Hah! Missed this bit earlier...
yossarian wrote:
Take a look at the wikipedia map from 05 of who has and has not signed on to the treaty:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2005.png
It's getting lonely on one side of this map.
Y'know. It's funny, but whenever I bring up Kyoto and try to make the point that I don't disagree with the basic science and theory of global warming as much as the political agenda that results (like Kyoto), I'm told that this is some kind of strawman or sidetrack. Afterall they'll say "We're not debating Kyoto, we're simply debating whether or not Global Warming exists!!!".
Strange that. Someone always does manage to take that next step of insisting that since global warming is "proven" this automaticaly means that the US is wrong/evil for not signing up to Kyoto.
So Joph. I'll assume you were just biding your time before you'd tell Yossarian that "global warming" isn't an argument for Kyoto, but something totally unrelated. Right? You were getting to that I guess. Cause you never once failed to tell me that when I brought it up on the opposite side of the issue...
Oh. And Git?
Gitslayer wrote:
You assume just because a country signed the accord that every scientist in that country believes. How about 600+, regardless of country, agree that humans effect the climate. Thats a ******* lot, either way. *******.
Not "every scientist". Just an average of 5.3 scientists are required to get "600 out of 113 countries". See. It's this thing called "math". You can use it to figure out stuff like how many scientists that really is.
You argued that the findings on global warming were somehow strong because of the whole "600 in 133 countries" thing. But you don't know at all how those 600 were obtained. Did they grab all the climatologists (or whatever the appropriate fields are) and ask them if they agreed? Or did they simply gather 600 scientists that already agreed, gave them a trip to attend a conference on the subject, and then got them to sign something saying they agreed?
Do you really think that the scientists who are opposed to global warming were invited? And if a few were, and they didn't sign, would you know about it? How do you know that there weren't 5,000 scientists and only 600 of them thought that global warming was a big deal and required immediate action? The number is absolutely irrelevant if you don't know the context involved. It would be like me running around declaring "OMG!!! 3,577,945 neutrinos pass through your body ever single day!!! We need to do something about that!!!!!".
Is that an unusual number of neutrinos? Average? Above average? Is there any harm being caused? My statement contains none of those important facts. Just as your "600 scientists from 113 countries agree that..." also is devoid of any of the important facts one actually needs to be able to assess the importance of the event.
If they sent out a poll to every single scientists in any of the fields that 600 scientists represented and asked a series of questions about the danger of global warming, how much impact humans have on it, how important it is, and perhaps a set of "agree/disagree" questions to various proposed solutions, *then* you might have the starting point to determine exactly what the "consensus of science" is on this issue. So far, all I see is a lot of semantic tomfoolery.
I don't get it...theres more to Global Warming that meets the eye. Theres pros and cons in global warming. Its not like Earth is going to explode and all humanity it doomed. So what if the Earth heats up? It doesn't seem to affect me personally. Let the scientists and environmentalists worry about the causes and effects of Global Warming. 
Jophiel why wont you talk to me ;_;