2,321 Forum Posts by "Musician"
At 4/8/08 11:31 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: - The Holocaust
Well this one is self explanatory. This is religious prosecution. Sure you could argue, "Hitlers Religion" but the people who went through with this didn't exactly do it due to religious causes.
Uh actually, yeah, the holocaust occurred because Hitler was able to take advantage of Germany being a Christian nation.
- The Crusades
Not BASED of religion. I'm not going to argue religion wasn't used in it, but it isn't the base.
Once again, religion was used to sway the people, and to justify the atrocities committed.
- The burning of Witches at the stake
And once again, even if the people accusing the 'witches' weren't doing it for religious causes, it was religion that allowed for the actual executions to occur.
- 9/11 and basically the whole war on terror
Depends on how you look at this from which side. Our side, no. Their side, yes and no.
Their side: definitely yes, radicalized islamists flew planes into the towers, and radicalized Islamists run Al Quaeda
Our side: yes, but to a lesser extent. the war on terror has motivated hate crimes against Muslims etc etc, The war on terror is supported to a great extent by evangelicals who are really mostly interested in the extermination of Islam etc etc.
I could make the argument that none of these events could have occured without religion, and I'd be right. None of them could have occured without religion.
At 4/8/08 11:27 PM, Memorize wrote: 1 problem with the Holocaust: It's debatable whether or not Hitler was motivated by religion in any way.
Regardless of Hitlers motivations, the undebatable fact that Hitler wouldn't have been able to discriminate against the Jews like he did if Germany hadn't been a Christian nation. He convinced the Christians of germany that the Jews were a bunch of Christ killers, that's how he was able to do it.
Secondly, if I brought up Hitler or Mao, or any other atheistic crackpot who killed people based on irrational fear or paranoia, I'd know you'd come up with a vast amount of excuses. I do love that. Whenever you can apply the same logic to the other person (ie. look at what this particular belief has done), all they do is come up with rationalizations and excuses to justify their beliefs (or lack thereof).
Only those people weren't killed by Atheism. They were killed by atheists. Big difference.
You do realize, of course, that the Bible mentions people who were outside the religion as "Good and Righteous People", correct? How about the fact that when people are told to "preach the gospel" that they should walk away when people don't want to listen?
But I bet you didn't know that, did you? You went with irrational generalizations you probly heard off of YouTube, right?
It doesn't really matter what the bible actually says, the fact of the matter is when Christianity or any other religion is radicalized, it's about what the radicals interpret the religious text as. The real problem with religion is that it has been used time and time again to control people to support you. I mean just look at Joseph Kony. Do you think he would have been able to enslave 60,000 civilians and use them as soldiers and prostitutes if he didn't have everyone believing he can talk to god?
At 4/8/08 11:26 PM, SuperDeagle wrote: Scuse me. I could argue that the majority of those are not based off religion.
All of them.
Go on. Argue that.
At 4/8/08 10:59 PM, Proteas wrote: I've got one for you; take your own advice, and keep your beliefs to yourself.
How's that sound?
I'd rather not. You see, when you have this fancy thing called 'free speech', you don't have to keep your beliefs to yourself. On a side note Proteas, do you deny that Religion segregates us? What exactly does religion do that's good?
I can't think of anything really. Morals? You can get those from plenty of places.
On the flip side, how many terrible things have become possible because of religion?
- The Holocaust
- The Crusades
- The burning of Witches at the stake
- 9/11 and basically the whole war on terror
That's just for starters, it's hard to think of terrible things that CAN'T be associated with religion.
At 4/8/08 09:54 PM, Proteas wrote: I see someone bitching about religion and it's minuscule percentage of extremist adherents somehow causing 99.99999#% of all the world's problems, yet offering nothing to really enlighten people or providing a realistic solution to the "problem."
As usual.
Here's a realistic solution, stop believing in some imaginary man in the sky.
Religion = the #1 thing that segregates us, the world would be better without it.
