 |
| |
|
|
axi
|
 |
Athens Greece
Sep 1999
time: 07:21
|
|
Oh come on, most naysayers here, if they ever were to face a normal crowd with their views, they would be laughed at. Only here, in the warped forum reality, such reactionary stuff are the norm.
quote:
First... he claims that if the people were in charge, there wouldn't be a problem in the US.
Then... he claims most of us are morons...
And he wonders why nobody takes his ranting seriously... |
Seems odd to me too, but it is something like a catch22. In a truly democratic political system, the political education of the citizens is the biggest priority, the citizens are more concerned, the media are unbiased and there is no one-sided propaganda. Thus, the people do not act (politically) as morons, as the capitalist status quo has the people do nowdays.
More later. I have a life you see....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
axi
|
|
Athens Greece
Sep 1999
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
I'm just amazed that he's capable of collapsing an incredibly complex science like climatology into a simplistic cause-and-effect relationship (American pollution --> armageddon). That takes either phenomenal skill or mind-boggling ignorance. |
I didn't say that only America is polluting. However America is polluting alot and more per capita than any other nation. I also mentioned the political and economical influence that the US can have in the struggle for the reduction of the emmision of greenhouse gases. So the US is the key of the problem. It is also the only nation that is treating the whole issue in a totally irresponsible manner, even denying the existence of the problem. Believe me, if there was any chance that our concerns about the global environment were moot, no state in the world would get in the fuss of discussing the Kyoto treaty.
IMO, what really takes either phenomenal skill or mind-boggling ignorance is the line of arguments that inverstigates even the slightest chance that the obvious won't happen and uses these ifs and maybes and the statistical error margins to flatly deny any action. Of course anybody who knows elementary statistics would tell you that to reject a proposal one has to perform a much more stricter test that the one needed to accept it. So it is much more difficult for you to prove your point than for me to prove mine.
quote:
1) your nature as a person who is easily excited by many issues and makes conclusions very quickly (how much time really has passed since you first heard about global warming until you blamed it on america?) |
I admit that I get easily excited, but only in contrast with other people who I see that are stubbornly insisting on being wrong. As for easy conclusions, one always has to choose a preferred hypothesis from the beginning and improve it as he learns stuff. Long ago I didn't really understand what was all the fuss about the Americans. Later, as I watched them go amock in the world (since that's what they've been doing during the last decade) anti-Americanism grew on me. It doesn't bother me, as long as I can put it in the correct basis, seing America as the vanguard-state of capitalism and as an apparatus guided by a mixture of interests of various lobbies and corporations. Likewise, since the 2nd Indifada, I found out that I am anti-Israeli too. It's not my fault that I feel that way, it's yours.
quote:
2) much of the information is first presented to you by anti-american bodies. While obviously the information it uses is usually real, the way it is first presented to you is mixed with alot of opinion and fiction. |
The same thing happens everywhere. All media are slightly biased. However I have a good reason to believe that Greek media are much less biased that the US media. They have less reasons to be biased. In fact, in issues where the US-EU rivalry doesn't come into play (f.e. terrorism, peripheral wars), the Greek media are totally biased in favor of the Americans, in an effort to reduce the vivid anti-American sentiment of the population.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Adam Smith
|
 |
Maryland, USA
Jan 1970
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by axi
Nature provides me with all the proof I need. |
See my initial post yesterday disputing your "proof"
quote:
Originally posted by axi All I do is express an opinion |
Which isn't worth much without a factual basis. 
quote:
Originally posted by Lemmy
China is an Annex II country, not yet required to cut its emissions. But it is reported to have cut its emissions of the main gas listed in the protocol, carbon dioxide, by 17% since the mid-1990s. In the same period its economy has grown by one-third. |
I was in China in February, 1996 and again in July, 1998. I find this very hard to believe given
1. The rapid shift in personal transportation from bicycles to combustion powered vehicles (which have essentially none of the pollution controls found in developed countries);
2. The rapid growth in airline travel; and
3. Chinese coal consumptiton has declined recently due to the asian economic crisis and closure of inefficient state industries. However, this trend will soon be reversed as coal-fired electricity generation increases. China consumes about 25 percent more coal than the US, and their coal is softer, which means it generates more CO2 per ton of coal burned.
I suspect this is another case of the Chinese government cooking the books. IIRC, most parties recognize that monitoring is somewhat of a problem under Kyoto.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
axi
|
|
Athens Greece
Sep 1999
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
The fact that he says we are a cause of global warning doesn't offend me. We, LIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD, are causing it. I am offended when he calls us morons... and takes a hollier than thou attitude implying America is the only cause of global warming And that is why this is just a stupid and moronic troll... and one that has been done before as well... |
Well, Ming, since you accept that there is a problem, you obviously do not belong to the morons I'm talking about. OTOH, you declare believe in the sincerity of the Bush administration's objections to signing the treaty (which is to be expected as you are a Republican IIRC).
