Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Da Boss wrote:I'm glad your simplistic ethical stance helps you feel better about your nation shirking it's responsibilities.

Killkrazy asked why the signatories of the treaty should be held to it when we don't abide by it.

I said that they should be held to it because they signed the treaty, whereas we did not sign it.

"Simplistic?" Hell yeah, it's simplistic.
If a nation signs a treaty they should abide by it, regardless of whether or not nations that did not sign the treaty are abiding by it.

See? It is simple.


And as for the rest, well, I really don't care.
I'm not debating the merits or drawbacks to the US having refused to sign the treaty, and I'm not debating as to what our nations "responsibilities" are.
If you have a problem with our not signing Kyoto, go find someone else to talk to. :S

I'm glad your understanding is so sophisticated.
Kyoto was a failure as soon as the world's hyperpower disregarded it. Instead of leading by good example, you led by bad.

Da Boss wrote:I'm glad your understanding is so sophisticated.

Thanks, although in this case, my sophisticated understanding wasn't needed.

Kyoto was a failure as soon as the world's hyperpower disregarded it.

Then it's member countries probably shouldn't have signed it.

Instead of leading by good example, you led by bad.

Don't care. Not what I'm talking about.

To be frank, a big reason we didn't sign was because we knew you wouldn't abide by it. In fact there was a strong argument to sign it and just ignore because the other nations will. We were just more honest.

If you can't abide by your own accords then there's no reason to have an accord with you.

someone just got told

Sure must be nice to be able to point fingers instead of examining yourself. The fact you can blame your inability to keep your word is the height of hypocrisy, especially as the US has done zilch to impede you from meeting the terms of that treaty. Must be a great comfort to be able to blame your problems and totally resolve yourself of responsbility and lay that blame on someone else who hasn't done anything.

I notice you conveniently leave out China, which has now surpassed Germany in terms of manufactured exports. They are not abiding by Kyoto terms either. But once again the US is the bad guy.

I'm moving off this thread, before I say things I shouldn't.

"Wait, wait -- to be fair, Hollywood did also make Valkyrie, a movie about the heroism of German soldiers trying to stop Hitler. If only there were any heroic soldiers like that around today, ones that the American people could better relate to, for Hollywood to make movies about"

I don't like what I get from this when I read between the lines. And I'm in the military.

Also on the Prop 8 thing. If you don't like something protest it, Thats how things work in America, It's how blacks and whites and others, Marched on washington and peacefully brought the equality that ca only be found in the usa. Protesting is a right and a responsibility. Telling people to shut up and go home is just inviting trouble.


I hate celeberties. But I hate more when a Reporter asks them what they think, then they get bashed for having an opinion. All you have to do is say "WTF ever Ben Affac." Stars have every right to voice themselves as everyone else....Ugh I feel dirty defending them.

RE Global Warming.

The Earths climate IS changing. We know this is happening.

However, the exact cause, nobody is totally sure about. One of the things which has quantifible, is Carbon Emissions, which date back to the Industrial Evolution. Ergo, it is not unreasonable to suspect said emissions are a contributing factor.

Of course, the Sun might be going through a phase of sorts. It's hard to tell as we haven't really studied this phenoma in enough depth over a long enough period of time.

So, there is evidence going this way and that. We can do precisely nowt about the Sun going Spazz. But we can do something about our Carbon Emission (the greenhouse effect has been scientifically proven to be a sound theory). Ergo, we do what we can to avoid a potentially catastrophic change.

I don't sign up to any particular theory of what is causing it, but at the end of the day anyreduction in pollution levels, which can reduce athsma attacks and indeed the condition developing and make the air we breather cleaner must surely be a good thing, whether or not it has any discernible effect on the climate?

Not having a go at anyones stance or position on this subject at all, just trying to explain my own.

Thats true. However CO2 IS NOT pollution. Its a natural byproduct of respiration.

"The Prop 8 mob in California: How bizarre is it to see gangs of angry, atheistic, liberal homosexuals in California -- who seem to spend 98% of their free time lecturing everybody else in America about tolerance -- invading churches and getting ordinary people fired for daring to disagree with them? If Christians had been getting the Prop 8 punks fired, we'd have to endure 20 years of Oscar winning movies about the oppression gays in California suffered for their beliefs. "

Bloody hell. Only in the twisted world of the internet could a bunch of bigots actually try and play the victim card and worse yet actually garner support. What century are we living in again?

