US Congress Not Crazy After All

[Weasel]

When Bush refused to send the Kyoto Treaty to Congress, claiming they would not pass it, the blame feel on his shoulders.

I for one don't blame him, I believe Congress wouldn't have.


Middle Ages were warmer


Kind of reminds me of the saying.."Don't count your chickens before they hatch.'

[Chanak]

Let the criticism begin.

[Dottie]

For those who didnt care to read the whole article.

Quote:

Dr Simon Brown, the climate extremes research manager at the Meteorological Office at Bracknell, said that the present consensus among scientists on the IPCC was that the Medieval Warm Period could not be used to judge the significance of existing warming. Dr Brown said: "The conclusion that 20th century warming is not unusual relies on the assertion that the Medieval Warm Period was a global phenomenon. This is not the conclusion of IPCC." He added that there were also doubts about the reliability of temperature proxies such as tree rings: "They are not able to capture the recent warming of the last 50 years," he said.

For those interested in IPCC: http://www.ipcc.ch/index.html

[Weasel]

LMAO I will have to remember this. Read only what I want to.

That is a fair and balanced appoarch. LMFAO

[Scayde]

Quote:

Originally posted by Weasel LMAO I will have to remember this. Read only what I want to. That is a fair and balanced approach. LMFAO

LOL.Well, on the whole the article is in line with others I have read regarding a recent little ice age followed by a period of global warming as evidenced by fluctuations in sea levels globally. It is also interesting to note the changes in architecture that occurred throughout these fluctuations.

[VoodooDali]

See the EPA's site on global warming.
The easy to understand part of the website: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...tent/index.htm
The 2002 report: http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...ionReport.html

Incidentally, the EPA's report was begun by the Clinton Administration EPA and completed a year and a half after Bush took office. Christie Todd Whitman tried to deny that she'd seen the report, but it's hard to believe that such an important report could be released to the public (on their website!) without her prior approval. Apparently, Bush was furious with her over the report. He wanted a more skeptical (optimistic?) report to help justify nixing the Kyoto agreement.
Read about Whitman's memo to Bush re: the Kyoto agreement here:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/...in281805.shtml
She capitulated to Bush over Kyoto and has gone along with whatever he asks of her ever since to avoid losing her post.

[Weasel]

Another view from the Eyes of Weasel

Do I have believe the human race has an effect on the enviroment? Yes no doubt, my doubt arrises from the quick reports. Trying to judge events based over a short time period and hollaring something must be done now. Are the people who do the studies smart? I would say so, but I also believe they tend to rush to judgement the quickest. Just my personal opinion of "most" smart people.


My other view....Just because someone is out in front, they shouldn't be singled out.

If I'm in a race and ahead, I don't see the right of others to throw an anchor on me to make it fair for the others to catch up. If we are to have a fair race, all must have the same restraints. Kyoto was a anchor IMHO. Make the treaty fair to all, and I will change my opinion.

I know some will say, but where is the fairness in putting the same restraint on developing countries as the countries already developed.

There is no fairness. One way, one is punished, the other way the other is.

Brings it back around in a circle....and my opinion stays the same. Doesn't solve anything now does it.

[Lazarus]

LOL! I came to this thread expecting a fight - after all, I am firmly convinced that the US congress IS crazy! But I agree with Weasel. Not easy going up against the greens, though, Weasel. Just ask Bjorn Lomborg. Ha!

[Nightmare]

No matter if global-warming is true or not because of humans (I've always not really known if it was real or not, I've had my suspicions), I still think Kyoto is a very good idea (kudos to Canada for signing it), because it reduces the amount of pollution that we pump into the atmosphere. I think a nice, clean planet is better than one where Canada and the US pump about 50% of all air pollution into the atmosphere.

[Scayde]

Quote:

Originally posted by Weasel My other view....Just because someone is out in front, they shouldn't be singled out. If I'm in a race and ahead, I don't see the right of others to throw an anchor on me to make it fair for the others to catch up. If we are to have a fair race, all must have the same restraints. Kyoto was a anchor IMHO. Make the treaty fair to all, and I will change my opinion.

