Politiscience....Global Warming

Within a few years? I don't understand the reasoning behind the arbirary time frames people come up with for changes. It doesn't have to happen by date X or all is lost. Where does this point of no return come from? Unfortunately efforts to make changes are often attacked on the basis of being 'too much too soon' etc. And since no one wants to make drastic changes right away, they instead drop the entire premise based on a flaw in the proposed timeline instead of a flaw in the goal or acheivability of the goal.

See the disdain for Kyoto for one. Sure it's got some good ideas, but since it called for big changes relatively quickly, the entire notion of polution control is attacked and undermined to the point that we've reached today with advertisements like the one posted by Schandmaul.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Gotta go with Chibi on this one. I hear some parts of New Jersey got HAIL last night. It's friggin' late May!

However, did anyone mention that the earth naturally goes through these cycles of warming and ice ages? It was bound to happen anyway, regardless if we emitted more green house gasses or not.

How ya doing, buddy?

Uhm... Sorry to burst your bubble, but hail doesn't occur when things are at their coldest.

Hail typically happens in early summers. Surface temperatures are warm enough to cause thunderstorms, but the upper atmosphere is still cool enough to support ice.

Sure, things can be hot enough to melt the ice on its fall, but New Jersey isn't in the tropics. It's in the midlattitudes. And if I'm not mistaken, those are rather ideal spots for hail, particularly in summers.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Yeah, you're right. I was under the impression that hail only happens during cold weather.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by PUG1911

Unfortunately efforts to make changes are often attacked on the basis of being 'too much too soon' etc. And since no one wants to make drastic changes right away, they instead drop the entire premise based on a flaw in the proposed timeline instead of a flaw in the goal or acheivability of the goal.

I don't think there's a flaw in the time-table. Kyoto still allowed for a modest increase in emissions through the trading of the emissions that took place on the emissions market. Think of it as a "pollution tax" that increases with the amount of emissions released. It still didn't stop Kyoto's goals from failure. From what I've heard the emission trading market has collapsed as well.

Overall, there's nothing wrong with having a noble goal. The problem is when there's absolutely no chance that this noble goal has a chance in hell of succeeding. Since apparently nobody really wanted to curb their emissions in the first place. It just make's you look good if you signed it, and bad if you don't.

Or perhaps you would like this noble goal to be enforced by authority? A "green" authoritarian who would break down the doors of companies and individuals that did not comply. Imprisoning the wrong-doers. Which is everybody that is not French. Ahhh... the dream scenario?

Most amazing jew boots

My point was that these things can only work if they are given a chance. And that is not what has happened, and I don't see that changing anytime soon either.

An authority couldn't work and it isn't needed. It all comes down to what people really prioritize, and that is why 'nothing' is done. If it cuts into margins, it, and any possible permutation of it is blackballed.

Unless you mean to say that nothing could have been accomplished if those who did, and did not sign up for such things had done so, and followed through. In which case, that doesn't make much sense. The only argument against it that I've heard, and seems rather fair, is that it would be too little return for too much sacrifice.

The only reason pollution control has no chance is because it is given no chance. A self fullfilling profecy if I've ever seen one. "This can't work because I won't do it!" "Um.. You could do it y'know?" "Yep, but won't. Haha showed you. Stupid hippies with their environment and shit." "Ok, you win."

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by PUG1911

The only reason pollution control has no chance is because it is given no chance. A self fullfilling profecy if I've ever seen one. "This can't work because I won't do it!" "Um.. You could do it y'know?" "Yep, but won't. Haha showed you. Stupid hippies with their environment and shit." "Ok, you win."

As far as pollution control is concerned, we call know what needs to be done, the problem is that there are less people changing their resource consumption habbits then the ones that are not.

There is also the factor with large companys, most care about making money more than the environment. Much of the rain forest is cut down for not only the cattle ranches, but also soy farms. Today it doesn't matter if you are a vegetarian or not for environmental reasons because most of the products come from the amazon anyway. And oil companys don't like the idea of alternative fuel and electric cars because it will mean that no one will buy their oil any more.

Jam it back in, in the dark.