Global Extremes:8-29-07 NOAA says human activity to blame for increase in gases and hottest temps on record

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic
BTW, China is slightly larger in area than the US including Alaska, not smaller.

Oops, my bad.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I really do love the attitudes here. There's a problem, but if we're not going to get help from anyone, we should just ignore the problem.

Why do we have police? Crime is a problem, but not everyone is a crimefighter. If we're not going to have everyone fighting crime, the criminals are just going to go where the police aren't. So why are we wasting our time on trying to stop an unstoppable problem? Because we can at least reduce its severity.

Who's ignoring anything? What I see are people saying it's bad when we do it but not bad when they do it.

No one has said that.

Which is why Kyoto was so unequal in its enforcement, right? And why you defend said inequality, right?

The reason for that has been spelled out clearly ever since Kyoto was first drawn up. China is a Developing Nation and can not afford to deal with Kyoto and Develope it's Economy at the same time. Industrialized Nations can and since the problem was created by the Industrialized Nations, they have an obligation to do their part.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I really do love the attitudes here. There's a problem, but if we're not going to get help from anyone, we should just ignore the problem.

Why do we have police? Crime is a problem, but not everyone is a crimefighter. If we're not going to have everyone fighting crime, the criminals are just going to go where the police aren't. So why are we wasting our time on trying to stop an unstoppable problem? Because we can at least reduce its severity.

Who's ignoring anything? What I see are people saying it's bad when we do it but not bad when they do it.

No one has said that.

Which is why Kyoto was so unequal in its enforcement, right? And why you defend said inequality, right?

The reason for that has been spelled out clearly ever since Kyoto was first drawn up. China is a Developing Nation and can not afford to deal with Kyoto and Develope it's Economy at the same time. Industrialized Nations can and since the problem was created by the Industrialized Nations, they have an obligation to do their part.

Lol, so its ok for China to pollute, they are a developing nation so damn the environment. Nevermind the point that if you make it so difficult to produce things here with regulations then obviously companies will move countries without those restrictions, like China.

 

[Enig101]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I really do love the attitudes here. There's a problem, but if we're not going to get help from anyone, we should just ignore the problem.

Why do we have police? Crime is a problem, but not everyone is a crimefighter. If we're not going to have everyone fighting crime, the criminals are just going to go where the police aren't. So why are we wasting our time on trying to stop an unstoppable problem? Because we can at least reduce its severity.

Who's ignoring anything? What I see are people saying it's bad when we do it but not bad when they do it.

No one has said that.

Which is why Kyoto was so unequal in its enforcement, right? And why you defend said inequality, right?

The reason for that has been spelled out clearly ever since Kyoto was first drawn up. China is a Developing Nation and can not afford to deal with Kyoto and Develope it's Economy at the same time. Industrialized Nations can and since the problem was created by the Industrialized Nations, they have an obligation to do their part.

Lol, so its ok for China to pollute, they are a developing nation so damn the environment. Nevermind the point that if you make it so difficult to produce things here with regulations then obviously companies will move countries without those restrictions, like China.

I think that is pretty reasonable. Like any intelligent person I acknowledge global warming, but until a cleaner source of energy is available, we can't let undeveloped countries suffer. It is a catch-22 really, because ideally everyone needs to clean up and stay clean, but on the other hand we really do need to get more people into a better quality life. So much of the world doesn't even have a proper house, we don't realise how privileged we are to have a roof over our head, let alone central heating.

It is the burden of those who can to clean up their act and to improve technology so that cheaper and cleaner energy sources can be provided to developing nations. We must act quickly though, things are already irreversibly slipping in the wrong direction.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I really do love the attitudes here. There's a problem, but if we're not going to get help from anyone, we should just ignore the problem.

Why do we have police? Crime is a problem, but not everyone is a crimefighter. If we're not going to have everyone fighting crime, the criminals are just going to go where the police aren't. So why are we wasting our time on trying to stop an unstoppable problem? Because we can at least reduce its severity.

Who's ignoring anything? What I see are people saying it's bad when we do it but not bad when they do it.

No one has said that.

Which is why Kyoto was so unequal in its enforcement, right? And why you defend said inequality, right?

The reason for that has been spelled out clearly ever since Kyoto was first drawn up. China is a Developing Nation and can not afford to deal with Kyoto and Develope it's Economy at the same time. Industrialized Nations can and since the problem was created by the Industrialized Nations, they have an obligation to do their part.

