The G8 and the environment - DPChallenge Forums

06/23/2005 06:30:53 PM · #76

Originally posted by "ronbeam":

The government and the people are not separate, but are one. At least that was the foundational principle of America.

And the more patriotic, the more truly the American feels this...even when he may disagree with his nation's decisions.

Originally posted by "ronbeam":

The time is nearly right for a third party to rise in America

Neigh..rather the time has come to do away with parties and let each individual stand on his or her own merits and viewpoints. America got too big for such knowledge to be conveyed easily and hence parties were formed. But now with the internet growing in usage and soon with it being 90%+ such an individual platform can be feasibly delivered. I would love to see a no party USA and vote for each man by his merits.

Originally posted by "Riponlady":

that is because we all care about the same thing in the end - helping this world

Then let me assure you that is the intentions of most Americans (at least the non-apathetic ones I won't vouch for the couch potatoes ;) and in truth, as much disagreement as there is between the left and the right in politics within the U.S. both have a desire for doing what is best foremost for America but also the world. Because we are a part of the world as well.

[quote]Yes we do tend to prefer talking before we act - but then again you've got to admit (but perhaps you don't) that the US does tend to rush in a bit gung ho![/quote]
Yes...us Americans have always been brash....Britain has been both benefited and probably near damned by the existance of a very establish beaucratic system. (Toast to the Brits and a toast to Douglas Adams.)

America could never stand by and watch a tyrant like Hitler come to world power without our guts being wrenched. In truth, I believe one of our biggest mistakes in the past has been dealing with dictorial states. And I truly believe 9-11 is a consequence of that compromise. We did it cause we faced a power that was tyrannical and our equal in strength. We were afraid. And to the world, I apologize for our cowardice. Would you believe me if I told you I have cried over this fact. Because I believe that we fought to kill the "satan" but let oh so many little "demons" run free.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

the US has a strong streak of self interest in most of its decisions

I agree, I believe this is inherant in mankind. From every nation to every individual. I hope for the day that this changes. But likewise, I have on a personal level been accused of being greedy because I wouldn't give pay for someone else's bills. They assumed cause I made more money than them that I was set. But I had had a rough financial period with extra bills, and had also given out quite a bit of that month's income to help other people. You can imagine how defensive I got for being accused of being greedy when so many of my friends and acquaintances can account that I am far from greedy. Likewise, it sometimes feels that way for America...and sometimes we get defensive. Sorry.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

However, the US' economic and military dominance, do give, IMO, the US certain moral obligations.

It is very hard for us. When I hear about the crud going on in the Darfur region of Sudan, and the atrocities in Sudan for the past 10 yrs. There are times I want to say "let's go in and stop it". And many Americans feel likewise on such situations. On the other hand....should we use our strength to bring peace at any cost? That's dangerous and weighing the benefits vs disadvantages of each case is challenging. There are times we Americans feel like we are told "we should have done something more to fix it" and at the same hand we feel as if we get accused and told "we're not the world police - what right do we have"

So by your own words, you leave us confused. "no right to act - but a responsibility to act" this is what many Americans feel the world keeps asking of it. Is it any question we are confused?

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

In that regard, however, I object to suggestions that the US provides all the aid, while Europe does nothing.

A fair objection, and in truth, I am sure Europe is fairly close on par. Perhaps at a whole even greater.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

it is the only country where politicians are so affected by the need for campaign money....Bush administration is so obviously in bed with the oil companies

Yes...this is a problem...and there is a large push for campaign finance reform. Especially with campaigns getting so much more brutal.

It's kinda funny cause the war in Iraq was really the worst thing we could have done for oil. It de-stabilized the region which goes against oil production. But of interest, go check out the communist page I linked to on the war in Yugoslavia and how it really was a war for oil. To internationalize the region so that an oil pipeline could connect the west (Europe and U.S.) to East (Russian) oil. Which is why I want to see us increase funds for new technology.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

it is almost intrinsic to the US mindset that people should be free and unconstrained by the state

This is a grave misunderstanding of America. Boy...come here and MEET the beauracracy. Having to bring your vehicle every year or two for emissions inspection. Waiting in line for hours to have your vehicle certified for being under certain emission levels. As for businesses, the permits, and regulations are enormous.

To clarify for you America's philosophy - it is not about "making fortunes - although that's not uncommon" but rather it is about equality. The idea is, regardless of class or position you are supposed to be able to engage in the same practice and compete for the same opportunity. So that does not mean we allow everything without scruples - far from it. But if it is disallowed - it is disallowed for all. And if it is allowed - it is allowed for all.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

and does not share equally the consequential burden is my frustration.

Why LB...you're a global communist... ;)

Distribute the wealth... question is, do we regard the hard work of the workers or disregard? if others do not put such effort - do we reward it? and how? Take Africa for example. Most monies expended there do little good. There is so much tribal warfare that it's not been able to get on it's own feet. The aid and resources given go by the wayside...tragically. However, if such could show productivity I am sure there would be more inclination to give and support. One does question, how can we nation build "gently" in Africa? But likewise, I agree we need to do more. A christian ministry raised a million dollars to buy a mobile oil drilling rig. They go around africa digging wells. (I forget the nation in particular but I know that one vehicle can drill as many wells as the nation had prior. These are things I'd like to see more of us Westerners do.)

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

on intelligence "US social structure, or state system, or system of laws"

Social structure, in particular one that promoted open opportunity. And yes, how the US grew as a nation. We received many people from hard strong workers to innovative geniuses. And we provided an atmosphere that encouraged and recognized innovation and advancement. (In truth, we've mostly lost this...but 100-200 yrs ago it was not athletes that our culture swooned over but inventors. Oh if America could go back to the days when people crowded together to get close to an inventor and to see his newfangle gadget and walked away with his signature. In truth, that was a golden aspect of America now sadly diminished to sports and TV stars.

"I think that you mean that the US has a fair share, no more, no less."
I think we tapped more of them than much of the world had. To much of the world, the lower class were thought inferior. Here we did not have class (we did have wealth). So one could come from the lower class and if bright and ingenius gain wealth. One could, to quote "A Knight's Tale" change one's stars and become a night. Hope that makes sense.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

You confuse religious conversion, with politically and religiously motivated terrorism.

Of note, I was only referring to the extremists...who do want to regain control of such territories as southern Spain and see the whole world made muslim - even by force. I am not referring to all muslims.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Invading countries on a pretext is guaranteed to increase the risk of terrorist actions

Those had already reached a point of inadvertance IMHO. What invading does is bring much of the fight and the terrorist attack events to their soil instead of ours. No, these individuals would not have been placated whether we invaded or not. But at least we can see the hornets nests in activity now. And strategically that is beneficial...

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

So why should we expect one in the future with China?

Because America might not have the heart to be there. One of the future challenges is Taiwan. China has repeatedly shown agression to Taiwan. America has a treaty to defend Taiwan if attacked. It is looking more and more likely that China will do so. (They've made numerous aggressive statements and undergone many military exercises practicing such an attack.) Now America will have to choose to keep our word or avoid conflict and let the small nation be succumbed.

If we choose too defend Taiwan we will be accused by much of the world as being aggressive. Furthermore, we will have much turmoil within the U.S. because many will say we're doing it for oil or some other commodity...not out of "treaty" obligation.

If we choose not too defend. I mean, it's only a small territory and it once belonged to China. Then all the other small nations will seem acceptable acquisitions. Furthermore, Japan (which currently does not have a full military based on our treaty to ensure their protection) would question whether they could be guaranteed intervention and protection on the part of U.S. forces. Japan would immediately militarize. (And probably be one of the most if not the most advanced military force in the world.) The result would be a significant cold war in Asia and a strong possibility of full fledge war. Furthermore, the result will be economic catastrophe in the West. I believe both U.S. and Europe get most of their goods from Asia. (And I am sure even those BMWs use transistors made in Taiwan and Malaysia.) The Western world would sink into a monstrous global depression.

