The Kyoto Protocols

[Slush Puppy 0]

As many of you know, the Kyoto Protocol is a proposed agreement that would reduce Carbon Dioxide Emissions. I was wondering what your thoguhts are about it....Should the US ratify it or not? Why?

[ZeroTolerance 582]

I can appreciate your efforts at engaging fellow board members in meaningful political discussion....but this thread is doomed to talking points and insults being spouted by extremists and political trolls.

[TylerRoseFan 16]

Don't we already subscribe to much more strict standards? It's just a way to create better standards for other countries?

[Slush Puppy 0]

Don't we already subscribe to much more strict standards? It's just a way to create better standards for other countries?

 

no, the agreement proposes to reduce emissions by 6% from their 1990 levels...Most major powers have subscribed to it. THe US hasn't....Bush has propoesd reducing emissions by current levels, which would mean 23% increase over 1990 levels.

[GettnHuge 1]

get back to me when china and india are dealt with.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Kyoto is based on an unprovan theory using junk science that has been proven unreliable, it would cripple the U.S. economy, and it exempts some of the biggest polluters on Earth, like India and China.

 

It is an Anti-American, anti-capitalist load of crap under the guise of "Saving the Earth".

 

Um, so no I don't think we should ratify it.

[ZeroTolerance 582]

get back to me when china and india are dealt with.

Oh be nice to China, we had our Industrial Revolution, they just got to the party late!

[Slush Puppy 0]

get back to me when china and india are dealt with.

 

through 97-2001, china grew 36% in GDP while lowering emmisions by 17%. They aren;t the problem...we are

[doughboys_2002 11]

Kyoto is based on an unprovan theory using junk science that has been proven unreliable, it would cripple the U.S. economy, and it exempts some of the biggest polluters on Earth, like India and China.

 

It is an Anti-American, anti-capitalist load of crap under the guise of "Saving the Earth".

 

Um, so no I don't think we should ratify it.

Ok, so how would this "cripple the U.S. economy" one, and two what your saying is "well if they aren't going to do it niether am I?"

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Ok, so how would this "cripple the U.S. economy" one, and two what your saying is "well if they aren't going to do it niether am I?"

 

 

Most analysis I have read predicts a 1% reduction in GDP IF Global emissions trading is available to the U.S. As it stands they aren't, which puts the predictions in the 4% of GDP range.

 

I didn't say we should do it only if China and India do it also, I said it is a load of crap based on an uproven theory using junk science as a means to stifle economic growth in the U.S. I don't give a ratsass if the rest of the world gets bamboozled into signing it, we shouldn't follow like sheep down the wrong path.

[doughboys_2002 11]

Most analysis I have read predicts a 1% reduction in GDP IF Global emissions trading is available to the U.S. As it stands they aren't, which puts the predictions in the 4% of GDP range.

 

I didn't say we should do it only if China and India do it also, I said it is a load of crap based on an uproven theory using junk science as a means to stifle economic growth in the U.S. I don't give a ratsass if the rest of the world gets bamboozled into signing it, we shouldn't follow like sheep down the wrong path.

I guess I just don't see how lowering emissions will cripple the US

[GettnHuge 1]

I guess I just don't see how lowering emissions will cripple the US

 

coal

[Hooper 0]

Kyoto is based on an unprovan theory using junk science that has been proven unreliable, it would cripple the U.S. economy, and it exempts some of the biggest polluters on Earth, like India and China.

 

It is an Anti-American, anti-capitalist load of crap under the guise of "Saving the Earth".

 

Um, so no I don't think we should ratify it.

 

Junk science? Put this graph in your pipe and smoke it

 

Anyone that uses rheoteric like "junk science" needs to be ignored. People, just look at the VISIBLE evidence around the world.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Wikipedia. lol

 

Exactly how does your pretty little graphs prove man is causing global warming?

[Hooper 0]

Wikipedia. lol

 

Exactly how does your pretty little graphs prove man is causing global warming?

 

Basic understanding of slope? Skip middle school math?

 

Chew on this

 

Here's 450,000+ years of data that show the correlation very plainly between CO2 levels and temperature. The Vostok ice core data is not under dispute.

 

The EPICA data confirms the Vostok ice core data as well.

[TyCobb 0]

BTW - Clinton / Gore refused to sign it too, so apparently Bush isn't the only one who's figured out Kyoto's a sham.