Lol, so its ok for China to pollute, they are a developing nation so damn the environment. Nevermind the point that if you make it so difficult to produce things here with regulations then obviously companies will move countries without those restrictions, like China.

No, it's not "ok". it's just to be expected. There's a lot more to pollution than just emmissions from factories/Autos. There's Sewage, regular Garbage, Toxic Waste, etc. All these require specific and often complex infrastructure to handle as well as it is handled in Industrialized Nations. These things don't grow on trees and they take Big$$ and years to develope.

 

[BoberFett]

sandorski

Do you think about your positions or are you just parroting the environmental propaganda? If the goal is to stop further damage to the environment, shifting production from one country to another has NO EFFECT. The only thing is will do is shift pollution and money around the globe. If your goal is to artificially force wages in developed nations down significantly, while providing a small bump in wages in third world countries, you're on the right path. If your goal is reducing CO2 emissions, you've failed completely.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I really do love the attitudes here. There's a problem, but if we're not going to get help from anyone, we should just ignore the problem.

Why do we have police? Crime is a problem, but not everyone is a crimefighter. If we're not going to have everyone fighting crime, the criminals are just going to go where the police aren't. So why are we wasting our time on trying to stop an unstoppable problem? Because we can at least reduce its severity.

Who's ignoring anything? What I see are people saying it's bad when we do it but not bad when they do it.

No one has said that.

Which is why Kyoto was so unequal in its enforcement, right? And why you defend said inequality, right?

The reason for that has been spelled out clearly ever since Kyoto was first drawn up. China is a Developing Nation and can not afford to deal with Kyoto and Develope it's Economy at the same time. Industrialized Nations can and since the problem was created by the Industrialized Nations, they have an obligation to do their part.

Lol, so its ok for China to pollute, they are a developing nation so damn the environment. Nevermind the point that if you make it so difficult to produce things here with regulations then obviously companies will move countries without those restrictions, like China.

It is baffling people either think that is a good thing or are so blind they dont realize Kyto was just a nother wealth redistribution model where poor countries got to sap rich countries for their credits and the last bastion of socialism gets a free pass to pollute away and not feel the effects on their economy.

Remember Capitalism is the unequal distrubtion of wealth while socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
sandorski

Do you think about your positions or are you just parroting the environmental propaganda? If the goal is to stop further damage to the environment, shifting production from one country to another has NO EFFECT. The only thing is will do is shift pollution and money around the globe. If your goal is to artificially force wages in developed nations down significantly, while providing a small bump in wages in third world countries, you're on the right path. If your goal is reducing CO2 emissions, you've failed completely.

You assume that's the only way it would incur. The probblem is just not Production of Goods, it is in the Industrialized World primarily Lifestyle. Something you can't just Offshore.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Jeff7
I really do love the attitudes here. There's a problem, but if we're not going to get help from anyone, we should just ignore the problem.

Why do we have police? Crime is a problem, but not everyone is a crimefighter. If we're not going to have everyone fighting crime, the criminals are just going to go where the police aren't. So why are we wasting our time on trying to stop an unstoppable problem? Because we can at least reduce its severity.

Who's ignoring anything? What I see are people saying it's bad when we do it but not bad when they do it.

No one has said that.

Which is why Kyoto was so unequal in its enforcement, right? And why you defend said inequality, right?

The reason for that has been spelled out clearly ever since Kyoto was first drawn up. China is a Developing Nation and can not afford to deal with Kyoto and Develope it's Economy at the same time. Industrialized Nations can and since the problem was created by the Industrialized Nations, they have an obligation to do their part.

Lol, so its ok for China to pollute, they are a developing nation so damn the environment. Nevermind the point that if you make it so difficult to produce things here with regulations then obviously companies will move countries without those restrictions, like China.

It is baffling people either think that is a good thing or are so blind they dont realize Kyto was just a nother wealth redistribution model where poor countries got to sap rich countries for their credits and the last bastion of socialism gets a free pass to pollute away and not feel the effects on their economy.

Remember Capitalism is the unequal distrubtion of wealth while socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.

:roll:

Oh ya, it's just a Socialist Conspiracy!!!

 

[Vic]

What's wrong with the Industrialized World Lifestyle? Do we need to go back to our mud huts?

