U.N.: U.S. climate role 'critical'

[Gunny]

BALI, Indonesia (AP) -- World powers meeting at a U.N. climate change conference in Indonesia this week won't be able to craft a meaningful plan to address global warming without cooperation from the United States, the top emitter of greenhouse gases, the U.N.'s climate chief said Sunday.

The United States refused to sign the last major international treaty on reducing greenhouse gases, undermining its effectiveness.

Delegates from 190 nations will gather on the resort island of Bali on Monday for one of the largest global warming conferences ever, bringing together about 10,000 people including Hollywood luminaries, former Vice President Al Gore, fishermen and drought-stricken farmers for two weeks of marathon discussions.

more ... http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/asiapcf/12/02/bali.climate.un.ap/index.html

Idiots. How can they have a plan when they don't even know what the cause is?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Idiots. How can they have a plan when they don't even know what the cause is?

They do not even know how much man contributes either. Evidence is overwhelming but ignored that the SUN is a big cause. I mean come on EVERY planet has increased in temperature but we are to believe MAN is the cause on earth.

 

[maineman]

They do not even know how much man contributes either. Evidence is overwhelming but ignored that the SUN is a big cause. I mean come on EVERY planet has increased in temperature but we are to believe MAN is the cause on earth.

do you have some data showing increases in the temperatures on Mercury? Uranus? Saturn? I've not seem them.

 

[Annie]

They do not even know how much man contributes either. Evidence is overwhelming but ignored that the SUN is a big cause. I mean come on EVERY planet has increased in temperature but we are to believe MAN is the cause on earth.

It's all about the $$$. They want to spend something like $160 billion in x # of years, with the US contributing over $80 b. Of course the UN with their trusty shredders, would control all dollars. We needed to pull out of UN, yesterday.

 

[Diuretic]

You know folks, you have to get behind this. I don't know why the ideological opposition, no-one is trying to bankrupt you, just trying to keep the poor old planet from cooking!

 

[Gunny]

You know folks, you have to get behind this. I don't know why the ideological opposition, no-one is trying to bankrupt you, just trying to keep the poor old planet from cooking!

Get behind WHAT?

I'm STILL awaiting a defnitive answer on what is causing global warming. THEN you can talk to me about fixing it, IF it can be fixed.

You don't know why there's opposition? Real simple. First the horse, THEN the cart.

 

[Annie]

Get behind WHAT?

I'm STILL awaiting a defnitive answer on what is causing global warming. THEN you can talk to me about fixing it, IF it can be fixed.

You don't know why there's opposition? Real simple. First the horse, THEN the cart.

I know. Somehow I have deja vu remembering the warnings on saccarine, coffee, chocolate, aspertame, eggs, apples...

 

[Diuretic]

Get behind WHAT?

I'm STILL awaiting a defnitive answer on what is causing global warming. THEN you can talk to me about fixing it, IF it can be fixed.

You don't know why there's opposition? Real simple. First the horse, THEN the cart.

If you were shown the definitive answer, how would you know it was such?

 

[Diuretic]

I know. Somehow I have deja vu remembering the warnings on saccarine, coffee, chocolate, aspertame, eggs, apples...

Your forgot sugar, alcohol, tobacco and lots of other things that affect individuals. This is about something that affects our total environment. I mean I can choose to ignore warnings about chocolate (and you can put money on it that I will ) but when it comes to the total environment then I think we owe it to each other to take notice as it will affect us all and of course our descendants.

 

[Annie]

If you were shown the definitive answer, how would you know it was such?

Here's my problem with the 'models.' Our NOAH is like among the best weather projection organizations out there. I think even Podunk, AK uses Doppler. Can they predict within 2 degrees the absolute temperature 48 hours from now? Based on what are we to curb our industries, lifestyles? Using data that goes back about 100 years, that used far less precise measures than we are using today?

It just doesn't make sense other than, "It's for the children..." *angst*

 

[onedomino]

Get behind WHAT?

I'm STILL awaiting a defnitive answer on what is causing global warming. THEN you can talk to me about fixing it, IF it can be fixed.

You don't know why there's opposition? Real simple. First the horse, THEN the cart.

In Australia, Rudd, a Socialist, was recently elected running on a platform of socializing the means of production and distribution, pulling combat soldiers out of Iraq, signing the old DOA Kyoto protocol, and rolling back the last decade's labor and free market reforms.

 

[Diuretic]

Here's my problem with the 'models.' Our NOAH is like among the best weather projection organizations out there. I think even Podunk, AK uses Doppler. Can they predict within 2 degrees the absolute temperature 48 hours from now? Based on what are we to curb our industries, lifestyles? Using data that goes back about 100 years, that used far less precise measures than we are using today?

