Republicans ignore House voting rules

Drocket

Drocket

CAGiversary!
In a cliffhanger vote held open by Republican leaders until they won, the U.S. House of Representatives passed by two votes on Friday a bill clearing the way for U.S. oil refineries to expand.

The legislation, written by Republican Joe Barton of Texas, barely won approval despite dropping a White House-backed provision that would have gutted clean air rules to help refineries and coal-powered utilities.

In the first major House vote since Texan Tom DeLay was forced to step down as majority leader, Republicans won, 212-210, in a roll call that ran more than 40 minutes, far beyond the allotted five minutes.

Democrats in the chamber chanted "shame, shame, shame" as the final tally was announced.

When over two dozen Republicans initially voted no, DeLay, Barton, House Speaker Dennis Hastert and new Majority Leader Roy Blunt circled the chamber and cajoled the holdouts.
Click to expand...

Proving once again that rules mean nothing to them.

I think all the Republicans that held out and voted their concience against such a blatent display of partisanship deserve thanks and congratulations.
 
[quote name='Drocket']Proving once again that rules mean nothing to them.

I think all the Republicans that held out and voted their concience against such a blatent display of partisanship deserve thanks and congratulations.[/QUOTE]

This is nothing new. After holding the vote on the medicare bill open until well into the next morning so votes could be swayed, this is pretty much standard operating procedure.
 
I can see spending time talking to everyone to convince people to vote for you, but I didn't think they could vote, then change their vote after they had done so. Also, you shouldn't be able to individually go around to convince certain members.
 
Goes to show you what Democrats clearly want. No increased domestic energy capacity if it has ANYTHING to do with petroleum. No drilling, no refineries, 40+ types of botique gasoline standards. Nothing they stand for and everything they're against leads to increased imports, increased reliance on foreign refined products and decreased energy independence.

They have the shame part right, only it should be aimed at themselves.

Now you know who is cleary responsible for and doesn't mind you paying in excess of $3 per gallon when you fill up your car. Now you know who to blame when your heating bills go up 40-90% this winter. The energy policies of the far left extremeist environmentialists and their willing accomplices in the Democratic party.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Goes to show you what Democrats clearly want. No increased domestic energy capacity if it has ANYTHING to do with petroleum. No drilling, no refineries, 40+ types of botique gasoline standards. Nothing they stand for and everything they're against leads to increased imports, increased reliance on foreign refined products and decreased energy independence.

They have the shame part right, only it should be aimed at themselves.[/QUOTE]

Then again, nothing republicans want leads to improving the environment. It's all in what you focus on. Besides, taking measure to lower gas prices now is simply a band aid, they'll just go back up later when supplies start getting low, and lower prices will decrease the urgency to find alternative energy sources. It make no sense to screw up the environment just for a temporary solution.
 
Wow, I'm rather surprised at your reply, PAD. I was CERTAIN that you'd bring up the fact that once, back in the early 90's, the Democrats allowed one vote to go over by nearly 5 minutes. They were, of course, completely slimed by the Republican propoganda machine (up to and including charges of treason) for doing once something that's become a rather standard Republican tactic, one practiced on a much larger scale.

Really, I'm quite disappointed. You're usually so good at presenting the Republican spin and issue blurring on issues.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Then again, nothing republicans want leads to improving the environment. It's all in what you focus on. Besides, taking measure to lower gas prices now is simply a band aid, they'll just go back up later when supplies start getting low, and lower prices will decrease the urgency to find alternative energy sources. It make no sense to screw up the environment just for a temporary solution.[/QUOTE]


There is no lack of supply on crude oil. The problem is the lack to refine it.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']There is no lack of supply on crude oil. The problem is the lack to refine it.[/QUOTE]

Not at the moment, but long term there is.
 
[quote name='rodeojones903']There is no lack of supply on crude oil. The problem is the lack to refine it.[/QUOTE]
About 10 years before the US needs to tap its reserve. And thats if current trends stay the same all 10 years.
 
[quote name='chaostic_2k1']About 10 years before the US needs to tap its reserve. And thats if current trends stay the same all 10 years.[/QUOTE]

I've been hearing the same doom and gloom since 1979. I'm not buying it.
 
When in doubt, blame environmentalists! Even though oil companies make massive profits and could easily afford a cut in gas prices, blame environmentalists! Even though environmentalists want higher MPG standards for cars, blame environmentalists! Even though gas prices won't fall as long as profits continue to rise, blame environmentalists! Even though oil companies are receiving tax breaks that could have gone to people buying hyrbid cars, or automakers manufacturing them, blame environmentalists! Even though more pollution means more illness, which in turn means higher demand for medical services, which means higher insurance prices, lower productivity, and lower tax revenue, blame environmentalists!
 
