Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

I notice that the learned Mr. Kuvasz does not give the recalibration, Okie.

What type of weasel way out are you attempting now? You ought to be ashamed of yourself. As I recall, these were your words, which were completely rebutted by five different peer reviewed scientific papers I posted.

Your challenge and boasts were:

Quote:

Okie- Here is what Mr. Kuvasz cannot rebut since most of it comes from a source he uses- THE IPCC.

Despite the fact that the AOCGM models(which, apparently are fed dozens of ASSUMPTIONS) PREDICT that temperatures in the troposphere increase as fast or faster than surface temperatures, the ACTUAL MEASUREMENTS MADE BY NOAA SATELLITES SHOWS THAT THIS IS NOT THE CASE

Therefore, the MAIN REASON( water vapor feedback) which would cause a significant warming, would not do so since the feedback only works effectively IF THE ENTIRE TROPOSPHERE WARMS UP.

THE NOAA SATELLITES SHOW THAT IT DOES NOT WARM UP TO ANY GREAT DEGREE.

The model done by the IPCC shows a warming of about 0.224C perdecade while the NOAA data shows a warming of only 0.034C per decade -All of which is attributable to the 1997 El Nino.

Your challenge was met. It was conquered, and your argument was found to be false. Now you change your argument? What a lame thing to do.

You were the one who denied global warming was a real occurrence, and now what do you say? "Well it might be real but it is not going to be that bad."

Could that be the same "recalibration" given by Mr. Parados on another thread? If it is, the numbers given by Mr. Parados were .22C per decade to .26C per decade.

If this is correct, and I am sure that Mr. Parados would say it is, then the rise in temperature by 2050 would be somewhere within the range of 1.16C to 1.30C by 2050.

You dont understand or listen. Do you? The modeling done has taken a conservative approach and the numbers you finally accept are actually close to the best case scenarios, not the worst. If we are off by 25% it will be worse, and a lot faster.

Now, Okie, that would be true if absolutely nothing were to be done. We know that the Chinese and India are NOT covered by the Kyoto Protocol and we know that most of the EU countries HAVE NOT met their targets established in 1990, yet the left wing, who wishes to destroy this country's economy, appears to put the entire burden on the USA.

Pure paranoia. You have proof that whatever "Left Wing" exists in the US has a plan, let alone the power to do this? Stand and deliver this plan if it is known to you, and explain just how it would occur.

Since the US has the world's largest economy at $11 Trillion GNP followed only distantly by Japan's $4 Trillion, and the US spends as much on national defense as the rest of the entire world put together one would expect the US to take the lead in any defense of the entire planet from world-wide disaster due to climate change. Or would you leave that up to other nations, like Ghana or Paraguay?

I am sure, Okie,( and I will be on these threads to comment) that President Hillary Rodham Clinton will immediately order the COMPLETE AND TOTAL SHUT DOWN OF ALL INDUSTRIES IN THE USA WHICH CONTRIBUTE TO CO2 POLLUTION.

Can you be serious for even a single minute without insane bombast? Further down in your essay you admit she cannot do this. So which is it? You must have at least some internal consistency so not to be taken as a stark raving looney? Oh God, what am I saying? You are taken for one around here.

On the other hand, Okie, I think that someone like President McCain would take a different approach. He would view the figures of
1.16 to 1.30 as figures that can be partially reduced and rendered innocuous by taking a LONG VIEW. The development of solar power, fusion and other likely sources will go a long way in the next fifty years to meet whatever problem is at hand.

So where has George Bush been over the past five and half years in supporting solar, fusion, and other "likely sources?" Would you care to show us what his administration's energy plan has been over the past five years? Why are you saying to wait for McCain in 2009? Why can't the GOP start now? They hold both houses of Congress and the White House, so where is their plan? Or are they so beholden to oil interests that they can't do anything? Which would beg the question "How would the GOP energy policies change simply because John McCain would be president?" You must be on drugs to think that the GOP gives a flying fukk about making the US energy independent.

Indeed, Okie, Dr> Bjorn Lomberg, in his book, "The Skeptical Environmentalist" holds that we should not

"spend vast amounts of money to cut a tiny slice of the global temperature increase when this constitutes a poor use of resources and when we could probably use these resources far more effectively in the developing world."

