Dugger

Dugger is “too lazy” to post the links, and my try to find the page that justified Duggers numbers yielded mostly pages from impartial sources such as Worldnutdaily and Competitive Enterprise Institute.

It’s funny, Dugger was “too lazy” to post a link, which requires one copy and paste, but not too lazy to post 4 anti-kyoto talking points. Little suspicious.

If, hypothetically, those number ARE correct, then I would be a tad wary of the accord, but my stance on emission standards would stay the same. Although it seems the numbers probably tell the cumulative total of what every country that accepted the accord is paying, so I’m going to take those numbers with a grain of salt.

OK

And I believe the numbers are generally correct, but they are projections – SWAGs. Some are more pessimistic.

Dugger

My point was not doing the stuff just for the thrill of it. The pollutants that (may or may not, just to play devils advocate) cause global warming are the direct cause of several other problems, which include, but not limited to, o-zone depletion and poisoning the air and water.

Also, as an example of the standard I hold you at, I’m going to have to ask for a link to those statistics before I even believe you.

Gas prices go up 35%.
We seem to be doing a good enough job of that without the Kyoto Protocol (don’t tell me you didn’t see this one coming).

Also, I didn’t see you deny the sociopath part. Jus sayin’.

“Also, I didn t see you deny the sociopath part. Jus sayin . ”

Well, why would I. Nothing wrong with being a sociopath, right?

And I take it you too wouldn’t recommend Kyoto if those numbers are correct. But
I’m too lazy/busy to get you the reference (I’d have to find it again). I Googled ‘Kyoto cost’ and found it.

Dugger

Idiotic?

Now this is idiotic:

“My stance on the issue is that it doesn t matter if global warming is real or not, since the measures that need to be taken to curtail it also help alleviate a bunch of other problems.”

Costs of the Kyoto Protocol

Gas prices go up 35%.

Electricity costs go up from 20% to 86%.

US GNP drops a whopping 4%.

Natural gas prices rise dramatically.

This from the Clinton Admin.

US Senate votes 99-0 to reject Kyoto.

Yet it doesn’t matter if global warming is real, because we should do this stuff anyway. Did you really mean that?

Dugger

Yes,Zython, but in this case JWG has been sharp and I for one think you should consider upgrading him to exalted Dugger/Frank/Pedro/Farris status.

Jesus, pedro, you wrote something totally, completely one hundred percent wrong to advance policy in total opposition to scientific fact —  This country is one of the cleanest industrialized countries in the world. — and you have the nerve to suggest someone else here is using Stalinist tactics? Simply unbelievable.

All animals are equal, just some are more equal than others& ..

What the hell are you drawing that from? The fact that I was wrong in holding JWG to the same standard I hold you because he’s not a moron? I’ll be happy to hold you to a higher standard when you stop being stupid. It’s that simple.

Granted, the emmissions of greenhouse gasses is going to increase over time. There will be more cars on the road, Businesses that create these gasses as by-products will grow larger. We may not be able to decrease the rate of emmissions, but we can decrease the rate at which this rate increases. However, the present executive and legeslative branches aren’t doing anything to curtail this growth.

Better? I realize now that I shouldn’t hold you to the same standard I hold Frank_D, Dugger, mrpedro, & Save_Ferris. I will admit this was a gross error on my part.

All animals are equal, just some are more equal than others…..

That leftist truism served Stalin well, so by all means, have “flexible” standards….

Translation: Who the hell cares what happens then? Screw our decendents, we’ll all be dead by then!

P.S. Greenhouse emissions increased every year in the US during the earth-hating Clinton/Gore years.

That’s the best you’ve got? Assuming you are telling the truth (which is doubtful), the best defense you have is “They didn’t manage to lower greenhouse emissions, so we should just give up”? That’s sad. Oh, but I’m sure Bush & the Pub congress lowering emission standards is going to do wonders for the environment!

Funny& Cheney had to fight a lawsuit against Congress over his role in determining energy policy.

Because Cheney’s “Energy Commission” was such a great success in protecting the enviornment! [/sarcasm]

Zython: 40, Frank_D, Dugger, mrpedro, JWG: 0

Like shooting monkeys in a barrel.

Translation: Who the hell cares what happens then?

Uh, no…Translation: Gore said by 2100 the sea level will have risen by 20 feet and we’ll have 100 million refugees, but the scientific consensus is that sea level will have risen somewhere between 3 inches and 3 feet by 2100. In other words, “by the end of this century” and “2100″ and “one hundred years from now” all mean the same thing. I don’t even know what argument you’re think you’re replying to.

Assuming you are telling the truth (which is doubtful)

Look it up and apologize.

 They didn t manage to lower greenhouse emissions, so we should just give up ? That s sad.

