Che's here...

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

[ChargerMike]

I had lunch with him today..



Dr Phibes

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

word up

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Uncle Joe

[Dr_Phibes]

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

RACK!!!

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Long live the resistance!

[Hapday]

Long live the resistance!

I agree! The U.S., Australia, China, India, and South Korea are about to tell the UN and the countries that support the Kyoto Accord to go fuck themselves! RACK THAT!

CANBERRA - Australia and the United States have been secretly negotiating a new international pact on greenhouse-gas emissions to replace the UN's Kyoto Protocol, which Washington refuses to ratify, Ian Campbell, the Australian Environment Minister, said yesterday.

China and India, whose burgeoning economies comprise a third of humanity, as well as Australia and South Korea, are part of the agreement to tackle climate change outside the Kyoto Protocol.

Greenhouse gases trapping heat in the atmosphere are blamed for global warming, seen as one of the world's greatest environmental dangers.

Kyoto requires a cut in greenhouse-gas emissions by 5.2% below 1990 levels by 2008-12, but the United States and Australia have refused to ratify the protocol because it excludes major developing nations such China and India.

Diplomats in the Laotian capital, Vientiane, said the new pact will be formally announced today when Robert Zoellick, the U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, holds a news conference attended by representatives of the other signatories.

Details of the agreement remain unclear, but it appears to echo recent comments by George W. Bush, the U.S. President, who advocated the use of technology in curbing growth in greenhouse-gas emissions, rather than setting targets he believes threaten the U.S. economy.

Since the partners in the agreement are among the largest producers and consumers of coal on the planet, speculation has centred on the likelihood that the agreement will involve the transfer of "clean coal" technology from the United States and Australia to China and India.

"The main aim of effective action is to involve rapidly developing countries who have legitimate needs to increase their energy use, but we also need to find the answer to the global imperative of reducing emissions," Mr. Campbell said.

"That's going to need the development of new technologies and the deployment of them within developing countries."

One of the U.S. arguments against the current Kyoto format is that it does not require such big developing countries as China and India to make targeted emissions cuts, an exemption Mr. Bush says is unfair and illogical.

But developing countries say historical responsibility for global warming lies with nations that industrialized first, and primarily with the United States, which accounts for 25% of all global greenhouse-gas pollution.

The new alliance -- to be known as the Asia-Pacific Partnership for Clean Development and Climate -- will bring together nations that account for more than 40% of the world's greenhouse gas emissions.

Bob Brown, leader of the Australian Greens party, dismissed the new agreement as "a coal pact" involving four of the world's largest coal producers.

"This is all about taxpayers' money being diverted from developing clean renewable technologies to try and make burning coal less dirty," Mr. Brown said.

"It won't fool the Australian people and it won't fool world opinion."

[Shitonafukkinhippie]

I'd say the U.S. has been saying "F.U." to the Kyoto Protocol since 2002.

[Bizzarofelice]

imaginary problems

Can't stop swallowing the talking points.

[BSmack]

You're projecting.

The bottom line remains that there is not one single shred of direct, observational data to conclude or even suggest that humans are responsible for climate change.

Nothing.

Assmuming for a moment that you are right about global warming, you still cannot possibly contend that releasing billions of tons of toxic material into the atmosphere that we all breathe is a good idea.

[Felix]

You're projecting.

The bottom line remains that there is not one single shred of direct, observational data to conclude or even suggest that humans are responsible for climate change.

Nothing.

I'm familiar with the fact that you are going to ignore this thing until it swims up and bites you on the ass!

[BSmack]

Carbon dioxide is not "toxic material".

Only if you're a plant. We humans find it rather hard to breathe CO2

[DrDetroit]

B, do you kow the share of carbon dioxide that human activity is responsible for?

You've been told before...

[Felix]

We're familiar with the fact that you're an idiot.

Thanks for that insight melty......

[BSmack]

B, do you kow the share of carbon dioxide that human activity is responsible for?

You've been told before...

Here's picture for ya.

[DrDetroit]

B...is that how you thing an honest argument goes? You are asked whether you know what the share of a is of the total and simply identify what a is? Can you be serious?

It's too bad that this passes for valid debate among the left.

[Bizzarofelice]

99.9% of Scientists: "Global warming exists, and it is a long-term problem for the human race."

Two scientists, Repubs and the spin machine they work: "Global warming does not exist."


The Kyoto treaty is junk. I agree 100% with Dubya on that one despite possible differing reasons.

[DrDetroit]

99.9% of scientists believe that global warming exists?

Link?

As far as I understood there was no broad consensus among scientists re: global warming. It'll be interesting to see what Bizarro comes up with...lol. :roll:

[Bizzarofelice]

Nice strawman.

How so?

There isn't much debate on climate change.

Correct.

It happens and will continue to happen.

Correct.

The debate centers on whether or not humans have anything to do with it

Do you think the 99.9% of scientists believe that humans are the only cause or that humans are accelerating this process?

whether or not there is anything we can or should do about it.

Far better argument. For all those that immediately laugh at the mention of the "global warming," global climate change is a fact. How much we can alter our actions to slow its progress without crippling our economy, how much we should alter while other nations do nothing and what industries should be spared regulations are the issues worth debating.

Kyoto treaty is a joke if only some countries abide whilst China or other nations do not.

[DrDetroit]

Bizarro, we're all waiting for the source from whcih you assert that 99.9% agree that global warming exists...

Well???

Far better argument. For all those that immediately laugh at the mention of the "global warming," global climate change is a fact.

Idiot, those are two very different conditions - global warming and global climate change.

Don't confuse them as you try to backpedal from your stupid consensus assertion.