So in case you've never heard about the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA henceforth) and Joseph Kony, let me fill you in. They're basically a bunch of really nice guys who have done all sorts of service to the Ugandan community, including killing, maiming, torturing, raping, and abducting the fair citizens of Uganda and some of it's neighbors. The LRA uses abducted children as soldiers and sex slaves, and when one of them tries to run away, the LRA has been known to force their abducted children soldiers to participate in the execution of the children who tried to escape. By 2007, the estimated amount of abductees is around 60,000. Like I said, nice guys.
Joseph Kony, probably the nicest guy of them all, believes he can talk to God (on a side note, Joseph Kony has also had 27-50 wives, most of which have been abducted children). Joseph Kony has stated multiple times that his mission is to turn Uganda into a government based upon the 10 commandments (aka a Theocracy), and that he fights in the name of the Holy Spirit.
The LRA was formed in 1987, and started attacking civilian targets in Northern Uganda. In 1994, the LRA started recieving support from the Sudanese government... the same one funding the genocide in Darfur, but the Sudanese government has allegedly stopped funding them since then (however weapon stockpiles from when the Sudan supported them still fuel the LRA). And in 2005, a portion of the LRA passed into the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and has further complicated the problems there.
Alright so let me cut the bullshit and get straight to the point. Joseph Kony and the LRA are monsters, and I hope nobody would disagree with me on this. That being said, I want to ask you, what you think needs to be done to put a stop to Joseph Kony and the LRA? Does the Ugandan government need to take different action? And more importantly, what place to world powers like the US have in all this?
Let me know your answers. The picture below is of Joseph Kony.
n64kid, without adding any more fuel to the fire, you might not have said that, but you're defending and siding with a person who has said that "Americans don't deserve to keep our economy going". As in, the US economy wouldn't "keep going" without increasing emissions. I'm against drilling in Alaska because the places they want to drill are Wildlife Reserves, and it's unnecessary anyways since we should be switching to nuclear as soon as possible.
China doesn't produce enough industry for it's people? That would explain why it's so low on the list when compared per capita. It doesn't null the chain at all. The chain doesn't require the country to have enough industry to support it's people, it's the other way around. It allows the country to have more emissions total, because it's understandable for that country to have more industry, because it has more people to support. And to answer your question. No, the emissions from China would not count towards California, since the emissions were not emitted in California.
You say everyone has a political agenda, but have you ever recognized that the scientists who are opposing global warming are more times than not funded by the oil industry? Who has more of an agenda? Every major scientific body in the US (the majority of which aren't the EPA, which im not even certain qualifies as a scientific body), or an incredibly small minority of scientists funded by the oil industry?
You mention 'points' that have been brought up, but you've completely failed to produce any structured list. Even after I said I would debunk them for you if you did. And your making some weird argument about methane. Let me see if I can break this down for you. Methane does have 25 times the effects of CO2 when it comes to being a greenhouse gas. But methane isn't a major threat because:
A) it doesn't take up nearly as much of the atmosphere
B) it's isn't being emitted at anywhere near the same rates as CO2, methane emissions are already relatively low
C) methane only stays in the atmosphere for 10 years, so its a much less permanent problem than CO2 is.
Carbon Dioxide being a part of our life cycle is an irrelevant fact, since our life cycle can continue without the artificial production of CO2.
Furthermore your claim that since CO2 only makes up a small portion of the atmosphere, it cant have a large effect on climate change is easily debunked.
The properties of greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide mean that they strongly absorb heat a fact that can be easily demonstrated in a simple laboratory experiment. While there are larger concentrations of other gases in the atmosphere, such as nitrogen, because they do not have these heat trapping qualities they have no effect on warming the climate whatsoever.
Two final comments.
LazyDrunk: Can you clarify what your point is with the stage 5 problem?
cellardoor6: When I said "they cannot explain the current increase in heat.", I actually meant to link here.
At 4/7/08 12:26 AM, Memorize wrote: One must ask how credible a Wikipedia article is, especially when it's saying "It's been suggested"...
I actually have only heard small things about how the world bank actually works, and I've been meaning to getting around to looking into the issue more closely one of these days. Needless to say alot of people believe that the World Bank is keeping Africa from developing.
