Pollution

[Back]

When the EPA (http://www.epa.gov/mercury/advisories.htm) says you should only eat so much fish so as not to get mercury poisoning, there is a major problem.

Shouldn’t they be stopping emissions of mercury into our waters?

[Galleazzo]

You'd think.

[Back]

12 hours later... thats the only response.

The temperature of the Earth has risin 1 degree in this past decade. Projected analysis says it will rise another 5 before the end of THIS decade.

The current administration has ignored the Kyoto Protocal (http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/global.warming/stories/treaty/) and opened up more land for deforestization and drilling. Our tax dollars are funding 6 new nuclear powerplants across this country.

The EPA is nothing more than a tool of the White House/Corporations.

This information is obscure so I’m not suprised at the lack of response. Whats more suprising is that its not more publicised. Liberal media indeed.

[edited to add Kyoto link]

[Edited on 2-5-2005 by Backlash]

[Jazuela]

I just can't get all that worked up about the "problem" with global warming while outside my window it's 20 degrees and there's ice covering my front walk.

Send some of that global warming my way will ya? If it gets too hot I'll letcha know. Til then, I just can't muster up enough emotion to give a shit.

[Back]

Perfect example. Thank you.

And don’t worry, only future generations will have to deal with it.

[Jazuela]

I'm just a visitor on this planet. And as all planets are, this one is temporary and doomed to die eventually anyway. Prolonging the inevitable by sacrificing my momentary enjoyment is not my idea of a fun life.

Yes, I really am a selfish hedonistic pig. And that's alright by me.

[Back]

Well, without doubt nature will correct itself. I agree that immediacy is more of a proponent to action. The long distant future of a few years is only a spec on the universal timeline, so the issue get ignored.

Seriously, I’m as much a hedonistic pig as the next, but I’m aware and have adjusted my lifestyle. So you might ask, well WTF are you doing about it? Can any of us do anything about it?

You certainly can. In many many ways too numerous to list. But off the top of my head here are some suggestions that I have adopted.

If you must own a vehicle, get one with low gas consumption and or alternative fuel (electric hybrid). Otherwise use public transportation. Vote for people who recognize that this panet’s (our home) resources are finite. Recycle.

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Backlash
The temperature of the Earth has risin 1 degree in this past decade. Projected analysis says it will rise another 5 before the end of THIS decade.Dude, the sun's getting hotter. Check out sunspot activity. This isn't something you can blame on Bush.

That other stuff, yeah, you can blame that on Bush. But he doesn't control the sun.

[Back]

You know Latrin, that sort of conjecture is reminiscent of the ostrich’s behaviour, but to the tenth power.

If I were to ignore your post, would it have gone away?

[DeV]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Backlash
The temperature of the Earth has risin 1 degree in this past decade. Projected analysis says it will rise another 5 before the end of THIS decade.Dude, the sun's getting hotter. Check out sunspot activity. This isn't something you can blame on Bush.
I didn't read this as Backlash saying Bush should be blamed because the temp of the earth has risen a degree. He said the current administration is doing nothing about a very serious issue that apparently not many people are aware of.

Although the times I do take public transportation I have seen the ads posted inside about mercury poisoning. A little boy holding up a fish and the ad stats he is getting more than he bargained for. The information posted is accurate at least. Nothing wrong with making people more aware.

[Latrinsorm]

The EPA is nothing more than a tool of the White House/Corporations. In fact, Backlash, if we ignore the sun's heightened activity, it will go away (for awhile). It's cyclic. If, on the other hand, we spend billions of dollars trying to find a way to make it go away, it will still go away.

That doesn't mean we should go out of our way to make it worse, but it's not like there's a rheostat in the White House that Bush has cranked all the way up because he thinks he looks dumb in winter clothes.

[Back]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

The EPA is nothing more than a tool of the White House/Corporations. In fact, Backlash, if we ignore the sun's heightened activity, it will go away (for awhile). It's cyclic. If, on the other hand, we spend billions of dollars trying to find a way to make it go away, it will still go away.

That doesn't mean we should go out of our way to make it worse, but it's not like there's a rheostat in the White House that Bush has cranked all the way up because he thinks he looks dumb in winter clothes.

While I appreciate the humor of your post I have to disagree again. There IS a rheostat in the White House. While it has no effect on the sun, as you so extemely suggest, it does have an effect on all of our heating bills.

[HarmNone]

As an avid fish lover, I've been concerned about the mercury issue for quite some time. There are things that could be done to lessen and, over time, eliminate the problem. Those things are not being done.

I'm not much into meat-eating, partially because of the antibiotics and steroids used to make the product more profitable. Fish is another source of protein that's being whittled away through polution and lack of interest in said polution. We can ignore it, if we wish. That does not mean it isn't a problem.

[Back]

The Environmental Protection Agency needs to change its name to the White House Policy Protection Agency.

Proof (http://www.projectcensored.org/publications/2005/8.html).

Proof that these issues are recognized and that there is hope. Go to your local grocery store. Find the eggs. See those fancy plastic egg crates? They are eggs from cage-free chickens. Some are even non-hormonalized.

[Edited on 2-5-2005 by Backlash]

[Gan]

Actually being aware of the Kyoto Protocol and the de-involvement of the US therein I was going to make a reply when I saw it appear yesterday, but then I realized it was just another blatant attempt by someone on these boards to bash the current administration and yet ignore all of the apathy and other lack of involvement by administrations of the Democratic party in the past.

Thank you for pointing out that the world is indeed warming. Its been going on that way since the ice ages. If you're really concerned about the cause of the mercury levels in the fish that are caused by the sulphur emissions from the large power plants that are here and in the larger producing 3rd world industrialized countries that have less regulation and filtration then you should sell your vehicles, turn your house into solar powered and quit using paper to save the trees. Then convince your billion plus neighbors in the countries where there are no regulations on emissions or filtering to do the same and be happy with their status quo instead of catching up with the larger industrialized powers of the world.

The liberal media has indeed beat this horse to death but when the scientific community stood up and proved that the holes in the ozone were cyclic and that the only reason why we didnt notice them earlier is because we did not have the technology to see it. Yes, the media is liberal indeed, they even admit it.

Oh and you should also know that the nuclear power plants scheduled for production have ZERO emissions of sulphur dioxide and other harmful particulates. So why is their existance included in your statement as to whats wrong with the current administrations activities regarding this global warming trend? Because this post is more about another angle to bash Bush.

Talk about sour grapes...

