The Problem W/ fixing Global Warming is...

**bad_roo** · 11-07-2003, 04:48 PM

Originally posted by steepconcrete
Ingnorace pisses me off.

http://www.sunshinefoundation.org/images/liberace.jpg

Liberace and little Ingnorace prepare for a fun night tinkling the ivories.

**watersnowdirt** · 11-07-2003, 05:23 PM

I think a better word than "global warming" is "climate change." the weather patterns that are being affected both by natural causes and human interference are going in both directions, not just making things warmer. there will (and are) some examples of extremely cold weather that also fits the description of climate change.

What people also need to realize is that when things get warmer, it doesn't just mean you can get a tan in November in Boston, it means ice caps melt, oceans rise, farmland is submerged, and desertification occur. It's much more drastic than just "gee, we can bbq in December".

Not preaching to you guys, just sharing my thoughts.

**milkman** · 11-07-2003, 05:31 PM

"Ignorance is believing the Kyoto treaty is useful. Take the time to learn about it and the fact that it is useless becomes obvious."

Is your last name Ford? The Kyoto treaty is a good start. The Bush admin has it's head up it's ass on this one...as usual.

**robokill1981** · 11-07-2003, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by milkman
Is your last name Ford?

Yes, actually it is. But kyoto is a good start. Didn't Mcain and others just get something passed regarding global warming?

**Mcwop** · 11-07-2003, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by robokill1981
Yes, actually it is. But kyoto is a good start. Didn't Mcain and others just get something passed regarding global warming?

That was a bill introduced by Mccain and Lieberman, but did not pass.

Here is the vote record - for those interested.

The global warming bill that the Senate last acted on was in 1997 when, by a 95-to-0 vote, it rejected key principles underlying an international climate change treaty that was being negotiated in Kyoto, Japan.

**PlayHarder** · 11-07-2003, 06:24 PM

Is your last name Ford? The Kyoto treaty is a good start.

No, but my paycheck relies on corporations willing to shell out big dollars in the interest of the enviroment. The Kyoto treaty had potential, but in its current form does more harm than good.
Lets say you run a giant multinational with manufacturing facilities in the US. The government signs on and you have a decision to make: 1) Spend the money needed to upgrade your facilities 2) Pay a "developing country" such as India or China for credits or 3) Pack up and move the manufacturing to a country that's allowed under the treaty to expand their emmisions. In a perfect world you would spend the cash on upgrades, reality is that you will move operation to India, emit more greenhouse gases since the rules aren't as strict and as a bonus, reduce your labor costs. This is good for who?
The sad fact is that Kyoto is a political ploy not an enviromental one. Since Canada signed on, I've spoken a number of people who've said that their company is now going to have to cut R&D spending on enviromental advances to prepare for Kyoto. Personally (and not just because my job relies on it), I'd rather see them spend the cash trying solve the problem as opposed to sending a check to another country to buy credits.

**Hayduke** · 11-07-2003, 06:29 PM

Originally posted by wankHarder

Ignorance is believing the Kyoto treaty is useful. Take the time to learn about it and the fact that it is useless becomes obvious.

Explain please.
As far as I can see any agreement to cut emissions is a good thing. All that I've read suggests the agreement is as good as useless because the U.S did'nt subscribe to it.

**iceman** · 11-07-2003, 06:34 PM

Originally posted by bad_roo
http://www.sunshinefoundation.org/images/liberace.jpg

Liberace and little Ingnorace prepare for a fun night tinkling the ivories.

As (at least some of) you guys say, "Brilliant".

**PlayHarder** · 11-07-2003, 06:49 PM

Hayduke

Explain please.

Look up, and note:

The Kyoto treaty had potential, but in its current form does more harm than good.

I am 100% behind reducing greenhouse gases, as well as a few other harmful types of emmisions not covered under Kyoto, just believe that with more input and less politics it would have been much more effective. I don't believe the accord will have any meaningful effect.

**dipstik** · 11-07-2003, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by hardrider
I read somwhere that if passenger jats flew 10,000ft lower they would have no contrails which trap heat. The result would be a 1 degree drop in agv planetary temps. Dont take this to the bank just something I read awhile back.

Sure, lets do that. Then planes would be burning more fuel to get to where they are going (more air resistance at lower altitudes), thus throwing out the idea of not polluting more. Also, we would need hundreds of more radio towers to accomdate flying at a lower altitude (id explain, but it would take me awhile, just think curvature of the earth) Planes would be flying through vicious thunderstorms at that low of an altitude and experience severe turbulence and weather patters causing a large increase in the number of planes crashing causing a lot of fires all over the place causing the atmosphere to be filled with fire and smoke and burning AND DEATH AND DESTRUCTION AND HORRIBLE HORRIBLE THINGS

that is all

**grrrr** · 11-07-2003, 06:59 PM

blah, blah, blah rant rave. Here is what I am doing:

Selling my F350 and trailer. Buying a cabin and a subie to get better gas mileage.

Making fewer trips and staying longer.

Hopefully buying a smaller house, with better insulation.