[Gamoe]

As you guys know, Al Gore (Futurama guest, Apple board member and former vice-president) has been talking a lot about the environment and the consequences of our irresponsibility with the Earth, perhaps most notably in his film, An Inconvenient Truth. This is a stance that I understand, believe and support and if he is being honest about it, I respect him all the more for it, regardless of his political affiliation.

But, that's the thing I've been trying to figure out. Perhaps I've become somewhat cynical when it comes to politicians and people in power. At least, I have become very skeptical of them. However, I want to believe that Al Gore is promoting this message because he genuinely believes in it, and he wants to make a positive difference in the world, without some kind of political or personal agenda involved. So, what do you guys think? Is Al Gore being sincere in his stance regarding the environment, or is there something else behind this?

[King Bob On The Cob]

Sincere if you ask me, and I'm a crackpot right winger with very little weight put on politicians who talk about global warming.

[Dork.]

Why can't sincerely believe in his environmentalist views, but also realize their political power and use them to further his agenda? I'm sure there are other issues he feels passionately about. He's chosen to push this one for a reason, and since he's a political figure, there's at least some political agenda behind it, or else he wouldn't be doing it.

[Millennium]

Both, but I consider the fact that he's retired from politics to be evidence that he values his environmental concern more than his political agenda. Which is rather ironic, given that he's doing a lot better at spreading his political agenda now that he's no longer a politician in his own right. Watching the Democrat presidential candidates scramble for his endorsement is going to be interesting.

[Kevin]

He is doing better? Who is listening to him other than the die hards that always did? No one I know of.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

He is doing better? Who is listening to him other than the die hards that always did? No one I know of.

Apparently the president of the US is listening to him.

Bush emphasized several energy initiatives in his State of the Union address, acknowledging global climate change and asking Congress to help the United States break its oil addiction by enacting an initiative that would cut U.S. gasoline consumption by 20 percent in the next 10 years. To reach that goal, Bush called for setting a mandatory fuel standard for alternative and renewable gases to 35 billion gallons by 2017, nearly five times the current target.

FOXNews.com - Bush Pursues Energy Initiatives While Congress Debates Iraq - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

I seem to remember that Bush wasn't a great believer in climate change a few years back. I guess it's be another couple of years until you catch up with him though.

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by nath 

Apparently the president of the US is listening to him.



FOXNews.com - Bush Pursues Energy Initiatives While Congress Debates Iraq - Politics | Republican Party | Democratic Party | Political Spectrum

I seem to remember that Bush wasn't a great believer in climate change a few years back. I guess it's be another couple of years until you catch up with him though.

As much as you'd probably love for this to be a Gotcha™ moment, Bush has been asking for this and many other energy alternatives and incentives for reducing emissions, etc.

As for climate change, this is where the arguments always derail… it is not that Bush or many others don't see a climate change… it is whether we are the sole cause. That is where they lose me… while we may indeed be a 'part' of it, it is next to naive to think we are only cause.

Ultimately, I do think it is politics for Gore and the left as opposed to 'real' concern. It is a service to its base. And since the Kyoto treaty was an almost entirely left cadre, and it failed miserably, you have to assume they aren't really all that serious when it comes to action.

Toby

[nath]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

it is not that Bush or many others don't see a climate change… it is whether we are the sole cause. That is where they lose me… while we may indeed be a 'part' of it, it is next to naive to think we are only cause.

less than a year ago he wasn't sure if we were the cause at all:

Question: There's a virtual consensus that the planet is warming...and I suppose I want to know, what is your plan?
Bush: We - first of all, there is - the globe is warming. The fundamental debate: is it manmade or natural. Put that aside.

(my emphasis)
Bush denies human-induced climate change | The Register

And since the Kyoto treaty was an almost entirely left cadre

26 countries didn't sign up to Kyoto. They range right across the political spectrum from Serbia to Palestine - much like the 166 nations that did sign up and then ratify. Including Saudi Arabia and Venezuela!

2 countries signed but decided not to follow through - the US and Australia. Portraying a treaty with such widespread support as in some sense politically leftist is grasping at straws, a bit.

[smacintush]

I think that Al Whore wholeheartedly believes that man is causing climate change.