 

[Jeff7]

Originally posted by: Genx87
It is baffling people either think that is a good thing or are so blind they dont realize Kyto was just a nother wealth redistribution model where poor countries got to sap rich countries for their credits and the last bastion of socialism gets a free pass to pollute away and not feel the effects on their economy.

Remember Capitalism is the unequal distrubtion of wealth while socialism is the equal distribution of poverty.

It seems so sad that we have yet to come up with a system that could provide equal distribution of a good life. We have unequal distribution of wealth that lets a priveleged few have everything, while the vast majority has very little. Socialism seems to accomplish the opposite because if its extreme inflexibility, at least in some cases, or simply corruption of those in power. Humans seem to be too immature presently, and are not sufficiently motivated, to handle the task of spreading the wealth such to the point that everyone has access to the basics - sufficient food, clean water, safety, health care, and shelter.

Originally posted by: Vic
What's wrong with the Industrialized World Lifestyle? Do we need to go back to our mud huts?

Because the current level of industrialization may be unsustainable. Or perhaps it's not the level, but the current methods.


Oh, and some people don't even have mud huts to live in. We are acclimated to the easy life. Look at how much money we all have here. I'll admit, it isn't appealing to think of giving it up. But people can be happy with very little. Buddhist monks own very little, yet they can be quite content.

 

[Vic]

What would you know about unsustainable? Really. Doomsayers have been saying that since the beginning of time and have always been wrong. And Buddhist monks are IMO everything that is wrong with Buddhism, i.e. when selflessness becomes selfish.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Vic
What's wrong with the Industrialized World Lifestyle? Do we need to go back to our mud huts?

It is causing a Terraforming of the Atmosphere. It has more to do with how we maintain the current Lifestyle and not the Lifestyle itself. The How is what needs to change, especially with Nations such as China and India moving towards it.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic
Who's pumping all that additional CO2, Dave? (here's a hint: it's not the US).

The current charts are Bullcrap made by Republicans.

I don't count small Islands and the Oil producing Countries themselves.

The Number one contributor is certainly the United States.

Try again. Here's your well deserved as usual.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Vic
What's wrong with the Industrialized World Lifestyle?

Do we need to go back to our mud huts?

Actually yes since we refuse to use the planet's resources responsibly.

 

[GoPackGo]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
Who's pumping all that additional CO2, Dave? (here's a hint: it's not the US).

The current charts are Bullcrap made by Republicans.

I don't count small Islands and the Oil producing Countries themselves.

The Number one contributor is certainly the United States.

Try again. Here's your well deserved as usual.

Everyone needs to do better...but especially China as their demand for power (electric) and cars continues to grow.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
What's wrong with the Industrialized World Lifestyle?

Do we need to go back to our mud huts?

Actually yes since we refuse to use the planet's resources responsibly.

Well congradulations dmcowen674 you have now lost all credability in this argument. You also want us to kill off 5 Billion people in order to "save the planet"? that would vbe the easiest way for sure.

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
What's wrong with the Industrialized World Lifestyle?

Do we need to go back to our mud huts?

Actually yes since we refuse to use the planet's resources responsibly.

Well congradulations dmcowen674 you have now lost all credability in this argument. You also want us to kill off 5 Billion people in order to "save the planet"? that would vbe the easiest way for sure.

Ah, well that's where spreading Islam comes into the picture. It'll get the job done in time to stop global warming.

 

[amish]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: Vic
What's wrong with the Industrialized World Lifestyle?

Do we need to go back to our mud huts?

Actually yes since we refuse to use the planet's resources responsibly.

you first. get rid of your cars, beloved boat, and home. you tell the 'chickenhawks' to sign up for iraq so why do you follow your own bullshit that you spew. so, dave, why don't you live in a mud hut first and let us know how you and your wife like it.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett
sandorski

Do you think about your positions or are you just parroting the environmental propaganda? If the goal is to stop further damage to the environment, shifting production from one country to another has NO EFFECT. The only thing is will do is shift pollution and money around the globe. If your goal is to artificially force wages in developed nations down significantly, while providing a small bump in wages in third world countries, you're on the right path. If your goal is reducing CO2 emissions, you've failed completely.

You assume that's the only way it would incur. The probblem is just not Production of Goods, it is in the Industrialized World primarily Lifestyle. Something you can't just Offshore.

