• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Global Warming

Yes, you are right. Since I cannot read minds, and since I cannot find some secret tape recording of conversations revealing people's motives, I have no way whatsoever at figuring things out, and must walk around in a comatose blank-mind state, not thinking anything about anyone. After all, without rock-solid proof that you can bet your life on, you really can't do anything in life, can you? :rolleyes:

If you always take what people say at face value, and are so trusting of people, I really hope you don't run into anyone that wants to run a scam on you. You'd be an easy target.
relex, take a breath. Offer up whatever opinions you like. You know best what's in your head. But don't think for a second, you know anything about me. It makes you like foolish.
 
relex, take a breath. Offer up whatever opinions you like. You know best what's in your head. But don't think for a second, you know anything about me. It makes you like foolish.
What a coincidence, I happen to think you look foolish for constantly suggesting that I not be so distrustful of people. Don't take this personally, because you are right: I don't know you. But you seem awfully gullible.

Now, you may think I seem awfully paranoid. And you would be right. I wouldn't argue against that.
 
I am all for using technology to reduce polution and CO2 emissions! That's great! But let's not exclude some of the major offenders. Especially when those major offenders are also major competitors in the global economy. It is the uneven application that bothers me the most.
I agree, I think it's a good idea which was not written very well.
 
"Proof"? As in, a psychic ability to read the minds of the Kyoto supporters? None. A decent guess, based on not being able to figure out a good reason why some countries are excluded? Yep.

AUP...what if...the Kyoto treaty would remain exactly as it is now in its reduction for the US, but it also held other nations to similar standards. Would that be okay with you? It would certainly get me at least listening.

Australia should, without a doubt, not be allowed to have it's 'increase'. All nations should hold to Kyoto. As with CFCs, the allowances for developing nations were meant to be an allowance for their not being as rich as western nations, nothing more. They are, however, to be held to the same standards in the long term.
 
What a coincidence, I happen to think you look foolish for constantly suggesting that I not be so distrustful of people. Don't take this personally, because you are right: I don't know you. But you seem awfully gullible.
I can honestly say you don't have a clue. But keep on telling me about myself, Sylvia. My father died 5 years ago, how's he doing?

Now, you may think I seem awfully paranoid. And you would be right. I wouldn't argue against that.
I don't know you, I wouldn't make such a judgement.
 
That's the point that I keep making, that just doesn't seem to be sinking in.

Why does it exclude some countries? Why do India and China get such a free pass, while we have to damage our economy trying to comply?

Like you said: "No wonder we won't ratify that!"

It is an obvious shot at the US economy. If it wasn't, it would hold the other major offenders to similar standards. I guess since the anti-US crowd can't bring down the US any other way, they will try environmental treaties.

Then there is the whole emissions trading fiasco! The US starts with deficit credits, poor countries start with surplus credits, and we have to fork up billions to buy their surplus. It's just a giant scheme to transfer wealth from us to them!

Getting us working to reduce polution is a noble goal, but this scheme is just theviery!
 
Then there is the whole emissions trading fiasco! The US starts with deficit credits, poor countries start with surplus credits, and we have to fork up billions to buy their surplus. It's just a giant scheme to transfer wealth from us to them!

Getting us working to reduce polution is a noble goal, but this scheme is just theviery!

I tend to agree that Kyoto seems to have been worse than a waste of time.

I fear we have wasted valuable time and diplomatic currency achieving something that will just transplant emmissions from one part of the world to another, for no aggregate effect.
 
Here is an interesting treatise on the subject. I found this while I was searching for good scientific data on the total output of each country in regards to C02. Sadly, what I found mostly were tables that the percentage distribution measured didn't add up to 100%, often over 100% and sometimes less than 100%. Even though China is the second largest producer of C02, China comes out smelling like a rose, because with their millions of poor people, the per capita consumption comes out very low.

Anyway here is the summary portion of the article I mentioned earlier:
First, in the chain of supply and consumption, the consumer is the only link which cannot be bypassed. If the individual consumer stops consuming, nothing can be done about it, except to try and persuade someone else to increase their consumption to compensate. At present, everyone else is already being persuaded pretty much as hard as possible anyway, so that won't have much effect, even if the message to stop consuming does not also spread. This situation does not, however, apply to other links in the supply chain. Nor does it apply to governments. Get rid of one destructive widget manufacturer, and there are usually a million more manufacturers (or potential manufacturers) waiting in the wings to take his place. In other words, consumption is the limiting factor, not supply. Similarly, if the entire government died of some unfortunate disease overnight but there was no change in the popular ideology, an almost identical government would be installed immediately after the election.