PAD's talking apples and oranges; this thread isn't about the fucking bill, it's about ethics and standards in congress. If it were a bill that Democrats were "rounding up the holdouts" in order to barely pass it (for instance, a bill to allow military members' health benefits to fluctuate positively and negatively with inflation, or some such socialist nonsense the Republicans want to avoid), PAD would be singing a VERY different tune.

For the moment, PAD knows he can't defend the Republicans blatant ignoring of the rules, so he has to change the subject. Nice try, though.
 
[quote name='CappyCobra']If at first you don't succeed, Stall & stall again! :)[/QUOTE]

Well, stall, stall and coerce, but you get the picture.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Goes to show you what Democrats clearly want. No increased domestic energy capacity if it has ANYTHING to do with petroleum. No drilling, no refineries, 40+ types of botique gasoline standards. Nothing they stand for and everything they're against leads to increased imports, increased reliance on foreign refined products and decreased energy independence.

They have the shame part right, only it should be aimed at themselves.

Now you know who is cleary responsible for and doesn't mind you paying in excess of $3 per gallon when you fill up your car. Now you know who to blame when your heating bills go up 40-90% this winter. The energy policies of the far left extremeist environmentialists and their willing accomplices in the Democratic party.[/QUOTE]

This shows that PAD spent way too much time on the short bus. Increasing domestic supplies of oil will do nothing to decrease gas prices. Why? Because there is not enough oil under U.S. soil to impact the price more than a couple of percentage points. One thing that would help is to mandate only one type of fuel blend, the one that is most stringent (probably California's blend). The Republican's energy policy is what is causing increased oil imports and higher prices at the pump.
 
[quote name='coffman'](probably California's blend)[/QUOTE]

What in the world was that gasoline additive that corporations fought over with the CA state legislature? I can't remember anything anymore.
 
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']I've been hearing the same doom and gloom since 1979. I'm not buying it.[/QUOTE]
Wow, I didn't know oil was an unlimited resource!
 
What exactly don't you "buy"? Oil is an outdated resource considering we have the technology to run cars on fucking vegetable oil, instead everyones placidly stuck with these gas guzzling toxic spewing machines that have just been getting bigger and bigger as we move along. global warming is a scientifically proven fact, EVERY nation with the exception of the united states & austrailia signed the kyoto treaty, but nope, huffy ol' cokey nose george and his brutes ignored reason once again. It's a crying shame they passed this bill, considering all the obviously crucial effects of global warming on our planet, not only does this have the potential to ruin habitation on earth as we know it, but its almost inevitable that it will!! How long have we been using oil powered macinery & automobiles? Not very long at all i'd say, and in a timespan of under 100 years we've managed to create a giant hole in our atmosphere with these supposed "modern marvels", lets move on already and attempt to reverse this, because its sure as hell not going to get better this way.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']global warming is a scientifically proven fact[/QUOTE]

I dunno man, Bush listens to god when he makes his decisions. If god told him Global warming is Kaput, are we really to question him? I mean, he did start a crusade (plenty of other times he used the word "crusade"). If god talked to Bush, I think we can assume what he says is providence.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']I dunno man, Bush listens to god when he makes his decisions. If god told him Global warming is Kaput, are we really to question him? I mean, he did start a crusade (plenty of other times he used the word "crusade"). If god talked to Bush, I think we can assume what he says is providence.[/QUOTE]

Good point, next time someone doesn't support the war in Iraq, instead of telling them that they don't support the troops you should just say "Don't you support Jesus man? Jesus would totally be down with this war!"
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']. global warming is a scientifically proven fact, EVERY nation with the exception of the united states & austrailia signed the kyoto treaty.[/QUOTE]


Ahhhh interesting. See this statement really depends on how you want to look at this issue. If you want to accept everything the media forces you to believe, then yes global warming is happening and fossil fuels are the cause. Now, on the other hand, if you want to examine the issue critically, that is a different issue.

So let's look at it. While we could say that there has been a trend toward warming in the earth's climate, it is necessary to note that we only have realiable climate records for about the last 150 years. 150 years out of how many million?

Now continuing with the global history idea, let's take into account the fact that there have been a number of ice ages that the earth has gone through. Who caused these warming and cooling cycles if humans and their fossil fuels weren't around? Aliens?

I used to just buy into the "global warming" idea too until I read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. While the book is a work of fiction, he put years of research into the facts and ideas put forth, even going so far as to have citations and refrences in the back for his scientific information. As such, he presents a very convincing argument that we don't know NEARLY enough to start making assessments on how we're destroying the earth through global warming. He doesn't necessarily say that it does or does not exist but rather that too many people just buy into the idea because its so widely puched by the media and others.
 
I think its silly to say, Oh we don't know enough about this so lets keep doing it even though evidence points to humans being an extreme contributor to the damage of the ozone layer.


