Global Warming?

[Army]

I don't know why you people think America's pollution being lower than the 60s and 70s has anything at all to do with the global scale of pollution. Talk about narrowminded Americentrism.

Really? Narrow minded? Just who exactly is the Kyoto Treaty aimed at? Not China, or India, or the middle east. It's aimed at America, with our industry that has taken care of the world since WWII. Sure we use a lot of resources, we also produce more than any other country...for the benefit of other countries. California, if it were its own country, would have the worlds 5th largest economy. Yup, we get to be self-righteous, we earned it.

Besides, the measurements you propose (California/Los Angeles smog/US urban pollution) are fallacious. The areas affected are paticularly susceptible to pollution due to the weather patterns and geography.

In the '60's and '70's, the scare was global COOLING due to the amount of pollution. The LA area is a prime example. Air pollution then was immense, and even gave birth to the word 'smog'. Smog alerts were a daily event, telling people to limit their outdoor exposure. The industry policed itself, local/state laws were signed, and air pollution in the basin now is as I stated. Hardly fallacious, as the basin increased the concentration. If we have cleaned up LA with its, formerly, highest in the nation air pollution, then US standards have certainly cleaned up the rest of the country...making the Kyoto a political, rather than environmental, policy.

Ronald Reagan passed tough air pollution laws as our Governor. Left wing radical?

[trevorjk]

Ronald Reagan passed tough air pollution laws as our Governor. Left wing radical?

ABSOLUTELY! Hell they even named an Air Craft Carrier after that left nut

[drg]

I don't know where the Kyoto talk came from. You're the first to mention it in this thread. Drediging up that old right-wing boogeyman doesn't prove anything here.

Left wing radical?

The policies are indeed VERY left-wing. Even staunch rightists see the truth of strong regulation when companies are REALLY screwing up, unfortunately the profit motive keeps that from happening until you can barely see a few feet in front of your nose and kids can't play outside. Don't for a moment think Reagan's response would have been as affirmative if the problem didn't affect the upper classes as much as the others, and in his own backyard to boot.

Later Reagan would disavow such measures, showing the true color of his beliefs:

Relying on his friendly style and appealing looks, Reagan conducted a campaign that called for the revitalization of America's traditional values, namely, "family, work, neighborhood, freedom, peace," and made use of his characteristic supply of one-liners and questionable data. In fact, all Reagan had to do to get elected was sit back quietly and let Jimmy Carter's record speak for itself. However, the former after-dinner speaker couldn't leave well enough alone, and before long newsmen were catching him in one lie or distortion after another. Speaking to a crowd of evangelists, Reagan announced the discovery of "new evidence" disputing the Darwinian theory of evolution and supporting the fundamental biblical view of creation. When challenged, he was unable to produce this new evidence. While visiting Pittsburgh, he declared that smog had been cleared up in California and that government control of industrial air pollution had gone too far. At that very moment Reagan's hometown of Los Angeles was suffering its worst smog attack in several years.

http://www.trivia-library.com/c/biography-of-us-president-ronald-reagan-part-8-campaign.htm

[Raven001]

Really? Narrow minded? Just who exactly is the Kyoto Treaty aimed at? Not China, or India, or the middle east. It's aimed at America, with our industry that has taken care of the world since WWII. Sure we use a lot of resources, we also produce more than any other country...for the benefit of other countries.

I believe Kyoto was aimed at the developed countries because statistically they produce most of the greenhouse gases. Of them, the US produces the most. However, your new enemy China is catching up.

[drg]

I believe Kyoto was aimed at the developed countries because statistically they produce most of the greenhouse gases. Of them, the US produces the most. However, your new enemy China is catching up.

Indeed I am referring to this obliquely in my previous posts, and without Kyoto or a similar aparatus, we are in a weaker situation to "lead by example" or put any kind of pressure on China to clean up their act. If anything it set the example for the worst offenders to thumb their noses at international accord.

[Army]

Indeed I am referring to this obliquely in my previous posts, and without Kyoto or a similar aparatus, we are in a weaker situation to "lead by example" or put any kind of pressure on China to clean up their act. If anything it set the example for the worst offenders to thumb their noses at international accord.

Pressure on China? The Kyoto specifically EXCLUDES China, while singleing out the USA as the worst "polluter".

Yes, we use more resources than any other country, in order to make the goods, foods, and services that the rest of the world depends on. Hell, it's a pretty good bet the Kyoto was written on USA made paper from one of our evil papermillls.

Why should Backwaterstan have any say on how American industry provides the world?

[BobTheCow]

Do you seriously believe this stuff? You seem like an inteligent human being. Please tell me that Hillary, Barak Osoma Bin Laden or whatever his name is, or Al has stolen your login password.

Sorry to bring up a stupid post from so long ago, but I'm just reading through this thread now, and thought I'd point this out as it got no recognition before. I don't know if this is some cool developing trend or what, but can we at least stop it here? That's bigoted and ignorant. It's stupid, and it shouldn't be tolerated any more than any other example of racism on AO.

e: Oh lord, that post just gets better and better.

Did you ever hear about "war of the worlds" It happend 50 yrs ago or so (Dont feel like googling it). Anyways what happened is Everyone believed the world was coming to an end because of a radio station prank. It was to get more listeners. The drive by media today is doing the same thing. America is not producing half as much emmissions today as they did in the 60s. 90% of the crap that is told to you is people who know nothing about the subject.

