Quote:Original post by Demus79
In order to make the thing simpler I prefer not to argue about the global warming since there is no consensus about it. Instead, I prefer to think that too much CO2 in the atmosphere isn't good. So, then I don't have to actually argue about the relation between global warming and CO2.

Quote:
Since US produces 1/4 of the CO2 emissions, I think that they ought to at least participate in the green house discussions.

Original post by Eelco

Original post by Demus79

Quote:

Quote:
In order to make the thing simpler I prefer not to argue about the global warming since there is no consensus about it. Instead, I prefer to think that too much CO2 in the atmosphere isn't good. So, then I don't have to actually argue about the relation between global warming and CO2.

Quote:
seems rather cowardly. once there is a consensus, there hardly is any use left for debating, right?

The point is more like, that you can always argue about the consequences of the CO2 emissions such as the global warming and use that as an excuse for not participating to any enviromental agreements. It is going to take a long time before everybody agrees in the public that we are facing a serious threat here.

Quote:
Since US produces 1/4 of the CO2 emissions, I think that they ought to at least participate in the green house discussions.

Quote:
why would they? just based on your brilliant argument that 'you prefer to think that too much CO2 in the atmosphere isn't good'? for once i wouldnt blame them if they gave someone the finger.

As if they didn't give the finger already. I see your point and I agree that I have a weak argument. CO2-matter is just so different from the ozone-matter or sulphur-rains, since it doesn't directly kill people, animals or forests. Forests actually grow better with high amount of CO2 available.

Looking to the other side of the problem. High fuel consumption in US comes from high number of vehicles used for transportation of goods and people. Most of US cities have poor public transportation capacity/limited pedestrian network and a car is needed to get from one place to another.


[Edited by - Demus79 on December 14, 2005 6:43:12 AM]

Quote:Original post by LessBread

Quote:Original post by CplusplusDEMIGOD
Basically you assert that only a person who possesses leftist or centrist political views is well educated enough to understand such things. Your arguments against my case beg the question; therefore you have still not satisfied my need for adequate rebuttal.

Did I drop a left right center spin? Is it some how political to argue in favor of evolution? Why isn't it political to argue against it? Do you want to make it political? Ok. What's your opinion on social darwinism? Would you deny evolution as a fact while preaching social darwinism as an ideal? Invisible hand, intelligent design - where does it end? with a fictitious president? [grin]