Can we have another Stunts meeting?

[BonzaiJoe]

Say, right here in my house, in.... 2 hours?

I miss you all - thank you for a great time in August.

[CTG]

OK, I'll try to teleport there...

[Ezekiel Kemboi]

Weeeeell, I would need a helicopter which flies at a speed above 1 000 kmh-1. But I would like to be with you all again, too, but it seems there's no helicopter for me. And no helicopter for the others...

We will have to wait until next summer I think.
Long live p?linka!

And: I'm just eating chilli beans which was made the way Zak had done it in August. Very delicious!

[zaqrack]

oh, i tried to get there but looks like I wasnt quick enough
you are right it was such an awesome experience to meet all these people at the same place, same time

btw: we could maybe visit you (and Denmark of course ) with my gf in the early spring. Cheap airplane goes to Malm? and then bus transfer to Kobenhavn. What do you think about it?

[Ezekiel Kemboi]

oops I forgot to adjust the Stunts Forum clock last Sunday... the two hours passed before I wrote...

i couldn't be there

[BonzaiJoe]

oh, i tried to get there but looks like I wasnt quick enough
you are right it was such an awesome experience to meet all these people at the same place, same time

btw: we could maybe visit you (and Denmark of course ) with my gf in the early spring. Cheap airplane goes to Malm? and then bus transfer to Kobenhavn. What do you think about it?

Well, I wouldn't recommend coming to Denmark in early spring, as it's very cold. 2 years ago, there was snow falling in April (And why would someone living in a wonderful place like Budapest ever leave anyway? :roll:)
But I assure that if you come here, you are always welcome to live at our place, and if you come to Copenhagen, I'll travel there to see you!

[Shoegazing Leo]

I'll get my time machine...

[JTK]

Oh no, why didn't I take a look. I could have managed that (although, two hours from Kiel to you... o.k., I could have taken my small green Indy )

[Usrin]

Well, I wouldn't recommend coming to Denmark in early spring, as it's very cold. 2 years ago, there was snow falling in April

Snowfall in April is not rare in Hungary. (OK, neither 25?C and sunshine, because our weather is very changeable in this part of the year...) And there was snowfall also during the 1st Hungarian Stunts Meeting, on 24 October 2003. (Sorry for these offtopic things, but as owner of a weather homepage, I couldn't miss that.)

[BonzaiJoe]

Can you tell me then if the Kyoto protocol is a necessary and/or functioning measure against climate changes?

I'm probably soon to be owner of a political website, so I thought I'd ask

[Anonymous]

OFF to Bonzai Joe.

It was very important to do something against climate changes. But this Kyoto protocol... it's only good for politicians for conscience sake. What does it contain? Countries have to reduce their emission of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990. But I think also the full stopping of emission would be late... Until now we increased concentration of CO2 in air by 50%. There was no instance for such a big a change like this in the past few million years (and no instance for such a RAPID change in the full history of the 4.6 billion-year-old Earth). I can't imagine that this increase won't disturb our climate. And I told nothing about the increase we'll make in the future... (With the emission level accepted in Kyoto, we'll double natural concentration of CO2 around 2100.)

The other fact: we have not enough evidence to say that climate has already changed. OK, we hear more and more about natural catastrophes (floods, hurricanes, etc.). But we can get news from every part of the world easier than ever. (And media is hungrier for death and sensation than ever.) But being aware would be better. Climate has not already changed, but I'm sure that it will change. And it's almost incalculable what will global warming cause at a given place. For example, it can easily happen that the Golf current stops and paradoxically, Europe will become much colder...

And I didn't mention that USA, the biggest producer of greenhouse gases hadn't signed the Kyoto protocol...

[Usrin]

Oh no, this computer always forgets to log me in... But you have to see my signature.  

[BonzaiJoe]

Well, the USA have signed it, but they have not ratified it. So now it's even more ironic, because the Kyoto protocol is becoming an economical advantage for the USA, now that all other countries are involved in it. And their reason for not joining was, that countries like China and India had to cut their emission less than USA. Not that it wasn't a good idea to cut the CO2 emission.
But anyway, I'm sad to hear that the Kyoto Protocol is not at all enough to save the climate. I hope a more drastic approach will be taken later then, but I know it won't happen as long as Mr. Bush is in office.