I think that he has so wholeheartedly invested himself in it that he deliberately exaggerates and proselytizes without regard for truth. I think that he feels that it is more "moral" to lie, exaggerate and inflame than to let the evil human race "harm the planet".

I also think that he is guilty of being the Dems' whore in this which is why though he is neither in nor running for an office, his crap has a distinct political spin to it.

[ShortcutToMoncton]

Regardless of any political agenda, the science behind his views is sound and without doubt. So you've got to applaud him for using solid evidence.

greg

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by nath 

26 countries didn't sign up to Kyoto. They range right across the political spectrum from Serbia to Palestine -

Palestine is not a country, unless you consider Israel's evacuation of Gaza the de facto creation of the state of Palestine.

If you gloss over that fact, what other facts are you glossing over?

[Face Ache]

In a sane country, Al Gore would be your next president.

But Americans haven't finished screwing up their country yet.

[smacintush]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Regardless of any political agenda, the science behind his views is sound and without doubt. So you've got to applaud him for using solid evidence.

greg

Oh yeah, I agree. He's a whore and a liar but at least the science he exploits for personal gain is accurate.

[stupendousman]

Both.

Most people who are the most rabid about an issue both sincerely believe in it (and as such are often immune to facts and at times refuse to keep an open mind) and have an agenda. Gore used to be a fairly moderate guy. Once he sought national office, elected by folks other than those in his state, he started to turn to the left and do a 180 on a lot of his views.

Whether I believe he's sincere or not, I don't trust him any farther than I can throw him.

[stupendousman]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Regardless of any political agenda, the science behind his views is sound and without doubt. So you've got to applaud him for using solid evidence.

greg

Yeah..his spiel about how Katrina and hurricanes are more several now with global warming sure has solid science behind it.



There's a reason why Al Gore won't appear on any panel where there's a real scientist who disputes some* of his nutty claims. It ain't because he's got "sound and without doubt" science supporting most all of what he says.

* I concede that SOME of his claims aren't nutty, and do have scientific validity.

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

Regardless of any political agenda, the science behind his views is sound and without doubt. So you've got to applaud him for using solid evidence.

greg

Are you serious? There is doubt, plenty of it.

Most of what he says is not fact but rather his own interpretations of what data there is. Please do not present this as incontrovertible because his summations are for from undisputed.


To that end, when one takes data in dispute and preaches them as fact to further a cause all the while dismissing those who disagree as pariah opinions is by nature subject to suspicion.

Toby

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

In a sane country, Al Gore would be your next president.

But Americans haven't finished screwing up their country yet.

riiight ok.

Which country is it with the highest standard of living? Oh, the one with the Americans...thats right.

[- - e r i k - -]

You are joking right?

While the good ol' US of A is doing quite decent in the Human Development Index, at number 8, it is beat by
1 .Norway 0.965 (=)
2. Iceland 0.960 (=)
3. Australia 0.957 (=)
4. Ireland 0.956 (↑ 4)
5. Sweden 0.951 (↑ 1)
6. Canada 0.950 (↓ 1)
7. Japan 0.949 (↑ 4)

In fact, as long as this ranking has been running, Norway has been number one for the last six years, then Canada for seven years with Japan and Switzerland taking a few number ones in there too. I'm sorry to inform you that the US has never been #1 unfortunately.

[- - e r i k - -]

Of course, the better indicator of living standard (according to those left-wing UN nuts ) are The Human Poverty Index, ranking USA as low as 16:

1 Sweden
2 Norway
3 Netherlands
4 Finland
5 Denmark
6 Germany
7 Switzerland
8 Canada
9 Luxembourg
10 France
11 Japan
12 Belgium
13 Spain
14 Australia
15 United Kingdom
16 United States
17 Ireland
18 Italy

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

You are joking right?

While the good ol' US of A is doing quite decent in the Human Development Index, at number 8, it is beat by
1 .Norway 0.965 (=)
2. Iceland 0.960 (=)
3. Australia 0.957 (=)
4. Ireland 0.956 (↑ 4)
5. Sweden 0.951 (↑ 1)
6. Canada 0.950 (↓ 1)
7. Japan 0.949 (↑ 4)

In fact, as long as this ranking has been running, Norway has been number one for the last six years, then Canada for seven years with Japan and Switzerland taking a few number ones in there too. I'm sorry to inform you that the US has never been #1 unfortunately.

