Thread: Kyoto - global warming hype

Originally Posted by Govtcheez

How so?

I'm speaking in that, with the goals being so unreachable, it would require drastic cuts in the dirty industry in the country. This was recognized in '97 when we voted against the protocol, and it's pretty much recognized everywhere, now, since Japan and other countries who have made an effort have been unable to meet their 2005 expectations.


...and ahluka, sorry to disappoint you, but this planet will be around a long, long time after humans. The planet has survived meteors and ice ages. We could have a nuclear war and kill each other and it wouldn't be a speck on the history of this planet.

Originally Posted by SlyMaelstrom

I'm speaking in that, with the goals being so unreachable, it would require drastic cuts in the dirty industry in the country. This was recognized in '97 when we voted against the protocol, and it's pretty much recognized everywhere, now, since Japan and other countries who have made an effort have been unable to meet their 2005 expectations.


...and ahluka, sorry to disappoint you, but this planet will be around a long, long time after humans. The planet has survived meteors and ice ages. We could have a nuclear war and kill each other and it wouldn't be a speck on the history of this planet.

I'd like to see some solid numbers on the "hundreds of thousands" claims. It may cost jobs in dirty industry, but it should make more jobs in cleaner high tech industries. I'm not saying I think we should have signed the Kyoto treaty, but to the best of my knowledge there is not much of a debate about global warming among climatologists.

I'm reminded of proponents of Intelligent Design who say there is a huge debate in the scietific community, when it's actually just a few crackpots who refuse to let go of their beliefs in the face of more and more evidence against them.

Do yourself a favor and just ignore ahluka.