Alrigth Mr. Castor. Let's talk Kyoto

[Ishmael]

You mentioned the Kyoto Protocols as a topic that you wanted to discuss in another thread. (Among other items.) It isn't even as timely as last weeks leftovers, but it appears to be the 'flag' that a bunch of dyed in the wool greens love to wave.

For the record, it is dead in the water as far as the United State is concerned not having enough suppport to even come to the floor of the Senate for ratification. Nor is it likely that this support will ever materialize regardless of the party that holds the white house.

This is the documemnt:

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/1997/global.warming/stories/treaty/index.html

It is about as mealy mouthed a document as I've ever read. Filled with nebulous bureaucratic terminology. Regardless, it is the foundation assumptions of the document and it's proposed solutions that are so damning.

1. It is based on the assumption that great global weather changes are taking place. There is no scientific evidence to support this. (The operative word here is 'great'.)

2. It is based on the assumption that these changes are based on man's activities and that man has control of these changes. Again, no verifiable scientific evidence.

3. It assumes that greenhouse gases are responsible for any of these changes. Again, not only not verifiable, but contrary to measured data.

4. It assumes that these changes are bad. The geologic record indicates the exact opposite.

5. Some of the worst offenders have been exempted from the protocol.

6. Emmission goals have been arbitrarily set.

7. Huge, unweildly, and extra-legal subervient bodies are created that have the potential to take precedent over soveriegn governments.

8. These bodies have no accountability.

9. The exclusion of certain countries puts in place an impetus for the transfer of developement to those countries along with the possibility for great environmental mischief being caused.

10. Financial burdens for these programs will be born by the workers that will be displaced in their implementation and the taxpayers that will absorb the costs. All of this with no verifiable scientific evidence that these measure are required, will be effective, or are even desirable.

Ishmael

 

[Lancecastor]

Hi Ishmael;

I was wondering last night what your thoughts on Kyoto were in terms of a summary position, so thanks.

I gather you think the treaty is a complete waste of time, if I'm reading your post correctly.

I like the idea of finding a way to reduce the amount of crap we are putting in the air, greenhouse gases included.

Do you share that view?

 

[HeavyStick]

I'm waiting for Redwave to show up and blame Capitalism and the plastic toys from McD's for the corruption of today's youth which is leading to a decline of democracy and an increase in plutocracy.

The hole in the ozone is a direct result of brain fumes leaking from redwaves ears.

If only McD's would have released Socialist September action figures, the world would be a safer place.

 

[Guest]

I like the idea of finding a way to reduce the amount of crap we are putting in the air, greenhouse gases included.

Do you share that view?

How about starting the mass production of cars that run on water or light. We have the technology, so why not. Any idea, oil pimps?

 

[70/30]

GWB has one foreign leader that is considered his staunch ally, Sharon. This despite the biggest sympathy outpouring for our nation since the Eagles broke up. Now Sharon's about gone because he is outAshcrofting GWB. At the least he must negociate, appease, and/or pretend like he cares about certain issues. Internationally he fucked up with stuff like Kyoto, the missile defence system, and that stupid South African conference thingy. Don't be surprised that no one is fully aligning with him on Iraq.

 

[Ishmael]

Hi Ishmael;

I was wondering last night what your thoughts on Kyoto were in terms of a summary position, so thanks.

I gather you think the treaty is a complete waste of time, if I'm reading your post correctly.

I like the idea of finding a way to reduce the amount of crap we are putting in the air, greenhouse gases included.

Do you share that view?

The short answer is yes, the protocol was a waste of time. Feel good politics.

The US began dealing with emmision problems long ago. From SO2 to CO2 to particulate emmisions. These efforts began back in the 60's and were related to vehicle emmisions as well as industrial. Much of the research and developement related to the recuction of these emissions were funded by the US taxpayer and designed by US companies. This includes the instrumentation used to measure these emmisions and particulate suspensions.

While the 'greens' like to point at the US as the largest emmiter of green house gases, and we are, their rants are based on the raw numbers. If one were to adjust the raw emmisions by, oh say, the GDP. The US no longer looks nearly as bad. As a matter of fact, I don't think that we make the top twenty.

France is probably by far the lowest emmiter of the industrialized nations. But when 90% of your electrical power generation is nuclear based, this is to be expected. Local politics and uninformed opposition by the home grown environmentalists make that a near impossibility in this country. Even though it is the fastest, most effective means, of lowering the 'offending' emmissions.

There are strong arguments, scientifically, that we don't want to lower atmospheric CO2, but rather could benefit from an increase. Modeling data and experimental data, as well as accumulated real life data, make a compelling argument for this point of view.

Ishmael

 

[Ishmael]

I'm waiting for Redwave to show up and blame Capitalism and the plastic toys from McD's for the corruption of today's youth which is leading to a decline of democracy and an increase in plutocracy.

The hole in the ozone is a direct result of brain fumes leaking from redwaves ears.

If only McD's would have released Socialist September action figures, the world would be a safer place.

Yeah, well I'm waiting for him. Got a few figures put away from his "workers paradise". Not that it will matter much.

Ishmael

 

[HeavyStick]

There are strong arguments, scientifically, that we don't want to lower atmospheric CO2, but rather could benefit from an increase.

Ishmael

that's fine and all, but you avoided the "direct result of brain fumes leaking from redwaves ears" part.

what are you afraid of?

 

[Lancecastor]

There are strong arguments, scientifically, that we don't want to lower atmospheric CO2, but rather could benefit from an increase. Modeling data and experimental data, as well as accumulated real life data, make a compelling argument for this point of view.

Ishmael

Your assertion that we're not getting enough CO2 strikes me as similar to saying I need to smoke because I'm not getting enough tar.

But then again I don't know as much about the reams of research people bandy about in their debates on the issue...and it seems there is plenty of research out there to fit most any position, don't you find?

I know that rural lakes I skated on as a child haven't frozen over in a dozen winters. I know that on one or two hot summer days a year I can watch and smell the smog rolling in from the MidWestern USA at my cottage on the East Coast of Canada, a phenomena that only started in that otherwise unspoilt located two summers ago.

I remember being at a golf resort in Panama City, Fla some ten years ago and was warned off the shellfish from the Gulf Coast because of mercury and other industrial waste levels...and wondered how it was allowed to get that bad.

I'm hardly a tree hugger, but these things concern me and the rhetoric certainly doesn't clear the air.

 

[Cherry]

KillerMuffin previously wrote a very impressive post on this subject ... I hope she doesn't mind me reposting it.


Actually, most of the blame lies with something called anti-glaciation. In other words, the ending of an ice age. We're in one right now and for the past several hundreds of thousands of years the glaciers have been receding. Yes, I know, anti-glaciation isn't as popular a theory as pollution is, but this is one fact that no one can deny, as it's proven to be cyclical. The glaciers have been receding for a couple of million years (give or take a few) now. They are not a stable thing that has the same amount year after year. They either advance or retreat and we're in a retreat. We've been a glacier retreat for far longer than we've been industrialized. William the Conqueror lived during the current stage of anti-glaciation. We're ate the tail end of a Quaternary period in the Cenozoic.

Pollution is not a the cause of global warming. Pollution, however, is excerbating the problem. Now, everyone wants to place blame for it because with blame comes fiduciary influx. The AOIS expects--and will get from the EU (your taxes) at the least--money for the rise in water levels. Money they simply do not deserve. Why not? Global warming is not caused by pollution, merely excerbated by it.

My beef with pollution lies in something far more dangerous. It's poisonous. It poisons the air and the water around us and it kills people, plants, and animals. Kyoto requires the Industrialized nations to clean up but the G77 and China to do as they will. There is a murderous cloud of the so-called "greenhouse gases" over Southeast Asia and it's killing people because they can't breathe. You won't find Oxygen bars in New York, LA, or Denver (the dirtiest American cities), but you'll find them in Calcutta, India--who refuse to have anything to do with emissions limits (not reductions, limits).

Kyoto is worse than doing nothing because it gives the globe a very false sense of security. The EU will do nothing about global climate change for 15 years because it has a treaty signed. A treaty that will cost you, personally, about a thousand dollars (I'm iffy on pounds) a year to implement and will do absolutely nothing to change the status quo. In fact, it will help to make things worse because your industries will find it much nicer to move to Africa or China where environmental regulations are zilch, natural resources are abundant, and the cost of labor a year is what you make in one day.

You think the US is anti-environment because we didn't sign Kyoto. I think the EU and anyone else who signed it is going to lay even worse waste to the enviornment, particularly in third world nations where they have no environmental or labor regulations to protect them. Kyoto will do more harm to the environment and the poor people who have to live in it than you can imagine. I base this opinion on the Joint Implementation clause and the Clean Development Mechanism. I'm backed up by a lot of reasearch, even from Clinton's own Department of Energy.