All well and good. It is of course not the definitive scale that negates others standards of measure.

While a useful tool, it is an arbitrary formula and applies opinion-based values as part of its equation and as such flawed in representing value on any universal level of acceptance.

Not saying it isn't useful, just that it might not be hard to pick any nation on that list and say it is better at X, Y or Z than any other.

Toby

[stupendousman]

Wow...a standard developed by a middle eastern guy, used by the UN.

No chance of it being biased, right?

:lol

Seriously, When Japan ranks above the US, you know there's some cooked books happening.

[nath]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Palestine is not a country, unless you consider Israel's evacuation of Gaza the de facto creation of the state of Palestine.

Oh alright Captain Zion, let's not include Palestine as a country. So 25 states haven't signed, rather than 26.
Now have you got anything to say about the thread topic?

Here's the list in case you need to work out what you're talking about first.

List of Kyoto Protocol signatories - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Israel signed and ratified btw.

[vmarks]

You haven't answered my question first. If you're willing to get a very large fact incorrect, what else have you got wrong?

[Nicko]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You haven't answered my question first. If you're willing to get a very large fact incorrect, what else have you got wrong?

I thought mods were supposed to be above trolling.

[vmarks]

Because heaven forbid that we stick to facts?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by nath 

Apparently the president of the US is listening to him.

Him? No. Bush isn't even coming close to his extremisms.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Face Ache 

In a sane country, Al Gore would be your next president.

Sane and Al Gore are oxymorons.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

You are joking right?

They favor mostly socialistic countries. What if robbing you of your hard earned money Isn't an option? Then those above use fall way down below.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Nicko 

I thought mods were supposed to be above trolling.

Oh jeesh..

That isn't trolling.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

All well and good. It is of course not the definitive scale that negates others standards of measure.

Do you have a standard of measure that puts the USA in first place or do you want to concede that you lost that point?

[Troll]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

Are you serious? There is doubt, plenty of it.

Most of what he says is not fact but rather his own interpretations of what data there is. Please do not present this as incontrovertible because his summations are for from undisputed.

Which of these do you think are disputable?

1) Global warming is happening.
2) Human activity is responsible for global warming.
3) If left unchecked, global warming will have serious consequences for humanity.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You haven't answered my question first. If you're willing to get a very large fact incorrect, what else have you got wrong?

Oh grow up! Asking someone to list the facts they've got wrong isn't constructive in the slightest. Imagine we made you play that game in threads about Palestine. He said "state" instead of "nation". That isn't a "large fact".

[DBursey]

The United States is first by far in terms of diplomatic incompetence, as well as in military buffoonery. It's also winning the race in terms of 'fastest western country to trade human rights for a thin veneer of false security'.

What place there for a man who values honesty and scientific competence?

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Do you have a standard of measure that puts the USA in first place or do you want to concede that you lost that point?

Well, I could just easily point to total GDP.

I am fairly certain accessibility/quality of health care is also a potential standard if measure.

Personal Liberty, anyone?

Seriously, my point is that anyone can manipulate just about any way to make their point 'number one'.

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by DBursey 

The United States is first by far in terms of diplomatic incompetence, as well as in military buffoonery. It's also winning the race in terms of 'fastest western country to trade human rights for a thin veneer of false security'.

What place there for a man who values honesty and scientific competence?

Please.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You haven't answered my question first. If you're willing to get a very large fact incorrect, what else have you got wrong?

What a silly, rude question. You should know as well as anybody that the terms "state" and "country" are roughly interchangeable in normal conversation outside the context of the U.S. — both refer to a region with a sovereign government. There is a Palestinian government, and I'd say Israel wants there to be a Palestinian government for them to work with. He used a term that doesn't pander to your political leanings. That's all. That doesn't call everything he's ever said into question. Even if we do make a distinction, have you never ever used a slightly wrong term?

[Gamoe]

...

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Troll 

Which of these do you think are disputable?

1) Global warming is happening.
2) Human activity is responsible for global warming.
3) If left unchecked, global warming will have serious consequences for humanity.

2 and 3.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

He used a term that doesn't pander to your political leanings. That's all.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Oh jeesh..
That isn't trolling.

No. More of a strawman/derail combo actually. And we all know you're very much against those.

Regardless, a mod should at least have the self-respect to be embarrassed about behaving in such a way.

[villalobos]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

2 and 3.

With this in mind, are you in favor of not trying to conserve energy and control CO2 emissions?

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

What a silly, rude question. You should know as well as anybody that the terms "state" and "country" are roughly interchangeable in normal conversation outside the context of the U.S. — both refer to a region with a sovereign government. He used a term that doesn't pander to your political leanings. That's all. That doesn't call everything he's ever said into question. Even if we do make a distinction, have you never ever used a slightly wrong term?

Originally Posted by Troll 

Oh grow up! Asking someone to list the facts they've got wrong isn't constructive in the slightest. Imagine we made you play that game in threads about Palestine. He said "state" instead of "nation". That isn't a "large fact".

Except that the Palestinian Authority is not a nation, not a state, and not a country. Period.

It has no clear borders unless you accept that they exist because Israel vacated Gaza.

You're all three of you, factually incorrect. If you assert factually incorrect statements on this easily proven point, what else are you wrong about in your environmentalist argument? When you fail on the simple points, what does that say about the complex ones?

Originally Posted by nath 

No. More of a strawman/derail combo actually. And we all know you're very much against those.

Regardless, a mod should at least have the self-respect to be embarrassed about behaving in such a way.

Embarrassed about insisting on facts in an argument? Never.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

Well, I could just easily point to total GDP.

So China has the second highest standard of living in the world? If you have a big GDP and lots of people, that means you don't have a high standard of living. GDP per capita is a better measure but the US isn't top of that list now is it?

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

I am fairly certain accessibility/quality of health care is also a potential standard if measure.

And you seriously think that on that scale you have any country in Western Europe beat?

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

Personal Liberty, anyone?

Patriot Act anyone? Death penalty anyone? Government spying on you anyone? Loads of countries beat the US on personal liberty scales. And you can look at the US plummeting down the press freedom and economic freedom indexes too.

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

Seriously, my point is that anyone can manipulate just about any way to make their point 'number one'.

Dude, show us a "standard of living scale" where the US scores highest otherwise, you don't have a point. As things stand, you've lost this argument entirely. The US does not have the highest standard of living on the planet. Don't take it so hard. It's not a train smash.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Except that the Palestinian Authority is not a nation, not a state, and not a country. Period.

I agree, the Palestinian Authority is an authority of the nation of Palestine. It is not itself a nation.

[Troll]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

2 and 3.

Every single peer reviewed scientific paper written in the last 5 years confirmed number 2. Not a single scientist disagreed. Why do you?

[:dragonflypro:]

Originally Posted by Troll 

So China has the second highest standard of living in the world? If you have a big GDP and lots of people, that means you don't have a high standard of living. GDP per capita is a better measure but the US isn't top of that list now is it?
And you seriously think that on that scale you have any country in Western Europe beat?
Patriot Act anyone? Death penalty anyone? Government spying on you anyone? Loads of countries beat the US on personal liberty scales. And you can look at the US plummeting down the press freedom and economic freedom indexes too.
Dude, show us a "standard of living scale" where the US scores highest otherwise, you don't have a point. As things stand, you've lost this argument entirely. The US does not have the highest standard of living on the planet. Don't take it so hard. It's not a train smash.

It isn't an argument. Honestly, I simply stated:

All well and good. It is of course not the definitive scale that negates others standards of measure.

I don't have to go dig up proof that there is some scale the USA, Canada, Japan, {Your nation of choice} or any other nation is first, second or last. I am not looking at it as something to be proven. In fact I am saying that it can't be.

My initial observation remains, that citing one specific formula is not categorical establishment of indisputable fact.

What if I held your examples as positives:

"Patriot Act anyone? Death penalty anyone? Government spying on you anyone?

If I do, then any scale I derive to represent a 'standard of living' that has these topics propel a nations ranking would clearly be disregard. I imagine there is little I could do to convince you otherwise. At which time our positions would reverse with you saying my scale is not universally true.

You seem to think I am arguing that the US should be at the top. I'm not. If it were, or were not, my opinion, that is all it would be.

Personally, of all the places I've been, there's nowhere I'd rather live. Some academic scale is not going to change my opinion. Nor would I be so pompous to present one to try and change yours.

I think your desire, conscious or otherwise, to make this a 'USA is number 1/No way in hell, EU rules all (or whatever)' debate has overridden your willingness to look at what I said as a valid academic observation.

As your name implies, you are looking for a beef where there isn't one. That makes you a poor target and not worthy of any further consideration. Why? Simply, you lack the reflection and perspective enough to identify a call out for debate and an injection of opinion.

That makes you tiresome… so I need a nap. Don't go under my bed.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

Except that the Palestinian Authority is not a nation, not a state, and not a country. Period.

It has no clear borders unless you accept that they exist because Israel vacated Gaza.

Israel certainly wasn't offering Gaza to nobody.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

You're all three of you, factually incorrect. If you assert factually incorrect statements on this easily proven point

"Easily proven"? It's easy to say something is easy when you haven't even attempted it.

In fact, there is no real objective, universal way to prove statehood that I know of. It's a question of definitions and artificial boundaries. That's why Palestine qualifies as a state to some people's satisfaction but not to others'. Ditto for Taiwan.

Originally Posted by vmarks 

what else are you wrong about in your environmentalist argument? When you fail on the simple points, what does that say about the complex ones?

This is an ad hominem attack. This whole line of questioning is a logical fallacy besides being off-topic.

But anyway, knowledge of political terminology as it applies to the Middle East is entirely irrelevant to one's knowledge of the environment (which would be the bulk of the environmentalist argument). When you demonstrate an unwillingness to distinguish between your own opinion and fact, or between political semantics and environmental science, what does that say about you? To me, it says that you are more interesting in "winning" than in listening to what others have to say. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's the impression that it gives.

[Face Ache]

Although this reads like something from The Onion, it's actually true.*

US urges scientists to block out sun

David Adam and Liz Minchin
January 29, 2007

THE US wants the world's scientists to develop technology to block sunlight as a last-ditch way to halt global warming.

It says research into techniques such as giant mirrors in space or reflective dust pumped into the atmosphere would be "important insurance" against rising emissions, and has lobbied for such a strategy to be recommended by a UN report on climate change, the first part of which is due out on Friday).

The US has also attempted to steer the UN report, prepared by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), away from conclusions that would support a new worldwide climate treaty based on binding targets to reduce emissions. It has demanded a draft of the report be changed to emphasise the benefits of voluntary agreements and to include criticisms of the Kyoto Protocol, which the US opposes.

The final report, written by experts from across the world, will underpin international negotiations to devise an emissions treaty to succeed Kyoto, the first phase of which expires in 2012. World governments were given a draft of the report last year and invited to comment.

The US response says the idea of interfering with sunlight should be included in the summary for policymakers, the prominent chapter at the front of each panel report. It says: "Modifying solar radiance may be an important strategy if mitigation of emissions fails. Doing the R&D to estimate the consequences of applying such a strategy is important insurance that should be taken out. This is a very important possibility that should be considered."

Scientists have previously estimated that reflecting less than 1 per cent of sunlight back into space could compensate for the warming generated by all greenhouse gases emitted since the industrial revolution. Possible techniques include putting a giant screen into orbit, thousands of tiny, shiny balloons, or microscopic sulfate droplets pumped into the high atmosphere to mimic the cooling effects of a volcanic eruption. The IPCC draft said such ideas were "speculative, uncosted and with potential unknown side-effects".

The US submission complains the draft report is "Kyoto-centric" and it wants to include the work of economists who have reported "the degree to which the Kyoto framework is found wanting".

Economists!



*"True" according to the reality-based community.

[vmarks]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Israel certainly wasn't offering Gaza to nobody.


"Easily proven"? It's easy to say something is easy when you haven't even attempted it.

Ok, here we go.

It's easy to read wikipedia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_o...stine#_note-un
------
A declaration of a "State of Palestine" (Arabic: دولة فلسطين‎) was proclaimed in Algeria on November 15, 1988, by the Palestinian National Council, the legislative body of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO). The declared "State of Palestine" is not and has never been an independent state, as it has never had sovereignty over any territory.
------

The PLO is of course, recognized as a terrorist organization by the UK's NCIS and the USA. -- vmarks

------

The State of Palestine is not recognized by the United Nations...

------

... the Palestinian Authority or Palestinian National Authority (PNA), however, does not claim sovereignty over any territory and therefore is not the government of the "State of Palestine" proclaimed in 1988.

------

More than 100 states recognize the State of Palestine, and 20 more grant some form of diplomatic status to a Palestinian delegation, falling short of full diplomatic recognition.

-------

The PLO gained observer status at the UN General Assembly in 1974 (General Assembly resolution 3237). Acknowledging the proclamation of the State of Palestine, the UN redesignated this observer status as belonging to Palestine in 1988 (General Assembly resolution 43/177.) In July 1998, the General Assembly adopted a new resolution (52/250) conferring upon Palestine additional rights and privileges, including the right to participate in the general debate held at the start of each session of the General Assembly, the right of reply, the right to co-sponsor resolutions and the right to raise points of order on Palestinian and Middle East issues. By this resolution, "seating for Palestine shall be arranged immediately after non-member States and before the other observers."

-------

The Paletinian Authority is not a state. Despite what 100 countries have chosen to do out of wishful thinking, the PA does not claim sovereignty over any territory and therefore is not the government of the "State of Palestine" proclaimed in 1988.

I would modify that be saying that when Israel unilaterally vacated Gaza, Israel gave the PA sovreignty over territory, and in so doing -CREATED- the Palestinian State- but Hamas and Fatah don't believe they have a Palestinian State yet.

This is an ad hominem attack. This whole line of questioning is a logical fallacy besides being off-topic.

Hey, nath introduced something as fact that is incorrect. Troll and you both decided to defend what is factually incorrect.

Questioning other parts of your argument when you get a fact wrong is not an ad hominem, it's apt. It's questioning the rest of your argument, not attacking the person.

The only ad hominems here are the ones where folks decide I'm a troll (I'm not) or when you start attacking me as only interested in 'winning.' I don't have to 'win' here on these forums, I'm already correct on the facts I've brought forth.

But anyway, knowledge of political terminology as it applies to the Middle East is entirely irrelevant to one's knowledge of the environment (which would be the bulk of the environmentalist argument). When you demonstrate an unwillingness to distinguish between your own opinion and fact, or between political semantics and environmental science, what does that say about you? To me, it says that you are more interesting in "winning" than in listening to what others have to say. Perhaps I'm wrong, but that's the impression that it gives.

This thread is about Al Gore's using the environment for political agenda. Your argument that I should leave political facts out of the thread when they are bandied about incorrectly seems to fall flat in that respect.

While Gore isn't using the political assertion of a non-existant Palestinian State to talk about his environmentalism, nath did in calling on it to talk about the Kyoto protocol.

[nath]

Originally Posted by vmarks 

This thread is about Al Gore's using the environment for political agenda. Your argument that I should leave political facts out of the thread when they are bandied about incorrectly seems to fall flat in that respect.

I'm happy to concede the point you've used to derail this thread. Let's call 'Palestine' a 'body' that isn't a Kyoto signatory. You seem happy to trust Wikipedia for your own purposes so I'm assuming you're otherwise happy with the list of signatories I provided.

Do you have anything to say about the topic at hand other than issues of terminology in relation to Palestinian political status?

To recap:
166 signed and ratified (including Israel)
26 not signed
2 signed and not ratified (US and Australia)

[Troll]

Originally Posted by :dragonflypro: 

My initial observation remains, that citing one specific formula is not categorical establishment of indisputable fact.

No one cited a single source of this information. The source you saw is a synthesis of a number of different scales. Snow-I claimed that the US had the highest standard of living and you seemed to be backing up that argument. The USA does not have the highest standard of living - that is a simple fact. However, it has a very high standard of living and is a very nice place to live and if standard of living were the be-all-and-en-all, then we'd all live in Luxembourg ... and we'd all emit as much CO2 as the average Luxembourgois.