Why I'm Joining the GOP

[SirNitram]

Wow, Alyrium. Have you considered that maybe, while nature can recover from a man-made one, he's pointing out it's gonna take.. Well, geologic time spans? The sort of thing mankind can't wait for?

He is talking about ruining nature. You will notice his line of argument is in two sections, one detailing human impact, the other dealing with impact on nature. I was responding to the later. Nature will survive. Humans will survive and in all likelyhood civilization will do so as well.

You do realize that the impact on nature is intimately tied to the survival of civilization, don't you? And you claim others are being selective, you just try and handwave away the whole bloody point.

This ridiculous idea of the population getting big and nature 'smacking back' is bull. The population getting stupid causes backlashes. There's no magic scale on which humanity rests where a certain threshold makes the big sky pixie throw a rock.

you misunderstand. If some sort of abiotic factor causes the carrying capacity to decrease, the population will drop. Sometimes catastrophically (figuratively speaking) It isnt bad, it happens. Forgive me if, intellectually, I dont think of humans as any better than any other species.

Unfortunately for your view, we are better; we've already shown this by altering our enviroment to support a higher population without hitting the 'capacity'. Irrigation is the obvious example.

Now, the human population is what around 6.4 billion or so? Reachings its current carrying capacity rather rapidly, or has already breached it, depending on which ecologist you talk to. Now, if that carrying capacity were to drop for some reason say... lack of food due to climate change, the population will drop. Either through low birth rate or mass deaths, depending. Now, if the human population drops, the CO2 emissions will decrease, and nature will balance itself out (eventually)

These ecologists are full of crap. This artificial limit can and most likely will be pushed back.. Again.. By the magic of technology. Cleaner industry, higher yield crops, and irrigating deeper inland will all expand it.

Now, it is preferable that we dont reach that point, and I was merely being cynical in that above post, but still. Humans are not immune to population ecology and their own carrying capacity.

No, they merely redefine the question because we have demonstrated a capacity other species lack: A way to change the rules and limits.

Finally, if you're gonna declare Kyoto bunk, could you at least educate yourself on it and show why? Honestly, it's not like it's hard, but there's no effort..

Thanks for selectively ignoring parts of sentences. You will notice qualifying statements such as

If Kyoto does not meet these, then there is no point in implementing it

I did not say that kyoto does not meet those criteria that is a man of straw on your part.

Maybe you shouldn't have been ranting about how it's not a workable solution a few posts back, hrm? Why are you commenting on something you don't know about?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Unfortunately for your view, we are better; we've already shown this by altering our enviroment to support a higher population without hitting the 'capacity'. Irrigation is the obvious example.

I see you are the one who misses the point. if, as Mr. B postulates humanity cannot adapt to the famine and drought and flooding etc etc etc, then it necessitates a drop in the human population, which would cause Co2 emissions to decrease by definition, and thus allow nature some time to recouperate as the human population rebuilds itself after eventually adapting to its new environment.

These ecologists are full of crap. This artificial limit can and most likely will be pushed back.. Again.. By the magic of technology. Cleaner industry, higher yield crops, and irrigating deeper inland will all expand it.

Hmm.. are you qualified to peer review someone with a PH. D in ecology? Say... Dr. Thomas Nash ASU university. SOmeone who works specifically with population changes as a result of air pollutants and climate change?
(Sorry, that one has been used a few times against me in similar debates regarding climatology, could resist and it is somewhat irrelevant0

See, Mr. B postulated this

Will we even last that long. If the climate shift causes huge population disruptions through drought, famine, or flooding can our societies cope with such a problem without complete collapse.

That, is what I was responding to. Now, if that were to happen, and the human population does in fact collapse due to a massive overpopulation (due to a drop in carrying capacity) well... you should get the point

No, they merely redefine the question because we have demonstrated a capacity other species lack: A way to change the rules and limits.

Then you conceede that civilization will survive global climate change?

Maybe you shouldn't have been ranting about how it's not a workable solution a few posts back, hrm? Why are you commenting on something you don't know about?

SUre you arent confusing me with someone else? I just reviewed my entire list of posts in this forum... I only mentioned Kyoto once and was with the qualifying statements you list above

It was Mr. B who specifically mentioned Kyoto, I had, truth be told, barely even though of it until then.

