An issue that needs raising

[burner69]

People who've debated with me know I don't like Bush, so yes, this is another anti-bush thread... but I;m just trying to push across what I see as right. If anyone can read through these links, or even glance at a few, and come out the other side saying Bush is ok, I'd like to see any sort of reasoned justification.

War is terrible, and often the most shocking 'evil' in this world. But this is not about war

This is about the one planet in the known universe that can sustain human life.

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/akyotoqa.asp

He gets away with it

Again
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1028090,00.html

And again
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2001/3/29/164418.shtml

And again
http://www.vexen.co.uk/USA/pollution.html

Here is the 'justification' of destroying our planet
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a194844.htm

It's not hard to discover why many people don't like him
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,3604,468151,00.html

Discuss

 

[Steve]

Here's the deal, friend. Most people will believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of how many facts or good points you manage to throw at them. Just look at the public reaction to Farenheit 911 (not exactly totally factual, but it's the best example I could come up with). People who disapproved of Bush before they saw the movie said they disapproved even more. People who supported Bush before the movie said that it only strengthened their beliefs that the left was just spewing out propaganda to try and bring down "an honorable man" or whatever the right calls him these days.

Unfortunately, numbers don't mean much these days, as people today are so skeptical they can find a way to weasel out of believing any factual evidence.

 

[Tr0n]

Theres 3 sides...The "right", The "Left", and The "don't give a damns".So listen to steve and just try keep your ass out of this political crap.

 

[Gray Fox]

It sucks ass
I maybe going off topic here but aren't a lot of car companies betting on hydrogen fuel for the future that releases only vaporin the air, well isn't vapor a greenhouse gas to, I mean it's not as toxis as CO2 to us but still a greenhouse gas. Anyways US and EU need to cooperate on fusion reactors, the Us has allready gotten one that can work for about a 100 or 1000 of a second, but in that time it can produce 80 times the energy recuirments of the earth, meaning it can produse 80 times for a 100/1000 of a second what the whole of earth uses in that time period.

 

[Tr0n]

Uhhh vaporin?Last time I checked it vaporized WATER...that comes out the tail pipe.

 

[Gray Fox]

Sorry I meant vaporized water

 

[burner69]

Here's the deal, friend. Most people will believe whatever they want to believe, regardless of how many facts or good points you manage to throw at them. Just look at the public reaction to Farenheit 911 (not exactly totally factual, but it's the best example I could come up with). People who disapproved of Bush before they saw the movie said they disapproved even more. People who supported Bush before the movie said that it only strengthened their beliefs that the left was just spewing out propaganda to try and bring down "an honorable man" or whatever the right calls him these days.

Unfortunately, numbers don't mean much these days, as people today are so skeptical they can find a way to weasel out of believing any factual evidence.

So you condone damaging the planet based on the idea that not doing so is bad for buisness? Are you saying the pollution levels are lies? That America is not the biggest polluter on the planet? That bush ISN'T ignoring the Kyoto agreement?

What has f9/11 got to do with this? I haven't seen it.

If you can't come up with a reasonable way to debate this, then don't respond.

 

[burner69]

Theres 3 sides...The "right", The "Left", and The "don't give a damns".So listen to steve and just try keep your ass out of this political crap.

Your logic:

* There are three viewpoints in politics.
* Steve is right.
* I shouldn't have an opinion.

Care to tell me why? A reasonable, logical argument would be appreciated, not this facey 'you're wrong cuz I don't like what you say' BS

 

[Brassm0nkey]

The bottom line is that scientists are very much devided on the issue of global warming. There is very little agreement on wether global warming is even a threat, and even less agreement on what the possible effects might be. We just don't know. So, while there may be plenty of reason to not like Bush, I don't see how this could possibly be one of them. In the very least, he is deciding not to take drastic action to prevent an event we are not sure will happen.


Now, I'm willing to believe global warming is a possible threat, but it is certainly not an immediate one. Forget what you saw in Day After Tomarrow. If it is a threat I agree we should act as soon as possible, but I very much doubt that if we end up in an ice-age 300 years from now we will look back and blame bush's administration. His decisions really wont have that big of an impact.

Thats just my view on the subject.


