Kyoto climate treaty

[Repo Man]

Global warming, like the ozone scare, is yet another manufactured, phony crisis.

If it exists, it was not caused by man and there is nothing man can do about it. If it does not exist, the Kyoto treaty will rob the United States blind paying for it. Even the proponents of the treaty have admitted that its implementation will do nothing to end global warming anyway.

So what, then, is its goal? That's simple to answer: the redistribution wealth, the reordering of civilization and the destruction of private property. It is just another way of ramming the global elite's socialist utopia down our throats. Socialists, by the way, excel at two things: 1) destroying economies while lining their own pockets, and 2) genocide.

Watching the United States commit economic suicide for a phony cause is not my idea of leading by example.

[dissent]

Because if we isolate ourselves, they're gonna have a global economy without us and we'll be left behind.

Yeah, but then who will they sell their sh1t to?

[Kilarin]

Global warming, like the ozone scare, is yet another manufactured, phony crisis. If it exists, it was not caused by man and there is nothing man can do about it

You see, here is the problem.

The left believes any of the propaganistic claptrap nonsense that is spewed out by their side. Bad science with an agenda.

AND

The right believes any of the propaganistic claptrap nonsense that is spewed out by their side. Bad science with an agenda.

You simply can NOT dismiss out of hand the notion that industrialization has the capacity to affect the global environment, as the right does. AND, our understanding of these issues is not yet solid enough to let us place certain blame, as the left does.

[Duper]

Watching the United States commit economic suicide for a phony cause is not my idea of leading by example.

ahh.. but we'll look good doing it ....won't we?

[Zuruck]

Whoa whoa whoa...global warming is NOT bad science. The cause and the solution can be debated..but it does indeed happen. Is it a normal fluctuation? Maybe. Is it not? Maybe. But to debunk it like Repo-man and call it bad science is sheer lunacy. All that pollution, mercury, carbon monoxide, that goes out the smokestacks, carpipes, and air vents goes somewhere, it doesn't disappear. Repo-Man, skip a Bible Worship class and take a summer course in geology/chemistry and learn something real.

[Immortal Lobster]

most of those gasses get recycled by rain, etc etc.

yes, a form of warming does exist, whats also true is we dont necassarily know the direct cause of it, hell, weve only been studying the atmosphere to this detail for the past 100 years, if that!, compared to the life of this planet, who are we to say whats a normal fluxuation and whats not. hell we're still in the aftermath of the ice age, things are technically still warming up, recovering from it. so yeah, we should expect te atmosphere to be warming, maybe we are accelerating it, maybe not, maybe were actually slowing it!

[Diedel]

Let me throw in a few numbers. As far as the US go, like 5% of the world population consume 23% or so of the world energy production.

Go figure.

[Duper]

really though, you should be more worried about what the pollutants are doing to us RIGHT NOW. Huge increases in cancer, diabetes and autism are just several. Many of the industrial by-products are insanely toxic. Go to your local libararies and grab the quarterly air emission reports that all big factories are required to publish. It'll scare the hell outta you when you find out what's floating in your local air and the quanities in which it exists. ...let alone what miniscule global impact it might be having.

[Immortal Lobster]

aye, and instead of pumping all that money into kyoto, it would be better off going to something to like researching better methods of scrubbing, filtering, hell better methods of burning the ★■◆●.

[Diedel]

OMG, Ignorant Lobster,

the Kyoto Protocol is about protecting the atmosphere, environment, climate. Signing it would have the consequence of passing laws furthering research and production of such technology.

You really have no clue, dude, do you?

[Immortal Lobster]

it would also put a requirement in to limit the production of pollutants, either way, the economy would benefit greated by research these sciences rather then trying to meat a protocal off the bat, and having to immedietly try and cut down on the polutants. either way, a treaty or signed agreement for this kind of thing should never be required. theres no way the US can cut down on its pollutants by 30% in what is it, 2008? to do that companies would have to buy more of the current inefficient technologies, which would cause an increase in product, which causes inflation, which hurts our economy, thats where Im comming from

[dissent]

Kyoto is one year old !!!

/me passes 'round the cake.

Anyone care to respond to the numbers in the linked article? Looks to me like some of the major signatories are trying to back off of some of the more onerous treaty requirements.

As Kilarin said, there are bad claims made on both the right and the left.