NationStates Jolt Archive

Many people blaim Bush for not signing the Kyoto act, but here is the problem. The Kyoto act was mainly directed at the US, and US bashing. It wouldnt have been fair for us Americans, so Im glad Bush didnt sign it. However there were things he could have done, he could have said, "well I like the idea, but not the way you direct it, here are my feelings on what we should do." Comments?

...it was for everyone. everyone was to cut down their greenhouse emissions. and to be fair, the u.s. puts out more than any other country...

where is it bashing the u.s.?

there's no way bush would ever say "I like the idea, but not the way you direct it, here are my feelings on what we should do", instead, try "well darn, this aint no good for the u.s. companies, i reckon we oughtta figure out something that is good for the market, and because you know what's not good for business is good for the enviroment, i mean not good for the enviroment. also, our army will not be an all volunteer army, i mean it will be an all volunteer army"

If Kyoto would have passed, people would have been freaking out on the U.S. because it allowed companies to buy the ability to pollute that countries share.
No matter what, people are looking to complain about something. If it was such a brilliant idea, why didn't every other country sign it and begin right away? They knew that it could screw them too, but they wanted to look like the cared, knowing that the US would deny it.
A friend's mom always said, "sounds good to be, but you have to ask your dad" knowing damn well the dad would say no. It enabled her to sound like the good guy while still essentially saying no

Many people blaim Bush for not signing the Kyoto act, but here is the problem. The Kyoto act was mainly directed at the US, and US bashing. It wouldnt have been fair for us Americans, so Im glad Bush didnt sign it. However there were things he could have done, he could have said, "well I like the idea, but not the way you direct it, here are my feelings on what we should do." Comments?

Do you mean the Kyoto Protocol?

I'm not sure anyone has ratified any 'Act'?

Are not the US and Australia the ONLY two developed nations not to have signed on?

Didn't EVEN RUSSIA sign it?

I'm not sure about China, since I think they still technically count as a 'developing' country... but even they have made statements of intent to reduce pollution.

We all live on this world. We all share the same air. We all share the same polar ice caps. How is Kyoto Protocol anti-American?

Surely, if anything... the US is anti-Kyoto-Protocol... and, thereby, anti-World?

If Kyoto would have passed, people would have been freaking out on the U.S. because it allowed companies to buy the ability to pollute that countries share.
No matter what, people are looking to complain about something. If it was such a brilliant idea, why didn't every other country sign it and begin right away? They knew that it could screw them too, but they wanted to look like the cared, knowing that the US would deny it.
A friend's mom always said, "sounds good to be, but you have to ask your dad" knowing damn well the dad would say no. It enabled her to sound like the good guy while still essentially saying no

WOW, what ARE you talking about?

Please, go GOOGLE Kyoto Protocols.

Well maybe the European countries should try producing some of their own goods and stop living off of America and Asia for a change. Than they might want to rethink the Kyoto Protocal. Just a thought.









Now its obvious we have to pay attention to the worlds environment. But the US is not the only nation to blame.

Many people blaim Bush for not signing the Kyoto act, but here is the problem. The Kyoto act was mainly directed at the US, and US bashing. It wouldnt have been fair for us Americans, so Im glad Bush didnt sign it. However there were things he could have done, he could have said, "well I like the idea, but not the way you direct it, here are my feelings on what we should do." Comments?
If you think the Kyoto protocol is US bashing, then I'm afraid you'll find almost everything in this world is US bashing. I'd recommend you research the protocol a little more before commenting on it.

The main point is that countries with low industrial development would be allowed to sell their leftover quota to the 'big polluters' like the US, and people would whine about the US buying its way out of the protocols, and it would cost the US huge amounts of cash, which it doesnt have.
Surpisingly, we have this thing called 'national debt', its some trillion dollars right now, and yes, we could have bought into the accords instead of going to Iraq and blah, blah, blah, blah, but we didnt.
You know why?
Because were pig headed arrogant Americans who are all extrme right wingers and Christian religous zealots.
Happy?

there's no way bush would ever say "I like the idea, but not the way you direct it, here are my feelings on what we should do", instead, try "well darn, this aint no good for the u.s. companies, i reckon we oughtta figure out something that is good for the market, and because you know what's not good for business is good for the enviroment, i mean not good for the enviroment. also, our army will not be an all volunteer army, i mean it will be an all volunteer army"

Ha, that is true. Im sure if someone better was in office they would have said what I wrote.

Well maybe the European countries should try producing some of their own goods and stop living off of America and Asia for a change. Than they might want to rethink the Kyoto Protocal. Just a thought.

Now its obvious we have to pay attention to the worlds environment. But the US is not the only nation to blame.

Yes... like Silicon... no wait, that is largely an Asian commodity...

Oil, then... no, wait... that's a Middle East commodity...

Oh, that's it... every one buys American food... no, wait, the US IMPORTS more food than it exports, doesn't it?

Sorry, what was the point, again?

Well maybe the European countries should try producing some of their own goods and stop living off of America and Asia for a change. Than they might want to rethink the Kyoto Protocal. Just a thought.









Now its obvious we have to pay attention to the worlds environment. But the US is not the only nation to blame.

Europe already produces the goods it need. And yes, the USA is not the only nation to blame, but its one of the few that does nothing. The other ones polute, but try to devise a way to have the mess cleaned.

The main point is that countries with low industrial development would be allowed to sell their leftover quota to the 'big polluters' like the US, and people would whine about the US buying its way out of the protocols, and it would cost the US huge amounts of cash, which it doesnt have.
do you think you're the only country in the world with a debt? granted the american debt is bigger than the debt of the entire third world... but you made that mess yourself by electing people who give enormous tax cuts with no regard to where the money will come from.

pig headed arrogant Americans who are all extrme right wingers and Christian religous zealots.

:rolleyes:

Europe already produces the goods it need. And yes, the USA is not the only nation to blame, but its one of the few that does nothing. The other ones polute, but try to devise a way to have the mess cleaned.

Im pretty sure not everything we produce goes to us.

Wow, international cospiracy against US. I want to join!

do you think you're the only country in the world with a debt? granted the american debt is bigger than the debt of the entire third world... but you made that mess yourself by electing people who give enormous tax cuts with no regard to where the money will come from.
No, I dont. But the thing is, we have a big debt (as you said) and it would cost more for us to update all of our industry to meet Kyoto standards, and we cant exactly say, "Hey, you lot of big polluting industries, update your stuff now or well do bad stuff!" because they would promptly start screaming about govornment power abuses and such.
'Yourself', thats good. I havent voted in a single election, mostly because in 17 :P

Im pretty sure not everything we produce goes to us.
You're right. The pollution you produce gets exported to your neighbour who, having signed Kyoto, have to cut their emission even more to clean up the mess.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol

On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States".
Disregarding the Senate Resolution, on November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.

Do not blame Bush exclusively for the US not signing!

You're right. The pollution you produce gets exported to your neighbour who, having signed Kyoto, have to cut their emission even more to clean up the mess.
As I recall, the same country has the largest import/export trade with the other country you mention.
So relations cant be all that bad.

Few stories showing that Bush isn't the only person who thinks Kyoto is misguided

http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=43326 Kyoto protocol is discriminatory against Russia
"Illarionov also stressed that the Kyoto protocol was not a universal instrument, as more than half of all countries around the world have taken no obligation to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. The economies of countries that have ratified the protocol grow at a slower pace, as the Kyoto protocol sets substantial restrictions on economic growth, he added."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41561 Putin adviser says Kyoto 'smoke screen': Treaty will create Soviet-style 'monster' threatening freedom

As I recall, the same country has the largest import/export trade with the other country you mention.
So relations cant be all that bad.
Well the relations are a bit strained right now. We have a couple of disagreement and some trade dispute. Otherwise, we continue to send billions of goods throught the frontier in both direction each day.

I'd say things are good...

Few stories showing that Bush isn't the only person who thinks Kyoto is misguided

http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=43326 Kyoto protocol is discriminatory against Russia
"Illarionov also stressed that the Kyoto protocol was not a universal instrument, as more than half of all countries around the world have taken no obligation to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. The economies of countries that have ratified the protocol grow at a slower pace, as the Kyoto protocol sets substantial restrictions on economic growth, he added."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41561 Putin adviser says Kyoto 'smoke screen': Treaty will create Soviet-style 'monster' threatening freedom

So, if Putin does it, it's alright?

Well the relations are a bit strained right now. We have a couple of disagreement and some trade dispute. Otherwise, we continue to send billions of goods throught the frontier in both direction each day.

I'd say things are good...
Dont worry, soon Canada will be states 51-61
:lol:
Nah, I dont think relations will ever get that bad.

No, I dont. But the thing is, we have a big debt (as you said) and it would cost more for us to update all of our industry to meet Kyoto standards, and we cant exactly say, "Hey, you lot of big polluting industries, update your stuff now or well do bad stuff!" because they would promptly start screaming about govornment power abuses and such.
'Yourself', thats good. I havent voted in a single election, mostly because in 17 :P

So what, you think all the other nations signed-on because they thought it would be a walk in the park?

It's good for industry. It makes you more productive, if you HAVE to produce less waste... why can't US business SEE that?

Well maybe the European countries should try producing some of their own goods and stop living off of America and Asia for a change. Than they might want to rethink the Kyoto Protocal. Just a thought.
No, thats not a thought. It is mindless dribble.
I wonder how we underindustrialized europeans buy the goods that are solely produced in America and Asia. May it be that we produce goods of our own and engage in the world market as everyone else? No, that sure cant be. No one uses Nokia cell phones, drives BMWs, takes Aspirin or wears Versace. Because these brands do not exist, all european goods are just imaginary, like economics god Kramers Intern so eloquently explained.

You're right. The pollution you produce gets exported to your neighbour who, having signed Kyoto, have to cut their emission even more to clean up the mess.

Ya...but screw Canada :)

So what, you think all the other nations signed-on because they thought it would be a walk in the park?

It's good for industry. It makes you more productive, if you HAVE to produce less waste... why can't US business SEE that?
No, I dont. How exactly did you withdraw that from my post?
Anyway, Im not sure what the other nations motivations were, I do know that Europe isnt NEARLY as industrialized as the US, nor are many of the other nations (Note: MANY, no offence, but alot of people seem to interpret 'many' as 'all', for some reason,), thus the accords are unfair to larger, more industrialized nations who cant update their industry as quickly or cheaply as smaller, less industrialized nations.
For the second part, because coal is still cheaper than nuclear power and hydrogen engines are a ways off still. Anyway, the initial cost would be large, as I said, and the current CEO's/board of directors would be dead/retired by the time the updates 'paid for themselves', the selfish bastards.

Few stories showing that Bush isn't the only person who thinks Kyoto is misguided

http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=43326 Kyoto protocol is discriminatory against Russia
"Illarionov also stressed that the Kyoto protocol was not a universal instrument, as more than half of all countries around the world have taken no obligation to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. The economies of countries that have ratified the protocol grow at a slower pace, as the Kyoto protocol sets substantial restrictions on economic growth, he added."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41561 Putin adviser says Kyoto 'smoke screen': Treaty will create Soviet-style 'monster' threatening freedom


You mean Russia that signed the protocol?

Europe already produces the goods it need. And yes, the USA is not the only nation to blame, but its one of the few that does nothing. The other ones polute, but try to devise a way to have the mess cleaned.
How do you know that the US does nothing. We are doing stuff. We have regulations on coal power plants, we regulate auto emissions, hell we do a lot of stuff, we just didn't sign the Kyoto protocol, and if I remember correctly, neither did Japan, but my info may be out of date.

You mean Russia that signed the protocol?
yeah, the Russia who signed the protocol, the one who is doing this very reluctantly, and mainly to get friend points with western Europe.

No, I dont. But the thing is, we have a big debt (as you said) and it would cost more for us to update all of our industry to meet Kyoto standards, and we cant exactly say, "Hey, you lot of big polluting industries, update your stuff now or well do bad stuff!" because they would promptly start screaming about govornment power abuses and such.
'Yourself', thats good. I havent voted in a single election, mostly because in 17 :P
well, for one thing, natural disasters are only going to increase with climate change, it's estimated that billions have been lost in production in the u.s. due to abnormal storms, so it is in the interests of your country to try to fix it.

furthermore, what is more important to you? somewhere to live or having money? personally i would rather be able to breathe the air and drink the water and be broke. the earth is our only home... i mean, unless we go out and make workable warp drive and find an earth like planet, we're pretty much stuck here. if we fuck this place up to the point where it's uninhabitable, then we're screwed and no amount of money is worth that.

No, I dont. How exactly did you withdraw that from my post?
Anyway, Im not sure what the other nations motivations were, I do know that Europe isnt NEARLY as industrialized as the US, nor are many of the other nations (Note: MANY, no offence, but alot of people seem to interpret 'many' as 'all', for some reason,), thus the accords are unfair to larger, more industrialized nations who cant update their industry as quickly or cheaply as smaller, less industrialized nations.
For the second part, because coal is still cheaper than nuclear power and hydrogen engines are a ways off still. Anyway, the initial cost would be large, as I said, and the current CEO's/board of directors would be dead/retired by the time the updates 'paid for themselves', the selfish bastards.

Wrong about Europe, my friend...

Maybe a surprise... but Europe isn't a 'nation'.

Try going to the UK, or Germany... then tell me Europe isn't industrialised...

Oh, and wait... BOTH have signed onto the treaty...

well, for one thing, natural disasters are only going to increase with climate change, it's estimated that billions have been lost in production in the u.s. due to abnormal storms, so it is in the interests of your country to try to fix it.
Source on this, as I have never heard this statement before. And what's an abnormal storm?

Bush is an idiot...he wants to cut down pollution by 70%...how does he expect to do that? Pay Halliburton?

No, I dont. How exactly did you withdraw that from my post?
Anyway, Im not sure what the other nations motivations were, I do know that Europe isnt NEARLY as industrialized as the US, nor are many of the other nations (Note: MANY, no offence, but alot of people seem to interpret 'many' as 'all', for some reason,), thus the accords are unfair to larger, more industrialized nations who cant update their industry as quickly or cheaply as smaller, less industrialized nations.
For the second part, because coal is still cheaper than nuclear power and hydrogen engines are a ways off still. Anyway, the initial cost would be large, as I said, and the current CEO's/board of directors would be dead/retired by the time the updates 'paid for themselves', the selfish bastards.
how is europe less industrialized than the u.s.?

Source on this, as I have never heard this statement before. And what's an abnormal storm?
i read it some time last year, it may be a while digging up a source.

and by abnormal storms, i mean storms that are in unual number and magnitude...

How do you know that the US does nothing. We are doing stuff. We have regulations on coal power plants, we regulate auto emissions, hell we do a lot of stuff, we just didn't sign the Kyoto protocol, and if I remember correctly, neither did Japan, but my info may be out of date.