So what should America do if/when this situation occurs? Please do tell...I just want to hear your opinion now - before it happens within a decade or so.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Should we be upset at not being thanked for helping the US in its war against the USSR? Could the USA have "won" the war without Europe's help?

Um...see this is what confuses the hell out of us Americans. That was either a) a global war where all can be thanked for doing their part and or it can be regarded that there is no need for thanks because all were required to do their part and a "good job all around" (which I kinda lean to) or b) a european war in which the USA wound up carrying the brunt of the action and should be thanked by all of Europe. Europe was in no position to stand against the Soviet Union post-WWII. Europe was still re-building. So was Russia but they essentially kept the war machine going at great cost to their people. Western europe on the other hand tried to re-build their quality of life.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

in the manner in which this country recognises it is to blame and is doing something about it.

Please do share....I am curious to know how and in what ways your country recognises blame. And I don't just mean pollution...but in general.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Originally posted by theSaj:
Why should we thank you for creating a problem and holding it at bay for a couple of years.

Please - Europe is an area of many nation states, not just one that creates its own problems (aka we do not blame USA for the drugs problem in Columbia)

My POINT exactly....I've seen so many NAZI Germany being America's fault. For either selling equipment to rebuild after WWI to our failure to be a part of the League of Nations. And I will point out that Columbia is in South America. A different continent. Mexico would have been a better example. But at least we can say we have not been inactive on the matter. Perhaps ineffective...but we at least try to address it. Hindsight always reveals...no...Europe could not have quite fathomed just how deeply they were erring. If they had, they would have made other decisions.

Originally posted by "Riponlady":

Whoops! If someone as obviously well educated and literate as yourself doesn't understand that England is just a part of the United Kingdom and policies are not just England's then whatabout the less educated and knowledable? 1. Your opening sentence just demonstrated something that is felt about the majority of Americans

And my dear Riponlady, let me explain why Americans feel the way they do about Europeans. Because we often feel they are so arrogant to point out America's mistakes and exclaim "this is why we look down on you" while they commit the same mistakes!

Sure, England is only "part" of Great Britain...but is not the Queen of England it's head? Is not the lead state England. Question. Scotland...did it have a parliament until recently? Does Wales? Has not English been superior in position politically? And yes, it is common to reference U.K. and Britain and England interchangeably. Just as many used Russia and the Soviet Union interchangeably. Why? Because all the political power was "Russian" it was by far the dominant state. In America, we do not HAVE such an establishment. All of our sub-states are on equal political footing. It was one of the key foundational principles of our nation.

But all that aside....you accuse us on such merit! Might I ask about you comment here?

"Don't think Brits are anti American" - Riponlady

Or should I reference Legalbeagle's comment on Columbia. Not next to the U.S. Not even in the same continent. Sure, it's in a 'america' which basically means it's in the western hemisphere.

My dear Riponlady, it is the "United States of America"....technically, if the use of "England" or "Russia" instead of "Great Britain" or "Soviet Union" is insulting than realize that to use the term "America" is equally insulting and condemning. By right, every Canadian, Mexican, and South American could be offended.

And this is what "we Americans" simply do not understand. How Europe can repeatedly condemn or look down on us for actions they themselves are taking.

(And what sort of name is "Great Britain" my God if the United States of America called itself "Great America" we be lambasted for our arrogance... :P)
[[[Okay, this last part is just in jest Riponlady, but I could resist the humor. In fact, I am surprised Monty Python hasn't done a whole routine on that...(maybe they have, and some would argue Monty Python is justification enough to call Britain "Great").]]]

Originally posted by "riponlady":

2.In Britain we do not accept that our leaders are beyond reproach! .... When a government is elected by less than half the nation (and I believe the system in the US is no better How many people bother to vote at all?) then everyone has a right to question decisions and express their disapproval if appropriate.

Nor here, we've impeached quite a few. Heck, we just impeaced our governor...well...he resigned first and is going to spend a year in jail.

No they don't they did vote....they voted with their lack of vote. They said they were not concerned with the events of the next four years. If you didn't vote, then you voted! To say you want to go back and vote after the fact doesn't cut it. We have a responsibility to vote in the U.S. And if you fail that responsibility, than you do not have the priveledge of determining who represents you.

Originally posted by "riponlady":

This keeps the leaders on their toes and they are more ready to consider what reactions will be to their decisions therefore not going ahead without discussion.....To say "well we've elected this man (not god) and we must back him whatever he does" is naive.

Perhaps the news media over there did not cover the months of debate we had over here.

Of course it is, and America would be fools to do so. But we don't do that in the U.S. You see, we elect representatives and senators. This body has the ability to over-rule the president....even to "remove" said president. So if people were to disagree with the president they are capable of putting pressure on the current congressmen or electing new ones to do so. It is what we call the "system of checks and balances" furthermore, even this congressional body does not have free reign. The Judicial branch can check their decisions.

Originally posted by "riponlady":

I hope your positive view of the average American is correct. I suspect, like Britain, the vast number of adults don't give a damm!

A lot, are more concerned about their immediate world. And it takes a great event (WTC) or some other to stir them It's sad...but it's human. However, once stirred we come together like ants. Do you know what was the most beautiful thing about 9-11...the "unity". It was the first time in a while that I saw a feeling of "American" where it did not matter if you were black or white or hispanic. We were all AMERICANS....in truth, 9-11 brought out some of the most noble of America's qualities...it likewise brought out some of the harshest qualities of the U.S.

Message edited by author 2005-06-23 18:31:04.

06/23/2005 06:43:41 PM · #77

AND NOW FOR THIS.......

Originally posted by "theSaj":

You're a moronic ass....

For this comment the Saj must apologize and be ashamed. I got a nerve a bit too touched. Perhaps it's a combination of being informed that my grandmother is dying of cancer and has two weeks to live. And how my request of inheritance from her was her brother's medals - the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. So all those thoughts came to be and some of the comments toward America regarding WWII struck to painfully.

I apologize...

Perhaps let me share a recent bit I learned regarding my great uncle and his death in WWII. We were, for the longest time, unaware of just how he died and why he was honered with the bronze star. After some meticulous digging one of my aunts found out why.

My great uncle John Ciampini's unit had been over-run by the enemy. The unit began to run out of ammo. My great uncle volunteered to sneak across enemy lines and retrieve ammo from the rear. And so he did...bringing much needed ammo to keep his unit alive and functional. And for those who have been in war and in the midst of armed conflict - you know "ammo" is an absolute necessity.

The unit began to run low on ammo once again and my uncle ran back a second time across enemy lines to retrieve ammo for his unit. In fact, he ran back a third time...

While returning with ammo the third time my great uncle, John Ciampini was shot and killed. And another U.S. soldier died in WWII.

My great grandmother was never the same after losing her little boy, her first born. My grandmother was never the same...because on that day that they received the news her mother(my great grandmother) died inside and in many ways she lost a mother. The effect of that one loss carried on for generations.

In a few week's my grandmother will die, and Lord willing, join her brother in the hands of God. The brother she sadly did not get to have as long as she should have.

I am sure there are many throughout Europe still suffering the effects of that war....i know there are many people across the world suffering the effects of war. I wish mankind were noble enough to not have to resort to such measures, I wish even more that mankind was noble enough not to drive and force his fellow man to such measures. Alas, he is not....but we should ever strive toward being so. And perhaps one day - we shall!

