United States - Size Is Everything!

[MUSTANGPC]

Feb 24, 2005
The Straits Times
FROM OUR CORRESPONDENT: UNITED STATES

Size is everything

By Paul Zach
US Correspondent

BRECKSVILLE (OHIO) - WHEN I left the United States to live and work in Asia and elsewhere almost 30 years ago, everything small was big.
Bite-sized convenience stores like 7-11 had replaced the 'dime stores' on Main Street America. Movie halls had shrunk to the size of living rooms. Developers were building bedroom communities and closet-sized condos.

Petrol-guzzling cars with big fins and bigger engines had gone the way of the dinosaurs they resembled. Compact cars such as the AMC Pacer and Chevy Nova, tiny Datsuns and Toyotas from Japan, and mini-vans had taken over the roads.

But during my occasional visits back to the US since the 1970s, I sensed that things were somehow changing. The first indication came in the late 1980s, when I started feeling smaller than other Americans - in width - and menu and portions at restaurants seemed larger.

But the realisation of how much the US had changed did not really hit me until I went to Home Depot in search of a light bulb when I moved back late last year to work as a US correspondent for The Straits Times.

When I entered the store I found it was so big I could not see the other end of it. Fortunately the aisle which I needed was right in front of me and not a day trip away. Unfortunately it was stocked with too many kinds of light bulbs. I turned around and walked right back out again, too overwhelmed by the vast choice to bother making one.

Indeed, big is back and bigger than ever in America.

And Home Depot is not even the largest of its type. The average size of a Lowe's store, which also sells such a complete line of home improvement items that you could build an entire house by making only one stop there, measures 35,000 sq m.

Even these pale by comparison with the granddaddy of what has come to be known as 'big box' retailers. Wal-Mart's supercentre type stores average almost 57,000 sq m. Many of the older, and bigger, people who shop in these stores can only get around in them on slow-moving, motorised adult scooters.

Homes have gotten bigger, perhaps to make room for all the stuff their owners buy at big box retailers. Over the weekend, the Cleveland Plain Dealer's Real Estate magazine featured a home right here in Brecksville that my family and I recently got lost in while viewing.

But with 1,620 sq m spread over three floors, four enormous full bathrooms and one big half bath, it is not much larger than the average home being built in Brecksville these days.

In fact, it is small for a house in the city of Dallas, Texas. Realtor Della Lively told USA Today that 1,500 sq m is small today if you are going to build.

Movie halls have also expanded. The Valley View Cinemark we usually go to has not just one, or four or five small screens, but 24 screens - each the size of those of the largest Golden Village screen at Great World shopping centre in Singapore.

Perhaps the most obvious examples of how big 'big' is in the US is the bloated size of what Americans now drive. Many families own at least one truck-sized SUV or at least one Caterpillar-sized pick-up truck.

Vehicles in the US have become so enormous that the city of Bellevue, near Seattle, Washington, actually considered banning parking spaces for compact cars.

Ms Lisa Vipond drives an Escalade, the spacious SUV that the old Cadillacs with the fins the size of dinosaur wings has morphed into. She is in favour of the ban on small parking spaces. 'It's a family-oriented area and everyone is carting kids around and they're driving larger vehicles,' she says.

The American dream vehicle these days is a nightmare called the Hummer. The H2 version of this SUV measures 523cm from stem to stern, 206cm in width and almost 203cm tall. It weighs more than four tonnes and takes a 6-litre, 325-horsepower engine to move.

The Hummer resembles the military armoured patrol Humvee that it seems to take its name from and troops in Iraq would probably not be complaining about unsafe equipment if they could afford them.

Yet it has become the status symbol of the 2000s, with prices starting at about US$20,000 (S$32,600) more than for the average SUV.

The Hummer's stature really soared when NBA superstar LeBron James bought one three years ago when he was still going to high school in nearby Akron, Ohio.

Apparently all this unbridled growth has taken place with few people blinking an eye. I came up empty-handed when I tried to find sociologists or psychologists to explain the phenomenon.

University of Southern California sociologist Barry Glassner told the Los Angeles Times two weeks ago: 'It's integral to the American ethic, to how we see ourselves. We like big cars and big homes and big portions and politicians and movie stars who are larger than life.

'Look at the term 'superstar'. I can't imagine that expression developing in any country but the US. It's the way we think.'

When I contacted Prof Glassner, he admitted that he could not explain the phenomenon beyond that although he did say that that was why Americans ate such large meals.

Other observers blame the 'supersize' mentality for the biggest of the big problems the US faces today - a statistic that has doubled in the three decades during which I lived overseas. More than 65 per cent of Americans are either obese or overweight today.

In her bestseller French Women Don't Get Fat, Ms Mirielle Guiliano, says the 'biggest enemy' the US faces is the ever growing portions they find on their plates at restaurants and feel compelled to finish.

Ironically, she calls those big portions by a name that recalls a small French man - 'a gastronomic Waterloo'.

http://straitstimes.asia1.com.sg/sub/todayspaper/0,5590,,00.html?

[pman]

Americans :rolleyes:

[Lakario]

Ya.. that pretty much sums us up. I spent 3 weeks in Germany last summer on an exchange trip and it really was a different world, in all respects. The first, and most prominent point that I noticed were the vehicles. In my entire 3 week stint I saw less than 5 pick up trucks (all on the high way near farm land), I did not see even one SUV and I think I may have seen 2 or 3 minivans (most likely imports). Personally, my family owns a compact Nissan Altima, and a Nissan Quest minivan (it's not that big) and as is, we are perfectly content with that layout. The minivan's old and needs to be replaced, but my mother is aiming for a small SUV (Rav 4 sized). I can't stand SUVs, myself. They waste fuel, they waste space, the waste money, and they serve only to compensate ego. People b*tch and moan about gas/petrol prices here in the states with rates like $2/gal (3.8L), but take a look at Germany: $1.10/L. That's almost $5/gal and here we are complaining about our rates. I suppose part of the reason we get fuel cheaper is that our vehicles destroy it faster than any others. SUVs get what, 3 gallons to the mile? I saw a car in Munich called a "SmartCar" (Europeans are probably familiar) and the thing gets roughly 100KM to the liter; for us Americans, that's roughly 200 miles to the single gallon. Furthermore, they cost roughly $10k new; it's sad really.

[Avid6eek]

What kind of vehicles do you think the wealthier people in the UK drive? I'm bet they aren't Cooper Mini's. Taxes are extremely high in the UK, and I bet that accounts for the extremely high gas prices. A large portion of our relatively low gas prices are taxes. It simply is not practical to drive a large vehicle over there, where in the United States it is. I am not a fan of small cars for safety reasons. Too many people drive SUVs, and other large vehicles. Driving a Honda Civic simply doesn't feel safe to me. I'm not saying everyone needs an Excusion or H2, but small cars simply lack the features many Americans love. I guess it's part of our culture that we simply cannot live without.

Americans do things in a big way, and who's to complain? We've worked hard to get where we are, and deserve to enjoy the benifits of it. Typically, the only people complaining are those who wish they were living the lifestyle.

[pman]

Fuel prices in the UK are the cheapest in Europe... BEFORE tax. After tax, they are the most expensive. Taxes verall arn't the highest, but they could come down a bit :(

[Lakario]

Small cars are safe anywhere else where you aren't competing with 4 ton personal vehicles such as the H2. Most Americans are inclined to buy a large vehicle for "safety reasons" because they are inclined to fear some of the personal vehicles 4x their size that they share the road with. In Germany, most everybody drove a small, stylish BMW, Mercedes, or VW and occassionally I saw people driving Fiats, SmartCars, Porsches, and other small European vehicles. All of those, excluding the Fiat and SmartCar are safe by most standards- the SmartCar is built light and looks like it got crushed between two Big Macks during production. The fact is, over their accidents are no more severe than those we have here, and perhaps they are even less severe. When a 1 ton vehicle collides with a 1 ton vehicle at 100km/h on the highway things get crushed, thrown, tipped, etc; when a 4 ton vehicle collides with a 4 ton vehicle at 100km/h on the highway the two are more than likely obliterated. Velocity is proportionate to mass and collision damage is a function of this- in short the bigger they are, the harder they fall.

Americans do not nor will ever need the SUVs, trucks, and vans that they demand, just as any other country does not need them, but we insist on these larger than life vehicles because our entire culture states that bigger is better- with everything. We don't need TVs in our cars, we don't need 350HP, we don't need third row seating with room for 12; and unless we change our 3.7 children per family to 7+, we never will.

</rant>

[PCgeek]

Meh, I would love a Civic, but being 6'5" kinda forces me to get a big car...
[/Bursting Lakario's Bubble]

[Avid6eek]

I'm 6'2", and I can fit into my g/f's civic coupe, but the 4 door civic is simply too small. I have an '05 Nissan Altima, and it is a car much more suited to my size.

There are places in the US where SUVs are required. Quite a few days during the winter I am simply screwed because there is far more snow outside than my car is designed to go though. After about 12-18" of snow, I'm snowed in for at least a day, and have to use one of my parents' SUVs to go anywhere. Large portions of the US are also very mountainous, and SUVs are required once again....mainly for the 4 wheel drive capabilities. If I needed 4 wheel drive, I would rather have an SUV than an Audi, as it's just a more versatile vehicle. The only place I see large vehicles used where they aren't needed are in big cities. That is where they are more used for style, than actual function.

There is nothing wrong with TV screens in your car. It helps keep kids quite if they have something to do in the car while your traveling, and a navigation system up front for the parents isn't bad either.

American's aren't about bigger and better everything...we prefer very small cell phones, and small laptops as well. :p ;)

[Lakario]

Avid:

You make valid points that I certainly agree with, but I just tire of all the people driving Escalades as a status symbol. My <strike>peni</strike> car is bigger than yours. I live in New England and we've had, quite possibly, the worst winter since that of the blizzard of '77. There were times where 4x4 would have been nice- like when I fishtailed into my neighbor's mailbox on a curve... I also see the functionality of a tv for shutting the kids up, but it just seems unecessary. I think what it all comes down to is simple, most Americans are fat, overcompensating, rude individuals. Yay!

[Ace]

What kind of vehicles do you think the wealthier people in the UK drive? I'm bet they aren't Cooper Mini's. Taxes are extremely high in the UK, and I bet that accounts for the extremely high gas prices. A large portion of our relatively low gas prices are taxes. It simply is not practical to drive a large vehicle over there, where in the United States it is. I am not a fan of small cars for safety reasons. Too many people drive SUVs, and other large vehicles. Driving a Honda Civic simply doesn't feel safe to me. I'm not saying everyone needs an Excusion or H2, but small cars simply lack the features many Americans love. I guess it's part of our culture that we simply cannot live without.

Americans do things in a big way, and who's to complain? We've worked hard to get where we are, and deserve to enjoy the benifits of it. Typically, the only people complaining are those who wish they were living the lifestyle.

In fact, there are quite a lot of the new Mini Coopers here Shiz. And there's been good take up of the new sporty Smart cars (really small sporty looking cars). I can't quite believe you said "We've worked hard to get where we are, and deserve to enjoy the benifits of it." And you think Brits haven't? Or Germans? Or Italians? Are we all lazy a$$es? We however choose to retain some thought for the environment. There are rich people in the UK too, you know. Yet, when I see a big car over here, it's American, owned by an American, being driven by an American.

I hate to make sweeping statements like Americans don't care for the environment, but it sure is hard not to when *everything* from personal choice to foreign policy exhibits no thought whatsoever for the environment.

[gokusimpson]

American's aren't about bigger and better everything...we prefer very small cell phones, and small laptops as well. :p ;)

Nice.

[Avid6eek]

I know the Mini Cooper is a nice car...it's actually quite popular over here that's why I mentioned it :p

No, I'm not saying that nobody else is working hard in the world. I'm saying that if you work hard, and can afford to buy what you want, if you want a TV in your Escalade with 30" Rims, go for it. If it isn't the thing to do over in Europe, then don't do it. I don't hear anything on the news about Europeans having ************************loads of money in their bank accounts, so you guys must be spending the money on the things you find important. Do I know what these things are? No, and I don't really care. Do what you want. Buy something entertaining...your obviously bored if you have time to sit there and criticize the lifestyle of others.

Same thing about the environment. I'm sure the US has just as high of a percentage of untouched forest as any European country. It's not like we plow trees over for the hell of it....in our Escalade with 30" Rims and a TV set in every headrest. I know we do use a quarter of the worlds oil, but if you take into account the population of the US, our standard of living which is higher than most of the world, and the size of our economy, I'm sure we are only using slightly more than our percentage of the world's oil. Might as well use it while it's here.

[Ace]

You have a population of 280m? (can't remember) and your oil consumption is 19.65 million bbl/day (2001 est.) . We have a population of 60m and our oil consumption is 1.71 million bbl/day (2001 est.)

Putting this per person to take into account the population size, 0.0702 for US and 0.0285 for UK. So you guys use almost 3x as much as us per person... I'm telling you, as is every other non-American telling you, your oil consumption is NOT normal and NOT acceptable. Your argument that you guys have worked hard and hence deserve to be able to do what you like with regard to the environment is bull************************. If we in the UK took the same view as you guys, and the Italians, Germans, French etc etc, then you guys would probably be begging us all to stop wrecking the world because you'd be feeling the effects. Just because you're not yet experiencing the effects of environmental damage doesn't mean you have the right to ignore it and to continue wrecking the world without regard to anyone else. It's pure selfishness. If everyone shared the same view as you guys re: the environment then fine. But they don't. Your uncaring nature re: the environment affects other people without the same view as you guys. Aside from anything else, this is morally wrong. Go apologise to the Bangladeshi people for f***ing their country up without their permission.

But I'm not just talking about oil and cars. I'm also talking about Kyoto. Give me a good reason why you lot refused to sign Kyoto. I had a long, long argument with someone in another forum about this. So let me say before we continue, if you so much as mention this farcical opinion that *some* Americans seem to hold, that America needs a strong economy to withstand another wave of European colonisation, then I'll just quit. Although it did give my fellow students & teachers quite a good laugh at the time.

[PCgeek]

Woah... I'm away for a day and this place turns into a warzone.
We do use a lot of oil. Its a different standard of living over here. I agree with the European point of view. Although America does have a better economy and Americans do work long hours, but there is only so much oil in the world, and once we use it all up, how will we drive then? But you can't expect people to change the only lifestyle they know, you have to compensate. There is no need for huge cars. Some people need big cars, that understandable, but the Hummer/Escalade craze is ridiculous. You can't justify them as utility vehicle because they are fragile as hell, I've seen many failed attempts at riding woods trails on the H2. They're just luxury vehicles, and that's just a waste. If you need a utility 4x4 u get a small pickup or a jeep or sumtin.

[Avid6eek]

Your missing small parts of the equation Ace. It isn't as simple as an oil/person ratio. the US population is 290 million, so that would mean that we use about around 2.3-2.4x as much oil per person, yet our economy (GDP) is more than 5x the size of the UK economy. If you want to look at it in that sense, we are twice as efficient per barrel of oil as the UK in terms of economic output. Wow, we don't look like such an evil giant anymore.

I do agree with you on Kyoto. That is an agreement we should be apart of as it is everyone's responsiblity to take care of the earth. It just happens that we had a leader in office that wasn't environmentally friendly when it came time for us to ratify the protocol. Unfortunately, as a country we aim to do what is best for us as a whole, just like any other country in the world would do. It would just cause to great an impact on the way our society runs at the moment. We aren't perfect, but nobody else in this world is. We do our share to helping the world in our own ways, but we can't, and won't do everything. If the environment is our weak spot, then so be it. We'll change when we have to change, but that moment isn't in the near future. Maybe in 3 years a democrat will be voted into the top spot, and our environmental stance will change.

[DoK]

No, I'm not saying that nobody else is working hard in the world. I'm saying that if you work hard, and can afford to buy what you want, if you want a TV in your Escalade with 30" Rims, go for it. If it isn't the thing to do over in Europe, then don't do it. I don't hear anything on the news about Europeans having ************************loads of money in their bank accounts, so you guys must be spending the money on the things you find important. Do I know what these things are? No, and I don't really care. Do what you want. Buy something entertaining...your obviously bored if you have time to sit there and criticize the lifestyle of others.
For what it's worth, I agree whole-heartedly with the above statement; I was going to post something similar myself as I was reading through the posts.

Now, as far as I know, Kyoto deals mainly with the reduction of the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the big nasty gas that is supposed to be the cause of this global warming business. Why ratify this since there is no coorelation with respect to the global mean temperature and the constant rise of CO2 since the industrial revolution?

*I thought I posted on this before. . . so here is my reasoning:

Posted 12/19/04

I personally don't believe that the United States (or humans, for that matter) is responsible for global warming in any sense.

The Earth has natural periods of hot and cold times which are influenced by only a few provable, natural occuring phenomena including the Earth's axial wobble, solar activity, and ocean currents. The Earth has undergone 4 ice ages, each followed by periods of warmth. We are still coming out of the last ice age, which "only" ended 10,000 years ago.

The main problem I find with blaming humans for global warming is that CO2 plays a very small roll (regarding the Earth's mean temperature) compared to water vapor, the most prevalent and most effective heat-trapping green house gas.

To make matters worse, their observation that the ever increasing level of CO2 over the past ~150 years (which is a ridiculously small window from which to extrapolate climactic trends for an ecosystem that has existed for a few billion years) and the slight change in the global mean temperature since that time seem to coincide, they commit 2 big scientific faux pas: assuming that correlation = causality and omitting a significant variable (water vapor) from their calculations.

Another mark against the accusation that CO2 is the culprit is that fact that the steadily increasing level of CO2 in the atmostphere doesn't even bear any viable corrrelation to the evident warming trend of the past 150 years, according to NASA (http://www.gsfc.nasa.gov/gsfc/service/gallery/fact_sheets/earthsci/warming.htm):
The temperature record of the past hundred years does show a warming trend, by approximately 0.5 degrees C. However, the observed warming trend is not entirely consistent with the carbon dioxide change. Most of the temperature increase occurred before 1940, after which Earth started to cool until the early seventies, when warming resumed. Carbon dioxide, on the other hand, has been increasing steadily throughout the past century.

[DoK]

Go apologise to the Bangladeshi people for f***ing their country up without their permission.
Are you talking about the tsunami? Are you implying we caused the tsunami? Because we didn't. . . and I'm very interested in your proof that we did - if that is what you're implying.

[Avid6eek]

Bangladeshi is very low lying country. Any polar ice melt is severly felt by the citizens here as he country will literally be covered in water. This happens with annual Cyclones anyways...it's not like this is a very smart place to be living if you can't swim ;)

[Ace]

No I am in no way trying to imply the US was behind the tsunami. I have toyed with the idea of the US being behing 9/11, but certainly not the tsunami.

Shiz - I'm afraid your theory behind the oil figures just doesn't figure. GDP factors in based on the population size. 60m x 5 = 300m. Your country has a population about 5x the size of ours. Your GDP is 5x ours did you say? Well... there you go. Economic production was taken into account with both US and UK figures.. just think about it for a bit, you'll see. I thought the same as you to start with. I'm afraid the - whatever it was, 2x, 3x - figures still hold.

Your point about Bangladesh - sure, but you live in Bangladesh with an average wage and you tell me how you intend to get out of there. It's the standard "well they shouldn't be so poor" argument. What we're doing is saying "as I grow up in the US I am more worthy of life than Bangladeshi people".

I'm glad you agree on Kyoto anyway. I just wonder how many Americans will still agree when they work out it may slow their economy ever so slightly...

DoK - I am very sorry to see you bringing this up again. I can't believe for all your technology you guys in America still haven't gotten the news. It was plastered all over our newspapers not that long ago. We now have proof. I'm no scientist, and my memory's a bit dodgy too (old age... I'm 16 for christ sake... ;) ), but I think that if you, surrounded by all this scientific evidence, still say "well... it may not be true... I mean, there's a 99.99% likelihood that it is, but I stilll want to hold onto that 0.001% chance and play with billions of people's lives for my SUV and economic superiotiry over the rest of the world because I'm selfish (not that I'll ever admit it. I'm in denial)" then that is truly disgusting.

Plus, I'll have you know, the ONLY scientists saying otherwise about global warming are ones under the payroll of US big business or the US government. Don't you find that a little odd? Eh? Because I sure as hell do.

[Ace]

DoK - off topic - any idea who those two guys are in your kewl animated gif?

[Avid6eek]

Ace...you are correct. There was an error in my logic behind the amount of oil we use. Thanks for catching me on that.

I would agree that humans are responsible for some level of global warming. I do not think the affects are going to be nearly as bad as some estimate. Ocean levels will rise slightly, but this isn't going to cause the end of the world. The earth has been, in the past, much more warm than it is right now, and there is no evidience of mass destruction...it is just part of the climate cycle. Considering that we will probably run out of fossil feuls, or stop using them in the next 100 years or so, then the 250 years that we spent burning fossil feuls is really a very small amount of time relative to climatic history. I don't think it is going to have a very large impact. Changes will occur, and we will adapt. Our technology that is there to help us make these adaptations is evolving far faster than the changes are actually taking place, so I do think we will always be one step ahead.

As far as the Bangladesh is concerned, I'm going to take a realist stance on this. Evolution says you must adapt, or cease to exist. If being more technologically advanced is what constitutes being more evolved as a society, then that's what it is going to take. I know that those living there right now are not totally responsible for their situation, but generations past are.

If you are religous, and belive god has a plan for everyone, then he will save those who should be saved, and they will enjoy the life they deserve....or however it works.

[DoK]

DoK - I am very sorry to see you bringing this up again.
And you are forgiven. See that it doesn't happen again.

I can't believe for all your technology you guys in America still haven't gotten the news. It was plastered all over our newspapers not that long ago. We now have proof.
I'm genuinely interested! Where's the proof?

I'm no scientist,
Neither am I. . .

and my memory's a bit dodgy too (old age... I'm 16 for christ sake... ;) ),
Wait until you hit 21.

but I think that if you, surrounded by all this scientific evidence,
I've yet to see the evidence. . . I see a constant rice in CO2 and an inconsistent increase in temperature; what do I have wrong?

[you] still say "well... it may not be true... I mean, there's a 99.99% likelihood that it is, but I stilll want to hold onto that 0.001% chance and play with billions of people's lives for my SUV and economic superiotiry over the rest of the world because I'm selfish (not that I'll ever admit it. I'm in denial)" then that is truly disgusting.
I didn't say that, you did. I'm saying there is nothing that shows my truck is the culprit in this big scary global warming scandal - but if you have the proof that it is, I'm still dying to see it. Bottom line is this: the CO2 that is produced by man is NOT the principle, or even as far as can be seen, a tangibly influential cause of global warming, as NASA's research above has shown.

OK, here's a scenario for you. Here's DoK. DoK is scientist studying global warming and he suspects that CO2 produced by artificial means (industry, the dreaded SUV's, etc) is the culprit behind the noticebly warmer climate in his favorite hunting spot in southwest Louisiana. He starts doing some research and looks at temperature records and compares them to the level of CO2 in the atmosphere that correspond to a certain time period and plots them on a graph against one another. He makes this observation: CO2 goes up, temps go up, CO2 goes up more, temps go up more, CO2 goes up even more, temps now start to go down, CO2 goes up, temps still go down, CO2 keeps increasing, now temps start to increase again. . . and then DoK decides that CO2 is the cause of all this warming making the ducks take longer to migrate to his favorite hunting spot, cutting duck season shorter and shorter every year, even though there is no correlation between the 2 graphs. DoK decides that CO2 is bad, bad, bad and vows never to start his SUV again so he can get back to killing mallards.

Is DoK a very good scientist?

There are other forces at work here, much more influential than man can ever hope to be. "99.99% likelihood"? If you say so. But while you say that, you disregard other variables that actually do affect the Earth's climate that are not in dispute.

Plus, I'll have you know, the ONLY scientists saying otherwise about global warming are ones under the payroll of US big business or the US government. Don't you find that a little odd? Eh? Because I sure as hell do.
There's no point in tossing around conspiracy theories, they contribute nothing to the discussion. But if that's your bag, then hey, have at it. You seem to think that the U.S. scientists twist their findings around to keep their employers happy and ensure their paycheck. That shows your ignorance of how things are here (this isn't Soviet Russia or Pre-Invasion Iraq, after all), but that's not your fault.

**Oh yeah, that's John Cleese and some other guy from Monty Python's Flying Circus doing the argument sketch. One of their best. . .

[Nova]

Are you talking about the tsunami? Are you implying we caused the tsunami? Because we didn't. . . and I'm very interested in your proof that we did - if that is what you're implying.

many americans in their oversized cars causing global warming (altough its not getting any damn warmer) melting icecaps, and causing tsunamis. yep its your fault DOK, all YOUR fault :p

*oh and please quit making intelligen posts, we wan't to win this one :p

[khilladi]

Dok Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

[Avid6eek]

many americans in their oversized cars causing global warming (altough its not getting any damn warmer) melting icecaps, and causing tsunamis. And your innocent because your Canadian? You guys drive the same cars, and live the same lifestyle as Americans :p Who are you trying to kid!

Now you live in Michigan...big car capital of the world :p

[Nova]

yep, but i never had to drive 30 miles to get to school in canada :p oh did i forget, 10x more ppl live in the states but w/e no way this world will end b4 i have a heart attack at 30

[Ace]

There's no point in tossing around conspiracy theories, they contribute nothing to the discussion. But if that's your bag, then hey, have at it. You seem to think that the U.S. scientists twist their findings around to keep their employers happy and ensure their paycheck. That shows your ignorance of how things are here (this isn't Soviet Russia or Pre-Invasion Iraq, after all), but that's not your fault.

