And there are some out there whom I wish would hold in their farts. At least until they find a restroom

! Good one M!


It would be great to have debates as important as this without one side blaming the other. But then that's just not how the people in our world works right? I also think they are lunes to about the no dissent part. I guess we should all be carted off to the bastille...wait, those days are over, or are they?!

Well, I won't object to the fact that the Earth has been hotter (and colder) in the past. However, the recent changes are really exponential - which correlate with the exponential increase of pollution, worldwide -.

I find something funny: You are ready to beleive one side or the other. The "Humanity has nothing to do with it" side is backed by billion of dollars of the polluting industries who doesn't want to loose some profits, while the "Humanity is causing it" is backed by... what? Tree-huggers who has no money to offer them?

Two sides. One with billions of dollars, the other as poor as Job. But the poor-one is slowly gaining popularity, even if there isn't billions in their pockets about it.

Still beleiving scientists who says "Humanity has nothing to do with it"? I wonder who pay their bills...

Liberal Wacko Debate Outline:

1: Come up with an issue.
2: Come up with an emotional argument.
3: Find a posterchild to become the face of the issue.
4: Anytime anyone apposes the issue, accuse them of being an insensitive bigot and/or too backward to understand.
5: Repeat #4 as often as needed, as long as nobody actually looks over the facts.


For example:

1: Global Warming
2: We are destroying the planet with our insensitive ways!
3: Our children's children's children. ("we don't inherit the environment from are paren't, we borrow it from our children).
4: Corporations, the beef industry, devolopers, loggers, the petroleum industry (etc, etc, etc) are not doing their part to control emissions. The U.S. is evil for not signing Kyoto...

Flaws in the whole liberal argument...

~No one has even established a cause of global warming, so NO ONE knows if it's manmade or not.
~OPEC is evil, except for Hugo Chavez, who is a liberal hero.
~Kyoto is the most important step towards relieving the planet of global warming... but let the Chinese and other nations continue to spew greenhouse gasses.

For an earth shattering problem, it's "cures" seem awfully political.

So, you say that there should be an international treaty, with huge teeths, chopping down any greenhouse spewers? I mean, what side of the fence are you?

Why is the arguments of Anti-Kyoto : "It too political, not solving the problem!". This is the demonstration about how much some peoples are brainwhashed. Even if they are against an issue, they try to bash it with arguments that should come from the other side!

Now, if you had said: "Kyoto won't change a thing because human emmissions doesn'T have a thing to do", I would have understood. But are you so much against Kyoto that you will use Pro-environnementalist and Anti-Environnementalist arguments?

Pro-Environnementalists agreed to Kyoto, 'cause it's the first step in the right direction. A small step, 'cause lobbyist are putting billions of dollars to stop it.

Because the industry, while not "evil" as you think we depict it, wants to hold on their profits at all cost (or at least, until the cost of keeping the profits will exceed said-profits), because they are a business, and that's what businesses do.

Pro-Envir. have made a compromise, they began small, hoping to improve with time. The industry (and the U.S.A.) don't want to impliment it because:

- It is bad for the industry
- It won't succeed it's objectives.

Is it me, or the 2 reasons are just contradictions? You can't do one without scraping the other...

Cikomyr: That's exactly my point. The side that says global warming is man made, and can be ended by man, first says, "we need Kyoto" yet, on the other hand, allows for so many political exemtions the whole thing becomes pointless. The same with the arguments about how evil OPEC is... unless it's Hugo Chavez getting the huge profits.

I don't want the examples to become the argument here, I was just using them to show that even those who seem convinced it manmade and can be fixed are willing to allow their political allies to continue killing the planet... it's only their political enemies that seem to have to change and pay.

"Two sides. One with billions of dollars, the other as poor as Job. But the poor-one is slowly gaining popularity, even if there isn't billions in their pockets about it."

I think that statement exemplifies how brainwashed the environmentalist side can be in all this. You think there is no money behind the people who are promoting the idea of man-made global warming? You think that Gore made his movie for nothing?

Who pays all these lobbyists? They work for free? Who puts out these publications? Who finances all these independent studies? Come on...

I think that statement exemplifies how brainwashed the environmentalist side can be in all this. You think there is no money behind the people who are promoting the idea of man-made global warming? You think that Gore made his movie for nothing? Who pays all these lobbyists? They work for free? Who puts out these publications? Who finances all these independent studies? Come on...

Bakerstreet, accepting that reality would remove the "grass roots" "david and goliath" "you and me agaisnt the world" romance of it all. If they have to admit there is billions backing it, then they might find that their side is just as about profit as the evil corporations... maybe even more.

"Global Warming as caused by Man" is the product they are selling. It is just as important for them to put it on every kitchen table as it is for Coka Cola to get their product into every glass. And the dirty little reality is, they will work, bend the truth, and use every flashy gimic and jingle at their disposal to do it.

Why is the arguments of Anti-Kyoto : "It too political, not solving the problem!". This is the demonstration about how much some peoples are brainwhashed. Even if they are against an issue, they try to bash it with arguments that should come from the other side!

"You" better go re-read the Kyoto protocols again. It penalizes the US while giving exemptions to some of the biggest polluters.