Me too

[fable]

Quote:

Originally posted by Scayde Me too

Really? So if you're responsible for none of the noise pollution on your street, you should be jailed along with your neighbor who regularly breaks noise ordnances? And everyone else should, who isn't responsible, either? No offense, but this doesn't seem to make much sense. If a group has a problem that's caused by various members in differing degrees, IMO there shouldn't be any shuffling around about saying what needs to be done, and by whom. Apropos of this, the First Law of Raising Kids is as follows:

Everybody cleans up their own messes.

It doesn't matter if you're fourteen and your kid sister is ten, if you've left toys and other things all over the house, not your sister, you clean it up. And if you're a parent and you ignore the rule as it applies to you, claiming you haven't the time, that it slows you down (anchors you) or you're not party to the arrangement, expect your kids to silently view you as a hypocrite, and to not think your opinions matter very much.

(That isn't meant as a personal attack on you, @Weasel. I'm sure your kids will live in terror of the lash. )

[Scayde]

Quote:

Originally posted by fable Really? So if you're responsible for none of the noise pollution on your street, you should be jailed along with your neighbor who regularly breaks noise ordnances? And everyone else should, who isn't responsible, either? No offense, but this doesn't seem to make much sense. If a group has a problem that's caused by various members in differing degrees, IMO there shouldn't be any shuffling around about saying what needs to be done, and by whom. Apropos of this, the first law of raising kids is as follows: Everybody cleans up their own messes. It doesn't matter if you're fourteen and your kid sister is ten, if you've left toys and other things all over the house, not your sister, you clean it up. And if you're a parent and you ignore the rule as it applies to you, claiming you haven't the time, that it slows you down (anchors you) or you're not party to the arrangement, expect your kids to silently view you as a hypocrite, and to not think your opinions matter very much. (That isn't meant as a personal attack on you, @Weasel. I'm sure your kids will live in terror of the lash. )

No, that does not seem fair to me. What does sound fair is everybody cleans up the mess that they have made. Everybody has the same check list to prevent further messes. No one gets off the hook. That is what sounds fair to me. I am sure that this can not be agreed on for many reasons, but that is what would seem fair to me.

[fable]

Quote:

Originally posted by Scayde No, that does not seem fair to me. What does sound fair is everybody cleans up the mess that they have made. Everybody has the same check list to prevent further messes. No one gets off the hook. That is what sounds fair to me. I am sure that this can not be agreed on for many reasons, but that is what would seem fair to me.

I agree; and the problem with the US and the various UN attempts to clean up the environment would seem (to me) to be that Bush's administration simply doesn't want to clean up its mess. It's more or less like a kid saying, "I don't wanna. I make ten times as much as you, so I have the run of the house. I can do what I like, and I don't have to worry about cleaning up anything. You don't like it? Tough! Move somewhere else, or I'll buy you out!"

And to be honest, nothing I've heard from the Bush administration on environmental matters has gotten much beyond this level of maturity. What's amazing to me is how very light in its burdens Kyoto is. I mean, not even rollbacks: just attempts to reach voluntary goals of lower increases, without any reprisals if a nation fails. This seems remarkably meek. When I first heard what Kyoto had been watered down to, and then heard the current US administration's response, I could only wonder what more they wanted. Perhaps a guarantee that they could set a voluntary increase in pollution, any number, with the highest polluting nation being rewarded for their achievement?

[VoodooDali]

@Fable: under that system, New Jersey Would RULE THE WORLD!!!

[nael]

why does everyone bash the US for not signing it? no other countries signed it.
There does remain very little scientific evidence proving global warming as an increasing and detrimental trend.

However, it doesn't take a freakin' genius to realize pollution=bad...clean air/water/soil=good.

how come no one addresses the pollution concerns of overpopulation (except China). First there is all of the resources people need which creates waste, but then there is also the actual waste created by humans. ever been to soem of the slummier areas of South America? india?