Second, politicians, advertisers and businessmen are not stupid. They know what I was too naive to realize until the revelations of the quota made it inescapable. They understand the depth of hypocrisy lying behind all the environmentalist's accusations. They know that virtually no one, not even the environmentalists themselves, is actually willing to live sustainable. No one really wants the world saved, not if it will significantly restrict their gluttony. All anyone really wants is someone else to blame. So the producers and politicians serve us doubly. While fine-tuning the machinery of destruction for us to fuel and drive, they receive the wrath which we aim at them. Perhaps we have actually come to believe in our own condemnation of our suppliers.

Perhaps these career scapegoats even encourage us, by adjusting their rhetoric so as to continue to attract our anger. After all, they wouldn't want us to face reality, would they? Whatever the case, having established our supply of excuses, we continue to buy whatever we like for ourselves, rewarding the politicians with votes for a job well done, and blessing businessmen with an uninhibited market. Even the environmental pressure groups now find a comfortable nest in this collective rottenness. They soon learned that subs and fame came only from telling the sort of truth that people wanted to hear. We were thus instructed to direct our hatred at governments and multinationals. With our lifestyles quantitatively exceeding sustainable levels many times over, the most that mainstream environmental groups thought we should have to cope with was the suggestion that we put our bottles in a different shaped bin, or pump up our car tires properly. Pleased with their words, we gave them some money. Pleased with our money, they gave us newsletters full of invective about big business, and colored stickers to stick on our unsustainable cars.

It is logical enough, I suppose, that our environmentally corrupt society should have an even more corrupt environmental movement to protect it. Perhaps everyone else has known this for years, but it is new to me, and something of a shock.
Global Warming:
No-one Ever is to Blame
Here's one of the tables I mentioned (PDF):
http://earthtrends.wri.org/pdf_library/data_tables/cli2_2005.pdf
Check out adding up the columns of percentage between Canada and the US on page 2. How does this disparity affect the integrity of the data?

edited for clarity
 
Last edited:
I tend to agree that Kyoto seems to have been worse than a waste of time.

I fear we have wasted valuable time and diplomatic currency achieving something that will just transplant emmissions from one part of the world to another, for no aggregate effect.

The idea is not to transplant emissions from one part of the world to another.

It is to allow poorer nations time to catch up, since meeting Kyoto will be harder for them than wealthier nations, and, by the time they have to meet their committments, technology will have advanced to give them more options than just burning fossil fuels.

The 'carbon trading' is just a way to use capitalism to allow those who 'must' have their CO2 to balance out it's production with those who are prepared to cut it's use.
 
It is to allow poorer nations time to catch up, since meeting Kyoto will be harder for them than wealthier nations...
You said earlier "...delaying necessary action, for reasons that do nothing to address the actual problem."

Isn't the actual problem an environmental one? And doesn't the economy of the poorer nations have nothing to do with "the actual problem"? When did economic concerns suddenly come into this?

So...do you care about economies being impacted by environmental regulations, or not? Or do you care about the poorer nations economies being impacted, and not care about the US economy being impacted?
 
Last edited:
Or we could just abstain from the treaty.
The "allow poorer nations time..." comment is very telling.

First, this had nothing to do with any economies, and is only about the environment. Now, it does have something to do with economies, and cuts some "poorer nations" some slack.

So does this have anything to do with economies, or not? If it does, I would like to hear an admission that the supporters know that this will have an impact on the economies of the affected nations.
 
The "allow poorer nations time..." comment is very telling.

First, this had nothing to do with any economies, and is only about the environment. Now, it does have something to do with economies, and cuts some "poorer nations" some slack.

So does this have anything to do with economies, or not? If it does, I would like to hear an admission that the supporters know that this will have an impact on the economies of the affected nations.

Given that it is the Developed nations who create the lions share of the emissions, it does make sense.
 

Back
Top Bottom