The EU is not a country.

If you are going to make comparisons, it only makes sense to compare the EU to another economic trading region, like NAFTA. The fact is that Canada provides the US with great amounts of energy and its emissions have gone up as a result.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

Im just pointing out that this is a global problem with global consequences. Pointing fingers is not really going to get us anywhere. The fact is that the developed nations are the biggest emitters, and we are setting the example for the developing nations. Any equitable deal between nations that seeks to limit our impact on the climate system has to allow for the developing nations to increase their per capita emissions while people in the developed nations decrease their per capita emissions. That has to be the deal.

Of course people are too stupid, jingoistic, and selfish for this to ever become a reality so i just think we should dismantle the entire project and start over.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

well i say all you people who are so concerned with this

including gore and all the scientist

sell your fucking cars ....start walking ...ride bikes .....and lead by example

People have been doing that for 30-40 years and it has not made a difference. The problem is big enough that it requires a top-down solution.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

Can't Canada say no to the US? Accept some responsibility. The EU can accept responsibility, too. Contrary to popular opinion, the US is not alone in significant greenhouse gas emissions. And contrary to popular opinion, the US has a policy. We don't like Kyoto and until something new comes along, we won't sign it, regardless of which party is in control.

Alright ...I accept that point...and agree with your second paragraph re: selfish etc...yes we are selfish but we are far from alone...my objection is the browbeating and accountability many want to hold us to, while others leave the picture and say stuff it as well....equal opportunity bashing is all I ask.........

__________________

"The captain has turned off the `No Dubbing' sign. You are free to speak any language you choose."

perhaps next time you should read the OP before responding.

I am sure that if you google the scientists on the declaration you will find what their research background is.

I suspect that they may be far better able to understand the implications of climate change than you are.

If you look at something like this:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/629/629/7137123.stm perhaps you might understand why many nations take a common view of 'you first'.

for example, the Chinese mother and son:

Would YOU like to live in a one bedroom apartment with your adult child, and share a kitchen with 11 others?

Do you think many Americans would accept this?

I think its really important that China does cut emissions, but I also think that if we look at our own carbon footprints, we need to fix what we are doing first. We need to invest money in new technologies and make them available to these nations.

Google came up with Dr. Chris Landsea. This is what he had to say.

So what do you think about that?

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

[QUOTE]

Landsea was not a signatory, his criticism stems from the IPCC's keeping Trenberth on in a leadership role after his speaking to the media re Landsea's work. which is not the topic of this thread.

However, Landsea's position is understandable, and probably quite valid. The IPCC's work is too important to make itself vulnerable to a loss of credibility due to inappropriate comments being made to the media.

WRT the content of what was allegedly said I believe that the issue re hurricanes/cyclones and GW is not clearly known, so it was inappropriate for Trenberth to present information in the way it is claimed he did.

Trenberth has also been in trouble due to media interpretation of what he has said elsewhere: Harming climate change battle | The Courier-Mail

Both these media incidences may indicate that Trenberth is not a suitable spokesperson, however his running off at the mouth doesn't necessarily reflect on the work of the IPCC as a whole, unless you choose to interpret it that way.


BTW Hairbaall - you asked who the scientists were. I provided you with the details.

Why don't you stay on topic and look at those scientists?

As you are probably too lazy to go back and look at the link - I'll post it again: Bali Declaration

NASA's Cosmicopia -- Ask Us -- Space Weather

- Kramer

__________________
“We should never be more vigilant than at the moment a new dogma is being installed. … The left has been swept along, entranced by the allure of weather as revolutionary agent, naïvely conceiving of global warming as a crisis that will force radical social changes on capitalism.”

TheNation, June 7, 2007

Obviously, I saw it the first time. In what way do you think that link is relevant?

Why post it again? What is your point?

He did it. I saw him do it. There is no doubt about that. That is why Landsea told IPCC to fuck off. obviously IPCC lies shocked his conscious, so he blew the whistle on them.

What do you think Trenberth's motivation was for doing that inappropriate act??

__________________
... ..................
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

No we can't. It is illegal for Canada not to export our resources to the US. This is essentially what NAFTA is all about.

I agree that kyoto sucks, but probably for entirely different reasons than some americans might.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

Thats fair. I too wish all nations could get on the same page on this issue, without any pettiness. That is probably asking too much though.

Andrew

__________________
“...corporations and those who run them cannot stop exploiting resources and amassing wealth until they have... .I cannot finish this sentence, because the truth is that can never stop; like cancer, they can only continue to expand until they kill the host.”

-- Derrick Jensen

Read. the. article. in. the. O. P.

especially. this. bit.

now. look. at. the. Bali. declaration. here.

Bali Declaration

these. are. the. scientists. you. asked. about.

it doesn't seem to be a general thing about the IPCC - just about Trenberth not being suitable for a leadership role.

Landsea doesn't at any point indicate that he doesn't think GW is an issue from what I have seen. He just doesn't like facts being distorted to feed the media.

And fair enough too. Especially when its HIS research that is being misrepresented. It is a stain on his professional integrity.

who knows. big noting himself, being a dickhead ... whatever. People do stupid things like that all the time. Once can be forgiven - but when you do it twice it looks like you've got a pattern.

which reminds me - can you cut the expletives?

I don't see how that enhances your argument.