But I guess you are not REALLY intersted in the problem, are you? Why would you be, anyway. You live well inside a continent, in a area with lots of water and other resources, you are neither a farmer nor something else climate-related, you are rich enough to install A/C even in your dog's house, so why worry? Cheap gas is all you hav to worry about.
OTOH, if you were say a landless farmer in Banghladesh and you were living along with 1000 other people on a tiny strip of land inside the delta of a huge river, knowing that tomorrow there is a big chance that this land will be washed away, along with one or two of your kids perhaps, THEN you would be REALLY interested. Only then you wouldn't have an internet connection to talk about it.
As for my hollier than thou attitude... Hmm, I guess I am not really concerned about the issue either. I may be poorer than you and I may live in a more sensitive area, but still, I am fathoms away of suffering any major disaster in my life because of global warming (at least I think I am). Nevertheless, I feel that it is woth it to support a just cause only because of an idealistic sense of duty. Specially if this cause puts you at odds with the powers that be, then such an attitude is much more dignified in my book than just conforming. I'm used to speak against the norm and against my interests - it doesn't bother me as long as I'm speaking in line with my ideals and my own perception of the truth.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
alofatti
|
|
"The cost of enforcing Kyoto- $150 to 300 billion a year- is simply unacceptable for POSSIBLY staving off the situation you describe. With that chunk of change, you could provide the entire Third World with sanitary drinking water and provide a profound increase in public health service to these same countries. A colossal waste of money and resources, IMO."
Then, why don´t they spend it in Third World countries??
|
|
| |
|
|
|
spartak
|
|
Who? Surely not Ming?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:21
|
|
I'm a modern, liberal, pro-Conservation, anti-pollution kinda guy. Hell, I live in NEW ZEALAND - the country where, if you don't believe in anti-pollution measures, you are dead. I thought global warming was a very real, provable kinda phenomenon, until strangely I needed to write an essay on it in French at my final university year. In my researches, I found reports that the average global temperature had increased by something like 0.0001 degress in 30 years. Hardly conclusive evidence of global warming. Furthermore, the global CO2 levels had increased, but not nearly by as much as at other times throughout geological history, in records from ice cores out of Greenland.
Call me crazy, but in scientific matters such as this, I like to look at scientific evidence. Assuming I wasn't lied to in three separate journals, I have been convinced that global warming. although not ruled out, is unprovable from such evidence.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
This is funny. Okay, I'll agree with the Anti-treaty people's argument that science cannot prove that global warming is occuring. The climate system is just too complex to allow good prediction of long term trends.
But economic systems are also too complex to predict things accurately. Yet you anti-treaty guys seem to have no trouble believing the doom and gloom cost predictions that you toss around. Why is this? How are you sure that the move to new technologies and enhanced efficiencies won't pay for the whole cost of the switchover---- with a huge bonus?
Let me state this reducio ad absudum a little more formally. Your argument, in a nutshell, is: "Science can't prove that global warming is occuring and even if it is, it may not be bad." Okay fine. So an equally valid argument would be: "Economics can't prove that Kyoto has any costs and even if it does, those costs may be offset by great benefits." Right? Right.
And, if you believe that the lack of certainty about global warming means that global warming is nothing to worry about, then surely you should also believe that the lack of certainty about costs means that costs are nothing to worry about. After all, we could end up making money on the deal, just as global warming might prove to be a good thing.
So, by your own reasoning, Kyoto doesn't do anything. But it doesn't cost anything either. So why doesn't the US sign it just to be friendly? 
Hurts a little, getting hit by a big stick of logic, doesn't it?
Last edited by Vanguard on 17-08-2002 at 00:19
|
|
| |
|
|
|
frostycreep
|
|
Devon, England
May 2002
time: 05:21
|
|
Everyone here dosent even see global warming as a problem. Well there are a couple of holes in the o-zone layer, thats proven. What if we burned the whole thing so it dissapeared, then surely something bad would happen! I think global warming is real and it will cause real problems in the world, in the future. But if America is researching into it like someone here has mentioned then at least they except that its a problem. Maybe the kyoto agreement does have flaws but i still think something has to be done. We cant adopt the attitude of 'well nothing bads happend yet so we might as well ignore it'.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
axi
|
|
Athens Greece
Sep 1999
time: 07:21
|
|
quote:
My ignore list just grew by 1. Frickin idiot. |
Somebody please tell connorkimbro that ignoring a problem doesn't make the problem dissapear. The same happens with persons too.
quote:
More proof that this is just a moronic troll... I guess you didn't even bother to read YOUR own thread... If you had decided to actually discuss vs your senseless silly and anti american trolling, you would have taken the time to see that I had posted the following:
quote:
My POV on this subject is actually quite different.
