US: thanks for destroying our world!

reply to post by Johnmike

The theory that the emission of carbon dioxide by humans significantly warms the planet is far from certain.

Yeah, about as far from certain as the "smoking of cigarettes" giving you cancer. Shouldn't we play it on the safe side instead of playing Russian Roulette with these things? I still can't see why folks fight the scientific consensus on the climate change studies so fervently. It's the rest of us who are going to have to suffer for the ignorance and indifference of others (and I GREATLY RESENT THAT)!


[edit on 14-12-2007 by whatsup]

Originally posted by BlueRaja
reply to post by kattraxx

 

Exactly what is the Earth's capacity, so we'll know if we're overpopulated?

Capacity of the Earth?

When the BS and lies from all the politicians piles up so high that we will be able to climb the pile, and step onto the moon. Not to far off, I already have my plot of land pick out on the moon.

[edit on 14-12-2007 by Realtruth]

Fifty-eight academies of science, including the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, point out that "Humanity is approaching a crisis point with respect to the interlocking issues" of population, natural resources, and sustainability (NAS, 1994, p. 13). The report points out that science and technology have a limited ability to meet the basic needs of a rapidly growing human population with rapidly increasing per capita demands. Unfortunately, most individuals and government leaders appear unaware, unwilling, or unable to deal with the growing imbalances between human population numbers and the energy and environmental resources that support all life. The interdependence among the availability of life-supporting resources, individual standard of living, the quality of the environment, environmental resource management, and population density are neither acknowledged nor understood. Although we humans have demonstrated effective environmental conservation in certain cases (e.g., water), overall we have a disappointing record in protecting essential resources from over-exploitation in the face of rapidly growing populations (Pimentel and Pimentel, 1996).

My understanding is that when the population of the planet reaches its carrying capacity, the population is automatically reduced by things like disease, starvation, wars over resources, etc. I expect the scale of the reduction will depend on the extent of the overpopulation.

reply to post by whatsup


Because there is no scientific consensus. No intellectually honest scientist will say that they know for certain that doing A has caused B to occur, but if we do C then we can stop B. The fact is that the climate heats and cools in cycles, and there's no evidence showing that it's any hotter as a result of manmade reasons, OR that there's anything that man could do that will reverse the cycle. That's why so many are against the economically suicidal policies that some of these treatise would cause, because they're based on junk science.

reply to post by Realtruth


What is meant by earth's carrying capacity is basically that the planet can only support so many people who need water, food, land, etc. It has nothing to do with how many humans are breathing air.

Originally posted by whatsup
Yeah, about as far from certain as the "smoking of cigarettes" giving you cancer.

That is such nonesense.
Look, for every scientist that says humans are causing GW, I can find one which has the opposite view. Most of these so called scientists who believe humans are causing GW are the same ones who thought we would be in a ice age about right now.

Shouldn't we play it on the safe side instead of playing Russian Roulette with these things?

Umm...NO, since the entire theory is hogwash. Even IF the Earth is slightly warmer, its because of natural forces either from the Earth itself or the Sun.

If you want to conserve and be 'green' for no reason, by all means go ahead. However, leave me alone and don't bring me along for your ride in lunacy. I like driving in my BIG truck. I crank up the air conditioner when it gets hot and I crank up the heat when it gets cold. I don't recycle and I don't use the expensive & useless energy saving bulbs. You do what you need to do but please leave me alone!

[edit on 14-12-2007 by 4thDoctorWhoFan]

Originally posted by stumason
I don't know how technical you are, or think you are, but a video conference with several hundred or thousand delegates is impossible.
[edit on 14/12/07 by stumason]

There doesn't need to be several hundred of delegates involved in the process. Only the ones making the policy, the ones doing the actual negotiating need to be involved. The other "delegates" are bureaucrats, assistants, yes-men, etc, that aren't necessary for the process.

Of course, they wouldn't get the nice trip to a resort island...

Originally posted by kattraxx
What is meant by earth's carrying capacity is basically that the planet can only support so many people who need water, food, land, etc. It has nothing to do with how many humans are breathing air.

It was a bit of subtle humor. Relax!