Well, that is why the Clinton administration provided funds, cut by the Bush administration to develop conservation and alternative sources of energy for use in this country as well as in Developing world.

You see, Okie, the bottom line in all of this is that despite the failure of the EU countries generally to meet thier 1990 Kyoto targets and despite the fact that the two HUGE developing countries of China and India continue to pollute, the emphasis of the left wing, which hates the global dominance of the USA, would like to drastically harm our economy.

Are you seriously stupid? The Europeans stopped trying to meet their Kyoto goals when the US refused to sign the accords. You know absolutly nothing about this topic.

What evidence can you show that substantiates and can withstand objective analysis that the "US Left Wing" hates US global dominance and wants to drastically harm the US economy?

You are just making $hit up.

That is why, Okie, so many have made such catasthropic predictions. They hope to frighten us all with a problem that, within the USA and on a long term basis, according to the figures above is easily handleable.

So according to you, thousands of US climatologists have engaged in a secret, or not so secret cabal to destroy the US economy and the way they are going about this is to scare people into using less energy that cause greenhouse gases?

It won't happen, Okie..Not even the left wing Hillary will shut down our economy because of the panic mongers. Even she will go along with a balanced approach.

But, but, .....you said earlier she would. So which is it?

The most recent thrust in that direction, Okie, as you may know, is a bid to build a huge Coal Plant in the Midwest which will handle its emissions by burying them in the ground. This will take a few years and I am sure the left wing will scream bloody murder because it isn't happening fast enough.

Actually, the Norwegians are pumping CO2 back under the North Sea. The US can do the same, and in calmer waters.

in a long series of insane posts yours here rivals the most ill-informed and most insane you have ever posted. You don't actually know anything about this issue and have embarked upon a willfully blatant campaign of scape-goating and disinformation that would give Joseph Goebbels a hard-on.


I am impatient with stupidity and have learned to live without it. So should you.

Scientist: Inject Sulfur into Air to Battle Global Warming
By Sara Goudarzi
LiveScience Staff Writer


.....Injecting sulfur into the second atmospheric layer closest to Earth would reflect more sunlight back to space and offset greenhouse gas warming, according to Nobel laureate Paul Crutzen from the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry .....Crutzen suggests carrying sulfur into the atmosphere via balloons and using artillery guns to release it, where the particles would stay for up to two years. The results could be seen in six months.

Your problem. Mr. Kuvasz, which, of course, you will not admit, is that you wish to destroy the Economy of the United States with your Gore like cries that the sky is falling. You are aware, of course, that many of the scientists who present the "new data" are left leaning phonies who would love to see the US collapse.

You will have to provide proof for your claims. Until you do so there is nothing to discuss regarding your most recent inane remark.

If you have any integrity, I dare you to address the qoute below, line by line. Of course, you will not because it ruins the Gore "sky is falling"scenario and the left cannot tolerate that!

How many times have you thrown up some article or thesis from a Right Wing shill that have subsequently shoved back down your throat by having me document them as erroneous before you realize how poorly you research any subject and you start doing your homework correctly?

Now, what should be done.?
People who subscribe to the left wing notion, as I am sure that you do, Mr. Kuvasz, that the USA should immediately shut down all of its economy( even though China and India continue their CO2 emissions full blast BECAUSE they are "developing" countries, are people whose ideas will never be accepted by the US Congress even if that body were to change materially in the next election.

Would you please describe what you mean by "left wing?" Have I ever said that I would support the immediate shut down of all of the US economy? Unless someone changed the title of this topic, this topic has been a debate upon the realities of climate change.

What is to be done?

Here( and I am sure that because of your premise, Mr. Kuvasz, that the evil US economy must be destroyed) is a solution.

Please show a citation where I stated "that the evil US economy must be destroyed."

Taken from the book'The Skeptical Environmentalist" by Bjorn Lomborg.

(And before you even try to shoot the messenger, Mr. Kuvasz, please remember that Mr. Thomas showed us how and why any left wing attacks on this author and books FAILED UTTERLY)

Really? Failed utterly, according to whom, you and Thomas? Sorry neither you or Thomas impress me as impartial referees But, then I would assume posting these rebuttals to Lomborg's theses in his book criticizing the paucity of his work from the editors of Scientific America are useless to you because accepting them loses your argument, regardless of their own expertise.