Sorry I haven't time to reply fully right now. It's 5.20am as it is hehe. But I just wanted to say briefly, this isn't a conspiracy theory. The fact is that it is American scientists sponsored by big business who are saying there are issues with this global warming theory that we're talking about. I don't know of one single exception to that and I don't think there is one single exception to that. This isn't saying "the US government's out to destroy the world... muahahaha", I'm just saying that it is within the interests of US big businesses and hence the government (sponsored heavily by corporations, unlike in the UK because we have spending limits) to... how can I put it... get a second opinion which may not really be correct to cast doubt so that they can continue without having to harm elitist corporatist wallets or the economy... and hence elitist corporatist wallets. That isn't like saying the NKVD will shoot all those who don't comply or whatever, or like saying that 9/11 was organised by Bush (who couldn't organise a picnic). This is the greed of the corporations, plain and simple. And it is my belief that the """opinions""" (heavily construed) of these corporate sponsored scientists that are ""leaking"" into the public domain. It is these that we hear about and think well... there ya go... it's not my fault after all. Looks like I don't need to feel bad about buying my 8th SUV then... *whistle*.

I have so got to see Monty's Flying Circus now. I never thought I liked it... but just for that sketch...

[gokusimpson]

(altough its not getting any damn warmer)

At least maybe not where you guys are. In california, the weather is frickin' crazy now. Two days ago, cold rain. Yesterday burning sun. Damn I just got sunburned too! It's only March!

[DoK]

I have so got to see Monty's Flying Circus now. I never thought I liked it... but just for that sketch...
OMG you live in the UK and you don't like Monty Python?! I mean, I know the humor doesn't suit everyone, but that's like. . . some of the most influential comedy evaaar. The dead parrot sketch was great too.

Anyhow, nothing I can say will be able to dissuade you from believing that the scientists here in the States doing global warming research don't have ulterior motives. I highly, highly doubt that some American scientists are the only ones who don't believe that Kyoto is the answer, but I really don't feel like looking up every single meteorologist/climatologist/knowitallogist who has taken a stance for/against the CO2 argument.

Do you consider NASA's findings invalid simply by virtue of the fact that they are a government sponsored organization? Because the EPA is also, and boy do the industries hate the EPA. If it's good enough for NASA, it's good enough for me.

[DoK]

many americans in their oversized cars causing global warming (altough its not getting any damn warmer) melting icecaps, and causing tsunamis. yep its your fault DOK, all YOUR fault :p
Dammit. . . Thanks Nova, I'll have to put a stop to all of that stupidness now. You are wise beyond your years. ;)

[Ace]

All text ripped from various places

National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) has released the report developed by their team of climate modelers, which says that the climate would continue to get warmer in the coming times irrespective of any measures taken by the governments around the world as early as 2000. The condition is overall so bad that even if no more greenhouse gases are added to the atmosphere from now on, the global averaged surface air temperatures would rise by one degree Fahrenheit and global sea levels would rise another 4 inches from thermal expansion by 2100.

The Atmosphere Alliance, as far back as Feb 1999:

The upper atmosphere is cooling rapidly at the same time as Earth’s surface is getting hotter -- a “fingerprint” pattern of human-caused global warming. A natural warming due to the changing brightness of the sun warms both the lower and upper atmosphere. Greenhouse gases, on the other hand, trap heat down low, reducing the outflow of warmth to the upper atmosphere.

THE LSC is teaching:

“…. natural forcing alone is unlikely to explain the recent observed global warming or the observed changes in vertical temperatures structure of the atmosphere.”

“In light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”

Almanac of Policy Issues states:

Separating out the impact of human activity from natural climate variation is extremely difficult. Nonetheless, the IPCC concluded there is a "discernible human influence" on climate. This means the observed global warming is unlikely to be the result of natural variability alone and that human activities are at least partially responsible.

THE EPA (This is essentially the US gvt)

June 3,2002-A report released by the EPA confirms something that scientists have been insisting for years: human activities are largely to blame for the problem of global warming.

Oil refining, power plants and auto emissions are singled out as major contributors to the problem.

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in the Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing global mean surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise," the EPA states in the report.

The inter-agency report was sent to the United Nations. It includes the forecast that total greenhouse emissions by the United States will increase 43 percent between 2000 and 2020. The United States is the largest contributor to global warming.

"The climate change challenge . . . will not be solved by government. It won't be solved by business. It will be solved when we capture the spirit of Earth Day every day and join it to the dedication of the American people to the future of their families."-- Carol M. Browner former Administrator EPA- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency


Bush's reaction to the EPA report - "put out by the bureaucracy".

[DoK]

I do enjoy reading about climate predictions for 100+ years down the road, especially when weather men can't predict the weather with any semblance of accuracy 5 days down the road. Maybe I'm retarded, but that don't make no stinkin' sense.

Those little snippets you posted are quite dissatisfying to the discerning scientist, and I'm surprised that you would post them as you seem to consider yourself well-versed with science.

“…. natural forcing alone is unlikely to explain the recent observed global warming or the observed changes in vertical temperatures structure of the atmosphere.”

“In light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.”
Why even post this? This doesn't help your argument, the statement is too wishy-washy.

Separating out the impact of human activity from natural climate variation is extremely difficult. Nonetheless, the IPCC concluded there is a "discernible human influence" on climate.
Now that's interesting; they seem to be jumping to conclusions despite the admitted difficulty in the verification of their findings.

Here is an article you should find interesting and informative. It is an anti-Kyoto petition signed by 18,000 scientists that dispute the viability of Kyoto, complete with citations. This has very nicely detailed charts and graphs so that you can see this relation. These are published facts, not "uncertain" or "likely/unlikely". Of course, you might just assume that every single one of these signatures is that of a corporate elitist puppet, in which case, there's no point in going on because conspiracy theory trumps logic any day.

http://zwr.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message50

Read it carefully, and tell your pro-Kyoto friends and teachers about it so they can read it also.

And I happened across this guy: the UK's very ownDavid Bellamy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bellamy). He wrote this op-ed piece (http://www.junkscience.com/july04/GW_David_Bellamy.JPG_1.jpeg) that led me to the petition above.

http://www.junkscience.com/july04/GW_David_Bellamy.JPG_1.jpeg

The one consistency that is apparent is the inconsistency between the increase in greenhouse gases compared to the increase/decrease in temperatures. Kyoto is bunk.

[Avid6eek]

Everyone needs to just mind your own damn business.

If you don't have the power to change anything, then your up the perverbial creek.

:p ;)

[Ace]

So you found one damn idiot of a Brit who says otherwise. Y'know, I didn't even bother to read Bellamy's article because, although this point may seem stupid and evasive to you, I assure you it is worthy. I can't see which paper it was printed in, but if I know my papers, it's the Daily Mail. And that is a PoS. The reason this was printed by the DM would NOT and I repeat NOT be to enlighten the readers with new scientific research. The readership of the DM is not exactly low-brow, but it's pretty low-brow. Those who buy the DM are NOT scientifically aware types. And if you look at the wording of the article, it is NOT worded in a scientific report manner. It's worded in a "you don't need to feel so bad about yourselves" manner. But why? Well, how many editors want to say to their readers "hey, you guys suck ass! You need to stop driving cars, recycle everything, ... ... etc". Not a great paper seller eh?

As I say, you'll probably think that point is evading the point or whatever, but I can assure you otherwise. Were it printed in the Independant, Times, DT or the Guardian I would have listened. But you've got to understand that there are NEWSpapers (the above), magazines (the sun, daily star etc) and there's the DM. It's an odd paper, in a world of its own really. Mainly female readership, and a weird cross between magazine and newspaper. Still mainly celebrity gossip on the front page. In the UK, it's a well known fact that those who want to read some news wouldn't touch the DM with a 1000ft bargepole.

Read it carefully, and tell your pro-Kyoto friends and teachers about it so they can read it also.Please don't patronise me - I do have a brain of my own you know. I am not just dictated to by my teachers.

To pull from the summary of that article,

To be sure, CO2 levels have increased substantially since the Industrial Revolution, and are expected to continue doing so. It is reasonable to believe that humans have been responsible for much of this increase

Wasn't your argument that we're not responsible for climate change? I find it interesting that they argue that we are responsible for increased CO2 levels, which they admit causes global warming (by very simple science indeed - I knew about that when I was about 7) and they admit that the world has been warming, but they don't link them together.

18k signatures - oh wow. That is sod all. We're going to get more people up in scotland protesting during G8 then there are people clicking onto that site and typing a few characters to sign that stupid petition.

And guess what - as far as I can see, we are talking about US scientists. QUIT DAMN WELL SAYING THIS IS A FRIGGIN CONSPIRACY THEORY. I've damn well explained that before.

With regard to the statements I posted, these are posted by governmental organisations or other organisations accountable to others. With things like climate change, or the big bang, or whatever, it is almost impossible to say anything for certain. We can say with 99.999% certainty, but that isn't the same as 100% certainty. Hence they can't say we are sure of X, but they have to say it is likely/unlikely. I hate to demean your petition, but there is *no way* they can make assertions that their argument IS true. That just shows it's the work of an individual/group and not a proper organisation (not that I'm saying it therefore isn't worthy). Provable facts can be said to be true within the constraints of out knowledge. Implications, however direct, are still implications.

I accept that the snippets I posted are hardly conclusive or extensive by any means. I didn't intend them to be, and I simply haven't the time to compile a conclusive report.

But at the end of the day, I can understand that there may be some Americans (and it is just Americans... weird...) who think that there may not be a discernable link between CO2 increases and global warming. However, I do not understand how you can say

"well, I'm personally not entirely convinced, and I'd rather believe the minority of information in front of me than the majority because I prefer the look of the minority. It means I can continue doing what I like without having to feel guilty"

Tell me, is that not a fair point? Honestly?

It's selfishness. Why can't you just hold your hands up and say "look, I'm personally not entirely convinced, however, I recognise that there is a strong argument for this, and I'd rather help the effort to stop climate change than risk destroying human life just to make my life a little nicer in the short term".

What is wrong with that? That is obviously the moral position, yet you just want to pick the easy route. I don't hate you for saying look, there is another argument here. I do hate you for putting the future of the human race at stake for your SUVs etc (obviously not just those, but you get my drift).

[DoK]

So you found one damn idiot of a Brit who says otherwise.
Yep. Ha! Just goes to show that not all morAns are American! Like I said, I don't feel like compiling a list, so one will suffice.

Y'know, I didn't even bother to read Bellamy's article. . .
That's fine, it was just an op-ed piece that I found interesting. He happens to be a well-respected botanist with quite a resume.

because, although this point may seem stupid and evasive to you, I assure you it is worthy. I can't see which paper it was printed in, but if I know my papers, it's the Daily Mail. And that is a PoS. The reason this was printed by the DM would NOT and I repeat NOT be to enlighten the readers with new scientific research. The readership of the DM is not exactly low-brow, but it's pretty low-brow. Those who buy the DM are NOT scientifically aware types. And if you look at the wording of the article, it is NOT worded in a scientific report manner. It's worded in a "you don't need to feel so bad about yourselves" manner. But why? Well, how many editors want to say to their readers "hey, you guys suck ass! You need to stop driving cars, recycle everything, ... ... etc". Not a great paper seller eh?
Oh believe me, I know what you mean. That's the very same reason I disregard what's printed in the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. Rags. . .

Please don't patronise me - I do have a brain of my own you know. I am not just dictated to by my teachers.
Oh, no patronization intended. You brought up earlier how you gave your teachers and friends a good laugh talking about the other guy you were arguing with, and I thought this might educate them a little as to what they're refusing to see.

Wasn't your argument that we're not responsible for climate change?
Yep.

I find it interesting that they argue that we are responsible for increased CO2 levels, which they admit causes global warming (by very simple science indeed - I knew about that when I was about 7) and they admit that the world has been warming, but they don't link them together.
No, no, no. You see? That's why I said to read it carefully, so that you wouldn't misunderstand what they're saying. They outline the purpose for the study in the first paragraph; the Kyoto nuts are the ones who believe that CO2 is the global warming culprit, not the authors. I thought that was clear. . . perhaps not.

And guess what - as far as I can see, we are talking about US scientists. QUIT DAMN WELL SAYING THIS IS A FRIGGIN CONSPIRACY THEORY. I've damn well explained that before.
Yes, you explained that U.S. scientists are, to paraphrase, more than likely just making those claims to keep their jobs and to keep their employers happy. It seems that when a U.S. scientist makes a claim that is contrary to that of the rest of the world, people have these knee-jerk thoughts: Corporate Elitists! Big Business! Bush is a morAn! Halliburton! Let's be rational. You can see their data, you can see their conclusion, I don't see dollar bills on that study anywhere, so something's not adding up with your claim.

We can say with 99.999% certainty
No we can't. Look at the data. Greenhouse gases constantly rise, temperatures do not.

I hate to demean your petition, but there is *no way* they can make assertions that their argument IS true. That just shows it's the work of an individual/group and not a proper organisation (not that I'm saying it therefore isn't worthy). Provable facts can be said to be true within the constraints of out knowledge. Implications, however direct, are still implications.
Not by a proper organization? Man, you must have some pretty stringent requirements for what constitutes a "proper organization". That report was a collaboration between the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (http://www.oism.org/) and the George C. Marshall Institute (http://www.marshall.org/). Yeah, they look like a bunch of two-bit wackos.