At 4/6/08 11:45 PM, poxpower wrote: I mean, whites and asians had really huge complex societies all over the place and build crazy-awesome technologies.
I missed this part of your post. I read this one book on the subject called Guns, Germs, and Steel. And the authors conclusion on the matter was basically that it all came down to geographical luck.
At 4/6/08 11:45 PM, poxpower wrote:
:that our fault again?
Well. actually...
At 4/6/08 11:26 PM, LazyDrunk wrote: The greenhouse effect still doesn't address millenia-long climate trends.
And before you ask. No, this can't explain current warming since right now we're in a state of cooling. Which is why the warming must be being cause by something different.
Quote editing makes you cool right? Maybe europe would have experienced higher growth if it hadn't cut emissions. The point is moot because they still experienced growth, as in there weren't catastrophic effects on their economies for stopping emissions growth. So anyone saying that the US can't cut emissions is full of it. Furthermore, (like I said before but you obviously missed) transferring to alternative energy will be better for the economy in the long run since the US will eventually be unable to maintain its oil economy.
Why have population dilute a percentage? Because the more people -> the more industry needed to support those people -> the more pollution. It's a simple concept buddy. It more accurately displays a countries pollution level when you take population into account.
You seem to be more than willing to flaunt the GHE as a "theory", but most scientific conclusions are theories. The theory of evolution is a theory, that doesn't mean it's wrong. And exactly which of my links said that the greenhouse effect isn't a "one way door"? Do you seriously believe the fact that the greenhouse effect is only accepted by every major scientific body in the US because of "political agendas"? What is this a conspiracy?
So you can't bullet point these 'problems' in the theory of global warming? So you seriously don't have any real arguments that you want to present against it except for this methane thing? If that's the case then the methane can be explained easily, methane not only makes up a very small amount of the atmosphere, it's also only stays in the atmosphere for around 10 years, as opposed to carbon dioxide which stays in the atmosphere for over 100 years.
You only showed that tourism is up in (possibly) record numbers since 2007. European countries have seen stable economic growth since FAR before that. So even if tourism right now is up, it doesn't explain the economic growth from the earlier years. Furthermore you're concentrating solely on the Euro and not at all on the GDP of these countries, which has seen much stable growth even though (as I've already shown) the US has little economic hold of these regions. You're claims about me being "had" are unfounded because my point has been that cutting on emissions will not cause the destroy the US economy or even stop economic growth, because other countries have historically shown otherwise. In the end, cutting emissions and changing to alternate energy more quickly will in fact be BETTER for the US, since the US oil economy can only be preserved as long as there is oil.
Furthermore the fact that productivity can only be defined as money proves my point seeing as value is subjective, as in a US citizen can be selling 1 guitar an hour for $100 and be 3 times more 'productive' than the Chinese citizen selling 1 guitar an hour for $33. Per capita is a much more stable and reliable form of measurement.
Your comment "It also blocks and reflects sun rays coming down to Earth too. So it balances out, could trap a little in, could keep a little out. One way door my ass." is just flat out ignorant. You do realize that the greenhouse effect is proven right? There's no scientific debate on whether or not the greenhouse effect is real, even GWs strongest critics know there is a greenhouse effect.
I'm not going to let you get away with just linking to some website with all the 'criticisms' for global warming. You bullet point every concern you have with the current theory of global warming and I'll debunk it tomorrow when I get home. You can include that link to methane since I have no idea what you're referring to.
At 4/6/08 06:45 PM, Al6200 wrote: Well, okay. Have you ever considered that even if black people are responsible for the majority of crimes, it might be due to their higher levels of poverty, and not some fundamental racial difference? Again, not blaming white people, or mitigating the crimes committed by black people, just saying that black people have been denied economic opportunity until fairly recently, so it's not unreasonable to expect them to be disproportionately involved in crime, no?
Exactly the point I was going to make before I realized you already posted it. Black people don't receive the same opportunities that whites do, which makes them more likely to be involved in crimes (or be poor), and most this lack of opportunities can't be explained by legitimate factors either (racism would be illegitimate).
Anyways like GumOnShoe said, your racism really shined through here.
