BF2S Forums No ice at the North Pole

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

I'm sorry but are you serious?! That has got to be the most ignorant argument I've ever heard...believe it or not Naight we're not the only species that inhabit this planet and what you're saying is utterly selfish.

Ever heard of sustained development?

we in the US are 300M.  china tops 1B and so does India.  What are china and India doing to contribute to reduction in greenhouse gasses?  can we role model based on their responsible behavior?

"waaaaaaaa!!! daddy daddy my friends parents don't make them have baths and clean their teeth so I shouldnt either."

Seriously what are you? Two?

M.O.A.B wrote:

The#1Spot wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

There's two kinds of Global Warming,

Global Warming - Naturalyl influenced, but strangely the only title thrown around.
Enhanced Global Warming - Human influenced.

There is no such thing as global warming. Its called global fluctuation. Every so many years the average temperature changes slightly. If you want constant temperature so bad live in a freezer.

Guess my Geography course and lecturers knew bugger all in reference to its term eh?

MOAB, global warming is a bit of a media title.

Climate Change is better.

FatherTed wrote:

M.O.A.B wrote:

The#1Spot wrote:

There is no such thing as global warming. Its called global fluctuation. Every so many years the average temperature changes slightly. If you want constant temperature so bad live in a freezer.

Guess my Geography course and lecturers knew bugger all in reference to its term eh?

MOAB, global warming is a bit of a media title.

Climate Change is better.

Meh never take much notice of it anyway, blown waaaaay too heavily out of proportion.

Vilham wrote:

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

..teddy..jimmy wrote:

I'm sorry but are you serious?! That has got to be the most ignorant argument I've ever heard...believe it or not Naight we're not the only species that inhabit this planet and what you're saying is utterly selfish.

Ever heard of sustained development?

we in the US are 300M.  china tops 1B and so does India.  What are china and India doing to contribute to reduction in greenhouse gasses?  can we role model based on their responsible behavior?

"waaaaaaaa!!! daddy daddy my friends parents don't make them have baths and clean their teeth so I shouldnt either."

Seriously what are you? Two?

way to have a constructive debate.  sounds like you are the one being immature.

angry ham sandwich

Vilham wrote:

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

"waaaaaaaa!!! daddy daddy my friends parents don't make them have baths and clean their teeth so I shouldnt either."

Seriously what are you? Two?

way to have a constructive debate.  sounds like you are the one being immature.

I was merely making an observation. You have the attitudes of a young child, your if he isn't doing it I shouldn't attitude doesn't hold in the adult world. It doesn't matter if he isn't doing it, because your not being an asshole and you have backbone, whereas he doesn't.

the fact is that China signed the deal and aren't holding up their end of the bargain.  i've said this in other posts.  why are you so quick to dismiss china?  or the failings of other countries to live up to the agreement that they actually signed to reduce emissions?  is there not a problem here? 

again, i find your style very condescending.  is it an ego thing?  does it make you feel better to belittle others on some internet forum?  i'm trying to understand why you are coming off as so hostile. 

perhaps in your mind it is all very clear what needs to be done and if people do not see this as obvious as the way as you do, you tend to get frustrated.  fine.  if that is the case, i'd love to hear what you would think might actually RESOLVE these kinds of problems of global compliance and making green tech more affordable so that it becomes a softer sell to developing nations.

again i'm all ears and i'm being sincere.  i want to know what you think are solutions to the problem.

ps:  i wasn't the one who left you that karma message - i always sign mine

Last edited by CaptainSpaulding71 (2008-06-28 16:52:07)

I think I will go let the freon cans empty themselfs mabe it will create a ozone hole again and the heat can escape. lol

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

Vilham wrote:

CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:

way to have a constructive debate.  sounds like you are the one being immature.

I was merely making an observation. You have the attitudes of a young child, your if he isn't doing it I shouldn't attitude doesn't hold in the adult world. It doesn't matter if he isn't doing it, because your not being an asshole and you have backbone, whereas he doesn't.

the fact is that China signed the deal and aren't holding up their end of the bargain.  i've said this in other posts.  why are you so quick to dismiss china?  or the failings of other countries to live up to the agreement that they actually signed to reduce emissions?  is there not a problem here? 

again, i find your style very condescending.  is it an ego thing?  does it make you feel better to belittle others on some internet forum?  i'm trying to understand why you are coming off as so hostile. 

perhaps in your mind it is all very clear what needs to be done and if people do not see this as obvious as the way as you do, you tend to get frustrated.  fine.  if that is the case, i'd love to hear what you would think might actually RESOLVE these kinds of problems of global compliance and making green tech more affordable so that it becomes a softer sell to developing nations.

again i'm all ears and i'm being sincere.  i want to know what you think are solutions to the problem.

ps:  i wasn't the one who left you that karma message - i always sign mine

It doesnt matter if they arent. How do you not get that? I thought i made that pretty clear. If you decide to do nothing about then NOTHING gets done, because no one is doing anything. Rather than whining about other countries do something yourself.

