What Kyoto Would Accomplish

"The EPA says that by the year 2095 �?? 45 years after GDP has been slashed by 6.9 percent �?? atmospheric carbon dioxide levels would be 25 parts per million lower than if no greenhouse gas regulation were implemented.

Keeping in mind that the current atmospheric CO2 level is 380 ppm and the projected 2095 CO2 level is about 500 ppm, according to the EPA, what are the potential global temperature implications for such a slight change in atmospheric CO2 concentration?

Not much, as average global temperature would only be reduced by a maximum of about 0.10 to 0.20 degrees Celsius, according to existing research.

Sacrificing many trillions of dollars of GDP for a trivial, 45-year-delayed and merely hypothetical reduction in average global temperature must be considered as exponentially more asinine than the dot-bombs of the late-1990s and the NINJA subprime loans that we now look upon scornfully.

So who in their right mind would push for this?"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,339831,00.html

But of course its from Fox so its all false and made up, they’re lying again and…jeeezzzzzzzzz…

"I met many of them up-close-and-personal last week at a major Wall Street Journal conference at which I was an invited speaker. My fellow speakers included many CEOs (from General Electric, Wal-Mart, Duke Energy and Dow Chemical, to name just a few), California�??s Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and the heads of several environmental activist groups.

The audience �?? a sold-out crowd of hundreds who had to apply to be admitted and pay a $3,500 fee �?? consisted of representatives of the myriad businesses that seek to make a financial killing from climate alarmism.

There were representatives of the solar, wind and biofuel industries that profit from taxpayer mandates and subsidies, representatives from financial services companies that want to trade permits to emit CO2, and public relations and strategic consultants to all of the above."

Ayn Rand: “When you see men get richer by graft and from pull than from work, you may know your society is doomed.”

Nothing would change. We would do what Belgium and other countries would do. Outsource our more polluting industries to third world countries.

Screw global warming, what about the fucking air we have to breath???

[quote]streamline wrote:
Screw global warming, what about the fucking air we have to breath???[/quote]

You are not allowed to exhale anyway so what difference does it make?

And Gawd save you if you should fart. I would tell you to kill yourself, but the rotting corpse would emit so many damn greenhouse gasses that the only way to save the planet is for everyone to live forever without breathing or farting or eating or using electricity or gas. So get started on the new treaty, and threaten to nuke everyone who won’t sign it.

[quote]streamline wrote:
Screw global warming, what about the fucking air we have to breath???[/quote]

Exactly.

It’s easy to argue that the global warming theory can’t be proven. It is, however, impossible to disregard black collars, increase in asthma rates and other immediate effects our lifestyle is having.

[quote]lixy wrote:
streamline wrote:
Screw global warming, what about the fucking air we have to breath???

Exactly.

It’s easy to argue that the global warming theory can’t be proven. It is, however, impossible to disregard black collars, …[/quote]

racist

[quote]lixy wrote:
streamline wrote:
Screw global warming, what about the fucking air we have to breath???

Exactly.

It’s easy to argue that the global warming theory can’t be proven. It is, however, impossible to disregard black collars, increase in asthma rates and other immediate effects our lifestyle is having.[/quote]

Having a somewhat dirtier environment is a byproduct of any industrial civilisation. But would you rather live without it, when the air was pure and the streams pristine, when most people died when they were about 30? When most children starved to death before age 5?

And why would we trust government to clean up anything? Like Katrina?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
streamline wrote:
Screw global warming, what about the fucking air we have to breath???

Exactly.

It’s easy to argue that the global warming theory can’t be proven. It is, however, impossible to disregard black collars, increase in asthma rates and other immediate effects our lifestyle is having.

Having a somewhat dirtier environment is a byproduct of any industrial civilisation. But would you rather live without it, when the air was pure and the streams pristine, when most people died when they were about 30? When most children starved to death before age 5?

And why would we trust government to clean up anything? Like Katrina?

[/quote]

True. An industrial society is going to introduce it’s own negatives on health. However, the gain is above and beyond positive when we’re living, what, 70-75 years?

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
streamline wrote:
Screw global warming, what about the fucking air we have to breath???

Exactly.

It’s easy to argue that the global warming theory can’t be proven. It is, however, impossible to disregard black collars, increase in asthma rates and other immediate effects our lifestyle is having.

Having a somewhat dirtier environment is a byproduct of any industrial civilisation. But would you rather live without it, when the air was pure and the streams pristine, when most people died when they were about 30? When most children starved to death before age 5?

And why would we trust government to clean up anything? Like Katrina?

[/quote]

The world was a dirty place, 500 years ago too. See the “Black Plague”

All life has waste but only humans have given it the label garbage and pollution.

[quote]pat wrote:
Headhunter wrote:
lixy wrote:
streamline wrote:
Screw global warming, what about the fucking air we have to breath???

Exactly.

It’s easy to argue that the global warming theory can’t be proven. It is, however, impossible to disregard black collars, increase in asthma rates and other immediate effects our lifestyle is having.

Having a somewhat dirtier environment is a byproduct of any industrial civilisation. But would you rather live without it, when the air was pure and the streams pristine, when most people died when they were about 30? When most children starved to death before age 5?

And why would we trust government to clean up anything? Like Katrina?

The world was a dirty place, 500 years ago too. See the “Black Plague”[/quote]

The difference is we can do something about it, but chose the almighty dollar over healthy living. Like stop using fossil fuel when we can grow our own fuel. So yes we are the problem and the solution “catch twenty-two”! Lifes a bitch, then drug companies keep you alive to enjoy it more. it could be a whole lot worse.

[quote]streamline wrote:

The difference is we can do something about it, but chose the almighty dollar over healthy living. Like stop using fossil fuel when we can grow our own fuel. So yes we are the problem and the solution “catch twenty-two”! Lifes a bitch, then drug companies keep you alive to enjoy it more. it could be a whole lot worse.[/quote]

Global warming isn’t hurting the air you breath…

And biofuel is hardly a panacea.

http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn11628

Now nuclear, that’s the good stuff…

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

All life has waste but only humans have given it the label garbage and pollution.[/quote]

I suspect that is because humans are the only subset of life to…um…use any labels at all.

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:

All life has waste but only humans have given it the label garbage and pollution.

I suspect that is because humans are the only subset of life to…um…use any labels at all.

[/quote]

Plus - there’s no human I know who eats their own turds.

Well…my son did when he was a little baby. Once. At least that’s what my wife told me while I was on the back porch ralphing my guts up. It’s like cat dookie. You can’t get the smell out.

but I digress…