I hate to demean your petition. . .And I hate to deamean your logic, but did you look at those pretty pictures that were supplied with their data? Like the one that plots the greenhouse gas curve against the temperature curve?

Here ya go, just in case you missed it:
http://zwr.oism.org/pproject/fig12.gif

Figure 12: Eleven-year moving average of global surface temperature, as estimated by NASA GISS (23, 33, and 34), plotted as deviation from 1890 (left axis and light line), as compared with atmospheric CO2 (right axis and dark line) (2). Approximately 82% of the increase in CO2 occurred after the temperature maximum in 1940, as is shown in figure 1.

CO2 goes up, temps go up, CO2 production constantly accelerates for ~30 years, TEMPS COME DOWN. I ain't no genius, but like I said, that don't make no stinkin' sense.

There are other charts and graphs in that article that qualify this much more. Especially helpful is the graph showing the effect of actually doubling the current concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere as compared to the natural variables from the Earth. I'll say this much so as not to spoil it for you though: it's not much!

I accept that the snippets I posted are hardly conclusive or extensive by any means. I didn't intend them to be, and I simply haven't the time to compile a conclusive report.
Agreed.

But at the end of the day, I can understand that there may be some Americans (and it is just Americans... weird...)
Yeah, I know. Why do we always have to lead the world? Weird. . .

However, I do not understand how you can say

"well, I'm personally not entirely convinced, and I'd rather believe the minority of information in front of me than the majority because I prefer the look of the minority. It means I can continue doing what I like without having to feel guilty"

Tell me, is that not a fair point? Honestly?
Well, do you understand now? You look at that graph whose findings are *not* in dispute, and you can't understand how I can say that I'm not convinced? Now THAT, I don't understand.



It's selfishness. Why can't you just hold your hands up and say "look, I'm personally not entirely convinced, however, I recognise that there is a strong argument for this, and I'd rather help the effort to stop climate change than risk destroying human life just to make my life a little nicer in the short term".
I'll tell ya what. I'll meet you half way here. I'll say that first part you said: "look, I'm personally not entirely convinced. . ." but I'll change the last part to: "I recognize that even though there's a strong argument against Kyoto, you still choose to criticize me for driving my 1999 Ford Ranger 4.0L V6 (18 MPG) any time I darn-well please - even if it's just down the road to visit a friend and relax - and well, that's unfounded, but OK, you do what makes you happy and I'll keep doing what makes me happy."

I do hate you for putting the future of the human race at stake for your SUVs etc
*sniff* :( Does this mean you won't come duck hunting with me now? Because we would have to ride in my truck. . .

Oh well, Ace. It doesn't seem that either one of us are making any progress with the other. I can't make my points any more clearly than I already have. My attention span is fading with this thread, so I'll catch ya in the next argument.

[Nova]

wow i never read this BS but damn, u kids need to stop *****ing at eachother about the decisions, mistakes, and faults of others. it's tearing up our forum :(

[gokusimpson]

wow i never read this BS but damn, u kids need to stop *****ing at eachother about the decisions, mistakes, and faults of others. it's tearing up our forum :(

Ya I know, seriously. Every thread about anything except computers gets into a war except for AMD vs Intel and ATI vs nVidia.

[Ace]

Apologies about the misinterpretation of the article. My bad. I was just getting over a hangover when I wrote my last reply. It probably wasn't the best time, all things considered. However, I'm still not happy with those graphs. I would be very cautious about looking at the odd graph and saying look, inconsistency, therefore false. I am almost certain that, had I the time (I'm in desperate need of sleep) I could pull up graphs showing otherwise. By adding in moving averages like in that graph, by careful selection of scales etc, by selection of *which* set of data you use (could be conflicting sets etc etc) you can show lots of different things. I'm not saying that the trend shown in the graph doesn't represent the truth - perhaps it does, I don't know, but I just would be wary of relying on one graph from a group which seems to have set out to disprove the claims about CO2 /g.warming. The same could be said for the other groups I know.

With reference to the temperature dip shown in the graph, no-one is claiming that climate change is 100% caused by CO2 levels. It's very well saying that, in a lab under controlled conditions, X occurs. In the natural world faced with other natural reactions X still occurs, but so does Y and Z. The graph still shows a general upward trend - if we extend the moving average, we could erase that blip altogether :)

I can see that what I'm saying may not be very satisfactory. I'm basically saying that you can't rely on one set of results from a perhaps not entirely impartial group, and that extenuating circumstances may have been glanced over (not entirely as I will comment on in a minute) in order to portray their viewpoint. But... that's how I feel.

You commented on the graph showing doubling CO2 levels against other natural occurances, which is a fair point and I am glad they included this. Without wanting to be too cynical, I find it interesting that they include a computer generated climate model when they slagged them off previously. For my liking, there is not nearly enough info about that graph. Humidity... what sort of variation are we talking about? And the same with clouds, in fact all the 4 variables have very little info given about them. We just are meant to accept that they've done it right. Is that humidity variation over a couple of years? A century? Start/end values, max/min values? No information is given, which makes me suspicious... it could be a perfectly good and quite true graph, or not. They cannot just put up graphs like that and expect us to run with them. Were I trying to pursuade people of something, I'd be a damn bit more comprehensive than that. I just want some information as to how it was all calculated, rather than just a computer model.

Why do we always have to lead the world? Weird. . .
Because everyone else in every other country is f***ing blind, dumb, stupid, ugly, poor and totally inferior to Americans. What kind of comment is that?!

Well, do you understand now? You look at that graph whose findings are *not* in dispute, and you can't understand how I can say that I'm not convinced? Now THAT, I don't understand.
They are in dispute.

What exactly is your strong argument against Kyoto founded on? I'm honestly interested as to how you developed your opinion. Anti-Kyoto feeling is pretty hard to come by (like impossible) in Europe. Well, not true, it's mainly annoyance that Kyoto doesn't go nearly far enough. Heck, we've got people turning socialist in a hope that that may give sufficient power over big business to sort it out. The difference in opinion between Europeans (or non-Americans pretty much) and Americans is very stark, and concerning. I don't wish to generalise, but so far it seems to me that most Americans are anti-Kyoto. I may be wrong, I don't really know. I'm interested to hear why lots of Americans feel this way. A difference in culture? A difference in news? A difference in scientific research presented to the population? I'm not attacking you here - this is purely out of genuine interest.

As for the duck hunting, I do own air rifles, but I can't bring myself to shoot birds. Although I know people who do... they shoot pigeons though. I guess it's considerably better for the animals with real rifles though - no chance of them limping off injured and not dead, the main concern for us air rifle people in the UK.

However, if that's an offer, I'd gladly take it up if I'm ever in the States. I wouldn't mind seeing what all the fuss is about big motors :)

Very tired... must go to sleep...

[Ace]

Ya I know, seriously. Every thread about anything except computers gets into a war except for AMD vs Intel and ATI vs nVidia.

Y'know, I half feel like being contraversial and saying INTEL AND NVIDIA RULE!!! :p

There's nothing wrong with environmental and political debates... I think they add a certain class to the forums. Kind of.

[DoK]

I just plain enjoy arguing. Online forums are the best outlet for it, in my opinion. It's easy to recall what the other said and keeps a good record for future discussions. Besides, this is FFA!

[omga14]

i haven't read the whole thread but i get the gist that some are saying that the US is causing the most damage to the environment and i partially agree. what i would like to point out though is that the world likes to criticize us generally on just about everything. on the environment, why hasn't the world gotten more on the case of brazil with thier destruction of at least 50% of the amazon rain forest(remember plants convert CO2 to breathable air for us and helps keep the levels down for the environment in general). did you know that over 30 new monkey species were discovered in the last couple of years in the amazon? their are so many things that are being eliminated that could be cures or whatever that we don't even know about cause the amazon isn't even close to being fully understood on a biologica, and environmental level. i hear alot of shouting but nothing being done about this. yes we use more gas than most countries combined but we also travel more commute further distances than just about any country on earth. i wish leaders would stop with the high school criticisim of each others countries and just act like the positions they have been elected for and sit and work things to an agreeable situation. no alternative fuel option is fully feasable and some like the new bmw 7 series hydrogen hybrid aren't realistic. it takes an extraction process using coal to get liquid hydrogen for the bmw. the process causes more polution to the atmosphere than a standard combustion 7 series to run just plain gas. so you wind up causing more pollution to get the hydrogen for the car then the car still uses gas for part of the time causing still more pollution. it'll be another 5-10 years before you see real alternative fuel hybrids (like electric, and natural gas) on a regular use basis like standard combustion and affordable like them also. and i'm being nice on the time estimation.

[Ace]

Your point about the Amazon - it's not the governments down there that are saying let's tear it all down ASAP! Large amounts are due to illegal logging fuelled by demand in the northern hemisphere. However, those governments could be doing a LOT more to slow illegal logging and ensure that new trees are planted in place of those cut down as is done in European forests. So yes, I agree...
Not that I want to make excuses for these countries, because they could do more if they tried, but you have to admit it is a lot harder for them to take action due to a lack of resources, ability, training, too much corruption etc etc. Things aren't so simple for them. Whilst the US could do something about it quite easily, like join kyoto, it is very much considerably harder for those countries. But yes, we either need to exert more pressure on them or provide resources ourselves if it is unfeasible for them to implement the law. This could, however lead to unpleasent consequences... it's quite a delicate and complex balancing act. A lot easier said than done.

So... you use cars which guzzle 2x +++++++++++ the gas per distance measurement unit and drive further. Now... what... you're saying I should feel sorry for Americans? Huh?

Alternative fuel... how about simply alternative cars? But I'm glad you brought up alt. fuel. You're right, it's far from great at the moment. However, with regard to hydrogen, my understanding was that at the car no CO2 is emitted. I'm not at all sure about the methods used to get the hydrogen (haven't looked into it...) but my understanding was that much more can be filtered out in huge columns than can be in individual cars. Correct me if I'm wrong.

[Ace]

I just plain enjoy arguing. Online forums are the best outlet for it, in my opinion. It's easy to recall what the other said and keeps a good record for future discussions. Besides, this is FFA!

Hehe well said. Only problem is I'm getting RSI here :p

BTW, what's FFA?

[Nova]

Free For All

[Ace]

Ah I see. *Glances at Nova's title* How about a "Does size matter?" poll than Nova, seen as it's FFA and all that? :D

[Nova]

well you'll have to ask PJ since it's his doing, but i think he's trying to say that even do i'm hung like a horse i won't get every woman i want :p

[Avid6eek]

This could, however lead to unpleasent consequences... it's quite a delicate and complex balancing act. A lot easier said than done. The same can be said for the US economy, which is why topics such as the environment which have a major impact on the economy are so hard to deal with. Any impact on the American economy is an impact on the world economy. The burst of the .Com bubble took longer to impact us, but we are just now recovering from that. It would be foolish for us to do something right now that would have further negative impact. The effects of environmental change take decades to occur. It isn't something that can be changed overnight. Us staying out of the Koyoto protocol for another 10 or so years will have no statistical impact on the environmental condition of the world.

[omga14]

we should have joined though if simply to show that we trully care about the condition of the world and what we can do to help.

Ace that hydrogen car that BMW is coming with is not going to be completely alternative. it is going to be a hybrid. and yes when it is running on hydrogen the only byproduct is water i think.

[Ace]

Any impact on the American economy is an impact on the world economy
Yes

It would be foolish for us to do something right now that would have further negative impact
When the American companies suddenly wake up to news of an environmental disaster that effects America, that will have a significantly worse affect on the American economy. Like send America and the world into another depression. The choice is simple - a small impact on the American economy now, or a devastating impact on the American economy later.

The effects of environmental change take decades to occur. It isn't something that can be changed overnight.
True. Many recent studies show that even if we were to stop producing CO2 tomorrow that would still be too late.

Us staying out of the Koyoto protocol for another 10 or so years will have no statistical impact on the environmental condition of the world
You are the first person I have heard mention that the US is considering signing Kyoto at all. I doubt this to be the case. In the eyes of the US government, it will always have economic impact, and therefore it is inconsiderable. If I was given absolute assurance that in 2015 the US would sign the Kyoto treaty of the time and adhere to it properly, setting a good example to the rest of the world, then I would still look upon them scornfully. There is no valid reason aside from greed not to have signed Kyoto years ago. Who's to say that the US economy will be thriving in ten years time. What then... wait another ten years? It won't matter... we've already waited X multiples of ten years too long.

Hmm... I haven't heard about this BMW. All I know is that a lot of buses in Sweden (I think... or maybe Norway...) are hydrogen buses. I think we have some in London. I'm sure I've seen one.

[SleezyRevolution]

Diden't the germans learn enough lessons with hydrogen and the hindenburg to know not to put it into their cars? :confused:

Whats the deal with that?