If the net had existed in the 50's I'm convinced that posts like this would have existed ranting about angry, atheistic, liberal N!@@3£5.

And would anyone care inform me when being a Liberal, which as far as I'm concerned mean believing in individual freedom, something at the heart of the ideal of the USA, become an insult?? I mean what the hell? Considering how much out cousins rant on about 'freedom' they don't half seem to hate anyone who wants to actually be free.

Or is the freedom your reffering to, the 'freedom' to be a white hetrosexual christian? To quote Bill Hicks (RIP) "You are free, to do as we tell you!"

As for the way Atheist is thrown around like an insult, well that's totally got me stumped. I personally see the courage to challenge the Status Quo as a great virtue. Again remember Freedom? its printed on your coins as far as I'm aware!

LuciusAR wrote:And would anyone care inform me when being a Liberal, which as far as I'm concerned mean believing in individual freedom, something at the heart of the ideal of the USA, become an insult?? I mean what the hell?

You answered it yourself.

"Liberal" has, in the US at least, become sort of a generic buzzword that encompasses everything vaguely related to the Democratic Party, while "conservative" encompasses everything vaguely related to the Republican Party.

I wouldn't put too much weight such things. (Especially as I wouldn't put individual freedom that highly on either party's agenda.)

Considering how much our cousins rant on about 'freedom' they don't half seem to hate anyone who wants to actually be free.

Actual freedom is too scary.

As for the way Atheist is thrown around like an insult, well that's totally got me stumped. I personally see the courage to challenge the Status Quo as a great virtue. Again remember Freedom? its printed on your coins as far as I'm aware!

So is "In God We Trust".

Orkeosaurus wrote:

"Liberal" has, in the US at least, become sort of a generic buzzword that encompasses everything vaguely related to the Democratic Party, while "conservative" encompasses everything vaguely related to the Republican Party.

Indeed. Ive noticed that myself. I just don't like the way the word has been hijacked. To see a virtue become an insult to score cheap political points is very sad.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
I wouldn't put too much weight such things. (Especially as I wouldn't put individual freedom that highly on either party's agenda.)

How true. Interestingly the British political system has 2 main parties. Once being sightly left of center the other being slightly right. To which degree to are from the center shifting from year to year depending on various circumstances.

In the states I notice you basically seem to have 2 conservative parties. One slightly right of center and the other further right of center. The Democrats being about the same to the right as the British Conservative party. The British have no major political party as right as the Republicans.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Actual freedom is too scary.

Care to expand on that? Are you stating that some degree of state control over peoples lives is necessary for a stable society?

Orkeosaurus wrote:
So is "In God We Trust".

I'll give you that one

I remember reading that it was introduced in the 1950's due to pressure from a religious group? Anyone who knows a bit about US history care to expand on that?

Personally I'm a big believer in religious freedom. Both of and from. Essentially everyone should be free to practice whatever religion they see fit, unless the practice of said religion infringe on others freedoms, but that's a matter for another debate. But it must be an entirely private matter and kept well away from political or educational institutions (so no prayers in schools) and yes I think they should be taxed. I suppose this makes me a secularist.

My point being is that 'Atheist' should be a theological stance nothing more. It should no more be used as an insult than the words Christian or Muslim be used as insults.

LuciusAR wrote:

How true. Interestingly the British political system has 2 main parties. Once being sightly left of center the other being slightly right. To which degree to are from the center shifting from year to year depending on various circumstances.

In the states I notice you basically seem to have 2 conservative parties. One slightly right of center and the other further right of center. The Democrats being about the same to the right as the British Conservative party. The British have no major political party as right as the Republicans.

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the liberal thing, but do you honestly believe that New Labour centre-left? What's left wing about part privatisation of schools and hospitals, tax cuts and supporting George Bush? We have a very two centre right parties, and a third (formerly centre) party, that has shifted slightly left to fill that niche.

LuciusAR wrote:

Orkeosaurus wrote:
Actual freedom is too scary.

Care to expand on that? Are you stating that some degree of state control over peoples lives is necessary for a stable society?