You may think it's Bush saying no, but it's not. It's a 98-0 with an unprecedented 65 signatures and completely unilateral resolution by the very divided 1998 Senate that said no. Blame Bush if you'd like, but why should he send a treaty to the Senate when the Senate already resolved to say no?

 

[Sandia]

Ishmael:

While the 'greens' like to point at the US as the largest emmiter of green house gases, and we are, their rants are based on the raw numbers. If one were to adjust the raw emmisions by, oh say, the GDP. The US no longer looks nearly as bad. As a matter of fact, I don't think that we make the top twenty.

The richer you are, the more you get to pollute?

KM:

In fact, it will help to make things worse because your industries will find it much nicer to move to Africa or China where environmental regulations are zilch, natural resources are abundant, and the cost of labor a year is what you make in one day.

Judging by the qualifications of Zimbabwe, I'm surprised Europe and Africa have any industries at all in them.

 

[70/30]

Don't bother with Ishmael; he has sand in his mouth, eyes, up his nose, and in his ears. That plus he is a mean, bitter old man. This winter he should have to live under a bridge along the Denver Greenway, then come back and try to post his brand of hateful messages.

 

[Ishmael]

Your assertion that we're not getting enough CO2 strikes me as similar to saying I need to smoke because I'm not getting enough tar.

But then again I don't know as much about the reams of research people bandy about in their debates on the issue...and it seems there is plenty of research out there to fit most any position, don't you find?

I know that rural lakes I skated on as a child haven't frozen over in a dozen winters. I know that on one or two hot summer days a year I can watch and smell the smog rolling in from the MidWestern USA at my cottage on the East Coast of Canada, a phenomena that only started in that otherwise unspoilt located two summers ago.

I remember being at a golf resort in Panama City, Fla some ten years ago and was warned off the shellfish from the Gulf Coast because of mercury and other industrial waste levels...and wondered how it was allowed to get that bad.

I'm hardly a tree hugger, but these things concern me and the rhetoric certainly doesn't clear the air.

LOL, well without posting the links I can answer the CO2 issue with high school biology. CO2 is good for plants. The plant kingdom is the root of the food chain. Anything that causes botanical flourishment is actually good for the ecology.

Smog? I wonder where that is coming from? You assertion that it is the American mid-west is without any proofs. Emmisions from that region have actually been falling for years. Temperature inversions, usually caused by local environmental changes, are a more likely cause.

Shell fish in FL and mercury? Hardly. At least not the native varieties. That has never been a problem. There have been some issues with fresh water fish and agricultural run off, but not with the salt water species.

There is a local phenomena called "red tide" that is problematic. Particualrly in the summer. It is local in it's effect, has been documented for decades, and is associated with water temperature in the summer months.

As a rule of thumb, no shellfish, oysters and clams in particular, should be eaten if harvested in months not ending with 'er'. This has to do with bacteria, not pollutants, and has been recognized for centuries.

Don't believe everything you hear.

Ishmael

 

[Sandia]

Don't believe everything you hear.

Low fuel costs and the development of an energy-intensive economy have resulted in the burning of large amounts of fossil fuels in North America, particularly in the United States. After a decline in CO2 emissions in the early 1980s due to oil price increases, emissions continued to climb, from 1 368 million tonnes in 1984 to 1 607 million tonnes 10 years later. The United States is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases - and also emits more per capita than any other country in the world.

Y'all just make shit up, doncha?



Edit: http://www.unep.org/geo2000/english/0101.htm

 

[Ishmael]

Don't believe everything you hear.





Y'all just make shit up, doncha?



Edit: http://www.unep.org/geo2000/english/0101.htm

Did you read my earlier post? Dick lick.

Did it occur to you that that comment was tied to the mercury? Guess not.

CO2, and most other greenhouse gases are NOT smog related. Smog is tied much closer to particulate counts and is triggered by 'stale' air (temperature inversions primarily). Greenhouse gasses and the emissiions associated with smog are not one and the same. (NO2 and SO2 for instance.)

You know, attorneys that don't know shit about science should really keep their nose out of it. Try researching some real science, not bullshit UN links.

Ishmael

 

[miles]

Anyone who doesn't think think global warming is a threat is a homophobic white racist republican fascist nazi who dresses real funny.

 

[Ishmael]

Anyone who doesn't think think global warming is a threat is a homophobic white racist republican fascist nazi who dresses real funny.