Sincerely,
Jason "The Saj"

PS -

- To Legalbeagle, my humble apologies for my words...they were not acceptable. They were beyond argument and merely insult - that was wrong.

- To all, may I enjoy a beer with you in prayer and praise of the day when all mankind can live in peace and prosperity.

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/23/2005 06:54:29 PM · #78

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Secondly, please acknowledge that there is no way of making hydrogen effeiciently or cheaply at present: all that hydrogen production does is move pollution from city to production plant.

From another post of mine in another thread:

Every generator in this country pretty much goes off-line at night when power consumption declines. They could, instead, all be cracking water into hydrogen to power our cars, furnaces, stoves, water heaters, lawn mowers etc.

For nearly pollution-free hydrogen, we could produce it centrally by using only hydroelectric dams, geothermal, wind, or nuclear power plants to crack the water during off-peak hours.

We can get "no-cost" pollution-free hydrogen by using solar fuel cells everywhere, which produce H2 when in sunshine.

Emphasis on the word "could". :D

Riponlady

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

06/23/2005 07:59:16 PM · #79

My dear Saj ( I DO like that form of address - it's so British :))
My sincere condolences for the sadness you must being feeling at this time. I can understand your enhanced feelings when recent events have been revealed.
Ihope you won't think me uncaring if I come back to you on the matter of geography and national names.

I am positive Legalbeagle knows where Colombia is but, in the same way as you refer to Europe as one group of countries, Germany to us is exactly the same as Colombia is to you - a completely different country over which we have no control. I am sure LB will correct me if I misrepresent his argument.

Scotland has its own government ( and a pretty horrible government building that cost a fortune but that's another story!) Scotland is a country in its own right, has its own laws, its own education system etc etc. God helpyou if you called a Scot, English! And don't say "They are Scottish" either.
Wales is a principality (Prince of Wales) and has its own Assembly.God help you if you called a Welshman English!
They both have their own language and in Wales, Welsh is spoken and taught in schools and all roadsigns etc are in Welsh.

You forget Northern Ireland which also has its own form of government although this is still suspended at present.

The Queen is not the Queen of England as so many United States citizens (that's a mouthful!) call her! She is the `Queen of Great Britain" She is the monarch of the realm and is the figurehead of all four countries that together make up Great Britain ( not just the United Kingdom which is different.)

How do you refer to yourself? Every person living in your country that I have met, when asked their nationality replied "American" Every time we hear your President speak he refers to the people as fellow Americans- I'm confused if you are saying you are not American. What are you?
I know Canadians refer to themselves as such - not North Americans and the Mexicans I know refer to themselves as Mexican. I thought America in the context of this conversation was a shortened form of the United States of America just as I refer to us as Brits. (not English) and not Great Britons.

Nobody in Europe refer to my country as England unless they are referring to a particular place in England.
Politically and economically Great Britain is one. It's a bit like the USA , Canada and Mexico being united.

The political mess here in our country where in fact Scottish MPs, Welsh Assembly members and Norther Irish MPs are all involved in the Parliament in London but English MPs cannot work in their centres of government is strange! So England is not really the leading country in many ways these days. Part of the policy was to give powers to the other countries in the Union. And the Scots have the oil!

I do understand the USA political structure but I wonder if the congressmen and senators are any different from our MPs? They are often "whipped" and have to follow the government lines. Although if that didn't happen I can't see how any law would get throough - they'd still be arguing about the Channel Tunnel!
I do think big businesses have much less influence over government actions in GB than USA ( being very PC here!). The huge campaign costs shock the life out of us Brits and make our MPs drool and the fact that despite the USA we are told is the place where the poorest could become President, in reality the only people who can succeed in this are those like Kennedy, Bush, Carter etc who have huge family fortunes to back them along with big business endorsements.

Finally, it is 1am over here and I've got work tomorrow at 6.30 so I think I will call it a day, thank everyone for an interesting and informative evening and send my best wishes across the pond and down to London.
Goodnight, sleep tight !
\Pauline
zzzzzzzzzzzzzz...........(snore).....zzzzzzzz

MadMordegon

06/23/2005 08:11:52 PM · #80

theSaj, I commend your last post.

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

06/24/2005 11:09:19 AM · #81

Originally posted by "Riponlady":

Scotland has its own government....as I recall, I thought Scotland just recently got it's own parliament.

Each state in the United States is in fact a seperate nation state with it's own government. And the ability to succeed from the union. (Of course we did have our war of unity...they say it was civil but with 50,000 dead in Antietam I call it anything but civil)

But in truth, each of them have their own seperate governments.

And in truth, the capital of Great Britain sits in London, England. And that is part of the reason. In America, just for this reason - we established a seperate entity so that the government of the Federation would NOT be localized in a single state thus not showing preference of one state over another. It is called the "Washington District of Columbia"

As such, Great Britain for all it's represenation seems to us not to be on equal footings internally. At least not to our eyes.

Now, from reading your post it seems there's been a bit of change in that with strong push by the other states to take equality and perhaps even at the expense of England.

Originally posted by "Riponlady":

How do you refer to yourself? Every person living in your country that I have met, when asked their nationality replied "American"

Yes, we often refer to ourselves as Americans...or U.S. citizens...and sometimes we're simply "Yanks". (But God help you if you ever call an old southerner a Yank they will probably pull out a shotgun and send you to glory on the spot. ;)

But we don't find such a reason for offense.

If anyone should be offended it's probably the Japanese. I mean, as I understand it the proper term (or closer approximation) is Nippon but they are referred to as Japan by so many.

Another aspect is that in our founding there was "England" and the "English Crown" and that still carries over - 200 yrs later. ;)

"Long live the queen...."

Originally posted by "Riponlady":

I do understand the USA political structure but I wonder if the congressmen and senators are any different from our MPs?

I am not familiar enough with the British government to answer that. But to explain how things work. Each state sends representatives to "two" congressional bodies. The Senate (in which each state has two representatives to ensure equal strength) and the Congress (in which each state is portioned representatives based on population). These enact all Federal legislation and laws. The nation as a whole elects the President thru an electoral vote. (It's an intriguing system and it potentially allows for a president to get less popular vote but more "state" vote and win the election....legally...according to our laws.)

However, each state has it's own government. Many with executive governor's or equivalents and legislative bodies, etc. These really handle almost all the internal domestic affairs of the states.

The Federal government's focus is supposed to be merely trade, military protection, foreign relations and national interests.

Originally posted by "Riponlady":

President, in reality the only people who can succeed in this are those like Kennedy, Bush, Carter etc who have huge family fortunes to back them along with big business endorsements.

Sadly, that's often the case....but not completely. Sadly, it seems many people who could win the office or give it a good run choose not too. Colin Powell being an example of someone not from uber-rich background that many polls show could possibly win the White House if he were to run. But he doesn't want too....more so his wife doesn't want him too.

I personally think Harrison Ford and James Earl Jones could win the White House. Heck, they did such good jobs in the movies. ;)
(just a little humor)

And in fact, this is an issue in much discussion within our politics. I think the internet allows us to potentially break this conundrum.

- the Saj

PS - Go get some sleep the only excuse to being up at 1am is talking to your significant other when they live to far away to kiss goodnight! (Not that I heed my own advice.)

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

06/24/2005 11:39:52 AM · #82

Originally posted by theSaj:

AND NOW FOR THIS.......

Originally posted by "theSaj":
You're a moronic ass....