You say China is a massive problem well 1. They are a developing nation, MEDC's have already gone past the stage of mass production and now focus on technological based products, China has yet to reach that stage. 2. You ignore the fact that China produces alot of things for the rest of the world, so unless you want to start producing all those Chinese products in your own countries at much higher cost you have nothing to complain at. 3. Even though they produce so many goods for the rest of the world places like America still have 4x higher per capital CO2 consumption so its hardly the place of other nations to complain about China.

Instead of bitching about other countries not doing anything and justifying that as a reason to not do anything too is weak. Instead of moaning just lower your own emissions, it really doesnt cost the individual anywhere near as much as people claim. I use 1/3 the CO2 levels the average UK citizen uses and still have a TV, PS3, computer, nice food, my own car, warm house. You lose NOTHING, there is really no need to not take steps to lower your emissions.

When countries like China see they can have the same standard of living as other people without burning shit loads of carbon they will follow suit. Its called leading by example.

As to the karma, i didnt think it would be u, as to whoever it is, yeah fair enough, its your opinion, dont make out its other peoples. Didnt realise mind reading was real.

Last edited by Vilham (2008-06-28 18:16:34)

ATG wrote:

Maybe the Doomsayers are right and by 2012 we will all be looking back fondly and remembering that thing called the internet as we eat cockroaches and house cats and finally, each other.


http://www.independent.co.uk/environmen … 55406.html

Just found a couple of obscure abstracts from the European Geosciences Union 2008 conference, which may have a relevance in the context of the OP.

Methane released by the thawing of permafrost in Siberia is a subject that's been fairly visible in the climate change discussion. It appears that the methane deposited on the Siberian arctic shelf is a far more dangerous source, because of the amounts of methane involved and the potential for sudden release into the atmosphere.

Earthquakes and volcanic activity are the main cause of methane release from continental shelves. This activity is a normal part of the global carbon cycle, and included in the IPCC models.

Even though it has quake-prone and volcanically active zones, the Siberian arctic shelf hasn't been considered a part of this cycle. The methane deposited there has been sealed in by an inpermeable permafrost layer.   

Until recently.

'Our recent studies conducted over the East Siberian Arctic shelf (2003-2007) showed widespread supersaturation of surface water with methane, reaching in some areas up to 10,000% above background level'

'we consider release of up to 50 Gt of predicted amount of hydrate storage as highly possible for abrupt release at any time. That may cause ca. 12-times increase of modern atmospheric methane burden with consequent catastrophic greenhouse warming.'

See also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clathrate_gun_hypothesis

CameronPoe wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

Kyoto Protocol Signatories (Green):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c … p_2005.png

The two worst CO2 emitters (Total = China / Per Captia = Australia) signed Kyoto. You make an excellent case for the worthlessness of Kyoto.

The US has signed by the way.

It has signed but not ratified it. Ratification would indicate a commitment to do something meaningful to combat the issues facing us by adding a legalistic element to emissions-reduction. I find it odd that you show China and Australia signing Kyoto as a bad thing: shouldn't they be the first to sign? Do you expect emissions to disappear overnight or something?

I believe he's pointing to the irony that the two biggest CO2 emitters signed and ratified it, yet they haven't curbed their emissions. That speaks to the worthlessness of the treaty which somewhat nullifies the argument that the US is bad for not ratifying a treaty that does nothing.

They aren't contradictory: the article is poorly written.  What it's actually talking about is CO2 due to power plants.  Much of China's emissions come from transport, not power.  In overall emissions Australia comes out ahead of the US: our power industry is based primarily on coal.  We're still pretty bad though.

Last edited by ZombieVampire! (2008-06-29 08:26:41)

FEOS wrote:

I believe he's pointing to the irony that the two biggest CO2 emitters signed and ratified it, yet they haven't curbed their emissions. That speaks to the worthlessness of the treaty which somewhat nullifies the argument that the US is bad for not ratifying a treaty that does nothing.

Legislation and policy take time to draft. The EU is rolling out its measures now and they won't have a major impact for at least 10 years. Calling the treaty useless just because Oz and China are bad on the emissions front is a bit odd: both countries are now legally obliged to roll back emissions. Whether they do it or not is irrelevant in the context of comparisons. If they don't carry out their promise then they will be worthy of contempt, and derision, them - not the treaty. The fact that the US signed something and then didn't bother ratifying it begs the question: why the fuck did they bother signing it?