Um, where did I say ANYTHING remotely like this? Again, what argument are you reading? The point was in response to criticisms that Bush isn’t lowering emissions. Well, no kidding. No one does. Gore didn’t even try when he had the chance. But now he’s a great critic.

Cheney s  Energy Commission was such a great success in protecting the enviornment!

Christ…again, what argument are you paying attention to? You claim a VP has no power to influence the environment, so I prove you wrong. You can’t possibly be this stupid…it’s an act, right?

Like shooting monkeys in a barrel.

Good grief, you’re not even making responses to the actual debate. It’s like you’re a little kid spinning around in circles. And you’re proud of this?

What the IPCC actually said: “…by the end of this century.”

Dude, that’s 2100…one hundred years from now…just what Gore said. Gore’s “science” is much more severe than the scientific consensus. I don’t know how you can argue that he is not “overstating” the effects.

His presentation may concentrate on the most severe predictions, but that dosn t qualify as alarmism

Then what does? 100 million refugees isn’t alarming? Extending the scientific consensus from 3 feet (maximum) to 20 feet isn’t alarming?

Wrong

You didn’t address my question: “How many scientists are supporting the notion that reversing global warming is important in disease control?” Improved public health measures and vaccines are how we will control disease, NOT by curbing our greenhouse emissions. Or do you and Gore think this wasn’t a problem until global warming? Oh, wait…I get it…diseases are scary…let’s lump it in with global warming!

At least JWG’s opinions, even if I vehemently disagree, don’t seem borderline psychotic.

What the IPCC actually said:

The IPCC 2001 report, based on the full range of emissions scenarios, projected an overall global sea-level rise of between 4 inches and 3 feet by the end of this century.

So it’s not like the sea levels won’t keep rising, it’s more like there’s a question of how long it will take. Also keep in mind that many islands and low lying coastal areas will be submerged by a sea level rise of less than a foot (and you think New Orleans looks bad now).

Read up on the problems with predicting deglaciation.

Filling the gap in knowledge between the risk (a significant probability of many meters of sea level rise) and the current reality (rapid local ice responses to local warming but small aggregate effect on sea level rise so far) will require a sharpened focus on all three fronts: observations, modeling, and paleoclimate assessment. Currently, the resources to do any one of these at the appropriate level are lacking. And because greenhouse gas concentrations and ice sheet loss are effectively irreversible, policy decisions need to be made based on the information in hand, which argues that deglaciation could be triggered by a modest warming.

And that’s why Gore pushes the notion that we need to prepare for the worst and hope for the best, not ignore the worst and barely acknowledge the best.

Though I wasn’t necessarily talking about JWG when I said that Gore never said it was okay to lie about the dangers of climate change (though that is a prominent theme with clowns like Scarborough and Stossel, among many others), I do have an issue with JWG’s selective quotation.

What JWG quoted:

So what Gore said was not that it is okay to lie

and what I wrote:

So what Gore said was not that it is okay to lie, but rather that there should be an emphasis on pushing the facts of the situation into the public sphere as often as possible to motivate the public to open up to possible solutions. In other words, he says we have to talk about it a lot and point out just how much trouble we could be facing. That s quite a bit different than saying it s okay to lie (or overstate) the problem.

When rightwing pundits did the Gore dance back in 2000 they loved to push the meme that he was dishonest and nuts. Now we see a push to paint the same picture to discredit Gore and by extension, Global Warming. I clearly stated that Gore’s intent was to get people to sit up and pay attention by making it clear just how bad things could get, and that that constituted neither lying nor “overstating” the issues.

Now lets see how JWG paints Gore:

It is alarmism and he admits it. He wants to scare people into action even if it takes exaggeration to do it.

In short, Gore admits to exaggerating, but in fact Gore admits no such thing. His presentation may concentrate on the most severe predictions, but that dosn’t qualify as alarmism, nor does it render his conclusions unsupported by most scientists (most of whom acknowledge that since they cannot say with certainty how bad things will get, that there is no discounting the worst case scenario). But hey, just because JWG says that he’s an alarmist unsupported by most scientists and that the Left is full of “Chicken Littles” doesn’t mean he said Gore’s a liar. Whew, glad that got cleared up.

But let’s slam shut the door on some more of this nonsense. Here’s JWG trying to deny a potentially catastrophic link between disease outbreaks and climate change.

Gore tries to link the spread of diseases to global warming. There is no consensus about this claim at all. Yet Gore begins his movie saying that nothing in his movie is controversial in the scientific community. How many scientists are supporting the notion that reversing global warming is important in disease control?

Wrong.

Yes. Would you believe the Bible just because some priests, ministers and rabbis, put on a slide show?

So why is it wrong that people express discontent when the Bush administration tries to baffle with bullshit?