<!--QuoteBegin-Spooge+Feb 22 2005, 02:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Spooge @ Feb 22 2005, 02:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> <!--QuoteBegin-theclam+Feb 22 2005, 02:02 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (theclam @ Feb 22 2005, 02:02 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> Spooge's link referenced The National Center for Public Policy Research, a conservative think tank. When he cites an impartial scientific study, then we should believe him. <!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Find an impartial scientific study and I'll show you the same study is influenced financially/politically in one way or the other.
Moultano and I agree here that <u>factual science</u> (not truthful science) needs to be continually verified by multiple tests and sources to be considered legitimate. As it stands, in my opinion, there is too much junk science out there to pinpoint cause for climate changes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Well, if we don't know that much about it, then we should play it safe and try to reduce emissions (maybe not by Kyoto, if there are specific problems with it). If it turns out that there is no global warming, then we lost a little bit of money from making our factories cleaner. If it turns out that there is global warming, then we haven't lost New Orleans, New York, Bangladesh, and the Netherlands to rising seas.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And what the hell does Kyoto have to do with socialism?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Money.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd--> Not every left-leaning proposal with economic ideas deals with socialism. Instituting laws to lower greenhouse emissions is enviromentalism, not socialism.
from wikipedia: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Each Annex I country has agreed to limit emissions to the levels described in the protocol, but many countries have limits that are set above their current production. These "extra amounts" can be purchased by other countries on the open market. So, for instance, Russia currently easily meets its targets, and can sell off its credits for millions of dollars to countries that don't yet meet their targets, to Canada for instance. This rewards countries that meet their targets, and provides financial incentives to others to do so as soon as possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In other words, since America would never meet our targets (imposed on us by other countries no less) we would be forced to "buy" carbon credits (weath redistribution) from poorer countries who "meet" their less stringent targets.
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Feb 22 2005, 02:40 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Feb 22 2005, 02:40 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> from wikipedia: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Each Annex I country has agreed to limit emissions to the levels described in the protocol, but many countries have limits that are set above their current production. These "extra amounts" can be purchased by other countries on the open market. So, for instance, Russia currently easily meets its targets, and can sell off its credits for millions of dollars to countries that don't yet meet their targets, to Canada for instance. This rewards countries that meet their targets, and provides financial incentives to others to do so as soon as possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In other words, since America would never meet our targets (imposed on us by other countries no less) we would be forced to "buy" carbon credits (weath redistribution) from poorer countries who "meet" their less stringent targets.
Sounds a bit like a sham to me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Each country's target is set to a goal that can actually be met. It is also set in a way so that countries that already give off very few greenhouse gases won't increase by very much.
The goal isn't imposed on us by other countries. We were the ones to decide whether to impose the goals on ourself, but we didn't do that.
We also don't have to buy "carbon credits" if we meet our goals.
It may be slightly socialistic, but you're just dismissing its valid issues by saying, "Keoto is simply world wide socialism with an excuse."
from wiki: <!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut). The goal is to lower overall emissions from six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an average over the five-year period of 2008-12. National targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so from today, we have to cut 29% of our emissions - as a nation - rather unrealistic (or face rather stringent fines).
To top it off, this is all based on shakey evidence supported by traditionally socialistic factions within our country and the rest of the world. This is not a band wagon that needs jumping on.
I think people need to realize that we aren't as powerful as we think we are. We can not change the earths climate, even if we tried. Global warming and cooling is so much bigger than humanity, to try to blame it on us gives us too much credit.
Furthermore, this whole Kyoto thing is being pinned sqarely on GWB's shoulders - as though he is an environmental bad guy for not supporting crappy science. Aparently, because he doesn't support it, America is now solely responsible for any global warming catastrophy.
As you can see, America (and GWB) is caught between a rock and a hard place. Either A: he supports it, our economy goes in the tank, and everyone in America is mad - or B: He doesn't support it, he is anti-environment, and the whole world is mad.
Being that I am of the position that we don't owe the world squat - I think he made the right choice.
How can you just call it crappy science without any evidence to back up your arguments, and how do you justify 'traditionally socialistic factions'. Also, to say America is solely responsible for global warming is of course an exaggeration, but America is the single largest producer of greenhouse gases, which is pretty significant seeing as America only makes up for something like 4% of the worlds population. So to say it is all their fault is probably unreasonable, but it is reasonable to say they should share the responsibility for global warming.
