 1 in probably 1,000 ...
if you factor in per capita numbers - i'm sure the discrepancy would be even higher ...
at the end of the day - people like to use China as an excuse ... if you're not willing to clean up your own backyard - how can you expect a country like China to?
... if you're not willing to clean up your own backyard - how can you expect a country like China to?
I thought cleaning up was the right thing to do. You don't do the right thing only because someone else is leading the way. You do the right thing because it's the right thing period. So my expectations of China are identicle to my expectations of every other country, do the right thing. Get moving in the right direction, just like Canada has finally started.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
I thought cleaning up was the right thing to do. You don't do the right thing only because someone else is leading the way. You do the right thing because it's the right thing period. So my expectations of China are identicle to my expectations of every other country, do the right thing. Get moving in the right direction, just like Canada has finally started.
you're right ... everyone should be doing their part ...
canada is not ... our plan is a joke - i'm sorry but it's being panned by environmentalists for a reason ... it's a bunch of misleading gimmicks much like the rest of the tory agenda ...
Comments
We can say that CO2 is the main cause of global warming with as much certainty as we can say anything. Global warming is an accepted fact, it is the anthropogenic influence that is debated. And I understand why the anthropogenic influence causes concern, because our way of life depends on CO2 emissions, not only for electricity and transportation but for just about anything we do on a large scale. You're right, reducing CO2 emissions enough to do any good will do a lot more than just cost us more money. It needs to be done gradually enough to allow new technologies to be adapted, but even so it will completely change our world. There's not much that heavy industry can do without churning out CO2. We're in a tough situation, and there's not much doubt that it's going to cost us. I do not dismiss the 'inescapable facts of core economic theory', this is why I am against any radical measures. I don't believe I've suggested such at all. But the fact remains that there is a problem than can't be ignored concerning AGW and pollution.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Well, I thank you for that.
It was a simple question to get you to look at the issue without injecting your dogma. I was trying to discern if you felt that it was an issue worth addressing at all. You read much more into it.
Haha, I've never been accused of taking a Catholic approach. I am unfamiliar with the catholic doctrine, but I personally agree that it behooves us to be a bit more wise in our consumption.
As for, 'Nature is Man's employee, by her design', well, I think you already know that I disagree with this. I actually found the statement quite comical, so I thank you for that.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Can you? You can also say that global warming is the main cause of CO2 with a lot of certainty as well. It's easy to find perceived causation. It's a bit trickier to find actual causation.
I completely agree with all of this. And here's a very "radical" solution I would propose:
Stop subsidizing the production of CO2 by consumers and corporations.
Put a complete and total end to government subsidies to oil companies, car manufacturers and consumers of these products. Make them compete on equal footing with technologies that produce no emissions. A $6 gallon of gas will make a very large difference in this problem.
Now that's an argument that makes some logical sense.
How long is this cooling phase supposed to last and how extensive will it be? If it's supposed to be an ice age and last for tens of thousands of years, then perhaps it's wise to encourage a little global warming.
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Yeah, I can. I'm pretty confident in my conclusions from all the studies I've read. Like I said, GW is not up for debate, AGW is.
Interesting approach, ffg. Again, I think we need to consider all the ramifications, but without researching those, I admit, the idea is interesting and start.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
Your question didn't even list a problem, baraka.
FROM GENESIS
28 God blessed [man] and said to [men], "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground." 29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
This is the foundation of the Christian ideology of Man-as-Earth-steward. The concept dominates Western ideology regarding Man's relationship to nature from both the leftist and the rightist perspective.
You're quite welcome. If you actually think about the statement, along with what you ate today, what you're wearing on your body, and what stands over your head, it might be less funny and more truthful
I also wanted to add this. People have a problem with perception, that 'environmentalism' is a radical notion. Maybe it was. But now that the climatologists tells us there is, indeed, a problem, we need to get past that. I can't blame people for dismissing the environmentalist movement in general. There has been too many distortions and foolish claims, too many idiotic demands made by people who don't know what they're talking about, and too much lumping together of unrelated issues. 'Environmentalists' has been made a bad word and that's a shame.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
If environmentalism stopped at the words of climatologists, then I'd agree with you on the "perception" issue. Now, the rest of this I completely agree with. "Environmentalist" is not and should not be a "bad word". But if enough fools start teaching algebra, "mathematician" will become a bad word too.
The politicized nature of this is what is destroying the movement. Reason has been sacrificed for control, and the very idea that a 3.6 degree difference in temperature represents a perceived end-of-times scenario demonstrates how little people think about the issue at this point. If humanity in its current form cannot rationally deal with fluctuations in temperature, be them manmade or otherwise, climate-driven doomsdays are nothing more than redundant.
