Thats all you have to say? Have you read the thread? You will find your credible evidence not only in this thread but others you have failed in.

I mean, even you are a hypocrite with your silver spoon lifestyle. Correct me if i'm wrong. Home in Ireland? How was school in Boston? How about jetting off to Italy for the hell of it? Your carbon footprint is 10x that of anyone else on this board! How ironic! :D Real nice! Why do I even bother to argue?

The top scientist in the world on the subject tells you it is a lie, and you can't accept it. What now - what label are you going to give him now to discredit him? Are you the one coming for my Land Rover? Tell me, so that I can prepare. Thanks!

-S

Evidence that enviromentalism is only an excuse to take away human mobility and comfort? That's what I asked you for evidence of. I'll ask you again. Can you back it up?
Consider yourself corrected. SUBMAN, that's not an argument. So, in answer, you're not bothering to argue, you're making things up. Inventing.
I'm not going to label him anything. I do remember that Michael Asher has a tendency to cherrypick sources and statements. My only response was a dig at the awful copy editing of the article. But obviously this means I "can't accept it".
Top scientist in the world? It doesn't say that anywhere in the article. His main specialty is water divining, and he's got a funny habit of pretending to be things he's not. Does that mean he's wrong here? Of course not. It just makes one wonder why he's out there almost by himself.

Not true!

There was snow in iraq the year of the first gulf war, but anyway, i think you mean Baghdad where it hasn't snowed since the 40s

Can you explain the inconsistencies in the planned Kyoto protocols? Why do gross polluters like China and India get a pass on emissions controls? Why is the driving factor in the protocol, large transfers of money from developed nations to developing 3rd world nations as a means to enforce the protocol rather than actual changes in technological means of production? Can you explain why when many alternative sourced energy projects start, environmentalists always seem to be front and center opposing it for some "environmental" reason like the following:

http://www.kristv.com/Global/story.a...&nav=menu192_2


Oh, and just for fun, here's what a leading warming advocate (and Kyoto supporter) has come to realize......he's been wrong, so have basic greenhouse equations as well (duh!):

http://www.dailytech.com/Researcher+...ticle10973.htm

And we have alot more CO2 in the atmosphere now then we did back then too, right?;) I don't know why warming advocates cannot see this fundamental and blaring flaw in their theories. It's as obvious as gravity.

al gore
 

never had it to lose.

That's a sticky point of Kyoto, the basis of which is that developing countries are not responsible to neary the same extent for the current situation as developed countries are (illustration here), and they are usually substantially below developed countries in per capita emissions.
The third reason, usually quoted, is that Kyoto is just a first step. I think the overall failure and resistance to enforce it invalidates this point, making action on China/India necessary.

AFAIK most of the transfer are technological, but I'm not sure. The general idea is to ensure a clean developmental path for developing countries, to avoid the intense reliance on coal/oil like we can see in China.
As a framework for action, Kyoto seems positive. Sadly, as a practical method, it isn't.
A few reasons, some people just like to complain. Also, the term "nuclear energy" translates to "chernobyl" for some people, and that's unfortunate.
Sometimes there are reasonable objections to energy sources/siting.
The environmental movement has a nasty overlap with the "permanent protest" crowd, who'll complain about anything.
How this relates to SUBMAN's hypothesis I don't know.

Oh, cool, our friend Michael Asher again. I've never read an article of his that sided with the IPCC. Doesn't mean he's wrong, but I wonder about confirmation bias.
On the article, I get lost as soon as those equations pop up. It's weird to see the money argument - that those who oppose conventional opinion don't get funding. I wouldn't have thought this would matter in NASA.

Yeah, but the flaw in that is that 85% of new emissions coming online will come from these developing nations during the coming decade. Not the developed world. See the flaw there? Basically most of these agreements are transfers of money, from developed nations to developing nations. They call it buying credits. I call it punishing or slowing economic growth using a false made-up tragedy to push it. Kyoto will not solve nor address what they claim they want solved or addressed. But they will tax or slow economic growth as a means to "solve" a non-existent problem.

Let's look at an example from last year. Japan, Italy and Spain all collectively owe $33 billion in fines for failing to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. And why did they fail to meet the requirements? Because they underestimated economic growth and future emissions from factories and utilities. In other words ... their economies grew better than they expected, and therefore, they were punished for it. So now Spain must pass 40% of the cost for extra emissions on to those successful businesses that helped its economy grow. The other 60% will come directly from taxes. The businesses, of course, will pass their fines on to the consumers of whatever it is they provide or produce. In Italy, the taxpayers will pay 75% of the bill for extra permits just to fit into the Kyoto Protocol. And Japanese taxpayers must pay for two-thirds of the nation's excess. See the problem here? Do you see emission reduction vs. economic output being addressed as a means to reduce CO2 output? Ain't happening as a first step, second step or third. And it's not even addressed if it's necessary at all, especially since CO2 output apparently is having little to no effect on warming, as we have seen.

In one more case, taxpayers in Ireland will shell out more than 270 million so that Ireland can "buy its way" into meeting the Kyoto agreement.

http://www.independent.ie/national-n...d-1231853.html


Here's another hint. Warming stopped a decade ago. Over the past three years it has actually become cooler. Yet, we have increasing CO2 levels. And yet, there are people trying to punish economic growth, push the USA into this redistribution scheme, and still cannot explain the inconsistincies of these theories.

Meh..that's all that guy Al Gore talks about...Global Warming..anything new?:shifty:

Is it?



Is it as obvious as evolution?

I live in the North East of Scotland and when I moved here 20 years ago we would get a winter full of snow for a good 2 months and proper snow at that.

Now we are locuky to get any snow at the right time of year, usually February, March and not that much.

It has become wetter and overall warmer here. Used to be very dry here in the North East.

You're trying to tell me the climate isn't chagning, that it isn't getting warmer.

Reds under the bed son you can not move for all these reds who make out there green. :lol:

LISTEN UP PEOPLE

SH*T HAPPENS AND THERE IS NOTHING YOU CAN DO.

Drinks on me. :()1:

Don't be ridiculous. Everyone knows the world revolves around me.:smug:

:hmm:


Were you just continuing SUBMAN1's thoughts steve? ;)