[Akoss Poo a.k.a. Zorromeister]

Well, me, as a would-be environmentalist, have to say some words here.

The USA buys the carbon dioxide quota of the poor countries, where there's no carbon dioxide pollution. Yes, it's true, the possibility how much a country can pollute the air has a value, and the USA buys it. It's good for them, because they "shouldn't" reduce their carbon dioxide emission, and good for the poor countries, because they get some money (don't think about dollar millions), but bad for the whole global ecosystem.

Yes, there's no 100% evidence that pollution causes current climate change. The value of average global temperature rising is within the natural climate changeability rate. And it's true that we are getting out of an ice age, the ice on the poles very slowly melts. And within this warming period (an interglacial), there was a little bit colder period in the 19th century, and there's steady temperature rising in the 20th century.
Natural things can also affect climate, volcanic eruption for instance. There are natural carbon dioxide emission resources, other greenhouse gases there are, too, and there are some processes which can decrease global temperatures, for instance if a lot of aerosols get into the air. So it is a very complex system, and it's hard to determine the exact responsibility of human activities in current climate change, but I think we can say yes, there's climate change, and yes, (more or less) the human population is to blame for it.

And not the temperature rising is the only key point. If we destroy the rainforests, it will destroy a very huge amount of plants (which would also fix a lot of carbon dioxide), causing serious and sudden soil degradation and change of precipation circumstances. It is also a problem in other countries, where there are no rainforests, but forests. Plants can keep the damp, therefore the water doesn't evaporates. For instance in Hungary there's also a very serious problem: some stupid people cut the corners of our rivers, streams to avoid floods... this caused a big change in the water regime of the Big Plain of Hungary (of course in negative direction). And there's less water in Danube, because of a damned Slovakian power station (skid off Slovakia and European government).

Aaah, enough for today, I think, we, clever people can do nothing against the stupid crew.

[Usrin]

Bonzai Joe: I think USA was driven by short-term economical aspects, as always. What you wrote (China and India had to do cut there emission less) was only a lame excuse... Something else: I think more drastic approach will never be taken. Not because of Mr. Bush, but because us, ordinary people. For example, imagine what should we do if we want to cut emission of CO2 by 50%. (And 50% wouldn't be enough to solve the problem.)

Then how could we get the energy we need? Use nuclear power? I think it's not an evidence that nuclear power is dangerous, but my opinion is not too popular... Build hydroelectric stations? They can damage ecosystems around them (see lower). And there are not enough alternative resources. We can't build solar or wind power plants everywhere, because they need huge areas, and they also do blasts. (Only one example: big surfaces of solar cells can heat air seriously... that's what we're trying to avoid.)

So, we should consume less energy. But how? Cut down metallurgic industry and don't produce aluminium, iron, etc.? Don't travel by car or plane? Spare on heating and don't use air conditioning? Don't use computers and don't play Stunts? We could do all the things I mentioned, but these measures would be very unpopular... For me, especially the last.   A more serious example: some years ago, Green Party of Germany wanted to rise fuel prices to 5 DM/litre, because we will never spare on something that's not expensive enough. But before the elections, they deleted this point of their guidelines. I think I don't have to say why...


Akoss Poo: I don't understand why the USA would buy quota, if they aren't members of Kyoto protocol... (I think Western European countries do that.) And I have to correct you about Slovakia. OK, there are some ecological problems about power plants on rivers, but this is one of the cleanest resources of energy. (No emission, no waste...) But the relatively small problems caused by these power plants are visible easier for average people than - for example - CO2 emission of a coal power plant. So talking against hydroelectric power plants is more gainful for a politician... That caused Hungary stopped building of the "famous" Nagymaros-Gabcikovo dam system, what we started along with Czechoslovakia. So they had to do the power plant alone, only in Slovak area... and yes, this version caused more environmental damage then the original (Czechoslovakian-Hungarian) version would have caused. (To foreigners who saw Danube in Budapest and Visegr?d, I have to say the whole thing is 150 km northwest from here, so they didn't see less water in Danube because of this. )