• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

President George Bush: 'Goodbye from the world's biggest polluter'

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Simple. Kyoto is irrellevant, the fact that the socialists tried to exempt China is one reason why.




I'm asking a question.
Click to expand...

China gets no exemption. China is easily the worlds biggest polluter.

China must be forced to conform and China must be forced to break all ties with Iran.

:mrgreen:
 
jallman said:
I think people that use cartoons to make their point for them aren't very imaginative or insightful.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about me or Tom Toles? If it's me.....*yawn*
 
Truth Detector said:
What is your point? Are you trying to suggest that I am wrong about Chinas horrible pollution problems?

Are you attempting to suggest that unless one has been somewhere, they can’t know anything about the place? I never experienced WWII, but I know a lot about it.
:cool:
Click to expand...

I have lived in China. You are right. Their pollution problems are far worse than any city in the US.
 
jfuh said:
I too have been to both these cities multiple times, spanning since 1983 all the way up to 2007.
I've seen significant differences between the capitalization then and now. As well as pollution levels then and now.
China has deffinitively gotten far far worse in pollution.
But I do share the assessment of Shanghai vs LA to a certain extent.
If LA had the same humidity level that Shanghai has LA would be far worse (all else unchanged).
Chinese are far far less reliant on the internal combustion engine than Americans. The top method of getting from A to B in China is still the bicycle followed then by public transport and then followed far later by ICE's. However the car is quickly catching up and congesting cities creating an urban Ozone that traps pollution in the cities even more.
When I visited Beijing in 1998 it was terrible, I literally could not see much but sillouettes of buildings that were but a mere 100 meters away. My last visit to these two cities just last year though proved different. Beijing had seriously cleaned up - thanks largely to it's extended brand new light rail, as had Shanghai.
There are still several more rual areas that are subject to heavy industrial pollution but it is clear that they are cleaning up.
As is the case with the Shandong city of Rizhao, where get this, 99% of all heating is from solar energy and overwhelming majority of street lights get their power from solar panels.
Any such city in the US? Europe? Not that I know of.
Click to expand...





:lol: Prove this.



And to think that even with bicycles one can barely breath in chinese cities.


Oh and

Greensburg, Kansas - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
shuamort said:
My point was that it seemed your post was from a position of unknowing the actual facts. Your statement:

I was recently in China again and visited a couple of cities, but stayed mainly in Beijing and Shanghai. I found the pollution to be on par with LA in Shanghai and Beijing similar to Chicago. More interestingly, I found the country to be far more capitalist than the United States. But, that's all from personal, first hand experience.
Click to expand...

Before I beat you with the facts, let me make sure of your arguments: You are suggesting that your "personal" visit constitutes better evidence of the presence, or lack thereof, of pollution in China and because I have never been there, your personal experience trumps the FACTS I am about to beat you with? Is that your argument?

This is how absurd your argument is: I visited London and Paris a couple of years ago and the air was clear it was always sunny and fairly hot; therefore, based on this “experience” it must always be hot and sunny in Paris and London.

:rofl
 
jfuh said:
I hope this is not a waste of time where you're just going to give me some nonsense response.
All too easy for before man walked the earth.
#1 atmospheric composition was not the same as it was then.
#2 orbital wobbel known as Milankovitch cycles.
#3 solar output cycles

So you have no problem with the fact that the world is indeed warming.
Fair enough that saves me time from proving that it is warming.
Then the rational is quite simple.
1. Solar output has been steady we are not at any point where there has been any observed change in solar output directly or indirectly. The sun does have 11 year maximum minimum sunspot cycles but earth's circulation and ocean currents buffer out any radical changes
2. We are not wobbeling any closer to the sun nor have we been in the last 200 years since the Industrial revolution.
3. Though volcanic eruptions do indeed release huge quantities of greenhouse gases they also release huge quantities of particles that reflect radiation back into space and actually cool rather than warm. AS well as the fact that anthropogenic output far exceeds that of planetry volcanic systems.
4. Nature emits orders upon orders of magnitude more in greenhouse gases than human beings ever produce, however, natures emissions are in equilibrium - IOW carbon neutral and can be observed in the carbon cycle.