If I recall correctly, the Bush administration lowered these regulation to make sure that old power plant wouldn't have to pay enormous amounts to be brought up to code. I agree that there are regulations in places, but Bush seems to be determined to undermine them if it helps the bottom-line of US companies.

And Clinton was willing to continue negociations on Kyoto, even if he admitted that the current version would never be aprooved by congress. Bush said basically "to hell with negotiations! We're doing our own thing".

-Dakini:
'Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it.', who was it who said that?
Not that its important, but what are we supposed to do? As far as we know, this is merely a natural cycle that has grown a bit, maybe due to polutants, maybe not. And, as Andaluciae said, we ARE doing things, just not at the rate the Kyoto accords require, OUR way wont wreck our economy.

-Grave_n_idle:
Neither is 'America', but we use that in refrence to the United States all the time.
I was refering to Europe in general, and the fact that it isnt AS industrialized as the US, take a trip to, say, Chicago, although its more commercialized than industialized. Ive been to Britian, it was a nice place, although some PETA-type people yelled at me for not donating to their anti-fox-hunting thingy.

-Grave_n_idle:
Neither is 'America', but we use that in refrence to the United States all the time.
I was refering to Europe in general, and the fact that it isnt AS industrialized as the US, take a trip to, say, Chicago, although its more commercialized than industialized. Ive been to Britian, it was a nice place, although some PETA-type people yelled at me for not donating to their anti-fox-hunting thingy.

I'm sorry but we seems to have a difference of opinion on the term industrialized. My definition indicates that both western eurpore and the US are as industrialized. They both enjoy pretty much the same commodities, scientific and commercial innovation hit both markets at roughly the same time, and the general level of confort is the same.

To me, that says they are BOTH at the same level of industrialization. Now if you want to say that there's more manifacturing plants in the US, then we'll have to name it something other than industrialization.

Unless we have a different definition of what industrialization is?

I'm sorry but we seems to have a difference of opinion on the term industrialized. <snip>

Unless we have a different definition of what industrialization is?
I always thought of it as a measure of number of factories, manufacturing capability, that sort of thing. A sort of overall sum of a nations indsutrial capability.
But your definition is good to ;)

yeah, the Russia who signed the protocol, the one who is doing this very reluctantly, and mainly to get friend points with western Europe.


Wrong. They signed it because they can sell off polution credits for cash, that simple.

The beauty of the Kyoto system is that it works with financial incentives.. yes, greedy, comercial incentives to help nature. And before anyone comes with "yea but the USA would have to pay blablabla" ill remind you that many signatary countries knowingly and willingfully signed the protocal, knowing that it will cost them money.

So the USA , the worlds largest economy, and the worlds largest polluter, is just being bloody selfish at its best.

I always thought of it as a measure of number of factories, manufacturing capability, that sort of thing. A sort of overall sum of a nations indsutrial capability.
But your definition is good to ;)

With different definitions we would have argued most of the night and would have ended both right.

Let's call your thing industrial capacity (or capability) if you don't mind. :cool:

As you will, feel free to substitute all instances of 'industrialization' with 'industrial capability', unless it agrees with your definition :P

Wrong. They signed it because they can sell off polution credits for cash, that simple.

The beauty of the Kyoto system is that it works with financial incentives.. yes, greedy, comercial incentives to help nature. And before anyone comes with "yea but the USA would have to pay blablabla" ill remind you that many signatary countries knowingly and willingfully signed the protocal, knowing that it will cost them money.

So the USA , the worlds largest economy, and the worlds largest polluter, is just being bloody selfish at its best.
And how many signed so as to sell their credits to the US? Once again, we're the one's who have to pay other people. It is designed to harm the largest economy, and that is the US.

Neither is 'America', but we use that in refrence to the United States all the time.
I was refering to Europe in general, and the fact that it isnt AS industrialized as the US, take a trip to, say, Chicago, although its more commercialized than industialized. Ive been to Britian, it was a nice place, although some PETA-type people yelled at me for not donating to their anti-fox-hunting thingy.

There MAY be big bits of Europe that aren't THAT industrialised...

But, then again... all of England (pretty much) would fit into Wyoming, and Wyoming only has the same population as the City of Leicester...

Wrong. They signed it because they can sell off polution credits for cash, that simple.

The beauty of the Kyoto system is that it works with financial incentives.. yes, greedy, comercial incentives to help nature. And before anyone comes with "yea but the USA would have to pay blablabla" ill remind you that many signatary countries knowingly and willingfully signed the protocal, knowing that it will cost them money.

So the USA , the worlds largest economy, and the worlds largest polluter, is just being bloody selfish at its best.

Wait, I just got ripped on and told to "google the Kyoto Protocol" for mentioning this... :headbang:

There MAY be big bits of Europe that aren't THAT industrialised...

But, then again... all of England (pretty much) would fit into Wyoming, and Wyoming only has the same population as the City of Leicester...
US population density varies quite a bit, I used to live in Oregon, where about half the states population is crammed into two cities, neither of which is (currently) industrial in nature.
In most places of the US, it isnt industry that causes the problem, its cars, and people. Tourists (using the fabled 'rental brain') will dump their garbage within six feet of a garbage can, because after all, it isnt their town.
And if you plan on banning eighteen wheelers, hummers, and SUVs...go for it.
But we ARE trying, again, just not as fast as the Kyoto accords would do it. Because we cant, if your going down the road at fifty, then shift from fourth gear to first, your engine is going to jump out of your car. The US' industry simply cannot adapt that quickly without major consequences, which outweigh (in the minds of the owners of the companies and (apparently) the people) the benifits.

Wait, I just got ripped on and told to "google the Kyoto Protocol" for mentioning this... :headbang:

No - big difference between that, and:

...No matter what, people are looking to complain about something. If it was such a brilliant idea, why didn't every other country sign it and begin right away? They knew that it could screw them too, but they wanted to look like the cared, knowing that the US would deny it...

US population density varies quite a bit, I used to live in Oregon, where about half the states population is crammed into two cities, neither of which is (currently) industrial in nature.
In most places of the US, it isnt industry that causes the problem, its cars, and people. Tourists (using the fabled 'rental brain') will dump their garbage within six feet of a garbage can, because after all, it isnt their town.
And if you plan on banning eighteen wheelers, hummers, and SUVs...go for it.
But we ARE trying, again, just not as fast as the Kyoto accords would do it. Because we cant, if your going down the road at fifty, then shift from fourth gear to first, your engine is going to jump out of your car. The US' industry simply cannot adapt that quickly without major consequences, which outweigh (in the minds of the owners of the companies and (apparently) the people) the benifits.

And yet, only America is allowing the 'corporate interest' to totally overcome the ecological concern... well, Australia, too....

The thing is... the US let's industry push people around (oh, I know there are bully-industries everywhere). Look at how inefficient US cars are, compared to European cars... just for example. Look at how the government kisses the ass of the pharmacy... and the insurance industry.

That's why 1/4 of Americans CAN'T afford health-care.

It's about time the US government STOOD UP to industry.

But, of course, they won't... because industry hits them where it hurts... the wallet.

You're right. The pollution you produce gets exported to your neighbour who, having signed Kyoto, have to cut their emission even more to clean up the mess.

Well it's easy for Canada to keep it's enviroment clean becuase it exports all it's trash to the US. The US is the dumping ground of a large portion Canadian waste. It's the second largest export next to wood, but a close third with patients looking for good surgerns.

That's why 1/4 of Americans CAN'T afford health-care.


That's 25% of Americans LACK health care. You're assuming that they want it. I know some that don't, mostly the self employed.

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]
That's why 1/4 of Americans CAN'T afford health-care.
QUOTE]

That's 25% of Americans LACK health care. You're assuming that they want it. I know some that don't, mostly the self employed.

Actually... no... the poverty line in the US is very close to 50% of the population, now... and, while I assume that some poeple CHOOSE not to have health insurance, many want it, and can't afford it.

And yet, only America is allowing the 'corporate interest' to totally overcome the ecological concern... well, Australia, too....

The thing is... the US let's industry push people around (oh, I know there are bully-industries everywhere). Look at how inefficient US cars are, compared to European cars... just for example. Look at how the government kisses the ass of the pharmacy... and the insurance industry.

That's why 1/4 of Americans CAN'T afford health-care.

It's about time the US government STOOD UP to industry.

But, of course, they won't... because industry hits them where it hurts... the wallet.

The environment isnt in that bad a condition here, Oregon, for example, is Douglas Fir trees for as far as you can see, except for the logged areas, but this is the inevitable biproduct of a civilization that builds wooden houses ;).

The reason US cars arent as effecient as Euro cars is that theyre BIGGER, because people in the US want big cars. Its really that simple, and theres nothing to prevent anybody with enough money from buying a Hummer and driving around burning a gallon of gas a mile. Another reason for this is that is because gasoline is so much cheaper here. Last I saw (2002, I think) gas in Europe was 88 pence per liter, which is about four pounds per gallon, plus whatever taxes that country has, and I think the pound translates as $1.34
Gas here is at $1.85 (In Arizona, I think in some places its in the two dollar range), meaning we can afford (in a monetary sense, anyway) to waste gas.

1/4 of Americans could most likely afford healthcare if they tried to get it, thats the wonderful thing about this country. Most of the homeless are that way because they CHOOSE to be homeless. Anyway, most of the nation budget goes to social services, so we cant afford to increase those anyway.

The US govornment can hardly stand up to itself, with all the activist judges, corrupt politicians, and screw ups in office. If it tried to stand up to 'Big industry' in this condition, it would lose. Simple.

Actually... no... the poverty line in the US is very close to 50% of the population, now... and, while I assume that some poeple CHOOSE not to have health insurance, many want it, and can't afford it.

Bullshit.

US poverty line, defined:
http://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty/03poverty.htm

Actual numbers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_line_in_the_United_States
On August 26, 2004 the U.S. Census Bureau reported its poverty report over 2003.
The official poverty rate was up to 12.5% from 12.1% in 2002. The total number of people below the poverty line rose by 1.3 million to 35.9 million.

Actually... no... the poverty line in the US is very close to 50% of the population, now... and, while I assume that some poeple CHOOSE not to have health insurance, many want it, and can't afford it.
If 12.5% equals 50%, yes.

Sometimes I wonder how people get crazy visions of America. Then it becomes clear.

While I disagree with using wikipedia as a source, not even the most extremist liberal in america would claim that poverty level is anywhere near 50%

Not to mention the original claim of 25% of Americans being without healthcare is wrong too - its only 15.6%.

Well it's easy for Canada to keep it's enviroment clean becuase it exports all it's trash to the US. The US is the dumping ground of a large portion Canadian waste. It's the second largest export next to wood, but a close third with patients looking for good surgerns.

Tell you what, you give me a source for these claims and I'll look at it.
In the meantime, I'll find your first post ever to be a bad beggining for your time on these forums.

Tell you what, you give me a source for these claims and I'll look at it.
In the meantime, I'll find your first post ever to be a bad beggining for your time on these forums.

The trash thing I wonder about, but being in Minnesota (state bordering Canada for people who don't know, also where the Mayo Clinic, one of the most prestegious hospitals in the country) we see once or twice a year in the local news, different stories about Canadians who come down to Mayo and other hospitals for surgery.

Then again, those same stories usually mention Minnesotians going up to Canada for prescription drugs..

[QUOTE=Grave_n_idle]
That's why 1/4 of Americans CAN'T afford health-care.
QUOTE]

That's 25% of Americans LACK health care. You're assuming that they want it. I know some that don't, mostly the self employed.
That's correct. Current numbers (as reported by USA Today this October) show that the majority of people lacking health insurance in the US fall into one of three groups:

1. People 20-35 years old who don't feel they need health insurance fit this, they are still living in the time frame where their medical needs are minimal, and they still feel the "invincibility" of the teenage years. Instead they opt for extra cash from their employers.

2. People who practice holistic, or traditional medicine. They believe that modern medicine is bad for your body, or karma or whatever, and they choose to refrain from it.

3. Many self employed just plain find it a nuisance. Having to deal with all the paperwork and stuff, when, they really won't need it for a while. They find it easier just to pay in cash at the doctors.

The trash thing I wonder about, but being in Minnesota (state bordering Canada for people who don't know, also where the Mayo Clinic, one of the most prestegious hospitals in the country) we see once or twice a year in the local news, different stories about Canadians who come down to Mayo and other hospitals for surgery

Yes there's a program to send some patients to the states to shorten the waiting time for some surgeries. But to go from that to a close third with patients looking for good surgerns is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

It seems that whenever I have a reply to a topic, it has already gone terribly off topic. We went from the Kyoto Treaty to Canadian exports.

But anyways, back to the original post.

Although I completely understand the mindset of "sticking to your guns," I think that this philosophy is what has divided the nation. Dubya has completely ignored the lost art of the political compromise. God forbid Republicans and Democrats work together for a solution instead of bashing the others'.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but our government exists to solve problems, not create them. Yet I see our government causing more problems than it solves, especially in the past decade or so. Hell, I'd settle for a government that gets nothing accomplished, because it seems that our government refuses to try and solve problems with their fellow man and instead ignores him.

This is why I voted for John Kerry. I knew he would have a Republican dominated Congess. Therefore if he were to attempt to push things through Congress, they would have to be a compromise of what he really wants. Bush is able to push forward whatever agenda he wants and I believe 4 straight years of one political mindset would be terribly damaging to this entire country.

I already see a possible attack at my post. Some one will say "Compromising your beliefs is simply admitting that you aren't correct and could be wrong, this can't happen if you want your agenda pushed forward." I say to that: most political idealologies are well founded and there is no way to say that any way is wrong, but there is no way to say that one way is right either. So by compromising, we allow portions of ideals to go forward enough to please both sides, if they simply remove their heads from their asses and realize that they do more harm than good.

That's correct. Current numbers (as reported by USA Today this October) show that the majority of people lacking health insurance in the US fall into one of three groups:

<snip for brevity>


Thanks. I was going by my ex-girlfriend's crowd (about a dozen self employed musicians), plus some of my tech buddies that are young ronin contractors. :)

Many people blaim Bush for not signing the Kyoto act, but here is the problem. The Kyoto act was mainly directed at the US, and US bashing. It wouldnt have been fair for us Americans, so Im glad Bush didnt sign it. However there were things he could have done, he could have said, "well I like the idea, but not the way you direct it, here are my feelings on what we should do." Comments?
There was nothing America-bashing about it. All countries had to live up to the same standards.

why didn't every other country sign it and begin right away?
Actually, we did.

