Global Warming vs. Terrorism

The only one dodging is you Bernard. I asked a simple question. It only requires yes/no answer.
Do you now accept that the models are reasonably accurate?

Some other simple facts about the 6 models in the IPCC. The top model shows 4.5 warming, the bottom shows 2.0 warming. The average for all 6 models is 2.8. If we remove the extreme model at the top then the average of the remaning 5 is 2.46. So in reality 5 of the models show warming in the lower end of the range. If we remove the bottom extreme 2.0 model then we get an average of 2.575 for the remaining 4. So, not only are the majority of the models not way off but they are actually lower than the central temperature you were willing to accept. (If you do your math correctly.) 2.575 is below the middle point of the range of 2.42-2.86

Another interesting thing to note about the models. Many of the models predict a lower temperature than what we have actually observed. They could be right and the last few years could be anomalies in being so warm. Or the models could be off on the low side.

We can't destroy the earth but we can make it difficult for us, as well as many other species, to survive on it.

"On it" is an awfully broad term. Based on the IPCC projections, the next few centuries of global warming will make it harder to survive in Africa, but easier to survive in North Canada, Sibiria, and Antarctica. Indeed, many dozen degrees of global warming will be necessary before Antactica becomes arable.

If people are concerned about breathing healthier air, they should engage in discussions about healthier air, not the mean temperature of the earth. Again, the earth was this hot 2000 years ago...we give ourselves too much credit to think we caused it.

Its only mans arrogance that causes anyone to believe that we can destroy the earth at all.

Man does not now,nor have we ever,had the power to destroy the earth.

Warming alone doesn't make land arable. The Arabian desert is quite warm but I wouldn't consider it a great place to grow crops. Even if the Arabian desert started getting 5" of rain per month on average it still wouldn't produce crop yields close to present central US because of the sandy soil.

If our present growing areas change drastically we could end up uanable to grow the food necessary to feed 6 or 10 billion people. Will it happen? We don't know. Should we ignore the threat? Probably not.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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!!!

After you reply to Mr. Samuelson's article, Mr. Parados, I will reply to yours.

I can wait for your answer and, of course, replicate it the Samuelson post if you need me to do so.

YELLOW CAKE FROM NIGER FOUND IN IRAQ

When President Bush said the sixteen infamous words, "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa", people were terrified, and most supported going to war. He was referring to a document originally obtained from Italian intelligence, which purported that Hussein had purchased a grade of enriched uranium commonly referred to as "yellow cake" from the African nation of Niger. Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, had traveled to Africa, and had warned the CIA that the document was a forgery. The CIA told the state department, and they told the White House. It was obvious that the claim simply did not belong in the State of the Union speech. Everyone under the sun but Bush himself was eventually blamed for the gaffe by White House spokesman, and media pundits. The source of the President's claim in his State of the Union Address has now been positively identified, according to White House aide Jeffery Mathers. It was not the Niger document from Italy at all, but a photograph.

"This photograph," said Mathers, "shows the actual item found in one of Saddam Hussein's Presidential Palaces. The photo was sent to the U.S. by operatives in Iraq more than one week before the speech. As the story went along through word-of-mouth, the nature of the photograph was misunderstood. Saddam Hussein has a sweet tooth, and that is why he purchased this. As you can see, it is indeed yellow cake from Niger. It is ironic that there is also a kind of uranium with the same name, and it, too can be obtained in Niger, but this was a mistake anyone could have made." Mathers insisted that this photo is genuine, and not just the latest in a long line of obfuscations from the Bush administration. He went on to say, "While this is only a weapon of mass destruction if you are on a diet, it was indeed found in Baghdad. Now that we can all see that it was just a misunderstanding, we need to forgive our leader. It is time for all Americans, and the world to move on."

White House Backs Off Claim on Iraqi Buy
By Walter Pincus
The Washington Post

Tuesday 08 July 2003

The Bush administration acknowledged for the first time yesterday that President Bush should not have alleged in his State of the Union address in January that Iraq had sought to buy uranium in Africa to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.

The statement was prompted by publication of a British parliamentary commission report, which raised serious questions about the reliability of British intelligence that was cited by Bush as part of his effort to convince Congress and the American people that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction program were a threat to U.S. security.

The British panel said it was unclear why the British government asserted as a "bald claim" that there was intelligence that Iraq had sought to buy significant amounts of uranium in Africa. It noted that the CIA had already debunked this intelligence, and questioned why an official British government intelligence dossier published four months before Bush's speech included the allegation as part of an effort to make the case for going to war against Iraq.

