Kyoto is awesome

[jolinar of malkshor]

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..

Please show me where I said "it doesnt matter if we make it change or accelerate it".

Nice one with the camp fires. Its like comparing apples to oranges.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by 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.

The reason temp rises with the reduction of air pollution is that more sunlight is allowed to enter the atmosphere. Its the short wave radiation that creates climate change and short wave comes about from long wave radiation interacting with the surface. Therefor the cleaner our air is the warmer the world becomes.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

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

So, then, global warming and human activity are not related? Thats proven fact?

Do you have any conclusive evidence of your point of view? I was under the impression that the debate was still raging on... with many, _many_ scientists weighing in heavily on _both_ sides.

I find it utterly boggling how some people can take a look at each side having good points and then just pick one as being 'correct'. Stupid.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

So, then, global warming and human activity are not related? Thats proven fact?

Do you have any conclusive evidence of your point of view? I was under the impression that the debate was still raging on... with many, _many_ scientists weighing in heavily on _both_ sides.

I find it utterly boggling how some people can take a look at each side having good points and then just pick one as being 'correct'. Stupid.

Ok fair enough. Where both guilty of the same thing. But I have a feeling this debate will continue on long after we part this earth.

[Agamemnon]

Hey trolls... type 'Kyoto' into the search function of the site, you'll find this debate rehashed ad nauseum. Anyone seeking a new debate... must not know how to use the search function, or must really want to see themselves post.

There are often threads in the OT forum dedicated to increasing your post count, check them out.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Ok fair enough. Where both guilty of the same thing. But I have a feeling this debate will continue on long after we part this earth.

It is however, a proven fact that global warming is cyclical. So we will NEVER know if this stage of global warming was caused by mankind or by nature.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Ok fair enough. Where both guilty of the same thing. But I have a feeling this debate will continue on long after we part this earth.

No, we're not. You came out heavily on one side of the debate. All I want to know is, those of you who are against Kyoto, what else do you got?

I'd probably be easily convinced that Kyoto is not the way to go... if only someone would bring up a different, better strategy that they believe will work better.

So far the only alternative I see/hear to Kyoto is 'do nothing'... even if pollution isn't causing Global Warming, I still find doing nothing about it totally distasteful.

So if Kyoto isn't it, what is?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

It is however, a proven fact that global warming is cyclical. So we will NEVER know if this stage of global warming was caused by mankind or by nature.

Therefore the correct thing to do is nothing? We don't know the answer... so we pick one (humans are not causing pollution)? Wierd...

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Therefore the correct thing to do is nothing? We don't know the answer... so we pick one (humans are not causing pollution)? Wierd...

Show me where I said "do nothing". I am debating the validity of kyoto. In my view it is useless and designed to transfer wealth from the rich countries to the poor countries.

Just because people are against kyoto doesnt mean the want the world to go to shinguard or dont care about the environment. Come on.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Show me where I said "do nothing". I am debating the validity of kyoto. In my view it is useless and designed to transfer wealth from the rich countries to the poor countries.

Just because people are against kyoto doesnt mean the want the world to go to ##### or dont care about the environment. Come on.

So let me get this straight. You _don't_ believe in Kyoto, and you _don't_ have an alternative. Well... I don't want to be mean about it, but that is a pretty useless position. If you think Kyoto is the wrong thing, what is the right thing? I guess I extrapolated that your solution is nothing... because you didn't present anything.

And I believe mis-spelling to avoid the swear filters is a no-no around here, and usually not required of mature individuals.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

So let me get this straight. You _don't_ believe in Kyoto, and you _don't_ have an alternative. Well... I don't want to be mean about it, but that is a pretty useless position. If you think Kyoto is the wrong thing, what is the right thing? I guess I extrapolated that your solution is nothing... because you didn't present anything.

And I believe mis-spelling to avoid the swear filters is a no-no around here, and usually not required of mature individuals.

Sorry MOMMY.

Just because I dont agree with Kyoto doesnt mean I have to come up with some sort of alternative.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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?

If we're not responsible for it, why produce all of the panic and financial loss?

Really, it depends on what the "trying" part is. If it really does impact us more than the pollution would, then we as a world are worse off because of it.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

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.

Depends on how you look at it. It could be that one is staying calm and the other is severely over-reacting.

Personally, I think that one side IS over-reacting and that the other side is trying to ignore the problem... trying to sweep it under the rug, as it were.

There have to be incentives to produce cleaner technology at a cheaper price. This takes time.

The big problem with Kyoto is that it seems to apply more to some nations than others, and allows some rich nations to "buy" credits from a poorer country. How is that a solution? It's just a fancy sort of aid, until they spend that money on the polution producing technology... and then everyone is in a much worse scenario.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

If we're not responsible for it, why produce all of the panic and financial loss?

Really, it depends on what the "trying" part is. If it really does impact us more than the pollution would, then we as a world are worse off because of it.