Any guesses on how Bush is going to dismiss this? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> GOD WANTED GLOBAL WARMING!
moultanoCreator of ns_shiva.Join Date: 2002-12-14Member: 10806Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Gold, NS2 Community Developer, Pistachionauts
<!--QuoteBegin-Pepe Muffassa+Feb 22 2005, 03:01 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Pepe Muffassa @ Feb 22 2005, 03:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> I think people need to realize that we aren't as powerful as we think we are. We can not change the earths climate, even if we tried. Global warming and cooling is so much bigger than humanity, to try to blame it on us gives us too much credit. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Just curious, but did you read the articles I linked to?
Yes - I have read the articles - and I question them.
They basically said that they dropped a thermometer 700m down into the atlantic starting 40 years ago, and they have messured a warming "change" that matches a computer model that implies that Only Man-Made Co2 emissions could be responsible.
First of all, I fault their methods. They made a computer model that suposedly simulated "man-made" warming - then compaired it to the data, noticed a similarity, and called it "proof".
Second, they haven't published any temperatures that they have collected. For all I know, at 700m were talking .0001 degrees - which could be contributed to an extra cloudy day when they took the measurments.
Third - they ruled out the sun - you know, the big STAR that puts out ~a billion times more energy than man made stuff ever could - which by the way is fluxuating a lot this century - but they rule it out - just like that. "it doesn't fit the model".
Fourth - it seems their agenda is strong. Every article mentioned how USA and Ausie should now (because of these findings) join Kyoto. Uter BS - if your findings are that good, they should stand on their own. "Global Warming" does not need to be at the forefront of every politicians mind (as one article stated).
Kyoto has very little it can do to prevent global warming, and a whole lot it can do to slap fines on the US. By the articles own admission - there isn't a whole lot we can do now anyway.
I think the real question is; is this really a bad thing? I mean sure, the coasts are screwed, but I never liked LA or New York that much (though the loss of Holland would suck), and this is by far the nicest winter ever. Middle of the moutains in Montana I was wearing T-shirts in the middle of january. Prehaps we should look at this as the blessing that it is, instead of debating why its happening, and start looking forward to the day the thong is consider practical and appropiate office attire. <!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin-fix.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin-fix.gif' /><!--endemo-->.
In all seriousness though, this is an issue that is too complex for one study to really discover the causes. The world is warming up, but then again, around the year 1,000 CE, when Iceland was being colonized by the Norse, it was warmer than it is now. Before launching off into History, I was studying geology and paleotology. Climatic studies was a fairly important part of one of my classes, Historical Geology (Geol 330 at the college I was going to if i remember corectly) and the section on global warming was the most balanced and indepth look at the issue I've ever seen.
Basicaly, from what I learned in that class, and from what I've seen outside of it is this: a) there is a current trend towards global warming b)this is probably being caused by <b><u>BOTH</u></b> natural processes, and human activity which encourages the natural trends (though to what degree is very debatable) c) this issue is too politcaly charged for there to be an truely objevtive study done about it. I think this was brought up earlier, but science is not the impartial objective look at the world that we like to pretend it is. Not saying the the scientists are at fault, or don't try to be objective, but from my experiances dealing with science (worked as a lab tech for 6 years now, in three distinct areas, attended college for a while with intent of becoming one, and in my first feild of interst and lab work, paleotology, was able to particpate in both research with the some of the top people in the field, and also in confrences where all the top people in the feild were in the same room, point of that is, I've seen what I'm talking about) scientists are just as human as anyone else, and as such are ruled by their emotions more than they would admit.
As an example, the evidence for the theory that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs is very shakey. But its a nice, plesant idea to paleotologists, so a lot of people have got behind it. The problem is, that the people who have done work that contradicts this idea aren't as popular as some fo the people who support the idea. The result, the work of these not so popluar people is ignored, and the careers are greatly hampered by supporting what seems to be the truth.
This sort of occurance is one thing in a field like paleotology, which frankly has little bearing on our lives beyond knowelge for the sake of knowlege. In fields that do affect our everyday lives, like meidcal studies, or modern climatology, such practices are exceedly dangerous. We, the public, need to educate ourselves to the point where we can look at the studies and at least be able to question them, instead of blindly follwoing what some scientist has to say.
