Will America Take This as a Warning??
01 September 2005, 01:14 PM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Will America Take This as a Warning??
Hurricane Katrina ................ natural disaster, but - could so easily have been caused by climate change!!
The USA has decided NOT to sign the Kyoto Agreement and have opted to use the worlds resources at whatever rate it chooses .................... sod the world and climate!!
Will this serve as a warning or will they just merely continue on their path of waste and greed??
Pete
The USA has decided NOT to sign the Kyoto Agreement and have opted to use the worlds resources at whatever rate it chooses .................... sod the world and climate!!
Will this serve as a warning or will they just merely continue on their path of waste and greed??
Pete
(well wont change is more accurate).
Trending Topics
01 September 2005, 01:32 PM
#9
BANNED
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Jasey@Work
Posts: 2,507
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Scooby-Doo
It was an act of God. Maybe God is telling them something.
01 September 2005, 01:36 PM
#10
Originally Posted by Reality
TBH that's probably our best hope that Bush will make a connection / start thinking climate change is actually a threat
01 September 2005, 01:43 PM
#12
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: North Wales
Posts: 5,826
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't see that this has anything to do with climate change. They have had terrible hurricanes before (1960 in Texas for instance), and not all hurricanes are this severe.
However, no, even if a link was proved, they wouldn't change. It's a restriction of their liberties, goddarn it!
Geezer
However, no, even if a link was proved, they wouldn't change. It's a restriction of their liberties, goddarn it!
Geezer
01 September 2005, 02:01 PM
#15
BANNED
Join Date: May 2002
Location: scotland home of the brave
Posts: 13,927
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pslewis
Hurricane Katrina ................ natural disaster, but - could so easily have been caused by climate change!!
The USA has decided NOT to sign the Kyoto Agreement and have opted to use the worlds resources at whatever rate it chooses .................... sod the world and climate!!
Will this serve as a warning or will they just merely continue on their path of waste and greed??
Pete
The USA has decided NOT to sign the Kyoto Agreement and have opted to use the worlds resources at whatever rate it chooses .................... sod the world and climate!!
Will this serve as a warning or will they just merely continue on their path of waste and greed??
Pete
before this happened pete, richard the corrupt boucher the new un ambassador said the usa needs 500 amendments in the un during the 60th anniversary agreement one of them was kyoto
and look what happens afterwards
i feel so bad for the poor people and i cant believe instead of helping each other the c;unts r shooting around and looting their fellow human beings
01 September 2005, 02:24 PM
#17
Scooby Regular
Some people in this world are just idiots - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4205074.stm
Stefan
Stefan
01 September 2005, 02:28 PM
#18
Thing is...people go about the yanks and their emissions...BUT
They were one of the first countries to fit catalytic converters to their cars...almost 25years BEFORE the UK and most of europe followed.
They were one of the first to use Unleaded fuel and stop selling Leaded fuel (again, decades before the UK ).
They had smog tests before the UK had emissions tests.
Obviously what this means, that since the seventies, american cars...as big gas guzzlers they were, ran on unleaded and had emssions equipment (such as catalytic converters, closed loop fueling systems, Exhaust Gas recycling etc) well before UK and Europe. One of the partial reasons for their low speedlimits was in the interest of reducing fuel consumption (brought on by the oil crisis).
I also believe the US was one the first countries to levy noise emissions regulations at certain airports (although that one is open to mass debate, as it belive it was state enforced law). (noise is pollution ).
Also California - one of the strictest states on pollution has their "Zero emissions program" (ZEV) for vehicles...where by it intention was to have 10% of cars within that state to procuse absolutley zero emssions....quite some feat. Ok, things didn't turn out as they planned....but what were UK and Europe doing about the same problem in 1990?....Non of the UK's cars had catalytic converters, Leaded fuel was still on sale, and most cars had inferior old tech emssions control systems (tamperp-proofed carb with an auto choke ).
So based on that I think we should give them a break...while we were sat on our ***** they were doing something...now we've hopped on teh bandwagon they are suddenly accused of doing nothing, when it couldn't be further from the truth. The refusal to sign the Kyoto aggrement is purely political in the interests of maintaining control on the US economy if such a situation arises.
They were one of the first countries to fit catalytic converters to their cars...almost 25years BEFORE the UK and most of europe followed.
They were one of the first to use Unleaded fuel and stop selling Leaded fuel (again, decades before the UK ).
They had smog tests before the UK had emissions tests.
Obviously what this means, that since the seventies, american cars...as big gas guzzlers they were, ran on unleaded and had emssions equipment (such as catalytic converters, closed loop fueling systems, Exhaust Gas recycling etc) well before UK and Europe. One of the partial reasons for their low speedlimits was in the interest of reducing fuel consumption (brought on by the oil crisis).
