Re: Killing Kyoto
 

People almost always fall into two distinct camps - Republican/Democrat,
Capitalist/Socialist, Religion for/against, Guns for/against, Abortion for/against.....Left/Right, Yin/Yang. And the current argument is the same.

We are wired differently - no point in arguing the toss. We are all entitled to our opinions. :)

Re: Killing Kyoto
 

I bet those splinters are really digging into your arse for sitting on the fence too much!

Re: Killing Kyoto
 

When I press on the link it goes here:

Ozone layer unlikely to recover until 2065


By Usha Lee McFarling
Tribune Newspapers: Los Angeles Times
Published December 7, 2005

SAN FRANCISCO -- The ozone hole over Antarctica might persist until 2065, which is two decades longer than predicted, because ozone-destroying chemicals are still being released by developed nations more than a decade after their production and importation was banned.

The Montreal Protocol, ratified in 1987, banned the creation of chemicals such as chlorofluorocarbons used as coolant by developed nations. It followed the discovery that such chemicals destroyed ozone molecules and thinned the layer of ozone that is about 20 miles above the Earth's surface. The layer shields the planet from ultraviolet radiation that causes cancer and cataracts and can harm wildlife...........

My point being that we do 'hear' about the ozone layer still, it's just izibear isn't reading the papers. A quick google will give you any number of news articles.

Re: Killing Kyoto
 

oooh nice, we can agree on something!
:)

Re: Killing Kyoto
 

We agree on most things, just different levels!

Re: Killing Kyoto
 

that's true, and a better way of seeing it!:)

Re: Killing Kyoto
 

Sit on the fence on this issue - Me????? No way! I'm just tired of fighting the opposition on-line, here and elsewhere. The arguments go round and around. Like I said, we are wired differently - it's futile to argue, I have at least learned that much. You believe what you want to believe and I shall do the same.

Re: Killing Kyoto
 

Did you just render all discussion forums futile? :D
If there were no discussion forums, how would you be able to wind up complete strangers??

Re: Killing Kyoto
 

But some of us like to hear and agree with your opinions, just ask cutina, (s)he thought we weren't agreeing, but when we got a little deeper, we bath agreed, but on marginally different levels!

Re: Killing Kyoto
 

On politics, religion and the subject of this thread, I do think message board discussions become repetitive after a while, and go nowhere. I've tried not to get involved recently, but in this case I feel strongly about the issue, and was tempted.

Discussion and argument on a topic which is new - a piece of breaking news, a new development, is different. It's good to hear everyone's views then, they are fresh and unadulterated by the media, and help one to form one's own opinion. On the subject of this string, we have all decided (long ago probably) where we stand.

Re: Killing Kyoto
 

Crichton uses (mostly) valid sources for his data but he is highly selective in its application. Through his characters he tries to assert that the earth is actually cooling by pointing out temperature trends in a remote weather station in Patagonia. How do you conclude that the entire earth is cooling based on a single data set? His book is riddled with similar examples. For a very well written scientific critique of the book, by actual climate scientists, check out - http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

Further to the point above, looking at isolated data sets from scattered regions tells you nothing. GLOBAL warming is the averaging of temperature-time trends over the entire planet's surface to determine a GLOBAL trend. Even factoring in areas of regional cooling the GLOBAL trend is conclusively positive. Even Crichton agrees with this.

Re: Killing Kyoto
 

Data obtained from Antarctic ice cores show the long-term average atmospheric CO2 concentration to be around 230 parts per million (ppm) over the preceding 650,000 years, with minimum and maximum values of 170 and 300 ppm respectively. The current atmospheric CO2 concentration is 380ppm and is rising by 1ppm per year. Not only is this absolute value unprecedented but so is the rate of rise. There are no known 'natural' explanations for these occurrences.

Good points but I don't see the profit motive behind the UN, National Academy of Sciences, EPA, et el. All of them are public agencies that would be funded no matter what. However, it is easy to see the motive behind some of the skeptical backers who include the likes of Exxon, Saudi Amoco, and Western Fuels - corporations who do profit from maintaining the status quo.

Re: Killing Kyoto
 

I guess people start threads like this trying to share info with like minded people, like I did. I have no desire to get into politics :) But it is fun to exchange views sometimes.

Re: Killing Kyoto
 

You argumentative bastard!!

Re: Killing Kyoto
 

Is this a five minute arguement or the full half hour? :D