A breif look back of the Gdubb legacy

[IBrake4Rainbows]

What? looking at your own country before working on others is oversimplification? I call it good policy.

If the world is not a level playing field, why should the expectations of all countries under the Geneva convention be similar?

Perhaps I'm a bit idealogical, but the fact remains - The Kyoto protocol is the only document which is used to bring about change currently.

[Dino Scuderia]

The Kyoto is but one plan, some countries are participating in the AP6 instead which also brings about change.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Kyoto is a universal protocol endorsed by a global organisation.

Are China and India signiatories of AP6?

[Dino Scuderia]

Kyoto is a universal protocol endorsed by a global organisation.

Are China and India signiatories of AP6?

Yes, China, the United States, India, Japan, South Korea and Australia.

And I might add...If we accept the latest propaganda from the zealots of global warming and climatological instability, then we have about a decade in which to reverse an accumulation of greenhouse gasses that began well over a century ago, If the latest doomsday scenario about a “tipping point” at 400ppm CO2 and/or a 10 deg C rise is true (and it is not) then we have but a short time in which to reduce the production of greenhouse gasses by about half. Using all the available technologies at breakneck speed we would be unable to meet such a goal without severely reducing food production... the production of industrial goods and the transportation of people and materials all over the planet. Millions would starve and the quality of life for those who survived would be quite unlike what we have today. There is no power on earth that could force or persuade people in competing countries to accept such a program.

The reductions planned in the Kyoto treaty were the merest drop in the bucket compared to this requirement. The greatest increase in greenhouse gas production both in absolute and relative terms is occurring in India and China. Kyoto exempted these countries from any remedial action whatever.

We are being confronted with highly improbable doomsday scenarios by people who advocate remedies that are utterly trivial compared to the requirement, if we take their earnest forecasts to be true. The fact is these are but scare tactics designed to mobilize an ill-informed, malleable public into actions that will likely cause far more harm to humanity than the problem they are designed to address.

[The_Canuck]

so is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:K...n_map_2005.png wrong?

Yes it is. http://www.peaktalk.com/archives/002122.php

[The_Canuck]

Canada has done no such thing. They are considering joining the AP6 but they are still signed under the Kyoto Treaty, not that they've done a damn thing about it.

Now who's ignorant?

http://www.canadianminingjournal.com...issue=07092006

Doesn't that say we might drop kyoto and go for AP6? Even the freakin headline says it Oh and to the bold statement: Not me

[Dino Scuderia]

Doesn't that say we might drop kyoto and go for AP6? Even the freakin headline says it Oh and to the bold statement: Not me

Let's review your earlier statement:

You say Zeta is ignorant? We dropped the Kyoto program here

Looks like you are now wrong twice on the subject, care to go for three oh ignorant one?

I have a spare shovel if you want to keep digging deeper into your hole.

[The_Canuck]

Let's review your earlier statement:



Looks like you are now wrong twice on the subject, care to go for three oh ignorant one?

I have a spare shovel if you want to keep digging deeper into your hole.

I did say that and i still think we did drop it, but by giving the link to that article you seemed to be saying that we will stay in the Kyoto, which wasn't true according to YOUR article. And i also posted a link to another site saying we had already dropped it. Your article may be implying that Canada is switching the Dropped Kyoto program for AP6. I only said whats in that quote box because i didn't want to get into a further argument. I fi had said that your article implied that we DID drop it you would have said thats incorrect because thats not EXACTLY what the article said, but thats what the article implied. Anyway we dropped it, and if you can find good proof we didn't drop it then trust me, were dropping it soon.

[Dino Scuderia]

I did say that and i still think we did drop it, but by giving the link to that article you seemed to be saying that we will stay in the Kyoto, which wasn't true according to YOUR article. And i also posted a link to another site saying we had already dropped it. Your article may be implying that Canada is switching the Dropped Kyoto program for AP6. I only said whats in that quote box because i didn't want to get into a further argument. I fi had said that your article implied that we DID drop it you would have said thats incorrect because thats not EXACTLY what the article said, but thats what the article implied. Anyway we dropped it, and if you can find good proof we didn't drop it then trust me, were dropping it soon.

That's a fancy bit of tap dancing, but I'll let you slide this time.

[The_Canuck]

That's a fancy bit of tap dancing, but I'll let you slide this time.

Lol i dance well.

[2ndclasscitizen]

I think it's a little childish to reject or not do something on the fact that someone else doesn't. In fact, it is childish. Like it or not, the US can have some serious diplomatic clout and if they chose to ratify Kyoto, they could use that to try and bring other countries into line and ratify it as well.

But clearly they're to stubborn for that.

[Dino Scuderia]

I think it's a little childish to reject or not do something on the fact that someone else doesn't. In fact, it is childish. Like it or not, the US can have some serious diplomatic clout and if they chose to ratify Kyoto, they could use that to try and bring other countries into line and ratify it as well.

But clearly they're to stubborn for that.

I think your view of our stance is childish.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

Yes, China, the United States, India, Japan, South Korea and Australia.

And I might add...If we accept the latest propaganda from the zealots of global warming and climatological instability, then we have about a decade in which to reverse an accumulation of greenhouse gasses that began well over a century ago, If the latest doomsday scenario about a “tipping point” at 400ppm CO2 and/or a 10 deg C rise is true (and it is not) then we have but a short time in which to reduce the production of greenhouse gasses by about half. Using all the available technologies at breakneck speed we would be unable to meet such a goal without severely reducing food production... the production of industrial goods and the transportation of people and materials all over the planet. Millions would starve and the quality of life for those who survived would be quite unlike what we have today. There is no power on earth that could force or persuade people in competing countries to accept such a program.

It's interesting to see you lambast Doomsday theories while creating your own - how will, for example, Wind farms, starve people?

Kyoto is a long term plan, not some hastily put together one with a 'Day after Tommorrow' timetable.

The reductions planned in the Kyoto treaty were the merest drop in the bucket compared to this requirement. The greatest increase in greenhouse gas production both in absolute and relative terms is occurring in India and China. Kyoto exempted these countries from any remedial action whatever.nd

Requirements which you just said were grossly overestimated. I can imagine the US and other developed nations are now paying for the sins of their fathers, Coal power and whatnot.

We are being confronted with highly improbable doomsday scenarios by people who advocate remedies that are utterly trivial compared to the requirement, if we take their earnest forecasts to be true. The fact is these are but scare tactics designed to mobilize an ill-informed, malleable public into actions that will likely cause far more harm to humanity than the problem they are designed to address.

I agree there are some fantastic figures being fabricated, but the issue of climate change, and indeed what we are doing just to the earths surface, is obvious and clear to see. Pollution is an issue, and unless a solution can be found then our children are screwed, essentially.

I'm not saying Kyoto is the only way foward - What are the goals of AP6, for instance? - but it's, as I've been saying for the past 5 posts that you completely manage to miss, a talking point. a springboard into other, more feasible, manageable and meaningful reforms.

I also don't see how 2ndClassCitizen's comments were 'Childish'. The US has a stance of, for want of a better description, 'But China doesn't have to do it, why should I?'.

If thats not a childish attitude, I don't really know what is.