The findings by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee undercut one of the Bush administration's main defenses for including the allegation in the president's speech -- namely that despite the CIA's questions about the assertion, British intelligence was still maintaining that Iraq had indeed sought to buy uranium in Africa.

Asked about the British report, the administration released a statement that, after weeks of questions about the president's uranium-purchase assertion, effectively conceded that intelligence underlying the president's statement was wrong.

"Knowing all that we know now, the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech," a senior Bush administration official said last night in a statement authorized by the White House.

The administration's statement capped months of turmoil over the uranium episode during which senior officials have been forced to defend the president's remarks in the face of growing reports that they were based on faulty intelligence.

As part of his case against Iraq, Bush said in his State of the Union speech on Jan. 28 that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

The International Atomic Energy Agency told the U.N. Security Council in March that the uranium story -- which centered on documents alleging Iraqi efforts to buy the material from Niger -- was based on forged documents. Although the administration did not dispute the IAEA's conclusion, it launched the war against Iraq later that month.

It subsequently emerged that the CIA the previous year had dispatched a respected former senior diplomat, Joseph C. Wilson, to Niger to investigate the allegation and that Wilson had reported back that officials in Niger denied the story. The administration never made Wilson's mission public, and questions have been raised over the past month over how the CIA characterized his conclusion in its classified intelligence reports inside the administration.

The report by the House of Commons Foreign Affairs Committee followed weeks of hearings by the panel into two intelligence dossiers on Iraq's weapons programs -- one published in September and the other in January -- that the government of Prime Minister Tony Blair used to justify supporting the administration in going to war against Iraq.

Questions about the British government's handling of intelligence have mirrored many of the issues being raised in the United States. But they have created a far greater political uproar in London.

Parliament's response has been notably different than that of Congress. The House and Senate intelligence panels have moved cautiously, with Democrats and Republicans divided over the necessity of full-blown public hearings into the administration's use of pre-war intelligence. The House of Commons moved quickly to investigate the matter, with the Blair government battling accusations that it misled Parliament and members of the Labor Party in persuading them to support an unpopular war.

The commission's report issued yesterday found that Blair and his other key ministers "did not mislead" Parliament in describing the threat from Iraq's alleged chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs. But the panel did find that the Blair government mishandled intelligence material on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs.

The panel said it is too soon to determine whether the government's assertions about Iraq's chemical and biological weapons programs will be borne out, but added that the government's actions "were justified by the information available at the time."

In a major political issue within Britain, the panel found that Alastair Campbell, Blair's communications chief, "did not exert or seek to exert improper influence" in drafting the September intelligence report or a key statement in the document that "the Iraqi military are able to deploy chemical or biological weapons within 45 minutes if ordered to do so."

The panel did find that this statement "did not warrant the prominence given to it" in the first pages of the dossier because it was based on "intelligence from a single, uncorroborated source." The panel asked the Blair government to explain why it was given such a prominent position in the report.

A senior administration official said yesterday that a classified version of a U.S. National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq's weapons programs, completed last September, contains references to intelligence reports that Iraq had attempted to buy uranium from three African countries, not just Niger. The other two countries are Namibia and Gabon, according to intelligence sources. The sources said the reports about other countries have not been confirmed and that some government analysts do not consider the information reliable.

A senior intelligence official said that there were reports of "possible attempts" by Iraqis or their agents to buy uranium, but that "they were all somewhat sketchy."

One Bush administration official said British and U.S. intelligence agencies got their Niger documents from the intelligence service of one country that he refused to name, but that others have identified as Italy.

"We both had one source reporting through some liaison service which said, 'Look what we found,' " this official said. "There were other [intelligence] reporting streams, but it may be that all streams are traced to the same source."



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Transcript of Ari Fleischer?s Press Conference
Recorded and Transcribed By Joshua Micah Marshall

Monday 07 July 2003

Q: Can you give us the White House account of Ambassador Wilson's account of what happened when he went to Niger and investigated the suggestions that Niger was passing yellow cake to Iraq? I'm sure you saw the piece yesterday in The New York Times.

FLEISCHER: Well, there is zero, nada, nothing new here. Ambassador Wilson, other than the fact that now people know his name, has said all this before. But the fact of the matter is in his statements about the Vice President -- the Vice President's office did not request the mission to Niger. The Vice President's office was not informed of his mission and he was not aware of Mr. Wilson's mission until recent press accounts -- press reports accounted for it.

