Be very very worried about the real WMD - Global Warming

[Kelzie]

By your own words is why I call it bullshit, I know it's happened before loooonnnng before the industrial revolution, like I said we can't stop it no matter what we do so why do some people want to cripple the U.S. economy for something that may or may not happen which we can't prevent even if it does happen?

Well I'll tell you why, because leftists have an agenda to destroy U.S. economic hegemony while bolstering the economies of third world leftist nations like China. It is not a coincedence that the most vocal proponents of the global warming scare tactics are fringe left kooks.

Why do you think that China (the second largest consumer of fossil fuels soon to surpass the U.S.) is exempt from the regulatory stipulations of the Kyoto accord?

Moderate mainstream scientists do not run around saying that the sky is falling, but the leftists misinterpret and misrepresent their scientific studies for a political agenda. Every scientist who I've heard actually speak about global warming has stated quite clearly that it is not a doomsday scenario that we're looking at here.

I think China should be in Kyoto, but that is neither here nor there.

Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas then?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I think China should be in Kyoto, but that is neither here nor there.

Do you deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas then?

China is in Kyoto that's the whole freaking point they're in it but they are exempt from the provisions so is every other third world nation and in third world nations they don't have the regulation like we do here in the U.S. also, European nations have smaller populations. Just about the only economy that his will effect is the U.S.

 

[Kelzie]

China is in Kyoto that's the whole freaking point they're in it but they are exempt from the provisions so is every other third world nation. Just about the only economy that his will effect is the U.S.

You know what I meant. They shouldn't be exempt.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You know what I meant. They shouldn't be exempt.

Ya but they are exempt and so is every other third world nations and these are the same nations that don't have stringent regulations like in modernized nations. Also, Europe has smaller populations and more nuclear power plants. Kyoto is a farce designed to destroy the U.S. economy.

 

[Kelzie]

Ya but they are exempt and so is every other third world nations and these are the same nations that don't have stringent regulations like in modernized nations. Also, Europe has smaller populations and more nuclear power plants. Kyoto is a farce designed to destroy the U.S. economy.

No it's not you conspiracy theorist you. :roll:

 

[jfuh]

Pffft, environmentalist kooks, with your "facts" and your "scientific correlations".....you're all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy loosers! You can trust all o' tham fancy-shmancy, LIBERALly educated scientists screaming about incipient doom. I'll stick with my common sense, and put my trust in the most reliable sources of information I can find: Michael Crichton and the Bush administration. Why should we start regulating industry just because you commune dwelling idoits smoked yerselves stupid? I've gots yer greenhouse gas emitions right here! *farts*

Did you read the first source? There's a short video clip that you can watch if you're too lazy to read on that same link.

 

[jfuh]

I had to get all the way to the bottom to find a nugget of truth.

So you too deny that carbon dioxide is directly correlated to global warming?

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

No it's not you conspiracy theorist you. :roll:

Yes it is, it's an agenda based social engineering program which will destroy U.S. economic hegemony, why do you think we didn't enter into it? Because GWB hates the environment or is in the pockets of the oil companies? That's the conspiracy theory. The reality is that Kyoto would have destroyed are economy case closed end of discussion.

 

[Kelzie]

Yes it is, it's an agenda based social engineering program which will destroy U.S. economic hegemony, why do you think we didn't enter into it? Because GWB hates the environment or is in the pockets of the oil companies? That's the conspiracy theory. The reality is that Kyoto would have destroyed are economy case closed end of discussion.

And Clinton was in on it right? He's nursing a secret desire to bring the US to its knees. Come on TOT. :lol:

 

[jfuh]

The fact is this, what ever has been done, can certainly not be undone at this point, so it's not something I want to worry too much about. I could spend all my life worrying about the next disaster, or the end of us all, but I won't do that, and most humans will not do that either. This is why you will always get so much resistance to this problem, if there even is one, and why so many don't want to focus on the possibilities.:shock:

No, that's not true. We're not at the point of no return yet. Even if we were only lack of inginuity and will would prevent any reversal. It's quite simple, decrease the net carbon increase into the atmosphere and increase carbon sinks.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

And Clinton was in on it right? He's nursing a secret desire to bring the US to its knees. Come on TOT. :lol:

No but Gore was but he didn't know any better he's just a useful idiots who panders to other useful idiots. Kyoto would have destroyed our economy, do you deny that?

 

[jfuh]

"What," is the whole point, if man is causing it then the left claims that if we cripple the U.S. economy that man can stop it, but of course we wouldn't want to put there communist Chinese allies up to the same standards of the U.S., so while there economy grows stronger ours grows weaker, this is an agenda based ideology set to bring about the end of U.S. economic hegemony precisely what the left in this country wants. Why is it that you think the most vocal and violent eco-warriors are radical leftists?

I suggest you stay on track Tot. Please answer the very simple question I have asked you.

 

[Kelzie]

No but Gore was but he didn't know any better he's just a useful idiots who panders to other useful idiots. Kyoto would have destroyed our economy, do you deny that?

I would like to see some evidence for it.

 

[jfuh]

Your assessment that I should fear an imaginary threat that isn't even going to do jack even if it is real more than psychos who fly planes into buildings and the nations who support them?