How can you explain the anomalies happening in the earth such as affected bird & fish migrations?, what about the "dead zones" that have appeared off the oregon coast where they are finding massive amounts of dead sea animals, Animals that should have migrated but ended up confused by the offset climate? The last 2 hurricanes that hit american soil were the biggest in recorded history here, not to jump the gun but hurricanes ARE generated by warm ocean water...

It all just adds up too me, its obvious nobodys going to stop driving today, and even if the average joe like you and me stepped up to really make a change it would really be the massive factorys, and industrys that are churning out the pollution at such alarming rates. I won't even go into what kind of pollutents they find in the pacific ocean every year, I read em all because I lived on the coast.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Ahhhh interesting. See this statement really depends on how you want to look at this issue. If you want to accept everything the media forces you to believe, then yes global warming is happening and fossil fuels are the cause. Now, on the other hand, if you want to examine the issue critically, that is a different issue.

So let's look at it. While we could say that there has been a trend toward warming in the earth's climate, it is necessary to note that we only have realiable climate records for about the last 150 years. 150 years out of how many million?

Now continuing with the global history idea, let's take into account the fact that there have been a number of ice ages that the earth has gone through. Who caused these warming and cooling cycles if humans and their fossil fuels weren't around? Aliens?

I used to just buy into the "global warming" idea too until I read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. While the book is a work of fiction, he put years of research into the facts and ideas put forth, even going so far as to have citations and refrences in the back for his scientific information. As such, he presents a very convincing argument that we don't know NEARLY enough to start making assessments on how we're destroying the earth through global warming. He doesn't necessarily say that it does or does not exist but rather that too many people just buy into the idea because its so widely puched by the media and others.[/QUOTE]

The issue is how rapid the climate change is, not simply that it's occuring. It's similar to the link with hurricans, it's not that there are more occuring, it's that, when they do occur, they are more powerful.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']How can you explain the anomalies happening in the earth such as affected bird & fish migrations?, what about the "dead zones" that have appeared off the oregon coast where they are finding massive amounts of dead sea animals, Animals that should have migrated but ended up confused by the offset climate?[/QUOTE]

Once again, this may be a trend of cyclical global climate changes. Its not difficult to show that certain animals are not suited to certain environments. There's a reason why very few animals have been around for the entire history of the earth.

[quote name='Metal Boss']The last 2 hurricanes that hit american soil were the biggest in recorded history here, not to jump the gun but hurricanes ARE generated by warm ocean water...[/QUOTE]

I knew hurricanes would come up. You mention that they were 2 of the biggest in recorded history but how would explain that the majority of the previously largest hurricanes all hit back in the early 1900s. The problem though, is that before then, once again, we don't have metereological data beyond that. There could have been hurricanes that made Katrina look like a passing thunderstorm but we'll never know cause we don't have reliable data and will therefore never know for sure.

In fact, last night I was watching the Discovery Channel and they had a climatologist that was specifically studying hurricanes before we had data to look at. IT was quite interesting the way he did it too. They take core samples of marsh lands because when a hurricane hits it dumps lots of sand in marsh lands. Obviously when there is lots of sand moved into an area it will be reflected in the sediment, hence the core samples. Anyway, what he has found is that there is indications that there have indeed been very strong hurricanes along the gulf coast for thousands of years. Basically before we even knew how to use fossil fuels. Furthermore, he has a theory that strong hurricanes (level 4-5+) are actually cyclical and we are on the tail end of a slow cycle, which could explain why hurricanes are getting stronger lately.

[quote name='Metal Boss']It all just adds up too me, its obvious nobodys going to stop driving today, and even if the average joe like you and me stepped up to really make a change it would really be the massive factorys, and industrys that are churning out the pollution at such alarming rates. I won't even go into what kind of pollutents they find in the pacific ocean every year, I read em all because I lived on the coast.[/QUOTE]

See that's the biggest problem even if global warming is linked to fossil fuels. Cars only account for about 10% of air emissions. The vast majority of the stuff that goes into the air is generated by industry.

See but now your getting into a different issue altogether. Water pollution has nothing to do with the theory of global warming. You can be opposed to pollution but not believe in global warming, I know, because that's my stance. I always do my part in cutting down in pollution and consider myself very environmentally concious. When it comes to global warming though? I'm not convinced that it exists yet because aside from the propaganda I hear, there isn't much hard data to show that the rise in temperatures (and let's be clear, they are VERY slight increases, average increases are measure in around 1/10th of a degree) are nothing more than a cyclical global climate trend.
 