So this was something that the CIA undertook as part of their regular review of events, where they sent him. But they sent him on their own volition, and the Vice President's office did not request it. Now, we've long acknowledged -- and this is old news, we've said this repeatedly -- that the information on yellow cake did, indeed, turn out to be incorrect.

[Here there were questions unrelated to the Niger-uranium issue]

Q: I just want to take you back to your answer before, when you said you have long acknowledged that the information on yellow cake turned out to be incorrect. If I remember right, you only acknowledged the Niger part of it as being incorrect -- I think what the --

FLEISCHER: That's correct.

Q: I think what the President said during his State of the Union was he --

FLEISCHER: When I refer to yellow cake I refer to Niger. The question was on the context of Ambassador Wilson's mission.

Q: So are you saying the President's broader reference to Africa, which included other countries that were named in the NIE, were those also incorrect?

FLEISCHER: Well, I think the President's statement in the State of the Union was much broader than the Niger question.

Q: Is the President's statement correct?

FLEISCHER: I'm referring specifically to the Niger piece when I say that.

Q: Do you hold that the President -- when you look at the totality of the sentence that the President uttered that day on the subject, are you confident that he was correct?

FLEISCHER: Yes, I see nothing that goes broader that would indicate that there was no basis to the President's broader statement. But specifically on the yellow cake, the yellow cake for Niger, we've acknowledged that that information did turn out to be a forgery.

Q: The President's statement was accurate?

FLEISCHER: We see nothing that would dissuade us from the President's broader statement.

Q: Ari, that means that, indeed, you all believe that Saddam Hussein was trying to obtain uranium from an African nation; is that correct?

FLEISCHER: What the President said in his statement was that according to a British report they were trying to obtain uranium. When I answered the question it was, again, specifically about the Niger piece involving yellow cake.

Q: So you believe the British report that he was trying to obtain uranium from an African nation is true?

FLEISCHER: I'm sorry?

Q: If you're hanging on the British report, you believe that that British report was true, you have no reason to believe --

FLEISCHER: I'm sorry, I see what David is asking. Let me back up on that and explain the President's statement again, or the answer to it.

The President's statement was based on the predicate of the yellow cake from Niger. The President made a broad statement. So given the fact that the report on the yellow cake did not turn out to be accurate, that is reflective of the President's broader statement, David. So, yes, the President' broader statement was based and predicated on the yellow cake from Niger.

Q: So it was wrong?

FLEISCHER: That's what we've acknowledged with the information on --

Q: The President's statement at the State of the Union was incorrect?

FLEISCHER: Because it was based on the yellow cake from Niger.

Q: Well, wait a minute, but the explanation we've gotten before was it was based on Niger and the other African nations that have been named in the national intelligence --

FLEISCHER: But, again, the information on -- the President did not have that information prior to his giving the State of the Union.

Q: Which gets to the crux of what Ambassador Wilson is now alleging -- that he provided this information to the State Department and the CIA 11 months before the State of the Union and he is amazed that it, nonetheless, made it into the State of the Union address. He believes that that information was deliberately ignored by the White House. Your response to that?

FLEISCHER: And that's way, again, he's making the statement that -- he is saying that surely the Vice President must have known, or the White House must have known. And that's not the case, prior to the State of the Union.

Q: He's saying that surely people at the decision-making level within the NSC would have known the information which he -- passed on to both the State Department and the CIA.

FLEISCHER: And the information about the yellow cake and Niger was not specifically known prior to the State of the Union by the White House.

Q: What does that say about communications?

FLEISCHER: We've acknowledged that the information turned out to be bogus involving the report on the yellow cake. That is not new. You can go back. You can look it up. Dr. Rice has said it repeatedly. I've said it repeatedly. It's been said from this podium on the record, in several instances. It's been said to many of you in this room, specifically.

Q: But, Ari, even if you said that the Niger thing was wrong, the next line has usually been that the President's statement was deliberately broader than Niger, it referred to all of Africa. The national intelligence estimate discusses other countries in Africa that there were attempts to purchase yellow cake from, or other sources of uranium --

FLEISCHER: Let me do this, David. On your specific question I'm going to come back and post the specific answer on the broader statement on the speech.


(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.)

The `Ignoble Liars' BehindCheney's extraordinary hour-long pronouncement was composed, almost exclusively, of disinformation, which had either already been publicly discredited, or would soon be exposed as lies.

