Kyoto is awesome

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I presume you'll now push your new strategy in the next round of Kyoto debates to be brought up by some newbie trolls?

Gotcha.

Kyoto = best. Must be followed.
To question = pointless and be called a troll.
To present alternatives = useless, unless coming from an expert.
To state opinion, confront and ask for yours, then state opinion again = pulling teeth.

Gotcha.

We obviously aren't on the same wavelength. You don't want to put any thought into improving something you admit is flawed.

No sense in debating with you anymore. On any subject. Neither one of us is experts, so our opinions are worthless.

Gotcha.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Gotcha.

Kyoto = best. Must be followed.
To question = pointless and be called a troll.
To present alternatives = useless, unless coming from an expert.
To state opinion, confront and ask for yours, then state opinion again = pulling teeth.

Gotcha.

We obviously aren't on the same wavelength. You don't want to put any thought into improving something you admit is flawed.

No sense in debating with you anymore. On any subject. Neither one of us is experts, so our opinions are worthless.

Gotcha.

I here ya brother.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I here ya brother.

I wouldn't cozy up with me. You don't want to listen to anyone who disagrees with you either.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I wouldn't cozy up with me. You don't want to listen to anyone who disagrees with you either.

Not quite my friend, I have always respected peoples opinions when they can back them up and put forward a logical arguement.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

Gotcha.

Kyoto = best. Must be followed.
To question = pointless and be called a troll.

I never called you a troll. Get your facts straight. You can seriously look at the first post in this thead and call it something else? I thought it was pretty obvious that this thread was created to 'troll' for Kyoto supporters. You don't see that in post #1?

To present alternatives = useless, unless coming from an expert.

Not even close. To present alternatives = better than to present nothing. You started with nothing. You got to alternatives... slowly, painfully, with me dragging you the whole way. Finally you get it, so I'm satisfied.

To state opinion, confront and ask for yours, then state opinion again = pulling teeth.

Your original opinion needed to be fleshed out. I asked you, over and over again, to present an alternative. Then you did. Thanks.

We obviously aren't on the same wavelength. You don't want to put any thought into improving something you admit is flawed.

I'm not employed by any environmental agency. Its not my job to improve something I admit is flawed. The Canadian government is flawed. The UN is flawed. The legal system is flawed. Am I suppose to crusade for all these causes because I know they're flawed?

Do you? Or do you think all of these things are 'flawless'? Just because you see a problem does not morally obligate you to fix it, unless you choose to take that obligation on. I don't... its sounds like you're saying you do, but I'm not sure, beyond arguing with me, what _you're_ doing about it. I haven't suggested that I'm morally superior to you, but you seem to be constantly making judgements along this vein, or putting them in my mouth.

No sense in debating with you anymore. On any subject. Neither one of us is experts, so our opinions are worthless.

Gotcha.

Not how I would put it, but basically correct. Not sure I ever used the word 'worthless'. I did point out that there are experts that support both sides of the argument... and, in the end, regardless of how you feel, I will _always_ respect the opinion of an 'expert' on either side of the debate than I will your or my opinion on the matter. I guess you think our knowledge is sufficient to pass judgement on massive, complicated issues. I don't. Thats why we pay the experts.

That's not to say the every-day-person doesn't have valid input. But if one person spends their life researching a topic, and the other has a bare layman's knowledge of the issue, I'm going to tend to trust the expert. I don't see this statement = experts are god, you are nothing.

[Agamemnon]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I wouldn't cozy up with me. You don't want to listen to anyone who disagrees with you either.

Nice.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Nice.

Ya thats a good one isn't it...

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I presume you'll now push your new strategy in the next round of Kyoto debates to be brought up by some newbie trolls?

Does anybody else hate this guy?

For someone who detests this thread so bad, it's kind of hypocritical that he keeps on posting on it...

For all those quick to drop the troll bomb, this thread originally started in an Afghanistan thread and quickly dominated it. As a courtesy to those who actually wanted to talk about Afghanistan, I started a new thread.

Jeez, if the thread is so bad, why read it?

I stand by my first post. Kyoto is awesome.

[TheCommodoreAfro]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Does anybody else hate this guy?

For someone who detests this thread so bad, it's kind of hypocritical that he keeps on posting on it...

For all those quick to drop the troll bomb, this thread originally started in an Afghanistan thread and quickly dominated it. As a courtesy to those who actually wanted to talk about Afghanistan, I started a new thread.

Jeez, if the thread is so bad, why read it?

I stand by my first post. Kyoto is awesome.

I like him more than I like you.



(Waits for RMS to start a thread about his most recent revelation)...

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

Does anybody else hate this guy?

For someone who detests this thread so bad, it's kind of hypocritical that he keeps on posting on it...

For all those quick to drop the troll bomb, this thread originally started in an Afghanistan thread and quickly dominated it. As a courtesy to those who actually wanted to talk about Afghanistan, I started a new thread.

Jeez, if the thread is so bad, why read it?

I stand by my first post. Kyoto is awesome.

I don't hate him but it is hard to argue with the guy.

[transplant99]

For someone who detests this thread so bad, it's kind of hypocritical that he keeps on posting on it...

It's the M.O. and has never changed.

Cloud ideas and thoughts on one subject with other things unrelated.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I never called you a troll. Get your facts straight. You can seriously look at the first post in this thead and call it something else? I thought it was pretty obvious that this thread was created to 'troll' for Kyoto supporters. You don't see that in post #1?

If you look at it in a vaccuum, then it does look odd.

If you look at it in context (provided by post #6: "Yeah, props to the new thread... I feel sorry for those who wanted to talk about Afghanistan and we took over with Kyoto ") and look at that thread: http://forum.calgarypuck.com/showthread.php?t=26103 (starting at post #37) then it is just a continuation of an old debate between a few others.

Add to it that the person who started it is actually a supporter of the protocol, much like you, then you are completely mistaken about the whole thing.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Not even close. To present alternatives = better than to present nothing. You started with nothing. You got to alternatives... slowly, painfully, with me dragging you the whole way. Finally you get it, so I'm satisfied.

I did not start out with nothing and you did not drag me anywhere. My second post in this thread (post #32 - "There have to be incentives to produce cleaner technology at a cheaper price.") and forth post (#41 - "If $s are going to the poorer countries, they can't be used as incentives for companies to create better technology.") say basically the same thing as my post #119 in this thread ("If it would be possible for Kyoto "credits" to be bought, I believe the resulting funds should go towards making cleaner technology cheaper").

You're the one who agrees that Kyoto isn't perfect but does not give any alternatives.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Your original opinion needed to be fleshed out. I asked you, over and over again, to present an alternative. Then you did. Thanks.

Nice of you to take credit where no credit is due.

Now let's see your alternatives.. improvements.. whatever you want to call them.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

I'm not employed by any environmental agency. Its not my job to improve something I admit is flawed. The Canadian government is flawed. The UN is flawed. The legal system is flawed. Am I suppose to crusade for all these causes because I know they're flawed?

Who said anything about crusading for them? Do you always take things to such extremes?

You admit it is flawed. Choose one area where you think there is a flaw and propose a fix to it. That would be an improvement over the current Kyoto protocol. That's all I'm asking.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Do you? Or do you think all of these things are 'flawless'? Just because you see a problem does not morally obligate you to fix it, unless you choose to take that obligation on. I don't... its sounds like you're saying you do, but I'm not sure, beyond arguing with me, what _you're_ doing about it. I haven't suggested that I'm morally superior to you, but you seem to be constantly making judgements along this vein, or putting them in my mouth.

You like to complain about those that think something is flawed and reject it, without those giving an alternative.

I am complaining about your thinking something is flawed and accepting it anyway, without even a thought on how it could be better. No obligation needed.. just a thought.. a proposal.. an idea. It can die on this CP forum. No biggie.

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

Not how I would put it, but basically correct. Not sure I ever used the word 'worthless'. I did point out that there are experts that support both sides of the argument... and, in the end, regardless of how you feel, I will _always_ respect the opinion of an 'expert' on either side of the debate than I will your or my opinion on the matter. I guess you think our knowledge is sufficient to pass judgement on massive, complicated issues. I don't. Thats why we pay the experts.

The experts are there to pass judgements based on their knowledge. That's a given. It also doesn't prohibit them from saying absolute garbage either.

I've always taken the viewpoint that what is said is much more valid than who is saying it. If Sutter (a supposed expert) says that scoring 1 goal a game is all a team should shoot for, is that gospel? If I say that scoring 2 goals more than the opponent is what a team should shoot for, is that complete garbage?

Originally Posted by Agamemnon

That's not to say the every-day-person doesn't have valid input. But if one person spends their life researching a topic, and the other has a bare layman's knowledge of the issue, I'm going to tend to trust the expert. I don't see this statement = experts are god, you are nothing.

Perhaps so... but it also shouldn't be used to prevent some every-day-person (like you) from putting their 2 cents in either.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by calculoso

I am complaining about your thinking something is flawed and accepting it anyway, without even a thought on how it could be better. No obligation needed.. just a thought.. a proposal.. an idea. It can die on this CP forum. No biggie.

I don't want to get in the middle of anything here but the suggestion of "well why don't you come up with something if you know it's not perfect" is very unrealistic.