Scientific American debate:pages 11- 28

"Skepticism toward The Skeptical Environmentalist", Scientific

American, 15 April, 2002

John Rennie, editor in chief, "Misleading Math about the Earth: Science

defends itself against The Skeptical Environmentalist", Scientific

American, January 2002 Issue

Stephen Schneider, "Global Warming: Neglecting the Complexities"

John P. Holdren, "Energy: Asking the Wrong Question"

John Bongaarts, "Population: Ignoring Its Impact"

Thomas Lovejoy, "Biodiversity: Dismissing Scientific Process"

also included for edification are Lomborg's rely and subsequent replies by the aforementioned authors.

http://hps.arts.unsw.edu.au/hps_content/courses/courses_details/gen_studies_page/risk_site/Readings.pdf

quote

P.322

First,Do we want to handle global warming in the most efficient way, or do we want to use global warming as a STEPPING STONE TO OTHER POLITICAL PROJECTS...( like the left wing extremists do)?

Second, we should not spend vast amounts of money to cut a TINY SLICE OF THE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE INCREASE when this constitutes a poor use of resources and when we could probably use these funds far more effectively in the developing world.....

The Kyoto Protocol will likely cost at least $150 billion a year, and possibly much more. UNICEF estimates that just $70-80 billion a year could give all Third World inhabitants access to basics like health, education, water and sanitation. More important still is the fact that if we could muster such a a missive investment in the present day developing countries, this would also give them a muchj better future position in terms of resources and infrastructure from which to MANAGE A FUTURE GLOBAL WARMING.

Third, we should realize that the cost of global warming will be substantial--about 5 Trillion, Since cutting back CO2 emissions QUICKLY BECOMES VERY COSTLY, AND EASILY COUNTERPRODUCTIVE, WE SAHOULD FOCUS MORE OF OUR EFFORTS AT FINDINGS WAYS OF EASING THE EMISSION OF GREENHOUSE GASES OVER THE LONG RUN. PARTLY, THIS MEANS THAT WE NEED TO INVEST MUCH MORE IN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT OF SOLAR POWER,FUSION AND OTHER LIKELY POWER SOURCES OF THE FUTURE."

You can't rebut the sensible approach in the paragraphs above since it would ruin the thesis that the USA is so evil in its pollution of the pristine world.

Why do you repeatedly set yourself up to be shown as a complete pedantic fool when you post such remarks and declare them inviolable? I don't know what type of chemical imbalance afflicts you but if you carry on in real life as you do here I would be surprised you can function outside of a mental institution.

Shall we now?

Lomborg agrees that global warming is occurring, that it is in great part man-made. So using him as a source, as you tried to do before to butress yourself with the IPCC report is a bizarre attempt to defend your position on global warming. But since you used both, one can assume only you have finally seen the light and now believe that global warming is real, and is man-made. Otherwise why cite sources that say so?

It is definitely the case that we are pumping enough CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to warm the earth; that many of our environmental problems are the diseases of poverty, early industrialization, and the absence of democracy; that the Kyoto Protocol would be hideously expensive; that it would delay the warming trend for a decade at most; that projected temperature rises up to 2100 are bearable; and that it would almost surely be better to spend the resources that would be sucked up by the Kyoto Protocol on third-world public health and infrastructure instead.

But this is a radical and dangerously incomplete version Lomborg portrays.

There are three more critical points that he desperately needed to make, but did not. And because he did not it seems that the net effect of his work is not to reveal wisdom, but to darken counsel and offer the deluded neophyte like you ammo to use against those who say humanity had better start doing something now about global warming.

First, climatologists' model-based central projections of the effects of global warming over the next century are just that: model-based central projections. There is enormous uncertainty about what will happen. It might be the case (although most scientists would bet heavily against it) that our pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will have little effect on climate--that the CO2 will be quickly absorbed into the oceans and terrestrial biosphere (making gardening much easier), and that any residual warming will be largely balanced out by the cooling effects of industrial soot. It is likely to be the case that the central projection of a 4 to 5 degree Fahrenheit warming over the next century will be accurate.

