Kyoto is awesome

[Red Mile Style]

Let's face it people, the Kyoto Protocol, which was ratified February 16th, 2005, is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

You don't feel this way? Pourqoui?

[White Doors]

haha

beat me to it.

[Azure]

Thank you for starting a new thread.

IMO, I think Kyoto was started as a knee-jerk reaction to fear that the world was going to burn down if we instantly didn't do something about it. A process that involved finding other alternatives to oil, such a nuclear power, would be much better.

[Red Mile Style]

I'm glad to see White Doors and Azure agree that Kyoto is awesome.

I don't think anyone disagrees that Kyoto rocks!

[jolinar of malkshor]

I have said my bunch in the last posts so you know where I stand.

But now I know why the world is so screwed up because people like you guys want to run it this way.

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Azure

Thank you for starting a new thread.

IMO, I think Kyoto was started as a knee-jerk reaction to fear that the world was going to burn down if we instantly didn't do something about it. A process that involved finding other alternatives to oil, such a nuclear power, would be much better.

Yeah, props to the new thread... I feel sorry for those who wanted to talk about Afghanistan and we took over with Kyoto

Anyways, I have to disagree with your nuclear power statement. On the 20th anniversary of Chernobyl, there really isn't anything too spectacular about nuclear power. The environmental effects of nuclear power can be devestating as well. Nuclear power results in byproducts that can be very difficult to destroy or get rid of, often ending up in water supplies.

Sorry, to be continued... I will continue later.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Let's face it people, the Kyoto Protocol, which was ratified February 16th, 2005, is the greatest thing since sliced bread.

You don't feel this way? Pourqoui?

Pretty weak way to troll. Why not put forward a position against Kyoto and then debate the facts?

Your clumsy intro to the topic lacks competence.

[jolinar of malkshor]

The problem is he can't find any facts that will verify his position because the whole thing is a complete pile of donkey dung.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

The problem is he can't find any facts that will verify his position because the whole thing is a complete pile of donkey dung.

Which position? That Kyoto is good or that climate change is a reality?

I don't like Kyoto but this climate change business seems pretty cut and dried. 80 million barrels of oil every single day? Never mind all the other stuff we burn (like coal, natural gas et cetera) but all that pollution from 80 million barrels of oil has to be doing something negative, don't you think?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Which position? That Kyoto is good or that climate change is a reality?

I don't like Kyoto but this climate change business seems pretty cut and dried. 80 million barrels of oil every single day? Never mind all the other stuff we burn (like coal, natural gas et cetera) but all that pollution from 80 million barrels of oil has to be doing something negative, don't you think?

I agree with you. The more waste we put out the worse it is for the enviroment.

However, you need to put it into prospective. Climate change is cyclical. It happens pure and simple. Are we effecting it by our emissions, I believe we are. But the question is how much?

I get ****ed when all these people come out saying WE ARE RESPONSIBILE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. No were not. It is a natural thing. We may be contributing to it in some way but we really dont know how much and that is the problem. Kyoto WILL NOT stop or prevent climate change.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Yeah, props to the new thread... I feel sorry for those who wanted to talk about Afghanistan and we took over with Kyoto

Anyways, I have to disagree with your nuclear power statement. On the 20th anniversary of Chernobyl, there really isn't anything too spectacular about nuclear power. The environmental effects of nuclear power can be devestating as well. Nuclear power results in byproducts that can be very difficult to destroy or get rid of, often ending up in water supplies.

Sorry, to be continued... I will continue later.

Nuclear power is a way to get rid of climate change. Like it or not, it may be the only option we are left, considering that the world is going to self destruct from all that global warming in the next 10 years.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Kyoto is a nice place. One of the few cities in the world protected by UNESCO. (Just read the title of the thread and had to contribute).

I've been able to spend some time studying there - if you need recommendations on where to go PM and I can supply you with a list.

[MacDougalbry]

Has anyone read anything about global dimming? (Not a joke, it's real... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming) One great irony of global dimming is that a reduction in air polution over the past 20 years may be contributing to global warming.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I agree with you. The more waste we put out the worse it is for the enviroment.

However, you need to put it into prospective. Climate change is cyclical. It happens pure and simple. Are we effecting it by our emissions, I believe we are. But the question is how much?