[Hooper 0]

BTW - Clinton / Gore refused to sign it too, so apparently Bush isn't the only one who's figured out Kyoto's a sham.

 

I didn't sign it either, but that's because I (much like Gore) was never afforded the opportunity to sign it. What are you attempting to say here?

[TyCobb 0]

I didn't sign it either, but that's because I (much like Gore) was never afforded the opportunity to sign it. What are you attempting to say here?

 

"The treaty was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature on March 16, 1998."

 

When were Clinton / Gore in office again? I foeget.

[Hooper 0]

"The treaty was negotiated in Kyoto, Japan in December 1997, opened for signature on March 16, 1998."

 

HTH.

 

Yeah, and the vice-president of the United States was never asked to sign it. What's your point? Did you get an invitation?

 

On second thought, why throw crap like this around? Its so pointless. How else do you interpret the data? The numbers. The graphs. Let's talk about specifics. How about the fall of the Larson Ice Shelf?

[GettnHuge 1]

I'm sure we all remember clinton/gore begging the members of their party to

pass the focker

[doughboys_2002 11]

Wikipedia. lol

 

Exactly how does your pretty little graphs prove man is causing global warming?

[TyCobb 0]

Yeah, and the vice-president of the United States was never asked to sign it. What's your point? Did you get an invitation?

 

I should've said the Clinton / Gore administration. Duly noted.

[Hooper 0]

I should've said the Clinton / Gore administration. Duly noted.

Seriously now, you don't seem like an idiot that just wants to spew partisan politics. What's your take on all the data I linked?

[Recliner Pilot 61]

Basic understanding of slope? Skip middle school math?

 

Chew on this

 

Here's 450,000+ years of data that show the correlation very plainly between CO2 levels and temperature. The Vostok ice core data is not under dispute.

 

The EPICA data confirms the Vostok ice core data as well.

 

Not under dispute?

 

I debunked the accuracy of ice core samples to estimate CO2 levels in the Algore thread. There is a detailed link there that you can read to find out exactly how this is not reliable.

[Hooper 0]

Not under dispute?

 

I debunked the accuracy of ice core samples to estimate CO2 levels in the Algore thread. There is a detailed link there that you can read to find out exactly how this is not reliable.

 

You "debunked" exactly ######. Because you point to a cat and call it a dog doesn't make it so. Further, I don't care what Al Gore says. The data speaks for itself. Al Gore didn't dig those core samples. Al Gore didn't take an ice pick to the Larson Ice Shelf.

[TyCobb 0]

Seriously now, you don't seem like an idiot that just wants to spew partisan politics. What's your take on all the data I linked?

 

I don't believe mankind will destroy the earth because I believe in a God who has things under control. Neither do I support blatant negligence on our part, but I think the science of global warming is under dispute. And furthermore, I don't trust the philosophical motive behind Kyoto. I think it is biased against the "evils" of Capitalism.

 

Global warming science under dispute.

 

Others will disagree, but that's my view on the situation.

[Hooper 0]

I don't believe mankind will destroy the earth because I believe in a God who has things under control. Neither do I support blatant negligence on our part, but I think the science of global warming is under dispute. And furthermore, I don't trust the philosophical motive behind Kyoto. I think it is biased against the "evils" of Capitalism.

 

Global warming science under dispute.

 

Others will disagree, but that's my view on the situation.

 

I've seen that link posted on five different message boards. Amazing how that one link got so much play. Got anything else?

 

This quote just cracks me up...

In fact, when CO2 levels were over ten times higher than they are now, about 450 million years ago, the planet was in the depths of the absolute coldest period in the last half billion years.

 

Ice core data is easy to confirm. There really is no debate. That's like debating the data that can be retrieved from tree rings in a forrest. Seriously, no debate. 450 million years ago? Now that would be up for some serious debate. Did you turn off your BS detector?

[TyCobb 0]

I've seen that link posted on five different message boards. Amazing how that one link got so much play. Got anything else?

 

Makes me no difference how many times you've seen it. Nor am I interested in finding you more links as it's not likely to change your mind. I"ve stated my opinion, so I'll leave it at that.

 

I just find it amusing that the previous administration refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty. Now Bush gets blasted for agreeing with them. He's obviously "in bed with big oil".