Any approach to dealing with global warming that does not create the capability for massive and swift action should things be worse than currently expected is fatally flawed.

Second, those who will suffer from global warming are largely in the global south. If global warming does increase the magnitude of major typhoons and does raise the sea level a bit, by the latter part of this century more than 100 million people in the Ganges delta will be at risk of drowning if a high tide accompanies the storm surge of a major typhoon in the Bay of Bengal. The managers and shareholders of companies like Halliburton that will gain from inaction on global warming are a different and distinct group from the tropical peasants who stand to lose their health and their lives. Any claim that "instead of Kyoto we should be doing X" has to be accompanied by a plan to actually do X. Otherwise, the claim that inaction on global warming enhances world welfare is likely to be very false indeed, as it is hard to believe that on the scale of human happiness higher incomes in the global north will outweigh nastier, more brutish, and shorter lives in the global south.

It is one thing to say that the resources the Kyoto Protocol wants to use to fight global warming could be used to provide first-class public health and economic infrastructure to the global south. It is another to say that these resources, instead, will be used to get every American household a second DVD player and every tenth American household a power boat.

Third, global warming produced by a fossil fuel-burning civilization may be bearable and manageable up to the end of the twenty-first century, but the warming trend is unlikely to stop there. Humanity will have to move to greenhouse gas-free industry at some point unless you want to see temperatures rising not by five but by ten or fifteen degrees.

We need to start doing the research and industrial development now so that countries developing in 2050 can be offered an attractive choice of greenhouse gas-free technologies as they industrialize.

We don't want the climate in the twenty-second century to be shaped by an industrial China that in 2080 is still burning its brown coal, do we?

So Lomborg's argument has to be a call not for inaction, but for rightly-directed action on global warming--which means a lot more money spent starting today on developing the technological alternatives we will need to have available for the end of the twenty-first century.

How do these three points change Lomborg's argument?

He may well still be right that inaction on control of greenhouse gas emissions over the next twenty years is the best policy--but that claim needs a footnote warning that we need now to build the institutions necessary to take swift action if it turns out that things are worse than expected. Otherwise all one takes from his argument, and you do, is that nothing can be done, so don't worry; somewhere some mad scientist will invent a way out of the problem facing the world.

The only problem with that is who, how, where, and when?

He may well be right that the resources that Kyoto would suck up would do more for human welfare if spent creating a more human world by boosting public health and economic infrastructure.

But that claim needs to be accompanied by a plan to make sure that these resources are devoted to their best alternative use in the global south. "Would" cuts no ice here. "Will" does.

Most disappointing of all, is Lomborg's failure to even mention the importance of technological development. If it is the best policy to wait for a technological fix to the problem of global warming, then we need first to fix our technology so that it will be able to do what we ask of it when we need it.

But, You and others never make any comments about the reason why the Kyoto Protocol was voted down in 1997 by the US Congress by the large margin of 95-0. I do hope that you know that the main reason was that some developing nations such as India and China were EXEMPT from the Treaty.

Apparently, you are so devoid of support for your position you ask rhetorical questions not even pertinent to the topic at hand, viz., climate change. Why don't you go post the Congressional Record of the debate and remarks from the US Senate if you want a real assessment of the US political position, then post the reasons from the Kyoto Protocol web site to find out why India and China were exempt?

I do hope that you know that even if we shut down our economy, the CO2 spewed into the atmosphere by China and India by 2020 will ruin any type of Kyoto plans UNLESS THEY ADHERE TO SOME KIND OF LIMIT.

No one to my knowledge has made a pronouncement to "shut down" the US economy. If you have direct evidence of it, I am sure you will kindly present it. Please show the readers of this thread where anyone, any mainstream party has spoken so.


When they do that, Mr.Kuvasz, be sure to let us all know.


You and the others on the left show your disdain for the US position on "Global Warming" but you( to the best of my knowledge) have never excoriated the hypocrites in the EU, most of which have failed to meet thier Kyoto Targets.

Again, you are making up $hit. The alleged "US" position on GW you bespeak refers above to a vote in the US Senate from nearly a decade ago, when scientific uncertainly was greater than today. Today, virtually no US climatologist of repute disputes that GW is occurring, or not caused in great part by man, nor further that it will get worse as time goes on.

As to allegations that no one has castigated the EU nations for not meeting their Kyoto CO2 reduction targets, I have already posted as to why the EU has not hit their targets and you clearly did not read what I wrote or you would not have asked such a question to me.

Since you are so brilliant on Environmental subjects, Mr. Kuvasz, I am sure that you can respond to all the points I made above.

I just did, and even a stream of bat piss looks like a shaft of gold in the dark. All I did was bring a lighted torch to your bat cave.

If you do not, there is no great matter since I am sure that no great changes in the US position on the ALLEGED "HUGE" GLOBAL WARMING problem will be made until at least 2009 and if Hillary Rodham CLinton is defeated by McCain, there will be no great changes done during his tenure. The changes that will be made are those outlined by Dr. Lomborg above---No frenetic hairpulling that throws the baby out with the bathwater but a slow and careful transition to the technological changes outlined by Dr. Lomborg for the first half of this century.

Unfortunately, for those of us who actually have read "The Skeptical Environmentalist," and I have, Lomborg does not detail much on how those technological changes come about, nor the manner in which governments are to facilitate those change that he believes will save us. He spent over 500 pages and thousands of footnotes on telling the world "Don't Worry, Be Happy, but he did not tell us how it would come about.

Chew on that, Mr. Kuvasz.

PS. I hope you feel better but you are so intemperate that I fear your reason may have been affected!

Thank you, and by the way; that fellow you quote in your next post, Samuelson, isn't he the economist guy who wrote a book that was predicting that the Dow-Jones stock market would be at what, 40,000 by now? Some smart fella' there you choose to quote.

Whose next up on your list of stellar goofball citations, another Dane, say, an Erich von Danekin when you assert that Jesus of Nazereth was in fact a Martian?

Mr. Kuvasz wrote:

Are you seriously stupid? The Europeans stopped trying to meet their Kyoto goals when the US refused to sign the accords. You know absolutly nothing about this topic.
************************************************************
I posted the following which Mr.,Kuvasz could not handle because he tried to defame Mr/ Samuelson by referring to an economic matter. Samuelson gives the truth and Mr. Kuvasz can't handle it.

Defame whom? Mr Samuelson has done a fine job of defaming himself with his nonsensical writings on his projections of the US economy. It could be that when you used such a Godawfully wrong loser of an economist as an economic authority thatI questioned his abilities because he wrote a book heralding that the ecomomy, based upon the stock market would be approximately four time greater than it is today.

Next you will quote as an authority a heart surgery who continually loses patients on the operating table.

I wonder if the EU( they are not stupid) stopped trying so hard NOT because the US was not, in their view, working hard enough on the alleged Global Warming but BECAUSE if the developing nations of China and India do nothing about their CO2 emissions, any effort by the EU and the USA will be wasted.

I would love to see Mr. Kuvasz present evidence that the emissions by China and India, if not corrected, will mean that efforts by the USA and the EU are almost fruitless.

who ever said such nonsense? show me where that claim was made.

In the meantime, I will give the environmental genius, Mr. Kuvasz another shot at Mr. Samuelson's article., He avoided it like the plague so far. It is evident that he cannot rebut it point by point.

I have spent my time laughing at you, and your arguments.

but, how is it that you yourself are apparently incapable of rebutting any of my own arguments? are you stupid or what?

did you not state earlier that Lomborg's views were unassasailable when they clearly were?

look carely, at the critique I posted of Lomborg's work, your buddy below samuelson agrees with me on what needs to be done (and which Lomborg did not mention). because though poorly illustrated samuelson delineated similar ideas that I posted earlier, albeit without placing the onus where it belongs, the First World

So,


Greenhouse Hypocrisy

By Robert J. Samuelson

Wednesday, June 29, 2005; Page A21

Almost a decade ago I suggested that global warming would become a "gushing" source of political hypocrisy. So it has. Politicians and scientists constantly warn of the grim outlook, and the subject is on the agenda of the upcoming Group of Eight summit of world economic leaders. But all this sound and fury is mainly exhibitionism -- politicians pretending they're saving the planet. The truth is that, barring major technological advances, they can't (and won't) do much about global warming. It would be nice if they admitted that, though this seems unlikely.

Europe is the citadel of hypocrisy. Considering Europeans' contempt for the United States and George Bush for not embracing the Kyoto Protocol, you'd expect that they would have made major reductions in greenhouse gas emissions -- the purpose of Kyoto. Well, not exactly. From 1990 (Kyoto's base year for measuring changes) to 2002, global emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2), the main greenhouse gas, increased 16.4 percent, reports the International Energy Agency. The U.S. increase was 16.7 percent, and most of Europe hasn't done much better.


Here are some IEA estimates of the increases: France, 6.9 percent; Italy, 8.3 percent; Greece, 28.2 percent; Ireland, 40.3 percent; the Netherlands, 13.2 percent; Portugal, 59 percent; Spain, 46.9 percent. It's true that Germany (down 13.3 percent) and Britain (a 5.5 percent decline) have made big reductions. But their cuts had nothing to do with Kyoto. After reunification in 1990, Germany closed many inefficient coal-fired plants in eastern Germany; that was a huge one-time saving. In Britain, the government had earlier decided to shift electric utilities from coal (high CO2 emissions) to plentiful natural gas (lower CO2 emissions).

On their present courses, many European countries will miss their Kyoto targets for 2008-2012. To reduce emissions significantly, Europeans would have to suppress driving and electricity use; that would depress economic growth and fan popular discontent. It won't happen. Political leaders everywhere deplore global warming -- and then do little. Except for Eastern European nations, where dirty factories have been shuttered, few countries have cut emissions. Since 1990 Canada's emissions are up 23.6 percent; Japan's, 18.9 percent.

We are seeing similar exhibitionism in the United States. The U.S. Conference of Mayors recently endorsed Kyoto. California and New Mexico have adopted "targets" for emission cuts, reports the Pew Center on Global Climate Change. All this busywork won't much affect global warming, but who cares? The real purpose is for politicians to brandish their environmental credentials. Even if rich countries actually curbed their emissions, it wouldn't matter much. Poor countries would offset the reductions.

"We expect CO2 emissions growth in China between now and 2030 will equal the growth of the United States, Canada, all of Europe, Japan, Australia, New Zealand and Korea combined," says Fatih Birol, the IEA's chief economist. In India, he says, about 500 million people lack electricity; worldwide, the figure is 1.6 billion. Naturally, poor countries haven't signed Kyoto; they won't sacrifice economic gains -- poverty reduction, bigger middle classes -- to combat global warming. By 2030, the IEA predicts, world energy demand and greenhouse gases will increase by roughly 60 percent; poor countries will account for about two-thirds of the growth. China's coal use is projected almost to double; its vehicle fleet could go from 24 million to 130 million.

Like most forecasts, these won't come true. But unless they're wildly unreliable, they demonstrate that greenhouse emissions will still rise. Facing this prospect, we ought to align rhetoric and reality.

First, we should tackle some energy problems. We need to reduce our use of oil, which increasingly comes from unstable or hostile regions (the Middle East, Russia, Central Asia, Africa). This is mainly a security issue, though it would modestly limit greenhouse gases. What should we do? Even with today's high gasoline prices, we ought to adopt a stiff oil tax and tougher fuel economy standards, both to be introduced gradually. We can shift toward smaller vehicles, with more efficient hybrid engines. Unfortunately, Congress's energy bills lack these measures.

Second, we should acknowledge that global warming is an iffy proposition. Yes, it's happening; but, no, we don't know the consequences -- how much warming will occur, what the effects (good or bad) will be or where. If we can't predict the stock market and next year's weather, why does anyone think we can predict the global climate in 75 years? Global warming is not an automatic doomsday. In some regions, warmer weather may be a boon.

Third, we should recognize that improved technology is the only practical way of curbing greenhouse gases. About 80 percent of CO2 emissions originate outside the transportation sector -- from power generation and from fuels for industrial, commercial and residential use. Any technology solution would probably involve some acceptable form of nuclear power or an economic way of removing CO2 from burned fossil fuels. "Renewable" energy (wind, solar, biomass) won't suffice. Without technology gains, adapting to global warming makes more sense than trying to prevent it. Either way, the Bush administration rightly emphasizes research and development.

What we have now is a respectable charade. Politicians and advocates make speeches, convene conferences and formulate plans. They pose as warriors against global warming. The media participate in the resulting deception by treating their gestures seriously. One danger is that some of these measures will harm the economy without producing significant environmental benefits. Policies motivated by political gain will inflict public pain. Why should anyone applaud?

mR. kUVASZ WILL, I AM SURE, BE UNABLE TO REBUT SAMUELSON!!!

um there is not much about the EU to rebut, read carefully, he substantiate my claim that when the US rejected Kyoto, the EU said "fuggetabout it."

did you expect to see the emails of the EU ministers agreeing not to meet the accord targets? or was the lack of business and government actions toward meeting the goals not sufficient?

Mr. Kuvasz wrote:

Shall we now?

Lomborg agrees that global warming is occurring, that it is in great part man-made. So using him as a source, as you tried to do before to butress yourself with the IPCC report is a bizarre attempt to defend your position on global warming. But since you used both, one can assume only you have finally seen the light and now believe that global warming is real, and is man-made. Otherwise why cite sources that say so?

It is definitely the case that we are pumping enough CO2 and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere to warm the earth; that many of our environmental problems are the diseases of poverty, early industrialization, and the absence of democracy; that the Kyoto Protocol would be hideously expensive; that it would delay the warming trend for a decade at most; that projected temperature rises up to 2100 are bearable; and that it would almost surely be better to spend the resources that would be sucked up by the Kyoto Protocol on third-world public health and infrastructure instead.

But this is a radical and dangerously incomplete version Lomborg portrays.

There are three more critical points that he desperately needed to make, but did not. And because he did not it seems that the net effect of his work is not to reveal wisdom, but to darken counsel and offer the deluded neophyte like you ammo to use against those who say humanity had better start doing something now about global warming.

First, climatologists' model-based central projections of the effects of global warming over the next century are just that: model-based central projections. There is enormous uncertainty about what will happen. It might be the case (although most scientists would bet heavily against it) that our pumping CO2 into the atmosphere will have little effect on climate--that the CO2 will be quickly absorbed into the oceans and terrestrial biosphere (making gardening much easier), and that any residual warming will be largely balanced out by the cooling effects of industrial soot. It is likely to be the case that the central projection of a 4 to 5 degree Fahrenheit warming over the next century will be accurate.

Any approach to dealing with global warming that does not create the capability for massive and swift action should things be worse than currently expected is fatally flawed.
***********************************************************

There is enormous uncertainty about what will happen SAYS MR. KUVASZ.

Oh wow! Such a selective posting of some of my words, and leaving out of the rest is bad manners. You have taken the low road and have decided to distort my remarks thusly. It is shameful, and mature adults who pride themselves on intellectual integrity shun such things.

I assume from your distortions you are willfully ignorant of the English language and common word usage. The "enormous uncertainties" I remarked and delineated upon included both manmade actions as well as the climate. As I said in May, we might be saved by massive volcanic activity screening the sunlight too, but it is not the kind of uncertainty anyone wants to count upon.

However, there is less uncertainty that if nothing is done now to reduce greenhouse gases, bad things will come upon us shortly. One can declare that little will be helped by grenhouse gas reductions over the next few decades, but no legitimate climatologist is uncertain that doing nothing helps the solve the problem for the next several generations. You are, of course, one who appears willing to gamble with the species and help murder tens of millions so you can drive your SUV. I am not.

Of course, that is what I have said over and over and over.

Actually, you haven't. First, you denied that there was any climate change problem;

then when shown the data of greenhouse emissions increasing over the past 50 years denied that there was resulting climate changes;

then when shown the relationship of greenhouses gases to temperature increases, dismissed the temperature increases as anomalies;

then when shown the temperature increases were not anomalies, denied that the data was relevant or did not conform to modeling;

then when shown that the satellite data was accurate and that the data and models conformed and accurately predicted global warming you embarked upon a fallback position that we could not do anything about it anyway.


Mr. KLuvasz( no fool, he) admits that the projections are "Model Based Central Projections"

Of course., that is what I have pointed out over and over and over and over and I have also pointed out that there are various SCENARIOS, which, I am certain, Mr. Kuvasz knows about which give differing outcomes.

Please, don't be stupid around me. Any scientific prediction of the future is based upon a model. What other method do you have in mind, reading sheep entrails?

Do you understand the word "central" as in the middle, not an extreme? In fact we are finding that they may well be conservative in that CO2 is rising even faster than we predicted.

Most certainly the polar ice and the Greenland Ice Sheet are melting faster than predicted even five years ago, so is that a sign making the models so erroneous that we should abandon them when they say the temperature will go up 0.33C per decade, or should we by more highly concerned? You method would be not to care at all and let your grandchildren worry about it.

I, as well as others have stated clearly that the projections are conservative ones on greenhouse gas growth, and temperature increases; that makes them uncertain, but not inaccurate to the point of dismissing the problem as you have attempted to do with your logical fallacies. By attempting to use the caution of scientists who do their work and do not make extravagant claims proof of your own claims is completely dishonest muggery.

You used Lomborg's statistical buggery and pointed to pie-in-the sky things which no one is taking actions upon nor will they until it is past time to stop the increases in temperatures.

They show that the temperatures may be rising from 2.0 to 4.5 by 2100. That depends on a great variety of factors and some of them are, of course, the kind of technology I referred to in a previous post( completely ignored by Mr. Kuvasz--re: Clean Coal Fired plant which uses gasification and captures CO2 to bury it below the surface.

These are the kinds of devices which will be introduced in a slow, business like, non-frenetic way by 2050. Now, Mr. Kuvasz may cry wolf, but I don't believe that such technology will not improve any alleged global warming which, by Mr. Kuvasz's own statement is not yet COMPLETELY AND OBJECTIVELY IDENTIFIED.

Good God, man. What are you talking about? you just posted Samuelson's essay on the hypocrisy of the EU nations for not reducing their greenhouse gases and it was due to their own economic pressures. Yet your talk about the free market solution to this issue? What type of logic resides in your head. The alleged "free" market will not move quickly enough to solve this problem. Collective, international actions will be necessary both for money and innovations to solve the problem.

You are not so dense as to consider this a problem that is like fixing a flat tire; you do it once its flat then drive on. In this case we have no spare tire. We have one planet, once its fukked up we are done.

Mr. Kuvasz warns of the necessity to take "SWIFT ACTION"> If, by swift action, he means the dismanteling of the American economy, I demur and, I am sure, all of our political leaders, knowing what a depression would cost our country would demur also.

Where did I say that I wanted to dismantle any economy? You have said that about me a half a dozen tims, yet when I ask for a reference from you I get none.

But, if Mr. Kuvasz equates "SWIFT ACTION" with the kinds of projects I described above, I would agree.

Then you agree to push for and advocate a "Manhattan Project-like" effort for new, renewable, non-greenhouse energy sources, conservation, tax credits for wind, solar and fusion, tuition tax credits for the education of American scientists and engineers, loans to citizens to remodel their homes and businesses their facilities to reduce the usage of greenhouse energies. Doing this kick-starts entire industries that can produce new jobs, and increase domestic exports as the new technologies spread world-wide.

For Christ's sake, the United States of America sent men to the moon 37 years ago. We are the strongest, wealthiest nation ever to arise on Earth. We have the collective might and strength to do this. All we require is the will to do it. It is time for this nation to be great once more.

All I ever hear from you Republican and Conservative types is "Its too hard, it will cost us too much money, we can't do it" You jerks are just a bunch of fukking whiney-ass tittie babies. That is not the spirit that built this nation out of the wilderness. Where the hell is that can-do attitude Americans are known for? Fricking pussies.

And none of these have been done to any extent by your hero George Bush. He has stagnated or actually reduced in real dollars the US government's efforts to bring these things about. yes indeed, and an oil man.

The free market has its place, but I hold that its weakness is that all too often it attempt to maximize profits for the next fiscal quarter and not consider not think about the next quarter century. That is what our government is for.

And here's a clue, I am pro nuke energy.