The Song Fight Bulletin Board

Thankfully the new Australian government is taking steps to shake off the international pariah tag we have worn for the last 11 years.

On the same day the the new government was sworn in - they honoured an election promise and signed documents to officially ratify the Kyoto Protocol.

The USA is now the only rogue developed nation left. Even the lickspittles have deserted. Australians may still be per capita, the most polluting people on earth - but at least we are now committing to legally binding reduction targets

Is it likely that any new US government elected next year will take climate change seriously? Or will it just be more business as usual and wars for oil?

Or will it just be more business as usual and wars for oil?

We must preserve the American way of life. Killing for our comfort then discarding the broken warriors to the curb. There is no such thing as too much corporate profit.

I don't know what you're talking about. I always travel coach. And pack my own lunch.

Too much at stake. I'm convinced our government will keep pouring resources into the region in order to keep resources pouring out of the region and into ours.

It may be futile, but I think that has to be the plan. Remembering that not only does oil fuel the American way of living, it also fuels the military itself. I think it's an all out effort to win supremacy for oil purchase/control. If we can't TAKE it, we at least need to be able to bully them into making us a priority in sale.

I do not support this effort. Bring the boys back home and lets figure out another way. And for the love of god U.S. Government, stop lying about it and just tell us. Its pretty thinly veiled at this point anyways. You might as well put up the numbers and explain your actions based on math. It would be better than all the deception. The math at least makes sense.

Caravan Ray wrote:Is it likely that any new US government elected next year will take climate change seriously? Or will it just be more business as usual and wars for oil?

"This guy is so far out in the environmental extreme, we'll be up to our neck in owls and outta work for every American. He is way out, far out, man."

...I've always loved the image of being up to our necks in owls. That sounds so cozy!

Paco Del Stinko wrote:Killing for our comfort then discarding the broken warriors to the curb.

Indeed. The curb's too good for 'em, says the Army.

jimtyrrell wrote:

Paco Del Stinko wrote:Killing for our comfort then discarding the broken warriors to the curb.

Indeed. The curb's too good for 'em, says the Army.

That article made me sick to my stomach.

Hmmm...I shouldn't have metioned the war - it seems to have sidetracked people

The question I was really seeking a response to was:

Caravan Ray wrote:Is it likely that any new US government elected next year will take climate change seriously?

from my brief perusal of US newspapers over the last few days, it appears that the Bali Conference currently going on is receiving virtually no press in the USA at all. Is there really such a lack of interest over there? Is ratification of the Kyoto Protocol likely to be a major election issue over there as it was here?

Caravan Ray wrote:Hmmm...I shouldn't have metioned the war - it seems to have sidetracked people

The question I was really seeking a response to was:

Caravan Ray wrote:Is it likely that any new US government elected next year will take climate change seriously?

from my brief perusal of US newspapers over the last few days, it appears that the Bali Conference currently going on is receiving virtually no press in the USA at all. Is there really such a lack of interest over there?

http://tampa.creativeloafing.com/gyroba ... d%3A342394

I read that a week or so ago and thats why I brought up the war.

What is this Bali Conference you speak of?

But seriously, it's tough to know what the change of power in the next election will bring. There's the possibility of our government coming to its senses on this, at least. George W. Bush has had eight years in office to learn to say the word 'nuclear' correctly; if he's not going to make even the small concessions toward reality, then I don't expect him to shift much regarding the bigger stuff.

Sorry, there I go joking about this again. It's what keeps me from getting really depressed.

Hoblit wrote:
http://tampa.creativeloafing.com/gyroba ... d%3A342394

I read that a week or so ago and thats why I brought up the war.

First, I think it would be nice to live in a country where politicians say, "Sorry about that, but I was really drunk," and the electorate says, "No worries, mate."
Heh! Rudd's popularity went up when we heard he was hanging out in strip clubs. It made him seem less of a dork. But his excuse of "I don't remember, I was drunk", just made him seem like a dork again

jimtyrrell wrote:What is this Bali Conference you speak of?

But seriously, it's tough to know what the change of power in the next election will bring. There's the possibility of our government coming to its senses on this, at least. George W. Bush has had eight years in office to learn to say the word 'nuclear' correctly; if he's not going to make even the small concessions toward reality, then I don't expect him to shift much regarding the bigger stuff.

Sorry, there I go joking about this again. It's what keeps me from getting really depressed.

Is ratification of the Kyoto Protocol likely to be a major election issue over there as it was here?

Only if the Democratic candidate(s) see Republican opposition to the Protocol as an opportunity for leverage, basically. But to be honest, I'm basing that more on cynicism than insight.

Caravan Ray wrote:

jimtyrrell wrote:

Is ratification of the Kyoto Protocol likely to be a major election issue over there as it was here?

The short answer is "no."

Should it be a major election issue?

Yes. (At least in the democratic primary!) This is really an embarrassment, folks.

I restate my previous assertion that I would be absolutely delighted to be up to my neck in spotted owls.

On an un/semi-related side note -- the infamous spotted owls of the PNW are now facing yet another foe in addition to the loggers -- Barred owls! Eek!

anti-m wrote: I restate my previous assertion that I would be absolutely delighted to be up to my neck in spotted owls.
!

are you sure?

Caravan Ray wrote:

anti-m wrote: I restate my previous assertion that I would be absolutely delighted to be up to my neck in spotted owls.
!

are you sure?

