Global warming, one of the world's greatest hoaxes, perpetuated by the media's need for stellar stories and the public's love for drama, dangerously coupled with primitivist environmentalists and power-hungry politicians.

If you look at the myriad of other temperature sources available widely through the NOAA, you can see that the average world temperature has actually been declining. In specific situations, the world could be said to be heating up, in that the majority of the weather stations are in or around cities, which suffer from the urban heat island effect. In rural areas, the average temperature really isn't going anywhere.

Ahhhh... fingers getting tired. If anyone respords/rebuts, I'll post more.

Lol, freedom, it's not that hard! Mmmbop, ba dop bop doo-wop. Doo-we-op bop doo-wap. Ba dop bop doo. Please don't ask how I know that.

Mmmbop... did odd do wop oom akdjfa;uidhfoawrhowrvoawrg;oaou haifh a;wf;ahfaweh;f

...Until you burn your nose. Happened to my sister.

Playing with Fire is a good game...

You know, I would respond to Indierock but I'm having trouble reading the post. Long story short Kyoto will do next to nothing to stop the anthropogenic portion of the warming we're seeing now. The reductions are minimal.

I'd also like to point out that the climate shifts are likely to be much less drastic than some of the doomsday scenerios people throw out there. The worst case scenerio is a slowing of the North Atlantic Conveyor and the following sharp cooling trend.

i was just reading an article about how if the rich countries cut down on oil production it will show up badly on the developing countries..

did you people know that global warming causes bleaching of coral reefs?

global warming dus exist......the average world temperature has increased by like a degree celsius.....a panal of over 500 leading scientist selected by the UN reached a consenseus that global warming dus exist and that there would be a broad number of deaths due to heat strokes and water shortages and other problems due to a climate shift due to global warming in the next century....also, although the kyoto protocol dusnt help the economy it helps our environment......all the major industrial countries are currently participating in the protocol besides the usa and australia.....the usa is responsible for one fourth of the worldwide co2 emmisions but only accounts for 4% of the world population.....plus one of the main reasons bush isnt willing to ratify it is cuz it would damage the economy but the clinton administration found that the cost of participation could actually be lowered by nearly 60% thru emmisions trading.....also bush said that it wasnt fair that china was exempted from decreasing its greenhouse gas emmisions but china has one of the lowest per capita emmisions rates in the world......plus the cost of deaths and catastrophes created annually due to global warming is also high.....so if u take into account the fact that if global warming(which dus exists) continues on its gonna really hurt our environment and that the usa kinda has the responsibility as a leader of passing the ratification of the protocol then to me the obvious decision is that the kyoto protocol is the best idea we hav so far to deal with global warming and the usa should really consider ratifying it soon.......but never the less, everyone is entitled to their own opinions and facts are always subject to change....thats just the way i strongly feel bout the topic right now........btw....i got most of my info off of wikipedia, 2facts, and a couple graphs, books, and magazine articles....

write about all the responces so far.

can someone plz write back i'm doing a project for school and i need some info and opinions on it

helios it sounds like your just whining about us Americans waaa waaa waaa. Also if we dont force regulations on developing countries now how would we do so in the future? While our country may have some faults you need to look at the bigger picture. We are the world's superpower I am sure if your country had as much power as we do they would also not exactly bend over backwards to adhere to strict environmental laws.

Lets face it, your government is corrupt and George Bush will never join Kyoto because it would **** off his industrial buddies who got him where he is today.
The USA won't stop polluting because its not in its best interests.
I also but can't help and get the feeling that the American people don't care, and just want to pass the buck..
"oh its China's and India's fault waa waa waaa"
Unless you havent notices (which wouldn't surprise me as the average Americans knowledge of the outside world seems to be limited to what country they're bombing/ about to bomb) They're developing countries you arses'!, so let them grow before you slap regulations on them... what matters is now, you are the biggest polluter in the world, do something about it before its too late.

Burning hydrocarbons has a cumulative effect on the the world. Kyoto may not be the answer, but it's a start in the transition to Hydrogen or at least some of the bridge fuels for acquiring the energy the world needs. Even if everyone stopped using fossil fuels today, the carbon count in our atmosphere will climb to over 450 parts per million by 2015. We will take notice then! Effects of high PPM's have localized concentrated effects to certain areas, like LA or Tokyo. The rest of the world could become smogged in too if something isn't done to make China and India install scrubbers in the 60 or so coal fired power plants they build each year. Renewable energy users deserve the tax credits they are getting...they will push the world into using proton exchange membranes in efficient fuel cells in the not too distant future. There are so many sources of very cheap non harmfull energy which can be used to electrolyze water and store as hydrogen for future use during peak demand. Kyoto will promote this in proportion to a nation's presige and wealth. It's a start!

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0%2C%2C3-1489955%2C00.html

Go to this website, it's an article about how Greenhouse gases are affecting the environment

So what do you think all of this scientific proof is? Scientists trying to take over the world and scare the public in doing it?

quote:

Originally posted by adamsb:
Global warming, one of the world's greatest hoaxes, perpetuated by the media's need for stellar stories and the public's love for drama, dangerously coupled with primitivist environmentalists and power-hungry politicians.

If you look at the myriad of other temperature sources available widely through the NOAA, you can see that the average world temperature has actually been declining. In specific situations, the world could be said to be heating up, in that the majority of the weather stations are in or around cities, which suffer from the urban heat island effect. In rural areas, the average temperature really isn't going anywhere.

Ahhhh... fingers getting tired. If anyone respords/rebuts, I'll post more.

Yes, power hunger politicians, let's ignore the power hungry corporations who don't any regulations so they can make more money. More and more politicians are puppets of the corporations

quote:

Originally posted by Barkid:
But part of the problem is that we have the technology to not spew out fumes for some of these things, yet big business doesn't want to change because it would cost them more money right now. There are also other problems, like using fossil fuels for electricity. If we switch to nuclear we can alleviate this pollution but we have the risk of much worse pollution in the event that there is a meltdown or whatever.
I just think it's Ironic that the richest country in the world refuses to sign a treaty to help make advance clean technology, it sort of shows you where our heads are at ($$$).

My problem with the treaty, and the reason I don't support it, is because it's a flawed plan. In not affecting developing countries, you will do little to curb global emissions in the long run, and it will do nothing but increase the rate at which industries flee devleoped countries (America) to third world nations where it is easier to maintain factories.

But part of the problem is that we have the technology to not spew out fumes for some of these things, yet big business doesn't want to change because it would cost them more money right now. There are also other problems, like using fossil fuels for electricity. If we switch to nuclear we can alleviate this pollution but we have the risk of much worse pollution in the event that there is a meltdown or whatever.
I just think it's Ironic that the richest country in the world refuses to sign a treaty to help make advance clean technology, it sort of shows you where our heads are at ($$$).

Although those same exhaust fumes and toxic factory byproducts are what we love in our lives. If we took away the very technology that our society worships, then we would have very little holding us together.

Cellphones are one of the most dangerous products for the environment. Do you have one or wish you had one?

I could go on for a LONG time about products that you or I love that are extremely hazardous to the environment. Does that mean we should ban them? No! The products are advancing humanity and creating happiness.

Regardless of whether global warming exists, don't you think that the world would be a better place if we didn't spew exhaust fumes and toxic factory byproducts all over the place?