For this comment the Saj must apologize and be ashamed. I got a nerve a bit too touched. Perhaps it's a combination of being informed that my grandmother is dying of cancer and has two weeks to live. And how my request of inheritance from her was her brother's medals - the Purple Heart and the Bronze Star. So all those thoughts came to be and some of the comments toward America regarding WWII struck to painfully.

I apologize...

It was not necessary to apologise; I have thicker skin than that! However, it is gratefully accepted. Sad to hear about your grandmother. I thank and revere every soldier who gave his life in our protection, regardless of country of origin, your great uncle included (sounds like he deserved the recognition he received - very brave).

Gratitude and Wars

I still am not sure that there should be a sense of ongoing gratitude owed to the US. We get none from the French, and it was their land that was fought over. The Poles, Belgians, Dutch, etc. do not feel an ongoing sense of gratitude. Most Germans have gotten over the ongoing sense of guilt. While I agree that the US joining the war was a significant factor (and we will not know what would have happened had they not joined), the British Empire was enormous, and the troops from the Commonwealth vastly outnumbered the US presence. The war had been fought for a long time and in many arenas before the US gave military support. The non-military support from the US, food and (ironically here) oil may have had a bigger impact than the military support. So, I find it hard to believe that there is a "special" debt owed to the US, more than that owed to India, Australiasia, Canada, half of Africa, all of whom raised arms in our name. I am grateful to all. But I resent the "you should be more grateful to us for what we did way back when" argument.

Continents
I would note on continental references (Columbia & Americas v North and South America) that a large part of the USSR is in Asia, not Europe.

On US mindset;

I am probably guilty of shorthand reasoning: the US has free market principles at heart: look at the labour market restrictions in France or much of Europe. Similarly, I understand that pollution control is implemented in a more restrictive fashion than the US - that is, the policies are less restrictive in the US, even if the bureaucracy is just as bad.

On policing the world v. being accused of not doing enough:

Yes agreed - can be a tough place to be. When making a decision as to whether to interfere in a third party nation's affairs (especially if that involves killing many thousands of its citizens, and regardless of whether you agree with its form of government), the decision must be made with the highest integrity, and with as much moral authority as can be mustered. As we have agreed, nations act in their self interest much of the time. To avoid such accusations, the US must be seen to act with integrity.

In my, and many others' eyes, there is the appearance of a failure in integrity at present re: Iraq. More and more lies are becoming apparent (MadMordegon has posted in the twisting of intelligence to fit the facts), from your government and mine. Going to war to take control of WMDs is very different from going to war to institute regime change. Indeed, our government received legal advice that regime change would be an illegal basis for invasion. That can (and still may) result in criminal charges and civil claims being brought against the government and culpable ministers personally.

Given the lack of integrity becoming increasingly apparent (or at least the appearance of it), it is natural for people to assume that the aggressors were working in their own interests. In the case of the US, to secure oil (especially given the strong oil links to the US cabinet), to be seen to be acting against terrorism (though the connection between Iraq and any kind of terrorism is weak when compared to many other nations), the perception that GB senior's job had to be finished by GB junior. In the UK, overwhelmingly, the criticism is that the government is too desperate to maintain strong relations with the US at any cost (though, as the picture is painted by our press, we see very little return on our investment (eg recent aid rebuttal, no relaxation of steel industry import taxes in US, despite public trips by Tony B to the US to make representations for each)).

So: if the US is not seen to act with integrity, it should expect some abuse. You have seen the cost of war. The US has suffered thousands of casualties in Iraq. The Iraqis have seen many tens, maybe over a hundred thousand killed (mostly non-combatant civilians). And for what? The "installation" of a democracy. The removal of a dictator (who, incidentally is alleged to have killed fewer people in ten years than have died in the last 18 months). There is the hint of improved democarcy in the Middle East (recent Saudi and Iranian elections being generally better arranged than before), but historically the imposition of a new leadership or method of government has not worked that well: eg Zimbabwe, Iran (off the top of my head).

Knowing the cost of a single death by war, I am surprised that you think this acceptable.

On reducing terrorism:

Iraq until very recently was a very weakly religous country: Sadam only started using Islam as a tool to maintain greater control in the last few years, after the imposition of sanctions. Before the war, there was little or no talk of religious fundamentalism in Iraq ever being an issue: Saudi, Syria, Egypt yes, but not Iraq. So, the "hornets nest" of religous fundamentalism is very strongly related to the actions of the West in the last decade in that country. Previously, many fundamentalists were fighting the US in Afghanistan - not sure why we needed to give them another cause to get worked up about and relocate to (especially at the cost in civilian lives) - a difficult strategy to approve of (especially as it was never referred to as an aim of the war, and is not therefore a pre-meditated strategy).

On hydrogen:

I understand that we can use electricity to crack hydrogen from water. The whole point is that we do not have access to clean energy, with the exception of renewables (though there is a question mark as to the extent to which renewables do not have an effect and are truly "clean"). Unless there is developed a method of recovering hydrogen at greater than 100% efficiency, hydrogen is a delivery method for energy, not a method of clean energy creation.

IMO, the best hope for clean energy for the planet is the ITER project, which is stalled because Japan and France cannot agree the location of the fusion reactor (Japan or France). Now that should create clean energy from sea water.

On sharing the burden:

You suggest that I am asking the US to share the wealth: no, I ask for it to share the burden of reducing pollution output. That means implementing restrictions that make industry clean up its pollution output, which can be done, but at cost. When I say we do recognise our responsibilities in this country, I said it in the context of the reducing pollution levels following a long period of exploiting the Earth's resources and benefitting from the uncontrolled pollution of this planet. We have done so by cutting industrial emissions in line with our Kyoto obligations.

On China & Taiwan

I believe that the US is acting in its interests by placing a marker over Taiwan and the risk of Chinese dominance of the East. The US does not act out of a wish to see the current world boundaries maintained ad infinitum (there are plenty of places where borders change without US intereference, such as Palestinian borders with Israel). The US postures and uses Taiwan as a stake in the ground: a boundary that the US does not need to protect in the physical sense, but a boundary it requires not to be overstepped from a political point of view. If China oversteps the boundary, the US has an excuse for counter actions, if the political and military climate is such that it chooses to do so. If not, it will intervene using diplomatic channels.

I do not think that there is an action that the US "should" take, merely there are a series of options of which the US may avail itself if the situation is right. It will be able to cast its decision in a positive light whatever the outcome (as long as it is the victor!).

As a consequence of current US politics, if China does act on Taiwan, the US will have the opportunity to create a "them and us" environment and provoke support for the US in the seemingly-inevitable power struggle (not necessarily military struggle) between the US and China. I am sure that there are a thousand other political reasons for the current situation. But it is too complicated for me to understand more than very broadly what might be going on.

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

06/24/2005 12:10:42 PM · #83

Originally posted by theSaj:

As such, Great Britain for all it's represenation seems to us not to be on equal footings internally. At least not to our eyes.

The English government is a little screwed up at the moment constitutionally. History is responsible.

Wales was conquered, Scotland enjoined by the Act of Union, and Ireland conquered and the Northern part retained on seccesion. Not politically correct now, but things were different then (England itself is composed of a number of kingdoms united through war following the Roman departure - some putting this down to Alfred the Great (though i believe that the Danes/Vikings were still occupying North West England when Alfred died, merely on better terms for the English).

London is the English capital city, Edinburgh the Scottish, Cardiff the Welsh, and Belfast that of N. Ireland. All are governed by Parliament at Westminster, London, at which all are represented by MPs in the lower house. There is also an upper house, the House of Lords (literally made up of hereditary lords and ladies, with the odd life peer), which worked fine until Tony decided that the Lords were not socialist enough ( no surprise there) and got rid of most of them, without having a proper replacement (we now have some "life peers" - people appointed for life to the upper house by the lower house). Huge cock up all round, really, and underplayed in the press.

