Global Warming vs. Terrorism

I am incorrect that the measurement of the troposphere is only part of the measurement of global warming? Do you have a citation that states the ONLY measurement is the troposphere in measuring warming? I think everyone posting on this thread and every scientist would disagree with you. I never said the Troposphere was not vital. I included it in my set of temperatures used to determine warming. You are attempting another strawman.

What is your citation from? The IPCC did at least 4 reports in 2001. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/ I can't find what you said in any of them. 3 of the reports have chapter numbers in them. Each chapter has an executive summary. There is no A:12 listed in any of the IPCC reports. None of the chapter 12s seem to say anything close to what you said in the executive summary. Are you making stuff up again? Like you made up my "thesis" which you have failed to cite where I said it. Or like you made up my statement about the troposphere not being vital?
I already did that. You ignored it. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/353.htm#933


The only one bloviating and dodging is you Bernard. You say I am dodging when I actually posted what you claimed I can't or won't. You claimed I had a thesis, which I don't, then attempted to beat your strawman to a pulp. You even have a hard time attacking a strawman it seems. I loved your claim that the temperature was going to increase 25 degrees in the next 100 years. It was quite humorous.

Perhaps you should go back and read earlier where I posted what you are asking for now.

I should retire from the debate?
I am not the one that made this ridiculous claim.

The average gain per decade is 2.5 to 4.5? You really shouldn't throw stones when you make such silly statements Bernard. They keep hitting you in the head. A 2.5 to 4.5 increase in a decade would be a 25 to 45 increase in a century.

Your strawmen are tedious Bernard.

What thesis of mine and where did I state this thesis? Your failure to cite where I stated a "thesis" proves what? I think we can all make our conclusions based on your lack of citing anything.

Again, Pusillainmous Parados does not answer the challenges> Very well. Here they are again---

Are you sure that you know how to read?

You post all other kinds of garbage but cannot respond directly to the comments below and the comments made by Mr. Jp in Milwaukee which I previously replicated?

Now, what should be done.?
People who subscribe to the left wing notion, as I am sure that you do, Mr. Parados, 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.

What is to be done?

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

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

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

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."






--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Since I am certain that you do not keep up with the news, Mr. Parados, I will give you some news that you probably do not understand.

Source_ Chicago Tribune- July 26, 2006- P. 5

quote

"The cities of Matton and Tuscola (Illinois) are potential locations for an ambitious project which seeks to transform the nation's abundant but air-fouling coal supply into a clean burning fuel that could meet the country's energy needs for the next 250 years...The carbon dioxide produced by the plant will be captured, liquified and pumped into geologic reservoirs deep below the ground"

Since you are so fixated on the Gore type of scenario, Mr. Parados, you probably do not realize that this is exactly the kind of solution offered by JP in Milwaukee and Dr. Lomborg.

The problem with the environmentalist crazies is that they think the world will end in 2010 and that New York will be flooded by 2015. This kind of thinking is ridiculous.

The slight bit of Global Warming that we may have can be easily handled in the next fifty years by technological advances.

The left wing and the US haters would like to demonize our industries for not providing environmental answers fast enough.

As the article points out, these plants will be finished by 2010. That is plenty of time and, when added to other technological advances will be more than what is needed.




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am amazed that Mr. Parados, who knows everything about Global Warming EXCEPT THE IMPORTANT FACTS, has no comment regarding the FAILURE OF MOST OF THE EU COUNTRIES TO MEET THEIR KYOTO PREVIOUSLY AGREED TARGETS>

Mr. Parados is the kind of researcher who assiduously ignores any evidence that makes his thesis look foolish>

Have you written a protest to the EU laggards about their failure to meet their assigned Kyoto quotas, Mr. Parados or, have you, like most politically driven left wing critics, who are not interested in the science, but only in partisanship, confined your critiques to the USA?

You won't answer this one either, will you, Mr. Parados!!!

Mr. Parados- Your research skills are execrable. You had better do some review.

If you are able to read and comprehend, here is what the IPCC said:
quote
"Remaining uncertainties
A number of important uncertainties remain. These include:

Discrepancies between the vertical profile of temperature change in the troposphere seen in observations and models. These have been reduced as more realistic forcing histories have been used in models, although not fully resolved. Also, the difference between observed surface and lower-tropospheric trends over the last two decades cannot be fully reproduced by model simulations.
Large uncertainties in estimates of internal climate variability from models and observations, though as noted above, these are unlikely (bordering on very unlikely) to be large enough to nullify the claim that a detectable climate change has taken place. "

Do I have to interpret this for you or are you able to understand it?

DISCREPANCIES BETWEEN THE VERTICAL PROFILE OF TEMPERATURE CHANGE IN THE TROPOSPHERE SEEN IN OBSERVATIONS AND MODELS....NOT FULL RESOLVED.