It was a simple question for the reasons I stated before. There are a lot of people that dismiss the notion that there is a problem at all, probably due to my last post about 'environmentalism'. Are you one of those people? Although you did not answer my question directly, you did answer it in a round-about-way.
I wasn't anticipating a lesson in scripture from you, but ok. I agree somewhat with the Christian, 'Man-as-steward' position. I will say this position is NOT only a Christian position. Many non-religious people believe this and I suggest you will find many Christians that don't live by this rule.
How about a more 'symbiotic' approach, ffg?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
My answer is simple: when pollution or environmental distress threaten the lives and happinesses of humanity, then yes there is a problem. When pollution simply exists, there is not a problem.
Significant changes in global temperatures certainly threaten the lives and happinesses of most people on this planet. But when the solutions to those problems represent nothing more than new threats to those things, they will carry little weight as far as I am concerned.
Certainly!
Man was not created to "steward" this earth. Man was created by this earth, and is tasked by his very nature to shape his environment to his needs. That is man's design, prescribed by the very thing these stewards are professing to protect.
Hehe...the term "symbiotic", if violated by carbon emissions, would suggest that Nature suffers or is separate from said emissions. I fail to see how that argument makes any sense.
I just realized that I must be really bad at debating or getting my point across. Your first paragraph, as well as the first sentence in your second paragraph, is exactly my problem with 'the movement' and I thought I made that clear. I even took it step further when I gave you the example of air pollution in China. The politicized nature is hurting the cause.
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
unfortunately; it's not an ice age. just a cooling thrend because we're a little further from the sun. the real problem will occur when the warming trend starts again. for an ice age to develope; we must have a catastrophic event that would block the sun; such as a meteor or nuclear winter.
End of story.
I understand that you think that, and I wasn't trying to setup the statements as fundamental disagreements. I simply see you coming at this from two angles: rationality and political bias. In one sentence you seem to reject political statements, and then soon after you seem to grasp onto their concepts. But perhaps I'm simply ascribing to you positions you don't hold, and for that I would certainly apologize.
china puts out much more pollution than the us. in fact; they say the pollution in LA is from china. the winds bring it accross the ocean.
So all ice ages were caused by meteors or some other catastrophic event, and without those we do not have ice ages?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
you can't make a blanket statement like that. the permian extinction was caused by the siberian flats warming the earths temperature to the point where frozen methane started melting. this raised the temperature another 4 to 5 degrees killing 95% of life on the planet. the dinosaur extinction is believed to be caused by a meteor. other causes are volcanic activity putting dust into the air blocking sunlight. there's a reason behind everything.
Quite possibly...and probably only because boat engines are less gas consuming than car engines
The pseudo-American dream...a hummer in every driveway...big mac combo's baby...supersize my assfat... lol
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Probably... As well, all the carbon soot from China is floating up and settling on the Greenland glaciers turning them brown which in turn makes them melt faster...
nasty...it a global problem...everyones doing it.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
the US is by far the leading polluter and emitter of gHg
the reports i've seen show differently; but you must be the top scientist.
what reports are those?
i'll find the links when i have a few minutes. you do realize that china is a coal burning nation right? and that the reason they signed kyoto is because it excludes them from compliance. developing nations are exempt and china is considered a developing nation.
Perhaps, although I challenge you to show where I've expressed such in this thread. I never suggested that I had the appropriate approach to this problem and understand the far-reaching implications. I suggest you point that political bias finger at yourself, since you were the one that opened that door by injecting your ideology into the debate.
I did suggest if the earth is heating up, we need to be concerned with measures that might slow the cooling. I also asked you what consequences you envision by assuming GW is real and basing some policy on this assumption. Is this where you see my political bias?
but the illusion of knowledge.
~Daniel Boorstin
Only a life lived for others is worth living.
~Albert Einstein
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2006/fueling.america/interactive/popup.carbon.dioxide/frameset.exclude.html
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/1655
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/each-countrys-share-of-co2-emissions.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3143798.stm
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article358583.ece
*****BUT !! **** http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/03/26/business/emit.php
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
i do know that ... i also do know that the US is a coal burning nation as well and one that has a car per what? ... 2 people? ... compared that to 1 in probably 1,000 ...
if you factor in per capita numbers - i'm sure the discrepancy would be even higher ...
at the end of the day - people like to use China as an excuse ... if you're not willing to clean up your own backyard - how can you expect a country like China to?
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
you're right ... everyone should be doing their part ...
canada is not ... our plan is a joke - i'm sorry but it's being panned by environmentalists for a reason ... it's a bunch of misleading gimmicks much like the rest of the tory agenda ...