[Back]

Sour grapes makes wine, my friend. You voted for four more years of whining. :)

I could pull a neocon move and suggest you are pro-pollution. But that would be outlandish.

[Gan]

I'm not pro-pollution... I'm an economist by education, a marketer by profession, and a republican by political genre. Albeit a moderate one at that... There are some things I'm not a fan of in the Republican platform.

But more on topic, with regards to pollution; I'd challenge everyone who lights up a cigarette or cigar or pipe that if they really wanted to influence air pollution then they should take an active stance and be an example to all and quit smoking before they criticize what pollutants are put into the air and what people are doing about it.

:!:

[Back]

As opposed to gas guzzling vehicles?

Are you just arguing points just to argue, or do you really have some original ideas?

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Backlash
The temperature of the Earth has risin 1 degree in this past decade. Projected analysis says it will rise another 5 before the end of THIS decade.Dude, the sun's getting hotter. Check out sunspot activity. This isn't something you can blame on Bush.

That other stuff, yeah, you can blame that on Bush. But he doesn't control the sun.

why will we attack Iraq and not the sun?
bush only cares about oil.

[Artha]

I'm pro-pollution.

Fuck Mother Earth.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
As opposed to gas guzzling vehicles?

Are you just arguing points just to argue, or do you really have some original ideas?

I'm only providing topics of debate much like this thread you created. Cant stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. As for its originality, I'm sure the debate over global warming is just as used up as that of smoker's rights vs. those who dont smoke... So dont speak of originality unless you're capable of putting up some yourself.

[Back]

Here is an idea. Don’t fuck up the planet?

So thats not so original.

An original idea would be power your home with your thoughts. If you think more, your home would be well lit.

If you had a mind altering substance, your home might look like a lava lamp.

backlash what kind of car do you own?

[Back]

Suzuki Aerio. I drive it on weekends.

I call it my “urban runner”.

BTW, this topic isn’t about me. Its about US.

[Edited on 2-5-2005 by Backlash]

[Edited on 2-5-2005 by Backlash]

Just wondering why you drive a car that adds to pollution.

Does your computer run off a non-pollution causing source of energy?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Actually being aware of the Kyoto Protocol and the de-involvement of the US therein I was going to make a reply when I saw it appear yesterday, but then I realized it was just another blatant attempt by someone on these boards to bash the current administration and yet ignore all of the apathy and other lack of involvement by administrations of the Democratic party in the past.

Thank you for pointing out that the world is indeed warming. Its been going on that way since the ice ages. If you're really concerned about the cause of the mercury levels in the fish that are caused by the sulphur emissions from the large power plants that are here and in the larger producing 3rd world industrialized countries that have less regulation and filtration then you should sell your vehicles, turn your house into solar powered and quit using paper to save the trees. Then convince your billion plus neighbors in the countries where there are no regulations on emissions or filtering to do the same and be happy with their status quo instead of catching up with the larger industrialized powers of the world.

The liberal media has indeed beat this horse to death but when the scientific community stood up and proved that the holes in the ozone were cyclic and that the only reason why we didnt notice them earlier is because we did not have the technology to see it. Yes, the media is liberal indeed, they even admit it.

Oh and you should also know that the nuclear power plants scheduled for production have ZERO emissions of sulphur dioxide and other harmful particulates. So why is their existance included in your statement as to whats wrong with the current administrations activities regarding this global warming trend? Because this post is more about another angle to bash Bush.

Talk about sour grapes...

Can I get a FUCKING PWNED!!!!111oneone!!

PS - There are studies that show this is a planetary trend and natural. There are studies that show that if we removed all the greenhouse gases generated by "US" we'd still experience something like 98% of the greenhouse effect.

Those studies could be wrong, but then, so could the Save the planet smokers, right? ;)

You should just put all your administration bashing into one topic. Or limit yourself to like, 3 a day or something.

[Warriorbird]

The main issue with ozone is jet airplanes. We're so not going to give them up. Environmentalists love flying in them to conferences.

[Back]

Originally posted by Dave
Just wondering why you drive a car that adds to pollution.

Does your computer run off a non-pollution causing source of energy?

No, Dave. It runs off the dead bodies of Iraqi children.

See there was a use for the war.


Before you go around telling people they need to change do it you should do so yourself.

[Warriorbird]

Pretty much. As bleak and eerie as it is, I know a lot of environmentalists that eat beef and fly in jet aircraft and have big damn SUVs. I'm not willing to change two of those myself (the beef and the jets) so I don't think I can ask anyone else to (not that they'd listen).

[Edited on 2-6-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Latrinsorm]

Every day before I have my hot dogs (which could very well contain beef) I ask myself, "Would Warriorbird want me to eat these?"

You two Latrinsorm! I thought I was the only one.

[Jorddyn]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Every day before I have my hot dogs (which could very well contain beef) I ask myself, "Would Warriorbird want me to eat these?"

I'd think that eating hot dogs would actually make you quite the environmentalist, considering they're made from the "leftovers" of cows.

Jorddyn

[Artha]

By
considering they're made from the "leftovers" of cows. , you must mean 'homeless people.'

[Warriorbird]

I want you to eat the hot dogs. I fought vegetarians to allow you to eat those hot dogs. Feminists, too.

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

A good hotdog (accompanied with mustard, dill relish and on a nice bun) is hard to beat.

Throw it down at a tailgating party, and I'd suggest it's one of the top 5 foods!

[Gan]

Decker all beef dogs, toasted buns, French's original mustard and Heinz ketchup both applied onto the dog after its been placed in the buns. Mmmm mmmmmm mmm.

My god look where this topic has strayed.

[DeV]

Nothing beats a Chicago hotdog or polish. Take your pick.

[StrayRogue]

I'd like it very much for America to join the Kyoto Deal. I don't see it ever happening unfortunately. Just like America ever giving debt relief to Africa, either, but thats a different server.

Originally posted by DeV
Nothing beats a Chicago hotdog or polish. Take your pick.

As rare as it is DEV I agree with you 110% on this. A good Vienna Beef dog... mmm, thanks for making me homesick :(

Originally posted by StrayRogue
I'd like it very much for America to join the Kyoto Deal. I don't see it ever happening unfortunately. Just like America ever giving debt relief to Africa, either, but thats a different server.


I'd like the bank to give me debt relief on my car loan, but I dont see that happening either.

[StrayRogue]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by StrayRogue
I'd like it very much for America to join the Kyoto Deal. I don't see it ever happening unfortunately. Just like America ever giving debt relief to Africa, either, but thats a different server.