Maybe you should have looked it up so you'd actually know what the hell you were talking about. It wasn't a prank. It was a show, created as radio entertainment, and billed as such both before and throughout the show. True, it inspired fear in some (though tales of 'panic in the streets' have likely been exaggerated), but only those who refused to listen to the information that was already being given to them.

[personman]

So, if you don't belive in global warmin, how about you become more energy efficient so we don't have to fight wars, shape our foreign policy, and bow down to countries that don't like us. (remember, the majority of the 9/11 hijackers were from our good buddy Saudi Arabia). Also, how about people that poo poo GW stop being selfish jerks and think about the future generations of this country, its not all about YOU. Of course if Americans actaully thought about others instead of just ourselves, our heads might explode.

Sorry to interrupt your fear-mongering, but I happen to be very conservation minded. Why? Because I care about the environment. NOT because I think the world is going to explode if I drive my car. The government should have little to NO role in science, and this global warming scare is PRECISELY the reason why. When politics become involved with science, good things NEVER come from it. Anyway, my opinion probably doesn't matter to you since, judging from the tone you wrote that message in, you're way better than I am.

You can read the IPCC reports right from their websites. Straight from the horses mouth, no politicians or sensationalist media involved. And they're saying the evidence is conclusive.

I quote from their website:

"The IPCC is a scientific intergovernmental body set up by the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) and by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP). Its constituency is made of :

* The governments: the IPCC is open to all member countries of WMO and UNEP. Governments of participate in plenary Sessions of the IPCC where main decisions about the IPCC workprogramme are taken and reports are accepted, adopted and approved. They also participate the review of IPCC Reports.
* The scientists: hundreds of scientists all over the world contribute to the work of the IPCC as authors, contributors and reviewers.
* The people: as United Nations body, the IPCC work aims at the promotion of the United Nations human development goals"

Rightt... and I'm supposed to believe their data WHY?

Here's another quote:

"The IPCC does not conduct any research nor does it monitor climate related data or parameters. Its role is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the latest scientific, technical and socio-economic literature produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of the risk of human-induced climate change, its observed and projected impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. "

Okay, so they just admitted that they cherry pick their data to 'understand the risk of human-induced climate change!!! Can you seriously say that this is not a biased source?


I agree that we should start moving away from fossil fuels. I DISAGREE that we are changing our climate. I have seen no conclusive evidence for that case so far.

Anyone who actually CARES about the environment and isn't just on board the global warming choo choo train for the ride should take a look at this video:

http://www.mises.org/multimedia/block/Block-Fraser.wmv

[devildog]

This Thread Is Wild!!!! Wooohoooo!!!

[rkjunior303]

I agree that we should start moving away from fossil fuels. I DISAGREE that we are changing our climate. I have seen no conclusive evidence for that case so far.

Have you lived in Atlanta your whole life? Well, I can tell you for a fact that living in New England I *have* seen a climate change. There is less and less snow every year and it's warmer far later into the fall every year, compared to when I was growing up - alarmingly so, actually.

How much annual snowfall does Atlanta average?

[MANN]

Have you lived in Atlanta your whole life? Well, I can tell you for a fact that living in New England I *have* seen a climate change. There is less and less snow every year and it's warmer far later into the fall every year, compared to when I was growing up - alarmingly so, actually.

How much annual snowfall does Atlanta average?

Did it rain 3 days ago where you live? is it raining now? See the weather changes usually everyday. This happens on a large scale also. Some years you get more snow/rain than others. This does NOT mean the world is ending, or that we are destroing the earth. The climate is like a rollercoaster. Hold on, and in a few years it wwill be back to snowing more than we want, and everyone will yell global cooling. Stating that climate swings every couple of years is an example of what is to come is obsurd.

[Mechanic79]

Hour to hour, day to day, week to week, year to year, decade to decade, century to century etc...
It's like a cascade of weather in weather in weather in weather, etc...

Minnesota weather changes constantly. San Diego weather, in contrast, doesn't change much.

Tropical years (Did all of the dinosaurs create extreme global warming due to their methane?)
Ice Age years (Did all the wooley mammoths create global warming with their methane and melt the polar ice?)
inbetween years (what was the deciding factor then?)

Does Nature control global warming or does Humans plants and animals? Do we humans control space weather too?

What's before...
Dinosaurs
Humans
What's next?

[rkjunior303]

Hour to hour, day to day, week to week, year to year, decade to decade, century to century etc...
It's like a cascade of weather in weather in weather in weather, etc...

Minnesota weather changes constantly. San Diego weather, in contrast, doesn't change much.

Tropical years (Did all of the dinosaurs create extreme global warming due to their methane?)
Ice Age years (Did all the wooley mammoths create global warming with their methane and melt the polar ice?)
inbetween years (what was the deciding factor then?)

Does Nature control global warming or does Humans plants and animals? Do we humans control space weather too?

What's before...
Dinosaurs
Humans
What's next?

It's a proven scientific fact that CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases aide in trapping heat inside of the earth. In the evolution of Earth, humans are only a small speck in it's existance - and being an industrial society capable of producing LARGE amounts of these greenhouse gases an even smaller speck. People can't be so close-minded to not even begin to think that BILLIONS of people all pumping out these gases isn't making any form of impact.

[bornl33t]

Whatever direction we decide to go with our fuel source I think it should be without the government. For example ...this whole ethanol thing, if it can't make it without subsidies then it's NOT the right way to go.

[MANN]

Whatever direction we decide to go with our fuel source I think it should be without the government. For example ...this whole ethanol thing, if it can't make it without subsidies then it's NOT the right way to go.

qft. The only problem I see with that is that a certain party that likes to control big buisness will not like the idea.