You're way off target cellardoor, and missing the point tremendously. The fact of the matter is from 1990 to the current day Germany, the UK, and France have all reduced their emissions. It doesn't matter where these reductions took place, because all 3 of them have experienced stead economic growth from that time till now. So the theory that cutting on emissions (or at least limiting the growth of emissions) would somehow destroy the US's economy has been proven wrong.
It's true that some (I stress that word since they're such a minority) scientists believe the recent heating in the earths atmosphere is caused by solar cycles. While it's true that some other fluctuations in earth's temperature can be explained this way (medieval warm period, little ice age), they cannot explain the current increase in heat.
The IPCC found that the dominant influences on climate change in the early part of the 20th century were likely to be a small increase in solar output and a decrease in average volcanic activity. However, such natural factors cannot explain the warming in the latter half of the 20th century, and the IPCC concluded that there is "new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities". The report pointed out that natural factors on their own would have produced an overall drop in global average temperatures.
It's especially important to note that last sentence, because the IPCC points out that natural factors would actually produce a drop in global temperatures, which is clearly not the case. The fluctuations in the past 1000 years can be attributed to natural factors, the current warming can't.
Next, your link to BBC states: The WMO points out that the decade from 1998 to 2007 was the warmest on record.
Well that's akward. It would be pretty hard for the this decade to be cooler than the previous one if it's the "warmest on record". Also, even if 2005, a single year, did not negate the trend (which it did since it showed that the increase in temperature was still occurring), there was no cooling trend to begin with. 2007 tied with 1998 for second hottest, 2006 is the worlds third hottest year, and your own link states that the decade from 1998-2007 was the hottest on record.
Moving on to the next post you made, I don't know why you brought up global cooling. Or what makes you think there's nothing scientific about global warming seeing as theres a general scientific consesus that it's true. Global warming isn't only grounded in fact, it's agreed to be true by every major scientific body in the US.
How do you plan to prove that Europe depends on tourism to grow economically? Because it sounds like bull to me. The Marshall plan is done and over, it only lasted 4 years, it doesn't effect Europe today.
While the EPA doesn't classify Carbon Dioxide as a pollutant, they're under Bush right now, so their word isn't exactly golden. Some states however do classify it as one (California has tried to pass some bills) along with green groups. Green house emissions aren't a joke, and the green house effect is a theory, but it's a very well supported theory. GHGs, have been proven to trap IR rays in them. It's a documented fact that our atmosphere traps the suns ray. It's also a fact that CO2 is the dominant human-produced GHG, and that it has been responsible for more than half the changes in temperature in atmospheric concentrations. So I'd like to see you show me what exactly hasn't been proved, because the overwhelming majority of scientists agree with the IPCC's conclusions on global warming.
Furthermore, emissions per capita is certainly not an irrelevant ratio, it's the most reliable and uncorruptable ratio you can use when it comes to pollution. pollution by productivity? Besides the fact that you haven't proved that the US has the highest productivity, the fact remains that productivity is subjective, and therefore can be used to "manipulate the numbers in your favor". So tell me, what exactly are you saying by productivity? Money gained? And then support it with actual statistics.
Then you can get to work showing exactly where exactly 100 million years ago there was a significant contradiction in CO2 content in the atmosphere vs. temperature. Then you can try and find the "conflicts" you're talking about, and then explain why despite all of this every major scientific body in the US has signed on to the IPCC's findings on global warming.