The increase might be slight to us, but it really does wreak havoc on the eco-system, animals live by these climates & in a way we do too, if it continues to get worse the reprocautions it could cause just aren't worth the money generated by the oil industry. There needs to be a massive, MASSIVE overhaul of the way these systems work and its definatly not going to be starting anytime soon unfortunately, because for the most part people don't have the means of converting from all the energy we get from fossil fuel industry, & that spans from factories to individuals.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Once again, this may be a trend of cyclical global climate changes. Its not difficult to show that certain animals are not suited to certain environments. There's a reason why very few animals have been around for the entire history of the earth. [/QUOTE]

YOu have to realize that things don't JUST HAPPEN. They have to be influenced in one way shape or form. Maybe weather patterns shifted for the colder in the UK to make many crops unable to grow, however, that happened a LONG time ago, and we didn't have the scientific instruments to measure why things happened.

THe ice age just didn't happen (unless you believe god has something to do with it, in which case, you shouldn't be arguing science). Scientists believe that a meteor impacted the earth and sent up a cloud of dust killing blocking the sun, cooling the planet, and in the process, killing a large portion of the earth's population.

Scientists also believe CFCs are destroying the OZone, Carbon gasses are hanging in the atmosphere and blocking many different rays (just like on Venus). I'm not sure which media you're talking about, but I find scientific journal and textbook media to be fairly reliable.

Also, the reason why most animals don't survive for long periods of time is due to evolution. Newer and better versions of the animals are constantly evolving over generations and competing with other newer better versions of other animals. You may not find an exact version of a specific animal in our current era in fossilized form from millions of years ago, but you will find variations thereof and these variations also have a tendancy to live in the same areas. Chimps and other apes have lived in African Jungles for millions of years.
 
[quote name='capitalist_mao']YOu have to realize that things don't JUST HAPPEN. They have to be influenced in one way shape or form. Maybe weather patterns shifted for the colder in the UK to make many crops unable to grow, however, that happened a LONG time ago, and we didn't have the scientific instruments to measure why things happened.

THe ice age just didn't happen (unless you believe god has something to do with it, in which case, you shouldn't be arguing science). Scientists believe that a meteor impacted the earth and sent up a cloud of dust killing blocking the sun, cooling the planet, and in the process, killing a large portion of the earth's population.

Scientists also believe CFCs are destroying the OZone, Carbon gasses are hanging in the atmosphere and blocking many different rays (just like on Venus). I'm not sure which media you're talking about, but I find scientific journal and textbook media to be fairly reliable.

Also, the reason why most animals don't survive for long periods of time is due to evolution. Newer and better versions of the animals are constantly evolving over generations and competing with other newer better versions of other animals. You may not find an exact version of a specific animal in our current era in fossilized form from millions of years ago, but you will find variations thereof and these variations also have a tendancy to live in the same areas. Chimps and other apes have lived in African Jungles for millions of years.[/QUOTE]

Yep, I do realize things don't just happen. But did you know that while ONE ice age can be linked to the meteor strike that killed the dinosaurs, there have been more than one period of time that could be considered an ice age and not every ice age was caused by a meteor strike.

And yes I do know about evolution but in order for the newer versions of animals to exist, the older version has to die off. Further, there have been entire species that have died off but haven't been replaced. That is the specific instance to which I was refrencing.

As far as textbooks and journals, they're written by individuals. Individuals that can use certain information to support their position. Information which may contradict their position can simply be ignored and left out.
 
I have to say this summer, here in the valley has been the hottest summer i've ever experienced in oregon, and i've experienced some pretty hot weather, as in Florida in the summer weather, and i've lived in oregon since I was 6. I think the effects of this are already causing an alarming rate of damage and the stalling of any kind of effort to change is just sickening, things like this bill only add insult to injury, its about our air, without it what are we?
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']I have to say this summer, here in the valley has been the hottest summer i've ever experienced in oregon, and i've experienced some pretty hot weather, as in Florida in the summer weather, and i've lived in oregon since I was 6. I think the effects of this are already causing an alarming rate of damage and the stalling of any kind of effort to change is just sickening, things like this bill only add insult to injury, its about our air, without it what are we?[/QUOTE]

See, this is what I'm talking about. I'm assumming your around 20 years old? So you've been alive for 20 years, we'll ignore the fact that you probably don't remember much about the first 5 years of your live, let alone something as miniscule as the temperature. But since your 20 years on Earth, one summer being hotter than the other is suddenly a crisis? Is it possible that it happened to be a coincidence that was set up through a series of weather patterns that led to an unusually warm summer, rather than just jumping on the global warming trend?

Now, according to this http://www.ocs.oregonstate.edu/page_links/publications/weather_book/weather events/Hot weather.pdf the hottest recorded temperature in Oregon was 119 degrees, pretty damn hot huh? The kicker? it was set on August 10, 1898, long before we were using fossil fuels to any measurable extent.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']See, this is what I'm talking about. I'm assumming your around 20 years old? So you've been alive for 20 years, we'll ignore the fact that you probably don't remember much about the first 5 years of your live, let alone something as miniscule as the temperature. But since your 20 years on Earth, one summer being hotter than the other is suddenly a crisis? Is it possible that it happened to be a coincidence that was set up through a series of weather patterns that led to an unusually warm summer, rather than just jumping on the global warming trend?