[Recliner Pilot 61]

You "debunked" exactly ######. Because you point to a cat and call it a dog doesn't make it so. Further, I don't care what Al Gore says. The data speaks for itself. Al Gore didn't dig those core samples. Al Gore didn't take an ice pick to the Larson Ice Shelf.

 

Doesn't matter who dug the samples up, they can't give you an accurate reading of atmospheric co2 levels.

[gocolts 300]

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

 

Care to explain this???

 

link

[Hooper 0]

I just find it amusing that the previous administration refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty. Now Bush gets blasted for agreeing with them. He's obviously "in bed with big oil".

 

Why do people try to force this into a political debate? I never mentioned any administration. None of the data I linked refers to any politician or points the finger at any party. It's become a political football. That's depressing. Just seems more likely that it we'll flounder in a state of inaction because of it.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

I've seen that link posted on five different message boards. Amazing how that one link got so much play. Got anything else?

 

This quote just cracks me up...

 

Ice core data is easy to confirm. There really is no debate. That's like debating the data that can be retrieved from tree rings in a forrest. Seriously, no debate. 450 million years ago? Now that would be up for some serious debate. Did you turn off your BS detector?

 

Bwahahahahaahahahaha

 

You make a post touting data for the past 450,000 years as proving your point. Then when someone else posts data from 450,000 years ago that disputes your entire premise you "Too old".

 

[GettnHuge 1]

cobb get your facts straight so you don't get blasted on what slick willie did.

slick willie went overseas and of course told them what they wanted to hear....sure we'll

consider kyoto, I'm all for it! Then Congress passed a bill that basically outlawed Kyoto

therefore it could never come up for a vote. every dem voted against it. but wait...if slick

was all for it....then why did every dem vote against? maybe because they aren't about to

cripple this country and get annihilated in november 5x worse than they already do.

[TyCobb 0]

cobb get your facts straight so you don't get blasted on what slick willie did.

slick willie went overseas and of course told them what they wanted to hear....sure we'll

consider kyoto, I'm all for it! Then Congress passed a bill that basically outlawed Kyoto

therefore it could never come up for a vote. every dem voted against it. but wait...if slick

was all for it....then why did every dem vote against? maybe because they aren't about to

cripple this country and get annihilated in november 5x worse than they already do.

 

Okay. Hadn't heard that. So Congress outlawed Kyoto. Works for me.

[gocolts 300]

Why do people try to force this into a political debate?

 

Ask Al Gore.

[Hooper 0]

Bwahahahahaahahahaha

 

You make a post touting data for the past 450,000 years as proving your point. Then when someone else posts data from 450,000 years ago that disputes your entire premise you "Too old".

 

Where in the world are you coming from? The layers of ice are there. They exist. A long list of data revealing the levels of CO2 in the air when a patch of ice freezes is available all over the web. You can download the data and drop it in Excel and graph it yourself. Are you doubting that?

 

No similar data exists from millions of years ago.

 

Ask Al Gore.

 

Why would I? I would rather have a conversation with you without making it political. Do you have any data to share?

[gocolts 300]

Where in the world are you coming from? The layers of ice are there. They exist. A long list of data revealing the levels of CO2 in the air when a patch of ice freezes is available all over the web. You can download the data and drop it in Excel and graph it yourself. Are you doubting that?

 

No similar data exists from millions of years ago.

 

Wanna buy a bridge???

[GettnHuge 1]

Okay. Hadn't heard that. So Congress outlawed Kyoto. Works for me.

 

I believe the vote was 96-0 and basically said that it would be illegal for us to sign onto

a treaty that would harm the economy in a significant way.

[Recliner Pilot 61]

The layers of ice are there. They exist.

 

 

I never said the ice wasn't there, Spanky. It's just that it has been proven you can't get accurate atmospheric co2 readings from ice, not even recent snow.

[gocolts 300]

Where in the world are you coming from? The layers of ice are there. They exist. A long list of data revealing the levels of CO2 in the air when a patch of ice freezes is available all over the web. You can download the data and drop it in Excel and graph it yourself. Are you doubting that?

 

No similar data exists from millions of years ago.

Why would I? I would rather have a conversation with you without making it political. Do you have any data to share?

 

I'm still waiting for someone to explain my question from page one,post 30.Here it is again.The link is on page one,post 30.

 

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

 

Please help me understand.

 

 

 

I never said the ice wasn't there, Spanky. It's just that it has been proven you can't get accurate atmospheric co2 readings from ice, not even recent snow.