Home | Community | Message Board


Edabea
Please support our sponsors.

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]
OfflinePhred
Fred's son
Male

Registered: 10/19/00
Posts: 12,949
Loc: Dominican Republic
Last seen: 1 year, 10 months
The press is so clueless
    #3656035 - 01/20/05 11:39 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

From http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/bush.worldreax/index.html
Quote:

In Brussels, European Union officials have urged Washington to be more active on issues including the Middle East peace process, and to embrace the Kyoto treaty on global warming which Bush abandoned four years ago.




It is unclear whether the writer here is saying the EU officials claim Bush abandoned the Kyoto Treaty four years ago or that it is his own little dig at Bush. In either case it's wrong. Bush didn't "abandon" the Kyoto Treaty, the Clinton administration did. The US never ratified the accords, so there was nothing to "abandon" four years ago.

Of course numerous other countries refused to ratify it as well, and almost none of the developed nations who did will be in compliance with its provisions anyway.


pinky


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineCatalysis
EtherealEngineer

Registered: 04/23/02
Posts: 1,742
Last seen: 8 years, 5 months
Re: The press is so clueless [Re: Phred]
    #3656103 - 01/20/05 11:54 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

I dont understand why people do not get the fact that an industrialized nation of 60 million people cannot meet the pollution standards of nations tens of times smaller.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: The press is so clueless [Re: Catalysis]
    #3656110 - 01/20/05 11:55 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Why the hell is the EU telling us to meet the Kyoto treaty, costing companies hundreds of billions of dollars a year, when they can't even meet their own Kyoto targets?


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
Re: The press is so clueless [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #3656880 - 01/21/05 02:27 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

I don't have an opinion either way on the Kyoto treaty. I've heard it sets unfair standards for the larger nations, as someone aluded to already in this thread. What I do care about is that regardless of all that, Bush has done diddly squat to help the environment and that fucking sucks.


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,733
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 5 days
Re: The press is so clueless [Re: Phred]
    #3657168 - 01/21/05 04:00 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Perhaps the Bush administration made a point of ignoring the treaty completely 4 years ago whereas the previous administration may have been willing to negotiate on it and not rule it out completely?

Dont blame the press for your own lack of comprehension...


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: The press is so clueless [Re: unbeliever]
    #3657287 - 01/21/05 05:22 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

unbeliever said:
I don't have an opinion either way on the Kyoto treaty. I've heard it sets unfair standards for the larger nations, as someone aluded to already in this thread. What I do care about is that regardless of all that, Bush has done diddly squat to help the environment and that fucking sucks.




Nothing for the environment?
Brownsfield legislation? The healthy forests initiative? Clear skies initiative? Slashing mercury emissions from coal burning power plants? Raising emission standards for diesel engines? Adding 42% to researching climate change? The climate vision partnership? Allocating millions to the everglades? Adding 4 billion dollars in tax incentives for alternate fuels? Cutting SO2 emissions from power plants.

I'm sure there are more things he has done for the environment, but thankfully signing the kyoto treaty wasn't one of them.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
InvisibleRandalFlagg
Stranger
Registered: 06/15/02
Posts: 15,608
Re: The press is so clueless [Re: Phred]
    #3657351 - 01/21/05 06:03 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)


Bush didn't "abandon" the Kyoto Treaty, the Clinton administration did. The US never ratified the accords, so there was nothing to "abandon" four years ago.

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/WORLD/asiapcf/auspac/03/28/kyoto.protocol/index.html


SYDNEY, Australia -- Britain and Australia have joined Japan in expressing serious concern at a U.S. decision to abandon a 1997 Kyoto environmental treaty against global warming.

They have called on the U.S. to reconsider its position after White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said on Wednesday that the United States had effectively abandoned the treaty it earlier signed.

"It is not in the United States' economic best interest," Fleischer said, adding that U.S. President George W. Bush has been "unequivocal" on the matter.

Former president Bill Clinton signed the treaty in 1998, but the U.S. Senate has not yet ratified it.

So, it seems as if Clinton signed it, Congress didn't ratify it, and the Bush administration has no interest in pursuing the matter.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,733
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 5 days
Re: The press is so clueless [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #3657377 - 01/21/05 06:26 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Lots of spin and shiny front end but is it anywhere near enough? Im sure somebody could come up with an equally impressive list of things Bush has done that are harmful to the environment..


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: The press is so clueless [Re: GazzBut]
    #3657379 - 01/21/05 06:28 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
Lots of spin and shiny front end but is it anywhere near enough? Im sure somebody could come up with an equally impressive list of things Bush has done that are harmful to the environment..




Its plenty enough, unless you are foolish enough to believe global warming is a problem.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: The press is so clueless [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #3657382 - 01/21/05 06:29 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

blacksabbathrulz said:
Quote:

GazzBut said:
Lots of spin and shiny front end but is it anywhere near enough? Im sure somebody could come up with an equally impressive list of things Bush has done that are harmful to the environment..