I'd like the bank to give me debt relief on my car loan, but I dont see that happening either.

You won't die if you don't pay off your car though.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Actually being aware of the Kyoto Protocol and the de-involvement of the US therein I was going to make a reply when I saw it appear yesterday, but then I realized it was just another blatant attempt by someone on these boards to bash the current administration and yet ignore all of the apathy and other lack of involvement by administrations of the Democratic party in the past.

Thank you for pointing out that the world is indeed warming. Its been going on that way since the ice ages. If you're really concerned about the cause of the mercury levels in the fish that are caused by the sulphur emissions from the large power plants that are here and in the larger producing 3rd world industrialized countries that have less regulation and filtration then you should sell your vehicles, turn your house into solar powered and quit using paper to save the trees. Then convince your billion plus neighbors in the countries where there are no regulations on emissions or filtering to do the same and be happy with their status quo instead of catching up with the larger industrialized powers of the world.

The liberal media has indeed beat this horse to death but when the scientific community stood up and proved that the holes in the ozone were cyclic and that the only reason why we didnt notice them earlier is because we did not have the technology to see it. Yes, the media is liberal indeed, they even admit it.

Oh and you should also know that the nuclear power plants scheduled for production have ZERO emissions of sulphur dioxide and other harmful particulates. So why is their existance included in your statement as to whats wrong with the current administrations activities regarding this global warming trend? Because this post is more about another angle to bash Bush.

Talk about sour grapes...

SHENANIGANS HAS BEEN CALLED!

The first person to mention Bush in this thread -- Latrin, saying Backlash was anti-bush. The only evidence Latrin had to go on -- that Backlash said we should vote for environmentally minded officials. The next person, DeV, saying Backlash wasn't condemning Bush at all. Third, you in your "liberals are playa-haters" bullshit of a post.

Pick up the December copy of Discovery magazine. Cover story "Is there any way to turn down the heat?" In which they don't quote a SINGLE democrat, but two Republicans, both of whom support Kyoto-like regulations in this country. The article details the evidence of global warming and does not once mention the sun heating up or the cyclical nature of global-warming. There can be disagreement, and I'm sure many scientists are making arguments such as these, but not these scientists. Instead you chose to represent the view that you found most convincing and act like it's the gospel truth. The very fact that leaders in the republican party are for tighter controls proves that there is at least a SLIGHT possibilty that the entire scientific community doesn't think it's just natural that the earth is warming at an alarming rate. They think it's time to make a change. "Now the challegne is to update the policy positions to be consistent with the science," said John McCain (R-AZ).

I think Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) said it best: "It always takes the immediacy of the problem to get any reaction here in this institution. We're not exactly visionary, if you hadn't noticed." It seems that McCain and Snowe are both Bush-haters too.

I guess you'd rather just call Discover liberal media -- imagine that you have no power to do anything -- and go back to your simple existence.

Well McCain is not exactly a run of the mill (R)....
i dont know much about Snowe, so she must not be one of these leaders you speak of.

Just because you lean left or right does not mean your going to agree on every issue. I am sure if looked for there are just as many Dems that dont care to be part of the Kyoto agreement. There is also one thing you had to say in your post to make your point Kyoto-Like I will let that speak for itself.

Economics Strayrogue, We could be like a lot of the others that signed it but don't abide by it. I guess in this instance America is being honest. We wont follow it so we wont sign it.

Edit: post was removed but he asked why we won't sign it.

[Edited on 2-7-2005 by Dave]

[Gan]

<SHENANIGANS HAS BEEN CALLED! >

Indeed they have, but the pie isnt heading where you think it is...

Lets look at a few things. Of course, the source of this is the government, so you could say that its baised but then again, we live in a biased media-state anyways right? :rolleyes:

Yet another Kyoto Article explaining why the US isnt involved... (http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/greenhouse/greenhouse4/kyoto.html)

WHAT THE KYOTO PROTOCOL REPRESENTS:
<Under the protocol, industrialized nations must collectively reduce their emissions by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels in the years 2008-2012. Individual reduction targets vary. The U.S. target is 7 percent; those for Canada, Japan, and most of Europe range from 6 to 8 percent. Some nations are allowed to increase their emissions: Norway by 1 percent, Australia by up to 8 percent, and Iceland by up to 10 percent.>

SIZE AND SCOPE OF THE PROTOCOL:
<According to United Nations calculations, the protocol's targets represent a 30 percent reduction from the currently projected emissions by industrialized countries in the year 2010 under "business as usual" scenarios with no emissions cuts.>
<The Kyoto Protocol includes two important elements long advocated by the United States. A provision for emissions trading will allow industrialized countries to buy and sell emissions credits among themselves, and a "clean development mechanism" will permit industrialized countries to receive credit for financing emission-reducing projects in developing nations. However, the details of both programs remain to be worked out.>

OK FINE, BUT HERE'S WHAT WE [USA] WANT TO SEE INCLUDED:
<The most significant piece of unfinished business involves the role of developing countries. During the Kyoto talks, the United States insisted that developing nations such as China and India participate meaningfully in efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions. But they refused, saying that the industrialized world should first reduce its own emissions before asking poorer countries to join in. Developing nations are expected to become the world's leading emitters over the next 30 to 40 years.>

AND WHY WE DID NOT SIGN [BUSH BASHERS PLEZ READ TWICE SO YOU ARE NOT CONFUSED]:
<In a press conference in Washington, D.C., on December 11, Vice President Gore confirmed that the administration will not submit the protocol to the Senate for ratification "until key developing nations participate in this effort." Gore indicated that the United States will hold bilateral talks with key countries and that negotiators would work toward reaching a formal agreement at the next meeting of the parties to the climate convention, to be held in Buenos Aires on November 2-13, 1998. >

In a nutshell, the UN wanted the US to foot the majority of the bill for making the changes. Something that the UN has demonstrated several times involving global change or aid.

Sorry for the dating of this article, since its a piece on the EPA website last updated January of 1998.

I hope this clears up some questions, and yet at the same time diffuses the angle that our unwillingness to get involved did not start with either Bush. Only question is where will it be continued.

MY WORTHLESS OPINION:
I am a supporter of 'clean' industry and science. I think that the human civilization is capable of accompolishing whatever it sets its collective efforts towards to achieve. However, I think that leadership in any global endeavor does not necessitate sole ownership or activity. Let these efforts be all encompassing instead of an effort to make the richest kid on the block foot the tab just because he can.