What is this mythical "western lifestyle" if not the things we buy? If it can be bought, it can be offshored. Other than the fact our cars would still emit CO2 here, everything else would be shoved off on some poor country.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: sandorski

Originally posted by: BoberFett
sandorski

Do you think about your positions or are you just parroting the environmental propaganda? If the goal is to stop further damage to the environment, shifting production from one country to another has NO EFFECT. The only thing is will do is shift pollution and money around the globe. If your goal is to artificially force wages in developed nations down significantly, while providing a small bump in wages in third world countries, you're on the right path. If your goal is reducing CO2 emissions, you've failed completely.

You assume that's the only way it would incur. The probblem is just not Production of Goods, it is in the Industrialized World primarily Lifestyle. Something you can't just Offshore.

What is this mythical "western lifestyle" if not the things we buy? If it can be bought, it can be offshored. Other than the fact our cars would still emit CO2 here, everything else would be shoved off on some poor country.

"Lifestyle" encompasses many things. The key parts here are Electricity Production , Automobiles, certain forms of Industry(Petrochemicals, Refining, etc). Manufacturing itself isn't a Major CO2 producer, not directly at least, mostly indirectly.

Our use of Fossil Fuels is the main Culprit. That's why developing Alternatives and using them not only benefits us, but it benefits Developing Nations as well who can more easily adapt by BBuying other peoples Technology(aka-can't afford to Develope their own Alternatives).

You seem stuck in the notion that the only way to lower Our CO2 Emissions is to stop doing stuff. This has been the lame opposition tactic from the Anti-Kyoto/What Warming? crowd from the start. There is great Economic Opportunity here, don't miss out on it.

 

[firstdivision]

Originally posted by: Acanthus


The depleting of the Ozone layer was gospel for a while too. Until it inexplicably corrected itself, and the eco-nuts moved on to a different scare tactic.

corrected itself...where the heck have you been? Read up on current data Ozone Layer

 

[Enig101]

Well, according to recent data, the major hole in the ozone layer has actually increased. The reason you don't hear so much outcry about it any more is because we have actually cleaned up our act with regard to ozone-depleting chemicals. As this article explains though, it is quite bad at the moment. The good news is it will eventually patch itself up naturally, once the chemicals we introduced into the atmosphere diffuse in about 20 years.

 

[BrownTown]

Personally I think that the global warming problem might not be as huge a problem as everyone makes it out to be in terms of the replacement of fossil fuels. I know in history burning of fuels wich release CO2 has been the standard for all of human history (from wood to coal to oil and natural gas). Fortunately there are new technologies now which do not require CO2 production. Most notably nuclear power. If you say we need approximately 500 new nuke plants to be independant on carbon emmisions in electricity production that seems like a huge number. However, nuke plants are currently about tied with coal in terms of economics, so if you jsut start building nuke plants to replace all old coal plants as they reach their end of life, and to meet the growing demand for power you really are not costing anymore than would be spent normally for coal plants. If you really want to subsidize nuclear to make it deffinitely cost effective than lets say you give each comany to buidl one 500 million dollars for their effort. 500 million dollars time 600 plants is a ****** ton of money right? I mean thats 300 Billion dollars. But funnily enough thats the same amount that we have spent on the Iraq War, and it would have to be spent over 30 years, not 5. So, basically for the cost of another retarded war we could replace all coal generation with non-CO2 emmiting nuclear. I don't know the numbers for liquid fuels for cars and such, but if you assume that is another 300 Billion, then you get a total of 600 Billion of 30 years, or 20 Billion a year. Just cut down military spending 20% and Bang you jsut solved global warming with no additional incurment of debt. I guess it just boils down to whether we consider solving global warming is worth have less fighter planes and tanks etc... And lets not forget all this money is going towards jobs for americans building the infrastructure, so its not like we are hurting our economy AT ALL, jsut restructing our resources towards energy technology and away from military technology.

 

[dmcowen674]

12-5-2006 Alps are warmest in 1,300 years

VIENNA, Austria - Europe's Alpine region is going through its warmest period in 1,300 years, the head of an extensive climate study said Tuesday.

Reinhard Boehm, a climatologist at Austria's Central Institute for Meteorology and Geodynamics said.

Boehm based his comments on the results of a project conducted by a group of European institutes between March 2003 and August 2006.

Humans first had an impact on the global climate in the 1950s, Boehm said, noting that at first, the release of aerosols into the atmosphere cooled the climate. Since the 1980s, however, greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide and methane have warmed it up, he said.

"It will undoubtedly get warmer in the future," Boehm said.