Bush Administration Blames Humans for Global Warming.

i don't really have anything to add, except that this really is a new low for bush.

oh, and,

YAAAAARRRR!! BOOSH DESTROY LITTLEY MORTAL HUMANS!!!!!!!

It was Bush who broke our international agreement on levels of pollution because he said it was justified to lower American production costs and increase their international competitiveness. Europe and the UK have extremely tight pollution laws, which may stunt our economies, but my conscience is clear. I believe that America creates half of the world�s pollution, I am not sure on the exact amount but I would be interested in knowing. However I do believe the effects of pollution are exaggerated but if they are not we are really fucking up earth.

VIPER

It's better to destroy the earth/fuck up foreign ties than lose a little support/money in the industries. Bush wouldn't want to lose support in the industries, now would he? Probably his only supporters..

quote:

---

Originally posted by Viper2002:
It was Bush who broke our international agreement on levels of pollution because he said it was justified to lower American production costs and increase their international competitiveness. Europe and the UK have extremely tight pollution laws, which may stunt our economies, but my conscience is clear. [b]VIPER[/B]

---

Clear conscience? If that is true, explain to me why UK (and almost all the rest of Europe [Romania being the exception]) did NOT sign the Kyoto Accords?

Typical pompous and hypocritical Europeans.

Viper, Clear conscience, you make yourself look like a fool.

Nox

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
explain to me why UK (and almost all the rest of Europe [Romania being the exception]) did NOT sign the Kyoto Accords?

---

We did sign the 1997 Kyoto Accords as did America, But America withdrew itself because it wanted to save its industries money on emissions control, because as always you put your economy first thinking by breaking the agreement you could get a competitive advantage on Europe. Once America had broken the agreement the point of Europe sticking to the Kyoto accord was null and void, it would only be playing into Americas hands. The Kyoto agreement is not the only governing force on the UK�s emissions the European Union dictates much of our emission laws that are why they are so strict. Unlike Americas laws were industry comes first, do you remember this nox:

quote:

---

The head of America's Environmental Protection Agency, Christie Whitman, confirmed that the Bush administration had "no interest" in implementing the KYOTO ACCORDS on climate change

---

Great Britain and the rest of Europe have been the main forces in trying to get a new agreement in place and this is the opinion of America�s government, so I think I have a right to have a clear conscience. The reason a new agreement has not been met is because of America�s unwillingness to commit to any agreement of any kind concerning emissions. A new agreement will be made eventually probably without America because as they have already shown with this and other things is what they sign means nothing at all. The original Kyoto agreement was legally binding and America broke it, we could have placed international sanctions on America prohibiting you from selling abroad but we did not because it would have probably plunged us all it the biggest recession ever.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nox:
you make yourself look like a fool.

---

Obviously not as foolish as you, I expect your nationalism and lack of intelligence dictates your self-serving nonsense posts.

VIPER


[This message has been edited by Viper2002 (edited 06-06-2002).]

no its that the accords were never ratified, bush didn't pull out, we were never in. A Treaty needs 2/3 of bouth houses to be ratified.

Viper,

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Viper2002:
We did sign the 1997 Kyoto Accords as did America, But America withdrew itself because it wanted to save its industries money on emissions control, because as always you put your economy first thinking by breaking the agreement you could get a competitive advantage on Europe.[b]VIPER

Since you are more educated on this (by your own definition) than I am, please tell me exactly when UK and the rest of Europe signed on to the Kyoto accords.

Nox

so tell me raovq,

who do you blame for global warming?

unless you're a hermit you are just as responsible for it as anyone else,

to blame industry for it, when industry does it for you, is the politically correct 90's way of saying 'not me'.

or do you blame the cattle for shitting which depletes our ozone layer.

besides i could handle a little global warming,

80 degrees below zero in the wintertime is fucking cold.

living in a large city is just like making a home in an oven,

since brick and concrete do not absorb heat but radiate it back.

shit, just the energy you used reading this dissipated through your body as heat contributing to the cause.

there was a light snow here near the end of may.

Ummm... people ARE to blaime for Global Warming.

As human beings, we have had a huge demand of products of all variety, hence the heavy toxic-gas-producing industries who were created to suply us with whatever we wanted; and as citizens, we have hardly done anything to stop the industries from spreading the toxic gas by means of boycot and legal measures.

So yes, humans are to blame for this one.

quote:

---

besides i could handle a little global warming

---

If you gonna make such claims, then you obviously aren't aware of the effects caused by Global Warming.



[This message has been edited by hp (edited 06-06-2002).]

If we do put a halt to depleting the ozone layer, does it regenerate or stay the way it is?

I think we're fucked.

Kinda makes you want to invest in sunblock don't it?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joe Boo:
If we do put a halt to depleting the ozone layer, does it regenerate or stay the way it is?

---

I don't think anyone knows as of yet, because it seems we've only been depleting it, and never gave it a chance to regenerate. Hopefully it will regenerate, though.

"besides i could handle a little global warming, "

"If you gonna make such claims, then you obviously aren't aware of the effects caused by Global Warming."

um, i apparently live in the effects of global warming.