It just doesn't make sense other than, "It's for the children..." *angst*

It's actually for the whales but since the Japanese are going to kill them all it doesn't matter <very heavy sarcasm

I think, with all due respect to the meteorological folks in Podunk, AK who are probably freezing their arses off about now, that the difference is between "weather" and "climate". One is variable but reasonably predictable in short to medium ranges and the other is not so variable but can be predicted to change based on long-term factors and probably by extrapolation based on previous long-term observations. Fact is we're (and Aus is the largest producer of CO2 emissions per capita) having a deleterious effect on climate and it's getting to the point of being non-reversible. I'm not arguing for a total shut-down of civilisation as we know it, I'm really cheesed off with some of the more nutty climate extremists who want me to live in a bloody tree house in the jungle but I will take heed of sober scientists who are not enviro-wankers.

 

[Diuretic]

In Australia, Rudd, a Socialist, was recently elected running on a platform of socializing the means of production and distribution, pulling combat soldiers out of Iraq, signing the old DOA Kyoto protocol, and rolling back the last decade's labor and free market reforms.

Rubbish. Rudd isn't a socialist. There'll be no socialising of the means of production (remember the coda to the original part of the platform, you pointed it out to me). As for the rest of your allegations, yes, out of Iraq when able, good; ratify a protocol we've already signed, good; sorting out the exploitative industrial relations reforms so that the bosses don't get to rule us, good. All good and we're looking forward to the PM and new government making sure all is well for us in a time of instability which is just around the corner (our current account deficit stinks). And Bali is good, Penny Wong and the PM and I think Peter Garrett will be going. No-one wants to see the end of progress, we just want to see that we're able to think about progress by sorting out the climate change issues.

 

[Annie]

It's actually for the whales but since the Japanese are going to kill them all it doesn't matter <very heavy sarcasm

I think, with all due respect to the meteorological folks in Podunk, AK who are probably freezing their arses off about now, that the difference is between "weather" and "climate". One is variable but reasonably predictable in short to medium ranges and the other is not so variable but can be predicted to change based on long-term factors and probably by extrapolation based on previous long-term observations. Fact is we're (and Aus is the largest producer of CO2 emissions per capita) having a deleterious effect on climate and it's getting to the point of being non-reversible. I'm not arguing for a total shut-down of civilisation as we know it, I'm really cheesed off with some of the more nutty climate extremists who want me to live in a bloody tree house in the jungle but I will take heed of sober scientists who are not enviro-wankers.

Well I'll not call you a nutter. I call myself a skeptic, partially based on the likes of Al Gore spouting off on things he really knows little about, scaring the bejeezus out of many, while making lots and lots of green on his carbon credit programs. Then there is the fact that quite a few climatologists just don't agree with the science and not all of them are from the US.

On the other hand, do I drive a car that gets reasonable mileage? Do I keep the tires and upkeep where they should be? Do I drive more than I really need? (well sometimes) Other than that one exception, yes. On the other hand, will I just willy nilly vote for someone who wants to enforce an international protocol on US businesses and pay for credits when we don't meet those standards, ala France et al? No.

 

[onedomino]

Rubbish. Rudd isn't a socialist. There'll be no socialising of the means of production (remember the coda to the original part of the platform, you pointed it out to me). As for the rest of your allegations, yes, out of Iraq when able, good; ratify a protocol we've already signed, good; sorting out the exploitative industrial relations reforms so that the bosses don't get to rule us, good. All good and we're looking forward to the PM and new government making sure all is well for us in a time of instability which is just around the corner (our current account deficit stinks). And Bali is good, Penny Wong and the PM and I think Peter Garrett will be going. No-one wants to see the end of progress, we just want to see that we're able to think about progress by sorting out the climate change issues.

Rudd is a self-described Socialist (must I quote again his 2003 remarks that he is an "old fashioned Christian Socialist?") and he is the leader of a political party that contains Socialist objectives as part of it constitution. Should we not believe that Rudd represents the constitution of the Australian Labor Party? I do not think the members of the party would be pleased to hear that. From the 2007 Australian Labor Party Constitution: "The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields." That does not look like "rubbish" to me; it looks like Socialism plain and simple. You and Australia voted for that sentence, despite the fact that until I pointed it out to you after the election you did not think it was still a part of the ALP's constitution. And the added clause "to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields" is a miracle of obfuscation. Who gets to define these exploitations and anti-social features? The socialist ALP? Regarding Kyoto, one can only hope that the Australia's new PM reconsiders his ill-advised campaign promise. Signing the Kyoto protocol, where China and India are exempted, is meaningless. Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol and it was shot down in the US Senate 97 to 0.