<!--QuoteBegin-Euoplocephalus+Feb 23 2005, 03:47 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> (Euoplocephalus @ Feb 23 2005, 03:47 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--> This sort of occurance is one thing in a field like paleotology, which frankly has little bearing on our lives beyond knowelge for the sake of knowlege. In fields that do affect our everyday lives, like meidcal studies, or modern climatology, such practices are exceedly dangerous. We, the public, need to educate ourselves to the point where we can look at the studies and at least be able to question them, instead of blindly follwoing what some scientist has to say. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd--> The movie <i>Lorenzo's oil</i> demonstrates this perfectly as far as the medical field is concerned. If any of you haven’t seen it I suggest you do it's a good watch even if you don't care for the topic at hand. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->
Comments
Find an impartial scientific study and I'll show you the same study is influenced financially/politically in one way or the other.
Moultano and I agree here that <u>factual science</u> (not truthful science) needs to be continually verified by multiple tests and sources to be considered legitimate.
As it stands, in my opinion, there is too much junk science out there to pinpoint cause for climate changes. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if we don't know that much about it, then we should play it safe and try to reduce emissions (maybe not by Kyoto, if there are specific problems with it). If it turns out that there is no global warming, then we lost a little bit of money from making our factories cleaner. If it turns out that there is global warming, then we haven't lost New Orleans, New York, Bangladesh, and the Netherlands to rising seas.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->And what the hell does Kyoto have to do with socialism?<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Money.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not every left-leaning proposal with economic ideas deals with socialism. Instituting laws to lower greenhouse emissions is enviromentalism, not socialism.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Each Annex I country has agreed to limit emissions to the levels described in the protocol, but many countries have limits that are set above their current production. These "extra amounts" can be purchased by other countries on the open market. So, for instance, Russia currently easily meets its targets, and can sell off its credits for millions of dollars to countries that don't yet meet their targets, to Canada for instance. This rewards countries that meet their targets, and provides financial incentives to others to do so as soon as possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In other words, since America would never meet our targets (imposed on us by other countries no less) we would be forced to "buy" carbon credits (weath redistribution) from poorer countries who "meet" their less stringent targets.
Sounds a bit like a sham to me.
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Each Annex I country has agreed to limit emissions to the levels described in the protocol, but many countries have limits that are set above their current production. These "extra amounts" can be purchased by other countries on the open market. So, for instance, Russia currently easily meets its targets, and can sell off its credits for millions of dollars to countries that don't yet meet their targets, to Canada for instance. This rewards countries that meet their targets, and provides financial incentives to others to do so as soon as possible.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In other words, since America would never meet our targets (imposed on us by other countries no less) we would be forced to "buy" carbon credits (weath redistribution) from poorer countries who "meet" their less stringent targets.
Sounds a bit like a sham to me. <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
Each country's target is set to a goal that can actually be met. It is also set in a way so that countries that already give off very few greenhouse gases won't increase by very much.
The goal isn't imposed on us by other countries. We were the ones to decide whether to impose the goals on ourself, but we didn't do that.
We also don't have to buy "carbon credits" if we meet our goals.
It may be slightly socialistic, but you're just dismissing its valid issues by saying, "Keoto is simply world wide socialism with an excuse."
<!--QuoteBegin--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->The Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990 (but note that, compared to the emissions levels that would be expected by 2010 without the Protocol, this target represents a 29% cut). The goal is to lower overall emissions from six greenhouse gases - carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulphur hexafluoride, HFCs, and PFCs - calculated as an average over the five-year period of 2008-12. National targets range from 8% reductions for the European Union and some others to 7% for the US, 6% for Japan, 0% for Russia, and permitted increases of 8% for Australia and 10% for Iceland."<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
so from today, we have to cut 29% of our emissions - as a nation - rather unrealistic (or face rather stringent fines).
To top it off, this is all based on shakey evidence supported by traditionally socialistic factions within our country and the rest of the world. This is not a band wagon that needs jumping on.
I think people need to realize that we aren't as powerful as we think we are. We can not change the earths climate, even if we tried. Global warming and cooling is so much bigger than humanity, to try to blame it on us gives us too much credit.
Furthermore, this whole Kyoto thing is being pinned sqarely on GWB's shoulders - as though he is an environmental bad guy for not supporting crappy science. Aparently, because he doesn't support it, America is now solely responsible for any global warming catastrophy.