That'd be me. Just ask REDWAVE, or scruffy, or any of the other board intellectuals. (Actually, REDWAVE is pretty smart. I think it's the drugs in his case. Much like pp. )

Ishmael

 

[Lancecastor]

Smog? I wonder where that is coming from?

Shell fish in FL and mercury?

Ishmael

Here's a page of links about mercury in Florida shellfish.

And here's some links on trans-border smog in eastern Canada.

Lance

 

[Spinaroonie]

Here's a page of links about mercury in Florida shellfish.

And here's some links on trans-border smog in eastern Canada.

Lance

There's enough mercury- the sweetest of the transition metals in 1 whale steak to cause pernament brain damage. I think that explains japaneese porn.

 

[Ishmael]

Here's a page of links about mercury in Florida shellfish.

And here's some links on trans-border smog in eastern Canada.

Lance

The first link regarding the mercury is rambling. It makes no mention of shellfish in FL waters at all. It does go on to talk about the Everglades problem (freshwater), very real and due to agricultural run off from the vast farms in the Lake Okeechobee area.

There may have been a problem at one time in the Port St. Joe area. (A paper mill since closed down.) That has been cleaned up and affected only bay scallops which were harvested more by sportmen/women divers than commercial interests.

The trans-border drift has been known for years Lance. Go back and read the article. It address's O3 and NOX and SO2. The very same issues that I refered to in my last post. While CO2 emmisions have been on the rise, the trace pollutants have been decreasing. This was as a result of treaties and cooperation between Canada and the United States and goes back to the peak years of acid rain in the 70's.

You've shed no new light on what I've already said. Actually, in a way you've validated it.

Ishmael

 

[Lancecastor]

affected only bay scallops

The trans-border drift has been known for years

Okay, so we've established that yes, shellfish in Fla have mercury in them and yes, air pollution from the states into Canada has been a problem for many years.

And we've established that you believe that the world-leading and increasing amounts of greenhouse gases being produced by the USA are good for the planet.

And I now know your position on the Kyoto situation.

Thanks Ishmael.

L

 

[Spinaroonie]

The first link regarding the mercury is rambling. It makes no mention of shellfish in FL waters at all. It does go on to talk about the Everglades problem (freshwater), very real and due to agricultural run off from the vast farms in the Lake Okeechobee area.

Well... God... Becuase the first link isn't quite up to Ishmael's taste I guess that invalidates all of them. Good thing Google is psychic and knows what to present. Since the first one wasn't perfect the rest must be garbage.

 

[Lancecastor]

Well... God... Becuase the first link isn't quite up to Ishmael's taste I guess that invalidates all of them. Good thing Google is psychic and knows what to present. Since the first one wasn't perfect the rest must be garbage.

(You know Spin, I really think he believes he's showing how smart he is when he pulls those little stunts, so let's not tell him we notice, okay?)

 

[Ishmael]

Okay, so we've established that yes, shellfish in Fla have mercury in them and yes, air pollution from the states into Canada has been a problem for many years.

And we've established that you believe that the world-leading and increasing amounts of greenhouse gases being produced by the USA are good for the planet.

And I now know your position on the Kyoto situation.

Thanks Ishmael.

L

You are so funny.

Assertion: Florida shellfish are unsafe to eat because of mercury.

Proof: None, none at all.

Conclusion: There has been trace amounts of mercury in Florida shellfish in the past. Measurably safe for human consumption.

Lance's conclusion: I'm right.

Wrong.

Assertion: Greenhouse gases originating in the US are responsible for Canadian smog.

Proof: Articles that talk about everything EXCEPT greenhouse gases.

Conclusion: There are trans-border polutants that contribute to the formation of smog. O3, NOX, SO2 and various particulates being the primary cause. Industrial pollutant output from Ontario and Quebec recross the border and contribute to problems in N.H. Vermont, and Maine. None of which has anything to do with those items addressed in the Kyoto protocol.

Lances's conclusion: I'm right.

Wrong.

You couldn't stay on subject so you break out anecdotal bullshit and back it up with some evidence that has nothing to do with your assertions, or the original subject.

What a fucking light weight.

Ishmael

 

[RhumbRunner13]

Ish, when they can't find strong supporting facts on their side and you can rebutt the sperious facts they advance there is but one thing to resort to...calling you names.

You faggot, fashist,, turd sucking, homophobic, racist, father raping, radical conservative baby killer, environment destroying, sister fucking redneck, Limbaugh loving, anti freedom fucktard!

Wanna go get a beer?

Rhumb