Eleminated solar, stellar and all natural impacts on global climate for the last 200 years (where we see the warming).
By process of elimination look to your left and see the 5ton elephant in the corner. Anthropogenic sources.
Elimination not enough? Ok

Anthropogenic emissions are NOT in equilibrium with the environment. They are a net addition to what nature already produces. Planet is able to buffer out fast dramatic changes but over the course of time with incriments of greenhouse gases continuing what we see are an un-ignorable trend of the concentration of greenhouse gases coinciding precisely with temperature incriments.


I didn't say you did, I specifically said it seemed that you are eluding to.
But since that is not what you are saying then what relevance does bringing up that "other nations pollute worse than we do" have on the argument whatsoever? I hope you're not reaching for a tu quo quoi argument here.[/QUOTE]

None of what you posted here can prove the case for "man" caused global warming. In order to PROVE that it is man caused, one must then explain why there have been at least four major ice ages in the Earth's past with corresponding heating and melting long before man walked the earth.

All I am asking for here is some intellectual curiosity and explanation of how this all has occurred many times in the distant past without man?

So please explain to me the CO2 levels and warming that have occurred four times in the past and the global cooling that resulted in ICE ages four times in the past according to scientists; and then explain how they occurred without man's involvement and how this time it involves them.

The FACT is that we have been part of a warming trend from the last ice age which started over 10,000 years ago.

[U][B]Sidebar: [/B][/U]I was just on a camping visit to Yosemite Park. They tell me it was formed when the ice sheets and glaciers carved the valley out, then retreated. [U][B]NOTE: [/B][/U]They retreated long before man walked the earth.

[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_age]Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url]

[I]The earliest hypothesized ice age, called the Huronian, was around 2.7 to 2.3 billion years ago during the early Proterozoic Eon.[/I]

[I]The earliest well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the last 1 billion years, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which permanent ice covered the entire globe. [/I]

[I]A minor ice age, the Andean-Saharan, occurred from 460 to 430 million years ago, during the Late Ordovician and the Silurian period. [/I]

[I]There were extensive polar ice caps at intervals from 350 to 260 million years ago, during the Carboniferous and early Permian Periods, associated with the Karoo Ice Age.[/I]

[I]Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called glacials (glacial advance) and interglacials (glacial retreat). The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. All that remains of the continental ice sheets are the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.[/I]
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
:slapme:
Truth Detector said:
None of what you posted here can prove the case for "man" caused global warming. In order to PROVE that it is man caused, one must then explain why there have been at least four major ice ages in the Earth's past with corresponding heating and melting long before man walked the earth.

All I am asking for here is some intellectual curiosity and explanation of how this all has occurred many times in the distant past without man?

So please explain to me the CO2 levels and warming that have occurred four times in the past and the global cooling that resulted in ICE ages four times in the past according to scientists; and then explain how they occurred without man's involvement and how this time it involves them.

The FACT is that we have been part of a warming trend from the last ice age which started over 10,000 years ago.

Sidebar: I was just on a camping visit to Yosemite Park. They tell me it was formed when the ice sheets and glaciers carved the valley out, then retreated. NOTE: They retreated long before man walked the earth.

Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The earliest hypothesized ice age, called the Huronian, was around 2.7 to 2.3 billion years ago during the early Proterozoic Eon.

The earliest well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the last 1 billion years, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which permanent ice covered the entire globe.

A minor ice age, the Andean-Saharan, occurred from 460 to 430 million years ago, during the Late Ordovician and the Silurian period.

There were extensive polar ice caps at intervals from 350 to 260 million years ago, during the Carboniferous and early Permian Periods, associated with the Karoo Ice Age.

Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called glacials (glacial advance) and interglacials (glacial retreat). The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. All that remains of the continental ice sheets are the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets.
Click to expand...
Orbital wobble I already explain this Milankovitch cycles. This was my very first response in my post.
Do spend some time to read what has been posted
 
Quote: Originally Posted by Truth Detector
None of what you posted here can prove the case for "man" caused global warming. In order to PROVE that it is man caused, one must then explain why there have been at least four major ice ages in the Earth's past with corresponding heating and melting long before man walked the earth.