Do you know how to find information on the Internet, Mr. Parados? It appears that you do not....

You also will note, I hope that the report says that

"Large uncertainties in of estimates from internal climate variablity from models and observations, though as noted above, these are unlikely( bordering on the very unlikely) to be large enough to nullify the claim that a DETECTABLE(((((NOT SPECIFIED AS TO SIZE)))))climate change has taken place>"

Are you so dense about Global Surface Tempeartures that you do not know that A DETECTABLE CLIMATE CHANGE TOOK PLACE FROM 1910 TO 1940?

Your research skills are quite poor, Mr. Parados. Read the section from the IPCC again!!!!

AND THEN, IF YOU HAVE ANY INTEGRITY AT ALL, ANSWER THE POINTS MADE BY Dr. Lomborg, and JT from Milwaukee along with my admonitions concerning the lack of the hypocritcal EU failure to meet Kyoto Guidelines along with the sllow but sure steps being taken in the US to develop clean power.

You adamantly refuse to do that because you cannot rebut those points.

Poor fellow!!!!

Even more tedium there Bernard.

Reposting the same strawman again and again while calling me names.

Childish to say the least.

Don't you want to correct all your errors before moving on? Or are you willing to let others see how out of touch you are with reality by failing to correct the errors in this statement by you.

You mistate what the IPCC said then you pompously claim it means something that no rational person would ever claim.

This from the man that keeps misstating what the IPCC has said..

The IPCC says this

http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/353.htm#933

Who is ignoring evidence that makes their thesis look foolish? I think it is probably the person that keeps lying about what the IPCC said. I think it is probably the person that doesn't know that a decade is only 10 years long. I think it is probably the person that doesn't know that it is 110 years from 1990 to 2100. Or perhaps it is the person that blithely ignores the evidence presented to him (here and on other threads) that almost eliminates the discrepancies in the troposphere temperatures.

parados, Bernie's posts are not only tedious, but ingrained with adhominems that is his primary message in 100 percent of his posts. I refuse to respond to his "polite" questions that are ill informed and without merit. His insults wins if we respond to his inane questions.
Continue on if you enjoy merry-go-rounds that only ends up making one dizzy.

I grant you your point on the IPCC, Mr. Parados. NOW, BE A MAN AND ANSWER MY ARGUMENTS IN THE POSTS BELOW:

Unless you can't. And I am sure that you can't since you keep harping on one point but cannot handle the other arguments.

Poor fellow. How does it feel to have no integrity? I have the integrity to concede your point on the IPCC. Do you have the moral strength to try to respond to my other points?

Your problem, Mr. Parados, is 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.

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!




Now, what should be done.?
People who subscribe to the left wing notion, as I am sure that you do, Mr. Parados, 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.

What is to be done?

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

When they do that, Mr.Parados, 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.

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

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.


If you were not such a biased anti-American left winger( it shows clearly in your writing) you would take some time to excoriate the EU countries, as well as India and China, who are not doing their bit to reduce the problems that will occur in 2010 when Mr. Gore says the world will end. Instead, you focus solely on the US.


Show that you have some balance and respond to the article below:


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?

YOU CAN'T HANDLE ARTICLES LIKE THIS, Mr. Parados. I conceded the point on the figures in the IPCC, Now, show some integrity and respond to the above IN TOTO!!! If you can't, my post STANDS UNREBUTTED!!!

The best joke of the year- Cicerone Imposter's comment on AD Hominems. Shall I do a search to find not only the Ad Hominems but the scatology and the obsecenties that you have uttered in the past when I posted. You may have forgotten but Ticomaya said that he thought that your comments in one regard to me were strictly in violation of the TOS!!

You are a hypocrite, sir!!!

parados,

While I usually ignore Bernard,he did ask you a good question when he said...



Ignoring the partisan tripe he included,why arent you complaining about how the EU has failed to reach their goals regarding pollotion?

You do seem to only be interested in attacking the US while you ignore the rest of the world.

.46 of tropical rainforest have been lost per year, according to you, Bernie? Almost half, you contend? Do you realize how ridiculous you sound??? If that were the real case, we'd be in a far worse situation than we are, jmo...

Now about some of the other stuff you tossed out here, why should my opinion of someone's character, which I got by visiting his site http://www.lomborg.com/ be less valid than another's (btw, where was thomas' ideas about lomborg's credentials expressed? And why should they matter?) Bigger question still, Since my opinion on scientific matters, since I don't have a PHD in climatology, is not worth very much and you suggest that my post was bloviating, WHY ISN'T BJORN LOMBORG'S WHOLE BOOK DISMISSED IN THE SAME OFFHANDED MANNER SINCE HE DOESN'T HOLD A PHD IN CLIMATOLOGY??? My opinion, based upon my observations of your numerous off-topic and ill-cited disingenuous posts all over a2k is that you bloviate MORE THAN JUST ABOUT ANYBODY. You don't just bloviate, you bray answers at the moon when you aren't farting them out your anus, Bernie. You rarely link your "evidence," but if I(or anyone) assume(s) that is the low standard you wish to debate from, you get downright offensive, and even worse, OT. By any chance are you a troll looking for a train to wreck?

