Blair and Arnie snub Bush over global warming
- Thread starter Blackleaf
- Start date
Re: RE: Blair and Arnie snub Bush over global warming
Was that directed towards me? If so please tell me how Kyoto works contrary to what I posted. That's exactly what Kyoto does, nothing more nothing less.
Kreskin said:
Was that directed towards me? If so please tell me how Kyoto works contrary to what I posted. That's exactly what Kyoto does, nothing more nothing less.
Re: RE: Blair and Arnie snub Bush over global warming
Interesting, your lack of rebuttal demonstrates you're the one towing a party line.
Kreskin said:
Interesting, your lack of rebuttal demonstrates you're the one towing a party line.
I just explained the the basic premise of Kyoto. You offered up the Rove baloney. What else is there to say? You back a guy who has lied about everything. I say he's full of ____ and Blair's press conference the other day confirmed it.
So go ahead, continue to fall for the lies of dirty rotten scoundrels. It's beneath the dignity of most of us to explain everything Bush has screwed up. Some people need to start figuring things out for themselves.
So go ahead, continue to fall for the lies of dirty rotten scoundrels. It's beneath the dignity of most of us to explain everything Bush has screwed up. Some people need to start figuring things out for themselves.
I offered the version of reading the Kyoto Protocol. Have you bothered reading it? I Think Not.
Carbon Credits are the largest growing business all over the world. Do yourself a favor and don't presume you are right because an asshole is stating the obvious for a change.
A handful of countries are meeting their targets. All others are buying their way to meet a target through third world countries that were never going to exceed their GHG emissions. Which part of what I said do you not understand, and more importantly, prove me wrong.
Carbon Credits are the largest growing business all over the world. Do yourself a favor and don't presume you are right because an asshole is stating the obvious for a change.
A handful of countries are meeting their targets. All others are buying their way to meet a target through third world countries that were never going to exceed their GHG emissions. Which part of what I said do you not understand, and more importantly, prove me wrong.
I think not said:
You can't trade credits you don't have.
So the Bozo in Chief declares some countries don't have the right targets therefore everything is tossed out the window? What a lame excuse. People far brighter than moron are working hard to make something work. He works hard to screw things up. That's his job.
It's easy to criticize those who are trying to tackle a big problem that needs a big solution. What is the point of any country trying to deal with emissions if everyone else doesn't give a damn ?
Kreskin, I’m sorry to say you don’t get it, and from the looks of it, you never will. You’re going to believe what you want to believe. It seems to me your primary concern is ridiculing Bush and not debating the Kyoto Protocol. I have seen no action from Canada in terms of Kyoto under Liberal or Conservative rule. So if Bush is peon, what exactly does that make your leaders? Is this the issue at hand?
Kyoto is a farce. Even if all countries were to meet their goals it wouldn’t make a dent in climate change. The very scientists that put Kyoto together acknowledge this. Their only blather left is , “it’s a start”. What start? All these scientists are screaming at the top of their lungs they need action now, now, now.
Loopholes in the protocol allow big business, “business as usual”, providing they pay the poorer nations the right to pollute.
Now you can bark at Bush all you want, it won’t change the fact that almost all Kyoto participants have failed or are failing. The treaty was a compromise to allow polluters to continue to pollute. The only difference is they have to pay for it.
You can cut and paste when pressed against a corner, but I suggest you drop it and educate yourself.
Kyoto is a farce. Even if all countries were to meet their goals it wouldn’t make a dent in climate change. The very scientists that put Kyoto together acknowledge this. Their only blather left is , “it’s a start”. What start? All these scientists are screaming at the top of their lungs they need action now, now, now.
Loopholes in the protocol allow big business, “business as usual”, providing they pay the poorer nations the right to pollute.
Now you can bark at Bush all you want, it won’t change the fact that almost all Kyoto participants have failed or are failing. The treaty was a compromise to allow polluters to continue to pollute. The only difference is they have to pay for it.
You can cut and paste when pressed against a corner, but I suggest you drop it and educate yourself.
Whats wrong with a first step? The American constitution was a first step and it wasn't perfect. Thats what amendments are for.
Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol claim that reducing these emissions is crucially important; carbon dioxide, they believe, is causing the earth's atmosphere to heat up. This is supported by attribution analysis.
Attribution of recent climate change attempts to discover what mechanisms are responsible for the observed changes in climate.
A group of major Canadian corporations also called for urgent action regarding climate change, and have suggested that Kyoto is only a first step.
The Kyoto Protocol may have little effect now, but it sets the political precedent for bigger (and more effective) cuts in the future.
Advocates of the Kyoto Protocol claim that reducing these emissions is crucially important; carbon dioxide, they believe, is causing the earth's atmosphere to heat up. This is supported by attribution analysis.
Attribution of recent climate change attempts to discover what mechanisms are responsible for the observed changes in climate.
A group of major Canadian corporations also called for urgent action regarding climate change, and have suggested that Kyoto is only a first step.
The Kyoto Protocol may have little effect now, but it sets the political precedent for bigger (and more effective) cuts in the future.
There is nothing wrong with a first step. But you have to tell me what this first step seeks to accomplish. Because reducing GHG emissions isn’t one of them.
As for it being a crucial step, let’s analyze this for a moment.
GHG’s make up just one per cent of the atmosphere. Of that one per cent, water vapour makes up 97 per cent and CO2 just two per cent. Of the tiny sliver that consists of CO2, just three to six per cent is manmade; the vast majority occurs naturally. And of the tiny amount of CO2 that is manmade, the amount that would be stopped by Kyoto is, at most, one-sixth, if the U.S. were in the treaty, which it is not.
So this minute amount of CO2 allegedly will reverse global warming. Possibly, I won’t mock it, because quite honestly I do not know. But I do know Kyoto isn’t an answer, it is a compromise like I said and nothing more. Kyoto expires in a few years, look at the participants, what have they accomplished? It will have been 20 years since 1990 when Kyoto will need to tell the world what it accomplished. Let’s see.
As for it being a crucial step, let’s analyze this for a moment.
GHG’s make up just one per cent of the atmosphere. Of that one per cent, water vapour makes up 97 per cent and CO2 just two per cent. Of the tiny sliver that consists of CO2, just three to six per cent is manmade; the vast majority occurs naturally. And of the tiny amount of CO2 that is manmade, the amount that would be stopped by Kyoto is, at most, one-sixth, if the U.S. were in the treaty, which it is not.
So this minute amount of CO2 allegedly will reverse global warming. Possibly, I won’t mock it, because quite honestly I do not know. But I do know Kyoto isn’t an answer, it is a compromise like I said and nothing more. Kyoto expires in a few years, look at the participants, what have they accomplished? It will have been 20 years since 1990 when Kyoto will need to tell the world what it accomplished. Let’s see.
I think not said:
Carbon trading already happens on the CCX. It's traded right in the US. The protocol is an already accepted standard of emission management. It isn't new. Kyoto is on a bigger scale.
I suppose if France is involved it's easy smearing for the neocons.
Send this to Karl Rove. Ask him if it looks familiar.
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/about/pdf/ChicagoAccord_050623.pdf
http://www.chicagoclimatex.com/about/pdf/ChicagoAccord_050623.pdf
I debate just fine with people that don't side track the topic with snide remarks like your last one about the French. You are basing everything in this thread on your emotions. You have not disputed anything I have written. You have in fact only tried to invoke emotions as a basis of your response. I see no reason why your method of "debating" will change anytime soon.
I don't need to cut and paste to make a point, I have the ability of critical thought, unlike some people around here.
I don't need to cut and paste to make a point, I have the ability of critical thought, unlike some people around here.
The good thing about Kyoto is that for once it got major governments to agree that climate change is a fact and to all sign on to the accord. That in itself is a huge achievement. Amendments can be made to improve it. The Kyoto Accord doesn't have to be perfect. Just as long as people are on board. I agree that Carbon Credits is a growing business and should be scrapped from the accord. But I dont think the whole thing should be thrown out the window.
I appreciate what you say Gonzo but lets face it, it took governments 20 years to get together without getting it together. If climate change is such a pressing issue you would think more credibility would be given to the Kyoto Protocol. There is one reason why Kyoto exists, so governments can see they are trying when they really aren't.