That article was pretty shoddy, a small asian man picking on us americans because of our hefty apetites was basically the sum of it. I found it a bit ignorant.

America needs to work on enviromental policys yes. Our bays are polluted, the mouth of the missisipi into the gulf of mexico is a deadzone where no life can be sustained, we overfish, hunt the wrong animals, kill the birdies. But give me an example of a country that doesen't have those problems. Britain, as a good example, over-fishes cod, has nuclear waste issues and lets face it who the hell would want to get wet in the thames? Europeans and government definatley try to tackle the problem more than the US government (and i'm speaking frankly of mainland europeans germany/sweden etc.) and when you see pictures of their citys you'll never see one look like baltimore or detroit. America can look that way, but thats not the american attitude and probablly never will be for the majority of americans.

[Avid6eek]

10 years from now, it would be much easier to meet the demands of the Koyoto protocol. The technology will be there. The majority of new automobiles will no longer be 100% gasoline powered. Alternative feul sources will be more evolved. New technology has a hard time getting roots planted, but once it does, it evolves very quickly. Althought I believe the Koyoto Protocol is a good start, I am happy with the track we (America) is currently on.

The criticism we get as a country is unreal. We do hold ourselves to high standards with our decisions in the world, and we admit when we are wrong. I still remember the pre-war debates here in the forums as if they were yesterday. Everyone's first arguement against us was that we had no proof that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Turns out the proof we had was inaccurate, and our government openly admits that.

And of course there was the comical arguement that we were in it for the oil. Well guess what...there is no free flowing river of Oil from Iraq into the United States, or anywhere else in the global economy. Oil prices are higher than ever.

Sorry about the rant...don't really know where I was going with that.

[Ace]

Diden't the germans learn enough lessons with hydrogen and the hindenburg to know not to put it into their cars? :confused:

LOL :D

America needs to work on enviromental policys yes. Our bays are polluted, the mouth of the missisipi into the gulf of mexico is a deadzone where no life can be sustained, we overfish, hunt the wrong animals, kill the birdies. But give me an example of a country that doesen't have those problems. Britain, as a good example, over-fishes cod, has nuclear waste issues and lets face it who the hell would want to get wet in the thames? Europeans and government definatley try to tackle the problem more than the US government (and i'm speaking frankly of mainland europeans germany/sweden etc.) and when you see pictures of their citys you'll never see one look like baltimore or detroit. America can look that way, but thats not the american attitude and probablly never will be for the majority of americans.
Yes we do overfish cod, however we imposed harsh legislation to severely cut down on cod fishing. Everyone has nuclear waste issues - it's the nature of the technology. You see, I would be prepared to say ok, I'll give Americans the benefit of the doubt and you guys just have crappy leaders who reside in the hands of big business, but from what I read on various forums... this isn't the case. It is, almost without fail, Europeans advocating for further environmental change against Americans making excuses. I've heard all sorts - "Europe is trying to hurt the American economy by making it sign Kyoto so it can colonise America once more". That's quite popular. "The technology isn't in place yet". How do we manage it then? "It will hurt our economy *sob*" And it won't hurt ours? "There's no evidence that X causes Y" Yes there is... and if not evidence, very very strong understanding which most Europeans seem to get without problems. "It's too late to do anything about it". You dumbass. etc etc etc... Maybe you can see why I view the American attitude towards the environment with distaste. I hope I'm just getting a biased sample of American attitudes, but I fear not.

10 years from now, it would be much easier to meet the demands of the Koyoto protocol. The technology will be there. The majority of new automobiles will no longer be 100% gasoline powered. Alternative feul sources will be more evolved. New technology has a hard time getting roots planted, but once it does, it evolves very quickly. Althought I believe the Koyoto Protocol is a good start, I am happy with the track we (America) is currently on.
I'm sorry but I have quite a few problems with that. 1stly, in 10 years you WILL be saying "but in 10 years there will be X technology and it'll be so much easier". It's just like the don't buy your PC stuff now, but it when X comes out argument. And I don't see how you can say you're happy with the track America is going on when it isn't acutally going on any track.

The criticism we get as a country is unreal.
True. And in some cases it is probably criticism for criticism's sake. But I think that there are a lot of issues that require examining. I think this can be traced back to a problem resident in the American population as a whole - extreme patriotism verging on jingoism. Unquestioning support for your country resulting in the electorate failing to do its only job - holding the executive (government) to account. But I do appreciate that it must seem to you like it is the world vs America. Much of that of course is due to your recent foreign policy... but to an extent you happen to be unlucky in the sense that you are the largest flagwaver for corporatism and capitalism, which seems to generate a lot of hatred for you guys.

And of course there was the comical arguement that we were in it for the oil. Well guess what...there is no free flowing river of Oil from Iraq into the United States, or anywhere else in the global economy. Oil prices are higher than ever.
The argument for oil is not a simple one as was made out by STW and other stop the war groups. Whilst there is a basis for the simplistic argument that we were wanting oil, and that certainly has a solid basis in probability. For example, oil fields were secured first, you guys now have a certain backup to your own supplies of something which is developing into the most precious material, you guys have a throttlehold on supplies going to some of the largest economies in the world, and look back to Afghanistan where there IS a free flowing load of oil to America after you put some corporate oil guy in charge.

My main oil argument though is for control of the oil markets. As I understand it, the middle east was planning to establish a new oil exchange trading using Euros. Currently there are 2 or 3 main oil excahnges I think, primarily the one in the UK (pretty much run by US businesses as I understand) and the one in the US - NYMEX or something. Another major player suddenly entering the US dominated oil market using EUROS would be absoutely devastating for the US economy. Absolutely devastating. It would challenge dollars as the main oil exchange currency. Now you guys are looking to bomb Iran, and guess what. Iran still had plans to introduce its new oil market a couple weeks ago. But they were postponed after the US's threats. How strange eh. And now that that threat of another oil market has pretty much disappeared the US is talking in a conciliatory tone about properly using the UN etc.

In essence, the US has averted a major economic crisis by invading Iraq and threatening Iran. And that, Shiz, is what I believe one of the major reasons for invasion may have been. It is highly feasible.

As for the oil prices being higher than ever, that was probably due to US/UK/coalition screw ups... like in having no idea what to do when they took over and not understanding what the anti-war groups, myself included (even though I wasn't involved in the anti-war groups at the time) were yelling at them - the Iraqis were damn obviously not going to welcome troops with open arms. And they didn't. Hence among other much worse things there were regular attacks on the oil pipelines and oilfields. This led to great concern and instability in oil supply from Iraq and hence great concern in the oil market, undeniably pushing prices up. There have of course been other problems recently such as the explosion in that plant somewhere in the US.

Hehe, no worries about the rant. I like rants.

[SleezyRevolution]

It's a matter of feeling. I tend to be very liberal towards the enviroment, i know that issues need to be addressed and in alot of instances they are. The Co2 levels argument is still a raging one, some scientists think our ozone is completley cracking others think we're in an enviromental shift- which is perfectly explainable also.

I just refuse to look at it in a nation to nation basis because pollution is a world problem. If its dirty in one place it'll affect another. It's the responsibility of the nations, but it's also the responsibility of the people to do their part.

If they aren't willing, than yes maybe our time on this planet will be alot shorter.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4391835.stm

[Ace]

Which is a very important point - America refusing to co-operate affects others who are putting themselves out to lower CO2 emissions. In fact, it not only has an adverse environmental impact, but it is also having a negative moral impact, causing efforts in some countries to be reduced as they see the country which should be putting the most effort in totally ignoring the problem.

[SleezyRevolution]

causing efforts in some countries to be reduced as they see the country which should be putting the most effort in totally ignoring the problem.

That you'll have to back up with some factual evidence. In developing countries pollution is always a problem.

I agree that the government should be in on reducing green house gasses but the idea that the US should foot the bill because other countries pollute is madness.

[Bcemmons]

well I have no idea if this has already been mentioned because after the first few pages my food was done cooking...but look at the size of european countries compared to the size of the unites states. it would be financially impossible to try to get community transit everywhere, and also make it accessable to most. take a look at singapore, it has an area of 250 square miles and there are 4.5 million people, in the county i live in which has an area of 2100 square miles there are 1.6 million people. it just seems to me that people live a lot farther away than in other places of the world. i definately see a lot of people every day who couldnt live without their trucks and suv's. I work in a lumber yard and we have a large volume of customers who would not be able do their jobs without a 3/4 ton pickup or van. sure, 30 year old women in bellevue dont need to drive escalades, hell they suck at driving them anyways, but if you are making 100+ K a year why would you drive a civic? its not that americans just want the biggest of everything, its because we dont like being unprepared for anything. i have noticed that no one in america wants to have to say, i cant do that or i dont have the ability, it makes people feel weak or incapable. thats why we always want the biggest, fastest, most technological, so we could if ever the need arises. hell, most people wouldnt pass up a 3 story home with 4 bathrooms on 2 acres if it was just as cheap as a 2 bedroom rambler with no yard...would you?

[Ace]

Americans want to be prepared eh. For what? In casesuddenly their wives ask them to pick up a few horses? Here in England our lifestyle is not unlike yours. There are odd occasions, such as when going to Ikea or something, where a larger car would be nice, but we all manage with a bit of artful packing or by utilising their delivery service. Just because on occasion it might be handy doesn't mean we're all rushing out buying SUVs. We know the enviornmental effects AND the safety effects, hence we steer clear. Those who do use 4x4s or SUVs (smaller than yours) will probably find themselves at the wrong end of a protest against them. There were a few of those recently.

Saying "it might be handy sometime" is absolutely NO argument for SUVs. It's the same here, but we manage fine.

[Avid6eek]

We simply cannot support the goals of everyone else in the world. It's just not going to happen. People can protest, and complain all they want, it's still not going to happen. There really isn't much need for any debate on the subject, because those of us here in the forums don't have the power to make the changes.

As an American, I love my 250hp V6 gas hog of a car. I don't carepool, or even carrying anything heavy in my car. All that power for just me :) If I could afford a Hummer H2, I'd have one of those too.

Maybe you should just protest anything American. Give up your television, radio's, mass produced cars, internet, computer, anything that uses electricity, and anything else we helped to create for you. Without all that American stuff, you'd be much more environtmentally friendly. Then you can criticize us ;)

[ari4324]

right on man, its so true people always complain about americans. Why dont they figure out a more enviromentally friendly way of getting around instead of American companies investing billions in fuel cell cars and other clean technologies

[Zefram]

Energy problem? LOL

Just develop those Hydrogen-powered car, make them powerful, and sell them cheap - then i'd ditch my gasoline car and go for it. Battery-powered car are hopeless............. they are darn slow, inconvenient to charge the battery........

What happened to nuclear reactors? For me, if you maintain it properly, it will be a boon to the economy. We citizen will benefit from it (lower electricity cost), plus it helps reduced those coal and gasoline power stations..

[Ace]

Yeah nuclear seems like a better solution. As far as I understand it, the problems are pursuading the public that it won't blow up, because if it does you're F*$&&ed, and storing the nuclear waste in safe areas after its been used. It seems like a good source compared to the others though.

Ari - have you read the rest? lol. We are figuring out more environmentally friendly ways of getting around, and some are already in use. Not in the US though AFAIK. And typical... hark back to the economy again. What you are saying is basically: Eurpoeans - spend all your money helping the environment, because although we have a f&^*%ing huge economy and it would be easy for us to lend a *little* hand, we don't want to spend *any* of our money on it. No, we'd rather sit back and watch you guys sort it out, whilst we live our lives as we like, because we've worked hard for our lifestyle. Harder than you lot.

Is that not what you're saying with "Why dont they figure out a more enviromentally friendly way of getting around instead of American companies investing billions in fuel cell cars and other clean technologies" ?

[SleezyRevolution]

How about anti-matter. ;)

[DoK]

Is that not what you're saying with "Why dont they figure out a more enviromentally friendly way of getting around instead of American companies investing billions in fuel cell cars and other clean technologies" ?
I think what he's saying is "Until you Europeans can show us something besides 'best guesses' and 'hunches' that show our lifestyle is contributing to the warming trend and not a result of the Earth's natural cycles, you can go figure it out yourselves while we go play with the 4-wheel drive for a while."

Or. . . maybe that's what I'm saying :p ;)

Kidding aside, developing a fuel alternative is 100% necessary. We just won't have petroleum forever.

And I'm all for the - to quote Dubya - "nucular" option, too. It's simply the most efficient power source we have available today. We need to figure out what to do with that smelly, foul-tasting waste.

On a somewhat-related note, I'm taking an environmental science class this semester with one of those Green Peace nuts. In addition to being a member of Green Peace, she is a huge PETA freak also. I often wonder what it's like to lead an existence such as that, because it means that every day you wake up, you cannot avoid being a hypocrite - no matter what. She wears a leather belt every day and uses lots and lots of paper. Where does paper and leather come from?

I don't know where that came from, so here's an apologetic picture of a babe:
http://www.bullz-eye.com/models/200206lisa/lisa-08.jpg

She's my ex. We had to break up when she made me choose between her and my computer.

