What is Digg?111 Comments
- nixonrichard, on 10/12/2007, -2/+20The US didn't sign on because they said it wouldn't work. Now the nations that did sign on are coming to that realization and exempting their individual industries one-by-one. Everyone was so willing to sign on at first because the initial requirements were so small. Now that new requirements are kicking in and the nations that signed on have to actually DO something, they are backing out. You can blame Bush for a lot of things but not for this . . . he wasn't president in 1997 and he certainly hasn't told the nations that singed on to Kyoto to break their promises. The US could have signed on to Kyoto, and then just backed down like everyone else . . . what good does that do? At least the US was honest from the beginning that they had no intention of doing what Kyoto says. Moreover, greenhouse gas emission can be controlled on a state-by-state basis in the US, just look at California under Arnold. They are effectively joining Kyoto without signing any specific treaties.
- p0ss, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15In reality the Kyoto protocol has never been stringent enough.
Even if every country had adhered to the recommendations, global warming would not have been halted, the effect would only have been mitigated.
"Current estimates indicate that even if successfully and completely implemented, the Kyoto Protocol will reduce that increase by somewhere between 0.02 °C and 0.28 °C by the year 2050 (source: Nature, October 2003)."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
The sad truth is that we are individually and collectively unwilling to make the financial and lifestyle sacrifices necessary to prevent the inevitable consequences. - vudicarus, on 10/12/2007, -14/+25Jav: why don't you provide some links to back up your assertions? Why do you put little faith in the UN's findings? Who would be a credible source for you? Whose data would you believe?
I've read that China is the biggest polluter for sulfur dioxide, and the biggest polluter for a developing nation. The US is labeled as the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases for an industrialized nation as defined by the UN in 1992 which did not include China or India.
Dugg. - Seal, on 10/12/2007, -1/+12Kyoto is a piece of paper.
It's also a game. The Netherlands have reduced their greenhouse emissions. How? Because they built clean facilities in China. So you see, though they actually reduced their emissions, that number is inflated from their activities abroad. Other countries can buy pollution credits off countries that are far below 1990 levels, like Poland, which was in a state of de-industrialization following the fall of the soviets. But in both cases, nothing pro-active was done to cut current emissions. Sure there's legislation, but what of concerted efforts?
Which all comes down to the fact that Kyoto is a piece of paper. This isn't like the ban of CFCs, which didn't have the major perceived backlash against implementation that anti-greenhouse gas policies have. No one cares about this piece of paper.
It doesn't help that the US government is manipulating the information of its own researchers to belittle their findings on global warming. And FOX News... don't get me started on them and their trail of misinformation. - ColorsInMyHead, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11So basically no one is following the Kyoto Protocol, but at least the US isn't lieing to the world about it
- omaryak, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17"Kyoto was never going to work. It was only designed to hurt the US economy so the Europeans could do better."
Kyoto set targets to reduce emissions to pre-1990 levels, which is only the first step in fighting global warming. It was never meant to be a complete solution. And it's a false dichotomy to say that we have to choose between the enivronment and the economy – creating new, eco-friendly ways to handle our emissions creates jobs in the science and technology sector that allows us to compensate for jobs lost to China in the manufacturing sector. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11See, here's the problem I have with your philosophy. If you're right, and we "waste time" working to reduce emissions, the results are: a reduction in artificial allergens; a reduction in the incidence of breathing disorders like chronic asthma or bronchitis; a reduction in our influence on natural habitats; a cleaner, more beautiful earth, all around.
If we're right, though, and global warming really is happening at an unnatural and dangerous rate, the results are much more dire: higher sea levels; destruction of habitable land; dangerous temperature fluctuations that change the availability of the global food supply.
At worst, without man made global warming, efforts to curb our output of pollutants cause minor inconvenience to our citizens, in the form of temporarily increased energy prices (which will fall as the tech develops), all while our quality of life improves.