Now, according to this http://www.ocs.oregonstate.edu/page_links/publications/weather_book/weather events/Hot weather.pdf the hottest recorded temperature in Oregon was 119 degrees, pretty damn hot huh? The kicker? it was set on August 10, 1898, long before we were using fossil fuels to any measurable extent.[/QUOTE]

I agree to a large extent with what you've written in this topic, RVB, but we had been using fossil fuels well before 1898. However, as you say, logic would indicate that judging long-term temperature trends by evidence of 20 or even 150 years is pretty foolish. In the 1970s there was a huge scare over "global cooling" by environmentalists, believe it or not. Suffice it to say that we know temperatures are increasing, but as to how much (if at all) it is influenced by human activity is unclear. Keep in mind over 98 percent of CO2 is naturally emitted, and that is the main culprit under the hypothesis of global warming.


Metal Boss - you can't really believe Kyoto is a good thing even if you feel global warming is entirely caused by humans, can you? Do you know anything about the Kyoto Protocol? Do you know it will do little to reduce global warming while causing a tremendous economic hardship for developed nations? There's a good reason why the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 that they would never accept a treaty such as Kyoto unless it applied to developing nations as well. China and India, not constrained under Kyoto, are going to be the main sources of increase in emissions over the next 30 years.
 
See but now your getting into a different issue altogether. Water pollution has nothing to do with the theory of global warming. You can be opposed to pollution but not believe in global warming, I know, because that's my stance. I always do my part in cutting down in pollution and consider myself very environmentally concious. When it comes to global warming though? I'm not convinced that it exists yet because aside from the propaganda I hear, there isn't much hard data to show that the rise in temperatures (and let's be clear, they are VERY slight increases, average increases are measure in around 1/10th of a degree) are nothing more than a cyclical global climate trend.
Click to expand...

There is a great increase in temperature in areas like the north pole than down here, and that is more significant than temperature increasing in new england.

THe ice age just didn't happen (unless you believe god has something to do with it, in which case, you shouldn't be arguing science). Scientists believe that a meteor impacted the earth and sent up a cloud of dust killing blocking the sun, cooling the planet, and in the process, killing a large portion of the earth's population.
Click to expand...

You're talking different events. You also realize that there is not one, definitive ice age, right?

Do you know it will do little to reduce global warming while causing a tremendous economic hardship for developed nations?
Click to expand...

Not directed at me in any way, but personally I have no issue with that. There is a like to the quality of the environment and the prosperity of the country, particularly in developing countries. But, developed countries are the ones that can afford to take the hit, and the cost (possibly a damaged economy), is outweighed the benefit (long term benefits for the environment).
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I agree to a large extent with what you've written in this topic, RVB, but we had been using fossil fuels well before 1898. However, as you say, logic would indicate that judging long-term temperature trends by evidence of 20 or even 150 years is pretty foolish. In the 1970s there was a huge scare over "global cooling" by environmentalists, believe it or not. Suffice it to say that we know temperatures are increasing, but as to how much (if at all) it is influenced by human activity is unclear. Keep in mind over 98 percent of CO2 is naturally emitted, and that is the main culprit under the hypothesis of global warming..[/QUOTE]

Yes I know we used fossi fuels prior to 1898 but they weren't used nearly to the extent which we do today. That's pretty much what I was getting at when I said that. The part I underlined is really what I've been trying to drive at in this thread. Additionally, thank you for reminding me about that part about CO2, its a very important thing to remember and something which is not usually realized during a discussion on global warming. Once again, it falls under the category of information that is often chosen to be left out.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Yes I know we used fossi fuels prior to 1898 but they weren't used nearly to the extent which we do today. That's pretty much what I was getting at when I said that. The part I underlined is really what I've been trying to drive at in this thread. Additionally, thank you for reminding me about that part about CO2, its a very important thing to remember and something which is not usually realized during a discussion on global warming. Once again, it falls under the category of information that is often chosen to be left out.[/QUOTE]

CO2, while naturally emitted, is used by plants. When large amounts of plants die off (which has been happening due to pollution, deforestation etc.), there is less that will be used by organisms.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Yep, I do realize things don't just happen. But did you know that while ONE ice age can be linked to the meteor strike that killed the dinosaurs, there have been more than one period of time that could be considered an ice age and not every ice age was caused by a meteor strike.

And yes I do know about evolution but in order for the newer versions of animals to exist, the older version has to die off. Further, there have been entire species that have died off but haven't been replaced. That is the specific instance to which I was refrencing.

