Re: Exxon behind Bush's NO to Kyoto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Honestly, is it any wonder that I see this all as an effort to hamstring America? 1) Let's look for the #1 pollution problem for America 2) let's claim it's the worst problem ever facing the planet and 3) let's force America to shut down a bunch of it's industry, but give a pass to the rest of the world?
Yeah, Kyoto's a great idea.
One calls that paranoia, no? ~D
Seriously, though. To answer your first question, I doubt any of us is enquiring closely on Exxon's case and will be able to lay out proofs of what this unreliable newspaper advances.
Personally, I know how much the rest of the world's economy depends on the USA's (unfortunately), thus I'm not stupid enough to want its economy to crash. The only thing that annoys me is that most of the Americans seem to swear solely by it, which gives (perhaps a deceptive) impression that you care about nothing else. In no way, though, do I wish the failure of the USA's economy.
Re: Exxon behind Bush's NO to Kyoto
Fair enough LVDS. I didn't mean that statement as directed at you guys, believe it or not. I have every faith that you, Lazul & Tribesman believe that CO2 emission is the #1 problem facing the planet right now. I'm just wondering if any of you have ever stopped to question if it really is the worst, and if not, why does it receive the attention that it does, over other more dangerous forms of pollution.
I was frankly shocked by the difference in culture between Europe and America in one asepct, the first time I visited as an adult (Ireland, 1997). I learned, enoying some good craigh and many Guinnesses (or was it Beamish) that in Europe, it's actually considered rude to mix politics and economics. That the 'what should we do' should never be be blended with the 'how will we pay for it'. I find that to be a very noble, but very limited and frankly, naive view of the way the world works. Yes, in an ideal world, we would go forth and always approach a problem with 100% of the resouces the problem demands. But quite frankly, and I don't mean this to be insulting, there's a reason we have the world's largest economy. It wasn't handed to us and it wasn't magic.
Re: Exxon behind Bush's NO to Kyoto
Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Fair enough LVDS. I didn't mean that statement as directed at you guys, believe it or not. I have every faith that you, Lazul & Tribesman believe that CO2 emission is the #1 problem facing the planet right now. I'm just wondering if any of you have ever stopped to question if it really is the worst, and if not, why does it receive the attention that it does, over other more dangerous forms of pollution.
CO2 emissions are certainly not the worst threat, I'd rather say it's water pollution but its effects are less obvious to non-informed people, while CO2 emissions effects can be noticed in our every day life (dryness, higher temperatures...). I assume that's why it gets so much attention and virtually drown the rest.
Quote:
That the 'what should we do' should never be be blended with the 'how will we pay for it'. I find that to be a very noble, but very limited and frankly, naive view of the way the world works. Yes, in an ideal world, we would go forth and always approach a problem with 100% of the resouces the problem demands.
Go tell my fellow compatriots that money isn't found by magic and we can't fund their, hundred or so, costly social plans... they won't hear it. I suppose if we can blame Americans for their focus on economy, we can do the same for the blindness too many display here. I suggest we merge, perhaps a good compromise would come up out of it ~D
Re: Exxon behind Bush's NO to Kyoto
[QUOTE=Ldvs]Darfur, Zimbabwe? Explain why Europe is to blame, please. We'll see whether your point is valid, or not.
Why, who said anyone is to blame? I thought you were talking about 'irresponsibility'. Turning the blind eye to these problems is Europe's forte, it seems. Lionize Mugabe in Paris, pretend there isn't genocide in Darfur.
As for China, I'll leave it to folks like you to explain to the democratic nation of Taiwan when they get blown away with French/German whatevers by the benevolent mainland Chinese.
We should refer to the Bible about seeing the mote in the eye of another, while ignoring the beam in one's own. :book:
Re: Exxon behind Bush's NO to Kyoto
Sure. The qoute wasn't limited to emissions, though.
True , but the Kyoto thing is mainly about them .
I have every faith that you, Lazul & Tribesman believe that CO2 emission is the #1 problem facing the planet right now.
Do I believe that emissions are the #1 problem in the world Don ?
Thats news to me ~D
On item #1, you guys respond with a typical, and frankly, tiring anti-American screech that we're the worst polluters in the world and don't give a damn about anyone or anything and that even India and China are more enivornmentally concious then we are
Where ? someone posted that India and china were worse polluters , since this topic is about emissions then what problem do you have with the fact that as far as emissions go that is clearly false ?
Though China is desperately trying to catch up , even planning ahead by getting a british businessman to secure them oil exploration rights in Dharfur to help fuel their recent massive surge in oil products . If you want to talk about other pollution problems go ahead , if you want to talk about China feel free , their "recycling" program for computer and electronic components would be a good topic . Who would have thought that "recycling" the worlds waste could cause such levels of pollution , but hey who needs to drink water anyway ~;)
On item #2, I think it's pretty clear it was a representative group
Yes , but is there any evidence that other members of the group altered the report . The White House have only mentioned the alterations made by this individual .
You guys keep throwing around that 'Exxon changed documents and conclusions drawn'. Has anybody other than the NY Times claimed that?
A person with links to the petro-chemical industry who has no scientific training has altered a scientific paper that could have had serious implications for the industry to which he is linked .
That is not just a "claim" made by a newspaper , it has been confirmed by your government . It was confirmed on the day the story broke , the confirmation was repeated at a White House press conference the next day .
I will repeat
So should a non scientist with links to a industry that is a major polluter be altering science based papers on pollution ?
That is the issue Don .
Would you have a problem if some tree hugger with no scientific training had altered the report ? I would , so why shouldn't I have a problem with this case ?
There is a clear conflict of interest in this episode .
