Posted on 05/12/2005 2:06:24 AM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
See post 5 for explanation
The failure of Kyoto is not the main concern, although Kyoto failed B/C U.S.A said no, the problem is the failure to ATTEMPT to do something.
But I respect your view.
Change is the essential process of all existence.
"Let That Be Your Last Battlefield," stardate 5730.2.
See post 50 - Scientists say that cleaner air will lead to global warming due to increased energy absorbed from the sun.
If we passed Kyoto, wouldn't we be making GW worse? If you say no, why not?
IMPORTANT NOTE!
My concern is NOT GW or anything of the sort, oil has burned on earth for millions of years.
my main concern is toxic gasses, GW is still not proven and we are currently in a period of time which historicly should be a time of temp. increase.
It would be illogical to assume that all conditions remain stable.
"The Enterprise" Incident," stardate 5027.3
The air is getting cleaner.
I see no evidence of that.
No. Kyoto is a failure with or without the participation of the United States.
Do you want to reduce human-produced CO2?
Make the NET producers of CO2 plant trees. China and India need to maintain forests in proportion to their CO2 production. The United States can do its part by maintaining its forests so that forest fires don't go out of control.
But Kyoto doesn't call for that. It only focuses on CO2 origins, not NET production. And it exempts over half of the world's population.
Kyoto is not about doing SOMETHING to help the environment. Its about money.
Your arguments of the tree's have been beaten flat long ago, and the sea is the highest produce of H2O and the place where most of the H20 goes to be stored, and it's stored not removed.
I'm prob. taking the weekend now, so have fun peeps.
but I leave you with these thoughts from Spock.
If I let go a hammer on a planet having a positive gravity, I need not see it fall to know that it has, in fact, fallen.
"Court Martial," stardate 2948.9.
There are many aspects of human irrationality I do not yet comprehend. Obsession, for one. The persistent single-minded fixation on one idea.
"Obsession," stardate 3619.6.
Without followers, evil cannot spread.
"And The Children Shall Lead," stardate 5029.5.
Cut her up; it's the right thing to do for your wife and child.
While I agree that electricity can be used more effectively, hydroelectric power is finite.. limited.. in the case of US power production, hydro contributes only a small percentage..Biofuels actually contribute more than hydro does..(1990 stats)
As for diesel, it's still grossly inefficient, but if you're going to use it, why waste the direct energy for producing electricity?
Diesel is a fuel created for transportation..why waste energy refining diesel when you can simply use the oil?
While none of my arguments hold ground under scrutiny, I would note you didn't seem to bother "scrutinizing" any of them.. just a blanket dismissal..
If you want to make life better for your children in the future, more power to you..
Leave him some land and money.. Your Own, Not Mine..
Just being brutally honest here, but I'm not as interested in making the world a better place for someone else's kids.. on my dime..
Charity begins at home..
When I'm "darn" sure my kids will be OK, I'll look beyond my front door...
I've got nothing against making the world a better place.
I'm all for alternative energy, energy conservation, environmental conservation, etc..
But I want some Common Sense to preside over such activities, not pseudo-science, and not politics and economic policy determined by false science..
You are not looking for evidence of cleaner air. You're looking for evidence that validates your view. The air is indeed cleaner, much cleaner than it has been for quite some time.
Typical, can't back up your argument so you run away.
Kyoto treaty was about the redistribution of wealth.
Now, if you want to quote from it, keep in mind it was the creation of Gene Rodenberry, who was not a scientist. A good writer, but I'm not geeky enough to treat his works as some sort of religious truth. All his stories were written to have an outcome within 60 minutes, and see Kirk victorious. Real life doesn't work that way.
The future is unknown for all of us. Even for writers of fictitious television shows.
Star Trek = "Wagon Train" in space...
Well let's see...
"Harvard University environmental scientist John Holdren gave the more than 300 participants an update on the latest climate research, saying it's increasingly clear that rising global temperatures caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" would intensify heat waves, storms, floods, droughts and wildfires in the 21st century. "
What scientific principle says that as the temperature increases on the order of 0.3%, that the fluctuations in the system would increase by 2 orders of magnitude, or more?
"If 99 people are saying the sky is yellow and you are the only one saying it is blue, even if you are right, you still look crazy. "
So Goebbel's students would say...
LH:
I never run, neither did I run in Afghanistan, but then again I never did tell anyone here that I did my part for us all.
I may not agree with what you have to say but I fought for your right to say it!
Actually, what you say is border line to offensive but just comes across as childish.
Where is your evidence btw?
As for Trek, it's fiction, I know it's fiction, warp drives are offensive to Einstein, but what I like about the show is it's positive futuristic view, although most capitalists will disagree since money does not exist.
Nah, she moves about 2km a decade, she's just a satisfaction of my material needs ;)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.