Topic: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks (Read 925 times)

Arvarden · « **on:** December 08, 2004, 05:52:00 AM »

"The US has been defending its decision not to take part in the Kyoto Protocol, just two months before the international agreement to cut greenhouse gases comes into force."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4077137.stm

Where there's blame there's a claim..

jimjom · « **Reply #1 on:** December 08, 2004, 06:04:00 AM »

RcbUK · « **Reply #2 on:** December 17, 2004, 05:51:00 PM »

In 50/100 years time i'd like to see what America have to say

RonnieIsBack · « **Reply #3 on:** December 17, 2004, 06:27:00 PM »

I can't say what will happen but people are predicting the weather 100+ years from now and they say the ice caps will be gone or close to it.My problem with this is the fact that we cant predict weather accurately a week from today and these people are going a hundred years in the future with their predictions.

You make up your own mind but my argument is a good one.
Of course I'm an American so every non American will automatically disagree with me,right? <_<

This post has been edited by RonnieIsBack: Dec 18 2004, 02:41 AM

nemt · « **Reply #4 on:** December 17, 2004, 06:30:00 PM »

No scientific study has shown conclusive evidence of carbon dioxide levels increasing proportionally to global temperatures. Additionally, these things have only been studied for about fifty years, and global climate changes could just be natural phenomena - we did just get out of an ice age, remember. So please excuse the US for trusting the facts instead of b movies, nutty conspiracy theories and junk science.

This post has been edited by nemt: Dec 18 2004, 02:31 AM

RcbUK · « **Reply #5 on:** December 17, 2004, 05:59:00 PM »

RonnieIsBack · « **Reply #6 on:** December 17, 2004, 06:50:00 PM »

Why would it be obvious?
Do you have experience with such events happening somewhere else?
What was the outcome?

The US doesnt need to be part of any treaty to stop global warming.If your contries leaders believe it is true then they can do something about it.The US has helped the world enough in the past 100 years.Why does the US have to be the one to do it again.

BTW we have too many people living now.Not in the US but in the places.China has over 1 billion heads and they need food from other countries to feed them.Why have more people alive that cant feed themselves or take care of their families?

And I like fishing so more water means more fish!!!!!

pug_ster · « **Reply #7 on:** December 17, 2004, 07:28:00 PM »

nemt · « **Reply #8 on:** December 17, 2004, 07:44:00 PM »

pug_ster · « **Reply #9 on:** December 17, 2004, 08:22:00 PM »

Intensecure · « **Reply #10 on:** December 17, 2004, 08:35:00 PM »

It is, as usual, irrelevant.
The US will pursue policies that mean that the home economy will not be affected. If the US stood to gain by reducing it's emissions, it would sign the treaty.
Vested interests, short term gain, and the externality of future generations that have no vote in what we do to their situation and environment.
For nemt: (although banging one's head a brick wall here

) try reading this article, from the New Scientist. and the various weblinks at the right hand side for links to the wealth of articles and information from the UN and other research institutes. Of course, you will probably argue that Nobel Laureates are mis-informed because Fox news told you otherwise

but more clear thinking folks might find the evidence more compelling than that which has been commissioned in support of the official US position.

K98 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 17, 2004, 09:08:00 PM »

I dont believe in global warming on the basis of no evidence. Accurate thermometers have been around for maybe 100 years so how can you get a good view of what the climate does. Maybe it gets warm for 100 years then cools down you dont know.

nemt · « **Reply #12 on:** December 17, 2004, 09:11:00 PM »

The article doesn't show any proof of a direct relation between increases in temperature and increases in these supposedly dangerous greenhouse gases. First off, there's no easy way to determine the temperature of the earth...and if you compare the temperatures in cities today with data from 25 or 50 years ago, how can you be sure that's enough to tell you anything reliable? The earth is billions of years old, remember? Maybe over the past 100 years the average world temperature has gone up one degree, but there's no way to prove it's the result of human actions and not some natural variation. While co2 has been increasing steadily since the industrialization, global temperatures have not. Does that raise any questions for you?

The earth has been around a long time, and humans have been here for a very small fraction of it. You can believe in the span of 100 years there is sufficient evidence to prove humans are causing the 3.5billion year old rock to warm up to cataclysmic temperatures, but I'm just not buying it - and neither is anyone with common sense.

pegasys · « **Reply #13 on:** December 17, 2004, 09:26:00 PM »

Greenhouse gasses keep the heat on earth, like a greenhouse, thus raising teperatures, it's a fact. But it dosn't matter because by the time anyting happens we will all e dead anyway so fuck the next generation, or the one after that, right? Or is that immoral, but I thouht our president was all for morality and preserving life?

RonnieIsBack · « **Reply #14 on:** December 17, 2004, 10:08:00 PM »

Peg...your sarcasm is soooo funny.

Im sure most people would want to keep the earth from becoming a swimming pool but obviously people disagree with that as a possiblilty.Why?It must be because there is no real evidence that it is happening.Just because someone makes a theory like this one doesnt mean everyone should support it or that it is right.You are clearly looking at only half of the argument.When you see both sides then you can come back and tell me how you feel about it.

BTW nemt,the earth is 4.6 billion years old.

Author Topic: Us Rejects Climate Policy Attacks (Read 925 times)