The value of the Euro is relatively stable. As in compared to other currencies (the US dollar in recent years). And I don't see how you can say the EU's growth was because of the US, or even how it was predominately because of the US, seeing as (from what I can tell anyways), the EU receives relatively little imports from the US. The CIA World fact book doesn't have an article on the EU-27/Eu-15 but as far as the individual countries I've listed:
Germany
Exports($): $1.361 trillion
Imports($): $1.121 trillion
Export Partners: France 9.5%, US 8.7%, UK 7.3%, Italy 6.7%, Netherlands 6.3%, Austria 5.6%, Belgium 5.2%, Spain 4.7%
Import Partners: Netherlands 11.8%, France 8.5%, Belgium 7.2%, China 5.9%, UK 5.7%, Italy 5.6%, US 5.3%, Austria 4.3%
(source)
United Kingdom
Exports($): $595.6 billion
Imports($): $558.9 billion
Export Partners: US 13.9%, Germany 10.9%, France 10.4%, Ireland 7.1%, Netherlands 6.3%, Belgium 5.2%, Spain 4.5%
Import Partners: Germany 12.8%, US 8.9%, France 6.9%, Netherlands 6.6%, China 5.3%, Norway 4.9%, Belgium 4.5%
(source)
France
Exports($): $558.9 billion
Imports($): $601.4 billion
Export Partners: Germany 15.6%, Spain 9.6%, Italy 8.9%, UK 8.3%, Belgium 7.3%, US 6.6%, Netherlands 4%
Import Partners: Germany 18.9%, Belgium 11.1%, Italy 8.4%, Spain 7%, Netherlands 6.8%, UK 6.6%, US 4.6%
(source)
Since now we know the US actually has a relatively low economic hold on these countries, I'd like you to explain what exactly you mean when you said that Europe is only growing economically because of the US.
Russia might have been the worlds largest polluter if you exclude GHGs, but since GHGs thicken our atmosphere and cause global warming, they're considered pollutants. As such, the US was the worlds leading polluter before China overtook them. And even though China has overtaken the US, China has 3 times the population of the United States, meaning by a per person ratio, the US still produces the most pollution of any nation in the world (Not that this excludes China as a large polluter). Whether or not the US has more efficient production is irrelevant, because even with the more efficient production, the US pollution than China when you factor in population.
You made a comment that there's no correlation between CO2 and rising temperatures, but anyone with eyes can see that there is. Are you telling me that you're going to discount an obvious correlation between the temperature and CO2 because theres a slight variation near the end? There's any number of reasons that can explain that. The most obvious is the lag between CO2 content and temperature change.
And just so you know, I would be for drilling in Alaska if it were anything more than a (very) temporary solution. We're pretty much looking at the end of Oil reserves, it's better to start converting the US to alternative energy sources faster, rather than wasting time tearing up Alaskan wildlife reserves.
First of all, EU-15 emissions decreased by 0.8 % between 2004 and 2005. And I don't see anything in that article you linked to about anything past 2004. Also, even if you don't think the EU is applicable (which I think it is since you can just use the sum of the EU-15's individual economies to represent the EU before 1993), there are plenty of other examples of large economies experiencing growth while lowering emissions.
Germany, the third largest independent economy in the world, has decreased it's emissions by 15-20% (depending on what you factor in) since 1990. And has seen steady economic growth during this time: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=gm&
v=65
The UK, the fifth largest independent economy in the world, has decreased it's emissions by around 14-16% since 1990. And has seen steady economic growth during this time: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=uk&
v=65
France, the worlds sixth largest independent economy in the world, has decreased it's emissions by around 1-7% since 1990 (although low, France already is mostly nuclear, so it's emissions are already relatively low). And has seen steady economic growth during this time: http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=fr&
v=65
Moving on to the idea of global warming, the concept is far from false. It's really quite simple; GHGs enter the atmosphere and trap in more sunbeams, causing the Earth's temperature to rise. Not only is the theory sound, there's been a recognized correlation between GHGs and rising temperature since global warming was discovered.
Furthermore, global warming has not stopped in 1998, despite the claims that your article has made. The hottest year on record was 2005, that alone refutes the claim. But furthermore, 2007 is tied with 1998 for the second hottest year on record after 2005. And even furthermore, 2006 is the third hottest year on record. Both things that your article wouldn't know about since it was written in 2006. Global temperatures do fluctuate a bit, but overall the trend towards higher temperatures is clear.
At 4/5/08 09:19 PM, SevenSeize wrote:At 4/5/08 03:56 PM, Musician wrote: So what do you all think I should write about in my position paper? Remember I'm representing Uganda.I'd write about protecting human rights.
Har har har.
At 4/5/08 10:09 PM, cellardoor6 wrote: Because it is composed of 27 countries.
Now, don't get all testy. I only picked the EU so I could use an economy of comparable size.
Except the EU-15 has increased its carbon emissions since then. The EU will also fail to meet Kyoto emissions cuts.
As a whole, the EU-15 was supposed to cut its emissions by 8 percent; just two years before the clock begins ticking (the deadline is the average between 2008 and 2012), it has cut emissions by less than 1 percent.
since 1990? even your own link says that it's decreased it's emissions since then. Not only that, but when you factor in things (land use etc. see document), they've cut their emissions by about 4% since 1990.
And the Europeans have actually increased its emissions at a rate 3 times the US has.
Horner said
Besides like I've said before, the EU has reduced it's emissions since 1990, while at the same time steadily increasing it's GDP.
So... the Europeans can talk all they want and pretend like they support Kyoto for political points. It doesn't matter, it's all a charade.
They've done more than the US has, and experience economic growth during that period. Point being, cutting down on emissions doesn't seemed to have harmed their economy.
Because the Kyoto Protocol is meaningless and the entire premise of it is based on inaccurate, emotionally charged nonsense. The Kyoto protocol was also biased from the beginning, because for the US to comply, it would effectively punish the US for higher economic growth and population growth than EU countries have.
I don't see how cutting down on emissions is meaningless. Or how it's based on emotionally charged nonsense. Would it be harder for the US to comply with the Kyoto Protocol? Maybe, but at the same time it would be better for the US to try something rather than not do anything, at the very lease not INCREASE it's emissions.
This is all just a side argument anyways seeing as one thing I've definitely shown here is that the EU maintained economic growth while cutting emissions.
Meanwhile China, which is the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases, was entirely immune from any emissions cuts. Thus showing you how idiotic and politically motivated Kyoto is.
Right, because China is a developing nation.
Also, earlier you said that global warming stopped at 1998? Protip: 2005 was the hottest year on record.
At 4/5/08 08:24 PM, n64kid wrote: Stable economy?
http://uk.finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?t=1y&s=
%5EFCHI&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=&c=%5EFTSE&c=%5ED JI
Value of the Euro
GDP of the EU
Looks fairly stable to me.
Strong Euro relative to the dollar, yes. But this is just due to the demand for the Euro, largely due to American travelers. Even with a weak dollar, Americans are so rich, they continue to flock to Europe.
The only reason I even picked the EU's economy was so I could have something comparable to the US's gigantic economy. So what's the relevance of this?
You'd lose that bet.
EU:300 cars for 1000 population. 150,000,000 cars.
America:776 cars for 1000 population. 232,800,000.
You underestimate how rich America is.
Haha, that's actually pretty funny. "rich" is a nice way to put it. But yeah, even so my point still stands. The US increased it's emissions by about 15% while the EU-15 has decreased them (even though it's less than one percent when you leave out some factors). The least the US could have agreed to was to maintain stable emissions compared to 1990.
You also fail to realize economic costs, while only looking at it financially. You failed to relate opportunity costs as well. A poorly run business can still get lucky and make money, but if it had a better design, it could see even higher profits. Get it?
Nope, you saying that Europe got lucky?
Anyways, China has fewer cars than Americans, yet they surpassed even Russia in pollution. Which shows that you overemphasize cars as a contributer to pollution. Even with their amazingly superior dam they see a growth of pollution. Their economy also grew faster from 1990-2005 compared to the EU, even with an increase of pollution, which stengthens my argument for opportunity costs.
You mean surpassed even the US in pollution right? The US had the highest GHG emissions before China passed them. Besides if you factor in population, the US still produces more polution per citizen. China has about 1 billion people, as opposed to the US which has about 30% of that, and still produces close to what China produces. Furthermore, China is considered a developing nation, they're experiencing booms like this because they're just getting on their feet. That's why the best analogy is with the EU, which has a steadily growing economy even with cuts to GHG emissions.
On another note to why CO2 shouldn't even be brought up, the break up of air in the atmosphere is
Nitrogen at 78%
Oxygen at 21%
Argon at 1%
and Co2 is at .038%
That's a fraction of 1/10th of 1% of the atmosphere.