At worst, if man's influence on global warming is real, and nothing is done, our quality of life is worsened, illnesses rise, economies suffer, land is destroyed, crops are lost. LIVES are lost.
How can you tell me it's not pragmatic to err on the side of safety? When every single respected scientist in the field (that is not in the employ of a corporation with a monetary stake in their findings) is telling you that the problem is REAL, how can you roll the dice like that? - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Heaven forbid people should be asked to do their own research, like say, following the links at the end of each article.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12FOR THE SAKE OF OUR CHILDREN WE MUST ACT NOW!!!
We must ban the worst producers of greenhouse gases - volcanoes. - Paal, on 10/12/2007, -7/+14why is this a BUSH THING??? Clinton wouldn't sign Kyoto either...
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Don't be such a coward. Don't be afraid to check the data for yourself. It's available freely on the Net. Don't fear what you don't understand, and don't be content with parroting propaganda from people you don't know who have an interest in keeping you ignorant.
Check the science, not the politics. Human-induced climate change is real and no longer controversial within the expert scientific community.
You can handle it, don't be afraid to look at the facts. - frase, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6What about Australia? Our government has also refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol, and per-capita, we are the heaviest polluters in the world.
It's time for *everyone* to stop shirking responsibility and do their part to help the environment. This isn't about nations and politics, it's about people and planet earth. We all have a responsibility to ensure that we keep our planet healthy for future generations.
t - Buelldozer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7nblsavage,
Why did they bury the part about CONGRESS killing Kyoto? Oh wait, I know...it's a ***** thing. :::eyeroll:::
CLINTON signed it, but according to the Constitution (You know, that paper thingie you guys are always screaming about) only CONGRESS has the power to enact a treaty with a foreign nation. Guess what, CONGRESS refused to ratify the thing.
After years of Kyoto languishing in some dark world between Presidential signature and Congressional approval GW, mercifully, killed it. - nblsavage, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10"why is this a BUSH THING??? Clinton wouldn't sign Kyoto either..."
That is a lie
http://inside.bard.edu/politicalstudies/student/PS260Spring03/kyotocol.htm
The Clinton administation signed Kyoto but the Bush admin withdrew the U.S. signature. - curunir, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6"so any of you douches try swimming in any of the great lakes recently?"
You should have tried it about 30 years ago. It's MUCH better now. Environmental protections do work, and lakes and rivers are much cleaner now than they used to be. - Roppongi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7Pathetically, http://www.globalwarming.org is a hack site for industry related polluters to provide disinformation to the public.
Last year, the National Academy of Science released a joint declaration saying the evidence was sufficiently clear that global warming was for real and that prompt action reducing green house gases is needed. There is no disputing the science, at this point it's just about the political will to change.
If you want some real links try
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change
http://www.stopglobalwarming.org - RadiantBeing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Actually, Al Gore did "sign" the Kyoto Treaty. By sign I mean he put his signature on it as a symbolic gesture after the Senate decided on its own to reject it 95-0. You see, America cannot enter into foreign treaties without the approval of the Senate and not a single Senator, Democrat or Republican, voted for it. So when Gore flew to Kyoto to "sign" the treaty it was just a political show. This way, the Democrats could pander to environmental activists while saving industrial polluters and the jobs they create. Bush did not "withdraw" from Kyoto--we were never in it in the first place! If you believe otherwise, congratulations, you have been played for a fool by a political magic trick and an Orwellian obfuscation on the word "signed."
