Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
UN beleives that natural disaters aren't natural; Blames America for them
Topic Started: Jan 21 2005, 02:41 PM (1,007 Views)
doctortobe
Speak softly, and carry a 57 megaton stick!
Yes, once they have to live through a couple of years of high oil energy prices, the environmentalists that rail against nuclear plants will suddenly and mysteriously go silent.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
doctortobe
Jan 23 2005, 05:13 PM
Yes, once they have to live through a couple of years of high oil energy prices, the environmentalists that rail against nuclear plants will suddenly and mysteriously go silent.

Will they ?

Did they during the last oil-shock ?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ds9074
Jan 22 2005, 03:59 PM


Those 4 countries ahead of you should cut their emissions. Country 33 should cut its emissions. However as the largest single polluter in overall terms its crucial that the USA cuts its emissions as well. Why should we be doing our bit while you carry on polluting.

You do realize that the United States manufactures over thirty percent of the world's products, right? We are less than five percent of the population.

This country is surprisingly CLEAN, all things considered.

You also realize that China has said that it will NEVER abide by the Kyoto Treaty, right?
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 24 2005, 08:00 AM
ds9074
Jan 22 2005, 03:59 PM


Those 4 countries ahead of you should cut their emissions. Country 33 should cut its emissions. However as the largest single polluter in overall terms its crucial that the USA cuts its emissions as well. Why should we be doing our bit while you carry on polluting.

You do realize that the United States manufactures over thirty percent of the world's products, right? We are less than five percent of the population.

This country is surprisingly CLEAN, all things considered.

You also realize that China has said that it will NEVER abide by the Kyoto Treaty, right?

Actually , I believe you are overstating the production output of the USA , I'll check later maybe and see.

As to the chinese , and the indians (don't forget them) , they might or might not come on board , depends on how much pressure they recieve internally because of people being made ill or dying prematurely due to pollution. Chinese and Indian industry is growing at an incredible rate , and it is doing this largely by installing the very best technologies. I know this because I stay abreast of the engineering literature (industry and professional ournals, conference proceedings and papers) relevant to process engineering, metallurgical process engineering relevant to iron , steel, alloys and light metals) , chemical engineering and materials engineering. Being an electrical engineer you can be forgiven for being ignorant of these things.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dandandat
Member Avatar
Time to put something here
What does this:

Quote:
 
Chinese and Indian industry is growing at an incredible rate , and it is doing this largely by installing the very best technologies. I know this because I stay abreast of the engineering literature (industry and professional ournals, conference proceedings and papers) relevant to process engineering, metallurgical process engineering relevant to iron , steel, alloys and light metals) , chemical engineering and materials engineering. Being an electrical engineer you can be forgiven for being ignorant of these things.



have to do with this:

Quote:
 
As to the chinese , and the indians (don't forget them) , they might or might not come on board , depends on how much pressure they recieve internally because of people being made ill or dying prematurely due to pollution.


and what does it have to do with this:

AB
 
You also realize that China has said that it will NEVER abide by the Kyoto Treaty, right?


You know if you have to pat your self on the back it usually means no one else thinks you disserve it.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
Jan 24 2005, 08:02 AM
Actually ,  I believe you are overstating the production output of the USA , I'll check later maybe and see.

No, I am not.

Check all you want.

As for Chinese and Indian industry, they are about as low tech as you can get to manufacture what they do. They spend the least possible amount on pollution control and safety, just like any third world country with a massive labor force.

It is a rare day when Beijing is not shrouded in coal smog.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 24 2005, 11:04 AM
somerled
Jan 24 2005, 08:02 AM
Actually ,  I believe you are overstating the production output of the USA , I'll check later maybe and see.

No, I am not.

Check all you want.

As for Chinese and Indian industry, they are about as low tech as you can get to manufacture what they do. They spend the least possible amount on pollution control and safety, just like any third world country with a massive labor force.

It is a rare day when Beijing is not shrouded in coal smog.

Take a look at journals such as Metallurgical Plant and Technology International and you might just learn something about how "low" tech their industries are.

Their problem is that they don't bother scrubbing their emissions and it's concentrated in a few mega-large cities - but wait you don't know what a scrubber is do you.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
Jan 24 2005, 11:11 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 24 2005, 11:04 AM
somerled
Jan 24 2005, 08:02 AM
Actually ,  I believe you are overstating the production output of the USA , I'll check later maybe and see.

No, I am not.

Check all you want.

As for Chinese and Indian industry, they are about as low tech as you can get to manufacture what they do. They spend the least possible amount on pollution control and safety, just like any third world country with a massive labor force.

It is a rare day when Beijing is not shrouded in coal smog.

Take a look at journals such as Metallurgical Plant and Technology International and you might just learn something about how "low" tech their industries are.

Their problem is that they don't bother scrubbing their emissions and it's concentrated in a few mega-large cities - but wait you don't know what a scrubber is do you.

How about VISITING some of their industries... like shipyards and manufacturing plants??
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 24 2005, 01:00 PM
ds9074
Jan 22 2005, 03:59 PM


Those 4 countries ahead of you should cut their emissions. Country 33 should cut its emissions. However as the largest single polluter in overall terms its crucial that the USA cuts its emissions as well. Why should we be doing our bit while you carry on polluting.

You do realize that the United States manufactures over thirty percent of the world's products, right? We are less than five percent of the population.