Its plenty enough, unless you are foolish enough to believe global warming is a problem.




Let me rephrase that, there are lots of things we should be doing for the environment such as protecting rainforests etc. We should not be worrying about emissions too much, which seems to be most people's primary concern pertaining to the environment.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,733
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 5 days
Re: The press is so clueless [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #3657391 - 01/21/05 06:34 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Have you ever heard of the global dimming phenomena? Look into it, you may change your opinion.


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: The press is so clueless [Re: GazzBut]
    #3657394 - 01/21/05 06:35 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
Have you ever heard of the global dimming phenomena? Look into it, you may change your opinion.




Yup, I've also had some conversations with Richard Lindzen, which to me was much stronger than anything else I have looked at.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,733
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 5 days
Re: The press is so clueless [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #3657408 - 01/21/05 06:45 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

So you dont think its a problem cutting the emissions that cause global dimming and help keep global warming in check whilst at the same time failing to reduce the emissions that cause global warming??

Strange opinion.

How amusing that you take the opinions of a man who works for the Cato institute at face value. Is it just coincidental that his "opinions" are just what his right wing pay masters want to hear?


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: The press is so clueless [Re: GazzBut]
    #3657414 - 01/21/05 06:52 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
So you dont think its a problem cutting the emissions that cause global dimming and help keep global warming in check whilst at the same time failing to reduce the emissions that cause global warming??

Strange opinion.

How amusing that you take the opinions of a man who works for the Cato institute at face value. Is it just coincidental that his "opinions" are just what his right wing pay masters want to hear?




Well, I'll take the word of an MIT prof anyday over a non-climatoligist whom merely intreprets data and finds a trend indicating a problem. According to NASA scientist Roy Spenser, 17 years of satellite data show a rate of warming of about 7/100 of a degree per decade, or a rise of about 7/10 of a degree by the year 2100. These are based on real life measurements.

Most of the predictions are simply junk science. There's really no point in arguing global warming, as people who believe its a problem won't be convinced otherwise. I find it funny that climatologists can't accurately predict the weather 2 days in advance.......


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineGazzBut
Refraction

Registered: 10/15/02
Posts: 4,733
Loc: London UK
Last seen: 4 months, 5 days
Re: The press is so clueless [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #3657417 - 01/21/05 06:57 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Well, I'll take the word of an MIT prof anyday over a non-climatoligist whom merely intreprets data and finds a trend indicating a problem.




As would most people. But in reality there are many equally respected climatoligists who believe global warming is a real problem. Do you denounce them all as producing junk science?

Quote:

I find it funny that climatologists can't accurately predict the weather 2 days in advance.......




So why do you trust what Dick has to say then??!!


--------------------
Always Smi2le


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: The press is so clueless [Re: GazzBut]
    #3657429 - 01/21/05 07:06 AM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

GazzBut said:
Quote:

Well, I'll take the word of an MIT prof anyday over a non-climatoligist whom merely intreprets data and finds a trend indicating a problem.




As would most people. But in reality there are many equally respected climatoligists who believe global warming is a real problem. Do you denounce them all as producing junk science?

Quote:

I find it funny that climatologists can't accurately predict the weather 2 days in advance.......




So why do you trust what Dick has to say then??!!




I don't denounce climatoligists as producing junk science. There are extremes on both sides, some will say there are no trends whatsoever in warming, whereas others will say we are going to die due to man made emissions. I trust Richard's views as he explains clearly why modeling systems are extremely flawed, and why there really aren't drastic trends in warming.


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
OfflineSWEDEN
Miracle of Science

Registered: 10/25/04
Posts: 2,577
Loc: PNW
Last seen: 2 years, 11 months
Re: The press is so clueless [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #3657944 - 01/21/05 12:09 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

Most of the predictions are simply junk science. There's really no point in arguing global warming, as people who believe its a problem won't be convinced otherwise. I find it funny that climatologists can't accurately predict the weather 2 days in advance.......




Why is it funny? That is not their job; meteorologists predict the weather, not climatologists. They are two very different fields. But when you look at the history of the Earth the scientists have postulated (a cycle of warming followed by extreme cooling, or "ice ages") it is much easier to predict what will happen to the global climate in 100 years than it is to predict the weather in 100 days. It is not junk science. Trying to proove Creationism is junk science.


--------------------


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
Re: The press is so clueless [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #3658319 - 01/21/05 02:26 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

blacksabbathrulz said:
Quote:

unbeliever said:
I don't have an opinion either way on the Kyoto treaty. I've heard it sets unfair standards for the larger nations, as someone aluded to already in this thread. What I do care about is that regardless of all that, Bush has done diddly squat to help the environment and that fucking sucks.




