Denial of Environmental Disasters


petros
#31
Quote:

"Creating a Climate Policy Review Mechanism"

SUMMARY

International climate negotiations are becoming increasingly focused on suites of emissions-cutting policies and measures, rather than solely on traditional targets and timetables, particularly for developing countries. This approach raises at least two important challenges for negotiators and policymakers. First, how can negotiators judge whether states' proposed policies and measures are commensurate with ambitious global goals for controlling emissions? Second, how can policymakers evaluate whether climate policies and measures (in both developed and developing countries) are succeeding and maximize the odds that countries will actually deliver needed emissions cuts? Answering both questions is essential to reconciling a bottom-up approach to climate change mitigation with top-down need for strong global emissions cuts.

Continuous collective examination and evaluation of existing and proposed national mitigation efforts will be needed to address both issues. States should create a multilateral Climate Policy Review Mechanism that would institutionalize this process. This would borrow from the successful use of "peer review" (democracy?) to help address other challenges including trade, monetary, and environmental policy.

The effort should be anchored in a new international institution whose sole purpose would be to facilitate the review process or in an expanded International Energy Agency (IEA). Member countries would be required to participate in the review mechanism. (Depending on the circumstances under which the mechanism was created, membership could include all UNFCCC members or could be limited to G-20 nations.) In order to maximize states' cooperation, though, the body would have no authority to determine compliance with or prescribe enforcement action under any international treaty.

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/files/levi_3.pdf

Is it just me or does it sound like an appointed Global Government that dictates a nations economy?
 
EagleSmack
#32
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

You mean there are nations that will no longer bow to the oppression or the are you talking the ones that don't give a **** about us in the first place?

You confuse me as I always thought your stance was a pro-climate change stance. I agree, China and the other Basic Nations make it loud and clear they will not bow down to the green initiatives no matter how loud other nations cry. That is why they got the title Basic Nation i.e under developed.

Quote:

They already thought of that. A nation state in a global government doesn't have a hope in hell.

Very doubtful. China can out ride any storm particularly with the US in it's pocket. We feed it's mouth and in turn suck on it's teet.

Quote:

Sign on or no food or water for you! Either you take the aid and the disease resistant seeds or see ya in hell!

Pretty simple.

Well seeing that Copenhagen was an utter failure that vision of the future is on hold.
 
petros
#33
Quote:

You confuse me as I always thought your stance was a pro-climate change stance.

Cleanliness is next to Godliness!
Quote:

Very doubtful. China can out ride any storm particularly with the US in it's pocket. We feed it's mouth and in turn suck on it's teet.

What happens when they decide to stop funding the NATO shenanigans in Middle east and Central Asia only to keep those nations from selling oil in Euros? Simply put China won and can do whatever the hell it wants. If China and India sign on to that Accord we are screwed blued and tattooed. They could buy us out lock stock and barrel with phony baloney carbon credits which are poised to replace the oil dollar.
Quote:

Quote: Sign on or no food or water for you! Either you take the aid and the disease resistant seeds or see ya in hell!

Pretty simple.

Well seeing that Copenhagen was an utter failure that vision of the future is on hold.

How does a deal stop crop disease and pests? Especially ones that can be introduced and spread? If you don't have the right seed you don't eat. If you try to plant the good seed without paying heavy fees they'll just take your land. It's already happening to Nor Am producers. What is stopping them from going global and using seed as control?
 
Tonington
#34
The duck. If it walks like a duck, has feathers like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, chances are that some scientist will disagree that it is most likely a duck. And the media will say they are respectable. The appearance of an even debate. Clearly not the case.
 
Bar Sinister
#35
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

Have to be a little more positive, "We now have scientific studies revealing that the continued addition of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere may result in an increase in atmospheric temperatures."


Unlike some posters I am always very careful about what I write. I knew what I was doing when I wrote "may." However, I am well aware of the fact that even if global warming is not yet happening, it is inevitable given the continued increase in greenhouse gases.
 
ironsides
#36
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Unlike some posters I am always very careful about what I write. I knew what I was doing when I wrote "may." However, I am well aware of the fact that even if global warming is not yet happening, it is inevitable given the continued increase in greenhouse gases.