I also believe the US was one the first countries to levy noise emissions regulations at certain airports (although that one is open to mass debate, as it belive it was state enforced law). (noise is pollution
).Also California - one of the strictest states on pollution has their "Zero emissions program" (ZEV) for vehicles...where by it intention was to have 10% of cars within that state to procuse absolutley zero emssions....quite some feat. Ok, things didn't turn out as they planned....but what were UK and Europe doing about the same problem in 1990?....Non of the UK's cars had catalytic converters, Leaded fuel was still on sale, and most cars had inferior old tech emssions control systems (tamperp-proofed carb with an auto choke
).So based on that I think we should give them a break...while we were sat on our ***** they were doing something...now we've hopped on teh bandwagon they are suddenly accused of doing nothing, when it couldn't be further from the truth. The refusal to sign the Kyoto aggrement is purely political in the interests of maintaining control on the US economy if such a situation arises.
01 September 2005, 05:06 PM
#20
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pslewis
Hurricane Katrina ................ natural disaster, but - could so easily have been caused by climate change!!
The USA has decided NOT to sign the Kyoto Agreement and have opted to use the worlds resources at whatever rate it chooses .................... sod the world and climate!!
Will this serve as a warning or will they just merely continue on their path of waste and greed??
Pete
The USA has decided NOT to sign the Kyoto Agreement and have opted to use the worlds resources at whatever rate it chooses .................... sod the world and climate!!
Will this serve as a warning or will they just merely continue on their path of waste and greed??
Pete
sorry: i thought hurricanes and other catastrophic weather phenomenons like tsunamis, flash floods, tornadoes, waterspouts and whirlpools that swallow ships whole had been with us since the evolution of the planet's oceans and atmosphere?
no, it's a natural disaster but bush & the bad old US of A is still to blame!
what about the humongous hurricane that devastated galveston, texas and killed 6,000 people in 1900?
or the catastrophic eastern caribbean hurricane of 1780 that killed an estimated 20,000? pre-industrial revolution - what an achievement by a nation only four years old.
what about hurricane janet that wrecked grenada from end-to-end in 1955?
come on, get some perspective lewis: really hairy weather has always been with us. hurricane's have always been destructive when they make landfall and some are naturally bigger than others.
not everything mother earth throws at us is down to global warming and the non-ratification of kyoto. like your tabloid style though ... you should be writing for the daily mirror.
01 September 2005, 05:46 PM
#22
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Originally Posted by Holy Ghost
come on, get some perspective lewis: really hairy weather has always been with us. hurricane's have always been destructive when they make landfall and some are naturally bigger than others.
not everything mother earth throws at us is down to global warming and the non-ratification of kyoto.
not everything mother earth throws at us is down to global warming and the non-ratification of kyoto.
The first post reads, "Hurricane Katrina ................ natural disaster, but - could so easily have been caused by climate change"
I did NOT state it WAS due to climate change ......... but something like the disaster we are witnessing COULD have been!!
Pete
01 September 2005, 05:51 PM
#24
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
http://www.davecov.com/comedy/daasnz/clivedunn.htm
just found this long-lost picture of lewis - he started playing corporal jones aged 48 in 1968. today that makes him ... wow, 85!
just found this long-lost picture of lewis - he started playing corporal jones aged 48 in 1968. today that makes him ... wow, 85!
01 September 2005, 05:53 PM
#25
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by pslewis
Will you EVER read my posts properly???
The first post reads, "Hurricane Katrina ................ natural disaster, but - could so easily have been caused by climate change"
I did NOT state it WAS due to climate change ......... but something like the disaster we are witnessing COULD have been!!
Pete
The first post reads, "Hurricane Katrina ................ natural disaster, but - could so easily have been caused by climate change"
I did NOT state it WAS due to climate change ......... but something like the disaster we are witnessing COULD have been!!
Pete
DON'T PANIC!!
could so easily - but almost certainly wasn't.
i could so easily have played cricket for england - if i'd had any talent.
i love your stroppy use of caps. cracks me up everytime.
01 September 2005, 05:57 PM
#26
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
01 September 2005, 06:01 PM
#27
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: No longer Japan !
Posts: 1,742
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The US is far more likely to reduce fuel consumption because of strategic reasons (i.e. reduce dependence on middle east oil) than for overtly environmental reasons. There are lots of very committed environmentalists in the US and California has been at the forefront of emissions regulations bar none. But as a country it doesn't come so high on the agenda.
The link between any one naturally occuring event and global warming is simply not tenable anyway. A whole series of events which form a trend and fall outside the bounds of normal statistical variation, that would provide evidence. most scientists are in agreement that global warming is taking place. However there is less agreement about the rate of warming and to what degree humankind is having an effect.
The link between any one naturally occuring event and global warming is simply not tenable anyway. A whole series of events which form a trend and fall outside the bounds of normal statistical variation, that would provide evidence. most scientists are in agreement that global warming is taking place. However there is less agreement about the rate of warming and to what degree humankind is having an effect.