Hmmmm.... maybe talon-side-out.

anti-m wrote:

Caravan Ray wrote:

jimtyrrell wrote:

Is ratification of the Kyoto Protocol likely to be a major election issue over there as it was here?

The short answer is "no."

Then your Pacific Northwest should get ready for boatloads of Australian refugees in the future. I hear you guys have some of that stuff....what do you call it again.....rain?

Bah to Kyoto.

Its just the begining of the steps to create a one world government.

I oppose this, and everything to do with it.

Climate change is just being used as the frightner on this issue

Why are other celestial bodies suffering with climate change?
Cos its related to the sun and we, whether with Kyoto and a NWO or without are not going to change things.

Bah to Kyoto and to Austrailians and their new government for getting involved in this evil enterprise.

Ahhh Messiah, you lovable old anarchist, you!

Me$$iah wrote:Bah to Kyoto.
Its just the begining of the steps to create a one world government.

I oppose this, and everything to do with it.

errr...I don't think it is - but why would a "one world government" be such a bad thing anyway? Sound's like a pretty good idea to me, get rid of all the petty provincial tyrants - bring it on.

Issues such as climate change, poverty and population pressure are global issues. They need global solutions. This is why until the USA commits to a process like Kyoto - such processes will remain ineffective

Me$$iah wrote: Why are other celestial bodies suffering with climate change?
Cos its related to the sun and we, whether with Kyoto and a NWO or without are not going to change things.

Not sure what you're trying to get at there - but I suspect you are either confusing climate forcing factors which occur over geological time scales with short-term factors such as anthropogenic CO2 emissions, or you are trying to compare planets that have very different atmospheres.

If you have any specific questions, I would be happy to answer them for you.

I probly so dont want to get into this......
but....

do ya think that the climate change we are currently seeing is a result of humanity destroying the environment?

Do you find the idea of a global solution the problem of over poulation a slightly scary thought?


thanks

Me$$iah wrote:do ya think that the climate change we are currently seeing is a result of humanity destroying the environment?

The theory that anthropogenic CO2 emissions will impact upon global climate has undergone extensive modelling over the past 20 or 30 years.
In recent years, there has been an ever increasing body of empirical climate data which is showing a strong correlation with the models.

Are anthropogenic CO2 emissions the major cause of the changes in climate currently being experienced? Maybe
Will anthropogenic CO2 emissions the impact significantly on climate in the future? Almost certainly.
There are many factors which influence global climate. But most climate modelling currently being produced consistantly shows that the cumulative effect of anthropogenic emissions will have significant impact in a relatively short period of time.

Take eastern Australia for example. We are just emerging from the most severe drought in recorded history. Is that proof of anthropogenic climate change? No, it isn't. We know that droughts are cyclical here and are mainly driven by the El Nino Southern Oscillation phenomena. But, most modelling that has been carried out to predict potential impacts of global warming has predicted that the El Nino phase droughts in eastern Australia will become more severe, and that the La Nina wet periods will decline. Actual climate data is starting to match the models in a very scary way.

Me$$iah wrote: Do you find the idea of a global solution the problem of over poulation a slightly scary thought?

I don't necessarily think there is an global overpopulation problem. There is a problem of overexploitation of resources. If anything, there is an overpopulation of Australasians, North Americans and Western Europeans - they are the ones using more than their fair share.

But overpopulation in the developing world is generally related to poverty. Most of the causes of poverty are global and should be addressed with global solutions.

Ok I understand what your saying about the co2, and I agree that if this is a problem then something should be done.
However, the idea that trading carbon amongst nations to solve this isnt going to work. It just seems kinda silly to me.
I further this by saying the whole joy of climate change (from a governmental point of view) is that it is a great way to cause fear among the people and thus make them easier to do. Just like the 'war on terror' this is another way for 'them' to assume more control over everyines lives.

I think that this is proven by some simple logic. In the UK everyone knows that recycling paper is good, so most (maybe??) people do. I mean ya gotta do your bit, right. This paper is then driven in big trucks to a bailing plant, where its turned into big bales od paper, this is the reloaded back onto the trucks and driven from all over the country to one port on the south coast. Some of this paper is then sent off to be made into new paper, the rest is loaded onto a ship, and shipped all the way to China.
Guess what the Chinese do with it... yup thats right, they burn it in power stations to make electricity. Great.

Meanwhile, everyone thinks they are doing good, we all feel better.

But this is very bad for the environment, the best thing to do is not to recycle paper, but in fact to waste it. Are we told this, no.
Why is it better to waste paper, fool? I hear you ask.

well..... where does paper come from?
trees.
What kind of trees?
nealry all the worlds paper is made from pine trees grown is huge farms specifically for the purpose
What do trees do?
They turn co2 into oxygen
So by wasting paper, the demand for more new paper goes up. the more new paper is needed, the more trees there will have to be grown in these tree farms.
The more younger, growing trees there are the less co2 there is.

Does that make sense, yet day in day out, recycle your paper its good for everyone...
Theres plenty more, but thats an intersting starter, I think
So as I say if it really is a problem then somthing should be done, what I see is a deliberate effort to do the wrong thing, this I find intreguing, and the efforts to silence any critics is remarkable, many scientists named by the UN as authors of repots, have specifically aske to have their names removed, because they didnt agree with the conclusions. The UN said no and released the documents with the acreditation going to the many 'disillusioned' scientists
To put it simply this.Its all about control.




And just as I was about to post this, I found THIS ARTICLE which I found maybe interesting.

So, is recycling papaer and trading carbon really going to fix the world. I think not.