This Kyoto Accord is, I'm sure, several thousand pages long. It took the work or thousands of people, cost millions of dollars bla bla bla. Joe Messageboard can't come up with anything better.

I don't like the accord either (it's too wimpy) but it's all we have. It's a start. It's weak, imperfect and it's ultimate goals are probably not going to be met, but it's a start. It's all we've got. Conjuring up another agreement that 160 countries are going to agree on is going to take another 10 years and another 10 after that to get the thing working. From what I've read, we don't have that kind of time.

Shouldn't we at least try to slow things down (actually try instead of commissioning another study and then another study and then another study and then making a bumper sticker) and change the "how we try" as time goes by. Use the one thing we've got until we come up with something better? It's a start. Don't we need a start?

[Red Mile Style]

Originally Posted by RougeUnderoos

Shouldn't we at least try to slow things down (actually try instead of commissioning another study and then another study and then another study and then making a bumper sticker) and change the "how we try" as time goes by. Use the one thing we've got until we come up with something better? It's a start. Don't we need a start?

I agree completely. We need a start, and Kyoto is the best, if not the only, option available.

I do not have too much of a problem with Kyoto itself, I will admit there are things missing such as incentives for countries to not cut down forests rather than just incentives to plant more trees. The ultimate reason that climate change is happening is because of greenhouse gas emissions, so therefor it makes sense to try and correct this problem before it gets completely out of hand.

Regardless of how you feel the best way to do this is: renewable or alternative energies, carbon sequestration, large final emitters, subsidies for hybrid vehicles, cleaner technologies... Kyoto places responsibility specifically on individual states to do whatever fits their specific situations to get in line with the global mandates. Following that, there are incentives for states to achieve or surpass these numbers, the 6% below 1990 levels for Canada for example, through carbon trading credits.

There is nothing wrong with an incentive to try and accomplish this on a national level. Canada could actually make money on carbon credit trading due to our huge forests. Look at Russia, they have met their Kyoto targets - and they have just as much oil as we do while maintaining their economy. Adhearing to Kyoto doesn't mean all or nothing as so many people think, creating windfarms or putting a higher percentage of ethanol in gasoline etc... things like this that would not make a difference to the average Joe, would have a huge impact in terms of GHG reductions.

Plus, what's wrong with severing our reliance on oil? It can not last forever, that's the reality of fossil fuels.

On top of that, Kyoto targets are supposed to be met in 2012, I think the people know about it, it's getting talked a lot more, now we just need to do something about it. To say that we can never meet our targets is naive because Kyoto has only been ratified a little over a year (as my first troll post states), so it is a little quick to just throw it out when we haven't even tried anything yet.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Let me say I agree with the intent of Kyoto but I strongly disagree with how they want to implement it, as I have shown in this tread.

[White Doors]

Originally Posted by Red Mile Style

There are a lot of issues I have with China and India, their human rights or lacktherof, their suppressive governments...

Your argument that just because they're not doing it, we shouldn't do it is, like you say, ridiculous. Some people in China aren't allowed to practice their religions, do you think Canada should start following China now and ban the practice of some religions?

I have a serious issue with CANADA not making any reductions as well.

You can make reductions and not belong to this political agreement.
If those reductions improve the pollution issue and happen to reduce CO2 as well, then I'll be happy. I'm more concerned about actual pollution than CO2. It doesn't even look like Humans are causing global warming, so why worry about that?

The whole thing is a farce

[White Doors]

There is nothing wrong with an incentive to try and accomplish this on a national level. Canada could actually make money on carbon credit trading due to our huge forests. Look at Russia, they have met their Kyoto targets - and they have just as much oil as we do while maintaining their economy

IIRC Canada was not allowed to include our forests as a carbon sink and Russia was. Makes sense eh?

[White Doors]

Plus, what's wrong with severing our reliance on oil? It can not last forever, that's the reality of fossil fuels.

Nothing, but that won't happen because of Kyoto, it will happen because Gas will not be cheaper than bottled water for much longer. The Market will correct.

[Cowperson]

Just passing through . . . . . . Washington Post today, via MSNBC.com, looks at the environmental cost of dredging up the oilsands in Fort McMurray. Engages the matter of emissions as well.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13039234/

Vote Nuclear!!!

Cowperson

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Vote Nuclear!!!

Don't you mean "Vote Nucular"?

(I know, just making fun of people who say nucular. (Our ISP at work is Nucleus - I swear wouldn't have half the problems we did if the previous Sys Admin had pronounced it correctly when supporting people on the phone - "Type MAIL dot NUCULOUS dot COM <pause> Geez, are you sure you're spellin' it right?" *sigh*))