:clap:

[Back]

On a global level it is our leaders we must look to and trust to accomplish these goals. Projections have been made and the outlook is grim, but not impossible to change.

Our leaders are elected. That means (ideally) we are the ones that bear full responsibility.

Its as simple as that. Its as simple as putting your plastic and glass in one bin and paper in another. Its as simple as sharing a ride. Its as simple as turning down your thermostat a notch, or turning off a light that isn’t being used.

You can accuse me of using this issue as another means to bash Bush because I am sad Kerry lost. But you would be brushing the real message under the carpet.

And Dave, about my car. I literally drive it on weekends and use public transportation or walk during the week. Its a 4 cyl that gets 25/27 miles to the gallon and only needs its oil changed every 7000 miles.

Typical liberal mentality, its not my responsibility its the governments. EVERYTHING is your own damn responsibility. If you want the world to be more clean, start by cleaning it up yourself.

[Edited on 2-7-2005 by Dave]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
Typical liberal mentality, its not my responsibility its the governments. EVERYTHING is your own damn responsibility. If you want the world to be more clean, start by cleaning it up yourself.

[Edited on 2-7-2005 by Dave] Everything is your own damn responsibility. :nod: Tell that to the Iraqis or you could shut up with the nonsense talk.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Actually being aware of the Kyoto Protocol and the de-involvement of the US therein I was going to make a reply when I saw it appear yesterday, but then I realized it was just another blatant attempt by someone on these boards to bash the current administration and yet ignore all of the apathy and other lack of involvement by administrations of the Democratic party in the past.

Thank you for pointing out that the world is indeed warming. Its been going on that way since the ice ages. If you're really concerned about the cause of the mercury levels in the fish that are caused by the sulphur emissions from the large power plants that are here and in the larger producing 3rd world industrialized countries that have less regulation and filtration then you should sell your vehicles, turn your house into solar powered and quit using paper to save the trees. Then convince your billion plus neighbors in the countries where there are no regulations on emissions or filtering to do the same and be happy with their status quo instead of catching up with the larger industrialized powers of the world.

The liberal media has indeed beat this horse to death but when the scientific community stood up and proved that the holes in the ozone were cyclic and that the only reason why we didnt notice them earlier is because we did not have the technology to see it. Yes, the media is liberal indeed, they even admit it.

Oh and you should also know that the nuclear power plants scheduled for production have ZERO emissions of sulphur dioxide and other harmful particulates. So why is their existance included in your statement as to whats wrong with the current administrations activities regarding this global warming trend? Because this post is more about another angle to bash Bush.

Talk about sour grapes...

This is one of the funniest posts I have seen in a while. Is it tough to breath with your head so far up your ass?

[Suppa Hobbit Mage]

You tell us.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
You tell us.

Causes of Global Warming (http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Statistics/causes_of_global_warming.html)



Results of Global Warming (http://www.epcc.pref.osaka.jp/apec/eng/earth/global_warming/dounaru.html)

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ganalon
<SHENANIGANS HAS BEEN CALLED! >

Indeed they have, but the pie isnt heading where you think it is...

Lets look at a few things. Of course, the source of this is the government, so you could say that its baised but then again, we live in a biased media-state anyways right? :rolleyes:

Yet another Kyoto Article explaining why the US isnt involved... (http://www.epa.gov/globalwarming/greenhouse/greenhouse4/kyoto.html)

WHAT THE KYOTO PROTOCOL REPRESENTS:
<Under the protocol, industrialized nations must collectively reduce their emissions by an average of 5.2 percent below 1990 levels in the years 2008-2012. Individual reduction targets vary. The U.S. target is 7 percent; those for Canada, Japan, and most of Europe range from 6 to 8 percent. Some nations are allowed to increase their emissions: Norway by 1 percent, Australia by up to 8 percent, and Iceland by up to 10 percent.>

SIZE AND SCOPE OF THE PROTOCOL:
<According to United Nations calculations, the protocol's targets represent a 30 percent reduction from the currently projected emissions by industrialized countries in the year 2010 under "business as usual" scenarios with no emissions cuts.>
<The Kyoto Protocol includes two important elements long advocated by the United States. A provision for emissions trading will allow industrialized countries to buy and sell emissions credits among themselves, and a "clean development mechanism" will permit industrialized countries to receive credit for financing emission-reducing projects in developing nations. However, the details of both programs remain to be worked out.>

OK FINE, BUT HERE'S WHAT WE [USA] WANT TO SEE INCLUDED:
<The most significant piece of unfinished business involves the role of developing countries. During the Kyoto talks, the United States insisted that developing nations such as China and India participate meaningfully in efforts to limit greenhouse gas emissions. But they refused, saying that the industrialized world should first reduce its own emissions before asking poorer countries to join in. Developing nations are expected to become the world's leading emitters over the next 30 to 40 years.>

AND WHY WE DID NOT SIGN [BUSH BASHERS PLEZ READ TWICE SO YOU ARE NOT CONFUSED]:
<In a press conference in Washington, D.C., on December 11, Vice President Gore confirmed that the administration will not submit the protocol to the Senate for ratification "until key developing nations participate in this effort." Gore indicated that the United States will hold bilateral talks with key countries and that negotiators would work toward reaching a formal agreement at the next meeting of the parties to the climate convention, to be held in Buenos Aires on November 2-13, 1998. >

In a nutshell, the UN wanted the US to foot the majority of the bill for making the changes. Something that the UN has demonstrated several times involving global change or aid.

Sorry for the dating of this article, since its a piece on the EPA website last updated January of 1998.

I hope this clears up some questions, and yet at the same time diffuses the angle that our unwillingness to get involved did not start with either Bush. Only question is where will it be continued.

MY WORTHLESS OPINION:
I am a supporter of 'clean' industry and science. I think that the human civilization is capable of accompolishing whatever it sets its collective efforts towards to achieve. However, I think that leadership in any global endeavor does not necessitate sole ownership or activity. Let these efforts be all encompassing instead of an effort to make the richest kid on the block foot the tab just because he can.

Regardless of which Administration made the initial decision. The reasons for not participating in KYOTO are a cop-out.

Just because India and China won't sign it, is no reason for America not too. Should we adopt Communism because China has? As your quote points out America should set an example.

I didn't read anything in the article about bearing the brunt of the costs for Kyoto but obviously if America produces the most total pollution((not per capita) then it will cost the most to meet the standards set out by the Kyoto protocol.

[xtc]

Smog in February, never mind the warm summer months Iowa issued an air quality advisory in the middle of winter.