Please don't reference me to various links of scientists saying global warming is an imminent threat. I assure you I have seen them already. I have even seen the report saying much of europe will be in an ice age in 50 years and so on. They are interesting studies, but not conclusive. There are just as many scientists doing just as rigorous studies and saying global warming is non-existant. We really don't know yet.

 

[burner69]

Considering there is MOUNTAINS of research (which I won't throw at you) showing that C02 emmisions are destroying the effectiveness of the ozone layer, I find your statement quite surprising.

Add to that the correlation between rising pollution and rising temperatures.

The fact that there is an argument to say C02 does not add to the greenhouse effect is not justification for ignoring an issue that can potentially make the world uninhabitable... in the future, I don't pretend to know when... and yes, DAT is a bit OTT to say the least.

I'm astounded people are admitting they have seen the information, but just don't think its reason enough to reduce pollution.

BrassMonkey has been the only one so far to actually begin to debate.

People's willingness to ignore crucial issues in the world, and slag off people who try and raise the issues is frightening.

 

[Steve]

What has f9/11 got to do with this? I haven't seen it.

*sigh*

Okay, in your post, you say something like "i don't understand anybody who can look at these and not think bush is a bad guy" or whatever. This implies that you believe people's opinions can be changed based on what someone else tells them.

I used the public response to Farenheit 9/11 (not the movie itself) as a general example to show that it's actually very difficult to change people's opinions, because the movie (in most cases) did nothing but strengthen the opinions that people already had (whichever side of the issue they were on).

All I'm saying is that in this day in age, you can throw all the facts/opinions/rhetoric/hair dryers/whatever you want at a person but the only person who can change their opinion is THEM. It wasn't a personal attack directed at you. It wasn't "holy crap, this thread is stupid". It was a commentary on the skepticism of the modern american, the reluctance of people to believe what other people tell them unless it supports their point, and the division of America and how it's not going to sway too much one way or the other no matter how much proof you can come up on whether or not Bush is a bad person/President.

Considering there is MOUNTAINS of research (which I won't throw at you) showing that C02 emmisions are destroying the effectiveness of the ozone layer, I find your statement quite surprising.

This is exactly my point. No matter how much evidence there is, no matter how true it is, no matter how blatantly-the-snake-just-bit-you-on-the-ass obvious it is, people are reluctant to change their views. It's unfortunate, but it's the sad reality.

 

[Brassm0nkey]

My stance on this issue isn't very strong, so if I really had time to engage this debate and duke it out with you, you would most likely end up changing my views. I might do that later tonight when I have the free time.

I'm all for cutting down pollution, global warming or no global warming. I wish the people in power were as eager to introduce a new, cheaper, and cleaner power source as the people who are developing them. That would accomplish far more than Kyoto even strives for. Even if we decided to initiate a program to begin harvesting helium3 from the moon within 10 years, that would be a much bigger step IMO than the Kyoto treaty. That type of pollution prevention is what we need to strive for, IMO.

 

[burner69]

To try and get a worthwhile debate out of this I'll adjust my stance a little, for the sake of this thread.

In light of Brassmonkeys post I've been reading a little into the view that global warming may not be attributed to human activity, and now raise the question...

Why is Bush tossing aside the argument without performing any, or at least performing very little, research - particularly if you consider that if global warming IS happening, which the majority of the scientific community believes is true, then it WILL have a catestrophic effect on the planet.

Rather than saying 'there is doubt on the matter', why don't we invest more money in trying to prove this?

 

[burner69]

Steve, this thread was not intended to swing opinion. It is to bring about a debate in the matter. My hatred of bush is my belief - but I do like expanding my knowledge about subject areas around it, which is why I want to see what other peoples views are, so I can research into them and make informed opinions.

As brassmonkey showed another side of the argument, I looked into it, and now have a wider knowledge on the subject.

I debate to gain information, not to piss people off. Of course my personal opinions will come through, along with the information that created this opinion. I'd like to see the same from others.

My apologies if I offended you, it was just that I interpretted your post as a dismissal of my opinion without any backing -- yet it seems we were just on different wave lengths, so I take back what I said previously about you :cheers:

 

[HunterSeeker]

Even if Global Warming wont happen until 300 years for now it might be to late to do anything against it even in a 100 years. IMO we should do as much as possible to reduce polution even if finding a clean powersource would be a good milestone to strive for.

Besides I would not be suprised if we do find a good powersource (Generates twice the power of oil, cheaper AND cleaner) within the next year bush would probubly try to keep it down to help his buddies AKA the oil companies.

 

[Steve]

My apologies if I offended you, it was just that I interpretted your post as a dismissal of my opinion without any backing -- yet it seems we were just on different wave lengths, so I take back what I said previously about you :cheers:

Cool beans, dude. (Oh, and by the way, I wholeheartedly agree with your opinion on Bush). Hey, catch me later; I'll buy you a beer! :cheers:

 

[Tr0n]

Your logic:

* There are three viewpoints in politics.
* Steve is right.
* I shouldn't have an opinion.

Care to tell me why? A reasonable, logical argument would be appreciated, not this facey 'you're wrong cuz I don't like what you say' BS

I don't give a damn...remember?

 

[Gray Fox]

The day after tomorrow helped Bush more than any fake anti-global warming report ever could, I can't believe how anyone with half a brain can watch that movie and think that that happens with global warming, or even think that what happend there happens in real life in decades, what you saw happen in that movie takes in real life hundreds if not thousands of years, that movie is so rediculus, it's the most rediculus movie ever made, I'd rather watch Spice Girls the movie.

 

[Steve]

The day after tomorrow helped Bush more than any fake anti-global warming report ever could, I can't believe how anyone with half a brain can watch that movie and think that that happens with global warming, or even think that what happend there happens in real life in decades, what you saw happen in that movie takes in real life hundreds if not thousands of years, that movie is so rediculus, it's the most rediculus movie ever made, I'd rather watch Spice Girls the movie.

It's a MOVIE. So you don't like any movies that aren't completely factual?

 

[Gray Fox]

Nah, it's not like that, though I can understand your critisizm about me. But tell me, don't you agree that that movie was beyond rediculus, and the thing that makes it that is especially tha fact that they have taken something serious like global warming and turned it in to this, I mean you could say star wars is more rediculus but you can't really compare tham to each other, sw doesn't pretend to represent something real.

And don't you agree that it made a lot of people who believe global warming is real look like fools in the eyes of people who think like bush about the enviorment, and don't you agree that The day after tomorrow helped Bush more than any fake anti-global warming report ever could.

 

[The Monkey]

I've had some rather intersting discussion today too. But that was more about which is best of Communism and Liberalism. And yes, it was a serious discussion. There are many good sides of Communism too, even if it sometimes it's hard to see. But I was speaking for Liberalism, so don't worry. And yes, Bush is an arse.

 

[Steve]

But tell me, don't you agree that that movie was beyond rediculus, and the thing that makes it that is especially tha fact that they have taken something serious like global warming and turned it in to this.

Oh, the movie probably left tons of geologists and meteorologists in tears with its ridiculousness, no doubt.

Now, I understand where you're coming from. Certainly making global warming out to be something that fantastic (root word = fantasy) made a few people say, "That's so stupid! Nothing like that could ever happen! Global warming is total bullshit!" And certainly it would be ammo for making people who speak out against global warming look stupid (i.e. "Are you saying that hundreds of giant tornados, tidal waves a thousand feet high, and air that freezes anything it touches on contact might kill us all if we don't stop driving our cars? Well, sir, I find that just a little hard to believe.").

However, I think that any rational person can look at it and say, "Hey, that was a movie. It didn't really contain any scientific evidence. I shouldn't let it influence my opinion on the issue."

 

[burner69]

Even if Global Warming wont happen until 300 years for now it might be to late to do anything against it even in a 100 years. IMO we should do as much as possible to reduce polution even if finding a clean powersource would be a good milestone to strive for.

Besides I would not be suprised if we do find a good powersource (Generates twice the power of oil, cheaper AND cleaner) within the next year bush would probubly try to keep it down to help his buddies AKA the oil companies.

Well said.

And I've HEARD, though it would be next to impossible to get proof, that the oil/plastic/fuel industries have all the patents on the cheaper, cleaner alternatives, and simply aren't using them because its far more profitable to keep selling the bad stuff.

Many people, including myself, believe the unsubstantiated illegality of cannabis remains for the sole reason that it can be used as a cheaper, clean, oil substitute, biomass fuel and biodegradable packaging.

I think a lot of things boil down to profit, and its sad. Roll on socialism.

 

[Ennui]

However, I think that any rational person can look at it and say, "Hey, that was a movie. It didn't really contain any scientific evidence. I shouldn't let it influence my opinion on the issue."

Thats exactly what I said when I watched it

"Do you mean to suggest these events are... interconnected?" - One of the meteorologists in it.

Not very well written, so the story didn't really have much convincing power to me.

 

[Bodacious]

I think people need to take a deep breath and just wait calmly for environmental legislation to pass.

It might take 50 or more years, but it will.

America has always been progressive in many differnt ways. Republicans won't be in power forever.

 

[Steve]

You know what I just remembered? You'll absolutely LOVE this, burner69.

Recently, the EPA made it mandatory for all the gas stations in Baton Rouge to use that new low-pollutant gasoline, saying that it would "help dramatically reduce the air pollution in Baton Rouge, since the cause of most of the pollution in Baton Rouge is from automobile emissions."

You may or may not know this, but Baton Rouge's Exxon oil refinery is one of the biggest in the nation, and you know that ****er has got to kick out more pollution than a couple hundred thousand cars (especially on the weekends, because the EPA only monitors Monday through Friday).

But noooooo, our pollution is completely attributable to automobile emissions.

*sigh*

 

[burner69]

You know what I just remembered? You'll absolutely LOVE this, burner69.

Recently, the EPA made it mandatory for all the gas stations in Baton Rouge to use that new low-pollutant gasoline, saying that it would "help dramatically reduce the air pollution in Baton Rouge, since the cause of most of the pollution in Baton Rouge is from automobile emissions."

You may or may not know this, but Baton Rouge's Exxon oil refinery is one of the biggest in the nation, and you know that ****er has got to kick out more pollution than a couple hundred thousand cars (especially on the weekends, because the EPA only monitors Monday through Friday).

But noooooo, our pollution is completely attributable to automobile emissions.

*sigh*

A lot of emphasis is put on the average joe helping stop global warming, turning lights out, switching fuels etc... when it really makes bugger all difference.

 

[Steve]

A lot of emphasis is put on the average joe helping stop global warming, turning lights out, switching fuels etc... when it really makes bugger all difference.

Right. I just hate how they can be so stupid as to say that it's car emissions when there's a giant oil refinery in the north of town and it goes unmonitored for 2 days a week.

 

[Kangy]

A lot of emphasis is put on the average joe helping stop global warming, turning lights out, switching fuels etc... when it really makes bugger all difference.

If people stopped eating so much meat it'd be a lot better.

Jungle is destroyed for farm land and packaging, but it doesn't last long because the nutrients in the ground are gone, so nothin grows to feed the animals... more jungle is gone... all that beef and plant matter has to be transported to foreign factories...

and without all that jungle, there's less plant matter to soak up all those dodgy emissions.

People can either stop eating meat, or accept more expensive meat prices.

 

[nib]

Normally I'd not waste my time because you're not going to change my mind and I'm not going to change yours on this topic but I have a couple general comments.

1) Kyoto was bad for the US, period. That's why Congress was against it too. At it's root, kyoto punishes the US and let's other "developing" countries off scot free. Even their own chart shows a rather telling state (taken from one of your links:

The USA EU Countries China Total
Population of world: 4.6% 6.3% 21% 31.9%
World economy: 30% 23% 3.2% 56.2%
CO2 Emissions: 24% 14% 13% 51%

Notice that the US makes up 30% of the world economy. You know, we produce more shit and thus, burn more fuel. Not hard to figure out, and not terribly surprising. We could simply stop producing so much dang stuff I guess. And I'm sure the left wouldn't be all over GW for the "unprecidented job loss" now would they?

Furthermore, if you really are open minded about the topic (which I doubt), then here is another view of kyoto:
http://www.ct-yankee.com/manfctry/kyoto.html

If you don't want to read it, I'll summarize. Kyoto doesn't affect all countries, only "industrialized" nations. So what happens when "industrialized nations" are hit with crazy regulations? Exactly what is happening RIGHT FREAKING NOW THAT PEOPLE ARE COMPLAINGING ABOUT! Industry will move elsewhere, like China, where the Kyoto treaty doesn't apply. So, in fact, all the Kyoto treaty is is a veiled attempt at hurting the US economy.