As far as textbooks and journals, they're written by individuals. Individuals that can use certain information to support their position. Information which may contradict their position can simply be ignored and left out.[/QUOTE]

Not every age was attributed to a meteor strike, but, evidence will most likely show that it was attributed to an outside influence of one order or another. Not something that will just occur as a natural course (unusual seismic activity, unusually active volcanoes, whatever the case may be)

Older versions of animals do not have to die off for newer versions to exist. Look at primates, for instance. Cro-Magnon man lived at the same time as Neanderthal man. Anyways, name a genus that has died out completely and had done so not from an outside influence.

As for textbooks and journals, there is not just a single textbook and journal...or a single author...or a single institution where people collect information and write. There are LOTS of scientists, LOTS of journals, LOTS of books written on the matter. There may be some evidence ignored by them (however, I'd like you to tell me), but you're also ignoring the vast amount of knowledge that says otherwise.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Ahhhh interesting. See this statement really depends on how you want to look at this issue. If you want to accept everything the media forces you to believe, then yes global warming is happening and fossil fuels are the cause. Now, on the other hand, if you want to examine the issue critically, that is a different issue.

So let's look at it. While we could say that there has been a trend toward warming in the earth's climate, it is necessary to note that we only have realiable climate records for about the last 150 years. 150 years out of how many million?

Now continuing with the global history idea, let's take into account the fact that there have been a number of ice ages that the earth has gone through. Who caused these warming and cooling cycles if humans and their fossil fuels weren't around? Aliens?

I used to just buy into the "global warming" idea too until I read State of Fear by Michael Crichton. While the book is a work of fiction, he put years of research into the facts and ideas put forth, even going so far as to have citations and refrences in the back for his scientific information. As such, he presents a very convincing argument that we don't know NEARLY enough to start making assessments on how we're destroying the earth through global warming. He doesn't necessarily say that it does or does not exist but rather that too many people just buy into the idea because its so widely puched by the media and others.[/QUOTE]

You are falling into the same trap as Crichton. He selectively evaluated data as individual units. If there were only one indicator of global warming, then there would indeed be much uncertainty as to whether or not it is occuring. There are many indicators, however, that were predicted 20 years ago that are beginning to pop up. The biggest indicator is the increase in CO2 levels. Over the last 20,000 years CO2 levels had only minor variations. There was a major spike, however, in the late 1800's to early 1900's that matches the beginning of the industrial revolution. CO2 levels have continued to increase since then. When this is coupled with all of the other indicators, it is clear that global warming is real.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Not directed at me in any way, but personally I have no issue with that. There is a like to the quality of the environment and the prosperity of the country, particularly in developing countries. But, developed countries are the ones that can afford to take the hit, and the cost (possibly a damaged economy), is outweighed the benefit (long term benefits for the environment).[/QUOTE]

I don't think you understand. The benefits to the environment long term would be negligible under Kyoto. China will soon surpass the U.S. as the largest polluter and continue to pollute more, while India and other developing nations exempted from Kyoto's standards will do the same. Kyoto does very little for the environment. And I haven't even gotten into the fact that Russia and Eastern Europe would be able to pollute a lot more under Kyoto and still be in compliance, since in 1990 they had much worse pollution levels than they do now because of the backwardness of the communist bloc when it came to pollution controls.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']CO2, while naturally emitted, is used by plants. When large amounts of plants die off (which has been happening due to pollution, deforestation etc.), there is less that will be used by organisms.[/QUOTE]

Agreed. Stopping rainforest loss is probably a lot more significant than an idiotic symbol-only agreement like Kyoto.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Agreed. Stopping rainforest loss is probably a lot more significant than an idiotic symbol-only agreement like Kyoto.[/QUOTE]



Well, I think we're being screwed in that sense as well, seeing as rainforests are still being cut down ten fold. Not to mention right now the amazon is having the worst drought they have ever faced in their tropical climate, once again the issue of global warming has come up...


Here is an interesting article about the climate change in the Amazon
 
[quote name='elprincipe']I don't think you understand. The benefits to the environment long term would be negligible under Kyoto. China will soon surpass the U.S. as the largest polluter and continue to pollute more, while India and other developing nations exempted from Kyoto's standards will do the same. Kyoto does very little for the environment. And I haven't even gotten into the fact that Russia and Eastern Europe would be able to pollute a lot more under Kyoto and still be in compliance, since in 1990 they had much worse pollution levels than they do now because of the backwardness of the communist bloc when it came to pollution controls.[/QUOTE]

Some countries are already in compliance with it, some are not. Countries such as china will, in all likelihood, eventually reach the point in development where they would be brought under kyoto. Currently, developed countries produce more emissions per capita and overal, and therefore it is more important to control pollution in those countries, it's also more feasible to restrict financially secure countries. But, kyoto is not the end result. It is a step. You don't not take a first step simply because, in and of itself, it doesn't go far enough. But even if that is the end result, some improvement (I think you see it as less beneficial than I do), is better than none considering all damage we have done, and continue to do, to the environment.

Though, just to point out, all of new england and a few of the surrounding states (new york and a couple more), in a thinly veiled protest against bush's policies, signed a regional agreement to lower greenhouse emissions that is very similar to the kyoto protocal.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Well, I think we're being screwed in that sense as well, seeing as rainforests are still being cut down ten fold. Not to mention right now the amazon is having the worst drought they have ever faced in their tropical climate, once again the issue of global warming has come up...


Here is an interesting article about the climate change in the Amazon[/QUOTE]

I think it's just logging and deforestation in general. Too many going down, not enough coming back up.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Some countries are already in compliance with it, some are not. Countries such as china will, in all likelihood, eventually reach the point in development where they would be brought under kyoto. Currently, developed countries produce more emissions per capita and overal, and therefore it is more important to control pollution in those countries, it's also more feasible to restrict financially secure countries. But, kyoto is not the end result. It is a step. You don't not take a first step simply because, in and of itself, it doesn't go far enough. But even if that is the end result, some improvement (I think you see it as less beneficial than I do), is better than none considering all damage we have done, and continue to do, to the environment.

Though, just to point out, all of new england and a few of the surrounding states (new york and a couple more), in a thinly veiled protest against bush's policies, signed a regional agreement to lower greenhouse emissions that is very similar to the kyoto protocal.[/QUOTE]

"Some improvement," as I already said, would be negligible. Let me just give people the numbers and they can make an informed judgment.

1. Under Kyoto, greenhouse emissions will be reduced 0.07 percent by 2050.

2. If the U.S. signed on to Kyoto and implemented it, it would result in $400 billion in costs to the economy annually and a loss of 5 million jobs (obviously these are estimates).

I look at those numbers and I see huge economic damages, and for what? Basically nothing. If that's a step, it's like shuffling my feet forward a millimeter.

And just so you know, most EU countries, despite ratifying Kyoto, aren't on track to hit their targets under it. Neither are Japan and Canada. Actually, Canada's (and several European countries') emissions have increased in the past couple years.

But in any case, even if these countries all hit their targets and even if the U.S. signed on and implemented Kyoto, all our efforts would be for naught due to the overwhelming increases that are going to occur in China, India and other developing countries. That's my main point.
 
[quote name='Metal Boss']Well, I think we're being screwed in that sense as well, seeing as rainforests are still being cut down ten fold. Not to mention right now the amazon is having the worst drought they have ever faced in their tropical climate, once again the issue of global warming has come up...


Here is an interesting article about the climate change in the Amazon[/QUOTE]

Yeah, this is a big problem. Instead of spending $400 billion a year on Kyoto targets that does little for the environment, we'd be much better served (financially as well as in terms of progress toward the goal) using some of that money to help poorer tropical countries stop deforestation (and stopping it in our own country).
 
[quote name='elprincipe']"Some improvement," as I already said, would be negligible. Let me just give people the numbers and they can make an informed judgment.

1. Under Kyoto, greenhouse emissions will be reduced 0.07 percent by 2050.

2. If the U.S. signed on to Kyoto and implemented it, it would result in $400 billion in costs to the economy annually and a loss of 5 million jobs (obviously these are estimates).

I look at those numbers and I see huge economic damages, and for what? Basically nothing. If that's a step, it's like shuffling my feet forward a millimeter.

And just so you know, most EU countries, despite ratifying Kyoto, aren't on track to hit their targets under it. Neither are Japan and Canada. Actually, Canada's (and several European countries') emissions have increased in the past couple years.

But in any case, even if these countries all hit their targets and even if the U.S. signed on and implemented Kyoto, all our efforts would be for naught due to the overwhelming increases that are going to occur in China, India and other developing countries. That's my main point.[/QUOTE]

Well, with #1, you have to also wonder if, without any effort being made to reduce emissions, how much they would increase, and that may give a better picture than simply indicating an estimated drop.

The alleged improvements brought by kyoto differ by who you listen to. But you fail to take into account that countries, such as china, would eventually be required to fully participate once their economy developed.