Yes, but do we really have as much of an effect upon it as some say, or will climate change happen no matter what we do. We had no effect on weather changes in the past.
 
petros
#37
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

Yes, but do we really have as much of an effect upon it as some say, or will climate change happen no matter what we do. We had no effect on weather changes in the past.

So which one are you talking about, the climate or the weather? Has there ever been 6.2 Billion people alive at once before?
 
ironsides
#38
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

So which one are you talking about, the climate or the weather? Has there ever been 6.2 Billion people alive at once before?

Climate changes. No question our population density is/has gotten us in trouble. I personally think China sort of has the right idea, limit size of families but on a world wide basis. Which will be a much harder thing to do than getting people to sign off on this Copenhagen thing. Time to reign in this notion we have that we must go fourth and populate the world.
 
Cliffy
#39
Quote: Originally Posted by ironsides View Post

Climate changes. No question our population density is/has gotten us in trouble. I personally think China sort of has the right idea, limit size of families but on a world wide basis. Which will be a much harder thing to do than getting people to sign off on this Copenhagen thing. Time to reign in this notion we have that we must go fourth and populate the world.

Yup! Telling guys to keep their peckers in their pants would go over like telling them they can't drink beer anymore. It may even curtail the sale of beer and Budweiser would never let that happen.
 
Avro
#40
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Yup! Telling guys to keep their peckers in their pants would go over like telling them they can't drink beer anymore. It may even curtail the sale of beer and Budweiser would never let that happen.

Unless you put something in the beer to make them sterile.

Imagine the ads....F*ck all you want and drink all the beer you can get, Labatt Blue, the good stuff for a gooder world."
 
petros
#41
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

Unless you put something in the beer to make them sterile.

Imagine the ads....F*ck all you want and drink all the beer you can get, Labatt Blue, the good stuff for a gooder world."

They already say that. What is to imagine?
 
Avro
#42
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

They already say that. What is to imagine?

Must have missed that ad.
 
petros
#43
Quote: Originally Posted by Avro View Post

Must have missed that ad.

You never seen a commercial where a big titted women gets wet because two skinny goofs blew their lawn mowing money on bus fare to show up at a cottage with 75lbs of ice and six pack of cans?


Hmmm? Must have been a Molsons ad?
 
Avro
#44
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

You never seen a commercial where a big titted women gets wet because two skinny goofs blew their lawn mowing money on bus fare to show up at a cottage with 75lbs of ice and six pack of cans?


Hmmm? Must have been a Molsons ad?

Oh yeah, I've seen those, but not ones with the new improved taste... .
 
AnnaG
#45
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

Is that what the directions say on your container? Perhaps you would rather be stung by a mosquito which carries the malaria virus; you'd first have to leave Canada to do that because the malaria virus carrying mosquitoes were eradicated here by pesticides, including DDT.

Scientists agree that malaria has never been indigenous to Canada. The bug cannot survive Canadian winters because it is a tropical bug. So if malaria occurs in Canada it is because it has to be brought in each year.
Cut the crap, Wally.
 
AnnaG
#46
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

So which one are you talking about, the climate or the weather? Has there ever been 6.2 Billion people alive at once before?

You forgot about the part about spewing crap into the atmosphere.

Anyway, yes climate change happens naturally, but it also ends naturally. The natural cycle has been broken, though. At this period in time, the cycle has stopped cycling and has reached a relative plateau.

And, BTW, China has decided it likes green energy so it is researching alternatives. I doubt it will take very long for China to surpass North Am in formulating and utilizing green tech.
 
darkbeaver
#47
Quote: Originally Posted by AnnaG View Post

Scientists agree that malaria has never been indigenous to Canada. The bug cannot survive Canadian winters because it is a tropical bug. So if malaria occurs in Canada it is because it has to be brought in each year.
Cut the crap, Wally.

Scientists don't agree about that. As a matter of fact they do agree that the environmental conditions to support all kinds of exotic speices did exist in Canada at various times.
 
AnnaG
#48
Quote: Originally Posted by darkbeaver View Post

Scientists don't agree about that. As a matter of fact they do agree that the environmental conditions to support all kinds of exotic speices did exist in Canada at various times.

MALARIA AND THE ANOPHELES MOSQUITO IN CANADA

But then I am not surprised that you can think of some "scientists" that would disagree. You seem to have a skewed idea of what science is.
 
