 |
|  |
 |
|
axi
|
 |
Athens Greece
Sep 1999 time: 07:21
|
|
The following unprecedented events are occuring all over the world SIMULTANEOUSLY:
- In Central Europe (Germany, Chechoslovakia, Austria) and in some parts of Asia (Nepal) serious floods have resulted to the death of ~300 people and to the evacuation of whole cities, causing the displacement of hundends of thousands of people, despite this happening in one of the best equipped and organised regions of the world. Note that the best part of Europe has seen unprecedented rainfall, specially the Mediterranean areas, where the freaky weather has ruined tourism.
- In the biggest part of Asia (from Afghanistan to Malaysia, to Manchuria), a 3 km thick toxic smog has forced everybody to circulate wearing gas masks and has led to the death of up to 2.000.000 people due to respiratory problems. The smog has been caused by the uncontrollable burning of biomass by the local population and by the military operations in Afghanistan.
- In North America and some parts of Asia (India) crops are destroyed by an unprecedented drought.
My country shares this freaky weather too, although it has been spared the havoc caused in the rest of the continent. Half the country has seen no rain during the whole month, while the other half has had a 200-600% increase in rainfall. Temperatures (both min and max) in July were up 1-3 degrees above normal in every part of the country.
Every damn climatologist in the world is crying that all this is caused by global warming, which is caused by the greenhouse effect, which is caused by greenhouse gases, which are produced by human activities, mainly the petroleum industry and the consumption of fossil fuels for automotion and electricity.
The United States are the biggest producer of greenhouse gases and they have increased, along with Asia, their emmisions during the 90s, despite the Rio convention and the Kyoto protocol, which the United States government refuses to ratify. The American capitalists refuse to face the climate problem at it's root and choose a self-destructive hardliner policy which basicaslly says: screw the environment, screw the planet, all we care about is profit and more profit.
All these are well known. What I am really curious about is how many people (in the US mainly) still believe in all the crap that is served to them by the petroleum magnates and continue to support the policy of the Bush administration. Basically, I am really curious to see how many morons still roam free in that madhouse of country.
So what say you?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jon Miller
|
|
There are a lot of people who doubt the severity of global warming
I for one think that global warming is one of the least concerning environmental concerns (I think it is slight and does not matter much compared to many other environmental problems)
I know many others who don't even think it exists
Jon Miller
|
|
|  |
 |
|
optimus2861
|
|
Halifax, NS
Nov 2000 time: 01:21
|
|
Actually, the drought in Western Canada isn't unprecedented; there was a far worse drought in the 1930s that turned the Prairies into a big dustbowl. Some climatoligists here in Canada believe that it's a cyclical event, and that within the next 10-20 years this magnitude drought will occur again (if this isn't it, now). I haven't heard the term "global warming" applied once to this one.
See http://cbc.ca/news/features/drought2002_timeline.html for more info.
I don't mean to downplay the potential threat of global warming, or that we don't need to clean up our pollution problems, but at the same time, not every environmental problem needs to be blamed on the same boogeyman. That's just environmental alarmism.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
frostycreep
|
|
Devon, England
May 2002 time: 05:21
|
|
I agree with what axi is saying though. Sorry if that offends any Americans but I really do think that global warming is a major problem.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
Ned
|
 |
of Aptos, CA
Oct 1999 time: 21:21
|
|
Axi, Did you know that California has, on its own, passed a law limiting CO2 emissions of cars?
I also favor making choices in favor of reduced emissions. I am strongly in favor of nuclear power. The problem I see here in California is that we don't seem to want power plants here. We are quite content to buy power from outside the state at the cheapest prices. What this encourages is the building of cheap, high polluting plants in Mexico to ship power to California.
This said, the problem I personally have with "global warming" is that the "forecast" weather for the United States and Canada is "good." We will see a 100% increase in agriculture primarily due to longer growing seasons. As well, the longer growing seasons by themselves, not only here, but across the entire north, will benefit agriculture and also act as a major CO2 sink.
With all this in mind, it will be very hard for Americans to accept draconian choices to reduce global warming when the beneficiaries, if any, will be those outside the United States. It will also be very hard to pursuade Americans when we are singled out while major polluters such as India and China are not. (What is this "war in Afghanistan" bit? More outrageous anti-American crap.)