This country is surprisingly CLEAN, all things considered.

You also realize that China has said that it will NEVER abide by the Kyoto Treaty, right?

Its irrelevant, current levels of emissions are too high. They need to fall far and fast. Thats not just the US that is a global effort. We need a mechanism put in place which will ensure this happens.

Two interesting reports are due on this issue this week. The first is set to outline that with around 20 years modelling is now showing that climate change will become irreversable with human time frames. The second is due to say that models are showing that the potential affects of climate change could be far more drastic than previously predicted. The average temperature rise needed to cause these global climate shifts - as little as 2 degrees C
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ds9074
Jan 24 2005, 11:17 PM

Its irrelevant, current levels of emissions are too high. They need to fall far and fast. Thats not just the US that is a global effort. We need a mechanism put in place which will ensure this happens.


Fine, then tell China and India to cut their emissions FIRST. We're not playing games with our economy for an unproven theory.

Also, twenty years of modeling is useless. A century of modeling doesn't do jack squat. We can't predict the weather next week, for Pete's sake!
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ds9074
Member Avatar
Admiral
Well if everyone waits for the next country to cut its emissions I guess we arent going to get anywhere. You realise the potential damage to your economy from climate change is far in excess of the costs of implimenting cuts in greenhouse gases. Yes it is still a theory but one which is gathering an ever more solid base of evidence behind it. As Government, business and universities expend time and resources on its study we are going to know more.

Climate modelling is an extremly useful way of predicting how the climate is going to evolve. This is a case where a common sense approach fails and you actually need to have some uncommon sense to realise why there is a big difference between weather forcasting and long term climate forcasts. Weather forcasting is a very specific model of meterological conditions and actually, providing you have the right equipment and people, is very acurate indeed. This kind of forcasting is also done extremley quickly based on data comming in from monitoring stations. Climate modelling has far far less definition and is looking at the whole planet climate - not whether their is going to be rain on the afternoon of 25 Jan 2050 in London! It is done using supercomputers and can take years to complete the model. You really cannot compare one to the other.

At the moment we have a theory with a sizable chunk of evidence and the risks if it is correct are massive, far more than the costs of doing something about it.

I thought you would be in favour of applying the precautionary principle. After all we had a theory based on a fair amount of evidence that Saddam Hussain had WMD. We didnt know for sure, but the decision makers decided the risk of him having WMD and passing them to terrorists was great enough to outweight the costs of invasion. It was a precautionary action. I will tell you this, Climate Change is potentially far more dangerous than any WMD Saddam might have had.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
To be honest, here's the US position.

"We're tired of being the whipping boy for everything that might go wrong with the world. We know this is a farce. You know this is a farce. Go **** yourselves."

Also, a comparison between supposed climate change and Saddam Hussein (who has actually USED WMD's) is simply false. Why don't you compare climate change to the flavor of french fries (chips) from McDonalds versus the artery clogging property? It would have as much merit.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
somerled
Member Avatar
Admiral MacDonald RN
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 25 2005, 10:20 AM
To be honest, here's the US position.

"We're tired of being the whipping boy for everything that might go wrong with the world. We know this is a farce. You know this is a farce. Go **** yourselves."

Also, a comparison between supposed climate change and Saddam Hussein (who has actually USED WMD's) is simply false. Why don't you compare climate change to the flavor of french fries (chips) from McDonalds versus the artery clogging property? It would have as much merit.

We all see now - application of precautionary principles are only valid if they -
1. help the oil industry
2. take the form of military action against other countries
3. help the oil industry
4. help the USA military industries (all those bullets , bombs , missiles , trucks , humvees and guns have be replaced - and all those industries happen to in swing states)
5. help the oil industry
6. help american companies.
7. and oh , did I mention , help the oil industry.

Bill, you and your government are hypercrites.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Dr. Noah
Sistertrek's Asian Correspondant
Actually, I stayed in Beijing for a few days. The air is clean, I didn't have any trouble breathing there and I climbed a freaking mountain there during 90 degree heat.

Now LA on the other hand...........I had to take 2 allergy pills a day or I would have sneezing fits and watery eyes.
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
somerled
Jan 25 2005, 09:32 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Jan 25 2005, 10:20 AM
To be honest, here's the US position.

"We're tired of being the whipping boy for everything that might go wrong with the world. We know this is a farce. You know this is a farce. Go **** yourselves."

Also, a comparison between supposed climate change and Saddam Hussein (who has actually USED WMD's) is simply false. Why don't you compare climate change to the flavor of french fries (chips) from McDonalds versus the artery clogging property? It would have as much merit.

We all see now - application of precautionary principles are only valid if they -
1. help the oil industry
2. take the form of military action against other countries
3. help the oil industry
4. help the USA military industries (all those bullets , bombs , missiles , trucks , humvees and guns have be replaced - and all those industries happen to in swing states)
5. help the oil industry
6. help american companies.
7. and oh , did I mention , help the oil industry.

Bill, you and your government are hypercrites.

What complete and utter bull$h!t.

You damned well know it.

Global warming will be proven to be a hoax, and you'll all be slapping your heads and saying, "Look at the money we wasted."

Wait and see. Your anti-capitalism rant was rather amusing, though. :yes:
Offline | Profile | Quote | ^
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
ZetaBoards gives you all the tools to create a successful discussion community.
Learn More · Sign-up for Free
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus