[robinski]

You igronant Dickheads. How i wish you werent so self centred.

If theres a 20% chance that the USSR are going to fire a nuclear bomb at you, your definitely going to get one ready to fire back.

Why is this different. There is more than an 20% chance that global warming will really **** things up for huge sections of the globe, including the US if we keep going the way we are. Yet you are not even willing to acknoledge this let alone try and get prepared. Interestingly it would cost less to offset than how much you pumped into military during the cold war (or Iraq for that matter).

This is a clasic example of a open access system or tragety of the commons. no-one owns the air/atmosphere and as such no-one regulates it. If it was a river the council / EPA etc would regulate pollution, but this is a global problem.

think of it this way, if there is an sweedish, danish, german and american sitting at a table which has a small plant in the middle. Every man is starving, but can last another 5 days without food, 10 days if they eat the plant. But if they wait 4 days the plant will grow enough food for all of them for a month and provide seeds for eternal food. Guess who ate the plant on day one, the american because he didnt want to let the others gain the upper hand. Consiquently everyone died, just the american lasted a couple more days. This is the same as what is happening with global warming. (you can replace american with Australia/Engish/Japanese/etc as they all are not willing to stop the damage)

Lets just hope that when we run out of oil, the crops fail and it gets really hot that each of us suffers the same proportion of the pain that we cause.

[phobiaphobe]

So Robinski, since you've acknowledged and confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt that the world is faced with imminent catastrophe, what are YOU doing about it? I mean, aside from screaming that the sky is falling? Give me some suggestions; I'm igronant.

[sheepofblue]

there is less than 20% Of course we could sign Kyoto. Those that did are NOT even close to complying. It would not stop the other signatories from whining when we didn't comply though. Oh and it also EXEMPTS China and India two very large and growing economies. Further China is a horrific polluter as they are very inefficient AND the government is corrupt and does not care about the environment. Of course it is the evil Americans that are 100% the issue

[CBRVFR]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

Give me some suggestions; I'm igronant.

[phobiaphobe]

You know, when I first watched Terminator I didn't actually believe that Skynet was about to become self-aware.

[robinski]

Originally Posted by sheepofblue

there is less than 20% Of course we could sign Kyoto. Those that did are NOT even close to complying. It would not stop the other signatories from whining when we didn't comply though. Oh and it also EXEMPTS China and India two very large and growing economies. Further China is a horrific polluter as they are very inefficient AND the government is corrupt and does not care about the environment. Of course it is the evil Americans that are 100% the issue

Not just limited to Americans, just seems they are the most "in denial" about the issue. Everyone else is saying fluffy "lets be good" crap but not practicing what they preach. At least talking about it means they are aware though.

Kyoto is a starting point, you cant just say to everyone "OK you cant use oil any more", you have to have a transition. If you make the goal too hard no-one will come on board. no-one is comming on board anyway but atleast they are talking about it.

[CBR929RE]

Originally Posted by robinski

This is a clasic example of a open access system or tragety of the commons. no-one owns the air/atmosphere and as such no-one regulates it. If it was a river the council / EPA etc would regulate pollution, but this is a global problem.

the EPA does regulate air pollution. check out the Clean Air Act of 1990 Plain English Guide to The Clean Air Act | Air & Radiation | US EPA

and if there are no regulations, why do cars in California have to meet strict emissions regulations? why do cars in other states (such as MA where I live) require similar emissions regulations?

[phobiaphobe]

Originally Posted by robinski

...

Kyoto is a starting point, you cant just say to everyone "OK you cant use oil any more", you have to have a transition. ....

"Transition" meaning "handing over billions in Carbon Credits to developing kleptocracies."

I'm sure glad Canada backed out of Kyoto.

[robinski]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

So Robinski, since you've acknowledged and confirmed beyond a reasonable doubt that the world is faced with an imminent catastrophe, what are YOU doing about it? I mean, aside from screaming that the sky is falling? Give me some suggestions; I'm igronant.

Not beyond reasonable doubt, i am talking about risk, detrimental magnitude and mitigation costs for those risks. Why do you think there are air bags in cars, because there is a risk of an accident. We always complain about the "its never going to happen to me" attitude car drivers have about accidents, yet they still buy cars with air bags. So with a "climate change will never affect me attitude" why dont we put 1% GDP on the issue to mitigate the risk of needing to put 30% GDP on it in 20 years time. Maybe car drivers could put a giant metal spike on their stearing wheel pointing at their head because accidents wont happen to them just as we could all just keep contributing to the GHG emisions because it wont affect us detrimentally.

If your ignorant, watch An Inconvenient Trush. Even if you take 10% of what they are saying as a potential risk it is better than nothing. I wish Gore didnt put as much political Bush bashing in the movie though. It defeated the movies purpose of educating the ignorant because the ignorant switched off once Bush was defamed.

[robinski]

Originally Posted by CBR929RE

the EPA does regulate air pollution. check out the Clean Air Act of 1990 Plain English Guide to The Clean Air Act | Air & Radiation | US EPA

and if there are no regulations, why do cars in California have to meet strict emissions regulations? why do cars in other states (such as MA where I live) require similar emissions regulations?

The EPA / California is interested in the imediate surrounding air relating to smog and direct affects on humans, not indirect affects due to impacts no global climatic cycles.

[robinski]

Originally Posted by phobiaphobe

"Transition" meaning "handing over billions in Carbon Credits to developing kleptocracies."

I'm sure glad Canada backed out of Kyoto.

Not syaing carbon credits or anyother new fangle methods are the best, they too are a starting point. The method of managing this issue is new and still evolving. Hopefully if figures out a way before the risk becomes reality.

your dissatisfaction of the Carbon Credits to developing nations is a fine example of "the growth of my economy can not be detrimentally affected in the quest to save the worlds climate". Everyone will have to make sacrifices. Possbly the developed nations more so than developing.

[robinski]

Why cant China and India follow the same path of economic development that we did? If they end up putting out the same amount of GHG (Tonnes over 150 years say, or even Tonnes / square mile of land / 150 years) that we did why should we frown on them?

Perhaps the fact that they have hindsight should change things, and that they know the consiquences of their actions. But why should they remain an under-developed nation to save the earth, shouldnt we have declining development to put our part in if they are willing to stay as under-developed.

Agree that they have the opportunity to use better technology to reduce the GHG emissions from what we did. But then we are not willing to give them that technology as they may leapfrog us in the development race.

I honestly dont think we will solve this one due to every country having its own vested interest in continuing to produce GHG emissions. Lets hope the impacts of global warming arnt as bad as they could be.

[RAH-VFR]

Originally Posted by robinski

I wish Gore didnt put as much political Bush bashing in the movie though. It defeated the movies purpose of educating the ignorant because the ignorant switched off once Bush was defamed.

No, bashing Bush pretty much sums up the purpose of the movie.

Is that what switched you on?

[robinski]

Gore's purpose of the movie was to bash Bush, but it wasnt the scientists behind the movie.

It would have been better if they didnt get the "winner" of the election who didnt become presendent to host the movie.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by robinski

You igronant Dickheads. How i wish you werent so self centred.

If theres a 20% chance that the USSR are going to fire a nuclear bomb at you, your definitely going to get one ready to fire back.

Why is this different. There is more than an 20% chance that global warming will really **** things up for huge sections of the globe, including the US if we keep going the way we are. Yet you are not even willing to acknoledge this let alone try and get prepared. Interestingly it would cost less to offset than how much you pumped into military during the cold war (or Iraq for that matter).

This is a clasic example of a open access system or tragety of the commons. no-one owns the air/atmosphere and as such no-one regulates it. If it was a river the council / EPA etc would regulate pollution, but this is a global problem.

think of it this way, if there is an sweedish, danish, german and american sitting at a table which has a small plant in the middle. Every man is starving, but can last another 5 days without food, 10 days if they eat the plant. But if they wait 4 days the plant will grow enough food for all of them for a month and provide seeds for eternal food. Guess who ate the plant on day one, the american because he didnt want to let the others gain the upper hand. Consiquently everyone died, just the american lasted a couple more days. This is the same as what is happening with global warming. (you can replace american with Australia/Engish/Japanese/etc as they all are not willing to stop the damage)

Lets just hope that when we run out of oil, the crops fail and it gets really hot that each of us suffers the same proportion of the pain that we cause.

Go jump off a cliff, before I spray another can of hair spray in the ozone just to further **** your world up, you kangaroo cum sucking son of a bitch.

[BladeRider]

Originally Posted by Hammer

Go jump off a cliff, before I spray another can of hair spray in the ozone just to further **** your world up, you kangaroo cum sucking son of a bitch.

Hey hammer this was a bit uncalled for man. Even if you disagree with Robinski he was at least trying to make his point of view known in his post, was he not? Agree/disagree with his post or even his calling the previous posters dickheads this response was extreme was it not? He was actually contributing to this thread with his point of view whether you like it or not, your post was just an attack.
I know many great Aussies after living there for 2 years and I think you are being an asshole with this particular response.

[Hammer]

Originally Posted by BladeRider

Hey hammer this was a bit uncalled for man. Even if you disagree with Robinski he was at least trying to make his point of view known in his post, was he not? Agree/disagree with his post or even his calling the previous posters dickheads this response was extreme was it not? He was actually contributing to this thread with his point of view whether you like it or not, your post was just an attack.
I know many great Aussies after living there for 2 years and I think you are being an asshole with this particular response.

It was called for! All was well and good until he started the Dickhead name calling and bashing America. Name calling OK I can deal with, but bashing the USA, NOT. Who the hell do you think they will call when the **** gets deep? France? Russia? China? No the USA to bail them out as all countries do. Do not bash the USA and you don't get called a Kangaroo Cum Sucker.

[BladeRider]

Originally Posted by Hammer

It was called for! All was well and good until he started the Dickhead name calling and bashing America. Name calling OK I can deal with, but bashing the USA, NOT. Who the hell do you think they will call when the **** gets deep? France? Russia? China? No the USA to bail them out as all countries do. Do not bash the USA and you don't get called a Kangaroo Cum Sucker.

Yeah I hear ya, I hate when people bash the US too but I don't totally understand the "**** gets deep comment". This thread wa about global warming not military power, can no one outside the US disagree with any of our policies?

[Hammer]

if there is an sweedish, danish, german and american sitting at a table which has a small plant in the middle. Every man is starving, but can last another 5 days without food, 10 days if they eat the plant. But if they wait 4 days the plant will grow enough food for all of them for a month and provide seeds for eternal food. Guess who ate the plant on day one, the american because he didnt want to let the others gain the upper hand. Consiquently everyone died, just the american lasted a couple more days. This is the same as what is happening with global warming.

This is the comment where he singled out the people of the USA, not the policies. I do not agree with all the policies of the USA, I don't think anybody 100% agrees with all policies but don't single out the people of a country. We are all individuals.

[BladeRider]

Originally Posted by Hammer

This is the comment where he singled out the people of the USA, not the policies. I do not agree with all the policies of the USA, I don't think anybody 100% agrees with all policies but don't single out the people of a country. We are all individuals.

This isn't worth fighting over, it isn't adding to the thread it is just semantics but in your post you conveniently cut off the end of his paragraph which I highlighted in red below. It's all good man I don't want to squabble anymore, I didn't like your response but we can agree to disagree.

"if there is an sweedish, danish, german and american sitting at a table which has a small plant in the middle. Every man is starving, but can last another 5 days without food, 10 days if they eat the plant. But if they wait 4 days the plant will grow enough food for all of them for a month and provide seeds for eternal food. Guess who ate the plant on day one, the american because he didnt want to let the others gain the upper hand. Consiquently everyone died, just the american lasted a couple more days. This is the same as what is happening with global warming. (you can replace american with Australia/Engish/Japanese/etc as they all are not willing to stop the damage)"

[robinski]

Originally Posted by Hammer

This is the comment where he singled out the people of the USA, not the policies. I do not agree with all the policies of the USA, I don't think anybody 100% agrees with all policies but don't single out the people of a country. We are all individuals.

Read the whole post you ignorant twat. You are the kind of person who reinforces my view of many Americans. Many guys on this forum had started to convince me that Americans could think for themselves and could be worldly educated and potentially altruistic. You have just blown that out of the window. I mentioned that you could replace American with Australian/English/Japanese etc. at the end of the quote.

It seems you follow Bush's view that if your not with us you are against us. I am entitled to my opinion. As i said before:

"Lets just hope that when we run out of oil, the crops fail and it gets really hot that each of us suffers the same proportion of the pain that we cause." Note the use of WE and US, because i am as at fault as anyone else in a developed nation which continues to pollute after knowing the potential implications.

No i wont be calling on the US then the **** goes down. Due to their inefficient ways they will have already consumed all their food, destroyed all their crop lands and be in worst **** than many other places. If you look at history it has been the US who has had support from Australia in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan & Iraq not the other way around. Although we only contribute a small force to these battles relative to the US, we put in our highly trained fighters rather than using it as a method to get rid of the underprivalaged unemployed. England even sent Prince Edward to war in the Falkland Islands. You cant see congressmen sending their sons to war.

[BladeRider]

Originally Posted by robinski

You are the kind of person who reinforces my view of many Americans. Many guys on this forum had started to convince me that Americans could think for themselves and could be worldly educated and potentially altruistic. You have just blown that out of the window.

Hey man thanks for not reading any of my posts.

I would feel like **** for defending you but my faith in the world remains, as my dad always taught me...

(in a conversation about travel) Always treat people like you want to be treated and you will never have a problem... This is from a man that has been to over 100 countries.