All I am asking for here is some intellectual curiosity and explanation of how this all has occurred many times in the distant past without man?

So please explain to me the CO2 levels and warming that have occurred four times in the past and the global cooling that resulted in ICE ages four times in the past according to scientists; and then explain how they occurred without man's involvement and how this time it involves them.

The FACT is that we have been part of a warming trend from the last ice age which started over 10,000 years ago.

Sidebar: I was just on a camping visit to Yosemite Park. They tell me it was formed when the ice sheets and glaciers carved the valley out, then retreated. NOTE: They retreated long before man walked the earth.

Ice age - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The earliest hypothesized ice age, called the Huronian, was around 2.7 to 2.3 billion years ago during the early Proterozoic Eon.

The earliest well-documented ice age, and probably the most severe of the last 1 billion years, occurred from 850 to 630 million years ago (the Cryogenian period) and may have produced a Snowball Earth in which permanent ice covered the entire globe.

A minor ice age, the Andean-Saharan, occurred from 460 to 430 million years ago, during the Late Ordovician and the Silurian period.

There were extensive polar ice caps at intervals from 350 to 260 million years ago, during the Carboniferous and early Permian Periods, associated with the Karoo Ice Age.

Since then, the world has seen cycles of glaciation with ice sheets advancing and retreating on 40,000- and 100,000-year time scales called glacials (glacial advance) and interglacials (glacial retreat). The earth is currently in an interglacial, and the last glacial period ended about 10,000 years ago. All that remains of the continental ice sheets are the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets
jfuh said:
:slapme:
Orbital wobble I already explain this Milankovitch cycles. This was my very first response in my post.

Do spend some time to read what has been posted
Click to expand...

So that is your argument? Man caused global warming is the result of Milankovitch cycles and orbital wobble? WOW!

:rofl
 
Truth Detector said:
So that is your argument? Man caused global warming is the result of Milankovitch cycles and orbital wobble? WOW!
Click to expand...
You asked me what caused past ice ages and warming. I told you that it was orbital wobble.
I also stated that at current in the last 200+ years there has been no discrepency of orbital wobble that would've resulted in any climate change as we see today.
 
jfuh said:
You asked me what caused past ice ages and warming. I told you that it was orbital wobble.
I also stated that at current in the last 200+ years there has been no discrepency of orbital wobble that would've resulted in any climate change as we see today.
Click to expand...

So the ONLY cause of previous global warming was specifically a THOERY about orbital wobble; it could not have been anything else?

Then to take it to the next level of ASSumption; there hasn't been any evidence of recent orbital wobbling, therefore, the logical conclusion is that MAN must be causing it?

Are you sure these are the arguments you want to use to support the notion that MAN is somehow causing the current warming trend which started over 10,000 years ago?

The Science of Global Warming
in Perspective

The claim that carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming is so absurd that no amount of lying fixes the numbers. CO2 only causes 0.03°C increase in temperature of the atmosphere. (calculation)
Global Warming Science in Perspective.


From The Sunday TimesFebruary 11, 2007

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change - Times Online

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

Global Warming Myths
 
Truth Detector said:
So the ONLY cause of previous global warming was specifically a THOERY about orbital wobble; it could not have been anything else?

Then to take it to the next level of ASSumption; there hasn't been any evidence of recent orbital wobbling, therefore, the logical conclusion is that MAN must be causing it?

Are you sure these are the arguments you want to use to support the notion that MAN is somehow causing the current warming trend which started over 10,000 years ago?

The Science of Global Warming
in Perspective

The claim that carbon dioxide is the cause of global warming is so absurd that no amount of lying fixes the numbers. CO2 only causes 0.03°C increase in temperature of the atmosphere. (calculation)
Global Warming Science in Perspective.


From The Sunday TimesFebruary 11, 2007

An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change
When politicians and journalists declare that the science of global warming is settled, they show a regrettable ignorance about how science works. We were treated to another dose of it recently when the experts of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change issued the Summary for Policymakers that puts the political spin on an unfinished scientific dossier on climate change due for publication in a few months’ time. They declared that most of the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to man-made greenhouse gases.
An experiment that hints we are wrong on climate change - Times Online

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

WASHINGTON, Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery.

Challenge to Scientific Consensus on Global Warming: Analysis Finds Hundreds of Scientists Have Published Evidence Countering Man-Made Global Warming Fears

COMMON MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT GLOBAL WARMING

Global Warming Myths
Click to expand...

Nice try, but no. Again, read what I've already posted. I've already touched on all these distortions which you've brought up here. Hell two of those distorting links you've provided even disagree with your own position that the earth is warming.
 
Last edited:
Unfortunately political action is necessary when the global corporate dynamic has more power than ever before in history.

At no previous time have corporations and private business been larger than governmets. Since this has come to pass the problem has arisen that these corporations need to be held accountable for their actions on the one hand and also regulated to some degree to keep them from abusing their positions/power at the expense of the global ecosystem. What type of regulation needs to take place is what the debate is about.

For an example, CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) were banned in massive industrial usage once it was discovered they were depleting the ozone layer to a massive degree. Replacement for the CFC's were found and life went on. Since the CFC bans in the 80's the hole in the ozone has shrunk. (Wow, we did something.)

The problem with the cliimate issue is that it's very complex with multiple issues stemming from multiple causes and these are also mixed in with the natural climate patterns the planet is going through anyway.

This is not a black and white issue, those who say the sky is falling are probably a little alarmist but those who laugh at the alarmists are being too dismissive of an actual problem that needs a little more reasearch and clarification.

Many accredited scientitsts have stated that global climate is a problem, and they are the ones who can tell.

My thought is this:

Which seems more likely, that there is a global climate problem and corporate interests that would stand to lose money are waging a campaign to confuse the issue to protect their interests or there is no climate problem and a very large number of educated scientists have been completely fooled in the fields they've studied and mastered via many years of study?
 
Last edited:
Orius said:
Unfortunately political action is necessary when the global corporate dynamic has more power than ever before in history.

At no previous time have corporations and private business been larger than governmets. Since this has come to pass the problem has arisen that these corporations need to be held accountable for their actions on the one hand and also regulated to some degree to keep them from abusing their positions/power at the expense of the global ecosystem. What type of regulation needs to take place is what the debate is about.

For an example, CFCs (Chlorofluorocarbons) were banned in massive industrial usage once it was discovered they were depleting the ozone layer to a massive degree. Replacement for the CFC's were found and life went on. Since the CFC bans in the 80's the hole in the ozone has shrunk. (Wow, we did something.)

The problem with the cliimate issue is that it's very complex with multiple issues stemming from multiple causes and these are also mixed in with the natural climate patterns the planet is going through anyway.

This is not a black and white issue, those who say the sky is falling are probably a little alarmist but those who laugh at the alarmists are being too dismissive of an actual problem that needs a little more reasearch and clarification.

Many accredited scientitsts have stated that global climate is a problem, and they are the ones who can tell.

My thought is this:

Which seems more likely, that there is a global climate problem and corporate interests that would stand to lose money are waging a campaign to confuse the issue to protect their interests or there is no climate problem and a very large number of educated scientists have been completely fooled in the fields they've studied and mastered via many years of study?
Click to expand...
I would say neither.
I don't blame the corporations the least bit. They are only providing for what the public wants. The vast majority of the population simply hasn't cared about this issue. Nor have any politicians. For starters the issue of global warming is not as simple (relatively) as was the issue with CFC's.
To resolve global warming - as we have discussed - will indeed require an entire change in the very methods in which we approach both energy usage and energy production.
The proponents of changing the status quo have all the scientific basis as well as the moral high ground. But seriously lacked any sexiness or appeal based on something that was clearly not an immediacy. Not so with the ozone hole - that was seen as an immediacy and the remedy was quite simple - not life altering.
Frankly most of the industrialized world didn't really care for changing their life styles to protect something that was not very clear cut danger, the opposition absolutely loved this aspect of non-immediacy and screaming that the chicken littles say that how you live is wrong.
However, now having ignored the problem of environmentalism, now comes an interesting problem with the wallet. If anything when it starts to hurt people's wallets is when people demand immediate results.
And look at the domino effect - GM that was saying it couldn't be done, that it was impractical is about to push out the Chevy Volt, and already there's a waiting list for this car. Saturn the Vue hybrid. Ford's Escape hybrid and various others, all of a sudden they can now produce cars profitably where they first said was impossible (even in 2006?).
Even the European automakers that laughed at Toyota for their hybrids (understandable given that Diesle is similar in range) are now singing a different tune. BMW X3, 7series hybrids even possibly an electric Mini?
Merc S class hybrid

So it's not so much that the corperations were wrong doing, but simply the market/public didn't care - well, they certainly are doing so now.
 
I have several semi-random thoughts on the issue of Climate Change - I will try to make them coherent.

It is clear that the world's climate is changing. I don't think anyone can deny this. However, the cause is what is in question. It is entirely likely that it is a COMBINATION of man created causes AND nature (i.e. increased solar activity.)

HOWEVER, even if NONE of it is caused by mankind, we still have a vital interest in reducing pollution. Pollution of all kinds is detrimental to the earth and damaging to our health (both as individual humans as well as to not only the human species, but all other species on this planet.)

I believe the earth is God's creation and He commands us to be good stewards of the earth. Anyone who would argue that we have been good stewards of the earth (regardless of your religious beliefs) has a serious problem of "head-in-the-sand syndrome." We are damaging our own health as well as the health of our children and those who will come after them with the way we have treated this planet.

Thus, even if global warming is not caused by man at all (something which I seriously doubt - and an issue that I have been evolving on over the last three or so years), we still have a VITAL INTEREST in controlling all kinds of emmissions and other forms of pollution - be they air, water, soil, etc. Otherwise, climate change or no, we will be (in fact, already are) facing other environmental problems and crises in the decades to come.
 
ludahai said:
It is clear that the world's climate is changing. I don't think anyone can deny this. However, the cause is what is in question. It is entirely likely that it is a COMBINATION of man created causes AND nature (i.e. increased solar activity.)
Click to expand...

The Earths climate has been constantly changing since the earth's creation. The notion that man has somehow "created" this change or "exacerbated" change is extremely presumptuous and could be considered man-caused arrogance.

It is equally absurd to PRESUME that mere mortals can do anything that would STOP the current trend. But I guess what makes this issue continues to evolve and be taken so serious is that it makes us "feel good" thinking we can somehow "control" it.

I assure you at the risk of making you feel uncomfortable, that man cannot control or change the earth's environment.

If you take a yard stick as the time earth has been in existence, man's existence on the earth timeline amounts to about 1/100th of an inch on that yard stick. Long after man becomes extinct, the earth will continue to exist and the climate change and evolve without man's meager attempts to control it.

I am sorry; it would require an inconceivable willingness to suspend disbelief for me to think any other way.

ludahai said:
HOWEVER, even if NONE of it is caused by mankind, we still have a vital interest in reducing pollution. Pollution of all kinds is detrimental to the earth and damaging to our health (both as individual humans as well as to not only the human species, but all other species on this planet.)

I believe the earth is God's creation and He commands us to be good stewards of the earth. Anyone who would argue that we have been good stewards of the earth (regardless of your religious beliefs) has a serious problem of "head-in-the-sand syndrome." We are damaging our own health as well as the health of our children and those who will come after them with the way we have treated this planet.
Click to expand...

We are in agreement with the above but with one element to regard, I do not believe in attempts to eliminate pollution at the risk of destroying the economy.

Unfortunately many of the environmental extremists, who have the ear of many Democrat politicians who love to pander and say anything that will get them elected, could care less about our economy and would be perfectly willing to drag our society back to the Stone Age or perhaps even destroy “man” for that matter.

This is where I, of course, part company with the radical extremists.

Yes, let's continue to develop ways to remove pollution; let's find alternative sources of powering our cars and aircraft; but let’s also use sensible legislation that does not create a false economy like the idiotic notion of "carbon credits" which is a simplistic way of making us "feel good" about ourselves but does little or NOTHING to reduce emissions.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom