| Author |
George W. Bush;s Resume (C.V) |
Jim
Joined: Jan 20, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Belgium
PM |
Yeah no problem I was just saying 
| |
|
batesie
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM |
It is the power behind Bush's throne...
Esso gave $1.376 million to the Republicans in the 2000 election cycle - more than any other oil company. 91% of its political donations went to the Republicans. As soon as George Bush became president, he pulled the United States out of the Kyoto Protocol, the only international agreement to address global warming exactly the policy that Esso was promoting. As the USA is responsible for 25% of the pollution that causes global warming, this has a massive effect on the efficacy of the protocol.
SPANK ESSO!
http://www.stopesso.com/funstuff/nose.html
www.stopesso.com
[addsig] |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-27 10:19:15, lor wrote:
I don't need any articles, bush is a b***** and he deserve a fate worst than whatever's comin to him.
|
|
Really? Why?
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-27 10:28:10, lor wrote:
There's nothing to argue about actually. Any decent human being knows that he's a piece of dog crap and a b*****. But I know one thing, he has destroyed america. But there'll always be people to support him. And anyone that supports him are just slimballs and piece of crap themselves. I mean, why else would they support someone like that? They probably like what he's doing, they're into everything. Sadist, sickos, weirdos, inhuman, cruel, animals!!!!! |
|
You have some very strong opinions of people there. Too bad you're either unwilling or unable to defend those opinions.
BTW: Just to be honest - I admit to being a bit of a Sadist, frequently I'm a sicko, and I'm just about always a weirdo. As for inhuman ... cruel ... an animal ... slimeball ... piece of crap ... well "Sticks & Stones" my friend! 
_________________
Thanks for taking the time to read my post.
[ This Message was edited by: Patrick-in-CA on 2004-07-27 16:16 ] |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-27 16:15:43, batesie wrote:
It is the power behind Bush's throne... |
|
Nice rhetoric .. throne ... like Bush is a King. Well done.
Quote:
| Esso gave $1.376 million to the Republicans in the 2000 election cycle - more than any other oil company. 91% of its political donations went to the Republicans. |
|
Wow, imagine that. An oil company as big as Esso gave the largest political contribution of any other oil company to ... GASP! ... The Republicans! Oh My Gosh!!! I can't believe it. You mean they would actually support the political party that agrees with them and how they want to do business!?
Quote:
| As soon as George Bush became president, he pulled the United States out of the Kyoto Protocol, the only international agreement to address global warming exactly the policy that Esso was promoting. |
|
So their money was very well spent indeed. Smart people there in Esso. Who would have guessed that Bush, if elected, would pull out of such an anti-economy, anti-business, anti-industry treaty? Anyone?
Quote:
| As the USA is responsible for 25% of the pollution that causes global warming, this has a massive effect on the efficacy of the protocol. |
|
Again, I'm completely floored ... I mean ... just WOW. So if the people who really believe in the Kyoto Treaty want it to work, they need to get the USA to sign onto it (assuming your 25% assertion is even near the truth - who knows, maybe the USA produces more)? Well, it looks like those interested parties better get themselves busy finding ways to entice the USA to do the right thing. Hey ... I got an idea. Why don't you just shout "The USA sucks!" like a mantra until they sign it.
...
Oh, you've been doing that already? How's it working?
_________________
Thanks for taking the time to read my post.
[ This Message was edited by: Patrick-in-CA on 2004-07-27 16:26 ] |
batesie
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM |
quote @patrick in ca
. So if the peoplewho really believe in the Kyoto Treatywant it to work, they need to get theUSA to sign onto it (assuming your 25%assertion is even near the truth - whoknows, maybe the USA producesmore)?
youre right! thats what the US admits to, other countries believe its more!
you really dont care that damaging the environment will end up screwing up the economy anyway. the worlds second biggest insurer is predicting a major increase in premiums if adverse weather caused by global warming gets worse..
[addsig] |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-27 17:50:00, batesie wrote:
quote @patrick in ca
. So if the peoplewho really believe in the Kyoto Treatywant it to work, they need to get theUSA to sign onto it (assuming your 25%assertion is even near the truth - whoknows, maybe the USA producesmore)?
youre right! thats what the US admits to, other countries believe its more!
you really dont care that damaging the environment will end up screwing up the economy anyway. the worlds second biggest insurer is predicting a major increase in premiums if adverse weather caused by global warming gets worse..
|
|
1) Please link us to or site the source where the US admits to producing 25% of the worlds population. Just to make sure you're not fibbing to make a political point.