http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoSenate.html - Llan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Hooray let's cite Junkscience. Why not interview the Exxon boss directly, what his opinion is, because he must know, he's probably better than 2000 scientists combined and of course has no other interests. Let's always just cite one page that is explicitly dedicated to LIE because some money hungry people that would sell their own genitalia for more profit willingly rape our planet. You have to be seriously intellectually challenged to not get the fact that all these pages really ARE junk! They are paid for by stubborn people who refuse to accept science, for whatever crazy reason. Millions of hours of work from scientists, all the same to them, and a lot of people here too. What is so hard to get about the facts that
- 5 seconds of your brain time are not the same as millions of hours of educated scientists
- There are specialists out there that actually know what they are talking about
- The USA is not the world. The UN is not the world, but it at least is a compromise of the opinions of the world. The USA are NOT the UN, and if they act against all other countires, it is not because they are so great and free, it is because they are too stubborn to accept the fact that they are wrong; and that they are the worst country of ALL, again, OF ALL countries, looking from the prespective of a) a poor country or, more importantly, b) our environment
- We are part of our environment. There's not humans on one side, and environment on the other. We are hurting ourselves
- There are other humans we should care about. Everyone of us is guilty, each time he drives his car, showers too long. Not the others, not the politicians, not the scientists. YOU there are guilty of destroying this planet. If you don't care, at least care about the children, they sure are innocent.
- There is not much effort needed. While I'd like to punch everyone who puts economy over environment in the first place, he is wrong to every extend. We now need to invest very little compared to the damages we would face. Oh, sorry, will face. Because even a laughable tiny effort like Kyoto is not really working because of the immense egos and arrogance of most people.
I'm deeply disgusted. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+7For anyone stupid enough to give any credence to anything killinger777 ever posts, ever, have a look at Steven Milloy- the operator of junkscience.com:
"Steven Milloy is a columnist for Fox News and a paid advocate for Phillip Morris, R. J. Reynolds Tobacco Company, and ExxonMobil."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Milloy - gravytop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"The Clinton administation signed Kyoto but the Bush admin withdrew the U.S. signature."
The signature on the treaty is largely symbolic. it was signed, yes, but Clinton never submitted it to the Senate. Until the Senate ratified it, the signature remained largely meaningless. Neither Clinton nor Gore (when in office) did anything of note to push the Kyoto Accord through. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Wow. I link to MIT, Princeton and NASA, and instead of reading them or trying to refute any of the data therein supplied, this retard links to a site with absolutely no credentials, which cites absolutely no empirical scientific data and which tries to substantiate its claims almost entirely by linking to Fox News.
It boggles the ***** mind. - gravytop, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I like this question about whether or not we are obligated to do something about climate change regardless of human contribution to the problem.
That's something I have wondered about. If the earth were getting hotter because of a natural cycle, would humans (a) be obligated to stop it or even (b) have a right to stop it?
If the world gets 10 degrees hotter, many humans may die, as well cold-loving animals and plants. But other things will thrive. Maybe like algae and Kimodo Dragons (for example.)
I'm not kidding when I ask: who's to say that this isn't prefereable? It was once the state of nature, right? - gravytop, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Everyone who is complaining about the evil administration/U.S/dead white males/anyone- but-themselves-group, I hope you guys are taking the bus to work and school and everywhere else instead of driving you sweet ride with the killer sound, otherwise it's all just phony holier-than-thou blahdyblahdyblah. Is this you? Someone confess.
- Llan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"The US didn't sign on because they said it wouldn't work. Now the nations that did sign on are coming to that realization and exempting their individual industries one-by-one."
Oh that's such a sorry excuse. It's always been just a starter, so telling it won't work is just an excuse. Of course it is not enough, and more has to be done, but you'd have to start somewhere, which is not possible because people are afraud about MONEY. Stupid money! It's just money, what's that compared to living. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6If you really want the facts:
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/climate-0316.html
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1998/warming-0415.html
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2003/co2.html
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2002/global.html
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2001/nuclear-0502.html
http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2005/climate-speth.htm
http://www.princeton.edu/president/pages/20061025/index.xmll
[PDF] http://web.mit.edu/jsterman/www/cloudy_skies1.pdf [PDF]
[PDF] http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_fp1.pdf [PDF] - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article358583.ece
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/sci_tech/2001/climate_change/usa.stm - p0ss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4If wikipedia is not sufficiently comprehensive and reliable, please tell me which source you WILL accept information from.
- rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4My family and I have completely changed our lifestyle after AIT (seeing the film, reading the book, and doing my own independent research) to reduce our carbon imprint on the planet. Wasn't all that difficult, actually, since we've never been wasteful. I know many others who are doing the same. What is your point? Even assuming nobody on Digg had done anything, would that make the problem any less severe? Will climate change just go away if we bury our heads in the sand - or will it not matter as long as you can say, "nyah nyah"?
I'm trying to find something constructive in your comment, but I must confess I'm failing utterly to do so. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Ok, I'll demolish you one last time, and then I'm done- you're obviously too stupid to read. Hey, there's even one from Fox in here:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,200590,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,1804014,00.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0324/p01s03-sten.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4467420.stm
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/article312997.ece
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/
http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news-print.cfm?release=2005-176
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/permafrost.shtml
http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/sio-mlo.htm
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/pollack.html
http://nsidc.org/sotc/glacier_balance.html
http://nsidc.org/news/press/20050928_trendscontinue.html - adminsr, on 10/12/2007, -4/+7>so any of you douches try swimming in any of the great lakes recently?
Actually, yes. I live a quarter mile from Lake Michigan and spend most of my summer there. It also happens that I (Scuba) dive there, off the south St. Joe pier, mostly, and the water hasn't been so clear for decades. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Also see:
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
http://gcmd.gsfc.nasa.gov/Resources/FAQs/glob_warmfaq.html
http://www.nasa.gov/worldbook/global_warming_worldbook.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/ - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Bush is in power now, so it's his job to make the right decision. Thus, he's the one we rag on for not signing us up to do our part.
Not that it would matter. If he signed it he'd probably just game the system like all of the other major players. Kyoto is a PR campaign, designed to make the signers look good. - dustyshadow, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://visibleearth.nasa.gov/view_rec.php?id=4592
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17039 - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Of course, steel can be made in cleaner, less-polluting factories - and is, today, because of environmental laws, not because of voluntary corporate goodwill. And, it could be manufactured (or superior alternatives found) in far cleaner, less polluting factories, if we promoted the use of cleaner, renewable fuels.
Computers are damned essential, yet Intel and other chip manufacturers have switched from a highly toxic wash for the circuit boards - which not only severely polluted our water sources but made workers sick - to a non-toxic solution based on citrus oil.
Your intent may be good, but your logic is flawed. The ends don't justify the means - particularly when there are better means.
You should check out the research on the economic benefits of green practices and technology, either from Gore's sources or the very recent (as in yesterday) report from the UK. Keeping the planet hospitable to human life happens to also be highly beneficial to capitalist markets. It is not an either-or choice. - volscio, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If you have access to Foreign Affairs' past issues, they have some great articles that are well-balanced on the Kyoto Protocol.
- dracostimpy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I'm sure we aren't helping things any, but I don't think humanity is the predominant factor in global warming. Yes, it would be wise to limit our contribution to global warming, but perhaps some money is more well spent adapting to it rather than trying to prevent/reverse global warming. I'm all for using common sense to find easy solutions, such as promoting mass transit or already existing technologies that have been suppressed like electric cars, but let's not spend ourselves into ruination to fix a problem that quite possibly can't be fixed.
- Cylus, on 10/12/2007, -6/+8Hmm. I wish we had more accurate and extensive data on how temperatures have trended. There are times I doubt the science behind climate change, but then, I'm wary of politically motivated alarmism. There are people who have much to gain by making it "their issue."
I'm not entirely sure what to think. Anyone have some good links on climate change theory - who's for and against? - Llan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"If wikipedia is not sufficiently comprehensive and reliable, please tell me which source you WILL accept information from."