I suppose I don't see the downside to emissions reductions (beyond the obvious major problem of cost...). The health of humans and animals is likely to increase a whole lot, and there are _massive_ environmental issues associated with pollution separate from global warming.

I guess if the choice is a cleaner planet or a few more billion... I choose the planet. That said, I don't have the billions, so its not my call.

Depends on how you look at it. It could be that one is staying calm and the other is severely over-reacting.

Personally, I think that one side IS over-reacting and that the other side is trying to ignore the problem... trying to sweep it under the rug, as it were.

Fair enough. Though, I'd consider those 'over-reacting' to be identifying a problem and looking for a solution. If there is _no_ solution, it has to be proven. If there is one, it has to be found. I think Kyoto supporters see 2 alternatives, do something about global warming, or do nothing. Those who are 'cautious' about the problem don't irk me at all... but those who dismiss Kyoto and provide no alternatives seem pretty useless.

I guess I'm surprised that the anti-Kyoto crowd hasn't created some sort of pro-business solution yet.

There have to be incentives to produce cleaner technology at a cheaper price. This takes time.

I don't think it does. The government enacts incentives, and companies start using them, happens within a decade. Too bad we didn't start 5 years ago...

The big problem with Kyoto is that it seems to apply more to some nations than others, and allows some rich nations to "buy" credits from a poorer country. How is that a solution? It's just a fancy sort of aid, until they spend that money on the polution producing technology... and then everyone is in a much worse scenario.

I guess its better than nothing, as far as I'm concerned. I eagerly await any other sort of anti-pollution program.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Sorry MOMMY.

Just because I dont agree with Kyoto doesnt mean I have to come up with some sort of alternative.

Nope... but it means you have no credibility. By the nature of your personal comments I assume you know that already.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Nope... but it means you have no credibility. By the nature of your personal comments I assume you know that already.

I can see Kyoto for what it is. A transfer program from wealthy nations to poor nations. I dont proclaim to be the worlds leader in Environmental Issues. I dont have the answers and I have never proclaimed to have them but I can see the uselessness of Kyoto.

Because I dont come up with some solution be it right or wrong does not make me have any less credibility than anyother. In fact, it would give me more, as I am not preaching to people that I know all the answers or in order to complain about something you must offer something else.

Really guy, come on already.

[flames_fan_down_under]

Anyone here ever read "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton? I know he's a sort of commercial author, but he does present a good argument against the case for global warming. I'm not taking one side or another, but i do think many people are too willing to jump on the global warming bandwagon without considering the alternative argument.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I suppose I don't see the downside to emissions reductions (beyond the obvious major problem of cost...). The health of humans and animals is likely to increase a whole lot, and there are _massive_ environmental issues associated with pollution separate from global warming.

I guess if the choice is a cleaner planet or a few more billion... I choose the planet. That said, I don't have the billions, so its not my call.

Cost is a huge problem and not one to dismiss as easily as you are.

Businesses have to dismiss great ideas every day due to cost. People have to dismiss great ideas/products every day due to cost. Governments have to dismiss great ideas/products/programs/etc every day due to cost. They have to evaluate which are the most cost-effective.

Why can't those "pro-environment" people do the same thing? I guess it's not their dime...

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I don't think it does. The government enacts incentives, and companies start using them, happens within a decade. Too bad we didn't start 5 years ago...

A decade isn't time?

[jolinar of malkshor]

I just dont understand why people think CO2 is this terrible gas. As many people have said in this post lets worry about the real pollution. Not something plants need to survive on.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Cost is a huge problem and not one to dismiss as easily as you are.

I didn't dismiss cost... I brought it up. I just don't see $ as the single most important resource we have. It can be spent to improve other resources. I'd considering it an investment in the future.

Businesses have to dismiss great ideas every day due to cost. People have to dismiss great ideas/products every day due to cost. Governments have to dismiss great ideas/products/programs/etc every day due to cost. They have to evaluate which are the most cost-effective.

Creating a better quality of living for the human race (through the elimination of massive pollution) is a great idea. One of the very best ideas; and it deserves some investment.

If Kyoto is not the proper vehicle for this investment, what is?

A decade isn't time?

Blink of an eye as far as I'm (and the earth is) concerned. Had heavy incentives begun a decade ago... they'd be kicking in right now! How many more decades should we wait?

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Because I dont come up with some solution be it right or wrong does not make me have any less credibility than anyother. In fact, it would give me more, as I am not preaching to people that I know all the answers or in order to complain about something you must offer something else.

Well, I guess we'll disagree on that point. I think if one ever decides to criticize a policy or idea, they'd better have another one that's better... or at the _very_ least evidence to support your points. You don't have any. If you don't have a better solution, what exactly have you contributed? Nothing.

You may as well have come out and said you hate the colour blue. So? Anything else to declare?