As you can see, America (and GWB) is caught between a rock and a hard place. Either A: he supports it, our economy goes in the tank, and everyone in America is mad - or B: He doesn't support it, he is anti-environment, and the whole world is mad.
Being that I am of the position that we don't owe the world squat - I think he made the right choice.
<a href='http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science/20050218-9999-7m18ocean.html' target='_blank'>http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/science...-7m18ocean.html</a>
<a href='http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/212606_warming18.html' target='_blank'>http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/212606_warming18.html</a>
<a href='http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html' target='_blank'>http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html</a>
Any guesses on how Bush is going to dismiss this? <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><div class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
GOD WANTED GLOBAL WARMING!
Seriousness, Global climate change has been happening since uh...forever.
<a href='http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age' target='_blank'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age</a>
But wait....what saved us?
<a href='http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4035704' target='_blank'>SUVs that drive in circles all day and millions of flatulent cattle.</a>
Good job everyone! We just saved ourselves.
Just curious, but did you read the articles I linked to?
They basically said that they dropped a thermometer 700m down into the atlantic starting 40 years ago, and they have messured a warming "change" that matches a computer model that implies that Only Man-Made Co2 emissions could be responsible.
First of all, I fault their methods. They made a computer model that suposedly simulated "man-made" warming - then compaired it to the data, noticed a similarity, and called it "proof".
Second, they haven't published any temperatures that they have collected. For all I know, at 700m were talking .0001 degrees - which could be contributed to an extra cloudy day when they took the measurments.
Third - they ruled out the sun - you know, the big STAR that puts out ~a billion times more energy than man made stuff ever could - which by the way is fluxuating a lot this century - but they rule it out - just like that. "it doesn't fit the model".
Fourth - it seems their agenda is strong. Every article mentioned how USA and Ausie should now (because of these findings) join Kyoto. Uter BS - if your findings are that good, they should stand on their own. "Global Warming" does not need to be at the forefront of every politicians mind (as one article stated).
Kyoto has very little it can do to prevent global warming, and a whole lot it can do to slap fines on the US. By the articles own admission - there isn't a whole lot we can do now anyway.
In all seriousness though, this is an issue that is too complex for one study to really discover the causes. The world is warming up, but then again, around the year 1,000 CE, when Iceland was being colonized by the Norse, it was warmer than it is now. Before launching off into History, I was studying geology and paleotology. Climatic studies was a fairly important part of one of my classes, Historical Geology (Geol 330 at the college I was going to if i remember corectly) and the section on global warming was the most balanced and indepth look at the issue I've ever seen.
Basicaly, from what I learned in that class, and from what I've seen outside of it is this:
a) there is a current trend towards global warming
b)this is probably being caused by <b><u>BOTH</u></b> natural processes, and human activity which encourages the natural trends (though to what degree is very debatable)
c) this issue is too politcaly charged for there to be an truely objevtive study done about it.
I think this was brought up earlier, but science is not the impartial objective look at the world that we like to pretend it is. Not saying the the scientists are at fault, or don't try to be objective, but from my experiances dealing with science (worked as a lab tech for 6 years now, in three distinct areas, attended college for a while with intent of becoming one, and in my first feild of interst and lab work, paleotology, was able to particpate in both research with the some of the top people in the field, and also in confrences where all the top people in the feild were in the same room, point of that is, I've seen what I'm talking about) scientists are just as human as anyone else, and as such are ruled by their emotions more than they would admit.
As an example, the evidence for the theory that an asteroid killed the dinosaurs is very shakey. But its a nice, plesant idea to paleotologists, so a lot of people have got behind it. The problem is, that the people who have done work that contradicts this idea aren't as popular as some fo the people who support the idea. The result, the work of these not so popluar people is ignored, and the careers are greatly hampered by supporting what seems to be the truth.
This sort of occurance is one thing in a field like paleotology, which frankly has little bearing on our lives beyond knowelge for the sake of knowlege. In fields that do affect our everyday lives, like meidcal studies, or modern climatology, such practices are exceedly dangerous. We, the public, need to educate ourselves to the point where we can look at the studies and at least be able to question them, instead of blindly follwoing what some scientist has to say.
The movie <i>Lorenzo's oil</i> demonstrates this perfectly as far as the medical field is concerned. If any of you haven’t seen it I suggest you do it's a good watch even if you don't care for the topic at hand. <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif' /><!--endemo-->