The agreement is flawed. I wouldn't have signed it as currently written either. However, I would have stayed at the table to work out an agreement that wasn't flawed... and then, once a more realistic and non-flawed treaty was developed, I would cram it down the Senate's throat.
So stop trying to "guess" what people think or believe.
You are just proving that you have no debating skills, and that you are just blowing smoke.
You talk about truth... you wouldn't know truth if it slapped you across the back of the head... as proven by the fact that you didn't even bother to read through your thread before posting more moronic crap. To know truth, you need to at least look for it instead of just making it up. |
I had read this post of yours. You made the hasty conclusion that I hadn't read it. I mentioned your POV. About the part about "staying on the negotiations table" this depends on what are you trying to make of the Kyoto treaty. If you want to really do something about the environment, of course you stay, but you negotiate a much broader treaty to be globally enforced. If OTOH you just want to make the treaty just another useless (and harmless) piece of paper, like I think Bush wants, then your strategy depends on the occasion. Bush figured out that he couldn't do anything to neutralise the treaty from inside, so he walks away.
And I was takling about "my own perception of the truth". If it is in contrast with your own perception, only discussion or solid facts can reconcile the difference.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Vanguard
|
|
Monster Island
Apr 1999
time: 05:21
|
|
John Miller: quote:
Actually this is extremely untrue. Global Warming has no chance of doing this, none at all.
Now there might be some chance of it ending human life on this planet, but even that is probably about as big as the chance caused by you sneezing (ie neglible).[quote]
[quote] from global warming the earth's ballance will stay within the limits life can tolerate (do you have any idea what life can tolerate??)
the only thing which could end life on this planet would be something like the death stars weapon fired on us (or in fact anything which would heat our entire surface and atmosphere (the whole planet in fact) to a 1000 degrees)
hell, an atomic war between the US and USSR in which all nuclear weapons were used could not end life on this planet
that is far more likely than global warming ending just human life (as I said, there is no chance (not even .000000000000000000000000000000001%) for global warming to destroy all life on this planet) |
I have admitted that current climatological science cannot positively prove whether or not global warming is going on. But then what are these assertions of yours based on? Not climatological science, certainly, since we all agree that it can't prove much about the long term effects of CO2 emissions. So all this is nothing more than wishful thinking and hot air.
For what it is worth, I will once again state that the chance of a runaway greenhouse effect destroying all life on Earth is slight. But this scenario seems to have a lot more scientific basis than your assertions. And regardless of the chance of a greenhouse doomsday, global warming still seems likely to be A Very Bad Thing.
Wraith: quote:
Yeah. It means that the warming they're predicting for 2100 would happen about four year later. The cost of this is uncertain, but estimates seem to range from high to extremely high |
Which is it? Is climatologic science so imprecise that we have no idea whether or global warming is happening or not? Or is it so precise that we know that the exact effects of Kyoto will be slight one hundred years from now.
If climatology is imprecise then global warming could also be much worse than we think it is. After all, not even the most alarmist eco-nut predicted that the Ross ice shelf would collapse. Yet it has.
If this is the case then the sooner we do something the better. Cost is irrelevent.
If on the other hand climatology can predict precisely what the CO2 levels will be a century from now, then it is only prudent to rely on the best evidence available-----that global CO2 levels are rising to historic levels, that CO2 contributes to warming and that global temperatures are likely warming.
In this case, we will have to make the changes Kyoto mandates anyway at some point. Cost is not irrelevent, but since the costs of Kyoto will probably be basically the same (as a percentage of GDP) whether we make them now or fifty years from now, it makes good sense to make them now. That way will get the maximum ecological benefit and be no worse off otherwise.
--------------
The fact that you are uncertain of the effects your actions does not mean that your best choice is to do nothing. When you are not certain of a course of action, you should generally try to move in the direction of Goodness and away from Badness.
In this case, it appears clear to me that higher CO2 emissions go in the direction of Badness. And more efficient energy consumption and decreased emissions seemingly cannot be anything but Goodness.
Costs, of course, are always Bad. But there are costs in both decision trees. Just because you can pretend to measure the costs of the Kyoto branch as "200-300 billion dollars a year" does not mean that those costs are lower than the inestimable branch that includes such results as submerging half of the world's cities.
So, overall, we should move in the direction of Goodness-----less emissions.
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-08-2002 19:07
|