To boot, limited authority has been devolved to Scotland and Wales by setting up more houses of parliament in their capitals, in which there are more elected officials. This has led to the strange position that the Scots decide how England should be governed by their representatives at Westminster, but the English do not get a say in how Scotland is governed in several policy areas.

Far too much pandering to modern sensibilities has led to the creation of an administrative nightmare, in my opinion.

And we are all governed by the European Union in various other policy areas.

So: not straightforward. Not very coherent. Add to that a voting system that results in a leader with a massive majority of seats in the lower house, but only 36% of the vote, and yes: we have a democratic deficit. And a leader with a vested interest in maintaining that deficit. Makes me cross.

Originally posted by theSaj:

"Long live the queen...."

huzzah!

I forgot the queen: she slots in as hereditary head of state, and she has the power to choose and appoint the prime minister. By convention, she picks the head of the party with the most seats in parliament. Which she has the power to open and close (though again, by convention does this when asked, rather than of her own accord). MPs must swear fealty to her, which caused problems when we let N Ireland elect Sinn Fein representatives who are more used to fighting against than swearing allegiance to the queen. They refused, meaning that there are several N Irish MPs who are not allowed to vote.

Make sense?

Message edited by author 2005-06-24 12:26:46.

Canon EF-S 17-55mm f/2.8 IS USM

06/24/2005 01:25:34 PM · #84

Which 2x extended did you get --- the photos all seem fairly soft.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I still am not sure that there should be a sense of ongoing gratitude owed to the US.

Never asked for it...all I ask is for respect and recognition we were there and we helped. I think God expected

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

The non-military support from the US, food and (ironically here) oil may have had a bigger impact than the military support.

I'm sure it did. I read quotes from Russians that it was essential for keeping them thru the worst and helping them turn the tides on their front.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

So, I find it hard to believe that there is a "special" debt owed to the US...I am grateful to all. But I resent the "you should be more grateful to us for what we did way back when" argument.

I don't think I have ever asked for a "special" debt. The only debt I really referenced was that we forgave most of the financial $$$ debts involved with said actions.

And the only time I really bring up the "grateful" aspect is when The United States is accused of "what have you ever done for us".

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I would note on continental references (Columbia & Americas v North and South America) that a large part of the USSR is in Asia, not Europe.

Fully aware of such, but the head state of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republic was Russia. The capital of Russia is Moscow. All the main "power" cities are in Europe (Russia and Ukraine and the Baltics).

I am quite familiar with Russia, more so than the average American.

"Izviniti Pashalsta...kak vas zavoot? A minya zavoot Jason!"

I studied it extensively in high school during a 2 yr program. However, most of the asian lands were really sub-servient and second-class in standings. Very seldom were citizens of those region able to make strong inroads into the political structure.

The focus of Russia is and has always been Europe...

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Yes agreed - can be a tough place to be.

THANK YOU...you have no idea how much that little statement means to me - it helps tremendously.

And I am sorry for where we've failed the world or been...selfish...

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Given the lack of integrity becoming increasingly apparent (or at least the appearance of it), it is natural for people to assume that the aggressors were working in their own interests. In the case of the US, to secure oil

I agree the appearance can be very misgiving. When I was in the Coast Guard Academy there was a philosophy.

"Appearance is 90% of the truth!"

This meant whether true or not, how it's perceived will be what people regard as truth.

And I believe America failed greatly on this. I do not necessarily believe we had intentions. In fact, many of us sincerely believed there were WMDs. Some of the proof of this is memos regarding how to handle the situation if we lost a large number of troops due to "chemical attack" during the invasion. Such memos and discussions lead me to believe that our leaders felt that there truly were such threats.

Furthermore, much evidence was discovered of raw materials and processing equipment. Example: camoflaged military bases with hundreds of 50 gallon drums of pesticides.

I used to work in a chem-lab. All that is necessary to convert those drums to chemical weapons is some glass tubing...and the recipe. (Recipe equals how long to boil and at what temperature, etc to extract just said chemical in order to concentrate it. We did this ALL the time at my job. We'd take a jug of a gallon of dilute toxin (pesticide) and refine it down to 99.8% purity. There was NO other purpose for a military base in having such quantities other than such weapons. So was Iraq active in it's development...perhaps not. But was there future intent - without a doubt.

And we are now in a bind....because of our blunder and lacking intelligence. We have other situations requiring action (Darfur in Sudan) but we cannot act because we'll be seen as simply "aggressive".

(though the connection between Iraq and any kind of terrorism is weak)

Actually, there are some interesting ties to the first WTC and Iraq. As well as Saddam's continual "donations" to suicide bomber familys.

There were in fact, numerous strategical reasons for going into Iraq. The WMDs seemed like the biggest and most popular...and too much focus was put on that one.

One of the biggest hopes strategically is to establish democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq (both of which flank Iran - Iran being the largest producer of extremist materials, literature, etc. while at the same time have a large pro-western sentiment in segments of it's population). And the hope is that Iran's extremist government will fall and be replaced by a democracy.

Another reason we went into Iraq, and a rather selfish one, but understandably so - was to get the fighting off U.S. soil and away from U.S. citizens and bring the destruction to their territories and the battle between them and our soldiers - not our citizens. In this goal, it has been extremely effective and beneficial for the U.S. but not so for the middle-east.

"a difficult strategy to approve of (especially as it was never referred to as an aim of the war, and is not therefore a pre-meditated strategy)."

It was, in certain military circles. I remember reading such before we went into Iraq. However, it was not touted because such is not a strategy that many people would have accepted for action. It's a militarily rational strategy - but not one for the common public.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

IMO, the best hope for clean energy for the planet is the ITER project, which is stalled because Japan and France cannot agree the location of the fusion reactor (Japan or France). Now that should create clean energy from sea water.

Likewise, I believe nuclear power (advanced fission and eventually fusion reactors) are in fact one of the best solutions. Another concept is a space solar receiver and a microwave transmitter to an ocean/island based receiver that powers a hydrogen extractor from sea water.

IMHO... France and Japan should make a compromise....

They should build the reactor in one of the more remote wilderness regions of Russia. A) they'd get additional Russian resources. B) cheap but skilled labor C) if any catastrophe occurred there'd be minimal risk to life (both France and Japan are densely populated).

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

That means implementing restrictions that make industry clean up its pollution output, which can be done, but at cost.

We'll work on it... ;)

Actually, I think one of the big road blocks is the method of Kyoto does not fit the American mentality.

Which is why I am going to contact my Senator (Lieberman, who is currently trying to get some more stringent requirements passed) and propose an alternative direction.

See, I believe we should not make the pollution requirements more stringent. But the advancement and cleanliness more "prosperous". For example: my city is going to pass legislation to allow hybrids and high-efficiency vehicles to park downtown free (no more quarters in the meters).

I believe we should do the same. The implementation (not just the invention but actual - put into production) of technologies that improve efficiency should be given substantial non-tradable tax benefits, etc.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I believe that the US is acting in its interests by placing a marker over Taiwan and the risk of Chinese dominance of the East....a boundary that the US does not need to protect in the physical sense, but a boundary it requires not to be overstepped from a political point of view

I disagree, and I believe an intelligent look at recent history will concur and support my view.

America accepted Hong Kong's transitioned to China. That was hard for many of us...the idea of a free state being absorbed into one of the worst offending states.

However, with Taiwan we have a treaty obligation to protect them.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

I do not think that there is an action that the US "should" take

But we are OBLIGATED to take action. As I expressed, unlike Hong Kong we are Taiwan's protectorate. We are also Japan's protectorate.

