We're all going to die

Mr. Teatime · Post by **Mr. Teatime** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 7:58 pm

[Community -> Update]

... unless anyone happens to be immortal. But <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/International/wir ... 7741">this story talks about gloabl warming becoming an increasing issue in the world</a>, and how George Bush doesn't seem to care.<blockquote>Under the umbrella climate treaty, which took effect in 1994, governments pledged to limit emissions. But it wasn't until the 1997 Kyoto Protocol that they set quotas for industrial nations. By 2012 the European Union, for example, would reduce emissions of carbon dioxide and five other greenhouse gases by 8 percent below 1990 levels, Japan by 6 percent, and the United States by 7 percent.
 
 The Americans, responsible for one-quarter of the world's emissions, subsequently withdrew their support. But 30 other industrial nations will be subject to Kyoto's mandates as of Feb. 16, now that Russia has ratified the pact as required. </blockquote>See, we now cover apocalyptic politics as well.

Ozrat · Post by **Ozrat** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 11:46 pm

DaC covers politics for news now? Why? Isn't "apocalyptic politics" sorta vague?

I don't see how climate change is "apocalyptic" anyways, seeing as climates are naturally and constantly changing anyways at different rates throughout time. And a different climate would just have a different ecological subsystem. Wouldn't "apocalyptic" be more immediate and dramatic? Or should I let you guys have an exclusive interview with me the next time I cut down a WORLD-SAVING TREE?

Lets not forget that saying that Kyoto will somehow affect the Earth's climate is just speculation at this point anyways.

Mr. Teatime · Post by **Mr. Teatime** » Mon Nov 29, 2004 11:57 pm

Well I figured it was apocalyptic because it was talking about water levels rising and an eventual environmental disaster, if this was to be believed, seas swallowing countries etc. It was a slow news day as well...

But if you don't like it, you're entitled to think that. Fill out the complaints form at <a href="http://www.tubgirl.com">www.duckandcover.cx/complaints</a>, we'll see what we can do

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 1:05 am

Seriously Ozrat, why should we restrict ourselves to PA stuff anyways?

I don't want to fall into another fucking long ass boring debate though, so whatever you say next my answer will be

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 1:55 am

What's this we? There's no we. You're not staff. Neither am I. DAC is entirely they.

airsoft guy · Post by **airsoft guy** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 2:16 am

The only places taht will get flooded are those that are low lying, and those people who live in valleys and along the coast and other such low areas are all dickweeds anyway. Plus with all those people drowned there wont be so many people driving cars and using things, global warming and all sorts of other enviromental troubles go away. See? Problem solved. I call it the "Fuck You, Florida Plan."

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:18 am

I'm DAC.

Post by **Retlaw83** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:22 am

What does the

the 1997 Kyoto Protocol

have to do with a guy who was elected three years after it was created?

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:23 am

It's not about personnal matter but fucking countries.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Tue Nov 30, 2004 3:38 am

And also since it's Bush who refused to ratify it.

PsychoSniper · Post by **PsychoSniper** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:13 pm

Clinton refused first.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 9:41 pm

Which doesn't change the fact that Bush still didn't ratify it. I don't see the point in glorifying Democrats over Republicans when they're both the same anyways.

Blargh · Post by **Blargh** » Wed Dec 01, 2004 11:02 pm

Which is better, GREEN, or YELLOW ? Oh wait -

*laughs*

- we're both colour blind ! Anyway, they are both ORANGE !

The Kyoto Protocol probably won't amount to much on an ecological level (even if ye self-absorbed Yanks had deigned to abide by it), but it could have been a start of sorts.

Hellstorm · Post by **Hellstorm** » Wed Dec 08, 2004 8:21 pm

Well, DAC or not your all gonna die.

Ozrat · Post by **Ozrat** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 5:00 pm

Hellstorm wrote:Well, DAC or not your all gonna die.

Precisely. I wanna hear about stuff I can enjoy during my life.

Megatron · Post by **Megatron** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 5:10 pm

waterworld

S4ur0n27 · Post by **S4ur0n27** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 5:59 pm

WAS A SHITTY MOVIE

Nicolai · Post by **Nicolai** » Thu Dec 09, 2004 6:07 pm

Hey fuck you, I liked it

Trakocian · Post by **Trakocian** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:29 am

I liked Waterworld too, but I doubt that the sea level would ever rise that high.

If I remember right from somewhere, the Antartic ice if all melted would rise the sea by about 400 feet.

Koki · Post by **Koki** » Fri Dec 10, 2004 10:51 am

I've heard 7 meters. Or 6?

There is a hidden meaning to this message, can you find it?

Duck and Cover

We're all going to die

We're all going to die

Re: We're all going to die