Kyoto will accomplish nothing worthwhile. It will lower emissions by
such a trivial amount, at the cost of trillions of dollars to taxpayers. It will
accomplish such a tiny amount, at such a huge cost. Maybe if
developing nations were required to take part, it’d be worth discussing.

There is no proof that increasing CO2 emissions increases temperature
globally. It certainly DOES increase temperatures locally – anyone living
in a city knopws how much hotter it gets in a city due to the greenhouse
affect.

Massive, sweeping, global treaties that only affect some people, and are
nearly impossible to enfore will not work. Kyoto is a nice gesture, but
it’s a fart in the wind. Want to improve things globally? Do it on a local
level. That’s the only way to do it.

Want to improve water quality in a big river? If you try to limit dumping
and runoff in the river, you are not going to accomplish anything
worthwhile. If you enforce dumping and stormwater runoff on a local
level, for the tens of thousands of tiny tributaries that lead into the big
river, you’ll see a marked improvement in just a few years.

Same goes for air quality. Individual cities can enforce their own
regulations better than a federal government, and infinitly better than any
global treaty. Establish emissions standards in a state, then county, and
then on a city level. A city can have very strict standards. Maybe
penalties for high emission vehicles, bans on polluting power plants.
Smog levels will drop, air quality will improve, and the greenhouse effect
will lessen. If all cities with pollution problems do the same, it’ll work.

There is absolutly no way for Kyoto to “work”.

I am an environmental scientist, I’ve studied under some very well
renowned ecologists and proponents of global warming. I have come to
the conclusion that GLOBALLY, we have made and are not making any
significant impact in temperatures. Locally, as in citys and metropolitan
areas, we are having significant impacts. In some European cities, for
example, temperatures have risen nearly 2 degrees Celcius over just a
few years! In Raleigh, NC, temperatures have risen a little over the past
decades. Just outside of Raleigh, they’ve actually dropped.

Global warming isn’t provable, it’s something you need a good degree of
faith to believe. So much of the predictions are based on computer
models.

Regardless of GLOBAL warming, anyone can see areas of local, even
regional climate changes. Cut down enough trees, and you’ll see some
big changes. Mt. Kilamanjaro, for example. The caldera is visible for
the first time in like 12,000 years. Due to global warming….only the
temperature is well below freezing. What’s happened is that so much of
the surrounding rain forest has been clear cut, that there is insignificant
moisture evaporating into the air – it’s cold enough, it’s just stopped
snowing enough! Madagasgar’s turning into a desert, the rivers are
eroding all the soil out to sea. They’ve got to develop and they need
trees, but they’re not doing it in a sustainable way. The local climate is
being altered by human activity.

Measures need to be implemented that work on a smaller scale, at a
local level. They will be far more effecient and much more productive
than Kyoto oculd ever be. By fixing the local problems, the overall
picture will improve. Furthermore, people will never see a direct benifit
form Kyoto. If things are done localy, people will actually see concrete,
definite improvements within a short period of time. This makes it easier
to enforce, since people won’t think they’re being screwed by the
governemnt as badly as if it were a global, sweeping, “thing”.

I do not believe that we are causing global warming. We are causing
local climate changes, and that’s provable. Work on finxing them, and if
we are causing global warming (which cannot be proven), then that’ll fix
the problem better than any kyoto-type reform could ever hope to do.
Regardless, we should strive for cleaner air and water, more effecient
cars,a nd better energy sources.

I have faith that if or when we begin to run low on fossil fuels, we will
have a viable, and preferable alternative already in use. The only thing
preventing electric vehicles from being practical is battery technology. I
was reading an article today about modified hybrid cars. for $12,000,
you can get your hybrid car modified to get over 200 miles per gallon.
They simply replace the NiMH batteries with Lithium ion batteries. It
works! But, it’s SO damned expensive. For city living, electric cars are
totally practical with current technology. Gasoline is very dangerous,
volitile, and crude technology. Think about it, we have these high tech,
microprocessors driven pieces of technology, and we get them to go by
drilling a hole in the ground and burning the stuff that comes out – how
CRUDE.

I think we’ll have a solution to the problem before we have the problem
(of post peak-oil).

I say invest in fusion, and for now, fission plants. Nothing is more
effecient and clean, or environemtnally sound. Supposed “Green” power
sources are far more hazardous to the environment, wind plants kill birds
and take up land, solar takes up tremendous acreage. The best use for
them is on an individual basis – put wind and solar generators on existing
structures. The ONLY drawback to nuclear is the waste. Another
problem I don’t think will exist. We’ll have to store it for a while, of
course. I amcertain that when we start to run out of space (100 years or
so), we’ll have a perfectly safe and reliable method of launching it into the
sun.
We NEED power, and we need it an an exponentially increasing rate.
I’d rather have MY pollution stowed up in a nuclear waste facility than
emitted into the air. Nuclear has the potential to be very bad, should
things go very wrong. All other practical powerplants ARE bad, and no
matter how clean and efficient they get, they still burn fossil fuel, and can
never hope to be as clean and efficient as nuclear can be.
If energy is abundant and cheap, electric power becomes much more
feasable.

It’s just how Americans are.. they like their things big. Big Cars, big burgers, big malls, big warehouse stores, big breasted women, big men, hollywood controlled by people with big noses, and the rap industry controlled by people who like big butts

>>>>>

Have you ever seen a globe? This place is BIG! I’m 27, and I’ve never been west of Tennesee.

Don’t be fooled by what you see on TV. You see ads for 1 pound
burgers, and 22 ounce steaks, 44 ounce drinks and Humvees. Rap
videos showing people loaded with gold and HUGE a$$es.

My wife watches too much reality TV on MTV. If I were a terrorist,
and I saw MTV, and thought it were representative of the US, I’d hate
us too.

We’re killing the planet? Our conventional power plants are cleaner than
most other countries, and we’re much less urban than othe rcountries.
The US has more forests and trees than it did a hundred years ago, and
despite the sprawl of cities, they are growing.

We’ve got a lot of space, therefore we need a lot of cars. I commute 20
miles to work, 20 miles to my second job, and 40 miles back home – at
least 3 times a week. If I go visit my parents, it’s an 80 miles round trip.
I see them all the time.

Who the hell wants to live in a city? Not me.

We consume more oil out of necessity. Wheather we’re driving SUV’s
or prius’s, it doesnt’ matter, the size of this country means were going to
commute more. It’s not possible to have a mass transit system like you
do in Europe, so we HAVE to drive, or we remain isolated. Comparing
American driving habits to European ones is comparing apples to
oranges.

I’ve got my eye on that Toyota highlander hybrid that’s coming out next
year – lots of power, 4WD, and 30 mpg – cool.

Eliminating the potential risk of a pilot loss is pretty significant. Not only
do you eliminate the potential of a loss of a life, valuable skill , and
trainign costs, you eliminate the overhead. If we lose a plane, we have to
look for the pilot, putting rescue crews at risk. There’s a political
backlash when US citizens see their pilots beaten up on enemy TV.
Even a multi million dollar robot is still able to be written off as a
“drone”, expendable…

When you factor in the parts of a plane dedicated to the pilot, you save
lots of room. The cockpit is a big place, life support is expensive and
heavy too. Eliminate the need for a cockpit, and the aircraft becomes
stealthier. The military doesn’t dicsuss this much, but the odds are that
these UCAV’s will be far stealthier than anything we’re flying now.

Now they’ve made in flight refueling a requirement. Interesting.

Not wanting to sound too cliche, but this whole incident is the fault of
the terrorists.

they have put the civilized world into such a mindset.

The police have this guy under survelience. He is wearing a bulky coat
in the summer, looks darker skinned, and is near mass transit facilities.
Currently, the terrorists are dark-skinned, using explosives hidden in
clothes/backpacks ( a bulky jacket woudl work), and blowing up in
public transportation. The police stop him. They question him, it’s
clear he’s not laden with explosives. Fine.

But no… he runs. If you’re looking at a guy for fear of terror ties, and
he’s dressed the part, and RUNS from anti-terror police, well then, it
seems clear that he’d have a REASON to run. the way things have
been going, there’s a good chance he’s filled with explosives, and redy
to detonate. He doesn’t stop.

He’s then flat on the ground. What do you do? Well, if you think he’s
got a bomb under his coat (and he didn’t do anything to suggest he
didn’t), then there’s only one thing you CAN do – shoot him in the
head. The officer had NO other option, for the lives of others, and his
own, were at risk.

Now, just because the cop didn’t have a choice doesn’t mean the
victim was totally at fault. My guess is that he thought the cops were
terrorists. Plain clothed men chasing him with guns?!? Right after the
terror attacks.