Nuggler
#49
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

CFC's and DDT were just part of the left's plan to subdue or kill (see malaria deaths) the masses.

good one, Wally.
 
Tonington
#50
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

CFC's and DDT were just part of the left's plan to subdue or kill (see malaria deaths) the masses.


CFC's is simple chemistry Walter. I know the science illiterate have a problem with basic science, but here's a simplified reaction:

The decomposed CFC reacts with ozone:

Cl + O3 <===> ClO + O2

Now Ozone is always decomposing, and then reforming, as the ozone bonds are slightly weaker than the oxygen bonds:
O3 + h v <= = => O + O2

The problem is that the chlorine intermediate product up in reaction number one interferes with the reactions which generate ozone from oxygen. Putting the two together:
O3 + h v
<= = => O + O2,
ClO + O
<= = => Cl + O2
O + O3
<= = => O2 + O2

Two ozones have been consumed to produce three diatomic oxygen molecules, and the chlorine is free after the second reaction above.

This problem is further exacerbated at the poles, where colder stratospheric temperatures cause crystals to form, and the surface chemical reactions which are more complicated (and won a Nobel prize in Chemistry) produces reactions which are more severe in their depletion of ozone.

It's not perpetuated to make anyone less prosperous, it's well founded and observed science which has shown the harmful effects of pollution, such as the ozone depleting substances. Maybe you're fine with scrambling your DNA... you shouldn't be.

As to DDT? Mosquitoes adapt, and it may be axiomatic amongst the science illiterate, but alternatives to DDT are just as expensive, and persist longer before populations adapt to the chemical.

DDT is used to this day to save people, because it is no longer sprayed onto fields as North American farmers would add fertilizer. That would have yielded more resistant mosquitoes. That is what Silent Spring prevented. DDT can be used intelligently, but was not. Sri Lanka stopped using it because the mosquitoes became resistant, and an epidemic of malaria ensued.

This is all public knowledge, but you are getting your information from people who earn a living by sowing disinformation, and preying on the ignorance of the lay public.

Walter, you are without a doubt the perfect example of this phenomenon.
 
ironsides
#51
Quote: Originally Posted by Tonington View Post

CFC's is simple chemistry Walter. I know the science illiterate have a problem with basic science, but here's a simplified reaction:

The decomposed CFC reacts with ozone:
Cl + O3 <===> ClO + O2

Now Ozone is always decomposing, and then reforming, as the ozone bonds are slightly weaker than the oxygen bonds:
O3 + h v <= = => O + O2

The problem is that the chlorine intermediate product up in reaction number one interferes with the reactions which generate ozone from oxygen. Putting the two together:
O3 + h v <= = => O + O2,
ClO + O <= = => Cl + O2
O + O3 <= = => O2 + O2

Two ozones have been consumed to produce three diatomic oxygen molecules, and the chlorine is free after the second reaction above.

This problem is further exacerbated at the poles, where colder stratospheric temperatures cause crystals to form, and the surface chemical reactions which are more complicated (and won a Nobel prize in Chemistry) produces reactions which are more severe in their depletion of ozone.

It's not perpetuated to make anyone less prosperous, it's well founded and observed science which has shown the harmful effects of pollution, such as the ozone depleting substances. Maybe you're fine with scrambling your DNA... you shouldn't be.

As to DDT? Mosquitoes adapt, and it may be axiomatic amongst the science illiterate, but alternatives to DDT are just as expensive, and persist longer before populations adapt to the chemical.

DDT is used to this day to save people, because it is no longer sprayed onto fields as North American farmers would add fertilizer. That would have yielded more resistant mosquitoes. That is what Silent Spring prevented. DDT can be used intelligently, but was not. Sri Lanka stopped using it because the mosquitoes became resistant, and an epidemic of malaria ensued.

This is all public knowledge, but you are getting your information from people who earn a living by sowing disinformation, and preying on the ignorance of the lay public.

When we moved into our home in Florida, there was an old bottle of DDT in the garage. Thought of keeping it as a collectors item, but had the town dispose of it. By the way, good explanation you did.
 
Bar Sinister
#52
I found this article buried on page 11 of the local rag. Thought it might add something to the thread.

‘Climategate’ inquiry shows scientist didn’t falsify data
 
Walter
#53
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

I found this article buried on page 11 of the local rag. Thought it might add something to the thread.

‘Climategate’ inquiry shows scientist didn’t falsify data

This refutes the claim in the article linked to in your post.
 
petros
#54
Quote:

DDT is used to this day to save people, because it is no longer sprayed onto fields as North American farmers would add fertilizer. That would have yielded more resistant mosquitoes. That is what Silent Spring prevented. DDT can be used intelligently, but was not. Sri Lanka stopped using it because the mosquitoes became resistant, and an epidemic of malaria ensued.

Are you trying to say toxins are only toxic part of the time?

Isn't DDT a cholinesterase inhibitor that can store in fat?

Is that like your claim of mercury in shots being safe even though safety baselines of mercury are comprised from a group eating shelf fish and it passing through their digestive system which were designed by evolution to deal with contaminated food and water not having it cranked straight into their bloodstream?
 
AnnaG
#55
Quote: Originally Posted by Walter View Post

This refutes the claim in the article linked to in your post.

.... and so-and-so refutes MacIntyre who refuted Penn State and so-and-so is refuted by whatsisname and whatsisname is refuted by whatchacallhim and so on and so forth ad infinitum. Big deal.
 
AnnaG
#56
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Are you trying to say toxins are only toxic part of the time?

Isn't DDT a cholinesterase inhibitor that can store in fat?

Is that like your claim of mercury in shots being safe even though safety baselines of mercury are comprised from a group eating shelf fish and it passing through their digestive system which were designed by evolution to deal with contaminated food and water not having it cranked straight into their bloodstream?

That is what happens yes. Chlorine is usually a pretty nasty bit of stuff but people eat it every day. And sodium is not any more palatable than chlorine. But combined they make regular table salt. The applications of nasty things can be decidedly beneficial.
 
Tonington
#57
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Are you trying to say toxins are only toxic part of the time?



No, and I have no idea how what I said could be implying that. What I was saying is that there are responsible and irresponsible uses of chemicals. Spraying them onto fields where they are transported away to bioaccumulate, and produce resistance very quickly would not be responsible.

Does that clear it up?

Oh, but toxins do become toxic at certain doses. So I guess you could say that toxins are only toxic given the specific circumstances where they become toxic.

Quote:

Isn't DDT a cholinesterase inhibitor that can store in fat?

Yes. Hence the reason that indiscriminate spraying on fields would be irresponsible.

Quote:

Is that like your claim of mercury in shots being safe even though safety baselines of mercury are comprised from a group eating shelf fish and it passing through their digestive system which were designed by evolution to deal with contaminated food and water not having it cranked straight into their bloodstream?

Well no, that's not something I have ever claimed.
 
petros
#58
Quote:

Well no, that's not something I have ever claimed.

Not in this thread but the Flu Shots and the ingredient Thimerosal.

Quote:

Oh, but toxins do become toxic at certain doses. So I guess you could say that toxins are only toxic given the specific circumstances where they become toxic.

Toxins are always toxic. A dose of toxin is a dose of toxin. Just because the first cigarette doesn't kill doesn't mean go ahead and start smoking.

If you want to get rid of mosquitos why would you also attack the tens of thousands or creatures that kill more by eating than DDT ever could?
 
Tonington
#59
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Not in this thread but the Flu Shots and the ingredient Thimerosal.

You'll have to find the post where I said that. I don't believe that I have ever said anything about thimerosal being safe. I know I have said the evidence linking it to autism is lacking.

Quote:

Toxins are always toxic. A dose of toxin is a dose of toxin. Just because the first cigarette doesn't kill doesn't mean go ahead and start smoking.

DDT isn't technically a toxin. My mistake for following your lead. Toxins are biologically produce molecules. DDT is synthetic. Anyways, dose is important. Below certain thresholds, chemicals won't cause deleterious effects. A single cigarette will not give you a disease. Chronic exposure can.

Quote:

If you want to get rid of mosquitos why would you also attack the tens of thousands or creatures that kill more by eating than DDT ever could?

Good question. Why don't you ask the people who spray chemicals onto fields. It's not my intention, nor was I suggesting that.

You really ought to slow down; you're no comprehending the message of my earlier post.
 

Similar Threads

15
Disasters of The Drug Wars
by darkbeaver | Dec 16th, 2007
5
Pentagon to handle future Disasters?
by Ten Packs | Sep 27th, 2005