He probably won't believe anything Exxon hasn't faked themselves. - p0ss, on 10/12/2007, -8/+10Global Warming IS real
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming
the VAST majority of scientists agree
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
We MIGHT be able to reduce the impact
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitigation_of_global_warming
Either way we WILL have to live with the effects
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation_to_global_warming
any disputation of these assertions should be regarded as erroneous and spurious. - Burritovision, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Kyoto is good and better than a world without. If America had signed Kyoto and worked to upgrade our technology and replace our old systems and control pollution, we'd be in better shape today and in the future. ++
- SPNKrPunk, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Glad to see the US is #1 in yet another category!
- p0ss, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2All right, time for a change of tack.
In the spirit of friendly debate, i will for a moment accept your point of view.
Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that humanity is not significantly contributing to global warming, and that it is in fact a natural phenomenon, How then can we hope to cope with the climate change we are experiencing?
Our society is ill equipped to cope with a global temperature rise of even 1 degree, surely we must future proof ourselves against this "natural" temperature rise?
Does it matter what the cause is?
It is getting hotter, do we do nothing? - rationalist, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3So, your idea of the "real world" is one where you can avoid the consequences of climate change by "sucking it up" and finding a "safe corner" to cry in? Explain the science behind that marvel.
- FushBuck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Kyoto isn't failing to cool the planet; countries who are unable or unwilling to adhere to Kyoto are failing the planet.
http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=ABOUT_main_page
The National Academy of Science
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science/skeptic-organizations.html
Union of Concerned Scientists
http://www.cfact-europe.org/resolutions_1.html
Their resolution
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/print/0,,329579929-121568,00.html
How to Spot a Shill for Big Oil
The debate is over, try that crap somewhere else. - grizwald, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3my point is simple, China is going to industrialize. It is a fact. They are well on their way already. They are going to make what the entire world combined produces look like chump change in about 5-10 years.
So .. unless you are prepared to go to war with them to force them to stop, I fail to see the alternative than 'sucking it up'.
You can wish for all you want, but sometimes you have to face reality.
edit: you already made a fool of yourself above in regards to the Kyoto Protocol and how Clinton 'signed it', and Bush pulled us out of it .. so you might as well quit while you are ahead :p - conna, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Let the polar caps melt. That will make getting to the oil easier..
- grizwald, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4"The Clinton administation signed Kyoto but the Bush admin withdrew the U.S. signature."
HAHA .. looks like you are a very informed citizen. Good thing you pay real close attention. Clinton simply 'supported' what they were trying to do. The USA has NEVER been a member of the Kyoto Protocol .. I beg you to read a little closer.
Maybe you will start to ask yourself what other BS you believe so easily.
Clinton sent Gore to Kyoto to 'support' the plan ... but let everyone know how we could not 'really' support it. This is the kind of ***** that makes me sick. Because I guarantee 100 people are going to digg this down, and reply saying I am wrong, when all you have to do is actually READ the very crap you post as evidence supporting your position.
The very kind of people you guys dispise, are the ones you support... pretty sad.
- Zique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Kyoto isn't meant to be a complete solution, it's meant to be a start. Its only job is to reduce emissions with economical tools, and it does exactly that. Still, the concept of giving up some economy to cut the pollution levels seems incomprehensible for majority Americans. What are they waiting for, some technological wonder to come and save the day? I know it's a bit of an exaggeration, but the American mindset seems to be that if it isn't a complete solution, it isn't worth anything.
- spyk3d, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Lots of evidence for natural climate change
No evidence for man made climate change
CO2 rise does not cause warming, it follows it
The Earth's normal temperature is circa 12C higher than today
Earth without ice caps is normal
Much higher sea levels are normal
The current warming is predicted to continue up to 2012 and then decline
Circa 2030 is going to be very cold. - Pharaoh777, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm
Kyoto is a moronic plan to begin with. Let's try technology instead of restrictions. -
Show 51 - 100 of 109 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is