ARTICLE HERE (http://www.allamericanpatriots.com/m-news+article+storyid-5620-PHPSESSID-6cad940de1f5ee4dfcacc3d3832397f2.html)

[Edited on 2-7-2005 by xtc]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Suzuki Aerio. I drive it on weekends.

I call it my “urban runner”.

BTW, this topic isn’t about me. Its about US.


LMAO.. practice what you preach. Unless YOU are driving around in an electric car, using wind/solar power to power your home/office.. then you are part of the problem.


Originally posted by Backlash


The temperature of the Earth has risin 1 degree in this past decade. Projected analysis says it will rise another 5 before the end of THIS decade.


Please provide proof that this is the case due to the "greenhouse" effect and not due to the climatic change that has happened on this planet since the beginning of time.

When people start crying out about how man has affected the global climate and how we are all doomed.. I point them to the Ice Age when man wasn't a factor and ask them about that global change. Take a look at the geological evidence and it will also point to other climatic changes that happened before man. What about those?

[xtc]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
Suzuki Aerio. I drive it on weekends.

I call it my “urban runner”.

BTW, this topic isn’t about me. Its about US.


LMAO.. practice what you preach. Unless YOU are driving around in an electric car, using wind/solar power to power your home/office.. then you are part of the problem.


Originally posted by Backlash


The temperature of the Earth has risin 1 degree in this past decade. Projected analysis says it will rise another 5 before the end of THIS decade.


Please provide proof that this is the case due to the "greenhouse" effect and not due to the climatic change that has happened on this planet since the beginning of time.

When people start crying out about how man has affected the global climate and how we are all doomed.. I point them to the Ice Age when man wasn't a factor and ask them about that global change. Take a look at the geological evidence and it will also point to other climatic changes that happened before man. What about those?

http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/earlyice.htm

[Back]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
LMAO.. practice what you preach. Unless YOU are driving around in an electric car, using wind/solar power to power your home/office.. then you are part of the problem.

Alright, I’ve posted about how I’ve adjusted my lifestyle to be less of an impact on our environment twice now.

I find it irrational to try and twist this issue into anything other than what it is.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash

Originally posted by Parkbandit
LMAO.. practice what you preach. Unless YOU are driving around in an electric car, using wind/solar power to power your home/office.. then you are part of the problem.

Alright, I’ve posted about how I’ve adjusted my lifestyle to be less of an impact on our environment twice now.

I find it irrational to try and twist this issue into anything other than what it is.

What is irrational is that you contribute to that which you demand action against. It would be like me posting something about the need for the abolition of guns.. knowing I am an avid hunter.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by xtc
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/earlyice.htm

You can't just google "Ice Age" and "Greenhouse" and hope that will cover your argument.

My point was that the global change we know as the Ice Age happened before man could have any impact on the climate. It shows that the climate can change without blaming it on Man.

[Back]

Really. So I should drive a Hummer everyday, throw my garbage out the window, leave all my lights on and pour my waste into the local river.

Your anaolgy would be more like if you owned guns, voting for more gun control.

[Tsa`ah]

Most environmentalist throw science out the window when it doesn't support their argument.

Let's take a trip in the wayback machine to a time when the Middle East was lush and fertile. What's the difference between then and today?

Two things directly related. The distance between the earth and moon and our degree of wobble.

Every year the moon's orbit extends away from earth by an inch or so (don't ask me for exact figures because I'm in no mood to research). The earth's axis isn't stationary; it wobbles. I believe it's around a 23 degree wobble now. When the Arab world was lush, green, and fertile, the moon was closer and the wobble was around 22 degrees.

1 degree makes a difference. The pull between the moon and earth is what keeps the earth's axis stable. As the years go by the moon nudges further and further away. The wobble increases, things get hotter because the wobble increases and the rotation slows.

Soon, like a few hundred thousand years perhaps, the moon will break away from the earth's orbit and the earth will no longer have a stable axis, let alone a stable rotation. The North Pole could become the west pole, the Sahara could become a mass of ice, and the Pacific could become a dessert.

The Sun role in warming hasn't changed much in the past few million/billion years. While some scientist point to increased solar activity, most scientist point at more accurate methods of measurement. The sun hasn't changed, our methodology and instrumentation has.

Now before anyone decides that this argument is against the efforts of environmentalist, it's not.

With the knowledge we have, we should be concerned about limiting pollutants that magnify natural occurrences, not dismissing them because they don't have an impact on the now.

If you want to procrastinate, do it in a manner that only affects you ... not humanities future.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by Backlash
Really. So I should drive a Hummer everyday, throw my garbage out the window, leave all my lights on and pour my waste into the local river.

Your anaolgy would be more like if you owned guns, voting for more gun control.

I would certainly take a more serious look at an environmentalist's ideas about the environment if they were actually doing as they say we all should be doing. I have as much respect for you as I do Kerry driving around in his.. er I mean his family's giant SUVs.

[Warriorbird]

Of course the "climate change" is our fault. At the same time many of the things "jets, beef, milk" that cause the climate to change are staples of our society and our way of life. I used to be an avid environmentalist until I visited Eastern Europe and a close friend there told me, "Enviromentalism and animal rights. Those are luxuries for Western countries. We can't afford it."

[xtc]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by xtc
http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/earlyice.htm

You can't just google "Ice Age" and "Greenhouse" and hope that will cover your argument.

My point was that the global change we know as the Ice Age happened before man could have any impact on the climate. It shows that the climate can change without blaming it on Man.


I didn't just google Greenhouse and Ice Age. I read about this study in a Toronto paper recently. I couldn't find the article so I looked for alternative sources.

The point is that greenhouse gases cause climate change and that this recent study nullifies any argument against this. So whether those gases are from erupting volcanoes or automobiles and industry, they are injurious to our ability to inhabit this planet. As such we should do all we can to reduce greenhouse gases.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
Really. So I should drive a Hummer everyday, throw my garbage out the window, leave all my lights on and pour my waste into the local river.

Your anaolgy would be more like if you owned guns, voting for more gun control.
I have as much respect for you as I do Kerry driving around in his.. er I mean his family's giant SUVs. That's funny... it puts you and Kerry in the exact same boat. Enjoy the ride.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Backlash
Really. So I should drive a Hummer everyday, throw my garbage out the window, leave all my lights on and pour my waste into the local river.

Your anaolgy would be more like if you owned guns, voting for more gun control.
I have as much respect for you as I do Kerry driving around in his.. er I mean his family's giant SUVs. That's funny... it puts you and Kerry in the exact same boat. Enjoy the ride.