I don't think that is a question that can honestly be answered since the means to produce agriculture currently is polluting and poisoning the Earth. Whether it is in the USA, Europe, South America, etc..

Majority of commercial farming uses petroleum based fertilizers and pesticides, and this is not a sustainable method.

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Most of these so called scientists who believe humans are causing GW are the same ones who thought we would be in a ice age about right now.

Yup, good joke.

Certainly has little basis in reality.

Originally posted by melatonin

Originally posted by 4thDoctorWhoFan
Most of these so called scientists who believe humans are causing GW are the same ones who thought we would be in a ice age about right now.

Yup, good joke.

Certainly has little basis in reality.

Sorry Charlie, no joke. Please stay within the bounds of reality.

reply to post by Mdv2


I thought no one would make out such a comments but hurray, here's one with two thumbs up.
I hope the new government of the US soon to be elected will come to their senses and develop the necessary policy to reduce their carbon emission. (better to late rather than do nothing at all)

Just to point out the irony of things. Mr. Bush has been a loud mouth preaching us about war on terror while in the same with full awareness on the climate change, refuse to save the world (in which the great states also inhibit) from drowning. Hmmm, I wonder who's the real terrorist now?

Despite of all the conspiracy lying in between, FOR GOD SAKE Americans.... Why do you let this villain walks the earth???

check out - There is about 52 scientist who just signed a declaration or somthing..
That it is the sun - And that all the taxes somone wanna put on green taxes are BS basically..
Don't fight, adapt


what you think?

it says - Dont F around with the human race.. (in short)

[edit on 14-12-2007 by Ram]

It looks like the European Union and the evil United States, that stands in the way of everything, were able to come to a compromise at the Bali Conference...

NUSA DUA, Indonesia (Reuters) - Bali talks headed for a compromise on Saturday to launch negotiations on a global pact to fight climate change after the European Union toned down a key demand for sharp cuts in greenhouse gas emissions by 2020.

The Dec 3-14 talks had been bogged down by a row between the United States, which opposes a reference to non-binding goals for rich countries to curb emissions by 25-40 percent by 2020, and the European Union, which wanted a clear numerical target.

"This is a compromise. We can live with this. It's in a footnote," German Environment Minister Sigmar Gabriel said, referring to the 25 to 40 percent range for cuts.

The United States, the world's top emitter of greenhouse gases, also said it was satisfied...

Developing nations said they would resist "pressure and even threats" from some rich countries to step up the fight against climate change.

The main negotiating bloc of developing countries, called the G77, said they were not ready to make new efforts to fight climate change by cutting emissions from fossil fuels. They fear curbs would cramp economic growth aimed at lifting millions out of poverty.

SOURCE

The Grenada ambassador to the UN says there were 12,000 people at the conference. Ridiculous. I guarantee 10,000 of them were from Europe and the Americas. They could have stayed in NYC.

[edit on 12/14/2007 by Blaine91555]
I survived the predicted Ice Age. I read all about it in the early 80's. All the plant life was to die by now. These must be fake trees here in Alaska. I'll survive this Global Warming. Why is there always so much lying surrounding this topic. Exaggeration and spin are just pretty words for lies. That's not debate its just people being Trolls and this is a Troll Thread. No honest discussion of the Science. Just someone starting the ball rolling by spewing hate and launching a personal attack on the entire population of a country. This is headed the exact same direction as the 9/11 topic. It just moves around the Board.

Making a difference means cooperation and working together. Hate just does not solve anything. Starting a Troll Thread drives people apart so this actually makes the problem worse. But then activists never have done anything but whine.

[edit on 12/14/2007 by Blaine91555]

[edit on 12/14/2007 by Blaine91555]

This was from an earlier post this week and funnily enough fits this thread too, well I think so.

I guess when you have held the title for so long it is hard to give it up as the worlds main superpower, and this is why I feel America have a hard time in agreeing to measures to go more Green.

Here it is............my previous post

One major reason America does not want to readily recognise global warming or even agree to join in agreements to help cut carbon emissions is its military.

A army marches on its stomach, the transport for that army marches on petrol & oil, the industry supporting these require the same, dumb down your **carbon footprint and you dumb down your military power.