2) Who's the number 1 polluter in Washington state right now? That's right MOTHER FREAKING NATURE. Perhaps we should regulate volcanoes?

3) On global warming. I have one question I usually ask the people that are having panic attacks over global warming. The earth has had ice ages, correct? What ended them? SUVs? Big bad oil factories? The combustion engine? Which current evil that is blamed for global warming is responsbile for ending the ice ages of our world's past? Or maybe, just maybe, is it possible that the earth goes through cycles and warms and cools all by its self and we are going through a warming cyle? In fact, and I wish I could find it, if you look at the average temperature of the earth over thousands of years, we are in a cool period so we're due a warming anyway.

4) Cities like NY and London are cleaner than they were 100 years ago, despite cars and whatnot. Technology WILL solve our pollution problem. No need to destroy world commerce in the process.

5) Why is it that people like Al Gore, who are serious enviornmental freaks, don't see the hypocrisy of flying all over the world in a jumbo jet burning more fuel than I will in a lifetime to warn the world of the environmental dangers of burning fossil fules?
LINK: http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=316
As usual, the left wants little old me that drives my 1 SUV and my Nissan Altima to be punished and totally alter my lifestyle due to their stupid regulations and unfounded fears about the environement while they still trot around in their limos, jets and SUV motorcades. Sorry, I don't buy that.

Is pollution bad? Sure. Should sensible things be done about it? Sure. Is it all George Bush's fault? Of course not.

 

[burner69]

Thanks, and yes I did read your article and found it very interesting.

You won't find me debating you on any topics cuz I agree with them. Simple as that.

However, more resources do need to be put into looking into alternative resources, which are often cheaper, and cleaner than the current ones. Oil barrels prices would soar, sure, but the cost of alternate oil substitutes would shoot down, down, down.

America is obligued to put the funding into this research because it is the biggest economy and subsequently is producing the most pollution. It seems fair to lay the responsibility of finding out on americas back.


*Actually, there are a few points: We're assuming that just cuz we've had change in the past, this change is ok now. Suppose the current rise is caused by human influence, and THEN the planet starts warming naturally. That could be bad.

* Catalytic converters on volcanoes? But seriously, again, just cuz there are other causes, dosen't remove our responsibility to make sure we aren't endangering our planet.

 

[nib]

However, more resources do need to be put into looking into alternative resources, which are often cheaper, and cleaner than the current ones. Oil barrels prices would soar, sure, but the cost of alternate oil substitutes would shoot down, down, down.

Actually, oil prices would drop if alternative sources were found. Laws of economics. Give people options and prices drop.

America is obligued to put the funding into this research because it is the biggest economy and subsequently is producing the most pollution. It seems fair to lay the responsibility of finding out on americas back.

I did a quick search but couldnt' find any numbers, but do you actually know that the US doesn't spend more than anyone else? If i had to guess I'd say that we probably do spend more than any other country fighting pollution but I couldn't find any numbers (one way or ther other) after a quick google search and I'm about to head home so I'm not going to look anymore.

*Actually, there are a few points: We're assuming that just cuz we've had change in the past, this change is ok now. Suppose the current rise is caused by human influence, and THEN the planet starts warming naturally. That could be bad.

So you want to decapitate the US economy "just in case"? That's my point here. If you look at trends, warming (and cooling) is a natural cycle of the earth. Why the sudden panic now? Why the world-wide demand to stifle us economic power in the name of pollution? Moreover, I'm not sure how old you are, but do some research back into the 70's on what environmental issues were, I think you'd be surprised.

* Catalytic converters on volcanoes? But seriously, again, just cuz there are other causes, dosen't remove our responsibility to make sure we aren't endangering our planet.

My point is that Mother Nature spews out this crap too. The earth is designed to absorb it.

But, here is another general observation (kinda going back to my earlier comment about looking up what the environmental scare of the 70's was). Think of all the "environmental crisis" we've been told to panic over in the past, and how wrong they've all been:

1) Starvation: There was supposed to be some sort of world food shortage due to population growth in the 80's, never happened. In fact, obesity is a problem.