"80 degrees below zero in the wintertime is fucking cold."

if i am unaware of the effects of global warming,

could that maybe mean that there are no effects?

"living in a large city is just like making a home in an oven,

since brick and concrete do not absorb heat but radiate it back."

could it be sheer coincidence that average rise of heat in los angeles, coincides with the rise in population?

could it be sheer coincidence that in 2001 my state had a lower average temperature for the year than any other year from 1900 through 2000, which also coincides with the stability of my states population.

ever wonder why cold blooded creatures sit on the road in the summertime?

they can stay hotter there than on the grass, despite the hazards on the road.

I'm not gonna argue whether Global Warming is real or not - i'll let the scientists do that. From what I read, both sides deliver some very good arguments, and since I dont have Phd in physics, I really can't dispute their claims.

What I am trying to say, however, is that IF Global Warming is real, then you don't seem to know all the consequances it brings.

Flooding in densely populated coastal regions, droughts in others, disease, crop failure, famine, etc.

i got bored and went to the EPA site. i couldn't find anything else. (i couldn't think of the name of the international one, and nothing was really any help.). but according to the big happy nice looking graphs (after telling people that its not our fault, and that nothing is really going to happen) the US is a very altruistic nation doing its best to protect the enviorment, while the poor can go fuck off, cause there screwed anyway.

Global Warming is simply more junk science compounded by the media. The world was warmer a thousand years ago, and incredibly colder around 300 years ago (The so called mini ice age). Changes in temperature are a natural event in geologic history. We have yet to fully grasp the complexities of our planet.
As well, warming would cause water levels to drop, not rise, as more water would evaporate than melt from ice caps.

quote:

---

Global Warming is simply more junk science compounded by the media.

---

That's strange. I was under the impression that it was compounded by a growing number of scientists for decades. I guess I was wrong.

quote:

---

We have yet to fully grasp the complexities of our planet.

---

But, you just said that you've already grasped it. You seem to *know* that this global warming is natural somehow. If we haven't grasped it yet, then how do you know for sure what will happen?

quote:

---

As well, warming would cause water levels to drop, not rise, as more water would evaporate than melt from ice caps.

---

We're talking continents of ice, not a few iceburgs here and there.

Is Ozone depletion part of a "natural cycle" also?

[This message has been edited by TheMouse (edited 06-08-2002).]

Geologic evidence ("fossils and shit" for the inarticulate) show that around a thousand years ago climates that are now temperate could support semi-tropical life, as well as a much longer growing season.

Ozone deplation is another piece of enviro-fascist propaganda. When Oxygen rises to the stratosphere, it is bombarded with ultra-violet rays. These rays deflect away and change the oxygen (O2) into Ozone (O3). As long as plants keep producing Oxygen, there will be an ozone layer. The reason why there are areas around the poles with a diminished ozone layer for a certain period of the year is because there is a certain period of the year where these regions receive no sunlight. Hence, no Ultra-Violet rays to create the Ozone.

Yes But these atmospheric changes occur acording to the ammount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the last great Ice age was caused by the rise of the himmalayahs which disrupted weather patterns so as to cause large scale carbon dioxide fixation.

Yes Cbomb, but nowadays there is increased Ozone layer changes that go beyond natural process. Again, if you admit that there is a lot that we don't know for sure, why do you seem to know for sure, more than any scientist, that it's all completely false? Do all the chemicals we put into the air just poof and disapear?

"That's strange. I was under the impression that it was compounded by a growing number of scientists for decades. I guess I was wrong"

it's hard to go against popular thought,

when you do you're a kook,

that's why as raovq's post ALL scientists agree that greenhouse gases are increasing,

ALL scientists agree this contributes to the warming of the planet.

but not ALL of them agree on the effects this will have,

you'll see when you move to canada, i'm not saying your opinion will change completely, but you will view it differently.

temperature fluctuation is normal,

and some of them are REALISTIC about the fact that WHEN the next ice does occur,

we will have to pollute our environment to the extremes for the majority of mankind to survive in the billions.

but it's hard to stand against a "Save the Planet, it's the only one we got" slogans,

whose not for the safety of the planet.
they have to be fucking nuts don't they?

when it's really save your own fucking ass type of thinking, since most life forms on the entire earth exist where man could not possibly even think to, for example the oceans, inside the craters of active volcanoes, underneath the antarctic ice sheet, antarctica, the northern polar regions, deserts, higher areas in mountain ranges.

man is pretty much limited to a certain temerature range and there better be some water nearby,

most life forms in nature are a little bit more formiddable.

How quickly we forgot the theory that we were heading for another Ice Age.

Or that oil reserves would have been used up by the year 2000.

How long will it take for them to discard the theory of the Greenhouse Effect as more hype?

I have studied Geology for four years and there is strong evidence to surgest that we are in an interglacial (The warm part of an ice age) of an ice age, so in theory we could come back into a glacial (The cold part of an ice age) period which would likely be a global killer. But although there is strong evidence it is all based on theory and which does have a habit of not living up to expectations.

\/IPER/

actually we are in the longest temperate period that had existed for more than hald a million years.