PlanetZ forums - scopeusers.com

Already at category 4 and just entering the Gulf. Katrina was category 1




Repeat after me:
Global warming is a myth,
Global warming is a myth,
Global warming is a myth,
Global warming is a myth....

Why do you think it is that America constantly refuses to do anything about its carbon dioxide (and other) emmisions? Most other countries have got together and are at least doing something about it. America is by far the worst offender yet seems to ignore its responsibilites.

I mean, most American cars are what? 5-6 ltr monsters? No MOT (or equivalent), so there's no checks in-place to see how badly the engine is performing (and therefore emmiting). OK, you've had extremely cheap fuel for ages now, but it seems that the culture is just to exploit that by burning as much of it as quickly as possible.

How do people in America feel about this? Is there much internal pressure from the citizens to get the administration to change this attitude?

Royston

On 2005-09-21 08:02, Counterparts wrote:
Why do you think it is that America constantly refuses to do anything about its carbon dioxide (and other) emmisions?

That is a very easy question and the answer is that the people in Washington are protecting the interests of the largest industry in the US, auto and oil industry.

People have voiced their concerns, Washington doesn't give a damn. You have to understand how it works up there, corporations pour money into lobbyists, lobbyists pour money into senators and representatives, then the legislations are passed, while a couple of conscientious, honest members give the false impression that the Congress actually cares about issues that people raise.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2005-09-21 08:24 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2005-09-22 02:29 ]</font>

Because most Americans are stupid.

On 2005-09-21 08:02, Counterparts wrote:
Why do you think it is that America constantly refuses to do anything about its carbon dioxide (and other) emmisions? Most other countries have got together and are at least doing something about it. America is by far the worst offender yet seems to ignore its responsibilites.

I mean, most American cars are what? 5-6 ltr monsters? No MOT (or equivalent), so there's no checks in-place to see how badly the engine is performing (and therefore emmiting). OK, you've had extremely cheap fuel for ages now, but it seems that the culture is just to exploit that by burning as much of it as quickly as possible.

How do people in America feel about this? Is there much internal pressure from the citizens to get the administration to change this attitude?

Royston

Category 5 already, 165 MPh winds

stardust wrote:
Yep, in the states its industry lobby, but they make their money.... and now lets see if China and India will do anything against their growing CO2 emissions

Innit :-/ Somehow, I think we're going to see oil consumption rocket even further upwards in the near future.

On 2005-09-21 15:02, BingoTheClowno wrote:
Category 5 already, 165 MPh winds

It seems that some lessons have been learnt from the Katrina episode though; people are being evac-ed much earlier and water/food is already on its way.

However good luck...but think about it...maybe a 3 l car is more worthy then a 20 l buick.

BingoTheClowno wrote:

That is a very easy question and the answer is that the people in Washington are protecting the interests of the largest industry in the US, auto and oil industry.

Thats the point - washington is looking after the "interests of industry" - not people - not the environment - not future generations and thier welfare - just industry, and hence - money! Thats their number one concern - and that just plain scary!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: pseudojazzer on 2005-09-22 04:55 ]</font>

On 2005-09-22 12:59, stardust wrote:
And myabe the industry recognizes that the people without cars stolen by Katrina and Rita wont pay for gas.

They also will realize that they will need new means of transportation.

When's Rita due to hit land?

Levees breached in New Orleans again:


Water seeps through the levee along the Industrial Canal in the Lower Ninth Ward recently repaired by the Army Corps of Engineers in New Orleans September 22, 2005. (Jessica Rinaldi/Reuters)


Also, on a side note, a great article by Naomi Klein, Purging The Poor, where she details the new "flat tax" and "drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge" proposed RELIEF measures in the disaster striken areas. These measures were brought forth by the House Republican Study Committee.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2005-09-23 10:26 ]</font>

Now that everyone has had a free shot at the US and feels better:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4276242.stm

I've heard about a recently elaborated theory.
It's based on the principle that H2O vapour could condenses mainly around atmospheric dust particles.
It has been observed that, during the temporary airplane arrest after the twin towers attack, the absence of airplane wakes in the California sky caused appreciable temperature alterations with higher maximum and lower minimum.
So there's people asserting that thiny dusts generated by unfiltered pollution increment clouds forming, contributing to keep low the temperature by refraction of sunbeam.

Unluckly the number of people death every year because of thiny dusts emissions is unbelivable high and is rapidly increasing.


Sometimes I feel like sitting on an armed bomb.

(altough my car is just 100CV/75KW)

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Cochise on 2005-09-25 17:27 ]</font>

On 2005-09-25 02:36, Spirit wrote:
Now that everyone has had a free shot at the US and feels better:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4276242.stm

Is this how you make up your views by picking articles that choose to ingore the facts?
Here are some links you can consider.
A link from EPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) since you claim that we, I am, against US by voicing my concern about the environment:
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarmi ... idual.html

Read this too (conclusion of the US Global Change Research Program, note that this one is from US also):
http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/Library/na ... ummary.htm

Now watch here how much the polar Arctic ice sheet has shrunk since 1979:


or see the shit we breathe here in Chicago:


More details here:
http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fcons.asp
and here:
http://www.climatehotmap.org/

Now, after you inform yourself properly, come back here and present articles with facts not someone elses opinions.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: BingoTheClowno on 2005-09-26 08:14 ]</font>

Many countries and people in the world have American life style as reference model.

So responsability of US government is very high, in my opinion.

On 2005-09-26 08:38, Cochise wrote:
Many countries and people in the world have American life style as reference model.

I honestly don't belive that there's enought resources to guarantee the American Life Style to everyone in the planet. So the things must change in the future, because this way is unsustainable.

Returning to te global warming, I think that it's very difficult to say today if the effects of industrialization are the cause of the global warming or if the cause is "natural", anyway there are some examples which can demostrate that the impact of the human working CAN change the enviroment:
for example I've just watched a documentary on the atom bombs. In the '60s-'70s there was the biggest concentration of experiments and testings of the A-bomb. And this fact is noticeable in the wine for example:
a study (made by one of the most important university of Italy) has demostrated that italian wine of that years have an higher (ten times and more) concentration of radioactive elements like cesium.

As far as I know, Italy in that years didn't make atom experiments, so that cesium arrived from far away.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: lima on 2005-09-27 02:03 ]</font>

On 2005-09-26 08:11, BingoTheClowno wrote:
Is this how you make up your views by picking articles that choose to ingore the facts?

It was one article. It is full of facts - they just happen to be ones you don't like Clown

a big volcano puts out 10X as much CO2 as all the cars in the USA put out in a year. Spirit is probably right in this case, CO2 emmissions are a red herring. my grandfather was involved in some interesting studies of Los Angeles air pollution in the 70's(he was the head chemist for a major military contractor). autos were found to be insignificant compared to industry when it came to real permanent air damage.

this WILL cause global warming, in fact it is one of the purposes...
http://www.crystalinks.com/haarp.html

there have been many hurricanes throughout history. it IS hard to say that these storms are really as special as they seem. global warming may be more about global tax stuctures and government than actual concern about the environment. one clue, BP is behind much of the legislation/education...

global warming or not, there are a lot of reasons to stop using all this oil. assuming global warming to be real, the use of concrete and the destruction of phytoplankton might be more dangerous. killing off the life that uses CO2 and balances the gases in the atmosphere and cools the planet and feeds the ocean might be sillier than fossil fuel...

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: garyb on 2005-09-27 04:09 ]</font>