2) Global Cooling: That's right, back in the 70's the earth was supposed to be cooling too much (of course it was because of evil corporations and pollution) and we were heading for an Ice Age.

3) Ozone Hole: First it was growing, spelling the end of our ability to live outside since it blocked UV rays. Magically we don't hear much about it anymore since the hole shrunk back up. Again, natural earht cycles.

3) Now it is Global Warming.

It is getting old. You can only cry wolf so many freaking times.

And, for the record, I appreciated your calm response (not what I expected) which is why I continued the debate. I enjoy having these kinds of discussions with folks when it doesn't turn into a flame war.

 

[burner69]

Well I must admit my view has certainly shifted on this subject a lot.

Yet I think my only reservation with what's going on today is the idea that we're saying we THINK we'll be okay, and I'd much rather KNOW we'll be fine, before we continue polluting.

Also there's the fact that, just cuz we're not affecting global temperature, we're still doing other things; polluting rivers which do kill animals and often harm human health, creating acid rain which damages trees and plants, deforestation - we still need oxygen and littering the place.

My problem with this is global, and would like to see a lot more done to stop it, especially when many ways to stop them are known, and patented, they're just not being put into practise.

Hey, no worries bout it - being an ignorant p*ick when debating is pointless, you don't get ur opinion across, and don't pick up other peoples; it's all about expanding knowledge, lets keep it up :cheers:

 

[nib]

Well, I'm totally in agreement that pollution should be kept to a reasonible minimum. That's a no brainer. And, honestly, the US has done a remarkable job at lowering pollution. Even LA has had improved air quality lately.

The thing that caught my attention in this thread was your original stance that George Bush was such an evil man because of Kyoto. Once you start investigating Kyoto, the consequences and even the motivation of most of the people involve, you (at least I) can easily come to the conclusion that no amount of pollution cleanup is worth the sacrifices it would force on the US.

Anyway, I've enjoyed the discussion.

 

[burner69]

Well, I'm totally in agreement that pollution should be kept to a reasonible minimum. That's a no brainer. And, honestly, the US has done a remarkable job at lowering pollution. Even LA has had improved air quality lately.

The thing that caught my attention in this thread was your original stance that George Bush was such an evil man because of Kyoto. Once you start investigating Kyoto, the consequences and even the motivation of most of the people involve, you (at least I) can easily come to the conclusion that no amount of pollution cleanup is worth the sacrifices it would force on the US.

Anyway, I've enjoyed the discussion.

Meh, I just think Bush is a c**t anyway, many reasons. I'd been reading a good few articles in UK papers about it - there was very little saying that it might not actually be worth anything.

I'd still like to see Bush, and indeed any country, explain why they aren't using the cleaner alternatives to certain things which would drastically reduce the pollution situation at no cost to the average joe - infact itd be cheaper for us... or maybe... hmm... *conspiracy theory* :upstare:

Enjoyed discussing too

 

[K e r b e r o s]

So you condone damaging the planet based on the idea that not doing so is bad for buisness? Are you saying the pollution levels are lies? That America is not the biggest polluter on the planet? That bush ISN'T ignoring the Kyoto agreement?

What has f9/11 got to do with this? I haven't seen it.

If you can't come up with a reasonable way to debate this, then don't respond.

See, this is why God [Valve] invented Half-Life 2 Deathmatch. Im off to go throw a toilet at you, Burner. Be.Ware.!

 

[CptStern]

people today are so skeptical (ignorant,naive, rely on blind faith) they can find a way to weasel out of believing any factual evidence.

I fixed it but it's still the most poignant statement here

 

[seinfeldrules]

Nib, your first post was one of the most informative I have read on this message board in a long time. Bravo. :cheers:

 

[burner69]

See, this is why God [Valve] invented Half-Life 2 Deathmatch. Im off to go throw a toilet at you, Burner. Be.Ware.!

Hehe, resolve politics with a gravity gun - ur on

 

[Steve]

I fixed it but it's still the most poignant statement here

Thanks for that, CptStern, that's a lot closer to what I was trying to get at.