That was 0.46 and the figure was given by the United Nations FOA.


Look it up!!!

Thank You Mysteryman when you wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
parados,

While I usually ignore Bernard,he did ask you a good question when he said...

Quote:
Have you written a protest to the EU laggards about their failure to meet their assigned Kyoto quotas, Mr. Parados or, have you, like most politically driven left wing critics, who are not interested in the science, but only in partisanship, confined your critiques to the USA?
*****************************************************

Ignoring the partisan tripe he included,why arent you complaining about how the EU has failed to reach their goals regarding pollotion?

You do seem to only be interested in attacking the US while you ignore the rest of the world.
***************************************************************

The reason, Mr. Mysterman, is because he is probably a left wing Partisan who hates the USA and will do all he can to destroy it because he is envious of its good fortune and its power

Show me the link and answer me this question, if you can read and be a man, that is... If you are so willing to dismiss one poster's opinion b/c of a lack of a PHD in climatology, why base an argument on another's book on the same subject who also doesn't have a PHD in climatology?

Dear Princess: I have a PHD in bovine excrementology. As such, I do not take a great deal of time with hysterics( You might wish to look up the etymology of the word-hysterics-It is quite interesting).

Dear Bernie, I assume your inability to provide your info's link and your inability to answer a simple question proves that indeed, you are no man, and alas, cannot read. I seriously doubt you have a PHD in any subject, although I do not doubt for a second that you have been shovelling excrement, both bovine and other forms, for a very long time.

When did I attack the US for anything concerning global warming? Are you going to make up stuff like Bernard does? Bernard has built strawmen about what he thinks I should be arguing but I don't make the argument he keeps claiming I do. Either show me or you can be relegated to the dustbin that Bernard resides in.

Bernard,
Since you have admitted that the IPCC models are not what you claimed on I am not sure what your argument still is.

The math shows the models to be within the same range as observed warming. So your complaint that the models are far off from the math is no longer valid. Do you now accept that the models are reasonably accurate?

A typical dodge by the ignorant Parados. He can't answer the question so he hides--Poor Fellow. I will give him another chance to answer. Now, two of us have asked him to respond. He has no answer so he hides.


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?

end of quote

Mr. Parados fancies himself to be an enviromental expert. He should be able to answer the questions posed by Samuelson above such as: Why will so many of the EU countries miss their Kyoto Targets? I thought the EU was "green". It certainly looks like hypocrisy after so many European phonies attacked the US for not immedately lowering our co2 emissions.

What does Mr.Parados say to Mr, Samuelson when he states:

"Even if richer countries lowered their emissions, it wouldn't matter much, Poor countries would offset the reductions"

What does Mr. Parados say to Mr. Samuelson's--"Yes its happening but we dont know the consequences, what the effects will be(good or bad) or where?
*****************************************************
Mr.Samuelson again repeats what Dr, Lomborg has suggested; What Jp in Milwaukee has suggested and what I have suggested--A well planned, measured drive to replace old technology with new methods that will not spew Co2. I gave a specific example( only one of many possible) of a new huge plant to be bilt which will burn coal to power turbines while capturing the co2 and pumping it into geologic resorvoirs deep under ground.

People like Mr; Parados evidently does not think this measured approach is good enough. I do. There is no point, as Dr. Lomborg mentions to waste Billions in an all out, probably not cost effective plan in the next two or three years. If we develop new technology during the next fifty we will surely be able to meet whatever challenges come our way without wrecking our enconomy in the process.



Both Mr. Parados and Mr. Kuvasz have been critical of the Present Adminstration for their supposed "INACTION>'

They evidcently do not realize that Federal Government is contributing $730 MILLION OF THE 980 MILLION needed to build a plant like the one described above, But then, facts like that would not allow them to demonize the present administration!!!

sorry i've missed this whole discussion...but that won't stop me.

Global warming is such a crock - but so true at the same time.

The people pushing global warming programs, like Al Gore, try and have the USA sign up for programs without seeking to have China and India sign up for them. Those two countries, by far, are the biggest culprits when it comes to polluting the atmosphere.

But is doesn't matter - The headline of a CNN story just about a month ago summed up the reality of global warming, it read: "Earth Warmest in 2000 Years" So it has nothing to do with automobiles, factories, aerosol, etc.

I laugh at the notion of us 'destroying the earth'. Ha! We can destroy ourselves, but we can't destroy the earth.