Perhaps a little bit of state control is, but my comment was more of a lament on what seems to be far more concern for safety than freedom in this country (and, to my knowledge, many other countries as well).

The Republicans seem more concerned with fear-mongering about terrorism and crime than they are about actually reducing the size of the government, despite that being one of their supposed missions, and the Democrats seem more concerned with fear-mongering about disease and fried food than they are about protecting the civil liberties of individuals; the nearly unopposed passing of the Patriot Act, for example.

Maybe I'm just just getting exasperated though.

Orkeosaurus wrote:
So is "In God We Trust".

I'll give you that one

I remember reading that it was introduced in the 1950's due to pressure from a religious group? Anyone who knows a bit about US history care to expand on that?

According to Wikipedia, that's when it was made the national motto, but it was around for a quite a bit before then. Also, that's around the time "under God" was added to the Pledge of Allegiance. Probably a Cold War thing.

My point being is that 'Atheist' should be a theological stance nothing more. It should no more be used as an insult than the words Christian or Muslim be used as insults.

I agree, although I've seen "Christian" and "Religious" batted around as insults a few times as well.

"The Prop 8 mob in California: How bizarre is it to see gangs of angry, atheistic, liberal homosexuals in California -- who seem to spend 98% of their free time lecturing everybody else in America about tolerance -- invading churches and getting ordinary people fired for daring to disagree with them? If Christians had been getting the Prop 8 punks fired, we'd have to endure 20 years of Oscar winning movies about the oppression gays in California suffered for their beliefs. "

"WAAAH! THEY ARE LIMITING OUR FREEDOM TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST THE GAYS! AND THEY ARE RETALIATING BY TAKING THEIR BUSINESS ELSEWHERE!"

Seriously, replace "prop 8" with "de-segregation", and "homosexual" with "black", and no one would even try to defend the bigots.

I also love all the buzzwords they toss out- "angry, atheistc, liberal"- all they need now is "baby killing Muslim terrorist communists" to finish off the stereotyping. It must be fun painting everyone in a specific minority (gays in this case) with a broad brush.

PRO TIP- I know a lot of gays that are pretty much conservative; they are pro-war, anti-taxes, etc.. The only reason they vote democrat is at least the dems aren't actively trying to limit their personal rights.

Frazzled wrote:Thats true. However CO2 IS NOT pollution. Its a natural byproduct of respiration.

If CO2 is pollution then certainly O2 is also pollution. Remember we must not discriminate against our vegetable brethren.

Greebynog wrote:

I wholeheartedly agree with you on the liberal thing, but do you honestly believe that New Labour centre-left? What's left wing about part privatisation of schools and hospitals, tax cuts and supporting George Bush? We have a very two centre right parties, and a third (formerly centre) party, that has shifted slightly left to fill that niche.

Actually I agree with this. I was referring to the more traditional concepts of the Labour party. Quite frankly I'm as confused about the current government as the next man. It seems a mesh of traditional left and right wing policies. In fact the difference between the 2 have become less and less obvious over time.

Currently it seems to be a mad dash for center ground. One the whole I wold still say that Nu-Labour are ever so slightly left and the Tories ever so slightly right. But I'm seeing more traditionally Labour stances working their way into the Tory party and more traditionally Tory stances working their way into Labour. How long until one is totally indistinguishable from the other?

Orkeosaurus wrote:I agree, although I've seen "Christian" and "Religious" batted around as insults a few times as well.

I agree that this is unacceptable. In theological debates I am generally a strong agnostic/atheist. Now whilst I'm happy to argue against the concepts of religion I try, wherever possible, to avoid attacking the person. I also accept that to be a religious individual is not an inferior position, just one I happen to disagree with.

I agree that airlines suck, but they have basically "cornered the market". Sure we can stop taking planes and then we.....drive or take a train? Take a boat?

They can treat people and their belonging like crap and we'll still use them because there is no other alternative with the same speed of travel.

Most of the major countries in the world deal in carbon credits. The EU was citied as not only oversupplying credits during Phase 1 of their operation but also grandfathering the credits rather then auctioning them as was the intended purpose.