[Mr. B]

So... nature can recover from natural disasters, but not man made ones? There is something special about human released CO2? Is there some mystical property about it that makes it so natural processes cannot recycle it? Can plants not eventually absorb and use this CO2 for photosynthesis?

Theres nothing special about human CO2, there is just a lot of it and no end in sight to the burning of fossil fuels. And yes I agree plants can absorb CO2. But the problem with that is that we are burning one of teh biggest sinks we have: the rainforest. The other big sink is the ocean. And the output of CO2 does not match what nature can recycle.

Well first you have to show that the output will double. If we do simple things like stop burning coal and oil for our energy needs and switch to nuclear power, they will reduce, inovations in fuel efficiency are popular in cars these days etc etc etc. And again... not natural? Again I ask, is there something special about human-released carbon dioxide? The current levels of CO2 have come about through natural processes before I assure you, the earth can handle it (to a point)

Oh, its so simple. Just stop burning fossil fuels, tell that to China and India, and the US. We are no closer to stopping using fossil fuels than we are to converting to a hydrogen economy. And if you think that the earth can handle the CO2 to a point, what is this point and have we reached it.

WOw, I love the scare mongering. FOr one, the earth's organisms can adapt to massive asteroid impacts, and the permian extinction was probably caused by a massive CO2 release from a series of vocanic eruption and catastrophic release from the oceanic CO2 sink. And look... nature survived.
Humans have this wondeful ability to change their environment to suit their needs. We can survive gradual coastal flooding and can *gasp* irrigate farm land, and can do so over long distances if need be. Of course, if the human population does drop, that will solve our CO2 emission problem now wont it? As cold as that sounds, that is the way nature works, if a population gets to large, nature bitchslaps it one way or the other.

So you are saying that the current emissions of CO2 are on par with the Permian extinction. And are you taking bets on whether the Earths ecosystems can survive another Permian level extinction? Let alone Humanity?
If humans had to rely on the irrigation of farmland to survive do you know the other stresses that this creates on the ecosystem. YOu are from Arizona, how much water is left in Lake Powell, how much water can we get from the Colorado River.
A massive drop in human population would cut teh emissions. But it would not remove the CO2 from teh atmosphere.
If humans can change the environment to suit their needs, then how can nature bitchslap us and cut us down in size. Wont we just find a way to circumvent nature in your reasoning.

[Nephtys]

Find a line and stick to it. Our CO2 emissions are extremely high, no doubht about it. But Nature and the planet is an extremely resillient mechanism. Things might get worse over time because of global warming and the like.. but do you think it'll happen to hit such doomsday levels like you're all describing within the next 50-80 years, the supposed lifespan of our fossil fuel reserves?

No end in sight indeed. Environmental groups have been warning paradoxically about the woe that is using fossil fuels for the environment as well as the rapidly running out sources of the same fuels.

[Coyote]

Weren't nations considered to be "developing" ommitted from any responsibility for CO2 production? The result was, and this is totally from hearsay, that China was excluded and they are already matching the US in CO2 output and will exceed us by quite an order of magnitude by 2015.

If that is so, it sounds like a "bash the West" bandwagon while giving the third world a pass. I'm going to Google the treaty before I end up talking shit.

[Gil Hamilton]

So... nature can recover from natural disasters, but not man made ones? There is something special about human released CO2? Is there some mystical property about it that makes it so natural processes cannot recycle it? Can plants not eventually absorb and use this CO2 for photosynthesis?

The planet can reabsorb carbon dioxide and does. However, it becomes a problem when the C02 production of our industries outstrip the environments ability to consume it. According to the Climate Monitoring and Diagnostic Labratory, the planet absorbs 200 Gt of Carbon Dioxide annually, but human industry adds 700 Gt to the atmosphere. Then you've got a compounding interest problem, since our industrial production is kicking the natural absorption of the planet's ass.

Well first you have to show that the output will double. If we do simple things like stop burning coal and oil for our energy needs and switch to nuclear power, they will reduce, inovations in fuel efficiency are popular in cars these days etc etc etc. And again... not natural? Again I ask, is there something special about human-released carbon dioxide? The current levels of CO2 have come about through natural processes before I assure you, the earth can handle it (to a point)

Click the above link. And no, that's not some hokey environmentalist groups website, that's from an honest to god government agency.