I want a REAL answer...not back-pedalling like you gave me. You tell me what we should do. I laid out the situation. America is by treaty obligated to protect both Taiwan and Japan. If we fail to fulfill that for Taiwan what trust does Japan have in our fulfilling it for them? none - they will re-arm and do so heavily...already Japan is building the nuclear bomb. The re-armament has already begun my friend.

So please...let me know what we should do. It is better to discuss the potential now then wait until if/when it happens and have no plan ready for action - for that will result in greater mistakes. (9-11 and the events following are in part due to not having a plan of action for said event.)

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Far too much pandering to modern sensibilities has led to the creation of an administrative nightmare, in my opinion.

Honestly, I think G.B. should contemplate declaring London a "non-state city" akin to our District of Columbia. London would thus be independent for all states. And then establish an English government along the lines of the Scot and Welsh government.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

Just curious, is there any "Irish Lord or Noble" that the Sinn Fein could swear too? (An Irish prince perhaps). Than if said Prince were to swear to the queen things could perhaps be resolved by a proxy relationship. Just an idea...though probably infeasible.

[quote="legalbeagle"]Make sense?

Just barely... ;)

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":

huzzah!

(just curious, always wondered what exactly that word means...it's quite popularly used at Ren-faires over here....)

And you might have tough enough skin - but that doesn't give me allowance to be a prick and prick it. ;)

- The Saj

PS - who thinks after 20 pages of discussion we are finally making some good progress in the DPC foreign relations area. ;)

(actually, learning about the British system is quite a bit of fun for me)

Just out of curiousity, LB, how does Canada/Australia/etc play in. I understand there is the commonwealth and they all have the Queen of England/Britain. Or now it gets more confusing. Cause Britain doesn't include Canada and Australia but she is their queen too...right?

CoNfUsEd Yank seeking greater enlightenment... ;)

p2jvr

Canon EOS-40D

06/24/2005 05:17:57 PM · #85

Originally posted by theSaj:

America accepted Hong Kong's transitioned to China. That was hard for many of us...the idea of a free state being absorbed into one of the worst offending states.

Originally posted by "legalbeagle":
Just curious, is there any "Irish Lord or Noble" that the Sinn Fein could swear too? (An Irish prince perhaps). Than if said Prince were to swear to the queen things could perhaps be resolved by a proxy relationship. Just an idea...though probably infeasible.

[quote="legalbeagle"]huzzah!

(just curious, always wondered what exactly that word means...it's quite popularly used at Ren-faires over here....)

And you might have tough enough skin - but that doesn't give me allowance to be a prick and prick it. ;)

- The Saj

PS - who thinks after 20 pages of discussion we are finally making some good progress in the DPC foreign relations area. ;)

(actually, learning about the British system is quite a bit of fun for me)

Just out of curiousity, LB, how does Canada/Australia/etc play in. I understand there is the commonwealth and they all have the Queen of England/Britain. Or now it gets more confusing. Cause Britain doesn't include Canada and Australia but she is their queen too...right?

CoNfUsEd Yank seeking greater enlightenment... ;)

I'm awake and after a hard day at school, I have been down to the pub and had a good meal and a drink and am now ready to join in this thread again if you don't mind my putting my twopenceworth in!

Saj - Hong Kong was leased from China and at the end of the lease it had to be handed back - we had no choice and nobody else really had anything to do with it. I summise from your post that you (ie USA) felt there was a problem with this?

There is no Irish price (although ther are a few Irishmen that would claim to be after a few pints of the Guiness!- I'm allowed to have a little dig at the Irish since that is my ancestry!). Anyway I don't think Sinn Fein would sweath an oath to anyone remotely linked to the Royal family. How can there still be a war and killing of innocents over events 400 years ago and when you throw religion into the melting pot - whoosh!

The Commonwealth is the token remains of our Empire building. Canada, Australia, New Zealand etcetc were all ruled by Britain from afar and were outposts of our country. ~Then as a little common sense was arrived at and the people of these countries realised we were just using them, using their resources and making money out of them, Britain bowed to some sort of integrity and gave them their independence. However the links between us all were pretty strong and so a sort of trade union was formed and a political alliance which was OK for all of us. The Queen was the titular Head of State and Head of the Commonwealth and really just allowed those countries to have a monarch, something the majority of the people liked the idea of, mainly for traditional/historical reasons. Some like India did not stay in the Commonwealth, others felt the Commonwealth wasa a helpful union and stayed. Some we kicked out ( South Africa) and later were readmitted . Rhodesia became Zimbabwe and I'm pretty sure that has not been kicked out but will be soon!

Trade agreements between the countries are still in place but because of the distance between us, these are often not profitable (Australia is much more involved with the far East for example.) and are slowly dying out. But the links emotionlly are still fairly strong. Australia is probably going to become a republic in the near future, there is a growing tide of Australians wishing to split from us completely. To be honest I think most Brits would not care one way or the other - after all just because our convicts were sent ther a few hundred years ago doesn't actually mean much (joking!- although a young aquaitanceof ours spent four hours in immigration being investigated after, on being asked at australian Immigration if he had a criminal record, replied "No sorry I didn't know you still needed one to get in!" they were not amused!)
LB will be able to add anything important I've left out but I hope this helps clear up any misunderstandings.

What is a "Ren faire" ?????? Haven't come across that before.

I am positive LB's skin is quite thick enough to withstand a few barbs - he loves a good debate!

I agree diplomatic relations are improving post by post! We are all learning something , all getting thing off our chests and all enjoying a bit of friendly ( i hope) jousting with words! Isn't it strange how you can"hear" the atmosphere in these posts?

As I know you like Python (Monty I think you refer to it as) have you seen "Fawlty Towers"?

:) Pauline

Riponlady

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

06/24/2005 05:23:07 PM · #86

Sorry - logged in as my husband agin! Above post is from me! (I really ought to have my own laptop so this doesn't happen - do you think I can use that to justify him getting me one ?? ---No I don't think it would work either!
:)
Pauline

AllgoodPics

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Canon

06/25/2005 01:32:14 PM · #87

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

I"m talking in getting the fuel cell infrastructure established as ubiquitously as it is with oil, and not the technology per se.

Originally posted by gingerbaker:

Originally posted by Olyuzi:
Fuel cell technology at the consumer level is a good 20 years away, ...

I agree with most everything else you say in your post, Olyuzi, but I'm not so sure about your first statement.

Certain forms of large fuel cell energy generators have been used for several years in industrial settings.

I remember seeing a working solar hydrogen fuel cell 20 years ago on 60 minutes. Since then great strides have been taken in the efficiency and cost-effectiveness of regular solar cell electricity generating cells, which I assume is a closely related field.

With global warming, peak oil, and the price of gas and environmental sequelae being as high as they are even today, this kind of completely renewable, environmentally safe technology is clearly cost effective today. It is only a matter of willpower.

To that end, the conversion of much of our energy needs doesn't depend on fully functional hydrogen fuel cells today, as much of our energy needs might be met with gaseous hydrogen.

It can be distributed in a system like natural gas - perhaps in the very same pipes? - and manufactured by renewable energy generators and nuclear power plants during off-peak hours. :)

What good is an infrastructure for distributing a consumer good if there is no consumer good to distribute? I think that is putting the cart before the horse.

Also, legislating advances in technology by no means makes it possible for those advances will be realized. We could pass laws today requiring Burt Rutan and the other private space types out there to design and build Faster Than Light (FTL) space craft by 2050 but if the technology (or the physics for that matter) don't exist then the legislation is useless.