How much we can alter our actions to slow its progress without crippling our economy, how much we should alter while other nations do nothing and what industries should be spared regulations are the issues worth debating.

Too bad the Left refuses to "debate" these issues and clamors for "treaties" that let growing/developing nations off the hook for controlling emissions.

Kyoto treaty is a joke if only some countries abide whilst China or other nations do not.

That's why the Bush administration agreed with the 95 Senators who rejected Kyoto in 1999 and subsequently (read this month) got China and India on board with a different agreement.

So much for the failed foreign policy strategies of this administration... :roll:

[Bizzarofelice]

Far better argument. For all those that immediately laugh at the mention of the "global warming," global climate change is a fact.

Idiot, those are two very different conditions - global warming and global climate change.

My point exactly. To immediately laugh off global warming, a change in the global climate, is stupid. If your point is the amount that humans play in the global warming issue, then make that known. Sadly, the GOP talking points don't.

Don't confuse them as you try to backpedal from your stupid consensus assertion.

You may think there are tons of scientists on your side, but that's the problem when you choose media outlets that cater to your preconceived notions. I'm not backpeddlin' at all. As usual, the sky's a different color in your world.

So much for the failed foreign policy strategies of this administration... :roll:

Like I said, Dubya got this one right. Doesn't mean the major policies like the middle east one that's getting Americans killed and draining our economy are anything but failures.

[Mike the Lab Rat]

But what would Che do about global warming?

Probably round up those that disagreed with him and then blindfold, torture, and then execute them.

Oh, but historically clueless white upper middle class kids with the trendiest pseudo-hippy threads and with $1000 stereos blasting DMB think he's the ginchiest!

[DrDetroit]

My point exactly. To immediately laugh off global warming, a change in the global climate, is stupid. If your point is the amount that humans play in the global warming issue, then make that known. Sadly, the GOP talking points don't.

WTF are you blathering about? My point is not whether there are anthropogenic causes to global warming. Precisely because there is little to no evidence that global warming exists.

You may think there are tons of scientists on your side, but that's the problem when you choose media outlets that cater to your preconceived notions. I'm not backpeddlin' at all. As usual, the sky's a different color in your world.

1) I am still waiting for your evidence that there is scientific consensus that global warming exists.

2) This is not an issue of numbers of scientists lining up. For example, as I posted in the new related thread:

Indeed, a recent Gallup poll of climate scientists in the American Meteorological Society and in the American Geophysical Union shows that a vast majority doubts that there has been any identifiable man-caused warming to date (49 percent asserted no, 33 percent did not know, 18 percent thought some has occurred; however, among those actively involved in research and publishing frequently in peer-reviewed research journals, none believes that any man-caused global warming has been identified so far).

In 1989 the group (Union of Concerned Scientists) began to circulate a petition urging recognition of global warming as potentially the great danger to mankind. Most recipients who did not sign were solicited at least twice more. The petition was eventually signed by 700 scientists including a great many members of the National Academy of Sciences and Nobel laureates. Only about three or four of the signers, however, had any involvement in climatology. Interestingly, the petition had two pages, and on the second page there was a call for renewed consideration of nuclear power. When the petition was published in the New York Times, however, the second page was omitted.

In any event, that document helped solidify the public perception that "all scientists'' agreed with the disaster scenario. Such a disturbing abuse of scientific authority was not unnoticed. At the 1990 annual meeting of the National Academy of Sciences, Frank Press, the academy's president, warned the membership against lending their credibility to issues about which they had no special knowledge. Special reference was made to the published petition.

Your consensus assertion is complete bunk.

[Felix]

Precisely because there is little to no evidence that global warming exists.

Then it doesn't exist right?

It's kind of like a cure for cancer--it doesn't exist either so why are we wasting money trying to find one.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

But what would Che do about global warming?

Probably round up those that disagreed with him and then blindfold, torture, and then execute them.

Oh, but historically clueless white upper middle class kids with the trendiest pseudo-hippy threads and with $1000 stereos blasting DMB think he's the ginchiest!

Ginchiness is counter-revolutionary.

[Shitonafukkinhippie]

But what would Che do about global warming?

Probably round up those that disagreed with him and then blindfold, torture, and then execute them.

Oh, but historically clueless white upper middle class kids with the trendiest pseudo-hippy threads and with $1000 stereos blasting DMB think he's the ginchiest!

Ginchiness is counter-revolutionary.

"Ginchiest?" Even more eveidence to prove that Che' was gay!

Just remember: 8/10 kids sportin' Che' gear don't know who he is.

Of the 2/10 that do, 1 of them couldn't tell you where he was born or what country he infiltrated to perfect his "revolution" craft.

Of the 1/10 that actually do know who Che' is and actually know his bio and freely sport a greasy t-shirt emblazened with his mug on it would probably feel no shame wearing a greasy t-shirt with Hitler or Pol Pot on it.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

But what would Che do about global warming?

Probably round up those that disagreed with him and then blindfold, torture, and then execute them.

Oh, but historically clueless white upper middle class kids with the trendiest pseudo-hippy threads and with $1000 stereos blasting DMB think he's the ginchiest!

Ginchiness is counter-revolutionary.

"Ginchiest?" Even more eveidence to prove that Che' was gay!

Just remember: 8/10 kids sportin' Che' gear don't know who he is.

Of the 2/10 that do, 1 of them couldn't tell you where he was born or what country he infiltrated to perfect his "revolution" craft.

Of the 1/10 that actually do know who Che' is and actually know his bio and freely sport a greasy t-shirt emblazened with his mug on it would probably feel no shame wearing a greasy t-shirt with Hitler or Pol Pot on it.

You may have a point there, Cuda.

But I doubt it. Now, suck on this.....