What boat is that?

[CrystalTears]

It's cause you drive an SUV too, ya cow!

I do love ya. I do. :D

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by CrystalTears
It's cause you drive an SUV too, ya cow!

I do love ya. I do. :D

I wanted DeV to post that.. you dope. Thanks for ruining my damn trap.

While we both drive SUVs (And I own mine.. his is "his family's) :rolleyes: I am not telling every person I can find that will listen to me that gas guzzling cars/trucks are having a negative impact on our environment.

That makes me an SUV owner and him a fucking hypocrit. Big difference.

[DeV]

The one in which you share similiar views about the environment or <lack of> taking serious the facts that have been pointed out in this thread eg. (Kerry driving around in his family's SUVs and your statement of not taking [the facts presented] seriously because you're waiting on the environmentalists to start practicing what they preach).

Warriorbird probably summed it up best, at least for those who can't afford our Western luxuries. Some Americans have a hard enough time getting a piece of trash into the proper recepticle which is usually on the ground within inches of the trash can! ... that would, at least be a proper step in the right direction.

[CrystalTears]

My answer was more fun. :cry:

[DeV]

OK.. I'll give you that but I didn't know you'd replied already! :P

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DeV
The one in which you share similiar views about the environment or <lack of> taking serious the facts that have been pointed out in this thread eg. (Kerry driving around in his family's SUVs and your statement of not taking [the facts presented] seriously because you're waiting on the environmentalists to start practicing what they preach).

Warriorbird probably summed it up best, at least for those who can't afford our Western luxuries. Some Americans have a hard enough time getting a piece of trash into the proper recepticle which is usually on the ground within inches of the trash can! ... that would, at least be a proper step in the right direction.

A bit of a stretch there DeV.

And I have yet to see any "facts" presented here.. more like educational guesses. My point is quite simple. To those people who wish to proclaim that we are ruining the environment and that the government should do something about it today... clean up your own backyard.

[Keller]

Ganalon --

Read my post again. It had NOTHING to do with the feasibility of Kyoto and EVERYTHING to do with your nonsense "environmentalists-hate-Bush-and-the-only-cause-of-global-warming-is-entirely-natural-and-cyclical" bullshit.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by DeV
The one in which you share similiar views about the environment or <lack of> taking serious the facts that have been pointed out in this thread eg. (Kerry driving around in his family's SUVs and your statement of not taking [the facts presented] seriously because you're waiting on the environmentalists to start practicing what they preach).

Warriorbird probably summed it up best, at least for those who can't afford our Western luxuries. Some Americans have a hard enough time getting a piece of trash into the proper recepticle which is usually on the ground within inches of the trash can! ... that would, at least be a proper step in the right direction.

A bit of a stretch there DeV.

And I have yet to see any "facts" presented here.. more like educational guesses. My point is quite simple. To those people who wish to proclaim that we are ruining the environment and that the government should do something about it today... clean up your own backyard. A stretch yes, but not too far off I'm sure. I wondered why you would go there in the first place but I'm glad you posted it. At least you and Kerry have one thing in common, eh.

Your point is not too far off to what Backlash is trying to state. We do need to become more aware and more conscience of our actions. Fuck the government, it starts with us, the individual. It's just sad that this topic was used as a pathetic attempt to make this a liberal vs. conservative debate, when it isn't. That's my point.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by DeV
The one in which you share similiar views about the environment or <lack of> taking serious the facts that have been pointed out in this thread eg. (Kerry driving around in his family's SUVs and your statement of not taking [the facts presented] seriously because you're waiting on the environmentalists to start practicing what they preach).

Warriorbird probably summed it up best, at least for those who can't afford our Western luxuries. Some Americans have a hard enough time getting a piece of trash into the proper recepticle which is usually on the ground within inches of the trash can! ... that would, at least be a proper step in the right direction.

A bit of a stretch there DeV.

And I have yet to see any "facts" presented here.. more like educational guesses. My point is quite simple. To those people who wish to proclaim that we are ruining the environment and that the government should do something about it today... clean up your own backyard. A stretch yes, but not too far off I'm sure. I wondered why you would go there in the first place but I'm glad you posted it. At least you and Kerry have one thing in common, eh.

Your point is not too far off to what Backlash is trying to state. We do need to become more aware and more conscience of our actions. Fuck the government, it starts with us, the individual. It's just sad that this topic was used as a pathetic attempt to make this a liberal vs. conservative debate, when it isn't. That's my point.

Dear DeV..

You have either completely missed my point or are too stupid to comprehend it. I'll state it even more simple for you:

I drive an SUV
Kerry drives an SUV

I don't believe there is an ecological crisis.
Kerry does believe there is an ecological crisis.

I drive an SUV
Kerry is a hypocrit that drives an SUV.

We are certainly not in the same boat.

[xtc]

It astounds me that we just don't get the point in the west. We don't need the massive gas guzzlers that car companies produce. It is costly in dollars and oil is not an unlimited resource. For those who don't like the oil producing nations you are supporting them with your SUV's.

If you choose to ignore the studies that talk about how greenhouse gases are affecting climate change. How about pollution affecting air quality and our health?

York University in Toronto formed a Transportation Management Association to reduce the number of vehicles that are used to transport students, faculty and other staff to school. York is not centrally located in Toronto, it is not accessable by subway and yet they were able to reduce the number of vehicles by 4000 per day which equates to about 19, 400 fewer tonnes of greenhouse gases per year.

ARTICLE HERE (http://www.bcrtma.org/TMAemail/Smart%20Commuting%20the%20York%20Way.asp)

Perhaps other Universities and companies should look into forming something similiar?

[Edited on 2-7-2005 by xtc]

[DeV]

I guess it makes me stupid for comprehending what Backlash is trying to state with the topic even though you don't. It also makes me stupid to have no flipping clue nor do I care to know where Kerry stands on the issue nor did anyone besides yourself mention his name in direct relation ... Genius move! Add to that, it makes me stupid because I said you and Kerry have at least one thing in common, eh and you reply with this:

I drive an SUV
Kerry drives an SUV

That clearly makes one.

It actually makes you stupid for bringing Kerry into a debate he has no business and crying foul when you are called on it. The reason you didn't sum up your point in this manner earlier is because it is irrevelant to the direct topic but thanks for shedding even more light on your obsession with Mr. Kerry's affairs. Once again Einstein, you win on pure idiocy.

Oh, and to sum it up, Kerry didn't start this thread, Backlash did. Your point would have been better serveed had his name been used in place of Kerry's.