I get ****ed when all these people come out saying WE ARE RESPONSIBILE FOR CLIMATE CHANGE. No were not. It is a natural thing. We may be contributing to it in some way but we really dont know how much and that is the problem. Kyoto WILL NOT stop or prevent climate change.

Natural climate change is cyclical. What humans are doing is not cyclical, and in fact, it is the first time in the history of the planet that a species has been able to affect natural cycles.

Saying that climate change is natural and therefore it doesn't matter if we make it change or accelerate it, is like saying; forest fires occur naturally, so why does it matter if campers start them too.

The point is, natural phenomenas have a way of balancing and correcting themsleves. Human induced phenomena have a way of making changes that the natural systems cannot absorb properly. It may also cause massive extinctions that otherwise would not happen since the rate of climate change is faster than nature can compensate for, or would usually allow under normal circumstances..

[calculoso]

The Kyoto Agreement, good or bad, is one thing.

How governments have chosen to implement it is something totally different.

I hope that the Harper government has a MUCH better plan than the old Liberal plan.... a plan that would have cost $12 billion over seven years to implement, and still would not have been enough.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...28?hub=SciTech

Insane. If you're going to follow a protocol, follow it fully. $12 BILLION though? That's an even more insane figure.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Natural climate change is cyclical. What humans are doing is not cyclical, and in fact, it is the first time in the history of the planet that a species has been able to affect natural cycles.

Saying that climate change is natural and therefore it doesn't matter if we make it change or accelerate it, is like saying; forest fires occur naturally, so why does it matter if campers start them too.

The point is, natural phenomenas have a way of balancing and correcting themsleves. Human induced phenomena have a way of making changes that the natural systems cannot absorb properly. It may also cause massive extinctions that otherwise would not happen since the rate of climate change is faster than nature can compensate for, or would usually allow under normal circumstances..

Ok, take what you just said and realize these facts:

Humans contribute 0.14% of the total GHG's.. The current warming cycle started in the 1860's, well before the internal combustion engine and millions of cars and coal fired power plants. The world was much warmer, even in human recorded history, than it is now.

[White Doors]

Can someone correct the pictures that make this thread scroll over please?

[Agamemnon]

I just don't get the stick-our-head-in-the-sand strategy. What's that supposed to do?

I figure if humans are responsible for global warming, they (we) should fix it. If we're not... what have we lost by trying to better the place? What are the massive cons to cutting emissions? I know a lot of health issues related to air and pollution (both in humans and other species) could be cleared up.

To those who constantly wack Kyoto: Whats your plan? Do nothing, and accept that humans are 100% not responsible? Seems like one side is taking a HUGE gamble and the other is playing it safe. You tell me which is which.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by White Doors

Ok, take what you just said and realize these facts:

Humans contribute 0.14% of the total GHG's.. The current warming cycle started in the 1860's, well before the internal combustion engine and millions of cars and coal fired power plants. The world was much warmer, even in human recorded history, than it is now.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from. First of all, the 1860s corresponds exactly with the time that we would expect human induced global warming to start. Steam engines were widely used, and they were huge emitter of carbon. That, combined with deforestation, would undoubtedly affect the atmosphere. In fact, the atmosphere was likely even more polluted back then.

Secondly, if you look at the graphs provided here:

http://globalwarming.sdsu.edu/

The second graph that illustrates global climate changes in the past 1000 years, and never have they peaked as quickly or as high as they have since the industrial revolution.

I'm not defending or promoting the Kyoto Protocol, but there is little doubt that human induced climate change is occuring. The lab that I work in is actually studying the effects of N20 emmissions (which is probably even a bigger problem than carbon dioxide). The recent climate changes on any model I've seen are impossible to explain without including the expected effects of the greenhouse effect based on what we know about modern physics, and in particular, the effect carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses have on trapping heat in the atmosphere.

Something else to consider:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...xtinction.html

Is that not worth practicing the precautionary principle?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I just don't get the stick-our-head-in-the-sand strategy. What's that supposed to do?

I figure if humans are responsible for global warming, they (we) should fix it. If we're not... what have we lost by trying to better the place? What are the massive cons to cutting emissions? I know a lot of health issues related to air and pollution (both in humans and other species) could be cleared up.

To those who constantly wack Kyoto: Whats your plan? Do nothing, and accept that humans are 100% not responsible? Seems like one side is taking a HUGE gamble and the other is playing it safe. You tell me which is which.

You dont seem to get it. Humans are NOT the cause of global warming.