Though, again, the whole point of my response was not what kyoto will or could do (in fact I mostly avoided that argument), my point was that it was a first step, that it does not represent the ideal or final goal. It's convenient, politically, to argue that it is (similar to the argument often presented for the banning of partial birth abortion), but kyoto was never designed as the final solution. You can argue back and forth the pros and cons, but I don't see the point in this case, even if you were to conclude kyoto itself is largely symbolic. It's like building a house. Kyoto is the foundation, no matter how big or grand you make it out to be, you're nowhere near complete with just a foundation, but you're not going to be able to continue working towards the final goal without it.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']Well, with #1, you have to also wonder if, without any effort being made to reduce emissions, how much they would increase, and that may give a better picture than simply indicating an estimated drop. [/quote]

That's 0.07 percent less than it is projected to be, not 0.07 percent less overall. Overall it's going to increase massively because the increase is coming from countries that ARE NOT AFFECTED BY KYOTO BECAUSE THEY ARE DEVELOPING anyway. Do you not see this is what I'm saying by now?


[quote name='alonzomourning23']The alleged improvements brought by kyoto differ by who you listen to. But you fail to take into account that countries, such as china, would eventually be required to fully participate once their economy developed. [/quote]

So after China emits massive amounts of pollution from its new set of coal-fired power plants, then somehow it will join Kyoto and everything will be solved? This seems more like a dream world than anything else. China is not going to go back to their 1990 levels any time soon, believe me. Even if they joined in 20 years, they're going to have a massive increase in those 20 years.

[quote name='alonzomourning23']Though, again, the whole point of my response was not what kyoto will or could do (in fact I mostly avoided that argument), my point was that it was a first step, that it does not represent the ideal or final goal. It's convenient, politically, to argue that it is (similar to the argument often presented for the banning of partial birth abortion), but kyoto was never designed as the final solution. You can argue back and forth the pros and cons, but I don't see the point in this case, even if you were to conclude kyoto itself is largely symbolic. It's like building a house. Kyoto is the foundation, no matter how big or grand you make it out to be, you're nowhere near complete with just a foundation, but you're not going to be able to continue working towards the final goal without it.[/QUOTE]

Well, I certainly vehemently disagree on this. It's an agreement that does nothing and causes pain to developed countries. A real step would be to include all countries so that emissions would actually slow in growth or even eventually be cut, but you want to lose 5 million U.S. jobs for something that does nothing other than be a symbol. It's an incredibly shoddy foundation if you want to make that analogy -- a foundation with holes everywhere in the form of the developing world. And guess what? Those holes are growing, not being filled. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone knowledgeable about Kyoto would support it, unless you live in China or India or Mexico or somewhere that would gain a competitive advantage economically from developed countries shooting themselves in the foot for nothing.
 
[quote name='elprincipe']That's 0.07 percent less than it is projected to be, not 0.07 percent less overall. Overall it's going to increase massively because the increase is coming from countries that ARE NOT AFFECTED BY KYOTO BECAUSE THEY ARE DEVELOPING anyway. Do you not see this is what I'm saying by now?

So after China emits massive amounts of pollution from its new set of coal-fired power plants, then somehow it will join Kyoto and everything will be solved? This seems more like a dream world than anything else. China is not going to go back to their 1990 levels any time soon, believe me. Even if they joined in 20 years, they're going to have a massive increase in those 20 years.[/quote]

Honestly I don't have statistics to dispute, or support, the .07 percent. I can't say if I agree with the methods used in reaching that figure or not. But, the kyoto protocal, signed by china and india, has its initial targets set for 2012. At that point, china and india have agreed to take part in efforts to widen kyoto. Elements of expanding it to currently developing nations are there, those parts obviously being in their infancy.


Well, I certainly vehemently disagree on this. It's an agreement that does nothing and causes pain to developed countries. A real step would be to include all countries so that emissions would actually slow in growth or even eventually be cut, but you want to lose 5 million U.S. jobs for something that does nothing other than be a symbol. It's an incredibly shoddy foundation if you want to make that analogy -- a foundation with holes everywhere in the form of the developing world. And guess what? Those holes are growing, not being filled. I can't for the life of me figure out why anyone knowledgeable about Kyoto would support it, unless you live in China or India or Mexico or somewhere that would gain a competitive advantage economically from developed countries shooting themselves in the foot for nothing.
Click to expand...

You can put economic pressue on economically stable nations, you can't expect zimbabwe to deal with the same changes. And, considering the developed world produces the majority of greenhouse gases, those are the countries that need to deal with it at first. But, there is no alternative presented, better or worse. The alternative to rejecting kyoto is doing nothing at all, without an eye to future advances.
 
[quote name='alonzomourning23']You can put economic pressue on economically stable nations, you can't expect zimbabwe to deal with the same changes. And, considering the developed world produces the majority of greenhouse gases, those are the countries that need to deal with it at first. But, there is no alternative presented, better or worse. The alternative to rejecting kyoto is doing nothing at all, without an eye to future advances.[/QUOTE]

No, there just hasn't been a serious attempt at an alternative because we have an administration right now that isn't interested in an alternative. We have to be able to do better than the farce that is Kyoto, but we haven't tried.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top