WOw, I love the scare mongering. FOr one, the earth's organisms can adapt to massive asteroid impacts, and the permian extinction was probably caused by a massive CO2 release from a series of vocanic eruption and catastrophic release from the oceanic CO2 sink. And look... nature survived.

Actually most of nature didn't survive. 90-95% of marine life and significant percentages terrestrial life in the Permian Extinction didn't make the grade there. That's a bad thing.

Humans have this wondeful ability to change their environment to suit their needs. We can survive gradual coastal flooding and can *gasp* irrigate farm land, and can do so over long distances if need be. Of course, if the human population does drop, that will solve our CO2 emission problem now wont it? As cold as that sounds, that is the way nature works, if a population gets to large, nature bitchslaps it one way or the other.

Will our civilization survive it though? Most of the population of the planet lives in coastal areas aside from what happens if a truly massive global climate change. Large scale sea leave shifts are something we want to avoid if we can help it. You live in Arizona, but I think someone in Manhattan or Tokyo would agree with me here.

SPecial Co2?

No such beast, normal C02 is bad enough and we are producing gigatons of it.

[Thinkmarble]

Weren't nations considered to be "developing" ommitted from any responsibility for CO2 production? The result was, and this is totally from hearsay, that China was excluded and they are already matching the US in CO2 output and will exceed us by quite an order of magnitude by 2015.

If that is so, it sounds like a "bash the West" bandwagon while giving the third world a pass. I'm going to Google the treaty before I end up talking shit.

Can you say the words CO2 production per capita ?

[Ryoga]

Don't you just love the unintentional hilarity of people hopping into this thread to rebut a satirical article, only to prove said article eerily close to their real mindset?

I want a party that doesn't worry about things before we have to. Republicans refuse to get hog-tied by theories such as global warming, ozone depletion, fished-out oceans and disappearing wetlands. The real problems -- if there are any -- aren't forecast to take hold for at least 50 years. So what do I care? I'll be dead.

That is true... melting icecaps forcing warm currents deeper thus making the temperatures in northern europe plummet would not be a good thing, at least for people, and reptile and amphibian populations.

Of course, if the human population does drop, that will solve our CO2 emission problem now wont it? As cold as that sounds, that is the way nature works, if a population gets to large, nature bitchslaps it one way or the other.

I would like to point out that there ARE government programs in the US for people who cannot afford health insurance. Ever heard of medicare and medicaid? That is what they are there for. it is their own damn fault if they dont apply

Oh, you mean The Kyoto Treaty? Hate to break it to you, but this idea that all climatologists believe that human activity is the cause of Global Warming is purehogwash. There is no consensus.

Is Global Warming a reality? Yes, but its a natural cycle of the Earth. We can no more stop it than we could cause the Sun to go out.

To hell with roads, bridges, schools, police and fire protection, Medicare, Social Security and regulation of the airwaves.

Ever heard of medicare and medicaid? That is what they are there for. it is their own damn fault if they dont apply

I dunno, I thought it was funny as fuck anyway. Almost as funny as the original article.

[Alyrium Denryle]

Theres nothing special about human CO2, there is just a lot of it and no end in sight to the burning of fossil fuels. And yes I agree plants can absorb CO2. But the problem with that is that we are burning one of teh biggest sinks we have: the rainforest. The other big sink is the ocean. And the output of CO2 does not match what nature can recycle.

ANd I know that we produce more than the earth can sink in any give3n year. As for the rainforest though? Um.. do you have a working solution to that? Should we kill off all of the south american dirt farmers? Because that is the only thing will keep them from burning the rainforests. Of course I suppose we could send someone down to S. America to start slaughtering cattle and put the cattle ranchers out of business.

Oh, its so simple. Just stop burning fossil fuels, tell that to China and India, and the US. We are no closer to stopping using fossil fuels than we are to converting to a hydrogen economy. And if you think that the earth can handle the CO2 to a point, what is this point and have we reached it.

Then what is your solution? You arent interesting in solving the problem are you, you are only interesting in complaining about it. SHit, if we could get your environmentalist buddies(not to say anything about your stance on this issue) to stop bitching about anything involving atom splitting, we may actually get somewhere. As it stands there is so much shit surrounding the building of any nuclear plant here in the US that we just cant build any more.