01 September 2005, 06:05 PM
#28
Regardless of whether they caused a natrual disaster or not, perhaps we could tell them this so they stop hammering resources as they have been doing.
I think an increase in their fuel prices to UK levels would be a start, might convince a few to downsize a little.
I think an increase in their fuel prices to UK levels would be a start, might convince a few to downsize a little.
01 September 2005, 06:13 PM
#29
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 1,615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Brit_in_Japan
The US is far more likely to reduce fuel consumption because of strategic reasons (i.e. reduce dependence on middle east oil) than for overtly environmental reasons. There are lots of very committed environmentalists in the US and California has been at the forefront of emissions regulations bar none. But as a country it doesn't come so high on the agenda.
The link between any one naturally occuring event and global warming is simply not tenable anyway. A whole series of events which form a trend and fall outside the bounds of normal statistical variation, that would provide evidence. most scientists are in agreement that global warming is taking place. However there is less agreement about the rate of warming and to what degree humankind is having an effect.
The link between any one naturally occuring event and global warming is simply not tenable anyway. A whole series of events which form a trend and fall outside the bounds of normal statistical variation, that would provide evidence. most scientists are in agreement that global warming is taking place. However there is less agreement about the rate of warming and to what degree humankind is having an effect.
nicely put ....................... but in lewis-land - like MAYBE finding liz hurley in your christmas STOCKING - it COULD be tenable ................... and that's ALL that COUNTS!
01 September 2005, 06:21 PM
#30
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Croydon (ish)
Posts: 1,887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by ALi-B
Thing is...people go about the yanks and their emissions...BUT
They were one of the first countries to fit catalytic converters to their cars...almost 25years BEFORE the UK and most of europe followed.
They were one of the first to use Unleaded fuel and stop selling Leaded fuel (again, decades before the UK ).
They had smog tests before the UK had emissions tests.
Obviously what this means, that since the seventies, american cars...as big gas guzzlers they were, ran on unleaded and had emssions equipment (such as catalytic converters, closed loop fueling systems, Exhaust Gas recycling etc) well before UK and Europe. One of the partial reasons for their low speedlimits was in the interest of reducing fuel consumption (brought on by the oil crisis).
I also believe the US was one the first countries to levy noise emissions regulations at certain airports (although that one is open to mass debate, as it belive it was state enforced law). (noise is pollution ).
Also California - one of the strictest states on pollution has their "Zero emissions program" (ZEV) for vehicles...where by it intention was to have 10% of cars within that state to procuse absolutley zero emssions....quite some feat. Ok, things didn't turn out as they planned....but what were UK and Europe doing about the same problem in 1990?....Non of the UK's cars had catalytic converters, Leaded fuel was still on sale, and most cars had inferior old tech emssions control systems (tamperp-proofed carb with an auto choke ).
So based on that I think we should give them a break...while we were sat on our ***** they were doing something...now we've hopped on teh bandwagon they are suddenly accused of doing nothing, when it couldn't be further from the truth. The refusal to sign the Kyoto aggrement is purely political in the interests of maintaining control on the US economy if such a situation arises.
They were one of the first countries to fit catalytic converters to their cars...almost 25years BEFORE the UK and most of europe followed.
They were one of the first to use Unleaded fuel and stop selling Leaded fuel (again, decades before the UK ).
They had smog tests before the UK had emissions tests.
Obviously what this means, that since the seventies, american cars...as big gas guzzlers they were, ran on unleaded and had emssions equipment (such as catalytic converters, closed loop fueling systems, Exhaust Gas recycling etc) well before UK and Europe. One of the partial reasons for their low speedlimits was in the interest of reducing fuel consumption (brought on by the oil crisis).
I also believe the US was one the first countries to levy noise emissions regulations at certain airports (although that one is open to mass debate, as it belive it was state enforced law). (noise is pollution
).Also California - one of the strictest states on pollution has their "Zero emissions program" (ZEV) for vehicles...where by it intention was to have 10% of cars within that state to procuse absolutley zero emssions....quite some feat. Ok, things didn't turn out as they planned....but what were UK and Europe doing about the same problem in 1990?....Non of the UK's cars had catalytic converters, Leaded fuel was still on sale, and most cars had inferior old tech emssions control systems (tamperp-proofed carb with an auto choke
).So based on that I think we should give them a break...while we were sat on our ***** they were doing something...now we've hopped on teh bandwagon they are suddenly accused of doing nothing, when it couldn't be further from the truth. The refusal to sign the Kyoto aggrement is purely political in the interests of maintaining control on the US economy if such a situation arises.
Im actually very surprised at the mess they've got themselves into in Louisiana. They knew the storm was coming, they announced an evacuation. But the aftermath / clean up seems seriously disorganised for a Superpower.