Personally I feel that global warming is cyclical event, and even though we humans have helped quicken the cycle, mother nature is a lot stronger than we think and will always counter balance any un-natural intrusions to this cycle..........weird weather for example.

So in answer to the OP, I believe the reason for your government to do this is from a military point of view.

**carbon footprint, a snazzy way of saying here comes another Green Tax


Wolfie

US: thanks for destroying our world!

You are welcome. If there is more that we selfish and ungrateful Americans can do for you guys, just let us know.

reply to post by Daz3d-n-Confus3d


Sorry, but in my opinion, you didn't do anything for us. Everything that was done for Europe had an agenda to it.

Originally posted by infinite
Sorry, but in my opinion, you didn't do anything for us. Everything that was done for Europe had an agenda to it.

This ungrateful & arrogant attitude is why not many here in the U.S. like Euro Trash.

Greetings:

I am still fairly new to this forum, so please bear with me.

I have been watching the news about the climate conference in Bali, and yes, the US delegation is blocking any attempts to mitigate any action regarding climate change. The other delegates know this, and if US citizens bothered to read news sources other than their own, they would also know this.

To my fellow countrymen, our European and Asian friends are correct, in that we may not be the largest polluter, but we consistently refuse, as a government and as a people, to do anything about the problem. It's really too late for denials and "wait and see" attitudes.

Forget for a moment about climate change. Let talk pollution, itself. Let's talk about not being able to let your children swim in the water at the beach, lake or river because they will become ill. Let's talk about entire communities being wiped out by strip mining for coal in the Appalachians. Let's talk about people no longer being able to eat the seafood from Chesapeake Bay. Let's talk about not being able to eat the fish that are caught from lakes in East Texas.

If it makes you feel uncomfortable to think about it on a global scale, I'm sure you can find examples from your local community or state. Start at home. You see, it really doesn't matter if climate change is real or man-made. Even if you don't believe in it, surely you can see the sense of CONSERVING our environment for your children and grandchildren?

I grew up in a rural area and we strongly believed in conserving our environment. I also grew up in a time where we had problems with a certain mideast country and our president called on the people of the US to sacrifice and CONSERVE gasoline and electricity. It makes me sad to think about how much better the world would be if we had continued with those policies.

For my international friends, here's a little history lesson (simplified) of environmentalism in the US in the form of a timeline:

1901: Theodore Roosevelt (R) elected president of the United States. Promoted the conservation movement, emphasizing efficient use of natural resources.

1916: President Woodrow Wilson (D) establishes the National Park Service.

1970: US President Richard Nixon (R) establishes the Environmental Protection Agency.

1977: President Jimmy Carter (D) convince Congress to establish the Dept. of Energy. Promotes CONSERVATION of energy, wore sweaters, had solar hot water panels installed on the roof of the White House, had a wood stove in his living quarters, turned off hot water in some federal facilites and requested that Christmas lights not be used.

1980: President Ronald Reagan (R) elected. Begins refering to CONSERVATION groups as environmental groups. Rolls back Carter's efforts at convincing the American people to CONSERVE energy and resources.

2002: Frank Luntz, GOP pollster and marketing strategist releases memo entitled "Straight Talk," writing that "even members of the American public who identify themselves as Republicans "prioritize protecting the environment" (page 136). He advises Republican politicians to use words like "sound science" and "common sense" and avoid terms like "rollback" and "cost-benefit analysis," when referring to environmental issues.

2002: Environmentalists referred to as "terrorists" in GOP rhetoric.

2007: US flag-waving citizens of a certain political persuasion have become so brainwashed that they would rather sh*t in their own back yard then do anything against their corporate masters.

I'm sorry to politicize this, but my international friends must realize that absolutely nothing will be done about this until January 20, 2009. And that's only if a Democrat becomes president.

"CONSERVATIONISM" used to be a bipartisan concern, but no more. Why do you think they changed the name?

Originally posted by infinite
Sorry, but in my opinion, you didn't do anything for us. Everything that was done for Europe had an agenda to it.

Yes, and the motives of Europe are as pure and white as snow.