What's your point?
In fact, there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature, and cows and volcanoes have exponentially contributed more CO2 emissions compared to human industry. Humans do not significantly contribute to climate change, and CO2 have little evidence to show the sensitivity between it's levels and temperature.
Besides, you're link doesn't even say that CO2 doesn't cause warming. It just says that Gore's graph didn't definitely prove it.
Which brings me to my opinion that we as humans should use nuclear energy,
I don't disagree with that.
Seriously, whether or not gays are born that way or not is irrelevant, because homosexuals aren't hurting anyone. Pedophiles on the other hand are.
At 4/5/08 06:04 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The EU is comical in how little it really obeys Kyoto.
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Energya ndEnvironment/wm1800.cfm
And cutting carbon emissions by 8 percent is sometimes easier when you have 300 cars in your country instead of 300 million [those are arbitrary numbers representing the difference in industrial size and how it effects carbon reductions]
the technologies capable of economically meeting them exist. The result is either ruinous economic consequences or failure to reduce emissions via continued over-allocation of permits. The EU originally chose the latter and is now choosing the former.
So the EU is now facing ruinous economic consequences? That's strange seeing as they have a stable economy and a strong euro. Like I've presented, the EU seen economic growth in during the time's it's cut emissions.
And I'd be willing to bet the EU has more cars than the US, seeing as it has about 500,000,000 people as opposed to the US's 300,000,000. And even more important, the US's emissions have GROWN since 1990, as opposed to the EU's who's have shrunk. No matter how you look at it, there has been no noticeable/significant economic damage from the reduced emissions. Causation means correlation. There's no correlation.
Here's an even more up to date source, which also includes data from 2005.
At 4/5/08 03:56 PM, Zeistro wrote: I'm guite cognizant the fact you were trying to make about Europe not suffering economy due to following the Kyoto Protocal, however, it is still a bullshit comparison considerings it's the combined GDP of many countries to one.
If you want to make a better one why don't you cite one nation instead of many?
Knock yourself out. But comparing to the EU is much more applicable because it's on the same scale as the US economy. 2 economies worth noting:
UK: -14.3% emissions
Germany: -17.2% emmisions
Both countries that still experience economic growth.
The US: +15.8 emmisions
^ that's in the same time frame as the UK and Germany.
So I'm doing this model UN paper from the perspective of Uganda. We're discussing the conflict in the DRC which has killed around 3.8 million people. Our three main topics are:
1) Ending foreign involvement from Uganda and Rwanda
2) Removing child soldiers
3) Protecting human rights.
So what do you all think I should write about in my position paper? Remember I'm representing Uganda.
At 4/5/08 03:38 PM, Madferit wrote: Oh good job Europe. 12 countries combined have a slightly larger GDP than 1 country, USA.
At 4/5/08 03:45 PM, Zeistro wrote: Lul. A country vs a continent, eh? Fair comparison, indeed.
I see the point flew right over both of your heads.
I totally agree, those brainwashed libtards what are they thinking?
I mean can't they see our economy needs oil power to survive? Never mind the fact that the European Union, which has the largest economy in the world, is one of the largest supporters of the Kyoto Protocol, and has reduced it's carbon emissions (EU-15) between 1990-2005. While during the same period the US, which has not ratified the Kyoto Protocol, has increased it's carbon emissions from 1990-2006.
Liberals will try to argue that since the EU's economy has been growing even under reduced emissions, that obviously the argument that the US trying to cut it's dependance on oil would harm the economy is overstated. Personally? I think the liberals are just brainwashed off their ass.
</satire>
At 4/2/08 09:45 PM, Peaceblossom wrote: What's your blood type? If it's O- then good on you. If you're AB+ then why bother?
it was O something.
At 4/2/08 09:51 PM, Grammer wrote: So did she let you stick it in her pooper afterwards?
Yes.
At 4/2/08 09:37 PM, Proottalfain wrote: It's funny how the skin around the needle is yellow.
You are be coming a Simpson.
It's called Iodine.