Nothing for the environment?
Brownsfield legislation? The healthy forests initiative? Clear skies initiative? Slashing mercury emissions from coal burning power plants? Raising emission standards for diesel engines? Adding 42% to researching climate change? The climate vision partnership? Allocating millions to the everglades? Adding 4 billion dollars in tax incentives for alternate fuels? Cutting SO2 emissions from power plants.

I'm sure there are more things he has done for the environment, but thankfully signing the kyoto treaty wasn't one of them.




Let me just give a run-down on each of the items you listed, in order.

Like many of Bush's supposedly positive programs, the Brownfield legislation was hamstrung. The EPA has very very limited scope in which to enforce the guidelines laid out. It's not quite a complete non-starter, but it's hardly a glowing success either. (link)

As an arizona resident, the Healthy Forest initiative sounded like a great idea. Again, until it was actually implimented and the flaws revealed. (link)

Quote:

The Sierra Club wrote
Using the hype of the 2002 fire season, the Bush administration proposed a series of drastic administrative changes to the way our National Forests are managed. Combined, these proposals will give free reign to the timber industry across National Forests under the guise of "fuel reduction." The President's ill-named "Healthy Forests Initiative" will do little to protect communities and homes from forest fires, instead this sweeping initiative is concentrated on decreasing public involvement, reducing environmental protection and increasing access to our National Forests and other federal lands for timber companies.




Don't even get me started on the "Clear Skies" garbage. There is plenty of relevant information on the web about how much of a failure that is. (link) (link) (link)

As for the mercury emissions, I'm asssuming you're talking about this?

If you're talking about the non-road diesel engine emission standards, yes they were finally just properly regulated last year. We'll see how well that is implimented in the coming months/years.

I hadn't heard the specific 42% number before and upon research I came up with little that was enlightening. I did find that he cut the budget for local, state and volunteer fire assistance programs by 42% and he increased the timber-industry subsidies and cuts grants to state and private forestry programs by 42% as well. If you have any more info on what you were specificially referring to, that'd be great.

The "Climate Vision" is pretty crap too. It's a pretty much voluntary program. It's a softball "Please join us in saving the environment" plea to an uncaring industry of pollution. While there have been numerous companies to step up and work within the program, they are companies who were already self-regulating and they represent only a small portion of the thousands of polluting companies nationwide. Yet another hollow promise program from the Bush Administration. (PDF)

Again, don't get me started on the everglades crap. Bush has clearly shown that he favors industry over environment. (PDF)

The tax credit helps the people who are able to afford the more expensive AFV's but again it has little efficacy in changing the current gas guzzling trend. It also is not inclusive enough. I believe it's Volkswagon who has a 77mpg diesel sedan that does not qualify, which is rather unfortunate. The real pressure needs to be put on the automotive industry, not only on the consumer. The american public has to be sold on the idea that AFV's can be just as fun, sporty and "cool" as the gasoline sucking dinosaurs. This means money put to advertising campaigns, and tighter regulations on upcoming vehicle production specifications.

As for Sulfor Oxide (S02), the Bush Administration has actually delayed and relaxed the restrictions from the clean air act which was set to have S02 emissions down to 2 million tons by 2012 (from 11 million tons). The Bush plan pushes that back to 3 million tons by 2018. This is not progress. (link)

You're sure he's done more for the environment? More like he's done more to the environment.

(link)
(link)
(link)
(link)
(link)
(link)
(link)


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Invisibleblacksabbathrulz
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/02
Posts: 2,511
Re: The press is so clueless [Re: unbeliever]
    #3658371 - 01/21/05 02:38 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

unbeliever said:
Quote:

blacksabbathrulz said:
Quote:

unbeliever said:
I don't have an opinion either way on the Kyoto treaty. I've heard it sets unfair standards for the larger nations, as someone aluded to already in this thread. What I do care about is that regardless of all that, Bush has done diddly squat to help the environment and that fucking sucks.




Nothing for the environment?
Brownsfield legislation? The healthy forests initiative? Clear skies initiative? Slashing mercury emissions from coal burning power plants? Raising emission standards for diesel engines? Adding 42% to researching climate change? The climate vision partnership? Allocating millions to the everglades? Adding 4 billion dollars in tax incentives for alternate fuels? Cutting SO2 emissions from power plants.

I'm sure there are more things he has done for the environment, but thankfully signing the kyoto treaty wasn't one of them.




Let me just give a run-down on each of the items you listed, in order.