When I say the earth can handle it, I dont mean sink it all. I mean that liofe on this planet will survive despite it.

So you are saying that the current emissions of CO2 are on par with the Permian extinction.

Fuck no, that was a 10 degree incirease over a VERY short period that wipede over 90% of all life. There is no way in hell we could ever cause that in a short enough time span to cause mass extinctions.

If humans can change the environment to suit their needs, then how can nature bitchslap us and cut us down in size. Wont we just find a way to circumvent nature in your reasoning.

[/quote]

It if is as bad as you seem to think it is, then no. If, like a reasonable person, you dont think it wil get that bad, then yes. Humanity will survive

[Mr. B]

ANd I know that we produce more than the earth can sink in any give3n year. As for the rainforest though? Um.. do you have a working solution to that? Should we kill off all of the south american dirt farmers? Because that is the only thing will keep them from burning the rainforests. Of course I suppose we could send someone down to S. America to start slaughtering cattle and put the cattle ranchers out of business.

I'd do it. But a better way would to boycott those companies who purchase S. American beef raised on rainforest land.

Then what is your solution? You arent interesting in solving the problem are you, you are only interesting in complaining about it. SHit, if we could get your environmentalist buddies(not to say anything about your stance on this issue) to stop bitching about anything involving atom splitting, we may actually get somewhere. As it stands there is so much shit surrounding the building of any nuclear plant here in the US that we just cant build any more.
When I say the earth can handle it, I dont mean sink it all. I mean that liofe on this planet will survive despite it.

I actually would rather have nuclear power than burning fossil fuels. Its just that some of my contemporaries are a little overzealous when it comes to nuclear energy. They dont see that there are safe ways to store the waste.

Life will probably find a way to survive. All I say is that we should try and stop its degradation. After the permian extinction so little life survived that it took millions of years to recover. If a mass extinction did happen because of global warming we humans would have a tough time surviving.

Anywhoo, Im sick of complaining and debating about the technicalities behind global warming and would rather talk about actual ways to stop it.

[Ma Deuce]

Weren't nations considered to be "developing" ommitted from any responsibility for CO2 production? The result was, and this is totally from hearsay, that China was excluded and they are already matching the US in CO2 output and will exceed us by quite an order of magnitude by 2015.

If that is so, it sounds like a "bash the West" bandwagon while giving the third world a pass. I'm going to Google the treaty before I end up talking shit.

Can you say the words CO2 production per capita ?

Why the hell is that any reason to exempt the PRC and India and the other developing nations, especially since the developing world's CO2 output is going to increase exponentially over the next few decades? If we want to cut CO2 emmisions globally, we are shooting ourselves in the foot right now by absolving the developing world from responsibility to reduce greenhouse gasses, because as the developed world's emmisions go down under Kyoto, the developing world's will rise. So tell me, what are we really accomplishing under Kyoto other than simply shifting where the world's man-made CO2 emmisions come from?

[Gil Hamilton]

ANd I know that we produce more than the earth can sink in any give3n year. As for the rainforest though? Um.. do you have a working solution to that? Should we kill off all of the south american dirt farmers? Because that is the only thing will keep them from burning the rainforests. Of course I suppose we could send someone down to S. America to start slaughtering cattle and put the cattle ranchers out of business.

Until I posted the above link, you seemed to be of the opinion that the Earth was capable of absorbing the CO2 of our production via natural processes like photosynthesis.

As for rainforest deforestation, that's a tricky problem. However, it's not unreasonable to say that it does contribute to lessening the amount of C02 being sucked out of the air. While we can't go about wrecking peoples livelihoods, it is also not unreasonable to think about a plan to counteract the hit to the planet's C02 absorption. I'd think about the creation of massive seaborne planton colonies that love to love carbon dioxide and actively working to eliminate the coal industry, but both have rather large problems (the latter having to do with conservatives being unwilling to raise their hand to any big business industry with as deep pockets at the coal industry has).

Then what is your solution? You arent interesting in solving the problem are you, you are only interesting in complaining about it. SHit, if we could get your environmentalist buddies(not to say anything about your stance on this issue) to stop bitching about anything involving atom splitting, we may actually get somewhere. As it stands there is so much shit surrounding the building of any nuclear plant here in the US that we just cant build any more.

It also might help if conservatives would get their lips off the fossil fuel industries cocks long enough to do something about them. After all, it's not just hippies who've been trying to block the creation of nuclear power plants. Fossil fuel lobbyists are an active force too.

When I say the earth can handle it, I dont mean sink it all. I mean that liofe on this planet will survive despite it.

But that doesn't mean that it won't trigger a catastrophy of Marvel Comics proportions for us. Life will go on eventually, but the consequences of a global climate shift are dire enough for our civilization that we should limit our involvement in it if at all possible.

Fuck no, that was a 10 degree incirease over a VERY short period that wipede over 90% of all life. There is no way in hell we could ever cause that in a short enough time span to cause mass extinctions.

Depends. You could get a 10 degree increase over a very short time (geologically speaking), by getting the ball rolling a little bit. It wouldn't take a 10 degree C shift, for instance, it stop the thermohaline cycle (more like a 6 degree shift). Such an event would heat the equator up significantly, enough so that those S. American dirt farmers who you have a mysterious amount of affection for are going to take it in the ass when the rainforests start dying (not to mention the rest of us, since "dying" in this case means "rotting", and "rotting" means a massive C02 increase with nothing to reclaim it). These things can cascade, according to quite a few models.

It if is as bad as you seem to think it is, then no. If, like a reasonable person, you dont think it wil get that bad, then yes. Humanity will survive

That doesn't mean that what humanity survived is an event we want to occur. We'd survive nuclear war too, but we still want to do whatever we can to avoid it.

[Darth Wong]

Why the hell is that any reason to exempt the PRC and India and the other developing nations, especially since the developing world's CO2 output is going to increase exponentially over the next few decades? If we want to cut CO2 emmisions globally, we are shooting ourselves in the foot right now by absolving the developing world from responsibility to reduce greenhouse gasses, because as the developed world's emmisions go down under Kyoto, the developing world's will rise. So tell me, what are we really accomplishing under Kyoto other than simply shifting where the world's man-made CO2 emmisions come from?

Shifting it so that it is more demographically fair? Why is that bad? Let's try some simple math, shall we?

Scenario 1: Developing nations industrialize, raise output. Developed nations do the same.

Scenario 2: Developing nations industrialize, raise output. Developed nations try to cut back.

Do you honestly not understand that there's a difference in outcomes between those two scenarios? Or do you prefer the Bush Administration wet dream of:

Scenario Bush: Developing nations stay mired in primitive hell forever. Developed nations laugh at them.

[Beowulf]

Scenario 2: Developing nations industrialize, raise output. Developed nations try to cut back.

You're missing something from this scenario: Polluting industries move to developing countries.

[Coyote]

So tell me, what are we really accomplishing under Kyoto other than simply shifting where the world's man-made CO2 emmisions come from?

You don't understand. As long as it is oppressed little brown people that are polluting, instead of Evil White Westerners, then it isn't pollution at all... its the "by-product of the free expression of the industrial arts by former victims of neo-colonial aggression". And therefore, A-OK.

[Darth Wong]

Scenario 2: Developing nations industrialize, raise output. Developed nations try to cut back.

You're missing something from this scenario: Polluting industries move to developing countries.

So the third-world countries get some more modern industry which will help them pull out of primitive hell, and we get some heavy polluters out of our own backyards. Is that really so bad? I'd rather we exported heavy-polluting industries than tech support jobs, to be honest.

[Axis Kast]

As a Republican, I can now proudly -- indeed, defiantly -- pledge to never again vote for anyone who raises taxes for any reason. To hell with roads, bridges, schools, police and fire protection, Medicare, Social Security and regulation of the airwaves.

President Bush has promised to give me more tax cuts even though our federal government owes trillions of dollars to its creditors. But that's someone else's problem, not mine. Republicans are about the here and now, and I'm here now.

There is some validity to this criticism.

I don’t support the full extent of the Bush tax cuts for upper- and upper-middle class families for the reason that they’re not proven to spend that money so much as lower-income groups.

I should point out, however, that I support revising the tax code for simplicity, which proved a success for Reagan. I also support revocation of the so-called death tax.

I also happen to question the Republican plan for Social Security reform, which I fear, if handled incorrectly, may simply prove to be a fancy method of empowering people to dig their own graves. Statistically, large numbers of people will turn out to make bad investments, greatly compromising the level of care they receive down the road, even if some mandatory redistribution will persist.

On the other side of the coin, however, schools, (most) police, and fire protection are derived not from federal, but local taxes. In some cases, those are too low because neighborhoods that need help are so forlorn they cannot even hope to pay the price for improvement. In others, however, taxes seem to rise in an endless spiral, with no clear end in sight. But that’s really a matter for local voters. Perhaps I digress.

As a Republican, I can favor exploiting the environment for everything she's got. No need to worry about quaint notions like posterity and natural legacy. There are plenty of resources left for everyone, and if we don't use them, someone else will.

I want a party that doesn't worry about things before we have to. Republicans refuse to get hog-tied by theories such as global warming, ozone depletion, fished-out oceans and disappearing wetlands. The real problems -- if there are any -- aren't forecast to take hold for at least 50 years. So what do I care? I'll be dead.

I doubt the environment is truly as far gone as some people like to imply. As for resources, the oceans still lie relatively unexploited. And the problem of global warming I don’t pretend to understand any longer.

Oh yeah – ANWAR. Glad Alyrum brought it up. I oppose drilling there. But only because it’s apparently more costly than importing from the Middle East and Africa.

As a Republican, I can swagger and clamor for war -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, Colombia, wherever -- even though I've never fought in one or even been in the military.

So, everyone who was not or is not a veteran but believes that fighting the Second World War was a moral or strategic imperative should be strung up for hypocrisy? It’s ridiculous to presume for a moment that informed observers can draw legitimate opinions on issues, even when they do not have personal exposure.

I can claim that we're fighting for Democracy, ignoring reports of torture at Abu Ghraib, Bagram Air Base and Guantanamo Bay, and a spreading gulag of secret detention centers around the world.

Well, the governments we have put in place in Afghanistan and Iraq are a might more democratic than what was there before. Objectively speaking, that would be a, “Yes, certainly.”

Freedom, as every American should know after spending $300 billion for wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, isn't free.

You got it, bud.

As a Republican, I can insist on strict moral values when it comes to sex and ignore the growing moral chasms in business, politics, sports, journalism and the leadership of the Roman Catholic Church.

As a Republican, I pride myself on not caring what goes on in other people’s bedrooms or places of worship. If you’d like to abort baby seals whose fins have been re-grown as a result of cutting-edge stem cell research while having sex with another man, you go right ahead. You’ll excuse me if I can’t see abortion as an “excuse,” or homosexuals as evil, or if I can’t criticize research that may sacrifice some life to save countless others.

As a Republican, I can favor strict punishment of criminals, except for those who happen to be my friends or neighbors. Isn't that the very definition of community -- looking out for friends and family?

I can? Cool! Seriously, I don’t see how this is a problem endemic to Republicans, or worthy of much concern.

I will be pro-death penalty and anti-abortion, pro-child but anti-child care, for education but against funding of public schools. As a Republican, I'll have a better chance of getting to spout my opinions in the media, which for some reason seems convinced that since Bush was re-elected with the smallest electoral margin of any sitting president in history, liberals are passe.

This has already been death with by others, but suffice to say, I oppose the death penalty only because I hear it’s more expensive than simply locking the bastards up. And I’ve never even heard of the “pro-child but anti-child care” criticism.

In terms of education, I read a sterling article on the school voucher issue, but I forgot what side it came down on, so I’ll have to reserve judgement for later.

As a Republican, I'll say goodbye to "old Jesus" and hello to "new Jesus. " Sure Christ started out as a liberal Jew, and look where that got him. Compassion, love and diatribes against the rich only encourage the weak and punish the most successful among us. The Jesus that Republicans worship is a muscular, decisive, pro-war crusader hard at work cleansing the world of evildoers, not, God forbid, turning the other cheek.

Hey man, I’m Jewish.

So the third-world countries get some more modern industry which will help them pull out of primitive hell, and we get some heavy polluters out of our own backyards. Is that really so bad? I'd rather we exported heavy-polluting industries than tech support jobs, to be honest.

That’s a little silly, no? As much as I don’t fear outsourcing, I think it would still be easier to shed AOL tech support jobs than Ford Motors.