Well maybe the European countries should try producing some of their own goods and stop living off of America and Asia for a change. Than they might want to rethink the Kyoto Protocal. Just a thought.
Now its obvious we have to pay attention to the worlds environment. But the US is not the only nation to blame.
Europe does produce a huge amount of goods. The only reason people are blaming the US is because it won't do what the other countries are doing.

DAmn, Kramers, you sound liek a misinformed conservative.

And yet, only America is allowing the 'corporate interest' to totally overcome the ecological concern... well, Australia, too....

The thing is... the US let's industry push people around (oh, I know there are bully-industries everywhere). Look at how inefficient US cars are, compared to European cars... just for example. Look at how the government kisses the ass of the pharmacy... and the insurance industry.

That's why 1/4 of Americans CAN'T afford health-care.

It's about time the US government STOOD UP to industry.

But, of course, they won't... because industry hits them where it hurts... the wallet.
Ok, I can tell your another pious European so let me set you straight. First, it's a person’s choice to get an inefficient car or more efficient one. They can go to a dealership and get a car that gets 15mpg or 60mpg. It's the consumer who chooses the more inefficient car. If consumers were flocking to buy more fuel efficient cars then the auto industry would be putting out more efficient cars. It's supply and demand.

Second, the US does not want to import drugs from other countries for reasons of safety. For example, the US outsourced the production of its flu vaccine from a company in England. They screwed up big, now we have to face a shortage this year. However, let's say that we buy some drugs from Germany. The German company that produces the drug has a fatal defect and kills a dozen Americans. What can be done? We can't sue, we can't send them to court, and we can't do anything but stop buying the drug. Yes, I believe drugs should be cheaper, but we shouldn't import them.

On the issue of health care 63% of Americans get employment based health insurance. More then 10% buy into there own program because they either freelance or self-employed (me). Medicare, medicade, and VA (federal health care) covers around 17%. The rest of the population has no health care coverage. However, if you take a closure look at the 10% of "americans" you'll understand it's slightly skewed. This number consist of bums or drifters, Amish, illegal aliens, and people in job transitions. Although, I'll be the first to admit that they may not make more then 4% of the population they still make up the number of uninsured.

Having the private sector have control over the health industry improves competition, technology, and doctors. The US health care system is great although a bit more costly. This is mostly the result of sue happy individuals whose own arrogance with help of a top shelf lawyer, and a grief filled jury win multi million dollar cases that other patients pay at the end.

Yes industry has a big roll in the US government, but industry has a big part in the country. I agree that they’re some corrupt office holders, but it’s the same all over the world. This problem is everywhere! Yes, even Europe. Need I say Oil For Food Program.

Tell you what, you give me a source for these claims and I'll look at it.
In the meantime, I'll find your first post ever to be a bad beggining for your time on these forums.

http://www.detnews.com/specialreports/2003/garbage/

Ok, I can tell your another pious European so let me set you straight. First, it's a person’s choice to get an inefficient car or more efficient one. They can go to a dealership and get a car that gets 15mpg or 60mpg. It's the consumer who chooses the more inefficient car. If consumers were flocking to buy more fuel efficient cars then the auto industry would be putting out more efficient cars. It's supply and demand.

Second, the US does not want to import drugs from other countries for reasons of safety. For example, the US outsourced the production of its flu vaccine from a company in England. They screwed up big, now we have to face a shortage this year. However, let's say that we buy some drugs from Germany. The German company that produces the drug has a fatal defect and kills a dozen Americans. What can be done? We can't sue, we can't send them to court, and we can't do anything but stop buying the drug. Yes, I believe drugs should be cheaper, but we shouldn't import them.

On the issue of health care 63% of Americans get employment based health insurance. More then 10% buy into there own program because they either freelance or self-employed (me). Medicare, medicade, and VA (federal health care) covers around 17%. The rest of the population has no health care coverage. However, if you take a closure look at the 10% of "americans" you'll understand it's slightly skewed. This number consist of bums or drifters, Amish, illegal aliens, and people in job transitions. Although, I'll be the first to admit that they may not make more then 4% of the population they still make up the number of uninsured.

Having the private sector have control over the health industry improves competition, technology, and doctors. The US health care system is great although a bit more costly. This is mostly the result of sue happy individuals whose own arrogance with help of a top shelf lawyer, and a grief filled jury win multi million dollar cases that other patients pay at the end.

Yes industry has a big roll in the US government, but industry has a big part in the country. I agree that they’re some corrupt office holders, but it’s the same all over the world. This problem is everywhere! Yes, even Europe. Need I say Oil For Food Program.

I have to call "Bullshit" on the medical... the US doesn't trust foreign import drugs, and that's why the FDA doesn't let people import their medication? Explain why they don't allow the re-import of drugs, then? Still packaged... sold FROM American producers TO Canadian suppliers, being resold back into the US, and STILL much cheaper than the drug is available domestically.

It's a case of people buying government hype.

The drug companies and the insurance companies OWN the government. That is why US drugs are sold TO Europe at a fraction the cost that Americans still allow themselves to pay. Literally... a fraction... drugs marketted over here at THOUSANDS of dollars, selling for less than hundreds in the UK, or Europe.

And the company in the UK... it's an American company, no? And the UK shut them down because they had contaminated the batch of drugs... or would you rather that contaminated drugs were shipped? That can happen IN the US, or outside it.

The US health system sucks. It's true... sure, you can get treated quickly (if you have insurance) but you can't AFFORD the treatment. Imagine if your insurance DIDN'T cover your medication, could you afford a knee-replacement? Could you even afford a physical? And the insurance companies are gouging to cover those costs, but the medical industry is gouging to MAKE those costs.

At least social medicine programs are available to all... the US should head towards the UK model... So - like MOST of the civilised world, the US should start limiting how mauch pharmaceutical companies are allowed to charge... there should be a 'national health service', and a 'private health service'... one covered from taxation, and one optional one that you pay premia for.

Regarding the cars... you have SO totally missed the point... I'm not even sure on how to gesture in it's direction from where you've gone...

No witty retort, G_n_i ? :D

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7816201&postcount=55

Many people blaim Bush for not signing the Kyoto act, but here is the problem. The Kyoto act was mainly directed at the US, and US bashing. It wouldnt have been fair for us Americans, so Im glad Bush didnt sign it. However there were things he could have done, he could have said, "well I like the idea, but not the way you direct it, here are my feelings on what we should do." Comments?

I believe tyhat you may in fact be referring to the Kyoto Protocol.

It was never an act.

Kindly advise how you have arrived at the remarkable decision that anything contained therein was in fact "was mainly directed at the US, and US bashing. It wouldnt have been fair for us Americans".

Quoting from the protocols or any internet site referring to them may help you establish a case.

Otherwise, you really start to sound like another whingeing yank, with any international initiative being a plot aimed at the US.

Although I completely understand the mindset of "sticking to your guns," I think that this philosophy is what has divided the nation. Dubya has completely ignored the lost art of the political compromise. God forbid Republicans and Democrats work together for a solution instead of bashing the others'.

Precisely why I believe in divided government. It breeds compromise, the public weal as Madison described it.

If Kyoto would have passed, people would have been freaking out on the U.S. because it allowed companies to buy the ability to pollute that countries share.
No matter what, people are looking to complain about something. If it was such a brilliant idea, why didn't every other country sign it and begin right away? They knew that it could screw them too, but they wanted to look like the cared, knowing that the US would deny it.
A friend's mom always said, "sounds good to be, but you have to ask your dad" knowing damn well the dad would say no. It enabled her to sound like the good guy while still essentially saying no

Errr... pretty much every other country did sign and ratify it....
and they didn't implement it right away because the protocol was designed to go into effect gradualy, becuase things like retooling an economy take time

The reason US cars arent as effecient as Euro cars is that theyre BIGGER, because people in the US want big cars.
They also need them big. Otherwise they wouldn't fit in with their XXXL bodies and XXXXXXXL ego's.

Erm...Japan accepted the Protocol in 2002.

[
At least social medicine programs are available to all... the US should head towards the UK model... So - like MOST of the civilised world, the US should start limiting how mauch pharmaceutical companies are allowed to charge... there should be a 'national health service', and a 'private health service'... one covered from taxation, and one optional one that you pay premia for.

Right on
acording to the World Health Orginization, guess who rates number one in Health Care... Drum roll pleas... France.

The US dosn't even make the top 10.
or 20
or 30
we come in 34th

says alot for privitized medicine dosn't it... espcialy considering the rest of the industrialized world has some form socialized medicine.

interestingly our system is more expensive too, runing at about 12% GDP
compared with 7% in Britain
(source: The Economist)

Question. How would one enforce the Kyoto Protocol?

By the US not agreeing to it, it just avoids the hypocrisy of all the other nations, who joined it with no intentions to actual enforce the regulations.

Also if the Protocol was followed it would cost the world trillions of dollars, limit economic efficiency and in many ways stymie new technologies which in time would reduce pollution.

Also Global Warming is bull, if you disagree read the Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Longstarth(?spelling?). He was an environmentalist who went out of his way to prove Global Warming but found no feasible or valid evidence of its existence.

[
At least social medicine programs are available to all... the US should head towards the UK model... So - like MOST of the civilised world, the US should start limiting how mauch pharmaceutical companies are allowed to charge... there should be a 'national health service', and a 'private health service'... one covered from taxation, and one optional one that you pay premia for.

Right on
acording to the World Health Orginization, guess who rates number one in Health Care... Drum roll pleas... France.

The US dosn't even make the top 10.
or 20
or 30
we come in 34th

says alot for privitized medicine dosn't it... espcialy considering the rest of the industrialized world has some form socialized medicine.

interestingly our system is more expensive too, runing at about 12% GDP
compared with 7% in Britain
(source: The Economist)



Yeah that works great. Ever heard of the "Brain Drain"? Notice also where all the pharmacetical compainies are located. Also by limiting companies profits, one limits the amount of money a company can spend in research for a new drug. If you had your way, there would be no new medical advances.

Notice also where all the pharmacetical compainies are located.
The Bayer AG's HQ is in Leverkusen, NRW, Germany.

The Bayer AG's HQ is in Leverkusen, NRW, Germany.

The majority is the United States and Switzerland, also that comment was directed to Britain.

The majority is the United States and Switzerland, also that comment was directed to Britain.
Ok.

This problem is everywhere! Yes, even Europe. Need I say Oil For Food Program.
That was based in Europe?

Yeah that works great. Ever heard of the "Brain Drain"? Notice also where all the pharmacetical compainies are located. Also by limiting companies profits, one limits the amount of money a company can spend in research for a new drug. If you had your way, there would be no new medical advances.

not in this context... i'm familiar with the brain drain of the college educated kids leaving my state (among others) because there are no jobs, thus limiting futher growth through investement because the population is less educated then it might other wise be.

there might perhaps be less advancement, unless ofcourse you were to actualy fund reaserch at the government level.

seems to be that those over regulated Euro nations are doing quite well technologicaly, in 2001 finland was even number 1. it seems to have shifted back to the US, but it's a close shuffle between several nations...
http://www.eubusiness.com/imported/2001/08/55691

http://www.detnews.com/specialreports/2003/garbage/
Hardly what I would consider our second biggest export...

Yeah that works great. Ever heard of the "Brain Drain"? Notice also where all the pharmacetical compainies are located. Also by limiting companies profits, one limits the amount of money a company can spend in research for a new drug. If you had your way, there would be no new medical advances.

False. Profit is money given to shareholder. If you limit this, you make sure that a sizable portion is re-invested in the company in research or something else. You're talking about revenue.

Besides, government grants and/or incentive are in place to devellop research, you just have to boost that budget to make up for the loss of limiting the price of medecine.

When there's a will, there's a way. Aslo it helps if there's not a lobby group.

No witty retort, G_n_i ? :D

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7816201&postcount=55

I'm sorry... were you waiting for something?

I'm afraid you had to wait till I got back from work...

Well, definitions change - even on poverty (which is why the amount from year to year is inconstant). Personally, I think that, (what was that figure?) $15k (?) per annum for a 3 person family is a ridiculous number for someone to try to fob off as 'poverty level', and I would be insulted if I thought the government was seriously trying to pass that off as representative to me... since I see that as being only a little over minimum wage.

I guess the current regime imagines America gains some kind of pleasure out of social suffering... it must reinforce the "consumer drive"... or the "capitalist-patriot" identity, or something.

Personally, I wouldn't be boasting about those figures.

Well, definitions change - even on poverty (which is why the amount from year to year is inconstant). Personally, I think that, (what was that figure?) $15k (?) per annum for a 3 person family is a ridiculous number for someone to try to fob off as 'poverty level', and I would be insulted if I thought the government was seriously trying to pass that off as representative to me... since I see that as being only a little over minimum wage.

I guess the current regime imagines America gains some kind of pleasure out of social suffering... it must reinforce the "consumer drive"... or the "capitalist-patriot" identity, or something.

Personally, I wouldn't be boasting about those figures.

What's going to happen in 10-15 years when the huge group of old people retire and start receiving the huge benefits that many European governments have promised them? Either the working classes will be taxed further towards poverty or the retired people won't receive the money they were expecting, possibly putting them closer to poverty.
No system is perfect, but you have to help as many people as possible.

[
At least social medicine programs are available to all... the US should head towards the UK model... So - like MOST of the civilised world, the US should start limiting how mauch pharmaceutical companies are allowed to charge... there should be a 'national health service', and a 'private health service'... one covered from taxation, and one optional one that you pay premia for.

Right on
acording to the World Health Orginization, guess who rates number one in Health Care... Drum roll pleas... France.

The US dosn't even make the top 10.
or 20
or 30
we come in 34th

says alot for privitized medicine dosn't it... espcialy considering the rest of the industrialized world has some form socialized medicine.

interestingly our system is more expensive too, runing at about 12% GDP
compared with 7% in Britain
(source: The Economist)

And, as I said... that British model has TWO 'prongs'... the Nationalised variety.... which might take time, but get's there in the end... and EVERYONE is welcome... and the Private variety, where you pay your money and take your choice. So - you don't even 'lose' private enterprise.

Question. How would one enforce the Kyoto Protocol?

By the US not agreeing to it, it just avoids the hypocrisy of all the other nations, who joined it with no intentions to actual enforce the regulations.

Also if the Protocol was followed it would cost the world trillions of dollars, limit economic efficiency and in many ways stymie new technologies which in time would reduce pollution.

Also Global Warming is bull, if you disagree read the Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Longstarth(?spelling?). He was an environmentalist who went out of his way to prove Global Warming but found no feasible or valid evidence of its existence.

When? I would say that 2004 provided plenty of evidence that, though certain financially-involved individuals might wish it otherwise, global warming is very real.

Want it in bite size format? Try Discover magazine (January 2005 edition), which list the top 100 science 'things' of the past year. They put the wealth of global-warming-evidence at No 1.