Mike

AllgoodPics

Sigma 105mm f/2.8 EX DG Macro for Canon

06/25/2005 01:40:33 PM · #88

Originally posted by riot:

Originally posted by Russell2566:
if humans were not on earth, it would be warming up anyway our effect on the warming of the planet, is pathetically small. polution is getting BETTER every year not worse

So how did that pollution get there in the first place if humans are having no effect on the earth? :)

That's not what he said. He said the human inpact was "...pathetically small." The fact is that the scientific community is divided over the cause of "global warming". The main evidence the "Human Caused" crowd uses is their "Gobal Modeling" which is nothing more than computer simulations they have programmed and hand fed parameters to. I could get a simulation to say global warming is cause by whale flatulance if that is what I wanted it to say. It is a fact that our planet goes through warming and cooling cycles. It is also a fact that we are coming out of a "mini-ice age". That would indicate that our temps should be rising. I also agree that we should use good and sound practics and be good stuards when it comes to our environment (and everything else we have to deal with). I think extreme reactions to this and other things does a dis-service to the plane and to us.

06/27/2005 10:43:56 AM · #89

Originally posted by "riponlady":

I have been down to the pub and had a good meal and a drink

Always a good thing...

Originally posted by "riponlady":

Hong Kong was leased from China and at the end of the lease it had to be handed back - we had no choice and nobody else really had anything to do with it. I summise from your post that you (ie USA) felt there was a problem with this?

My question is this - was it the same China that the lease was made with? I know that China has the Communist revolution after WWII. The old chinese government being in exile in Taiwan if I recall correctly. I do not know when Britain's treaty with the Hong Kong lease was made. But yes, anytime free peoples are put under a totallitatian regime and have their freedoms taken away - yes I have a problem with it. Do I know if there was any other choice - I do not know. I definitely know Britain was in no place to wage a war with China...that's for sure.

Britain adhered to their treaty lease - likewise, America will probably adhere to our treaty with Taiwan if China should invade it.

Originally posted by "riponlady":

although a young aquaitanceof ours spent four hours in immigration being investigated after, on being asked at australian Immigration if he had a criminal record, replied "No sorry I didn't know you still needed one to get in!" they were not amused!)

Originally posted by "riponlady":

What is a "Ren faire" ?????? Haven't come across that before.

As us Americans kinda missed out on the whole medieval age and following renaissance. In other words - "We gots no castles and we gots no knights!" So we have ren-faires. We dress up in armour, and as fairies and wizards, knights, and what not. And we build pseudo villages and pseudo castles. (I guess you could say it's a direct result of America's "castle-envy" of Europe. ;)

Originally posted by "riponlady":

We are all learning something , all getting thing off our chests and all enjoying a bit of friendly ( i hope) jousting with words! Isn't it strange how you can"hear" the atmosphere in these posts?....As I know you like Python (Monty I think you refer to it as) have you seen "Fawlty Towers"?

Yes, you can hear the atmosphere... ;)

And no I have not heard of Fawlty Towers.... *shudders*

Peleng 8mm f/3.5 Fisheye MC In M42 Mount

06/27/2005 10:44:49 AM · #90

For all the lively fellows & dames....

I will be away for the next week and probably will not post or enter any challenges till the 10th or so....

*cheers*

Matthew

Canon EOS-5D Mark II

07/05/2005 01:34:49 PM · #91

From my paper today (the Independent) - the (rather long) headline:

Global average termperatures rose in the 20th century by 0.6C. They are projected to rise by anything from 1.4C to 5.8C over the period 1990 to 2100. A report this year by an international group chaired by the head of the UN's intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) identified a 2C increase as the threshold beyond hich "the risk to human societies and eco systems grow significantly". Such an increase is considered probable if atmospheric concentrations of carbondioxide (CO2) exceed 400 parts per million (PPM). Concentrations of CO2 now exceeds 370PPM - the highest level for at least 420,000 years - and are still rising; in 1958 the level was 315PPM. Last month a joint statement by the science academies of 11 countries, including all of the G8 nations, warned: "It is vital that all nations identify cost effective steps that they can take now to contribute to substantial and long terms reduction in net global greehnouse gas emissions". Since 1750, CO2 levels in the atmosphere have increased by about 35%. Nineteen of the 20 warmest years of the past 150 years have occurred since 1980. NASA predicts that 2005 will be the warmest year since records began. According to the IPCC, which used research from 2,000 experts, "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activity". It is claculated that, to halt global warming, greenhouse gas emmissions would have to be cut by 60% from 1990 levels. The 1997 Kyoto Proptocol aims to reduce them by 5.2% by 2010, compared with 1990 levels. The US, which produces 24% of the world's carbon emissions rejects Kyoto. Betweeen 1990 and 2002, US CO2 emissions grew by 13%. G8 nations account for 45% of greenhouse gas emissions. The US has resisted the use of the phrase "our world is warming" in a draft G8 statement on climate change."

That is why people get a bit hot under the collar.

Riponlady

Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ35

Tamron AF 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di LD Aspherical IF for Canon

07/05/2005 04:12:19 PM · #92

Originally posted by legalbeagle:

Sorry to be facetious but I wish some of this warming would come to North Yorkshire - it's freezing up here at present and very wet!

It will be interesting to see what comes out of G8 this week and I hope the demonstrations are peaceful - there is too much aggression in the world today without it occuring on the streets of Edinburgh when such important subjects are being discussed.

P

07/14/2005 09:18:58 AM · #93

"Hydrogen is expensive to make and difficult to store. The most common way in making hydrogen is electrolyzing pure water. A new startup is trying a new way to make hydrogen. The process uses sodium which industry shuns because it generates sparks and heat when mixed with water. Signa has devised a way to mix sodium with silica gel or crystalline silicon to create a powder that essentially strips electrons from the sodium molecules in advance and stores them. When water is introduced, the chemical reaction proceeds calmly. The powder generates hydrogen efficiently. More than 9 percent of a kilogram of the powder gets converted to hydrogen and little energy is lost through heat."

More details...

08/25/2005 03:00:34 PM · #94

America's System truly at work...

There was much issue taken with the United States of America's failure to participate in the Kyoto accord. (Largely due to the fact that any benefits to be gained would simply be lost to younger industrial nations and many felt that such would penalize American manufacturing while giving a free rain to the economies of China, Malaysia, etc.)

Anyways, an interesting article about several northeastern states (mine included) and several west coast states contemplating accords of their own to limit emissions to their kyoto equivalents.

This truly shows the beauty of the American government system at work. The federal government is not our end-all be-all as most nations. Our states have immense power. Although states cannot create laws "laxer" than the Federal government they can create them to be stricter. (California has for years had much more stringent emissions standards requirements than the Federal government.)

So for all the griping of America not being within the accords. It looks like it may eventually be a moot point in the long run. Sure, some states won't join but as more and more states add strichter measures the handful not participating will likely fall on board.

And to many, this is a "states rights issue" as each state will be affected differently by such accords. So some states might not enact such for a couple more years because their economies can't handle the burden at the moment...and others may within a few years adopt rulesets even more stringent than Kyoto.

Link...

08/26/2005 07:19:08 AM · #95

Originally posted by AllgoodPics:

The fact is that the scientific community is divided over the cause of "global warming".

Nonsense.

The scientific community is not divided at all on this issue.

The scientific community speaks as one on this issue.

The scientific community says the earth is warming due to an increase in atmospheric greenhouse molecules and that man is the cause of the important increases of those molecules above and beyond the increases Mother Nature provides herself.

It is a physical certainty that temperatures will rise as greenhouse gases rise to certain levels. It ain't some "hand-fed" computer bull - it is a law of the universe.

