This was my point. The real reson behind America's unwillingness to agree to the agreement.godslanguage wrote:"The major issue with the agreement is that the proposed cutbacks are too drastic for a nation which realeases comparatively vast amounts of greenhouse gasses. It's an issue of sovereignty and of economy. The United States has enjoyed cheaper oil than the rest of the world and has taken advantage of it. This nation cannot afford to cut back to the levels of other nations without taking an economic hit. It's not about the facts of global warming, it's about the fact that the United States doesn't want to pay other nations for the right's to produce greenhouse gasses as the nation adjusts to the protocol."
I don't know exactly what you are saying here, perhaps taking information from your liberal media friends is not the best idea. You talk about oil cutback to levels of other nations without taking an economic hit, that is exactly what kyoto protocol will do.
The evidence is mounting that humans may have something to do with global warming, however evidence is also mounting that the warming was inevitable anyways and we are only accelerating the process.godslanguage wrote:America will cutback on its oil and development, industries which rely on oil must adjust to other technologies, this will cause the economy to take an economic hit. So Kyoto is based on the fact of Global Warming, why do they not show the real facts behind it then? Calling it human induced when even scientists admit it is a natural change in climate. Melting Glaciers shown on the news or the movie: The Day after tommorw, one word for you; politics, liberal politics at its best.
The media and your next door neighbor may have exaggerated the problem because of ignorance, however the problem was real and was corrected in time thanks to a great group of programmers which thankfully the United Stated had access to.godslanguage wrote:"If you were told that an asteroid might hit the earth would you wait till they were more certain? Or would you consider doing something about it now? As you can see it depends on the individual, people have different opinions and interests, that doesn't mean there is some hidden agenda or mass conspiracy."
Remember Y2K in the year 2000. Thats exactly what people did, they purchased lots of supplies, food, flashlights and accessories for storage. They considered doing something just in case something happened. They put the scare in place, and people reacted how people always react when they rely on completely flawed information.This is the brainwashing that goes on because of the media, the media is ofcourse controlled by other forces, perhaps the devil, but most likely the people in power of corporations, the government and activists who probably are the devil themselves if they wish to let people suffer and die in 3rd world countries.
Most in the field would disagree, and tell you that most of the reserves have been tapped into. Unless we are wrong about the fossil origins of oil we aren't going to access more by digging deeper.godslanguage wrote:You can look at it this way too, perhaps they are doing the right thing and neutralizing the supposed crowded up human population on earth which is not crowded as much as people would like to be. They are killing them off to save natural resources in the long run, I guess that could be a good thing, do you? Are we running out of resources, oil perhaps? Have we dug up most of our oil? Are we running out of oil like the media wants us to think. Is the problem in fact the technology, we can surely drill much deeper then we currently are. As far as I'm concerned, we have'nt yet drilled deep enough to approach nebula.
Sorry, you have a point here. I was only talking about some of the statements you posted not your position in general.godslanguage wrote:"Sometimes it's best to stick to the story, reading these kinds of things is a form of brain washing."
Once again, what am I reading wrong and your reading right.
For instance "Nuclear energy is in fact a clean energy source. I'm not going to go into this one, because it is obvious. "
Some people see the facts and reach the conclusion that it is enough to convince them. Just because you are still skeptical doesn't mean that they have an agenda or are being alarmists. It only means that people have different thresholds of proof. Take japan for instance, if The sea level rises 4 feet much of the populated regions of Japan will be below sea level.godslanguage wrote:I'm not against Global Warming, but I am against the facts presented in the Kyoto protocol about Globabl warming. Your reading something that makes sense to you, and I am simply approaching it a different way, saying there is something wrong here and why do we keep hearing the same claims without getting a differant interpretation on it.
In many cases it was a problem with adminastration, and ineffectual programs.godslanguage wrote:"Malaria never dissapeared only controlled. But the spraying became less and less effective."
Present the facts that spraying DDT became less and less effective.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/quer ... t=Abstract
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.h ... A9629C8B63
http://www.who.int/inf-pr-2000/en/note2000-15.html
All I am saying is that the issues are more complicated, and does not boil down to liberal conspiracies. Although I would support a lift on the ban of DDT I can understand why there is a ban in the first place.