Carbon credits are a sham, it's actually CHEAPER for companies to haggle and deal in the credits which are "supposed" to reduce emissions instead of actually cutting their emissions. They all like to say they are cleaning up, but they just by credits to offset what they put out.....

Frazzled wrote:Thats true. However CO2 IS NOT pollution. Its a natural byproduct of respiration.

Arguably....

You see the increased, unnatural ouput of Carbon Dioxide, has to be offset in a way against humanities destruction of the Rainforest, as well as the impact of marine pollution upon the main dealers of CO2, namely Plankton and that.

Looked as a whole, we as a species have created a surplus of CO2 in the atmosphere (more or less proven as I understand it...I may be wrong!) whilst simaltaneously reducing the eco systems capability to deal with said surplus. The overall effect is a bad thing. Now as I said, whether or not this is enough in it,s own right to cause the Global Warming/Climate Change is open to opinion....but regardless, cutting Carbon Emissions at best can halt global warming/climate change, at worst gives us cleaner air to breathe.

And then there are the other chemicals produced through burning fossil fuels, like carbon monoxide and that, which are not good things!

Oh dear, I agree with Fraz and now I feel my brain thumping against the side of my skull trying to escape.

Kyoto was rubbish. Even if everyone had signed it was rubbish. It committed nations to a fixed reduction in emissions regardless of environment controls already in place, so a nation that had lax regulations could easily make the reductions, while a nation that had undertaken world leading emissions controls took it in the pants.

The standard didn’t measure overall contribution to world energy demand, just national emissions. This meant that the primary driver of meeting or failing the standard was economic activity, specifically industry and energy production.
I believe the US actually did relatively well over the length of Kyoto – not because they improved their emissions standards (quite the opposite), but because they had negligible industrial growth. A decent treaty would set standards for types of energy production, and possibly set taxes on non-green sources and use those funds to subsidise green energy sources.

There were no penalties for non-compliance, everyone was basically signing a statement of intent. Statements of intent are meaningless in democracies, because new ministers and new governments happen all the time. Predictably, given the absence of penalties, no-one did anything meaningful to follow Kyoto.

Kyoto blew chunks. The US were right not to sign. Fraz is right. Gyaargh.

Ooh, wait….

Frazzled wrote:Thats true. However CO2 IS NOT pollution. Its a natural byproduct of respiration.

Lots of things are natural by-products, and harmless within certain boundaries. There is strong evidence that in the levels we are currently emitting are altering the climate of the planet. It is irrelevant whether carbon dioxide is naturally emitted or not, what matters is that the current level is harmful.

There, normality returned.

mattyboy22 wrote:Most of the major countries in the world deal in carbon credits. The EU was citied as not only oversupplying credits during Phase 1 of their operation but also grandfathering the credits rather then auctioning them as was the intended purpose.

Carbon credits are a sham, it's actually CHEAPER for companies to haggle and deal in the credits which are "supposed" to reduce emissions instead of actually cutting their emissions. They all like to say they are cleaning up, but they just by credits to offset what they put out.....

I could´t think of any other human endeavor in which the phrase "Smoke and Mirrors" fits more the bill.

And now the carbon "industry" is in a big crisis due to reduced emissions thanks to the economic downturn so less credits are being traded and a number of parasit.... err I mean honest intermediaries are filling for the equivalent of chapter 11 around the world.

M.

Australias idiot labour govt treats climate change as the be all and end all apocalypse and if we don't cut emissions massively the world will die... soonish.

China generates the same greenhouse gas output (inc carbon) as Australia's yearly output in 11 days.
And they are cranking out 2 new coal fired power stations per week.

Also Australia has just put in an emissions trading scheme to lower our carbon output.
A drop of 5 to 15% on 1996 levels by 2020.

Problem is Australia's population in 1996 was 18,311,500
Today's population according to the govt is 21,557,478.
2020 should be around 25 to 26 million

And our energy use has gone up around 20% per person since 1996, and is growing.

So in order to meet even a 5% drop overall on 1996 levels we need to drop 40% of projected energy use in 2020.
The easiest and most easy way to understand for laymen is to turn of every power station in Australia (hydro, solar, wind not included) full time.

We can run Tasmania with that power, the other 25 odd million of us will have to sit in the dark.

You´ll have more time to make babies then Waaagh

M.