(drmiler, I'll come back to you)

You telling me that the Global Warming is the salad Gore&Co are trying to sell? While I agree that politicans simply supports values to advance their agendas, I see that your arguments are totaly failed.

Exemple: Bush is trying to put Kyoto and the Global Warming to the garbage. He is a politican, and his agenda is better served that way. Why? 'Cause he will receive much, much money out of polluting industries (shall they be oil, cars, or any others) for doing so.

Gore knows very well he will never be able to get that kind of monatery(good spelling?) support, so he instead tries to get a political support from the environnementalists, who have 1/100 of the money available from the polluting industries.

Both are politicians, both are backed by their sides. However, the arguments of the industries are self-serving. They make more money if nothing is done to regulate greenhouse emissions.

What does the environnementalists have to gain out of it? They won't gain much $, they aren't in business. Their goals are purely value-oriented. And it has been proved that any environnementalist political parties is successful in a region if the powers in place don't do the job to solve problems. The second a government do as they ask, the "Green Party" (as called in Canada here) loose supports, since there isn't reason to vote for them anyway.

Hey, do you realise that? They petition to LOOSE political support from the population?

Drmiler,

it is true that Kyoto only penalize the rich countries (U.S. are still the #1 world-wide polluters). China and India, while quickly climbing the greenhouse-ladder, aren't in the top - yet -. We'll get to that later..

U.S.A. is the country that has the more opportunity to reduce world-wide greenhouse emmision. Your industries are richer than anyone, they are prospering and expanding. While it's true that the industry would loose some of it's efficiency - for a short while - if changes like Kyoto would have been applied, it would have been a good step in the right direction.

Have you heard of the Carbon-Market? It's supposed to be able to legislate greenhouse emissions for every businesses, and if one is producing more than allowed, it has to buy some "Carbon-credit" to an industry who produced less than allowed. Which would be a great financial insentive to industries to develop new green ways to make a buck, since they could make 2 out of it!

I see every components in an Efficient Market there. And an efficient market is something America stands for. The only problem, you have to legislate all of it, which necessitate Federal Government's willingness. Which kinda lacks, right now..

As new green ways to make a buck are developping, experience makes these "ways" much more efficient with time, and the whole U.S.A. will become a low-greenhouse region. And about at that time, the developping countries (China and India) will be forced to reduce ITS Greenhouse emmisions. If the U.S.A. caught the drift in time, American business would be able to sell carbon-credit on the international market, make a good profit out of it.

Eventually, Third-world industries will also make the efficient change, still using the West's expertise in a field they totaly have no exprience.


Why do we have to target the rich countries first? Because they have the capital to start it all. China, while becoming more and more prosperous every day, is far from having any opportunity to do so.

Cikomyr:
Are you not paying attention to what is going on around you? Gore is a multimillionare. He didn't get that from the salary of a Senator. He has sold millions of copies of books. Furthermore, how do you say that Environmentalist groups are strapped for cash when they can pay his speaking fees? Do you think the politicians on the left aren't enjoying huge donations from green PACs?

btw, Greenpeace took in over $165 million in 2004... not too shabby for a bunch of poor folks who just want us to care. Face it, there is billions to be made acting like they care.

(maybe this will do a double-post, sorry if it does)

And there is billions to be made bashing the topic. Do you want me to repeat the arguments, again? Once more, slowlier:

Both are politician making money out of their so-called opinions.

One receive money from the industry
The other from the environnementalists.

The industry gives money in order to SAVE money. It has a huge capital base.
The environnementalists give money in order to... further their cause? What money do THEY gain out of it? I am not speaking of those using the trend to make a buck (like Gore&Co) but those SPENDING the money for those people. What is their monatery interest? They have none.

It is a David vs Goliath situation, not because "one's right the other isn't", but because one side has an immense capital base and is willing to spend a LOT to preserve the best of it. The other simply has some public support and some green wannabe buyers. That's 1000b vs 10b.

Yeah, right, that is why Gore only expects to be repaid for his expenses getting to the where he is giving the speech. His only interest is educating the public.

Give me a break!

Well, pollution is really at the heart of the debate isn't it? The whole thing is about reducing the gases we pump into the air (pollution).

But the zealots classify Carbon Dioxide as a pollution gas, yet without it, life would cease to exist on this planet.

My personal opinion is they have gone way overboard to the extent they are now trying to harm the natural balance of nature.  Sure, cleaning up the Flouro Carbons and such is always a good idea.  But eliminating 95% of them is relatively (note the qualifying word) easy.  Eliminating the last 5% is detrimental to both the planet and man's existance.  Why?  It would require too many of the resources of man to accomplish it, and nothing would be gained by that last 5% to justify the damage it would do.

I also remember the: milk, butter, eggs, coffee, chocolate, radon gas, get some sun - stay out of the sun, color TV, transistor radios, alar, if Kennedy gets elected the vatican will relocate to Washington, blah, blah, blah scares. One from my Dad (WW2 radarman), "Well honey, the only thing is it makes you sterile - but it's for the war effort." Perhaps I have more siblings than the ones I grew up with.

Hmmmm.....sounds like you've been around the same news as I!