In fact, I don't understand Europe. Europe as a whole also stands to benefit. Why are they the leaders in draconian measures?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Jac de Molay
|
 |
Detroit
Sep 2001 time: 05:21
|
|
quote: This said, the problem I personally have with "global warming" is that the "forecast" weather for the United States and Canada is "good." We will see a 100% increase in agriculture primarily due to longer growing seasons. As well, the longer growing seasons by themselves, not only here, but across the entire north, will benefit agriculture and also act as a major CO2 sink. |
But can we know for sure that what you describe will happen? So far, at least the last ten years, there has been significantly less rainfall in the agricultural states like Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan. Furthermore, the levels of the Great Lakes are the lowest they've been in the last century. So far, these "optimistic" predictions have not occured
It's hard to separate the wheat from the chaff when attributing current conditions to global warming.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Caligastia
|
|
Kyoto would only decimate the world economy.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970 time: 00:21
|
|
quote: Originally posted by axi
- In the biggest part of Asia (from Afghanistan to Malaysia, to Manchuria), a 3 km thick toxic smog has forced everybody to circulate wearing gas masks and has led to the death of up to 2.000.000 people due to respiratory problems. The smog has been caused by the uncontrollable burning of biomass by the local population and by the military operations in Afghanistan. | Do you have a cite for this? A recent BBC article indicates that quote: The haze is the result of forest fires, the burning of agricultural wastes, dramatic increases in the burning of fossil fuels in vehicles, industries and power stations, and emissions from millions of inefficient cookers burning wood, cow dung and other 'bio-fuels' | Not one word about Afghanistan or two million people killed. Guess you just threw those in for effect?
quote: Originally posted by axi Every damn climatologist in the world is crying that all this is caused by global warming | Not nearly every one. HERE is what one US government climate expert said yesterday quote: The extreme rains in Europe are not a result of El Niņo and should not be blamed on global warming, said Christophe Cassou, a climate expert at the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colo. Although scientists believe global warming will create more episodes of extreme weather, no single episode can confidently be attributed to it, he said Wednesday.
(edit: )Instead, a strong high-pressure area off Spain and a strong low-pressure area between Iceland and Norway are setting the stage for more storms and heavy rainfall in central and eastern Europe, Cassou said. |
And just in case you think that this view of current event is limited to the US, HERE is another report from the BBC on Sunday indicating that quote: The weather phenomenon El Nino is being blamed by scientists for the freak weather conditions which have caused chaos and many deaths around the world.
....
When it last hit, four years ago, floods and drought devastated several developing countries in South America, Africa and East Asia. | , though the report does indicate farther down that quote: Scientists say that as the planet continues to warm, these effects of El Nino will be felt more and more often | thoughthat does not appear to be part of your argument.
I think that all of the world, not just developed countries, should be doing more than they are to reduce global warming. After all, the atmosphere does not care where the next ton of pollution comes from. But it is trolls like this which make it hard to take some proponents seriously. Come to think of it, do you have any support for any of the statements you made?
Last edited by Adam Smith on 15-08-2002 at 21:53
|
|
|  |
 |
|
frostycreep
|
|
Devon, England
May 2002 time: 05:21
|
|
Has anyone got a link to the Kyoto agreement and what it consists of? Im just curious to know what it involves as its unfair of me to argue why everyone should sign it, if i dont know exactly what it involves.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
frostycreep
|
|
Devon, England
May 2002 time: 05:21
|
|
Can anyone here give me a run down about what the Kyoto agreement consists of? Im just really curious as i havent really looked into it before but I am worried about global warming. If it does have lots of flaws then i can understand why not everyone wants to sign it.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
OneFootInTheGrave
|
 |
Kuzelj
Nov 2000 time: 05:21
|
|
Not only that we are all in this together, but I might rethink and stay here in UK as by the time I will become a pensioner this will turn into a TROPICAL PARADISE 
And I will not need to go anywhere else

---
seriously though,
how can you believe the political/business PR fluff, they would sell their souls for the profits, not to mention outright lie about the effects of our hughe CO2 "production", as if oil directors are any better than their tobacco industry counterparts and if anyone will be able to outlive the possible catastropphe they will be the ones.
1. do we produce extensive emissions of CO2, more than ever in earths history? - TRUE
2. does that have an effect? - True
3. Does this effect show instantanously? No - (less than 50% increase in atmosphere as opposed to the output)
4. Where does it go - forests/ oceans absorb the rest so far
5. Will this go on forever? No
6. What are the consequences once the level goes too high? - that is a question that the "politicians" and some climatologists don't seem to agree on.
The consequences can be none whatsoever - or they can be devastating climtic changes.
Just the normal logic would tell you when you change a part of a substance the qualities of the substance change in effect.
The substance is the atmosphere. Will its qualities change - undoubtebly. I think most of you will agree with me on that.
However you we will not agree how will it change, as it has not been thoughly tested i presume, and some experts disagree...
But isn't the bare fact that it IS changing enough, and that it can go horribly wrong with us unable to control the weather indeed (unless US hasn't devised one of those Tesla weather control devices )
And to make it more disturbing, you side with mr Bush who has the interests of the big business at hart and in whose interests is clearly - no th have any short term strike on our profits - and as far as they being interested in the truth, just look at their other Enron/MSI/tobacco counterparts and tell me how can you rely on them for honest (non PR spinned) opinion.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21. Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|