[Zefram]

How about anti-matter. ;)
If anti-matter already developed, try imagining yourself going to other planet or systems.............. :D

Anyway, all the nuclear plants reactor breach incident, as happened to chernobyl and other places (i dont remember other places though), happened because of human error - all the technicians are darn lazy to inspect the core and thus *bye bye bye*.

Contrary to normal ideas, nuclear reactor doesn't just blowout and form those mushroom cloud. No. Normally it just on fire and release a lot of radiation rays and stuff............

Try following french people. Their nuclear reactors are everywhere, and you can see it when you drive through the freeway. Heh, guess thats why frenchies are always in bad mood :D

[Ace]

Releasing lots of radiation sounds pretty bad to me Zefram ;) But I agree it's out best source of power available, I'm just saying that the general public as a whole still have a somewhat clouded view of nuclear reactor safety.

Nice addition DoK - like it :) I won't argue any more about the global warming trend, as neither of us will budge on this issue. I would say about hypocrisy of people like this PETA person, it's not that easy to live by what you preach. Religion is easy (relatively), but take for example socialism. People can call themselves socialist, but as they live in a capitalist country are ridiculed for doing capitalist things. The truth is, it's impossible not to. I think asking your PETA person not to use paper is really going OTT and just picking holes for the sake of it without considering the reality of the situation. That said, I do have a socialist friend who drives a friggin' huge car, has a huge house, is egotistic and arrogant... so whilst I think it's very harsh to judge people's beliefs by what they do, sometimes it's rather obvious that their heart isn't in their cause :)

[DKZ]

The problem as I see it with regard to credibility in reports about the environment and green house gas emissions, is that both sides may be paid off for exagerating their findings. Its clear that big business would fund and premote any reports that suggest that that climate change is a naturally occuring phenomena. Any moves to further regulate emissions could have disasterous effects on their business, and likely the American and thus the world economy as a whole. Look what happened to Detroit after regulation of car emissions and a really bad oil embargo.

However, what can be left out is the economic benefit to scientists doing independent studies who claim that "the sky is falling". For these scientists, getting funding is what keeps them in new berkinstocks and computers every year. So if they make exaggerated claims of possible catastrophy and devastation, it is usually followed by we need more funding dollars to find out for sure. As an example remember a few years ago with all the complaining about how little was known about giant meteors in the solar system and the immenant danger we were all possibly in. My bet is that a lot of those scientists got there funding. And were we ever in any truly likely danger? If it were my money I think I would take my chances. Anyways I think it pays to be a little cynical when listening to either side. Remember that in the seventies they had theories about a new ice age coming.

On the other hand I really don't like being poisoned by car exhaust either so maybe some reasonable limits would be ok (god damn, I'm a smoker and people freak out about it if you get within a mile of them, but then they drive on the highway in traffic breathing exhaust and don't say a thing).


I am pretty sure that here in Canada we have a pretty bad habit of using tons of fossil fuels. I even heard somewhere that we are worse per capita than Americans in this regard. But you know its damn cold here a lot of the time and spread out so its mostly a no brainer as to why. With regard to the states about two thirds of the lower 48 are as cold as Canada or hot as hell. Trust me when I say that if you drive through arizona in the summer air conditioning is not really optional. Another reason we use more fuel and like bigger cars is the vast distances we drive. All of England fits into Southern Ontario and a lot of peoples commute to work would take us through multiple countries in Europe. So a larger comfy car makes a lot of sense to us. Try driving a mini for three hours a day, I bet youd feel like you got your as kicked at the end of the week. A neighbor of mine has a mini and you couldn't even see his car under the snow for weeks this winter lol. And this is in Toronto a big city by any standard with less snow than Buffalo NY.
Anyways not to many want to waste money on gas or coal but we have differnt needs over here. So you guys in Europe shouldn't pat yourselves on the back to hard for not doing what you don't find any need to do.

[Crax]

Save the hamburgers!!! Eat a vegitarian...

It's all stupid if you ask me. Environmentalist morons. If they did any good, why do we have problems with the environment? Stupid tree hugging hippy anti-meat eating fools... we eat meat, get over it. If animals dont like being eaten then why don't they say so? If trees didnt want to be cut down, I dont see them putting up much of a fight. It's not like we're killing babies here.

Note all my sarcasm? But really that's how I feel, muhaha... /evil grin

[gokusimpson]

I remember a Ron White stand up comedy thing he did on comedy Central. He was like:

"Aren't vegetarians kind of yellow?" ...*

"They keep saying that cattle ranches take up too much space and destroy the environment. My friend, whos a vegetarian, asks me "what are you doing to help the environment" and I say "I'm eating the cow"."*

"I didn't climb to the top of the food chain to eat-carrots"*

*Not exact quotes.

[Crax]

Haha, does it make a person sick if they prefer baby carrots over regular carrots? How about asians food (no offense in any direction...) but I always see "baby corn" in there, or at least that's what it looks like, and that's what I've always known it as. Are we bad because we eat baby things? I bet if they made baby hamburgers we'd like those too :) So I dont get what this whole "size is everything in America" is about. Get over it. Just tell yourself "it aint the size of the boat, it's the motion in the ocean" If that makes you happy then good, kinda pathetic if you ask me, but good for you.

[gokusimpson]

"it aint the size of the boat, it's the motion in the ocean"

hehe...Jeff Foxworthy said that once.

[Ace]

The problem as I see it with regard to credibility in reports about the environment and green house gas emissions, is that both sides may be paid off for exagerating their findings.
Good point to make - this isn't necesasrily a one sided thing. However, you must appreciate that I think it's a figure something like 99% of scientists believe the line I've put to you today. The scientists who don't believe this are as I understand mainly American and mainly have links to large American businesses. In the scientists supporting the climate change argument, you have large numbers of independents, government sponsored, company sponsored, from countries entirely worldwide.. the whole spectrum.

Whether you choose to believe it or not, there is an abnormal upward temperature trend outside of large natural temperature rises. It is well known by everyone (it's hardly rocket science) that CO2 contributes significantly to climate change, and the science behind this is simple and indeniable.

It seems pretty obvious to myself, the vast vast vast vast majority of Europeans and the vast vast vast majority of scientists that what we are witnessing is not just natural (and for goodness sake, if Co2 leads to climate change, then... what the fek is there to debate?), but whether what we're witnessing is solely the result of human or natural actions is of no consequence. We've got to look at what is actually happening (the trend), identify that it is potentially very harmful to our planet and won't take long before it has significant impacts (it already is having very severe impacts, mainly on the 3rd world, but even the UK - I think we're planning expanding the Thames barrier by a huge amount and to huge cost because of climate change - this is where the selfish American "our economy is precious" argument really gets trampled upon). Whether we're the sole causers of this or not, we need to act to stop this if we can, just like we would if we noticed a comet hurtling towards Earth. We wouldn't just say "oh well, not our fault... let's leave it".


Anyways not to many want to waste money on gas or coal but we have differnt needs over here. So you guys in Europe shouldn't pat yourselves on the back to hard for not doing what you don't find any need to do.
I appreciate that there are is a quite legitimate difference in requirements between the UK and ****some**** parts of the US, and Canada, which is fair enough. Whilst this conversation has been led off on a tangent about SUVs, 4x4s etc, this isn't really my main concern, although I am concerned about the trend for SUVs in the US where they are really not required. American cars in general are much much larger than European cars, and this is not all attributable to differences in weather/requirements by a long shot.

And I don't think for one minute that we're patting ourselves on the back. Because we're not at all. We're getting frustrated that there are too few parties committed to slowing climate change, and our frustration is beginning to show.

But this is us, already (debateably arguably) already on a considerably higher moral ground than many Americans on the issue of the environment, campaigning and calling for more action on the environment. That is the attitude many of us want to see in America. Yet all we see at least is people
like most of yourselves defending America as far as you possibly can and further. Why? Why not say yes, I think we should join kyoto... I think we should commit more resources to the environment... I think we should invest in cleaner vehicle research etc. Why can't you say that, like I say we as a nation should be doing more too? Why are you defending a government which has done *nothing* to help the environment at all? And how can you expect Europeans to just sit there and listen to you saying we have more snow, therefore we should be excused from trying to to anything about the environment? It doesn't wash with me. With us. In the eyes of everyone I've talked to so far without exception about this, this attitude is nothing other than economic selfishness.

[rero360]

another aspect to look at is the size of the land, England, if I remember I was able to drive across it a matter of hours, new york state is wider the england is, so when one has to drive long distances one tends for a larger, roomier vehicle, for example, motorcycle, you look at the vast majority of motorcycles driven in europe, they're small engined light weight bikes, because people don't have very far to travel, but if your going to go cross country in the US you want a big harley touring bike, or a softtail with saddle bags and the like, in most cases its a matter of what is more practical, I'm not going to drive across the country on a vespa no more than I'm going to use a goldwing to drive to the corner store,
of course there are tpns of people who have vehicles that they don't need, and are to big for their driving ability, but so long as they don't hurt aanyone other than themselves and they can afford the costs than I say let them. although I'll be laughing at them

[ADRAMELK]

DID YOU GUYS KNOW BRITNEY SPEARS IS PREGNANT???

im sorry dok.... ill read the whole thing later i promise :)

[ADRAMELK]

Climate change is controlled primarily by cyclical eccentricities in Earth's rotation and orbit, as well as variations in the sun's energy output.

"Greenhouse gases" in Earth's atmosphere also influence Earth's temperature, but in a much smaller way. Human additions to total greenhouse gases play a still smaller role, contributing about 0.2% - 0.3% to Earth's greenhouse effect.

[DKZ]

Well Ace don't think that I don't care about the environment like you do. What I was refuting was the holier than now aspect of earlier posts with regard to British or European use of fossil fuels (not necessarily by you). As well as the percieved independence of science in regard to wild claims about the environment and its potential instability. I try and ignor where ever possible what I consider the radical elements on both sides of arguments like these. There are nutso republicans who truly believe that "God"- whoever that is - set up the earth so we could do whatever we want and they use that absurd idea of "faith" - whatever that is - to smugly enjoy not thinking at all on the issue, not that they would be very good at thinking anyways. On the other hand and equaly bad to me is the nutso hippy dink conspiracy touting, vegetablearian potheads who believe in energy fields, pyramid power and that the ecosystems on the verge of collapse at any moment if the aliens don't come and get us first.
In other words I ignore those who won't listen to anyone and those who listen to everyone. In my world these idiots cancel out.


With regard to Kyoto I learned about that about 12 years ago in an Atmospheric Science class. And according to my prof it was window dressing anyways. It did little or nothing to combat atmospheric emmisions in any real functional way since it only stabilized emissions at some arbitrary years figures and was not really possible for the Americans (even then) to pull off. So even if the Americans had stayed in, they would never have been able to live up to its mandate anyways. That was my understanding at the time, forgive me if I'm a little fuzzy on the facts but that was many beers ago. Now with regard to the Americans precious economy, just remember that research and development requires a solid economy. My take on this issue is that the only way to combat this problem is with new high tech low emisson forms of energy which require big bucks to develop. This capital comes from a robust economy. Believe me if the economy goes south so does spending on the environment. Look at all the terrible environmental disasters in the Soviet Union near the end (Chernoble is only one example). This problem is not really a moral issue to me, its a practical one.

And by the way someone mentioned the Hindenberg disaster some time ago. The way I understood it, the evidence shows that someone used the wrong material on the skin of the airship, and it wasn't the hydrogen that was at fault for the disaster.

[DKZ]

I think if you really want to stick it to the republicans in the states. You could ask why when it comes to evidence for weapons in Iraq, they'll spend big bucks at the drop of a hat to go to war based on some pretty flimsy evidence. But when it comes to environmental spending they want cold hard facts and absolute irrefutable evidence beyond the capacity of modern science to supply. There's a double standard for ya. I mean both things are potential disasters aren't they?

[Crax]

hehe...Jeff Foxworthy said that once.

Yeah, he stole it from me... redneck freaking crook! :)

[Ace]

Well Ace don't think that I don't care about the environment like you do.
No worries, I got the gist of your post as actually quite a reasonable, considered environmental stance.


With regard to Kyoto I learned about that about 12 years ago in an Atmospheric Science class. And according to my prof it was window dressing anyways. It did little or nothing to combat atmospheric emmisions in any real functional way since it only stabilized emissions at some arbitrary years figures and was not really possible for the Americans (even then) to pull off.

Kyoto certainly is imperfect in ways too numerous to mention. It is however, in my eyes, part principle, part long term emissions reduction (or slowing of increase for some countries which are just beinning to develop industries taking advantage of fossil fuels in big ways) and part a siginification of co-operation between contries on this one issue. And nothing set out at Kyoto was impossible. It may have been hard, but not impossible. In fact, the UK is doing pretty well with their Kyoto targets.

Now with regard to the Americans precious economy, just remember that research and development requires a solid economy. My take on this issue is that the only way to combat this problem is with new high tech low emisson forms of energy which require big bucks to develop. This capital comes from a robust economy. Believe me if the economy goes south so does spending on the environment. Look at all the terrible environmental disasters in the Soviet Union near the end (Chernoble is only one example).
True, a very poor economy = no spending on the environment. However, I'd point out that a healthy economy does not equal spending on the enivironment. There needs to be commitment too - the two go together. America sure is working towards a healthy economy for *themselves*, but they haven't even considered environmental commitment yet. Very convenient. And I don't buy the argument that America's economy is currently insufficient to fund environmental research for a second. As you point out, their spending on Iraq was abysmal and could have been used to fund environmentally friendly alternative research 10/100x over probably. And if the UK, Austrialia, France etc. can do it, the US with their economy sure can. This is why I void the economic argument in my head the second I see it. After all, research is not actually that expensive.

With reference to your last post, I'll just mention something I found yesterday. Our 3rd political party, the Liberal Democrats, has released a java based mobile phone program (http://www.iraqcost.com) which allows you to decide how you would have spent the £5 billion we've spent on the Iraq war - education/health/environment etc. Interesting eh.

It's a little crude, but I suppose that's to be expected for something fitting into a 1"x1" screeen or whatever it is :)

[DoK]

I think if you really want to stick it to the republicans in the states. You could ask why when it comes to evidence for weapons in Iraq, they'll spend big bucks at the drop of a hat to go to war based on some pretty flimsy evidence. But when it comes to environmental spending they want cold hard facts and absolute irrefutable evidence beyond the capacity of modern science to supply. There's a double standard for ya. I mean both things are potential disasters aren't they?
Ummmm, not quite. Apples and oranges, my friend, and wow, way off topic!

There's enough Iraq war threads for you to go through to find out the reasoning so that I don't need to repeat myself here. Bottom line, we *thought* (and "we" isn't just republicans, it includes several prominent democrats including She Whose Name Must Not be Spoken and Kerry) we knew that Iraq had WMD's prior to the invasion based on intelligence reports. There wasn't a strong argument against WMD's, because the evidence gathered from multiple national intelligence agencies came to the same conclusion: that he had them. The only credible debate for not going into the war was whether or not we should have acted then or tried diplomacy (ad nauseum) a little longer, or whether or not we should have acted without the United Nations (which is still subject to opinion).

The environment is a matter of science, not politics. Temperature records show nothing out of the ordinary (http://zwr.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message50), yet others claim otherwise. Why? Who knows, they probably just needed a hobby and all the good ones were taken already. At least the Aussies are with us in saying that Kyoto is bunk.

Bottom line: nobody knows. There's too much conflicting data, waaaay too much jumping to conclusions, and too few variables left unaccounted for to satisfy all skepticism.

*EDIT:
And if the UK, Austrialia, France etc. can do it, the US with their economy sure can.
You are mistaken, Australia is not onboard with Kyoto. See? It's not just Americans and "one stupid Brit" :p

[Ace]

we *thought* (and "we" isn't just republicans, it includes several prominent democrats including She Whose Name Must Not be Spoken and Kerry) we knew that Iraq had WMD's prior to the invasion based on intelligence reports.


...because the US gave them to Iraq about 15 years ago to fight Iran. What fantastic intelligence you guys must have to find that out! How you can sit there and argue that point I don't know. Anyway, the war was NEVER, I repeat NEVER about WMD. This is widely accepted. There are simply too many points to list that support this statement.

Plus, IF you assume that the war was about WMD (which it wasn't) and IF you ignore the fact that they were your damn nukes anyway, and IF you ignore the fact that there are loads of other more dangerous countries out there like North Korea, and IF you ignore the fact that you guys ignored the UN and essentially toyed with it and the countries involved in it like it was a plastic fire engine or something, then surely you don't go and attack a country which has far, far, far, far, far less nukes than you if any, and unlike you, isn't planning on using them IF it had them, and then find out there weren't any anyway, in the name of peace and justice and liberty? WTF? I mean, seriously, WTF?!

Your point about the democrats - true, unfortunately. But that doesn't say anything whatsoever. Unfortunately our Tory party followed the same line then when things turned nasty blamed Labour for "misleading" them. Damn Tories :p


The environment is a matter of science, not politics. Temperature records show nothing out of the ordinary (http://zwr.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm#Message50), yet others claim otherwise. Why? Who knows, they probably just needed a hobby and all the good ones were taken already. At least the Aussies are with us in saying that Kyoto is bunk.

Dude... you found *one website... give it a rest. If you want to believe in that one website because it supports your lifestyle then fine. Ignore the overwhelming evidence surrounding you and just look at that one website. I really don't care any more.

and too few variables left unaccounted for to satisfy all skepticism.

Too many, you mean, surely. Try looking at a website aside from that one. Pretty much any website aside from that one.

*EDIT:

You are mistaken, Australia is not onboard with Kyoto. See? It's not just Americans and "one stupid Brit" :p

Sorry, my bad, I'm remembering that from the original document. However, the reason why Australia didn't join, and check this out yourself dude, was because

AMERICA AND SOME OTHER DEVELOPING COUNTRIES WEREN'T JOINING

No, your "environmental stance" isn't having an impact at all... :mad:#

edit/

"one stupid Brit" :p

:) I've got to read some more of that guy's stuff, you've got me interested in "the stupid Brit" :D

[Ace]

I'm not even trying, this was incidental. I was looking for something else. Just pull up any news story re: CO2 and you'll find various panels, organisations etc warning that cuts need to be made. What have you got? Some nerdy guy at home drawing graphs? Wow... I'm willing to bet any decent agency would laugh at those results and assumptions.

In 2001, the 2500 international scientists of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) warned that unless CO2 levels are stabilised at around twice the pre-industrial level (approximately 550 ppm), the Earth's average atmospheric temperature will rise 1.4-5.8°C by 2100. ***To achieve stabilisation, total human-generated greenhouse gas emissions must be slashed by at least 60%-80% by 2050 at the latest.*** According to the IPCC, if unchecked, CO2 levels in the air will be between 650 and 970 ppm in 2100.
So our human contribution to CO2 levels and hence climate change is f**k all is it? My *** it is.

If greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced, the IPCC forecasts that, on the fragile assumption that the ice caps will remain largely intact, there will be a sea level rise of between 20 centimetres and 1 metre by 2100.
On the fragile assumption that has since been proven to be false - very recently an absolutelyhuge one was discovered to be melting at a very alarming rate indeed that made scientists reconsider their recommendations and severely increase their warnings. We're talking about news direct from the scientists based around the ice caps working with teams across the world to compile their data. This is where the latest reports have come from. And who are you listening to?

Just admit it - the onyl reason you're supporting that site is because it's saying what you want it to say. Just like religion.

[DoK]

...because the US gave them to Iraq about 15 years ago to fight Iran. What fantastic intelligence you guys must have to find that out! How you can sit there and argue that point I don't know. Anyway, the war was NEVER, I repeat NEVER about WMD. This is widely accepted. There are simply too many points to list that support this statement.
Yeah, that was a screw up, just like our meddling with Chile. Now, we've cleaned up our mess. . . and the rest of the world still isn't happy. Man, this is a terrible country!

Plus, IF you assume that the war was about WMD (which it wasn't)
Yeah, I know. Lemme guess. .. it was about OIL! Right? Oil, that's it, isn't it? I've covered this several times over.

and IF you ignore the fact that they were your damn nukes anyway,
We didn't give them nukes - biological and chemical weapons, yes, but no nukes. And Great Britain did also. Glad they helped us!

and IF you ignore the fact that there are loads of other more dangerous countries out there like North Korea,
I know, that tired old argument. "Why not North Korea?!" Because North Korea didn't have a big, fat, easy-to-read, clear-cut UN Sanction on it stating that it isn't allowed to have WMD's. Try glancing over Resolution 1441. The Coalition acted in accordance with it. I'm not going to go in detail here, I have plenty of other posts on it justifying it. And I shouldn't have to, either; you should be able to read it and determine what we did was in accordance with the U.N.'s own wording - they just didn't have the intestinal fortitude to back it up (kinda like the way they handled Hitler). And why would they? Remember the "Oil-For-Food" program? (sorry mods, I'll stay on topic from here on out).

and IF you ignore the fact that you guys ignored the UN
No, the UN ignored its own Resolution.

and essentially toyed with it and the countries involved in it like it was a plastic fire engine or something
Well yeah! We're America for crying out loud, the rest of the world is our toy! We're a bunch of cowboys that keep having to bail everyone else out, so that's our prerogative. (sorta, I just like antagonizing you)


Were we planning on nuking Iraq? Maybe you should pass that on to the press, because I'm sure it's news to the rest of the world also.

[quote=Ace]Your point about the democrats - true, unfortunately. But that doesn't say anything whatsoever.
That was directed at DKZ because he singled out Republicans; it seems to be a common misconception that the evil Republicans were the only ones who wanted to go invade the defenseless country of Iraq.

Dude... you found *one website... give it a rest. If you want to believe in that one website because it supports your lifestyle then fine. Ignore the overwhelming evidence surrounding you and just look at that one website. I really don't care any more.
I found one comprehensive study that actually *cites* its findings, conducted by an impartial scientific institutiton, which happens to be found on *one* website - which is more than you provided to back up your argument, I must say. I'm truly disappointed with your cut and paste job.

And even if you did bring up your own study that showed a scientific (not speculative) analysis of the warming trend, it would only go to show that there is not a grand consensus on the notion of the underlying principles of Kyoto, and therefore, no reason for any nation to abide by it. We *might* be able to keep the aliens from reading our thoughts by putting aluminum foil on our heads also, but there's no way either of us can prove or disprove that to the other, even though you may say that x-rays can't go through aluminum foil, and I say that maybe x-rays can't, but MIND rays can, and then after a while it all goes down hill and it turns out that neither of us can say that yes, we should wear aluminum foil or no, we shouldn't wear aluminum foil. So, might as well not wear the aluminum foil, right? (but you can keep wearing it if it makes you feel better)



Too many, you mean, surely. Try looking at a website aside from that one. Pretty much any website aside from that one.
Yeah, I meant many. I sometimes throw in antonyms of the word I'm trying to use to spice things up from time to time.

I found several websites for other organizations that were not as reputable as that one. I found a *bunch* that were biased to the issue, that I didn't even cite (although a Google search for some of those snippets you cut/pasted did turn up sites that were heavily biased against anything that didn't support their theories).

Sorry, my bad, I'm remembering that from the original document. However, the reason why Australia didn't join, and check this out yourself dude, was because

AMERICA AND SOME OTHER DEVELOPING COUNTRIES WEREN'T JOINING
Oh d@mn, should have seen that coming, of COURSE it's America's fault that Australia didn't join Kyoto! I mean, everyone knows that we do all the thinking for them and they just cheerfully frolic with kangaroos and jovially say "G'Day, Mate!" to every passerby! Yeah, you're probably right, they're probably incapable of any independent thought, so it's our responsibility to take their hand and show them the way.

*EDIT: just saw your last post:

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=192

Here, that article claims the ice caps are actually thickening and suggests an alteration in the 2100/2050 forecast (remarkable attempt at a forecast, though, isn't it?). Huh, wanna play a game? See who can come up with the most articles countering the other?



Just admit it, you're going to believe that humans are causing global warming and there's nothing anyone can say that will dissuade you from believing it, ironically enough, just like religion. And you won't even take a minute to check the sources in that study to verify their findings.


Come now, Ace. Let's put it to rest. Agree to disagree. I got back into this thread to refute what DKZ said, not to argue more with you (as I promised in an earlier post). We've made our cases, now post your closing comments and let's find something else to argue about. I'll go find a deal or something to post.

[SleezyRevolution]

I think i've just been converted to the "conservative minded" enviromental view by that article.

DoK did you study politics in college? your arguments are well laid out and articulate.

[DoK]

No, mang, but thanks for the compliment. I just call things as I see them and get lucky sometimes. :p

I enjoy reading your posts, because I never know what side of the ball you're going to be on. . . I can be arguing with you and agreeing with you in the same thread.

[gokusimpson]

Dok and Ace are like the two guys in Dok's siggie. LOL! :D

[Crax]

I think i've just been converted to the "conservative minded" enviromental view by that article.

DoK did you study politics in college? your arguments are well laid out and articulate.

Dok's the man with this stuff... /cheer

[natynat]

i am from australia...that me ride on kangaroos and say gday to everyone we see is kinda...mean...WE DO NOT ride on kangaroos (never even seen one outside a zoo) and WE DO NOT (WE = the normal people) do not use the word gday


and about that Kyoto we may not have signed it...but australia is already on track to get to the requirements of that agreement

[Crax]

I'd ride a kangaroo if I could... You could carry things in their pouch...

[natynat]

lol...who needs a SUV when u can ride a compact kangaroo!
(stupid SUVs...everyone has one now)

[Crax]

lol...who needs a SUV when u can ride a compact kangaroo!
(stupid SUVs...everyone has one now)

That's what I'm saying!!! But wouldnt it be fun to pack up the ole kangaroo in the SUV and go out to the dunes? Who needs a 4 wheeler when you got a kanga!!!

[DKZ]

I knew that one would get your goat DoK, long time no argue dude. Your point I think if I got it right was that the vast majority believed that there were WMDs there so it was ok to go to war, well the vast majority of scientists seem to believe our emissions are affecting global climate change. So why not cut emissions? So I don't think its apples and oranges necessarily. I don't paticularly care for this so called proof in the form of webpages that is being touted. Just reading the rhetoric in which its written, it sounds like a disinformation campaign to me. If it stood up to some real scientific scrutiny I might be more inclined to believe it. We all know that anyone can post anything they want on the internet so why would I believe that page or any other on the internet on either side of this issue. I would stick to acredited scientific journals for scientific proof of things. Big tobacco came out with lots of studies on how good smoking was for you. You know the game baffle with bull************************, it is difficult to figure out whos bull************************ing who though. In short I think i could probably find a webpage to prove anything I would want to say. From what I can see I think that both Ace and DoK are way on the fringes of this arguement. Ace is ready to blame Americans for the state of the world because they refuse to devistate their economy by slashing emissions, and DoK would have you believe that there are no negative effects from fossil fuel emissions at all. Even better the plants are so much healthier now. BTW why can't you compare apples and oranges anyways? I never did really understand that, I mean they are both fruit, ones orange ones usually red, what gives?

[Rudegar]

"No, the UN ignored its own Resolution."

lol
every time a governing party change a law it ignore the law being changed
it's really a matter of who decide the governing party of the law that the governing party made before
no laws could ever be changed if the laws had a higher rank then those who pass them

"Yeah, I know. Lemme guess. .. it was about OIL! Right? Oil, that's it, isn't it? I've covered this several times over."

everybody in the oil industry is making a hella lot of money though because of the extreme price inc not sure if you notice it that much in us because your goverment artificialy set the price insted of following the price on the market

[DKZ]

ok I take it back, I really didn't mean to start this debate again but I think it might be unstoppable now :eek: It was just one little comment about the republicans

[DKZ]

I just took another look at the websites you posted links to DoK and they are worse than I thought. The one for the ice sheets thickening is by some group called the Cooler Heads Coalition...do you believe there might be an agenda here? Then the other one thats in your sig - Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, if you look at the authors not one phd or any other credit after their names. Damn even I have a BSc behind mine. Would you believe a scientific paper written by non scientists. My guess is that no real scientist would put their name on it. Since it's probably all bull. Maybe not but, I wouldn't try and win an argument with it unless you could verify the findings and interpretations. Its really easy to cherry pick studies and info to discredit legitamate findings, especially when most of the audience is non scientifically trained. But i am so my advice is to be a little cynical about this stuff.

[Rudegar]

it's kinda the same thing as
the whole evolution vs. creation imho

that whole
co2 is the best thing since sliced bread just look at me sitting in my car
in the garage inhaling it v.s. humans are killing the planet

rest asured that when we are 100% sure it's too late ;)

[DoK]

I just took another look at the websites you posted links to DoK and they are worse than I thought. The one for the ice sheets thickening is by some group called the Cooler Heads Coalition...do you believe there might be an agenda here?
I posted that one about the ice sheets because of all the cut/pastes that Ace did from websites that were biased for Kyoto - it was quite intentional.

Then the other one thats in your sig - Environmental Effects of Increased Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, if you look at the authors not one phd or any other credit after their names.
You didn't look very hard, now did you?

Arthur B Robinson, PhD (http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p21.htm)
Sallie L. Baliunas, PhD (http://www.cirs.net/investigadores/Astronomy/BALIUNAS.htm)
Willie Soon, PhD (http://www.marshall.org/experts.php?id=44)
And Zachary Robinson, the son of Dr. Arthur B Robinson (mentioned above) has a B.Sc. in chemistry. Don't worry, DKZ. 1 for 4's not bad.


My guess is that no real scientist would put their name on it.
Guess again.

Since it's probably all bull. Maybe not but, I wouldn't try and win an argument with it unless you could verify the findings and interpretations.
All of their findings are cited at the bottom of the article, just as any respectable study would be.

The link in my siggy goes to a study hosted by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. Check out their main domain. This isn't some fringe group that's forwarding an agenda.

*I found a video of one of Dr. Robinson's lectures on climate change. I haven't had a chance to d/l it yet, but I thought some might find it interesting: http://www.oism.org/oism/s32p686.htm

[Avid6eek]

I like cheese pizza...the homemade stuff...not that crap from Domino's.

[gokusimpson]

I like cheese pizza...the homemade stuff...not that crap from Domino's.

Me too. I also like to put pepperoni on it. Mmmmmmm.

[Avid6eek]

Me too. I also like to put pepperoni on it. Mmmmmmm. Pepperoni is good, but sometimes it can make the pizza to greasy. My g/f is a big pepperoni fan. If I have to have a topping, I usually go with mushrooms.

[gokusimpson]

I don't like mushrooms, anchovies, onions, pineapples or much else that you can put on a pizza. I put chicken on it once and it was pretty good though. :D

[Avid6eek]

Buffalo chicken pizza is pretty good.

Fruit, vegtables, and seafood does not belong on pizza.

[gokusimpson]

Fruit, vegtables, and seafood does not belong on pizza.

That's right. Wtf came up with those ideas? :confused:

[Avid6eek]

That's right. Wtf came up with those ideas? :confused: Probably those darn Europeans...same ones accusing us of destroying the world.

[Ace]

Come now, Ace. Let's put it to rest. Agree to disagree. I got back into this thread to refute what DKZ said, not to argue more with you (as I promised in an earlier post). We've made our cases, now post your closing comments and let's find something else to argue about. I'll go find a deal or something to post.
Fair dos. I don't know how much longer I can continue this anyway. My blood pressure rises every time I read one of your posts. For closing statements:

The link you posted... did you spend 3 secs following the about link?

"The Cooler Heads Coalition was formed on May 6, 1997 under the auspices of the National Consumer Coalition out of concern that the American people were not being informed about the economic impact of proposals to drastically reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Nor was the American public being provided with balanced information about the science of global warming. Myron Ebell, director of global warming and international environmental policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, is the Cooler Heads group leader."

This is NOT a scientific body. This is a pressure group trying to find any old bits of info which may contradict current beliefs. I wouldn't give it the time of day. Not that a website needs it

See, my information was drawn from, as I said, the actual scientists sponsored by, as I understand it, governments worldwide (and by American logic should therefore be trying to prove that climate change is not occuring). This was plastered all over all the UK newspapers. You guys didn't hear about it I presume... and Americans are interested in the enviornment eh... when news about HUGE findings doesn't even make the papers.

I can't be bothered to continue - not because of you, but because of the time. It's really late. So I will end with some links from the BBC - a reputable news organisation in the UK, supported by the government and British people. I'm only drawing stuff from there because it's easiest and quickest. All I ask you to do is to get a gist of the real unbiased scientific research that is really being conducted nowadays.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4008761.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3893389.stm (if you're wondering, I think David King works at Cambridge Uni - debatably the UK's best university)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3607335.stm (Shows quite long term increases)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4228411.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4073675.stm

This is what I was referring to - the melting of the WAIS
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2624603.stm
They do say it is largely a natural process, which I don't dispute. However, they also say that it is now accellerating due to global warming.

I would encourage you to have a look at www.antarctica.ac.uk -

"The British Antarctic Survey (BAS) is a component of the Natural Environment Research Council. Based in Cambridge UK, it has, for almost 60 years, undertaken the majority of Britain's scientific research on and around the Antarctic continent. It now shares that continent with scientists from around thirty countries. "

This page from that site is very interesting - http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/Key_Topics/Climate_Change/index.html
and I think this is a good reminder of a wider scope of our discussion - http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/About_Antarctica/FAQs/faq_07.html

Those totally unbiased links took me merely minutes to find, quickly glance over and ensure they weren't talking crap. I advise you to look at the sites of the *actual* unbiased research organisations/councils conducting research, and look at their conclusions. I *very* strongly believe that the American people are being led astray by groups like the one you quoted previously. Hence why I am trying to get you to look at the "pure" sites/sets of data.

If you don't trust UK research, then there are plenty of independent/slightly government sponsored US bodies too. But check the about page first to ensure the group is working independently and without agenda.

There are my closing statements.

[Ace]

Probably those darn Europeans...same ones accusing us of destroying the world.

Hmm, so now all Europeans eat fruit, vegetable and seafood pizzas. Anything else? Do we talk out our asses too? How about we're trying to re-colonise America? Wreck the American economy? Don't want you to be allowed to have SUVs?

Yep, we're all arseholes, that's what we are. We're stupid, brainwashed, clueless arseholes who think we know better than everyone else. There isn't one single piece of advice you could take from a dispicable... can you utter the foul term... "European".

Too much of this, I'm off of PCStats (again).

[Avid6eek]

You seemed to have missed the point Ace. The threadjack was more of a statement about how the thread had really gone far enough. The "european" comment was nothing more than a sarcastic remark once again poking fun at the thread. :)

Definetly nothing to take personal :p

[DKZ]

Research and Development

The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a small research institute founded in 1980 to conduct basic and applied research in subjects immediately applicable to im*provements in human life — including biochemistry, diagnos*tic medicine, nutrition, preventive medicine, and aging.
The Institute is supported by donations and the inde*pendent earnings of its faculty and volunteers. It does not solicit or accept tax-financed government funds.

The Institute has six faculty members, several volunteers who work actively on its projects, and a large number of volunteers who help occasionally. It owns a 10,000 square foot building located in a rural setting about 7 miles from the town of Cave Junction in southern Oregon. This building includes a 5,000 square foot laboratory and library used for the Institute's research and educational work. This facility and a good complement of research equipment are the Institute's principal physical assets. The Institute has no debts and a policy of incurring none.

At present, work is proceeding on several specific pro*jects including the role of protein amides as molecular timers of protein turnover, development, and aging; the use of urine and blood profiling for predictive and preventive medicine; and the development of comprehensive materials for use in home school education.

The Institute is classified by the IRS as a 501(c)3 public foundation, so all donations are tax deductible.



I don't know six faculty members. And atmospheric studies doesn't seem cental to their area of research. Why couldn't this be a fringe group? Paid for by special interests to have the effect it has on you. I mean I'm glad you corrected me on the credentials of the authors, but I wouldn't base my environmental view on this one paper or like I said anything I googled.
The evidence refuting co2 emissions effect on global warming seemed a little flawed to me. The assumption of the paper is that the majority of the scientific comunity has been misinformed and or doing bad science on the topic. Not sure that I'm so ready to believe that. They are a pretty bright group of people in my experience. But to each there own.

[DoK]

But to each there own.
Now that's something I can agree with! :D

[gokusimpson]

Finally it seems to be dying down...phew.

[Rudegar]

"Fruit, vegtables, and seafood does not belong on pizza."

well pizza was developed into what we know today by italian imigrants in usa
the origien was a type of pie 2 types really know only localy in italy in napoli

1. margarita which had
tomato (a fruit though often seen as a vegtables by people)
fresh basil (a herb)
mozzaralla cheese
olive oil

2 napoli
same as margarita but added anchovies

so the original pizza's have both seafood and fruits on em :P

though once in holland i saw a pizza with peaches, banana, and pineapple
that really freaked me out :P

[SleezyRevolution]

Yep, we're all arseholes, that's what we are. We're stupid, brainwashed, clueless arseholes who think we know better than everyone else. There isn't one single piece of advice you could take from a dispicable... can you utter the foul term... "European".

Actually, thats what i hear about americans when i'm in european dominated enviroments over the internet. :p

[DKZ]

Its funny how emotional people get when they haven't really thought about the pro's and con's of an argument. One thing I like about the conservative stance is how it exposes how much lack of proof, knowledge the opposing side actually has for its position. I believe the frustration and upset comes from realizing that others don't share your beliefs and accept them without question. When you never really thought there was a counter argument. I've found that religous people get like that a lot when pressed.

[Ace]

Definetly nothing to take personal :p

Hmm ok. And anyway, vegetable pizzas kick ass! :D

[phill9800]

Im not so bothered about who drives what or so on, but I would agree that other places than the US etc with cheap fuel prices are the way to be going :D Well just for me anyways, I have a Subaru Impreza from Japan now and I have to run it on Super Unleaded. Its like 93p per LITRE here in the UK.. I reckon Im going to get 20mpg or so going round town, maybe 30mpg on a long trip... Not ideal, but as I CHOOSE to have that type of car, I have to pay for what I have..

I dont agree with cars giving US (I mean by US everyone, whole world) problems, but its like so many things, different people (politions and governments and so on) all have different ideas and so on and so forth.

Over here, I believe its common know how that the government we have at the moment likes ripping us off, not end of taxes and so on and still nothing seems to be getting better.

I dont have a go at individuals, just people that have the power to change things and dont.

Tony Blair, get off my LAND!!! :D Im sure some over in the UK, might agree with that..

And vegi stuff aint all that bad! I prefer meat by all means (theres nothing like a good 16oz steak :D) but everyone can do what they like :) Each to their own.