Playa del Carmen, Mexico's virtual guidebook written by locals
 

Go Back   www.Playa.info > Off Topic Stuff > General Off-Topic Stuff
FAQ Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 10-30-2006   #61 (permalink)
my own peon

 
sctx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Body in San Marcos Tx....Tankah in my mind
Posts: 37,188
Quote:
Originally Posted by DavidB
Thats a 28% increase for the US, but a 175% increase in China. At these rates China will pass us as the largest polluter.
not a problem, we join Kyoto, buy some credits from the Euros, mark them up 150% and then re-sell them to the Chinese
sctx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2006   #62 (permalink)
Allah Akhbar
 
STOGEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: salisbury, mass.
Posts: 20,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor Henning
Hey! This is serious! Have you read the whole article? This is not spooning! There are new arguments to the debate. Just read this from the article:
How can we humans really prevent the earth from going through its natural stages of life?
STOGEY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2006   #63 (permalink)
Allah Akhbar
 
STOGEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: salisbury, mass.
Posts: 20,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaripositaII
The US is the biggest user of energy in the world, the biggest polluter, the biggest contributor to CO2, and they refuse to participate in the Kyoto Treaty. How bloody typical!
In the Kyoto treaty countries such as China and other developing countries would not be included as far as who had to curb their pollutants.
STOGEY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2006   #64 (permalink)
Allah Akhbar
 
STOGEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: salisbury, mass.
Posts: 20,814
I personally look forward a little to global warming. I mean we'll have longer summers which is better for my diving.
STOGEY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2006   #65 (permalink)
beachaholic
 
catjammies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 338
From an article in Car and Driver magazine. And before you discount the source as bias (which assuredly they are), note that the data is provided by an MIT climatologist. I fail to see why we should spend millions, billions or trillions chasing something that has a 0.1% total contribution to the greenhouse effect. Oh, thats right, because politicians and the media say we should.......


Now for an inconvenient truth about CO2 sources — nature generates about 30 times as much of it as does man. Yet the warming worriers are unconcerned about nature’s outpouring. They — and Al Gore — are alarmed only about anthropogenic CO2, that 3.2 percent caused by humans.
They like to point fingers at the U.S., which generated about 23 percent of the world’s anthropogenic CO2 in 2003, the latest figures from the Energy Information Administration. But this finger-pointing ignores yet another inconvenient truth about CO2. In fact, it’s a minor contributor to the greenhouse effect when water vapor is taken into consideration. All the greenhouse gases together, including CO2 and methane, produce less than two percent of the greenhouse effect, according to Richard S. Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Lindzen, by the way, is described by one source as “the most renowned climatologist in all the world.”
When water vapor is put in that perspective, then anthropogenic CO2 produces less than 0.1 of one percent of the greenhouse effect.
If everyone knows that water vapor is the dominant greenhouse gas, why do Al Gore and so many others focus on CO2? Call it the politics of the possible. Water vapor is almost entirely natural. It’s beyond the reach of man’s screwdriver. But when the delegates of 189 countries met at Kyoto in December 1997 to discuss global climate change, they could hardly vote to do nothing. So instead, they agreed that the developed countries of the world would reduce emissions of six man-made greenhouse gases. At the top of the list is CO2, a trivial influence on global warming compared with water vapor, but unquestionably man’s largest contribution.
In deciding that it couldn’t reduce water vapor, Kyoto really decided that it couldn’t reduce global warning. But that’s an inconvenient truth that wouldn’t make much of a movie.
catjammies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2006   #66 (permalink)
añejo
 
Thor Henning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Drammen, Norway
Posts: 4,213
From BBC today:


<!-- S IANC --><!-- E IANC --><!-- S IIMA -->
Thor Henning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2006   #67 (permalink)
añejo
 
Thor Henning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Drammen, Norway
Posts: 4,213
More from BBC today:

Quote:
The world cannot afford to wait before tackling climate change, the UK prime minister has warned.

A report by economist Sir Nicholas Stern suggests that global warming could shrink the global economy by 20%.

But taking action now would cost just 1% of global gross domestic product, the 700-page study says.

Tony Blair said the Stern Review showed that scientific evidence of global warming was "overwhelming" and its consequences "disastrous".
The whole article is here.<!-- E SF -->

Last edited by Thor Henning; 10-30-2006 at 02:02 PM..
Thor Henning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2006   #68 (permalink)
back again, again
 
kirbyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,988
This all goes to show we really have no proof one way or the other, so why spend billions and get our undies in a bunch over it?
kirbyfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2006   #69 (permalink)
añejo
 
Thor Henning's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Drammen, Norway
Posts: 4,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirbyfan
This all goes to show we really have no proof one way or the other, so why spend billions and get our undies in a bunch over it?
Did you read the article in the BBC?
Thor Henning is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2006   #70 (permalink)
beachaholic
 
catjammies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor Henning
I read it. It was full of quotes by politicians, economists and bankers. Oh, and Al Gore as a hired consultant.....I'll continue to base my worry level on the MIT climatologist.
catjammies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2006   #71 (permalink)
reposado
 
vieve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 1,408
Quote:
Originally Posted by kirbyfan
This all goes to show we really have no proof one way or the other, so why spend billions and get our undies in a bunch over it?
The part of the article that should scare the hell outta anybody who loves Playa is the part about" floods from rising sea levels displacing up to 100 million people..."
How much more proof do we need after New Orleans to tell us that climate change can have a disastrous impact?

And it IS important that an economist wrote it, Catjammies...apparently when you analyze the economic data from the number of catastrophic storms we've had in the last 5 years, it's tough to argue AGAINST climate change caused by global warming!
vieve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2006   #72 (permalink)
Allah Akhbar
 
STOGEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: salisbury, mass.
Posts: 20,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor Henning
From BBC today:


<!-- S IANC --><!-- E IANC --><!-- S IIMA -->

Is this graph a picture of you when you read the speedos thread?

Last edited by STOGEY; 10-30-2006 at 03:10 PM..
STOGEY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2006   #73 (permalink)
Allah Akhbar
 
STOGEY's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: salisbury, mass.
Posts: 20,814
Quote:
Originally Posted by vieve
The part of the article that should scare the hell outta anybody who loves Playa is the part about" floods from rising sea levels displacing up to 100 million people..."
How much more proof do we need after New Orleans to tell us that climate change can have a disastrous impact?

And it IS important that an economist wrote it, Catjammies...apparently when you analyze the economic data from the number of catastrophic storms we've had in the last 5 years, it's tough to argue AGAINST climate change caused by global warming!
It's ok because they are all coming up here anyways.
STOGEY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2006   #74 (permalink)
beachaholic
 
catjammies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Colorado
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by vieve
when you analyze the economic data from the number of catastrophic storms we've had in the last 5 years, it's tough to argue AGAINST climate change caused by global warming!
Sorry, 5 years is not a good statistical sample of time as compared to the history of earth. I had broccoli twice in the past week, but that hardly makes it a statistical trend.

At one time, Iowa was under glaciers and another time, Colorado was under the sea. Was the melting of the Iowan glaciers caused my neandrathal CO2 emissions? No, the earth goes through massive, cyclical, global climate changes with or without our help.

And besides, if there is such a direct correlation, where were all of the catastrophic storms this year??

Last edited by catjammies; 10-30-2006 at 02:34 PM..
catjammies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-30-2006   #75 (permalink)
back again, again
 
kirbyfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 9,988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor Henning
Sorry Thor I just dont believe it.

You can find articles disputing many of the claims of the Global Warming movement.
kirbyfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:05 AM.


Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.