Well, definitions change - even on poverty (which is why the amount from year to year is inconstant). Personally, I think that, (what was that figure?) $15k (?) per annum for a 3 person family is a ridiculous number for someone to try to fob off as 'poverty level', and I would be insulted if I thought the government was seriously trying to pass that off as representative to me... since I see that as being only a little over minimum wage.

Are you insinuating that the poverty line has EVER shifted from 12% to 50%?

As to what you think, minimum wage is just that -- minimum wage. If you want to have a family and do better, APPLY yourself. You do not have the right to be handed a life, you must create one yourself.

15k goes a long way in a lot of the US, btw. Oh, it's not oppulance, but you can live on it in big chunks of rural America, and many do.


I guess the current regime imagines America gains some kind of pleasure out of social suffering... it must reinforce the "consumer drive"... or the "capitalist-patriot" identity, or something.

Aha. As opposed to any other regime? The best thing Clinton ever did was to reform welfare to make it so that people can only be on the dole for a limited time. People must be responsible for their own welfare. That was NOT a "current regime" thing.
Futher, the "consumer drive" you mention was in high gear with the dot.com era... and every era post WW2.
I think you're confusing economics with politics. In America, the buck is always the king, and no administration has ever thought otherwise. Even Johnson, with his utterly misguided "Great Society" presided over a HUGE consumerist economy.
Lastly, there is no social suffering, just people angry that they're not being taken care of for not working. Working three years in an inner city school district taught me that in a hurry.


Personally, I wouldn't be boasting about those figures.

I would. They show that the system works. Over 70% of Americans own their own homes, the highest level ever. The system not only works, but it works well. If you apply yourself and work.

What's going to happen in 10-15 years when the huge group of old people retire and start receiving the huge benefits that many European governments have promised them? Either the working classes will be taxed further towards poverty or the retired people won't receive the money they were expecting, possibly putting them closer to poverty.
No system is perfect, but you have to help as many people as possible.

Interesting... which 'huge' benefits would they be?

I assume that you are not, then, a European... I think most would be surprised to find that they had been promised 'huge' anything, when they retire.

No system is perfect... but at least the European governments didn't just spend all of their Social Security budgets on a quick political debacle and some vote winning tax cuts.

I think America needs to examine the plank that seems to be lodged in it's economic/social eye.

Are you insinuating that the poverty line has EVER shifted from 12% to 50%?

As to what you think, minimum wage is just that -- minimum wage. If you want to have a family and do better, APPLY yourself. You do not have the right to be handed a life, you must create one yourself.

15k goes a long way in a lot of the US, btw. Oh, it's not oppulance, but you can live on it in big chunks of rural America, and many do.

Aha. As opposed to any other regime? The best thing Clinton ever did was to reform welfare to make it so that people can only be on the dole for a limited time. People must be responsible for their own welfare. That was NOT a "current regime" thing.
Futher, the "consumer drive" you mention was in high gear with the dot.com era... and every era post WW2.
I think you're confusing economics with politics. In America, the buck is always the king, and no administration has ever thought otherwise. Even Johnson, with his utterly misguided "Great Society" presided over a HUGE consumerist economy.
Lastly, there is no social suffering, just people angry that they're not being taken care of for not working. Working three years in an inner city school district taught me that in a hurry.

I would. They show that the system works. Over 70% of Americans own their own homes, the highest level ever. The system not only works, but it works well. If you apply yourself and work.

I didn't say that the current regime was the problem there, or were the only example of the Presidency of Mammon... but the current regime does epitomise all that is worst about american greed and consumerism.

Over 70% of Americans own their own homes... depends on how you 'massage' the numbers, really.

15k DOESN'T go a 'long way'. Saying it does makes you sound like the rich kid, who was given a nice (not too trying) job by daddy, down at the local factory. Trust me. Even in 'rural America'.

Nice 'high ground' you take there, by the way. If you want more APPLY YOURSELF, etc. Nice idea... maybe if you're lucky, or have the 'right friends'... but you are living in cloud-cuckoo-land, if you think that the occassional success story is an example of how it is going to be for everyone.

Regarding the 12% to 50% thing... no, I'm not suggesting that THOSE figures have ever shifted by any REAL amount that had ANYTHING to do with REAL people, a REAL economy, or REAL money.

I didn't say that the current regime was the problem there, or were the only example of the Presidency of Mammon... but the current regime does epitomise all that is worst about american greed and consumerism.


I can see the greed thing vis-a-vis the Halliburton absurdities, but consumerism? Doesn't compute to me. The nation has been all about consumerism for decades...

Over 70% of Americans own their own homes... depends on how you 'massage' the numbers, really.

If you're paying a mortgage, you own a home -- can't be much more basic than that. And remember, these are individual home mortgages. They're not counting people that own 10 properties and rent out to others as 10 mortgages. It's per person/household, not per mortgage or # houses vs. # tax filers...


15k DOESN'T go a 'long way'. Saying it does makes you sound like the rich kid, who was given a nice (not too trying) job by daddy, down at the local factory. Trust me. Even in 'rural America'.


It's a heck of a lot better than $1/week in Darfur. *That* is poverty.
Even the poorest folk in America have it exponentially better than most of the rest of the planet.

Not at all. I'm saying is that it is LIVABLE. The same way that $30,000 is livable in Manhattan - LIVABLE, but not enjoyable. Lots of Ramen.


Nice 'high ground' you take there, by the way. If you want more APPLY YOURSELF, etc. Nice idea... maybe if you're lucky, or have the 'right friends'... but you are living in cloud-cuckoo-land, if you think that the occassional success story is an example of how it is going to be for everyone.


It's not a high ground, it is my life, and therefore my point of view.
I have had none of the right friends. I don't count working 70 hour weeks for two years to get ahead luck, nor putting myself though college.
I've worked hard. I come from a blue collar family.
Some of my friends are likewise successful (we all come from about the same middle class background), some haven't. But in our little village, it's all been according to who worked hard and made good choices. Thus why I hold my belief.


Regarding the 12% to 50% thing... no, I'm not suggesting that THOSE figures have ever shifted by any REAL amount that had ANYTHING to do with REAL people, a REAL economy, or REAL money.

Ah, so you just like to believe that things are worse than they actually are. That's your perogative. :)

The US vote was 92-0 against it and unsigned by Clinton. No one wants this thing!

To attempt to return to the point.

Could somebody pleasse explain just what in the Kyoto Protocols is "unfair" and why?

This thread started with such a blanket statement, and up until now nobody, repeat nobody, has quoted anything within the Protocols themselves.

What precisely is "unfair" (apart of course from the fact that the US regards nearly everything that it hasn't started as "unfair", and even somethings that it did start, like the UN).

To attempt to return to the point.

Could somebody pleasse explain just what in the Kyoto Protocols is "unfair" and why?

This thread started with such a blanket statement, and up until now nobody, repeat nobody, has quoted anything within the Protocols themselves.

What precisely is "unfair" (apart of course from the fact that the US regards nearly everything that it hasn't started as "unfair", and even somethings that it did start, like the UN).

Initially, the KP treated China & India as developing nations, and so they'd have huge advantages. The arguement is this: the US isn't against the idea of cleaning up, but against the idea that less developed nations should be allowed to pollute "to be fair", as the more industrialized nations did before we had environmentalism technology.

Initially, the KP treated China & India as developing nations, and so they'd have huge advantages. The arguement is this: the US isn't against the idea of cleaning up, but against the idea that less developed nations should be allowed to pollute "to be fair", as the more industrialized nations did before we had environmentalism technology.

At last a reasoned response.

Which, however, raises further questions.

If, as you state, "the US isn't against the idea of cleaning up", just what actions has it done to demonstrate this willingness to "clean up"?

And how would you "level the playing field" for less developed nations? Or do they just get left behind economically? And if so, how will yopu ever get them to agree to an international set of guidelines to handle an international problem?

Or do you just give up because its all too hard?

Or just put your head in the sand and mutter "its unfair, its unfair"?

At last a reasoned response.

Which, however, raises further questions.

If, as you state, "the US isn't against the idea of cleaning up", just what actions has it done to demonstrate this willingness to "clean up"?


Quite a bit, actually. I'll go from 1973 (when I was born. That's 31 years, hardly a long time when one considers the subject):
* Elimination of unleaded gas.
* California Automotive Emissions & installation of catalytic converters.
* Elimination (nearly) of mercury thermometers and lead paint.
* Recycling, esp. of newspapers and used motor oil.
* Deposits on aluminum cans (more recycling).
* Scrubbers (esp. on coal) on smokestacks.
* Superfund Projects
* Major penalties on polluters (ie: GE in the Hudson River).
* The Clean Air Act: Air polution has imrpoved 48% since 1970. http://www.enotes.com/air-pollution/
...I'm sure that there are more, but these come readily to mind.


And how would you "level the playing field" for less developed nations? Or do they just get left behind economically? And if so, how will yopu ever get them to agree to an international set of guidelines to handle an international problem?

I wouldn't. I'm very anti-Communist. But they should have assistance to be as non-pollutive as the more industrialized nations, possibly in the way of tarriff cuts for being "clean".

Nations get left behind all the time. That's not anyone's fault.

I agree that (and I think that many Americans agree that) the KP had it's heart in the right place but that it's head isn't. All American attempts to get this (at least to us) MASSIVE loophole closed were rebuffed.


Or do you just give up because its all too hard?

Or just put your head in the sand and mutter "its unfair, its unfair"?

Er, what's too hard? I'm not anti-environment at all...

Er, what's unfair?

I can see the greed thing vis-a-vis the Halliburton absurdities, but consumerism? Doesn't compute to me. The nation has been all about consumerism for decades...


Yes... the consumerism is part of a pattern of descent... that doesn't make it better, you know.

"It was already broken when I got here" isn't aGOOD reason not to effect repairs.


If you're paying a mortgage, you own a home -- can't be much more basic than that. And remember, these are individual home mortgages. They're not counting people that own 10 properties and rent out to others as 10 mortgages. It's per person/household, not per mortgage or # houses vs. # tax filers...


If you pay a mortgage, you contingently own the home... see what happens when they shut down your job, and you can't make any more payments.


It's a heck of a lot better than $1/week in Darfur. *That* is poverty.
Even the poorest folk in America have it exponentially better than most of the rest of the planet.

Not at all. I'm saying is that it is LIVABLE. The same way that $30,000 is livable in Manhattan - LIVABLE, but not enjoyable. Lots of Ramen.


LIVABLE is still relative... perhaps livable if your rent isn't too high, or the mortgage... if you don't have to drive too far, if you can afford to keep a vehicle in good repair, etc.


It's not a high ground, it is my life, and therefore my point of view.
I have had none of the right friends. I don't count working 70 hour weeks for two years to get ahead luck, nor putting myself though college.
I've worked hard. I come from a blue collar family.
Some of my friends are likewise successful (we all come from about the same middle class background), some haven't. But in our little village, it's all been according to who worked hard and made good choices. Thus why I hold my belief.


Not everyone gets the option to work overtime, or a second job. Not everyone makes enough, even off of two jobs, to actually improve their lot. At one point, back in England, I worked 3 years of 100+ hour weeks, before the minimum wage came in... and was BETTER OFF when I had to go into hospital for surgery... my income was HIGHER while I COULDN'T WORK.

Since I have arrived in the US, I have been paying for my own education, getting myself work (hard enough for a 'foreigner'), working around INS restrictions... and what do I have to show for it? Debts, and a slightly-above-poverty wage.

Sure, if you get lucky... it's easy... just put in some work.

But not everyone is 'lucky'.


Ah, so you just like to believe that things are worse than they actually are. That's your perogative. :)

Not at all... I think people fudge numbers to give a falsely optomistic impression. You like to believe things are better than they observably are, that's your perogative. :)

Yes... the consumerism is part of a pattern of descent... that doesn't make it better, you know.

It's not a matter or descent or ascent... and it can't be stopped by you or me.


"It was already broken when I got here" isn't a GOOD reason not to effect repairs.

What sort of repairs would you have in mind? Five year plans?


If you pay a mortgage, you contingently own the home... see what happens when they shut down your job, and you can't make any more payments.


You get another job. Something else I've done as well.


LIVABLE is still relative... perhaps livable if your rent isn't too high, or the mortgage... if you don't have to drive too far, if you can afford to keep a vehicle in good repair, etc.

Yep. And ALL of that is relative to how someone lives their life. What choices they make (new car payment vs. bar every night). It still does not disprove that the system works. It shows one must be responsible.


Not everyone gets the option to work overtime, or a second job. Not everyone makes enough, even off of two jobs, to actually improve their lot. At one point, back in England, I worked 3 years of 100+ hour weeks, before the minimum wage came in... and was BETTER OFF when I had to go into hospital for surgery... my income was HIGHER while I COULDN'T WORK.


You just had to one up me, eh? ;)
However, that's England. I live in America. I have no knowledge as to how much taxes the UK levies on its workers. Either way, I *understand* that some people don't make it under the system. But most do.

I'd also judge by the fact that you can get on the 'net that you're not yourself living below the poverty level. :D

That is true. My uncle won't work above 55 hours, as he figured that to be the "break even point".


Since I have arrived in the US, I have been paying for my own education, getting myself work (hard enough for a 'foreigner'), working around INS restrictions... and what do I have to show for it? Debts, and a slightly-above-poverty wage.

That's a tough situation, and I do feel for you. I work with 9 Indians, 2 Jamaicans, 3 Russians, a Pole a couple of Israelis and an Irishwoman. Plus 7 Americans. On Madison Avenue in Manhattan. I'm not saying it was easy to get there, but it's not impossible. I'm not saying that I have the best job in the world, either. But I'm happy to have it.


Sure, if you get lucky... it's easy... just put in some work.
But not everyone is 'lucky'.
I'm still not keen on your description of "luck", but I can understand it. I still believe that one makes his or her own luck.


Not at all... I think people fudge numbers to give a falsely optomistic impression. You like to believe things are better than they observably are, that's your perogative. :)

If the numbers being posted by the IRS are so MASSIVELY forged, then we all must concede defeat. It would mean that ALL of the media, most every national government, and many private businesses lie to us on a regular basis and have been for time out of mind. It'd be a "They Live" scenario.

I can't buy that one. I've seen too much of the planet to believe that.

It's not a matter or descent or ascent... and it can't be stopped by you or me.


Inflation v's cost of living... ultimately, it's unsustainable... the ecomomy has long passed the point where it was even remotely balanced, and is definitiely on the downward arc. Sure - it'll come back, it did in 1930-ish, right?

It is a matter of descent, but, you are right, it can't be stopped by one person... well, it could, if it were the right person - but the sort of person that could set it to rights, would have to much vested interest to WANT to.


What sort of repairs would you have in mind? Five year plans?