The only bickering is over the details of how the ramifications on the planet will play out.

You call yourself a steward of the environment, yet you repeat the false propaganda of the polluters.

Message edited by author 2005-08-26 07:29:58.

08/26/2005 11:07:34 AM · #96

Bologne....there are numerous scientists who disagree that global warming is directly due to the actions of man. (There are few who deny the planet is warming, but many believe this is part of the natural astronomical cycle of which we know very little about...due to solar fluctuations, gravity well changes in orbital arrangement of celestrial bodies a.k.a. tidal current fluctuations)

And the fact that a brief look thru the historical records shows that even in recent past it has been much hotter than it is currently. So if we're going to speak about climate, let's not address it for the last 100 yrs, or last 1,000 yrs but for tens and hundreds of thousands of years.

"Since the end of the last ice age, about 11,000 years ago, glaciers covering Canada and the northern United States have retreated, leaving behind the Great Lakes."*

Now mind you, earlier in this thread were posts showing that we are actually still well below the peak "warm" temperatures that occur between the ice age but that we appear to be are around the "peak" time period.

"About 6,000 years ago, the earth was much warmer than today, and about 1,000 years ago, there was another warm period during which Vikings settled and grew crops in Greenland and may even have explored the coast of Labrador. This benign period was followed by the severe "Little Ice Age," which lasted off and on until about 1850."*

My question, is if 6,000 yrs ago was much warmer than the earth today - then how can this be declared abnormal. Were man's emissions to blame?

There are so many questions, as to the causes and effects. Most of the reports used to address the matter are based on reversed engineered computer models (a.k.a. unreliable).

Furthermore, there are many who believe it is not our gas emissions that are to blame but our cementification of the planet. (Chopping down of forests and replacing with cement which absorbs more of the sunlight as heat.)

But there is much conflicting evidence and many scientists saying neigh. But few being giving the time of day...

"The melting away of the snow fields in the Opdal Mountains in Norway has exposed wooden - shafted arrows of a type used about A D. 400 to 500. This suggests that the snow cover in this region must now be less than it has been at any time within the past 1,400 to 1,500 years." ~

"8,000 years ago to 4,000 years ago: About 6,000 years ago, temperatures on the surface of Earth are about 3 degrees warmer than currently. The Arctic Ocean is ice-free, and mountain glaciers have disappeared from the mountains of Norway and the Alps in Europe, and from the Rocky Mountains of the United States and Canada. The ocean of the world is some three meters higher than currently. A lot of the present desert of the Sahara has a more humid, savannah-like climate, with giraffes and savannah fauna species." ^

[So let me get this straight, 6,000 yrs ago we were 3 degrees hotter and 3 meters higher in ocean levels, and no artic ice. Was this due to the few men walking around building campfires to roast their deer on? Or does this show perchance cyclic reasons not due to man.]

"AD 1000 to 1500: This period has quick, but uneven, warming of the climate of the Northern Hemisphere. The North Atlantic becomes ice-free and Norse exploration as far as North America takes place. The Norse colonies in Greenland even export crop surpluses to Scandinavia. Wine grapes grow in southern Britain. The temperatures are from 3-8 degrees warmer than currently. The period lasts only a brief 500 years. By the year 1500, it has vanished. The Earth experiences as much warming between the 11th and the 13th century as is now predicted by global-warming scientists for the next century. The causes of this period of warming are unknown."

[Wow...i mean, I thought a 3-8 degree warming would be catastrophic? In truth, it's what allowed the vikings to increase their exploration for a few hundred years. Must of been all those log fires.]

Prior historical ages had much more CO2
//www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Carboniferous_climate.html

Here's an interesting site with some measurement results....
//www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

* //www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/newheatonGW.htm
~ //www.edsanders.com/global/warming.htm
^ //www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/GB25Aa02.html

08/27/2005 09:42:51 AM · #97

Mortadella with a side of linguini pesto!!

Focus, man, focus! :D

The greenhouse effect is caused by too much atmospheric CO2, methane, etc and it causes global warming. (And scientists DO agree on this)

There is NO ESCAPE from this - it is a law of physics. IT IS the smoking gun!

So, FOCUS!

solar fluctuations, gravity well changes,historical warmings, etc are all interesting - but they are:

Beside the point!

They are explanations of natural processes which affect global temperatures in the past. They are:

beside the point!

The uncompromising, unrelenting FACT all the bull$hit diversionary tactics in the world cannot budge, is that the greenhouse gases have been rising steadily and alarmingly, and likely irreversibly, since the industrial revolution.

And unless the Sun suddenly loses strength, the global temperature of the planet WILL go up.

In fact, many of the processes you mentioned- and others spouted by the antienvironmentalists - actually serve to exacerbate the situation.

Case in point is the carbon cycle. Our best hope for removing atmospheric carbon, the carbon cycle "fixes" carbon in trees, etc - but mainly in coral reefs.

Unfortunately, pollution has been killing coral reefs. Even more unfortunately, global warming has been raising ocean temperatures, and even the small rises seen so far, have been KILLING OFF THE CORAL REEFS, thereby letting more carbon return to the atmosphere... well you see. :(

We are on the tipping edge of quite a few such nightmare scenarios, any of which may hasten the rise in global temperatures significantly beyoond the conservative models being bandied about today.

So, please, stop being distracted by the historical curiosities that are available - they are not relevant to our current situation.

08/27/2005 09:56:16 AM · #98

Your "interesting site" number 2 is run by one of the most notorious men in the history of the planet.

A man who for years ran Big Tobacco's scientific "research" departments, "proving" that smoking had no deleterious effects.

This fellow basically forged 15,000 scientist's signatures onto an anti-globalwarming manifesto, a disgraced document still trumpeted by antienvironmental forces.

Etc,etc

Chairman, Science and Environmental Policy Project.
Chairman Emeritus, George Marshall Institute. President Emeritus, Rockefeller University. Board Member, Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow. Former Science Advisory Board, The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition.

A June 2000 Business Week article referred to physicist Frederick Seitz as "the granddaddy of global-warming skeptics". Seitz was once a director and shareholder of a company that operated coal-fired power plants.

Dr. Seitz is a former President of the National Academy of Sciences, but the Academy disassociated itself from Seitz in 1998 when Seitz headed up a report designed to look like an NAS journal article saying that carbon dioxide poses no threat to climate. The report, which was supposedly signed by 15,000 scientists, advocated the abandonment of the Kyoto Protocol. The NAS went to unusual lengths to publically distance itself from Seitz' article. Seitz signed the 1995 Leipzig Declaration.

KEY QUOTES
"The United States is very close to adopting an international agreement that would ration the use of energy and of technologies that depend upon coal, oil, and natural gas and some other organic compounds. This treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful. The proposed agreement would have very negative effects upon the technology of nations throughout the world, especially those that are currently attempting to lift from poverty and provide opportunities to the over 4 billion people in technologically underdeveloped countries. "
Source: Petition Project: Letter from Frederick Seitz

Message edited by author 2005-08-27 12:00:58.

08/27/2005 12:13:27 PM · #99

Your "interesting site" number 3, the "Science and Environmental Policy Project" ("SEPP") is run by the above scounderel's partner in crime, Dr Singer.

SEPP is associated with the ATLAS group ans the Alexis De Tocqueville Institution. They are blatantly anti-environmental ( on many issues) and also pro-tobacco, with tobacco funding.

This scientist's funding SEPP comes from the Unification Church, which owns the publishing house that prints his books. Exxon Mobil also funds him.

Very savory fellows. Just not worth reading.