It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The Protocol was initially adopted on 11 December 1997 in Kyoto, Japan and entered into force on 16 February 2005. As of November 2009, 187 states have signed and ratified the protocol.[2] The most notable non-member of the Protocol is the United States, which is a signatory of UNFCCC and was responsible for 36.1% of the 1990 emission levels.
Mr Horner, whose CEI group has received almost $1.5m (£865,000) from ExxonMobil, is convinced that Europe could be successfully influenced by such a policy coalition just as the US government has been.
It has been drawn up by Chris Horner, a senior official with the Washington-based Competitive Enterprise Institute and a veteran campaigner against Kyoto and against the evidence of climate change. One of his colleagues -- who describes himself as an adviser to President George Bush -- was the subject of a censure motion by the Commons last year after he attacked the Government's chief scientist.
Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by OzWeatherman
Fair enough, just so we do not end up with a new Global Governance after the Copenhagen Treaty meeting.
We also need to stop the Cap and Tax bill in the senate.
Originally posted by OzWeatherman
reply to post by endisnighe
While I agree that man made global warming has not been proven I dont think it should be labelled a hoax as of yet. We simply dont have enough data to give an indication wether its a natural or man made event. Meteorological observational data doesnt go back far enough to prove either one correct, and while it is true that the data was manipulated (my organisation is one of the departments that had emails in this), it still doesnt mean that its a hoax.
Originally posted by rhinoceros
The 3 facts:
*Greenhouse effect warms the planet
*Greenhouse gases contribute to greenhouse effect
*Humans pump huge quantities of greenhouse gases to the atmosphere
Anybody here who does not agree with the above?
[edit on 2-12-2009 by rhinoceros]
Originally posted by Jordan River
I agree with it. But our industrial technology hasn't been around for awhile to be honest. we're still prettry young in industrial technology. It hasn't been that long enough for it to be our fault. that's what i'm saying
More or less pole shift makes far more sense
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by Jordan River
I agree with it. But our industrial technology hasn't been around for awhile to be honest. we're still prettry young in industrial technology. It hasn't been that long enough for it to be our fault. that's what i'm saying
More or less pole shift makes far more sense
So for example this has happened because of pole shift? Seriously?
Originally posted by Jordan River
Why not? Perhaps our atmosphere is thinning out due to the shift and also by the suns rays and it has weakened making our CD intake increase than decrease
Originally posted by rhinoceros
Originally posted by Jordan River
Why not? Perhaps our atmosphere is thinning out due to the shift and also by the suns rays and it has weakened making our CD intake increase than decrease
So what you are saying is that pole shift somehow increases atmospheric CO2 concentration? Now you need to tell us why this is and explain the working mechanism (for example where does the CO2 come from). Before that you should however explain how burning fossil fuels doesn't increase the CO2 concentration of our atmosphere.
Is this reaction (burning of methane, the most simple organic hydrocarbon) somehow wrong?
CH4 + 2 O2 ⇒ CO2 + 2 H2O
[edit on 2-12-2009 by rhinoceros]
Originally posted by OzWeatherman
reply to post by endisnighe
While I agree that man made global warming has not been proven I dont think it should be labelled a hoax as of yet. We simply dont have enough data to give an indication wether its a natural or man made event. Meteorological observational data doesnt go back far enough to prove either one correct, and while it is true that the data was manipulated (my organisation is one of the departments that had emails in this), it still doesnt mean that its a hoax.