There's nothing imaginary about global warming. You clearly do not understand or are unwilling to accept the realities of the science behind Global warming.
I suggest you read over the 2nd source in post #1 of this thread.
Also, stop your cowardly evasion of the question I posted to you and answer it.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I suggest you stay on track Tot. Please answer the very simple question I have asked you.

I have answered it many times, we aren't, to any significant degree, causing global warming, reductions in fossil fuel consumption won't stop global warming, and those who say it will are lying through there teeth.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

I would like to see some evidence for it.

Which part that Gore supported Kyoto or that Kyoto would have destroyed our economy?

 

[Kelzie]

Which part that Gore supported Kyoto or that Kyoto would have destroyed our economy?

Second part. I know Gore supported Kyoto. :lol:

 

[jfuh]

Please show us the evidence that says:
1.)what % of the total greenhouse gasses is CO2

It's rediculous to ask of the percentage of greenhouse gas that is CO2 because all greenhouse gases have a feed back loop. Not to mention the insulating effect of each gas is varied.
Around 36~70% of green house gas are water vapor where as 9~26% is carbon dioxide. However the insulation effect of carbon dioxide is nearly 200 times that of water. Just to indulge you however here's a source

2.)what % of the CO2 increase is caused by humans

Another dumb question. It doesn't matter what percentage is being caused by humans, what matters is that human burning of fossil fuel is contributing to increases in greenhouse gases. See same source as above.

 

[jfuh]

What % of scientists believe that humans have a significant impact on global warming?

99.99%, see source #1 and #2 post 1 of this thread.

 

[jfuh]

t
You guys use any excuse to bring up the war don't you??

t Can you answer on topic then?

 

[Gill]

According to James Hansen, the world's leading expert on climatology, him and other American scientists are being censored by the Bush administration for their stance on the global warming issue.

This is the same James Hansen that has changed his predictions of the extent of global warming three times since 1988.

This is the same James Hansen that said the following:

Emphasis on extreme scenarios may have been appropriate at one time, when the public and decision-makers were relatively unaware of the global warming issue. Now, however, the need is for demonstrably objective climate…scenarios consistent with what is realistic under current conditions.

Translation: It was ok to lie when global warming was first hypothsized so as to get the politicians' and publics' attention.

So you too deny that carbon dioxide is directly correlated to global warming?

The increase in carbon dioxide is greatly exaggerated in the climate models used to predict global warming. They use an annual increase of 1% when the actual annual increase has averaged 0.45% for the last three decades. This greatly skews the results.

 

[jfuh]

For that matter show us the % of the heat increased being caused by the CO2, and the % of the heat increase being created through ALL natural means.

The earth changes temperatures for alot of reasons you may have a situation in which 5% of global warmth is being created by global warming while 95% is being caused by a whole array of other sh!t that you can't control and you can't stop which changes the envioronment much more drastically than that of the CO2 increase is or will in the forseable future; appx. 2-300 years by which time the oil will have run out anyways.

Show us your source.
Oh and by the way, answer the question I posted to you. Do you deny that carbon dioxide is directly correlated to global warming?

 

[jfuh]

Those guys on 911 were Saddam's allys? I think you are confusing Iraq with Saudi Arabia, or maybe Pakistan. It is best to get the facts straight in these complicated matters.

BTW, the 911 commission was a joke, but even still it did not connect Saddam to 911:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

or if the WP is to lefty, how about MSNBC:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/

t This is for another thread. THis thread is about the very real WMD of global warming.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Second part. I know Gore supported Kyoto. :lol:

Kyoto and the U.S. Economy: What will it cost the U.S.?
​

Efforts to implement the Kyoto protocol will prove enormously costly -- and perhaps impossible. The costs associated with the Kyoto protocol are a "stealth tax" on American businesses and consumers. This protocol would create a UN bureaucracy that could possibly be dominated by countries quite willing to use provisions in the protocol to impose economic and social change on U.S. businesses, families, and workers?for little, if any, environmental gain.

In a domestic emissions trading system, permits lead to higher energy prices in order to encourage people to consume less. How much would energy prices rise? Using a U.S. Energy Information Agency ("EIA") study, the scenario of returning U.S. carbon emissions to 1990 levels (the Kyoto agreement is 7% below 1990 levels) would increase business, consumer, and government expenditures on energy by about $190 billion (in 1995 dollars). This includes:

• $46 billion increase in residential expenditures on energy,
• $29 billion by the commercial sector,
• $65 billion by the industrial sector, and $51 billion by the transportation sector.

There's much much more but I don't feel like paraphrasing so read the rest of it here:

http://wwwc.house.gov/smbiz/specialProjects/kyoto/whitepaper.asp

 

[jfuh]

To those of you who are soooo sure that humans are causing global warming:
Did you trade in your car for a bicycle?

Irrelevant

Secondly, even if it is true, there's a very good reason for the skepticism. Liberals have been making this claim for a long time, long before there was much of any evidence. Don't you know the story about the boy who cried wolf? If you're frustrated about conservatives being skeptical, blame yourselves (liberals).

Global warming is not about conservatives vs liberals. It's about the petroleum industry vs the scientists (souce #1 post #1), it's about all of humanity vs our own greed.
You can hype all you want about partisan politics on this matter, or you can read the sources which I've provided and evaluate for yourself of thier authenticity.
All in all I'm going to ask you a simple question that I've been trying to get a simple answer from those that oppose the science.
Do you deny the direct correlation between carbon dioxide and global warming? A simple yes or no will suffice.