[wolveraptor]

I noticed that earlier in this thread, there were the usual, "but but...Clinton and Kerry were just as bad" spammers, and I invite them to read N and P forum policy. Stop...doing that! Idiots.

On to the issue of veterans. It was mentioned because Bush has NO FUCKING IDEA what real war is like. Sure, he was in some Texas National Guard or some such shit, but has he actually seen the artillery go flying over his head? No he has not. I suspect he wouldn't be so eager to wage idiotic, jackassed wars with no planning, and no justification, if he knew what it was really like.

Global Warming: It isn't just a threat to the PETA people. As overall temperatures increase, and the icecaps melt, we'll have flooded port cities, desertification in once fertile regions, and an overall food shortage. Nice. Hell, animals will weather the damn thing better than we do.

[Darth Wong]

That’s a little silly, no? As much as I don’t fear outsourcing, I think it would still be easier to shed AOL tech support jobs than Ford Motors.

Since when is FoMoCo a leading greenhouse gas producer at the manufacturing level?

[Axis Kast]

Since when is FoMoCo a leading greenhouse gas producer at the manufacturing level?

It's your typical large motor vehicle corporation. It's going to be a large producer of toxic wastes irrespective.

My point is simply that a lot of high-pollution industries are much more valuable to this nation than tech. support centers.

[Thinkmarble]

So tell me, what are we really accomplishing under Kyoto other than simply shifting where the world's man-made CO2 emmisions come from?

You don't understand. As long as it is oppressed little brown people that are polluting, instead of Evil White Westerners, then it isn't pollution at all... its the "by-product of the free expression of the industrial arts by former victims of neo-colonial aggression". And therefore, A-OK.

Look, the Kyoto treaty is not what I would do, but it is the best which could be negoiated by politicians, so I'm gonna take it.
If it would be done as I would like it there would have been introduced one number of co2 production per capita and every state would have been to meet that line.
Problem is that the USA as the largest producer would never have stood for it. In capita number china produces one tenth of the production of the USA, germany produces half the amount.
So china has a long way to go before it reaches even parity with germany.
Kyoto was already problematic as it has been seen by third world countries as an attempt to supress their developtment and for the west to retain supremacy.
And they would be right if we have had demanded from them to reduce their co2 production beyond a level we won't reach for probably ever.
And even then the peoples republic of china did cut their co2 emission between 1996 and 2000 (haven't heard of newer numbers ).
So cut it out.

@Axis Kast
That's what emission trading is for

[Coyote]

On to the issue of veterans. It was mentioned because Bush has NO FUCKING IDEA what real war is like. Sure, he was in some Texas National Guard or some such shit, but has he actually seen the artillery go flying over his head? No he has not. I suspect he wouldn't be so eager to wage idiotic, jackassed wars with no planning, and no justification, if he knew what it was really like.

Just outta curiosity, what about those of us who actually do know what it is like over there, and still think that what we're doing is right (although not for the same fucked-up reasons of the GWB Admin)?

[Ma Deuce]

So the third-world countries get some more modern industry which will help them pull out of primitive hell, and we get some heavy polluters out of our own backyards. Is that really so bad? I'd rather we exported heavy-polluting industries than tech support jobs, to be honest.

Yeah, but isn't the whole point of Kyoto to reduce global CO2 emissions?

[Darth Wong]

So the third-world countries get some more modern industry which will help them pull out of primitive hell, and we get some heavy polluters out of our own backyards. Is that really so bad? I'd rather we exported heavy-polluting industries than tech support jobs, to be honest.

Yeah, but isn't the whole point of Kyoto to reduce global CO2 emissions?

Yes, and failing that, to stem the rate of increase. Understand?

[wolveraptor]

On to the issue of veterans. It was mentioned because Bush has NO FUCKING IDEA what real war is like. Sure, he was in some Texas National Guard or some such shit, but has he actually seen the artillery go flying over his head? No he has not. I suspect he wouldn't be so eager to wage idiotic, jackassed wars with no planning, and no justification, if he knew what it was really like.

Just outta curiosity, what about those of us who actually do know what it is like over there, and still think that what we're doing is right (although not for the same fucked-up reasons of the GWB Admin)?

Then I'd like to hear your reasoning. Why do you think that we should be in Iraq, even knowing what the soldiers have to go through. Remember, your answer must justify a great deal of human suffering.