Terrible situation, no good guy or bad guy – except the terrorists.
Blame them.

It’s a tragic mistake, and I think his family should be compensated, in
the way an accidental death would be. But not as if they did anything
criminal.

Now, if the officer didn’t identify himself as a cop……that would be
bad.

You apparantly cannot answer the questions. Give me an example of
why people WOULD be nice, and treat others nice without religion?
Remove religion, and what reasons ARE THERE for being good?
Tell me, I want to know.

here’s what I am talking about:

What reasons do we have for being good? Speaking from an
evolutionary standpoint, we will “benifit” by assisting others if they
share genes with us. We are usually predisposed to helping those
related to us, for our kin share genetic material with us. Helping them
live, and helping them pass on their genes helps us keep some of our
own genes going. the closer one is to you , the more you will help –
brothers, children, then cousins and second cousins – all share some
genetic material with us. Some self-sacrifice, or investment of our own
time or resources can benifit us, evolutionarily speaking, if we help
them to procreate.

It’s a behavior found in many mammals, especially social one. One of
the reason for our sucess.

You expand this from families, and then to neighborhoods or town.
People from one town will side with those from another – look at
football, baseball or for God’s sake soccer – you guys really take that
far.

The next step is our state or country. We’ll fight to protect the people
of our state or country.

Expanded further, you have allied nations. All the world wars are an
example of this behavior.

I imagine the only way to bring the world together, completly, is for
aliens to invade.

Realistically speaking, it works in reverse. When confronted by a
decision between yourself and family, and the people next door, you
and your family are more important. If you will benifit by robbing the
neighbors, what stops you? Fear of the law? Well, that’s as bad as
fearing God. Not doing something simply because you don’t want to
get in trouble, not because you don’t want to do it. What’s going to
motivate someone to NOT want to do something bad, when there is
no God? On what basis will ethics and morals be founded on?
Why should we be good, why should we try to love our enemies?
Religion makes that simple: it’s what God wants.
What other justification is there for living a life like that, sacrificing,
helping,etc. When your kids ask you “Why?”, what are you going to
tell them? Ifyou don’tjustify your answer, they’re not going to listen.

And that’s the question I pose.

Regardless if you like it or not, we get these beliefs and ethical codes
FROM religion. Most of “our” beliefs stem from Judeo-Christian
morals, which are a collection of beliefs starting thousands of years
ago in the mideast, then incorperating some buddist beliefs***
So now you expect to take these beliefs, derived from religion, and
remove it from them? Are you not seeing the difficulties in that? How
are you going to reinforce such beliefs and codes? WHY should we
act in such a way that can often conflict with natural instinct?

***(there’ a bit of speculation that Jesus may have traveld to the east
and lived with buddist monks during the “missing years” of the bible.
Buddist scrolls tell of a traveler from the west at the same time period.)

I had always heard that the overall design of the SR-71 was “stealthy”
in the end, but it was just a side effect of the construction. You build
an airframe designed to reduce air resistance through areodynamic
curves, and you create one with a stealthy, curvy surface. It’s not a
stealth aircraft, but it is stealthy compared ot other contemporary
designed aircraft, or aircraft designed to operate under more normal
circumstances.

The reduced number of right angles and bumps and protrusions
necessary to enable an aircraft to cruise at mach 3 simply reduces the
number of highly reflective surfaces. Simple.

Morals, life-codes, and generally being nice are reinforced by religious
teachings, fear of god, and desire to stay in line with “god’s will”. “IF
there’s a God, I’m going to do as he wishes.”

If there is no God, what reason do I have to be good? The laws? that
hardly makes a difference, you can still be a slimebag and follow the
law. If we were all atheists, imagine how difficult it would be to keep
things civil. If there was no reason for person A to not take advantage
of person B, why would they not take advantage of them? Why
shoudl we treat others like we wish to be treated? Why should we not
do certain things? How would we justify doing things that are difficult,
yet moral?

Churches can be corrupt, especially when they have so muc say in
politics in theocracies. There is no questioning God, so if you follow
the church, and the CHURCH says “Invade country X”, you invade.
Similarly, science, without the “crutch” of religious/moral ethics, can do
some pretty nasty things – “exterminate the jews, take over the world,
experiment on children, etc.”
Both science and religion work best when there is a balance. They
keep each other in check. I FEEL that those that find a balance
between the two themselves, and do not simply reject one or the other
are better off.