[Gan]

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
You tell us.

Causes of Global Warming (http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Statistics/causes_of_global_warming.html)



Results of Global Warming (http://www.epcc.pref.osaka.jp/apec/eng/earth/global_warming/dounaru.html)


But you still didnt say why, according to your infinate googling wisdom, I have my head up my ass. Please try to make your responses at least semi-educated and refrain from slinging personal insults in order to mask your incompetence.

[Edited on 2-8-2005 by Ganalon]

[Gan]

Originally posted by xtc

Just because India and China won't sign it, is no reason for America not too. Should we adopt Communism because China has? As your quote points out America should set an example.


I think you pulled this analagy out of your ass in fact. America should not sign if the UN can not participate with the rest of the major polluters of the industrialized world. If we sign and we institute regulations that impact our market in the form of increased regulation costs, increased production costs due to the impact of requiring power plants to institue costly filtration systems and other technology which will eventually be passed along to the end-user. So yes, we will bear the brunt of the cost if we are the only major player in the protocols... not to mention that higher production costs will make the US products cost more than in countries where no regulations are in place... Simple resoning clearly demonstrates why we chose not to participate in the Kyoto Protocols.

I agree we should set an example but thats only if other countries are willing to come to the 'table'. In essence, put up or shut up is what we told the Kyoto forums.

Edited: because I have a bad case of fat fingers while typing tonight.

[Edited on 2-8-2005 by Ganalon]

We already asplode the Van-Allen belts. Um. I don't exactly know what this means or what effect it will have. But I know, for a fact, that we did in fact asplode them.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Keller
Ganalon --

Read my post again. It had NOTHING to do with the feasibility of Kyoto and EVERYTHING to do with your nonsense "environmentalists-hate-Bush-and-the-only-cause-of-global-warming-is-entirely-natural-and-cyclical" bullshit.

Dear Keller,

Pleaze re-read my first post again. My first post was just pointing out that Backlash simply started this topic to bash the Bush administration. NEWSFLASH: You're giving yourself too much credit, ITS NOT ALL ABOUT YOU. If you have an opinion please feel free to state it, but dont start having delusions of persecution because I coined a phrase off one of your posts. And thank you for letting me quote you earlier, just incase you were looking for some more gratification.

[Back]

The bashings will continue until the rape of America ceases.

"The beatings will continue until the motivation returns"

hrmmmmm

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DeV
I guess it makes me stupid for comprehending what Backlash is trying to state with the topic even though you don't. It also makes me stupid to have no flipping clue nor do I care to know where Kerry stands on the issue nor did anyone besides yourself mention his name in direct relation ... Genius move! Add to that, it makes me stupid because I said you and Kerry have at least one thing in common, eh and you reply with this:

I drive an SUV
Kerry drives an SUV

That clearly makes one.

It actually makes you stupid for bringing Kerry into a debate he has no business and crying foul when you are called on it. The reason you didn't sum up your point in this manner earlier is because it is irrevelant to the direct topic but thanks for shedding even more light on your obsession with Mr. Kerry's affairs. Once again Einstein, you win on pure idiocy.

Oh, and to sum it up, Kerry didn't start this thread, Backlash did. Your point would have been better serveed had his name been used in place of Kerry's.

I didn't realize you didn't get the point of my post.

Backlash clearly demonstrated the type of hypocracy that I found in Kerry and linked the two together. Nothing more. Certainly, I drive an SUV, but that certainly doesn't put me in either of their company on any boat.

[Back]

PB drives an SUV.
Kerry drives an SUV.
Backlash drives a 4 cyl ONCE A WEEK!

PB dosen’t think there is a problem.
Kerry thinks there is a problem.
Backlash thinks there is a problem.

Backlash wins.
PB wins.
Kerry loses.

[edited for more accurate results]

[Edited on 2-8-2005 by Backlash]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I didn't realize you didn't get the point of my post.

Backlash clearly demonstrated the type of hypocracy that I found in Kerry and linked the two together. Nothing more. Certainly, I drive an SUV, but that certainly doesn't put me in either of their company on any boat. Why am I not surprised, you've missed alot in this thread altogether so yes, you lost me with the Kerry reference because to be honest, who cares where he stands. He is not part of any immediate solution but I digress, as you were taking a weak shot at Backlash. By all means, proceed.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Dear Keller,

Pleaze re-read my first post again. My first post was just pointing out that Backlash simply started this topic to bash the Bush administration. NEWSFLASH: You're giving yourself too much credit, ITS NOT ALL ABOUT YOU. If you have an opinion please feel free to state it, but dont start having delusions of persecution because I coined a phrase off one of your posts. And thank you for letting me quote you earlier, just incase you were looking for some more gratification.

Again, let's see if it works this time. Backlash did not mention specific administrations, only that corporate, thus political, institutions weren't doing shit about the mercury levels of fish. That went into Kyoto, which sent Latrinsorm to pull some bullshit "don't blame the sun getting hotter on Bush!" post. Which in turn you might have mistaken for Backlash, or maybe you just wished was Backlash, or maybe you're just fucking retarded. Either way Backlash said nothing of this being "Bush's fault" nor was it just more "sour grapes." Why don't you fucking realize Backlash wasn't concerned with the administration in the White House and WAS concerned about Kyoto/Mercury levles in fish.

Now, you're info about the viability of Kyoto -- very interesting. You're attempts to bring it all back to Bush-haters, fucking pathetic. Get a clue.

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by xtc

Just because India and China won't sign it, is no reason for America not too. Should we adopt Communism because China has? As your quote points out America should set an example.


I think you pulled this analagy out of your ass in fact. America should not sign if the UN can not participate with the rest of the major polluters of the industrialized world. If we sign and we institute regulations that impact our market in the form of increased regulation costs, increased production costs due to the impact of requiring power plants to institue costly filtration systems and other technology which will eventually be passed along to the end-user. So yes, we will bear the brunt of the cost if we are the only major player in the protocols... not to mention that higher production costs will make the US products cost more than in countries where no regulations are in place... Simple resoning clearly demonstrates why we chose not to participate in the Kyoto Protocols.

I agree we should set an example but thats only if other countries are willing to come to the 'table'. In essence, put up or shut up is what we told the Kyoto forums.

Edited: because I have a bad case of fat fingers while typing tonight.

[Edited on 2-8-2005 by Ganalon]

Japan has signed, Canada has signed, and European nations have signed.