2) I care about the environment.
3) It appears what I believe about the environment and what you believe about the environment are not the same.
4) I'm willing to learn more - but just so you know - I learn more, and I learn much faster - when people site sources and use logic in their reasoning. This compared to just shouting at the top of your voice in my face, spit flying all over, that I'm (what have I been called in these threads) a sadist, sicko, weirdo, inhuman, cruel, animal, slimeball, piece of crap, racist, stupid, ignorant idiot.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
Sammy_boy
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Staffordshire, United Kingdom
PM, WWW
|
@Patrick - what about if, theoretically a new agreement is drawn up, something like the Kyoto agreement - would the US sign up?
More specifically, what kind of envoronmental controls/legislation etc. do you think that the US would sign up for? e.g. pledge to reduce emissions by 10%, increase recycling to a certain percentile, funding for developing cleaner fuels, etc.?
Excuse the brevity of this post, I'm in the process of changing the LCD and facia on a T610 as we speak!! 
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke
|
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-27 18:33:22, Sammy_boy wrote:
@Patrick - what about if, theoretically a new agreement is drawn up, something like the Kyoto agreement - would the US sign up?
More specifically, what kind of envoronmental controls/legislation etc. do you think that the US would sign up for? e.g. pledge to reduce emissions by 10%, increase recycling to a certain percentile, funding for developing cleaner fuels, etc.?
Excuse the brevity of this post, I'm in the process of changing the LCD and facia on a T610 as we speak!!
|
|
I wouldn't know for sure what would be agreed upon in general. But know this. Right now the US is sharply devided about how important the Kyoto Treaty was and why we were or were not involved in it. Environmental statistics and theories asside - and Politial Science to the front - the less you make the US do, the more pressure the administration (any administration) will be under to join in. This goes for other economic incentives as well - like reduced terrifs or more favorable balance of trade deficits. I'm not saying you have to sell the farm to get the environment protected ... but considering that the current administration is only able to justify the US not being involed in the Kyoto Treaty by saying it will hurt our economy ... find creative ways to support economic activity in even little ways and it will become more and more difficult for the US to say no. The fact is, most Americans would like to protect the environment. Lead the way world!!!
_________________
Thanks for taking the time to read my post.
[ This Message was edited by: Patrick-in-CA on 2004-07-27 23:56 ] |
batesie
Joined: Feb 13, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: London, UK
PM |
patrick if your going to stoop to accusing me of the insults above, most of which i have never used on esato, you might as well not bother talking to me because your just not doing yourself any favours.
[addsig] |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-27 19:18:00, batesie wrote:
patrick if your going to stoop to accusing me of the insults above, most of which i have never used on esato, you might as well not bother talking to me because your just not doing yourself any favours.
|
|
I have never accused you of using any insluts. I just said that I learn faster and I learn more if people don't use them. I just so happens though, as a matter of fact, that I have been called these things on this forum (and I think this thread). It's all there.
So, you were saying?
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
[ This Message was edited by: Patrick-in-CA on 2004-07-27 23:54 ] |
Sammy_boy
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Staffordshire, United Kingdom
PM, WWW
|
"I have never accused you of using any insluts. "
@patrick - what's and 'inslut'? Sounds rather rude!!
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke
|
maddav
Joined: Dec 01, 2002
Posts: 356
From: Nottingham, UK
PM |
http://www.infinitepower.org/calc_carbon.htm
Just found a link, saying that:
The U.S. has reduced certain forms of pollution. However, carbon dioxide hasn't generally been considered to be a pollutant. Its release is simply a function of the amount and type of fossil fuel that we burn, and we burn a lot. The U.S., with 5 percent of the world's population, releases almost 25 percent of the world's CO2. We release at a per capita rate that is twice as high as the the next highest releasers on Earth.
It isn't very clear, but it could be where the "25%" number has been taken from. That said this could all be conjecture.
|
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
By MARK TOWNSEND & PAUL HARRIS / The Observer (UK)
"Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters. A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.
The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.
'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'
The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.
The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.
An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.
Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.
Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.
A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.
One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.
Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.
Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'
Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.
'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.
'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.
Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.
Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'
Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.
'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'
So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.
The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence's push on ballistic-missile defence.
Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'
Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added."
[addsig] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2004-07-27 16:01