 

[Diuretic]

Rudd is a self-described Socialist (must I quote again his 2003 remarks that he is an "old fashioned Christian Socialist?") and he is the leader of a political party that contains Socialist objectives as part of it constitution. Should we not believe that Rudd represents the constitution of the Australian Labor Party? I do not think the members of the party would be pleased to hear that. From the 2007 Australian Labor Party Constitution: "The Australian Labor Party is a democratic socialist party and has the objective of the democratic socialisation of industry, production, distribution and exchange, to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields." That does not look like "rubbish" to me; it looks like Socialism plain and simple. You and Australia voted for that sentence, despite the fact that until I pointed it out to you after the election you did not think it was still a part of the ALP's constitution. And the added clause "to the extent necessary to eliminate exploitation and other anti-social features in these fields" is a miracle of obfuscation. Who gets to define these exploitations and anti-social features? The socialist ALP? Regarding Kyoto, one can only hope that the ratification process in Australia is more realistic than the country's new PM. Signing the Kyoto protocol, where China and India are exempted, is flat-out crazy. Clinton signed the Kyoto Protocol and it was shot down in the US Senate 97 to 0. Perhaps the Australian Parliament will show more sense than Rudd and reject the maladaptive Kyoto Protocol.

Must I again explain the difference between Christian Socialism as a religious movement and socialism as a poitical/economic concept?

To remove exploitation, see that? This means that the aim is not to socialise the economy, rather socialism is a means of removing exploitation. Not that it matters but just pointing out the difference.

We signed the Kyoto protocol, it just wasn't ratified. Now the Bali conference is poised to add to it and possibly improve it. That's a good aim. It remains to be seen what happens.

 

[OrnotBitwise]

Idiots. How can they have a plan when they don't even know what the cause is?

I often ask the same of people ranting about Islamic Fundamentalism and securing our borders. They claim to have a plan yet remain steadfastly unwilling to even consider why it is that "they" seem to hate us.

The time to close the barn door is BEFORE the horses escape, not after. It's merely prudent to assume that we are indeed contributing significantly to the global warming trend; this is the conservative and, in this instance, most responsible tack.

It's always possible, of course, that the changes to atmospheric chemistry caused by our industrial byproducts do not influence the increase in global temperature to a significant degree. If that turns out to be the case, well, good. That would be roughly equivalent to falling out of a 4th floor window only to land in a truck full of loose cotton-balls. We'd be glad to be proven wrong but it would be foolish in the extreme to jump out of the window hoping that said truck will come by at just the right moment.

One trusts that you're not one of the panicky idiots who believe that limiting greenhouse gas emissions will ruin our economy. For those ding-a-lings logic and simple prudence do not apply, naturally. Chicken Little has to be shown that the sky is not falling.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I often ask the same of people ranting about Islamic Fundamentalism and securing our borders. They claim to have a plan yet remain steadfastly unwilling to even consider why it is that "they" seem to hate us.

The time to close the barn door is BEFORE the horses escape, not after. It's merely prudent to assume that we are indeed contributing significantly to the global warming trend; this is the conservative and, in this instance, most responsible tack.

It's always possible, of course, that the changes to atmospheric chemistry caused by our industrial byproducts do not influence the increase in global temperature to a significant degree. If that turns out to be the case, well, good. That would be roughly equivalent to falling out of a 4th floor window only to land in a truck full of loose cotton-balls. We'd be glad to be proven wrong but it would be foolish in the extreme to jump out of the window hoping that said truck will come by at just the right moment.

One trusts that you're not one of the panicky idiots who believe that limiting greenhouse gas emissions will ruin our economy. For those ding-a-lings logic and simple prudence do not apply, naturally. Chicken Little has to be shown that the sky is not falling.

You can not possibly be serious? We already limit emissions and continue to research newer and better ways to limit them even more. What the nutters want is curbs that have no basis in science or proven fact. They want billions spent on programs we do not even know have any effect what so ever on global warming.

It isn't a matter of falling out of a 4 story window and landing in truck full of foam. its a matter of not knowing what floor your on or whether the Fire escape you already have is not good enough.

Once again, Kyoto was and is the biggest Joke ever proposed and passed. None of the Countries that will shortly be the worst pollutors are even covered by it and I bet you none of them will be included in the next idiotic "treaty" either, exaclty WHO is going to make China do shit? Or India for that matter.

I bet you can't name the countries that ratified Kyoto and are actually living up to their Treaty obligations. Further even if EVERYONE covered ratified it and lived up to it it would be .7% change in 100 years. Thats right LESS than 1 percent.

There are countries already talking about scrapping Kyoto for the joke it is.

 

[Dustin]

Idiots. How can they have a plan when they don't even know what the cause is?

I don't see why we should have to sign something, when 1. We don't know if it is man caused, and 2. countries that are not "developed" don't have to reduce their emissions.