This is just a lame excuse. We currently can't compete with India and China on price. If you are concerned with this, then I assume you would support taxes and tarriffs on goods made in these nations.?

How about a declaration that the United States only trades with nations that meet certain human rights standards or certain environmental standards? Either of these would force the way these nations operate to change and raise the cost of production for them.



[Edited on 2-8-2005 by xtc]

[xtc]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by xtc

Originally posted by Suppa Hobbit Mage
You tell us.

Causes of Global Warming (http://library.thinkquest.org/26026/Statistics/causes_of_global_warming.html)



Results of Global Warming (http://www.epcc.pref.osaka.jp/apec/eng/earth/global_warming/dounaru.html)


But you still didnt say why, according to your infinate googling wisdom, I have my head up my ass. Please try to make your responses at least semi-educated and refrain from slinging personal insults in order to mask your incompetence.

[Edited on 2-8-2005 by Ganalon]

Googling to provide evidence of what most educated people already know. You sound like a spokesperson for the Association of Coal burning energy plants.

Sorry for the insult but the crap you were spewing triggered an involuntary response.


[i]CAUSES OF GLOBAL WARMING

Activity
Percent Contribution to Global Warming

Energy use and production
57%

Chlorofluorocarbons
17%

Agricultural practices
14%

Changes in land use
9%

Other industrial activities
3%

Source: C&EN, March 27, 1989, p. 22, from the US Environmental Protection Agency.

The above table shows the major causes of global warming, and lists them in order based on the percentage of global warming they have caused.

At the top is energy production, which far outranks any other source of global warming and accounts for more than half of all global warming.

Energy production creates greenhouse gases through the burning of fossil fuels. Until renewable, non-polluting methods of energy production are developed, energy production will likely remain at the top of this list.

Chlorofluorocarbons, or CFCs, rank second in the list. In recent times, public awareness about the dangers of CFCs has increased in some of the more developed countries. As a result, people are beginning to call for decreases in the consumption of products that produce CFCs. [i]

[Edited on 2-8-2005 by xtc]

[Latrinsorm]

Originally posted by Keller
That went into Kyoto, which sent Latrinsorm to pull some bullshit "don't blame the sun getting hotter on Bush!" post.Well, not exactly. I can see how you'd think that though, when you say this:
Why don't you fucking realize Backlash wasn't concerned with the administration in the White HouseHowever, Backlash's second post contains this:
The current administration has ignored the Kyoto Protocal and opened up more land for deforestization and drilling. Our tax dollars are funding 6 new nuclear powerplants across this country.It seems he's at least a little concerned with the current administration.

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I didn't realize you didn't get the point of my post.

Backlash clearly demonstrated the type of hypocracy that I found in Kerry and linked the two together. Nothing more. Certainly, I drive an SUV, but that certainly doesn't put me in either of their company on any boat. Why am I not surprised, you've missed alot in this thread altogether so yes, you lost me with the Kerry reference because to be honest, who cares where he stands. He is not part of any immediate solution but I digress, as you were taking a weak shot at Backlash. By all means, proceed.

I wasn't taking a weak shot at Backlash.. I merely compared him to another public "environmentalist" that I also consider a hypocrit. I couldn't think of anyone else that was clearly in the news like Kerry was during that campaign stop.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Parkbandit
I wasn't taking a weak shot at Backlash.. I merely compared him to another public "environmentalist" that I also consider a hypocrit. I couldn't think of anyone else that was clearly in the news like Kerry was during that campaign stop. And I merely compared you to Kerry to even things up a bit.

"public environmentalist" :lol: That boy dun got famous now.

[Keller]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm

Originally posted by Keller
That went into Kyoto, which sent Latrinsorm to pull some bullshit "don't blame the sun getting hotter on Bush!" post.Well, not exactly. I can see how you'd think that though, when you say this:
Why don't you fucking realize Backlash wasn't concerned with the administration in the White HouseHowever, Backlash's second post contains this:
The current administration has ignored the Kyoto Protocal and opened up more land for deforestization and drilling. Our tax dollars are funding 6 new nuclear powerplants across this country.It seems he's at least a little concerned with the current administration.

And what the fuck did Clinton do? What about Bush before him? I have a feeling that this would be a concern no matter of the administration. The fact that it was THIS administration that is CURRENTLY in office set Ganalon's pants on fire and he decided to hop on top of his soap-box. This thread is much bigger than political slander and was never about political slander until Ganalon (and you, to a smaller extint) brought it up.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Backlash
Sour grapes makes wine, my friend. You voted for four more years of whining. :)

I could pull a neocon move and suggest you are pro-pollution. But that would be outlandish.

This quote as a response to my first post tells me that I was quite on the mark as to the underlying reasons why the post was more political angled than issue angled.
And although having my pants on fire is fun somtimes, this topic really doesnt quite ignite them. I'll save expounding on that for another thread.

[Latrinsorm]

I don't know what Clinton or Bush Sr did. If Backlash was interested in an indictment of all Presidents or all Americans, why would he put "current administration"? Why wouldn't he say "America"?

If I'm wrong, Backlash, please correct me.

[Back]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Backlash
Sour grapes makes wine, my friend. You voted for four more years of whining. :)

I could pull a neocon move and suggest you are pro-pollution. But that would be outlandish.

This quote as a response to my first post tells me that I was quite on the mark as to the underlying reasons why the post was more political angled than issue angled.
And although having my pants on fire is fun somtimes, this topic really doesnt quite ignite them. I'll save expounding on that for another thread.

Sarcasm much?

Actually, I was reading something that I agreed with. WTF is the EPA doing saying not to eat so much fish rather than stopping emissions of mercury into our waters?

The issue of pollution is one EVERYONE is invested in. It starts at home. Who you vote for has an effect. What products you buy has an effect. How you live your life has an affect.

On the issue of political leadership, you can’t blame lack of attention to this issue squarely on them as they were voted in by the majority. The elected leaders do have some atonomy, however, by saying what they’ll do, then doing something else.

As far as any adminstration is concerned, current or past, this is still an issue that needs better handling. Our current administration, cooincidentaly, has a horrible record on this issue.

[Ravenstorm]

The latest study:

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people." (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html)

It will be interesting to see how much arguement they get, if any, when it's published and if anyone can convincingly refute them.

Raven

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
The latest study:

"The debate about whether there is a global warming signal now is over, at least for rational people." (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,3-1489955,00.html)

It will be interesting to see how much arguement they get, if any, when it's published and if anyone can convincingly refute them.

Raven It's a conspiracy!!? :grin: