Thread: Kyoto - global warming hype

Many of the positions presented in this thread are dubious. Reporting and asking for the removal of one of them which contradicts your own is not going to get you anywhere in a free thinking international forum.

I'm suprised you tried.

It was supposed to be the persian cat one. I don't want this to turn into an off-topic thread like most of the GD one's end up being.

I don't care about the viewpoint, just that it stays on track and doesn't end up just being one sarcastic comment after the other. The satire is fine, but if it's all satire this thread will degenerate into nothing.

It will anyways but for today I'd like to see the comments. That's why I asked, so this thread doesn't just become random jokes. If you had a question you could have PMed me instead of publicly posting. I didn't quite think the persian cat thing was a serious post and it's not that it wasn't funny, but it just begs for more satire.

Your viewpoints don't bother me but please don't derail the thread until at least 24 hours. Then you can trash it.

i) The US is one of the largest polluters on the planet.
ii) The US absolves itself of it's international responsibility by refusing to sign Kyoto/Montreal

What more is there to say?

I have merged my 'persian cat' comment with my original satirical comment and encapsulated it within 'satire' tags to make it utterly clear for those who may be 'comprehension disadvantaged' that it is intended as an ironic observation on the folly of narrow minded people who choose to blind themselves, for largely unconscionable economic reasons, to the mountainous weight of incontrovertible scientific evidence for human-induced global warming.

I really think it worked a lot better the first time round, though.

If global warming is caused by pollution isn't really the point from my view. Pollution is bad. I don't think anyone will oppose that view. There is a treaty based on UN convention. The list of countries that did not sign or ratify the treaty consist of Iraq, Afghanistan, Lybia, Syria, and some African states that are probably so poor that they are happy to have half the amount of food needed to feed their people. Not the best company if you ask me. Oh, and the US of A of course.

Signing a treaty and then not ratifying it on purpose is a diplomatic no-no. Apart from starting a war based on false accusations without UN support ( oh, wait... ) it's probably the easiest way of painting "FU, I don't care for the rest of the world" on your back.

Most of the time, I'm pretty much pro-US, but as always, the US has a way of delivering their decisions with the finesse of a 5 year old on steroids.

I think what the US really needs to do about war on terror is not killing anybody. Thats a nice try, but far off. Get a decent PR manager and you will find that most people like you. Yes, even the French. The US is the victim of much hate, but I can only wonder what would happen, if they'd stop to compete for target of the year. Lose that FU attitude, or go with it and invade the rest of the world already. Anything in between will probably fail.

The day you get a guy who can actually see that image extends beyond the US borders and is something that cannot be bought or killed for, you will find that a lot of people would like to like you.