The Yangtze River Dolphin is probably Extinct.

[Alistriwen]

They actually did find dinosaur dna but it was only parts of the dna that make up there bones

Sweet, I wasn't dreaming that then!

 

[Arachnar]

I still don't believe they'll ever be able to bring back dinosaurs, maybe one day genetically engineer something similar but that's a real big jump into a theoretical future.

 

[Scorponok]

Scorponok, I think bushfish is right and that your problem is reading comprehension. For that reason it's probably pointless debating with you since you neither understand what I am saying, nor do you understand the materials you are citing.

Can you elaborate on what you're accusing me of? How I not understand the materials I am citing and why I must agree with what your saying? If I don't agree then you equate that with I don't understand you.



All I can understand from you is your flawed logics and the derailings your own pathetic arguements, from China is bad, to China is doing nothing, to China is doing too little far too late, to you can't comprehend anything. I destroyed your arguments piece by piece now you get to go pound sand.

 

[Alistriwen]

Why mention that insulting people is a bannable offense to someone else after and before going on to insult me. I wont dignify your post by responding to it, as I mentioned I'm not going to get into it with you any further.

As for the cloning of dinosaurs, I wouldn't write it off yet. Science continues to amaze me and I think that in time, almost anything will be possible.

 

[Arachnar]

Scorponok , I don't really think there's much more to this arguement which i can't even follow nor do I care to.

 

[Spankbelly]

Unfortunately you are wrong.

How so?
The idea of cutting production of greenhouse gasses makes sense to me.
Personally, I think global warming is part of a natural heating/cooling cycle that has little to do with human activity. Caveman fires did not seem to influence past ice ages. And this temporary blip will not be the end of future ice ages. It should not surprise us that the poles are melting. They have done so before and will again and again.
But we should do what we can to limit all pollution we create. More important than CO2 are all the toxins we dump and drip and cast to the winds.
I am in favor of limiting greenhouse gasses. Not that it will make any difference. But we should get into the habit of better environmental practices in general.
I say Kyoto is bogus because of the ability to purchase green credits.
I understand that we must give industry an incentive and a buffer as they make a historic change of practice. While they make changes to limit pollution. To give them the ability to, in effect, pay a reasonable penalty while they are gently reminded to alter their behavior.
Green credit payments also places real value on green spaces and carbon sinks. So those few green areas that still remain can be protected in a real world of economic survival.
However, the very idea of green carbon sinks is false. All carbon sinks are temporary by nature. Yes one tree, or an entire rain forest, acts as a sink. While the tree lives. When it dies the stored carbon is released and the net loss/gain is zero.
Rain forests and the like, are falsely claimed to be carbon storage devises.
This is only true while the forest is young and expanding. While it is growing in mass. While it is using excess carbon to grow it's mass. But once it is established and the old growth dies off to make way for new, the old carbon is also released and the net loss/gain is zero.
Yes we should protect what green spaces remain. They have value separate from global warming. But they have nothing to do with causing or creating or eliminating green house gasses. They are a sink, temporary in nature. As are all of nature's carbon storage devises.
In the global heating scheme of thousands and many thousands of years, they value not at all.
We are not "creating" green house gasses. We are not "creating" anything that did not already exist, waiting in temporary storage.
And we are never going to catch it all back and lock it away forever.
Not until we have atmosphere scrubbers that can suck in polluted air and put the coal and oil and solar radiation back in the ground.
So green credits are bogus, in terms of global warming.
Green credits are a way for industrialized nations to continue to pollute. So long as they pay off third world nations to stay in the stone age.
Or so long as we plant a few trees here in our boreal forest. And say we "stored" so many tonnes of carbon...for a few years.
If we were serious we would bite the bullet and pay the price to actually stop polluting.
Not just sign agreements we have no intentions of living up to. We sign and say we'll make real cuts by a deadline. But when the time comes we acknowledge the economic effects and change the deadline.
Since green credits can be used to support newer technologies like solar and wind power, it's a start. It's just not the big leap it claims to be.
It is a start. At least we are realizing changes need to be made. Even if we are not making them.
We're just paying others to be the lesser evil.

Sorry about the late reply. I almost had a life going.
But I'm back, so you can guess how well that worked out.