Forums | MacLife

ghlbtsk wrote:

Cyberpawz wrote:

ghlbtsk wrote:

So...by your own statistics, our pollution is proportionally twice our production? Why does this in any way help the point you're presumably trying to make?

You obviously didn't read what I posted, because if you did you would of seen that I said that I couldn't find a statistic (That isn't biased) proving that the US produces 25% of the world's pollution. This statistic doesn't include what we give via military help or anything else as well. If we added that the percentage would go higher.  And in all honesty I think the 13% is very low but I'm using out dated statistic that are almost 10 years old.  I'd like to see what we are up to now.

And you are again missing the point that one country actually is supplying over 10% of the entire world's needs through production of more than one product.  That's a nice chunk of the pie.

I obviously did read what you posted, what with my replying and all. But I did make the reasonable assumption that, since you quoted a number, you were in some way asserting that that number was what you believed. If you don't believe the number, you shouldn't have used it, or at least you should have made it clear that you thought it was inaccurate. Why you think military help is relevant in any way is completely beyond me, unless you think that somehow contributes to pollution in a significant way? Unless you meant that affects the percentage of products produced. In which case, I have to wonder why you think that wasn't included in the original production figures. And as for the overall point, which YOU apparently didn't read, assuming your statistics are accurate, the US's share of world pollution is nearly twice its share of world production. This would suggest an incredibly inefficient system on our part.

I'm responding to what you said. If you meant something different, you should express it differently.

I stated a fact that was published in 1997, not 2004... so the information is probably off by a good amount by now. nearly 10 years has passed I expect things have improved some...

Do I believe those facts not particularly... with military, and all other aspects of what we do, and export I'd say we would be as of now closer to 20 to 25% of the world's needs are covered by the US.  Not to mention that we would be producing less pollution since in nearly 10 years we have reduced a lot of what the cars push out for fumes, and also what complexes themselves produce during production.

The rest of the world in many cases hasn't gotten past what the US would call an industrial age, and because of that they haven't even begun to reduce pollution that is produced in their own countries. Only a handful of countries can say they have gotten past that stage, and even so they are still not up to where the US is. 

Sure they reduce the pollution by 50% in their country, but compared to what? People have to remember that just because a country can reduce it's pollution rate by 50% or so, means one of two things...

1. They produced so much pollution that doing a minimal bit of energy conversation and pollution cleanup fixed their output by 50%
2. They went to a cleaner fuel source.

The US only improves by 2 to 3% a year because they are already in many cases per square mile one of the cleanest countries in the world when it comes to air quality. (When talking about countries that have the level of technology and production going on all through the country)

If you do a nice little google search (hell just go and look at NASA's media section) you'll see most of the pollution that comes from the world is India and around China...  So to say that the US needs to be sanctions I'd say it's the other way around.  When you see black over China when it comes to show pollution, and the same with india (and not red, yellow, green, or blue) that is telling you something about the quality of air pollution over at one country. And to give you a general idea, black is bad... greed and blue are good.

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

http://www.google.com/

I think a better joke would've been to create a link to your own brain.

I said "I think you'll find"
You asked for a link. I gave you a link you could use to find, and then see if I was correct.

If I was speaking from evidence, I wouldn't say "I think you'll find"

Now - go find, and if you find differently, you can refute my point.
Otherwise - I didn't claim the point as fact, so don't take it as fact. Google away - using the link I provided.

Believe me, I don't take your post as fact. You never need to worry about that.

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Believe me, I don't take your post as fact. You never need to worry about that.

That's good. To err is human.

I'm lost. Is considering your post as fact an error or not?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

Believe me, I don't take your post as fact. You never need to worry about that.

That's good. To err is human.

I'm lost. Is considering your post as fact an error or not?

I'm glad you don't consider me above human, that's all.

I seem to remember the biggest greenhouse polluter last year in the State of Washington was Mt St. Helens - despite the fact that all it did was burp a few times.

The greenhouse gas thing is a fraud.

Water pollution and soil pollution are the real enemies - and those are only international issues when the water from one nation goes into another.

Last edited by resedit (2005-02-19 3:20 pm)

China and India ain't an excuse.

China and India are even worse just because they don't care at all about anything what others think or say about them, they just don't bother with world politics.

Big is just mostly bad.  Russia, India, China, USA, france, germany, england. They only think in big and care about their own 'big' stuff. They don't care, it's that simple, they only care what they want or think.

But that's how life works.
A king got 10 wifes, he doesn't care about any of them really but he's having a good time.

Last edited by Proost (2005-02-19 3:49 pm)

otter wrote:

You know, resedit, I know you are a smart person.  I can see that when I read your posts.  Unfortunately, intelligence and knowledge do not necessarily go hand in hand, as is evidenced by this insightful load of bunk:

resedit wrote:

The greenhouse gas thing is a fraud.

I refer you to your own link, and encourage you to put your prejudices aside.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/4 … gra203.gif

Note in this graph, from this article, that we produced more CO2 in 2002 than China and Russia combined.  The significance of this is that we had 19% of their combined population in that year.

So, yes, it is completely fair to say that the US pollutes far more than it's fair share.  And China produces more goods than we do, especially considering that much of our manufacturing uses parts from China.


Oh, I guess this covers CyberPawz' assertion that China and India produce more than the US, since India produced less than Russia.

Ha ha ha, I love facts.

Just fuel combustion? Cripes don't be so specific, pollution in general is more than what comes out of cars... of course what comes out of your mouth is another story but of course we can't count that now can we?

ShnickyShnack wrote:

resedit wrote:

ShnickyShnack wrote:

I'm lost. Is considering your post as fact an error or not?

I'm glad you don't consider me above human, that's all.

I seem to remember the biggest greenhouse polluter last year in the State of Washington was Mt St. Helens - despite the fact that all it did was burp a few times.

The greenhouse gas thing is a fraud.

Water pollution and soil pollution are the real enemies - and those are only international issues when the water from one nation goes into another.

Dude, asking for a link is a normal, natural thing in a forum. There's nothing wrong with doing that.

So just retract those claws and calm the hell down, okay?

Asking is one thing, insulting someone cause you don't want to do your own searching is another thing all together.

obtuse wrote:

resedit wrote:

I seem to remember the biggest greenhouse polluter last year in the State of Washington was Mt St. Helens - despite the fact that all it did was burp a few times.

False.

Care to show what is true instead of just adding one word responses to add to postcount?

Cyberpawz wrote:

Asking is one thing, insulting someone cause you don't want to do your own searching is another thing all together.

So, what is insulting someone because they point out a fact that counters your assertions?

Mature, I suppose.

And if you have a problem with the specificity of that graph, take it up with the BBC.  I put it up as a representation of the problem.  See, fuel use doesn't just mean automobiles, as I suspect you are thinking.  Electricity is generated by burning fuel, too (ie coal and natural gas, hmmm), as is heat, and cooking uses fuel too.  In fact, what air pollution is generated by anything other than burning fuel?  Cow farts?  Nope, burning fuel in their guts.  Since the issue is CO2 specifically, then fuel use specificity is pretty accurate.

So.

Imagine that.  I didn't even respond with an insult.

Depending on source, China is either #2 or #3 and India #5 for pollution.
They are growing in emissions yearly by all sources.
It won't make one tiny difference if the US, Canada and the EU and others reduce if developing countries just replace the reduction.
None.
Your still going to have your man made global warming (if it really exists).

obtuse wrote:

resedit wrote:

I seem to remember the biggest greenhouse polluter last year in the State of Washington was Mt St. Helens - despite the fact that all it did was burp a few times.

False.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l … no01m.html

resedit wrote:

obtuse wrote:

resedit wrote:

I seem to remember the biggest greenhouse polluter last year in the State of Washington was Mt St. Helens - despite the fact that all it did was burp a few times.

False.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/l … no01m.html

Sulfor dioxide isn't a greenhouse gas.  Hell, read the smurfing article.

"Compared to man-made sources, though, volcanoes' contribution to climate change is minuscule, Gerlach said.

Mount St. Helens produces between 500 and 1,000 tons a day of carbon dioxide, he estimates.

Nothstein, of the state energy office, says the Centralia coal plant puts out about 28,000 tons a day. Statewide, automobiles, industries, and residential and business heating systems emit nearly 10 times that amount."

Mt St Helens is not the largest greenhouse polluter.