Like many of Bush's supposedly positive programs, the Brownfield legislation was hamstrung. The EPA has very very limited scope in which to enforce the guidelines laid out. It's not quite a complete non-starter, but it's hardly a glowing success either. (link)

As an arizona resident, the Healthy Forest initiative sounded like a great idea. Again, until it was actually implimented and the flaws revealed. (link)

Quote:

The Sierra Club wrote
Using the hype of the 2002 fire season, the Bush administration proposed a series of drastic administrative changes to the way our National Forests are managed. Combined, these proposals will give free reign to the timber industry across National Forests under the guise of "fuel reduction." The President's ill-named "Healthy Forests Initiative" will do little to protect communities and homes from forest fires, instead this sweeping initiative is concentrated on decreasing public involvement, reducing environmental protection and increasing access to our National Forests and other federal lands for timber companies.




Don't even get me started on the "Clear Skies" garbage. There is plenty of relevant information on the web about how much of a failure that is. (link) (link) (link)

As for the mercury emissions, I'm asssuming you're talking about this?

If you're talking about the non-road diesel engine emission standards, yes they were finally just properly regulated last year. We'll see how well that is implimented in the coming months/years.

I hadn't heard the specific 42% number before and upon research I came up with little that was enlightening. I did find that he cut the budget for local, state and volunteer fire assistance programs by 42% and he increased the timber-industry subsidies and cuts grants to state and private forestry programs by 42% as well. If you have any more info on what you were specificially referring to, that'd be great.

The "Climate Vision" is pretty crap too. It's a pretty much voluntary program. It's a softball "Please join us in saving the environment" plea to an uncaring industry of pollution. While there have been numerous companies to step up and work within the program, they are companies who were already self-regulating and they represent only a small portion of the thousands of polluting companies nationwide. Yet another hollow promise program from the Bush Administration. (PDF)

Again, don't get me started on the everglades crap. Bush has clearly shown that he favors industry over environment. (PDF)

The tax credit helps the people who are able to afford the more expensive AFV's but again it has little efficacy in changing the current gas guzzling trend. It also is not inclusive enough. I believe it's Volkswagon who has a 77mpg diesel sedan that does not qualify, which is rather unfortunate. The real pressure needs to be put on the automotive industry, not only on the consumer. The american public has to be sold on the idea that AFV's can be just as fun, sporty and "cool" as the gasoline sucking dinosaurs. This means money put to advertising campaigns, and tighter regulations on upcoming vehicle production specifications.

As for Sulfor Oxide (S02), the Bush Administration has actually delayed and relaxed the restrictions from the clean air act which was set to have S02 emissions down to 2 million tons by 2012 (from 11 million tons). The Bush plan pushes that back to 3 million tons by 2018. This is not progress. (link)

You're sure he's done more for the environment? More like he's done more to the environment.

(link)
(link)
(link)
(link)
(link)
(link)
(link)




Do you have any sources from sites that don't have an agenda?


--------------------
.


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Offlineunbeliever
Yo Daddy!
 User Gallery
Registered: 05/22/04
Posts: 5,158
Loc: Gallifrey
Last seen: 7 years, 8 months
Re: The press is so clueless [Re: blacksabbathrulz]
    #3658433 - 01/21/05 02:55 PM (11 years, 10 months ago)

Quote:

blacksabbathrulz said:
Do you have any sources from sites that don't have an agenda?




Do you? The majority of the sites I posted do have an agenda, an environmental agenda. They have the knoweldge and experience in dealing with political environmental law and campaigning. They have nothing to gain by lying or misleading. If the laws were good, they would say so because they would be happy about it. Their goal is not partisan nor is it "anti-bush" for the most part.

In contrast, you have provided no sources or links to backup your "all is good" viewpoint on (apparently) everything Bush does.


--------------------
Happiness is a warm gun...


Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1 | 2 | Next >  [ show all ]

General Interest >> Political Discussion

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Obama climate plan could cost $2 trillion
( 1 2 3 4 all )
lonestar2004 3,058 64 04/10/09 03:36 AM
by ScavengerType
* Oil, Climate, and Terrorism EchoVortex 723 2 09/06/02 08:13 AM
by EchoVortex
* Pentagon: "Climate change will destroy us"
( 1 2 all )
Xlea321 1,968 29 02/24/04 07:47 AM
by TheOneYouKnow
* Stop Stephen Harper from blocking UN climate talks!
( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all )
moeburn 7,993 128 12/17/07 07:50 PM
by zappaisgod
* BUSH ADMITS CLIMATE CHANGE IS MANMADE
( 1 2 3 4 all )
1stimer 3,674 70 07/11/05 02:09 AM
by IsaacHunt
* US climate policy Xlea321 582 11 01/12/04 07:09 PM
by d33p
* More Climate Predictions
( 1 2 3 all )
GazzBut 1,683 42 02/02/05 03:11 PM
by GazzBut
* Blair Urged To Push Bush on Climate GazzBut 739 2 07/01/05 05:23 AM
by GazzBut

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Prisoner#1, Enlil
1,680 topic views. 1 members, 0 guests and 3 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
RVF Garden Supply
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2016 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.115 seconds spending 0.004 seconds on 16 queries.