I have no repairs in mind... capital consumerism is a flawed system. It patently doesn't work on a national scale - since it preserves and extends inequality. It is only a matter of time before the current model destroys itself, but people keep on bowing to their little green god, and they'll just build a new church to the same spirit on the ruins of the old.


You get another job. Something else I've done as well.


Been there, done that... I was thinking more in terms of those people that 'own' a house, and work, somewhere that has a dying economy... like the old coal mine towns back in the UK... which, once they shut the mines, ended up with wide swathes of unemployed people, with no jobs, and no way to support themselves, or pay their bills - and no prospect of any other jobs to go to.


Yep. And ALL of that is relative to how someone lives their life. What choices they make (new car payment vs. bar every night). It still does not disprove that the system works. It shows one must be responsible.


I have to assume you are being sarcastic. Looking at the figure for 'poverty' wages (as stated), adding in the costs of rental property, car payments, fuel costs, basic food costs, etc... to assume that the average 'poverty' level worker is ALSO at the bar every night is to make a mockery.


You just had to one up me, eh? ;)
However, that's England. I live in America. I have no knowledge as to how much taxes the UK levies on its workers. Either way, I *understand* that some people don't make it under the system. But most do.

I'd also judge by the fact that you can get on the 'net that you're not yourself living below the poverty level. :D

That is true. My uncle won't work above 55 hours, as he figured that to be the "break even point".


I think I stated in my last post, that I have got myself to a slightly-above-poverty level wage. My internet connection is a fairly new innovation, though... I didn't have one last year.


That's a tough situation, and I do feel for you. I work with 9 Indians, 2 Jamaicans, 3 Russians, a Pole a couple of Israelis and an Irishwoman. Plus 7 Americans. On Madison Avenue in Manhattan. I'm not saying it was easy to get there, but it's not impossible. I'm not saying that I have the best job in the world, either. But I'm happy to have it.


Being 'foreign' might be tricky anywhere... throw Georgia into the mix. :)

I'm sure it is much easier to find work somewhere like Manhattan, of course - but, not everyone is blessed with the fortune to live in (or near) New York.


I'm still not keen on your description of "luck", but I can understand it. I still believe that one makes his or her own luck.


I'd like to believe that... but experience has definitely shown me otherwise... yes, I got where I am today by hard work - but, at the same time, I've seen people walk into dream jobs, because they happened to be in the right place at the right time. (An acquaintance who happened to be messing on the computer in a supermarket storeroom, when the tech. support guy from IBM did his rounds... who then offered him a tech. job, with IBM paying for his IT course to qualify).


If the numbers being posted by the IRS are so MASSIVELY forged, then we all must concede defeat. It would mean that ALL of the media, most every national government, and many private businesses lie to us on a regular basis and have been for time out of mind. It'd be a "They Live" scenario.

I can't buy that one. I've seen too much of the planet to believe that.

I don't put any faith in any government number, to be honest... even census figures are, at best, a guess, and, at worst, numbers fitted to a political agenda.

If the US government SERIOUSLY believes that 15k is poverty level - based on a NATIONAL average... then they must think that the average American is too lazy or too unintelligent to actually work out what that number would 'mean', in real terms, in 'average' America.

How long would 15k last in Manhattan?

I am surprised by one thing, though - your last line amazed me - as, the more of the world I've seen, the more obvious it has been that big business (be it corporate/governmental or whatever) thinks lying to be approximately equal to breathing.

Many people blaim Bush for not signing the Kyoto act, but here is the problem. The Kyoto act was mainly directed at the US, and US bashing. It wouldnt have been fair for us Americans, so Im glad Bush didnt sign it. However there were things he could have done, he could have said, "well I like the idea, but not the way you direct it, here are my feelings on what we should do." Comments?

HAHA!!!

Clinton signed it and Congress never ratified it. Bush removed the US from it and I say, thank you Bush for doing so!

Do you mean the Kyoto Protocol?

Yep

I'm not sure anyone has ratified any 'Act'?

Nations did ratify Kyoto but the US wasn't one of them thank God.

Are not the US and Australia the ONLY two developed nations not to have signed on?

We signed it thanks to the Clinton Administration but never ratified thanks to the U.S. Congress and besides, Clinton never submitted it to be ratified because he new Congress would never ratify it.

Didn't EVEN RUSSIA sign it?

I think so and I think they recently approved it. Alwell that is Russia's worry.

I'm not sure about China, since I think they still technically count as a 'developing' country... but even they have made statements of intent to reduce pollution.

They agreed to it though they dont have to follow it. Read the provisions regarding developing nations which include China and India

We all live on this world. We all share the same air. We all share the same polar ice caps. How is Kyoto Protocol anti-American?

Because it called on us to reduce by more than any other nation not to mention, it excludes Developing nations (China and India) from meeting standards.

Surely, if anything... the US is anti-Kyoto-Protocol... and, thereby, anti-World?

Anti-Protocal is good! It was lousy and the US Senate saw it as such and voted 95-0 in S. Res 98 in 1997 I think it was stating that no treaty that does economic harm to the US Economy shall be brought forth to this Congress. Because of this, Clinton never submitted it for approval.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_protocol

On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States".
Disregarding the Senate Resolution, on November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.

Do not blame Bush exclusively for the US not signing!

Saved me from finding it again! Thank you! :)

Few stories showing that Bush isn't the only person who thinks Kyoto is misguided

http://www.russiajournal.com/news/cnews-article.shtml?nd=43326 Kyoto protocol is discriminatory against Russia
"Illarionov also stressed that the Kyoto protocol was not a universal instrument, as more than half of all countries around the world have taken no obligation to limit emissions of greenhouse gases. The economies of countries that have ratified the protocol grow at a slower pace, as the Kyoto protocol sets substantial restrictions on economic growth, he added."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=41561 Putin adviser says Kyoto 'smoke screen': Treaty will create Soviet-style 'monster' threatening freedom

And yet Russia Approved the protocal! What does that tell ya?

i read it some time last year, it may be a while digging up a source.

and by abnormal storms, i mean storms that are in unual number and magnitude...

Doesn't attribute to global warming though so you really can't use weather as evidence of such.

Nations did ratify Kyoto but the US wasn't one of them thank God.

We signed it thanks to the Clinton Administration but never ratified thanks to the U.S. Congress and besides, Clinton never submitted it to be ratified because he new Congress would never ratify it.

I think so and I think they recently approved it. Alwell that is Russia's worry.

They agreed to it though they dont have to follow it. Read the provisions regarding developing nations which include China and India

Because it called on us to reduce by more than any other nation not to mention, it excludes Developing nations (China and India) from meeting standards.

Anti-Protocal is good! It was lousy and the US Senate saw it as such and voted 95-0 in S. Res 98 in 1997 I think it was stating that no treaty that does economic harm to the US Economy shall be brought forth to this Congress. Because of this, Clinton never submitted it for approval.

To be truthful - nobody ever ratified a Kyoto 'act', because there IS no Kyoto 'act'.

It is a little disturbing that you confuse an act with a protocol.

Regarding being anti-protocol... even if signed, the US doesn't seem to feel the need to remain legally bound by any treaty - witness, for example, US mockery of Geneva Conventions. Of course - they'd be the first ones crying "foul" if someone dared to infringe any treaty against them.

That's the problem, here. I know a lot of Americans, and, by and large, they aren't an evil, or especially petulant group. But, this kind of disregard for international community (or even self-preservation) is making the US look like the spoiled brat child of the world.

It doesn't call for the US to reduce by more than any other nation... that is both untrue, and a compound lie.

Untrue: since ALL parties are required to reduce to emissions levels based on a DATE of their OWN emissions... so, the US only has to take it's pollution level down proportional to a certain date, as does every other nation.

Compound Lie: because the idea of 'buying quota' has been tabled... which menas that the US could 'buy' a certain degree of immunity from a more eco-friendly nation.

Your last line is the most telling - the US government has chosen economic short-term wealth, over sustainable economy or ecology.

Back to China, for a second - developing nation or not - the US isn't even going to be able to use THAT excuse come 2008, when China is expected to have LOWER emissions than the US.

There was nothing America-bashing about it. All countries had to live up to the same standards.

Wrong!! Not all nations have to live up to it! Read the Protocal and you'll be able to see this!

Actually, we did.

Your right. Nations did sign it as did the US. Problem is, it was never submitted to the Senate for Ratification. Therefor, Kyoto is null and void in the USA and a good thing too.

Europe does produce a huge amount of goods. The only reason people are blaming the US is because it won't do what the other countries are doing.

And why should we?

DAmn, Kramers, you sound liek a misinformed conservative.

LOL!!!

Question. How would one enforce the Kyoto Protocol?

Very good Question!

By the US not agreeing to it, it just avoids the hypocrisy of all the other nations, who joined it with no intentions to actual enforce the regulations.

Good! Someone that actually has a brain and knows how to use it! Your right Castanets. It would be hypocrisy though I know a few people that would try and force the US to abide by it and knowing how the US is, we probably would while other nations do not. (Looks at the treaties signed w/ the USSR)

Also if the Protocol was followed it would cost the world trillions of dollars, limit economic efficiency and in many ways stymie new technologies which in time would reduce pollution.

Yep! Can't argue here.

Also Global Warming is bull, if you disagree read the Skeptical Environmentalist by Bjorn Longstarth(?spelling?). He was an environmentalist who went out of his way to prove Global Warming but found no feasible or valid evidence of its existence.

It is bull. Anyone that studies Meteorology knows that it is bull. There is no proof that it exists and any proof that states there is there is other evidence throwing it into chaos.

Doesn't attribute to global warming though so you really can't use weather as evidence of such.

Okay - apart from the fact that this sentence makes no actual sense...

What doesn't 'attribute' to global warming? Do you mean that the huge US output of pollution doesn't CONTRIBUTE to global warming? Or do you mean that freak weather systems cannot be ATTRIBUTED to global warming?

Either way - you'd be wrong.

Deliberately ignorant, so that you can continue to argue the point in good conscience? Or just uninformed?

I advise you to grab a copy of January 2005 edition Discover magazine. Now, I know it's not a peer-reviewed journal or anything - and that's kind of why I'm recommending it... it takes peer-reviewed research, and puts it in a form digestable by even the most scientifically naive.

Pick up a copy, and look at this issue's cover story.

When? I would say that 2004 provided plenty of evidence that, though certain financially-involved individuals might wish it otherwise, global warming is very real.

I'm sure you have proof of this? I know for a fact on how weather patterns are and how some storms appear after so many years. So you have proof that it exists because I can find proof that it doesn't.

Want it in bite size format? Try Discover magazine (January 2005 edition), which list the top 100 science 'things' of the past year. They put the wealth of global-warming-evidence at No 1.

And I can find a wealth of evidence that says it doesn't!

Yep! Can't argue here.

It is bull. Anyone that studies Meteorology knows that it is bull. There is no proof that it exists and any proof that states there is there is other evidence throwing it into chaos.

I see. A lack of information.

You are behind the times, my friend... and it's not doing you any favours.

Right now, you are King Knut - sitting on the beach, telling everyone that the waves will obey you, and they are rising to your waist, already.

If you can't argue against as weak a proclamation as 'stymie technology' or 'limit economic efficiency', then you are not as wise as you think you are.

The US vote was 92-0 against it and unsigned by Clinton. No one wants this thing!

95-0 and I can provide the evidence that it was 95-0! and Clinton Administration did sign it!

I'm sure you have proof of this? I know for a fact on how weather patterns are and how some storms appear after so many years. So you have proof that it exists because I can find proof that it doesn't.

And I can find a wealth of evidence that says it doesn't!

Okay - I'm sure you can... I'm sure that the Bush regime (with all it's vested interest) can furnish you with data.

Or, you could go back 20 years, and pull the sort of data that was being pulled then - and that people still pull today, despite it being long discredited.

It's not ignorance I object to - you are free to be as uninformed as you wish, to suit whicher motivation you are bowing to.

What I object to is: this pseudo-science, short-sighted refusal to see facts, that the US government is letting industry push it into. I don't onject to the fact that they worship the bottom-line. I object to the fact that they are going to kill every mortal being, if they have to, to get it.

Okay - apart from the fact that this sentence makes no actual sense...

It does actually!

What doesn't 'attribute' to global warming? Do you mean that the huge US output of pollution doesn't CONTRIBUTE to global warming? Or do you mean that freak weather systems cannot be ATTRIBUTED to global warming?

Global Warming doesn't exist. Where I live, we get a blizzard every 10 years. We had one in 1993 and again in 2003. Denver got hit with its worst blizzard in 20 years and it looks like they get that type of storm every 20 years. I could go on with weather facts if you like but then again, you would say it is Global Warming though El Nino contributes to alot of North American, especially US, weather.

Either way - you'd be wrong.

Steady Earth's weather patterns. You might be surprised at just how little Greenhouse gases are playing in our weather or are you going to try and pin the 1995 Hurrican Season, the worst in like 65 years or so, as an example?

Deliberately ignorant, so that you can continue to argue the point in good conscience? Or just uninformed?

I've studied global warming and wrote a report that denounce it! Got an A on it too considering my professor was pro-global warming. I have it here somewhere.

I advise you to grab a copy of January 2005 edition Discover magazine. Now, I know it's not a peer-reviewed journal or anything - and that's kind of why I'm recommending it... it takes peer-reviewed research, and puts it in a form digestable by even the most scientifically naive.

Look up what people are saying against global warming. If you have evidence, let me see it so I can study it for myself. Until you do, its nothing but chatter. Besides, I can search websites that denounce it and I have articles that state that it doesn't exist.

Pick up a copy, and look at this issue's cover story.

I'll go with fact and not junk science.

I see. A lack of information.

Nope not a lack!

You are behind the times, my friend... and it's not doing you any favours.

Your a brit! I don't expect you to understand since you have obviously bought the story of Global Warming without doing ANY research whatsoever.

Right now, you are King Knut - sitting on the beach, telling everyone that the waves will obey you, and they are rising to your waist, already.

Sorry dude but I have no idea what the hell your talking about here.

If you can't argue against as weak a proclamation as 'stymie technology' or 'limit economic efficiency', then you are not as wise as you think you are.

And this from a British citizen! Thank God we are seperated from you.

Okay - I'm sure you can... I'm sure that the Bush regime (with all it's vested interest) can furnish you with data.

I go with what I see and what other people are saying. I don't just rely on the government. Clinton proved it as such pinning every major weather event on Global Warming even though Meteorologists said it wasn't.

Or, you could go back 20 years, and pull the sort of data that was being pulled then - and that people still pull today, despite it being long discredited.

Go back to information when I was two? Besides, didn't people say something about Global Cooling? Oh Wait! I saw an article saying that the Earth actually cooled and not heating. There goes the Global Warming Arguement and yes, I can find that article.

It's not ignorance I object to - you are free to be as uninformed as you wish, to suit whicher motivation you are bowing to.

I'm very well informed actually. If you actually research, you'll find that Global Warming is not accurate. More evidence to support the inaccuracy than to support the Theory.

What I object to is: this pseudo-science, short-sighted refusal to see facts, that the US government is letting industry push it into. I don't onject to the fact that they worship the bottom-line. I object to the fact that they are going to kill every mortal being, if they have to, to get it.

As for me opposing your use of Junk Science?

Here are some links:

http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm

http://www.torontofreepress.com/2004/deweese121404.htm

These are just a couple of websites! I have a couple of more articles but I have to find them!

Here are some links:

http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm

http://www.torontofreepress.com/2004/deweese121404.htm

These are just a couple of websites! I have a couple of more articles but I have to find them!

This is off topic, but why do you end more then half your sentances with exclamation points? It's kinda weird! Like something out of Seinfeld!

Inflation v's cost of living... ultimately, it's unsustainable... the ecomomy has long passed the point where it was even remotely balanced, and is definitiely on the downward arc. Sure - it'll come back, it did in 1930-ish, right?

Hogwash. Inflation and costs of living have been around as long as there has been CURRENCY. There is also no such thing as a "balanced" economy -- at least not since the days when the the coins were actually silver and gold and the Kings owned *everything*.

Actually, that was just one Depression out of dozens over hundreds of years. You'll notice that it ended with the greatest upswing of all time as well. Also, you have to note that the bodies in existance today (US Federal Reserve, World Bank, International Monetary Fund), all work for stability in the currently markets. The odds of a similar collapse ala 1929 (in the US) would take something HUGE. Like 9/11 x ten.
Also, the boom-bust cycle, while it will never be eliminated, has been seriously mitigated. Even Recessions are tending to last shorter periods of time, and no Depression has happened in 3 generations. That's pretty impressive to me.


It is a matter of descent, but, you are right, it can't be stopped by one person... well, it could, if it were the right person - but the sort of person that could set it to rights, would have to much vested interest to WANT to.


Nope. It can't be stopped by ANY person, or even a group of people. Even the Soviets can't stop it.
The simple fact is, humanity has a certain level of economic sophistication. We use credit cards, non-specie based cash (in most cases), etc. We have debit cards, issue bonds, etc. There are (right now!) over two BILLION people (likely many more) that use the modern economic system, be it they buy bonds, have a passbook, buy on credit, whatever.

BECAUSE of all that, there is no way to eliminate market forces. Unless you tear it all down. Which would be just plain whacked. I'll admit that with the Internet, sattelite TV, mega malls, etc, that consumerism is much more commercial and obvious these days, but it really hasn't changed it's purpose since the Industrial Revolution. And it's been obviously commericalized since the rise of radio (circa WW2) and disposable income (esp. post WW2).


I have no repairs in mind... capital consumerism is a flawed system. It patently doesn't work on a national scale - since it preserves and extends inequality. It is only a matter of time before the current model destroys itself, but people keep on bowing to their little green god, and they'll just build a new church to the same spirit on the ruins of the old.

Can you name an unflawed system?
Actually, it does. You or I do *not* have the right to be equal economically. The systems only purpose is to be a marketplace for the exchange of goods and services.
That's a long, long way in the future, if ever as the markets invariably correct themselves. October 1987 is a good example. The Dotcom bust is another. The famous tulip bust in Holland a few hundred years ago, too.


Been there, done that... I was thinking more in terms of those people that 'own' a house, and work, somewhere that has a dying economy... like the old coal mine towns back in the UK... which, once they shut the mines, ended up with wide swathes of unemployed people, with no jobs, and no way to support themselves, or pay their bills - and no prospect of any other jobs to go to.

It's not dissimilar to here in Fairfield County, Connecticut. Bridgeport used to be a premier manufacturing city. It made 1/4th of ALL of the ammo fired in WW1. There were so many factories as recently as 1970 that you could quit one at 10am and by 2pm have a new job. Likely with a modest raise thrown in. Today, most all of those jobs have gone to the South, Mexico or China.

And no, I'm not happy about that. I don't like to see others suffer, and I think it could have been prevented. But the State of Connecticut made some bad choices, raised corporate taxes and failed to improve infrastructure (roads especially). Companies voted with their feet.

Lots of people right now don't have a lot to do. My own father has been working 3 days a week for two years. But he's been doing handyman work on the side. Everyone has talents, and some have since moved.

But even if the state had done EVERYTHING right, they'd probably still have lost about half of the jobs anyway. The global economy has been with us since about 1870, and it's not going away.


I have to assume you are being sarcastic. Looking at the figure for 'poverty' wages (as stated), adding in the costs of rental property, car payments, fuel costs, basic food costs, etc... to assume that the average 'poverty' level worker is ALSO at the bar every night is to make a mockery.

Not at all. I know people that are just above the poverty line that carry on as if they're in fine shape. Buying like no tomorrow, no 401k plan, etc. The average American carries $2600 in credit card debt. And that's the AVERAGE. Now consider that most folks that can do pay their balances off at the end of the month... and it looks much worse.


I think I stated in my last post, that I have got myself to a slightly-above-poverty level wage. My internet connection is a fairly new innovation, though... I didn't have one last year.

Fair enough. But my point is that you're not strumming a guitar on the street corner asking for change. The system works. It's not fast, it's not munificent, but it works.


Being 'foreign' might be tricky anywhere... throw Georgia into the mix. :)

I'm sure it is much easier to find work somewhere like Manhattan, of course - but, not everyone is blessed with the fortune to live in (or near) New York.


I still maintain that the only problem with Atlanta is that it is surrounded by Georgia. :D (ducks!)

You'd be surprised.
The best place is (IMHO) Northern Virginia. Unemployment there seems to HOVER at 1%. I lived there for 3 years after college, as getting an entry level job in CT was almost impossible back then. I adapted.

If your area sucks, MOVE. That's why I refuse to give money to "Feed the Children". They've been on TV for 30 years now, and have done nothing of any value.


I'd like to believe that... but experience has definitely shown me otherwise... yes, I got where I am today by hard work - but, at the same time, I've seen people walk into dream jobs, because they happened to be in the right place at the right time. (An acquaintance who happened to be messing on the computer in a supermarket storeroom, when the tech. support guy from IBM did his rounds... who then offered him a tech. job, with IBM paying for his IT course to qualify).

Hey, that's a great story. I know folks that have had similar things happen to them, too. But I can't begrudge them good fortune, as I'd like people not to begrudge me.
Example: I bought my first-ever new car 4 years ago. Before that, I'd had a 1979 Malibu, a 1984 Cutlass, and a 1991 Buick (I nursed them all, and had the Buick for 7 years). Right after I bought my Chrysler (my first ever "non-hooptie" car), one of my close friends refused to talk to me. And still has not up to this very day.


I don't put any faith in any government number, to be honest... even census figures are, at best, a guess, and, at worst, numbers fitted to a political agenda.

Best guess? Sure. Tailored? I'm not convinced, if only due to auditing. I have no illusions that the census isn't exactly militant about looking for the inner city homeless, tho.


If the US government SERIOUSLY believes that 15k is poverty level - based on a NATIONAL average... then they must think that the average American is too lazy or too unintelligent to actually work out what that number would 'mean', in real terms, in 'average' America.

How long would 15k last in Manhattan?

Not at all. The poverty level is the "breaking point". Average is just that... the average American makes about $37,000.
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/us.html#Econ

All the poverty level does is tell you that if you're not making 40% of the average, you're impoverished.

You could blow it in one night. ;)
But seriously... if you lived in a bad section of Queens or Harlem, you can *get by*. It isn't the good life. But why would you want to?

The economy should NOT be a welfare state. The account of a 4th generation welfare mom I saw on TV once (I think it was in 1992) proves it. So does the economic track records of the Comitern nations.


I am surprised by one thing, though - your last line amazed me - as, the more of the world I've seen, the more obvious it has been that big business (be it corporate/governmental or whatever) thinks lying to be approximately equal to breathing.

Nah. I've been to four Communist nations. Even in the early 80s, the difference was staggering. Free, democratic, capitalist nations are clearly more successful than others. The people have more freedoms and more opportunity. Cuba was MUCH better off before Castro than after him.

That said, why do you suppose they're lying, and about what? Everything?

Nope not a lack!
Your a brit! I don't expect you to understand since you have obviously bought the story of Global Warming without doing ANY research whatsoever.
Sorry dude but I have no idea what the hell your talking about here.
And this from a British citizen! Thank God we are seperated from you.

Actually, I studied Global Warming at university... although that was a few years ago - but I found pretty overwhelming evidence, even as long ago as 1994, to support the Global Warming concept - and I haven't seen anything that damns that evidence yet, and much to support it.

I have yet to see any serious (non-partisan) evidence AGAINST global warming... even Senator McCain has been arguing that the US needs to do something about environmental pollution this last year - although he wasn't talking reduction to 7% below 1992 levels, which Kyoto requires.

When you say seperated... I AM a brit, but I'm also a brit ex-pat... so I might be closer than you think...

Actually, I studied Global Warming at university... although that was a few years ago - but I found pretty overwhelming evidence, even as long ago as 1994, to support the Global Warming concept - and I haven't seen anything that damns that evidence yet, and much to support it.

Ahh a university! That explains everything. Dude, I argued this with one of my professors at a community college before I went to the university and then argued 2 students in my goverment class at the university and promptly knocked them down. I got an A, AN A, on my anti-global warming report at the community college and I didn't expect that. Read my links, the atmosphere actually COOLED abit. How is that part of Global Warming which is ONLY a theory.

I have yet to see any serious (non-partisan) evidence AGAINST global warming... even Senator McCain has been arguing that the US needs to do something about environmental pollution this last year - although he wasn't talking reduction to 7% below 1992 levels, which Kyoto requires.

And they have been trounched as Biased which it was so I wouldn't put much stock into those hearings. I have been looking at research too and I found NO EVIDENCE from LOGICAL and TRUE science sources stating that global warming exists.

When you say seperated... I AM a brit, but I'm also a brit ex-pat... so I might be closer than you think...

Ok fine, I apologize.

[QUOTE=Corneliu]Ahh a university! That explains everything. Dude, I argued this with one of my professors at a community college before I went to the university and then argued 2 students in my goverment class at the university and promptly knocked them down. I got an A, AN A, on my anti-global warming report at the community college and I didn't expect that. Read my links, the atmosphere actually COOLED abit. How is that part of Global Warming which is ONLY a theory.
QUOTE]
what did you actually study at uni?

Ahh a university! That explains everything. Dude, I argued this with one of my professors at a community college before I went to the university and then argued 2 students in my goverment class at the university and promptly knocked them down. I got an A, AN A, on my anti-global warming report at the community college and I didn't expect that. Read my links, the atmosphere actually COOLED abit. How is that part of Global Warming which is ONLY a theory.

what did you actually study at uni?

Well I was planning on being a meteorologist, a person that studies weather, but was unable to do the math so I switched my major to Political Science and added a second major in History with a minor in Economics.

so you haven't actually studied environmental science on a daily basis for several years?

so you haven't actually studied environmental science on a daily basis for several years?

I've read the research from everybody! From what I've seen, global warming is not as devestating as people are saying. It is practically non-existant and besides, the atmosphere cooled. If it cooled, how can there be global warming?

I've read the research from everybody! From what I've seen, global warming is not as devestating as people are saying. It is practically non-existant and besides, the atmosphere cooled. If it cooled, how can there be global warming?
I never said you hadn't read much I am sure from your arguements that you have read quite a lot. I would have to agree that global warming is not as devestating as most people seem to think it is. But you aren't an expert in the field just by reading others research and beating a couple of students in a debat.

I never said you hadn't read much I am sure from your arguements that you have read quite a lot. I would have to agree that global warming is not as devestating as most people seem to think it is. But you aren't an expert in the field just by reading others research and beating a couple of students in a debat.

Your right. I'm no expert and neither are half the people that say they are. Therefore, what those so called experts say can and are suspect.

Your right. I'm no expert and neither are half the people that say they are. Therefore, what those so called experts say can and are suspect.
yes I'd agree with you there. I'd encourgae everyone to go out read as much as they can and draw their own conclusions.

yes I'd agree with you there. I'd encourgae everyone to go out read as much as they can and draw their own conclusions.

And with that, I will agree with you.

Here are some links:

http://www.americanpolicy.org/un/thereisnoglobal.htm

http://www.torontofreepress.com/2004/deweese121404.htm

These are just a couple of websites! I have a couple of more articles but I have to find them!

Junk.

This is political rhetoric, nothing more... from a junk website.

If you have serious, credible evidence... feel free to post it.

Well I was planning on being a meteorologist, a person that studies weather, but was unable to do the math so I switched my major to Political Science and added a second major in History with a minor in Economics.

Couldn't do the math? Hardly in a position to be commenting as an expert on weather pattern then, maybe.

Since you claim to be abreast of the current thinking, explain your views on the Stink-Bugs, which have been moving progressively north, the increased Carbon Dioxide level of sea water, the dis-location of 1500 square miles of antarctic ice.

Perhaps you'd like to explain to me about albedo? Surely, as a 'scientist', you must have a theory to explain how global warming isn't going to cause harm by albedo reduction?

Junk.

This is political rhetoric, nothing more... from a junk website.

If you have serious, credible evidence... feel free to post it.

So I provided proof that real scientists have come up with and you said I was wrong! Thank you for stating as such. Now I know for sure that you don't care that Global Warming isn't happening and infact is cooling.

Couldn't do the math? Hardly in a position to be commenting as an expert on weather pattern then, maybe.

Big difference in reality. If you know how many years for a certain type of storm to hit then you can nearly predict when it'll hit. The floods in the Midwest, Blizzards in the east. I could go on but it is obviously not going to make a difference. I have followed weather patterns since as long as I can remember.

Since you claim to be abreast of the current thinking, explain your views on the Stink-Bugs, which have been moving progressively north, the increased Carbon Dioxide level of sea water, the dis-location of 1500 square miles of antarctic ice.

Explain why the atmosphere has cooled instead of warming up!

Perhaps you'd like to explain to me about albedo? Surely, as a 'scientist', you must have a theory to explain how global warming isn't going to cause harm by albedo reduction?

Never heard of albedo but could you care to explain why it appears that El Nino has affected weather patterns in Southern California if your so more intuned?

Listen. It is obvious that neither of us will win this arguement. I don't trust what the so called experts are saying. I'm going by real data provided by satellites and measurements. Now I'll ask you again. Explain to me why the atmosphere has cooled instead of warming up!

Explain why the atmosphere has cooled instead of warming up!

where is this evidence that you have?

Oh, that's it... every one buys American food... no, wait, the US IMPORTS more food than it exports, doesn't it?

Sorry, what was the point, again?

Wait... but that's not true because the U.S. is by far the worlds largest agricultural producer... so I guess if they want to buy any produce they would have to go through US

where is this evidence that you have?

Satellite Data and measurements. Read the links that I have provided!

Wait... but that's not true because the U.S. is by far the worlds largest agricultural producer... so I guess if they want to buy any produce they would have to go through US

Worls largest SINGLE producer, perhaps... but the US still has a net import versus exports.

I find it hard to believe that the US produces more food than China, though... where do your figures come from?

Explain why the atmosphere has cooled instead of warming up!

Never heard of albedo but could you care to explain why it appears that El Nino has affected weather patterns in Southern California if your so more intuned?

Listen. It is obvious that neither of us will win this arguement. I don't trust what the so called experts are saying. I'm going by real data provided by satellites and measurements. Now I'll ask you again. Explain to me why the atmosphere has cooled instead of warming up!

Okay - you cannot have a serious contention regarding global warming, or even global weather patterns, and NOT know what albedo is.

The clearest example that we are in trouble - that a nuclear winter is headed our way, and it's only a matter of time, even if we DO clean up our act - is the reduction of albedo.

For the uninitiated, albedo is basically a measure of how much light a body reflects. The best reflection, obviously is from white bodies, the worst reflection is from dark bodies. Imagine a black ball and a white ball, and imagine which would show up more easily in a dimly lit room.

Albedo serves a vital function in a life-sustaining planet, it reflects solar radiation, which stops the planet being 'cooked' in the solar tides. It also helps to regulate planetary temperature.

Now - with the current pattern of greenhouse phenomena, the antarctic ice is breaking up, in fact, entire sheets of ice have broken away, causing 'stationary' ice to start drifting. One single mass which has scientists worried at the moment is anchored to the ocean floor, (rather than a land-shelf) and is being undercut by warmer waters - which COULD, (and eventually WILL, if not addressed) break that ice free, where it will drift into warmer waters, and melt. That area of ice alone (I will have to look up the name of the body), would be sufficient to raise sea levels by about 16 feet - or enough to effectively drown Florida.

The REAL effect of losing polar ice, however, is that it reduces albedo.

At some point, sufficient ice will have been lost that albedo CANNOT be recovered by ice (hard to say when, exactly, at the moment particulate pollution is actually slightly increasing albedo, artificially, and temporarily).

One albedo reaches that 'critical' point, the planetary heating will be rapid, and irreversible, until sufficient cloud cover is created to sheild the earth from solar radiation again - which, unfortunately, spells death for all solar-dependant lifeforms, and their foodchain beneficiaries.

Corneliu - go read up on albedo - what you see will scare you, if you have the ability to apply it to a real world situation.

Also - planet cooling - the "Dim Sun" phenomenon - particulate pollutants cutting out solar radiation - this phenomenon is actually in a state of reverse at the moment - that is, the amount of solar radiation is actually increasing again, after something like a thirty year decline.

Okay - you cannot have a serious contention regarding global warming, or even global weather patterns, and NOT know what albedo is.

I know what I know about because of research I've done for various projects. Global Warming is non-existant and HAS NOT affected weather patterns to the degree that the environmentalists have said it has.

The clearest example that we are in trouble - that a nuclear winter is headed our way, and it's only a matter of time, even if we DO clean up our act - is the reduction of albedo.

Nuclear Winter can only happen AFTER a nuclear war. Since there has never been a nuclear war, I don't think we'll have that problem.

For the uninitiated, albedo is basically a measure of how much light a body reflects. The best reflection, obviously is from white bodies, the worst reflection is from dark bodies. Imagine a black ball and a white ball, and imagine which would show up more easily in a dimly lit room.

Just like dark colors attract heat and light colors repel it. Hence why alot people wear light colors in the Middle East and Dark colors in Alaska! LOL Still has nothing to do with Global Warming.

Albedo serves a vital function in a life-sustaining planet, it reflects solar radiation, which stops the planet being 'cooked' in the solar tides. It also helps to regulate planetary temperature.

Thank you mr. botonist.

Now - with the current pattern of greenhouse phenomena, the antarctic ice is breaking up, in fact, entire sheets of ice have broken away, causing 'stationary' ice to start drifting. One single mass which has scientists worried at the moment is anchored to the ocean floor, (rather than a land-shelf) and is being undercut by warmer waters - which COULD, (and eventually WILL, if not addressed) break that ice free, where it will drift into warmer waters, and melt. That area of ice alone (I will have to look up the name of the body), would be sufficient to raise sea levels by about 16 feet - or enough to effectively drown Florida.

And yet, it is becoming the exact opposite. Last report I've heard is that Antartica is freezing and not melting. I could be wrong but that was the last I've heard. Funny with that Hole in the Ozone hole there. BTW: How did it get there?

The REAL effect of losing polar ice, however, is that it reduces albedo.

At some point, sufficient ice will have been lost that albedo CANNOT be recovered by ice (hard to say when, exactly, at the moment particulate pollution is actually slightly increasing albedo, artificially, and temporarily).

One albedo reaches that 'critical' point, the planetary heating will be rapid, and irreversible, until sufficient cloud cover is created to sheild the earth from solar radiation again - which, unfortunately, spells death for all solar-dependant lifeforms, and their foodchain beneficiaries.

I'm not buying this arguement. Your talking alot of talk but I have NOT seen a single piece of evidence supporting this. Provide it and I shall read it. Be Advised though, the website has to be a credible source.

Corneliu - go read up on albedo - what you see will scare you, if you have the ability to apply it to a real world situation.

Doubtful since the real scientists don't think global warming is happening at all.

Also - planet cooling - the "Dim Sun" phenomenon - particulate pollutants cutting out solar radiation - this phenomenon is actually in a state of reverse at the moment - that is, the amount of solar radiation is actually increasing again, after something like a thirty year decline.

How is it increasing if the sun is BECOMING INACTIVE???? Its at the Inactive end of its 11 year cycle. Amazing how much the Sun affects our weather isn't it? Amazing how Currents affect our weather too. Amazing how geography affects weather. See where I'm going with this?

Now provide proof of what your saying and I'll take a look at it but I think the best course of action here to agree to disagree.

Cornlieu, you have done an excellent job disproving the bull that is global warming. I thank you.

Are you people SERIOUS??? Was the original title of this thread just too politically incorrect to stand? IS THIS SOME KIND OF FUCKING KIDDIE HOUR WHERE WE ALL LICK BARNEY THE DINOSAUR'S FUCKING PUSSY???

YOU MO'FOs are RUINING nationstates!!! You wanna put me on your "LIST"? You wanna ban me? You wanna delete my nations? Go right the fuck ahead! This shit is SICK!!!!!

Many people blaim Bush for not signing the Kyoto act, but here is the problem. The Kyoto act was mainly directed at the US, and US bashing. It wouldnt have been fair for us Americans, so Im glad Bush didnt sign it. However there were things he could have done, he could have said, "well I like the idea, but not the way you direct it, here are my feelings on what we should do." Comments?

Euhm, show me how it is unfair to the US. You made a statement, now you have to back it up. If Kyoto says that everyone should lower their emission of CO2 by x (=25??) % during the following y years, then I don't see how this is unfair to the US. I would say it's easier for the US as they are careless with energy (average energy consumption of US citizens is the highest in the world and the difference with other 'developped' countries is significant). This means they can lower their energy consumption, and thus the emission of CO2, a lot simply by applying a lot of measurements allready installed in other countries.

Cornlieu, you have done an excellent job disproving the bull that is global warming. I thank you.

Goes to show what you are able to find if you only research both sides of an issue. I've found that it is really non-existant. Real Scientists are unsure of it but those that are attached to them are running with it and that is why I find it skeptical.

Euhm, show me how it is unfair to the US. You made a statement, now you have to back it up. If Kyoto says that everyone should lower their emission of CO2 by x (=25??) % during the following y years, then I don't see how this is unfair to the US. I would say it's easier for the US as they are careless with energy (average energy consumption of US citizens is the highest in the world and the difference with other 'developped' countries is significant). This means they can lower their energy consumption, and thus the emission of CO2, a lot simply by applying a lot of measurements allready installed in other countries.

In reality, you can make a case for it that it is unfair, not just to the US but to ALL developed nations. Kyoto excludes developing nations from meeting standards and allows them to pollute as much as they want. China and India, two of the most populous nations, are expamples of up and coming nations. Sorry! That is unfair and besides, Kyoto wasn't going to be able to do much anyway so why approve of something that isn't going to work?

In reality, you can make a case for it that it is unfair, not just to the US but to ALL developed nations. Kyoto excludes developing nations from meeting standards and allows them to pollute as much as they want. China and India, two of the most populous nations, are expamples of up and coming nations. Sorry! That is unfair and besides, Kyoto wasn't going to be able to do much anyway so why approve of something that isn't going to work?
At least it would be symbolic if it didn't work. That everybody in the world tries to create a better world. And China and India aren't developed nations so it would be much harder for them to meet the standarts of the kyoto protocol...

I know what I know about because of research I've done for various projects. Global Warming is non-existant and HAS NOT affected weather patterns to the degree that the environmentalists have said it has.

Nuclear Winter can only happen AFTER a nuclear war. Since there has never been a nuclear war, I don't think we'll have that problem.

Just like dark colors attract heat and light colors repel it. Hence why alot people wear light colors in the Middle East and Dark colors in Alaska! LOL Still has nothing to do with Global Warming.

Thank you mr. botonist.

And yet, it is becoming the exact opposite. Last report I've heard is that Antartica is freezing and not melting. I could be wrong but that was the last I've heard. Funny with that Hole in the Ozone hole there. BTW: How did it get there?

I'm not buying this arguement. Your talking alot of talk but I have NOT seen a single piece of evidence supporting this. Provide it and I shall read it. Be Advised though, the website has to be a credible source.

Doubtful since the real scientists don't think global warming is happening at all.

How is it increasing if the sun is BECOMING INACTIVE???? Its at the Inactive end of its 11 year cycle. Amazing how much the Sun affects our weather isn't it? Amazing how Currents affect our weather too. Amazing how geography affects weather. See where I'm going with this?

Now provide proof of what your saying and I'll take a look at it but I think the best course of action here to agree to disagree.

Okay - first... You haven't done nearly as much research as you are pretending. If you had done any SERIOUS research, I wouldn't have had to explain albedo to you.

Second - a few republican/industry sponsored 'scientists' are arguing against Global Warming as a phenomenon... the majority - and, one might say, the REAL scientists, i.e. the ones WITHOUT an investment agenda - are pretty much concrete that Global Warming is a fact.

Third: The "Dim Sun" phenomenon has NOTHING to do with the actual sun itself... it is to do with aerosol contamination of the atmosphere.

Something else you would have known if you had ACTUALLY done the research you claim.

Fourth: A 1200 square mile chunk of the antarctic dislocated this past year - apparently without your 'research' noticing. A huge area of West Antarctica is now in danger of being undercut... again, without your research noticing.

Fifth: Nuclear winter is so called in weather, because it duplicates the effects that extreme nuclear discharges would create... the name is a 'nickname' - it's not really the 'accurate' term for a nuclear after-effect either.


I contend you have done no actual research.

I suspect you got ALL of your information of one partisan junk-science site.

Until you quit with the 'uh-uh' approach to debate, and actually clue yourself in on current thinking, we are done.

I'm not going to engage in a battle of wits, with someone who is clearly unarmed.

Doubtful since the real scientists don't think global warming is happening at all.

Who do you classify as the "real" scientists?

Scientists in the pay of megacorps?

Ignore Global Warming at your peril. When the USA has been reduced to a small chain of archipelagos that was once the Rocky mountains, then say Global Warming isn't happening.

We're screwed. There's no way that we're going to cut emissions enough to stop it now. All we can do is reap what we've sewn.

We're doomed. Unless we get the hell off Earth now, we're going to, according to numerous guesses, either freeze, drown, burn, choke, starve, or get poisoned.

Who do you classify as the "real" scientists?

Scientists in the pay of megacorps?

Ignore Global Warming at your peril. When the USA has been reduced to a small chain of archipelagos that was once the Rocky mountains, then say Global Warming isn't happening.

We're screwed. There's no way that we're going to cut emissions enough to stop it now. All we can do is reap what we've sewn.

We're doomed. Unless we get the hell off Earth now, we're going to, according to numerous guesses, either freeze, drown, burn, choke, starve, or get poisoned.

Still, at least we get a choice how we're going to die, no?

At least it would be symbolic if it didn't work. That everybody in the world tries to create a better world. And China and India aren't developed nations so it would be much harder for them to meet the standarts of the kyoto protocol...

Not necessarily. They could do it and they are rapidly becoming developed. However, when you exclude some nations from meeting standards that other nations have to meet, to me that IS NOT fair at all.

Not necessarily. They could do it and they are rapidly becoming developed. However, when you exclude some nations from meeting standards that other nations have to meet, to me that IS NOT fair at all.

No - once again, you are wrong, I'm afraid.

The reason why certain 'developing' nations have been 'excluded' from Kyoto protocols AT THIS TIME - is because of the requirement limit - which is (minimum) 5% BELOW the established 1990 emission level... which would be almost impossible for a nation that is BECOMING industrialised... switching from a chiefly agrarian economy (with the associated LOW emissions) to a progressively industrialised economy (with correspondingly higher emissions).

Looks like you haven't actually researched Kyoto Protocols, either!

This is all BS. Look, the Third World hates America, because America is richer and stronger, and they wish to drag us down into their socialist abyss with them. I oppose globalism, whether it's Kyoto, the UN, or the WTO. I am for the Framers' classical liberalism and their vision of a free, unencumbered America. We need to stop pussy-footing and worrying about world opinion, and start leading the world by example. Stand up to these UN bureaucrats and their corrupt masters, the dictators of the Third World, whose enviromental records, by the way, make us look like tree-huggers by comparison. Long live American freedom and capitalism! Death to socialism and other forms of tyranny! America can preserve its own environment without foreign quotas, damnit!

Okay - first... You haven't done nearly as much research as you are pretending. If you had done any SERIOUS research, I wouldn't have had to explain albedo to you.

How do you know I didn't do enough research? Maybe I did do enough research and came to the same conclusion? As for your last comment, I'm ignoring it because it has no bearing on this topic.

Second - a few republican/industry sponsored 'scientists' are arguing against Global Warming as a phenomenon... the majority - and, one might say, the REAL scientists, i.e. the ones WITHOUT an investment agenda - are pretty much concrete that Global Warming is a fact.

No they aren't. Ask a scientist to look you in the eye and have him or her tell you that there is global warming. They can't do that because there is no evidence of such. Your talking high and mighty here but have not produced ONE IOTA of proof and I'm getting tired of asking you.

Third: The "Dim Sun" phenomenon has NOTHING to do with the actual sun itself... it is to do with aerosol contamination of the atmosphere.

Brave talk. Care to back it up?

Something else you would have known if you had ACTUALLY done the research you claim.

I do know what I know. You haven't done enough research either so I'm not taking what your saying as fact. Besides, you haven't provided any links backing yours up whereas I provided two links saying that the atmosphere is cooling and not warming up.

Fourth: A 1200 square mile chunk of the antarctic dislocated this past year - apparently without your 'research' noticing. A huge area of West Antarctica is now in danger of being undercut... again, without your research noticing.

Again! I would like to see a link of this please. And besides, just because it dislocated DOES NOT mean global warming. Plate tetonics could've have something to do with it too. After all, haven't you heard of the Antartica Plate.

Fifth: Nuclear winter is so called in weather, because it duplicates the effects that extreme nuclear discharges would create... the name is a 'nickname' - it's not really the 'accurate' term for a nuclear after-effect either.

I don't think we'll ever have nuclear winter short of full scale nuclear war.

I contend you have done no actual research.

I contend that your spouting stuff without actual proof.

I suspect you got ALL of your information of one partisan junk-science site.

Samething applies too you. I take it you get your information from environmental websites that have agendas too whereas I get mine from satellite data and measurements that were taken. I also get my data from various places in the US on Weather Patterns and all I'm seeing is that certain storms happen at various times and that freak storms can occur. Those outside normal parameters. This has no way indicated global warming.

Until you quit with the 'uh-uh' approach to debate, and actually clue yourself in on current thinking, we are done.

Good because I'm getting very tired of hearing your arguements without any sort of proof. Not once in our entire debate did you supply varifiable proof whereas I did and you denounced it because it didn't conform to your ideology. Your blinded by it and cannot see the other side for it. I can and I have looked at links on the other side but they are mostly from environmental websites. Show me proof of everything you might change my mind.

I'm not going to engage in a battle of wits, with someone who is clearly unarmed.

LOL!! And I'm not going to argue with anyone that cannot see the otherside of this debate. Your clearly onesided and thus cannot see what is infront of you. I guess the university did a good job in brainwashing you into believing global warming exists when in fact. It does not.

This is all BS. Look, the Third World hates America, because America is richer and stronger, and they wish to drag us down into their socialist abyss with them. I oppose globalism, whether it's Kyoto, the UN, or the WTO. I am for the Framers' classical liberalism and their vision of a free, unencumbered America. We need to stop pussy-footing and worrying about world opinion, and start leading the world by example. Stand up to these UN bureaucrats and their corrupt masters, the dictators of the Third World, whose enviromental records, by the way, make us look like tree-huggers by comparison. Long live American freedom and capitalism! Death to socialism and other forms of tyranny! America can preserve its own environment without foreign quotas, damnit!

You realise, of course... that a true socialism cannot be tyrannical...

And, also that, by it's very nature, capitalism MUST be tyranny?

How do you know I didn't do enough research? Maybe I did do enough research and came to the same conclusion? As for your last comment, I'm ignoring it because it has no bearing on this topic.

No they aren't. Ask a scientist to look you in the eye and have him or her tell you that there is global warming. They can't do that because there is no evidence of such. Your talking high and mighty here but have not produced ONE IOTA of proof and I'm getting tired of asking you.

Brave talk. Care to back it up?

I do know what I know. You haven't done enough research either so I'm not taking what your saying as fact. Besides, you haven't provided any links backing yours up whereas I provided two links saying that the atmosphere is cooling and not warming up.

Again! I would like to see a link of this please. And besides, just because it dislocated DOES NOT mean global warming. Plate tetonics could've have something to do with it too. After all, haven't you heard of the Antartica Plate.

I don't think we'll ever have nuclear winter short of full scale nuclear war.

I contend that your spouting stuff without actual proof.

Samething applies too you. I take it you get your information from environmental websites that have agendas too whereas I get mine from satellite data and measurements that were taken. I also get my data from various places in the US on Weather Patterns and all I'm seeing is that certain storms happen at various times and that freak storms can occur. Those outside normal parameters. This has no way indicated global warming.

Good because I'm getting very tired of hearing your arguements without any sort of proof. Not once in our entire debate did you supply varifiable proof whereas I did and you denounced it because it didn't conform to your ideology. Your blinded by it and cannot see the other side for it. I can and I have looked at links on the other side but they are mostly from environmental websites. Show me proof of everything you might change my mind.

LOL!! And I'm not going to argue with anyone that cannot see the otherside of this debate. Your clearly onesided and thus cannot see what is infront of you. I guess the university did a good job in brainwashing you into believing global warming exists when in fact. It does not.

You claim to have done research - and yet you do not know what 'albedo' or the 'Dim Sun' phenomenon are.

How can I put ANY credibility in anything you say?

Oh - and, by the way - I don't HAVE to look a scientist in the eye and ask him (or her)... because I AM a scientist.

And you, my friend, are all rhetoric, and nothing to back it up.

Try: http://www.uic.com.au/nip24.htm
http://calspace.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseum/climatechange2/08_2.shtml
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1998/es202/l13.html

No - once again, you are wrong, I'm afraid.

This outta be good!

The reason why certain 'developing' nations have been 'excluded' from Kyoto protocols AT THIS TIME - is because of the requirement limit - which is (minimum) 5% BELOW the established 1990 emission level... which would be almost impossible for a nation that is BECOMING industrialised... switching from a chiefly agrarian economy (with the associated LOW emissions) to a progressively industrialised economy (with correspondingly higher emissions).

Look at China. They are developing rapidly and they have more people. They are the worst polluting nation whereas the US is the cleanest nation. Why should we ratify a treaty that excludes nations from meeting the standard?

Looks like you haven't actually researched Kyoto Protocols, either!

HAHAHAHA!

That is so rediculous it ain't even funny! I have researched the Kyoto Protocals and I have applauded the Senate for passing S. Res 98 in July of 1997 that deals with it. I've read it and I wonder why Al Gore signed it! It doesn't affect us but put our economy in the toilet. Sorry boyo but I cannot see the merit in the US Approving it.

It wouldn't have been fair to americans? Boo fucking hoo, yeah because America is fair to everyone else isn't it.
Idiot

You claim to have done research - and yet you do not know what 'albedo' or the 'Dim Sun' phenomenon are.

Research into global warming yes but not the phenomons that your explaining. Btw: Can I have a link please?

How can I put ANY credibility in anything you say?

Same applies to you since you haven't provided any proof.

Oh - and, by the way - I don't HAVE to look a scientist in the eye and ask him (or her)... because I AM a scientist.

Ahhh!! Now I have a full understanding! What type of scientist. It makes a difference now you know?

And you, my friend, are all rhetoric, and nothing to back it up.

Samething with you. All talk and no proof!

This outta be good!

Look at China. They are developing rapidly and they have more people. They are the worst polluting nation whereas the US is the cleanest nation. Why should we ratify a treaty that excludes nations from meeting the standard?

HAHAHAHA!

That is so rediculous it ain't even funny! I have researched the Kyoto Protocals and I have applauded the Senate for passing S. Res 98 in July of 1997 that deals with it. I've read it and I wonder why Al Gore signed it! It doesn't affect us but put our economy in the toilet. Sorry boyo but I cannot see the merit in the US Approving it.

First - who on earth told you that the US was the cleanest nation?

That's so far away from true that it isn't even funny.

Next time, if you are going to make a joke, keep it within the confines of reality - it's funnier that way.

Second: You've actually read the protocols? Why do you keep missing out on the obvious lies in your statement, then?

Why do you keep saying that the US will be left with a huge clean-up to do, unfairly burdened above all other nations? Don't you think that Article 10 (a) would mean that the US would be assisted by, at the very least, Canada?

Just for example?

Research into global warming yes but not the phenomons that your explaining. Btw: Can I have a link please?

Same applies to you since you haven't provided any proof.

Ahhh!! Now I have a full understanding! What type of scientist. It makes a difference now you know?

Samething with you. All talk and no proof!

I still argue that you cannot have fully researched the issue (as you claim), and NOT KNOW what albedo is.

It would be like arguing you were a Nascar expert, but being incapable of pointing out what a 'car' was.

As a scientist - I am a chemist, working in the field of environmental water.

What's tyrannical about keeping the fruits of your labor? What's not tyrannical about stealing the fruits of someone else's labor?

"A wise and frugal government will not take from the mouths of men the bread that they have earned." - Thomas Jefferson

The reason why certain 'developing' nations have been 'excluded' from Kyoto protocols AT THIS TIME - is because of the requirement limit - which is (minimum) 5% BELOW the established 1990 emission level... which would be almost impossible for a nation that is BECOMING industrialised... switching from a chiefly agrarian economy (with the associated LOW emissions) to a progressively industrialised economy (with correspondingly higher emissions).



Look at China. They are developing rapidly and they have more people. They are the worst polluting nation whereas the US is the cleanest nation. Why should we ratify a treaty that excludes nations from meeting the standard?


You just showed that you are not capable of debating. I myself wondered why developing nations were excluded from Kyoto when i read grave n idle's post. It clearly stated why they are left out and shows that it has a logical basis and is not unfair. In response you simply reask the question

To reanswer the question again:

-country A is like the USA (all numbers are fictional). It is developed and this means that the growth of it's economy is stabilised. This means that energy consumption ~ economy grows at a low rate, let's say less than 3% a year. Now if this country has to reduce it's polution ~ energy consumption to a level of 95% of the polution level 15 years ago, this means a polution reduction of 39%.

-country B is developing. This means that 15 years ago, energy consumption was very low. Energy consumption today is still lower than in developed countries and the economy, energy consumption and polution is rising fast, let's use 15% a year per example (no basis for this number). Performing the same calculations would show that this country has to reduce it's polution by 88.3%. growth of energy consumption by 25% a year would mean that this country has to reduce it's polution by 96.7%.

Show me how 'fair' it would be to force this on a developing country.

What's tyrannical about keeping the fruits of your labor? What's not tyrannical about stealing the fruits of someone else's labor?

"A wise and frugal government will not take from the mouths of men the bread that they have earned." - Thomas Jefferson

Nothing - in those terms.. but how is socialism tyrannical? How is sharing everything, even government, a tyranny?

The reason Capitalism is tyrannical, is because it relies on moving a product... it is DEFINED by moving a product. And, in order to move a product, someone else has to NOT move a product.

Every market share gain is market share loss for someone else, right?

To be succesful in a Capitalism, you have to maximise your own market share, whilst minimising the market share of competition. Obviously, the truest form of capitalism is the monopoly.

Surely you can see how market domination, and monopoly MUST be tyrannical?

So what, you think all the other nations signed-on because they thought it would be a walk in the park?

It's good for industry. It makes you more productive, if you HAVE to produce less waste... why can't US business SEE that?
If applied in a prudent way, maybe. However, US industry has had too much experience dealing with the wacko environmentalists, having to do such things as enlisting multi-million dollar studies just to develop a piece of land because the dirt moth (I'm making up the animal) is endangered, having to wait years because of court battles, etc. I somehow doubt Kyoto's provisions would be applied any more effectively.

You just showed that you are not capable of debating. I myself wondered why developing nations were excluded from Kyoto when i read grave n idle's post. It clearly stated why they are left out and shows that it has a logical basis and is not unfair. In response you simply reask the question

To reanswer the question again:

-country A is like the USA (all numbers are fictional). It is developed and this means that the growth of it's economy is stabilised. This means that energy consumption ~ economy grows at a low rate, let's say less than 3% a year. Now if this country has to reduce it's polution ~ energy consumption to a level of 95% of the polution level 15 years ago, this means a polution reduction of 39%.

-country B is developing. This means that 15 years ago, energy consumption was very low. Energy consumption today is still lower than in developed countries and the economy, energy consumption and polution is rising fast, let's use 15% a year per example (no basis for this number). Performing the same calculations would show that this country has to reduce it's polution by 88.3%. growth of energy consumption by 25% a year would mean that this country has to reduce it's polution by 96.7%.

Show me how 'fair' it would be to force this on a developing country.

THANK YOU!

Someone understood.

It's that simple...

Let's say that the US and China are both producing the same amount of pollution, now that China is developing.

Let's call that figure 110 Billion tonnes.

If the US created 100 billion tonnes of pollution in 1990, it has to cut pollution down to 94% (6% below the 1990)... or 94 billion tonnes.

So, the US would have to cut pollution by about 15% of CURRENT PRODUCTION - they would have to reduce their national output by about 16 Billion tonnes.

China, of course, was far less industrial... so, let's say they made 2 Billion tonnes of pollution in 1990. They would have to cut their pollution by (at least 5% if strictly adhering to protocol) so would have to cut their pollution to 1.9 Billion tonnes.

So, China would have to cut pollution by about 98.2 % of CURRENT PRODUCTION - they would have to reduce their national output by about 108 Billion tonnes.

Quite simply - it is far harder for the developing nation to hit the SAME target - let alone the far greater target that is caused by their lower industrial output in 1990.

No, I dont. How exactly did you withdraw that from my post?
Anyway, Im not sure what the other nations motivations were, I do know that Europe isnt NEARLY as industrialized as the US, nor are many of the other nations (Note: MANY, no offence, but alot of people seem to interpret 'many' as 'all', for some reason,), thus the accords are unfair to larger, more industrialized nations who cant update their industry as quickly or cheaply as smaller, less industrialized nations.
For the second part, because coal is still cheaper than nuclear power and hydrogen engines are a ways off still. Anyway, the initial cost would be large, as I said, and the current CEO's/board of directors would be dead/retired by the time the updates 'paid for themselves', the selfish bastards.

Sorry, you KNOW we are less industrialised?

We had a motor industry that we let die when it finally go through our skulls that were worse at it than others. You know like any FREE TRADING, CAPITALIST country.

I am not anti-US or anyone, I do think that if it costs more because you have more you should quit moaning and be grateful.

You are happy in America without worrys but I live in the Arctic and the polution from the world is a mjor problem.
The U.S. must take action! You are the worlds biggest poluters with over 35% of the total polution in the world.
Russia just signed the Kyoto Act and thats a blessing.
It's up to you Americans.

You are happy in America without worrys but I live in the Arctic and the polution from the world is a mjor problem.
The U.S. must take action! You are the worlds biggest poluters with over 35% of the total polution in the world.
Russia just signed the Kyoto Act and thats a blessing.
It's up to you Americans.

Yet we also give away 40% of all the charity, and have the largest economy. Imagine how Iceland would do if they actually had to pay to launch satellites instead of borrowing the US's. Or pay for a military...