Cheney asserted that Saddam Hussein was actively pursuing the acquisition of nuclear weapons, when, days earlier, International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief weapons inspector Mohammed El-Baradei had testified before the UN Security Council that the allegations were based on documents determined to be forgeries. Indeed, in the March 31 issue of The New Yorker magazine, investigative reporter Seymour Hersh detailed how IAEA investigators had determined, in just several hours of research, that purported Niger government communiqués confirming the sale of 500 tons of "yellow cake" uranium precursor to Baghdad, were shoddy forgeries, drawn up on outdated Niger government letterheads. Hersh wrote that the forgeries were passed to the Bush Administration, through British MI6, and had probably originated with the British intelligence service, with the Mossad, or with Iraqi oppositionists affiliated with the Iraqi National Congress (INC) of Dr. Ahmed Chalabi.Now, I think things have gotten so bad inside Iraq, from the standpoint of the Iraqi people, my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators."

Russert challenged Cheney's rosy forecast: "If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but conquerors, and the Iraqis begin to resist, particularly in Baghdad, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?"

To which Cheney responded: "Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House.... The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question but that they want to get rid of Saddam Hussein and they will welcome as liberators the United States when we come to do that." Later in the interview, Cheney added, "If you look at the opposition, they've come together, I think, very effectively, with representatives from Shia, Sunni, and Kurdish elements in the population."

Towards the end of his performance, the Vice President extended his "cakewalk liberation" forecast, to further assert that American preventive military action to overthrow Saddam Hussein would stabilize the Middle East. He cited Dr. Bernard Lewis, the British Arab Bureau spook and author of the "Arc of Crisis," "Islamic card" fiasco, as his authority: "I firmly believe, along with, you know, men like Bernard Lewis, who's one of the great, I think, students of that part of the world, that strong, firm U.S. response to terror and to threats to the United States would go a long way, frankly, towards calming things in that part of the world."

Almost exactly 80 hours after Cheney's appearance on NBC-TV, the United States launched an unprovoked and unnecessary war on Iraq. According to Washington-based senior Arab diplomatic sources, governments of the Middle East were told by top Bush Administration officials, on the eve of the attack, that the Iraq war would be over in seven to ten days.

Since this thread is about Global Warming and Terrorism, I suggest we stay on the topic. VP Cheney is not the topic- Therefore, so we don' t get lost--

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!!!




BernardR
Seasoned Member



Joined: 02 May 2006
Posts: 1897

Posted: Sat Jul 29, 2006 9:57 pm Post: 2177808 -

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

After you reply to Mr. Samuelson's article, Mr. Parados, I will reply to yours. I can wait!!!

BernardR

Your repeat posting of prior entries is coming dangerously close to spamming. I suggest you desist. Others will repond to the original post or they will not. You cannot force them to by reposting, and you are clogging up the threads.

I agree, sir, but I am reliably informed that any post made should bear on the topic at hand. It is clear that the post made by Mr. Imposter does not do so.

I would be most appreciative, Mr. Finn, if you could find a definition of spamming. I understood that spamming was the repitition of the exact same material over and over.

Would you be so good as to give me a focused definition. I will be most happy to comply with it.

Thank You!!!

Mr. Finn. At your urging( and I thank you for your comments) I did some research and found the following:

Usenet convention defines spamming as excessive multiple posting, that is, the repeated posting of a message (or substantially similar messages). During the early 1990s there was substantial controversy among Usenet system administrators (news admins) over the use of cancel messages to control spam. A cancel message is a directive to news servers to delete a posting, causing it to be inaccessible to those who might read it. Some regarded this as a bad precedent, leaning towards censorship, while others considered it a proper use of the available tools to control the growing spam problem.


If this is correct, I will make certain that I do not REPEAT POSTING OF A MESSAGE OR SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR MESSAGES. I do, however, have an idea of what a Substantially similar message is. But I may be in error.

Thank you for your comments!!!

Chiso wrote:

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.


Yes, Mr. Chiso and even more puzzling( and the subject of a question that I asked the resident "expert"Mr. Kuvasz to answer)( he has not yet replied--he may be indisposed)is the fact that the surface temperature of the earth according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change rose nearly .05C(about .016C per decade) from 1910 to 1940 when only about ONE FIFTH OF THE ALLEGED POLLUTION ( Co2) WAS POURED INTO THE ATMOSPHERE. From 1940 to 2000, the surface temperature rose nearly .05C( about 0.0085 per decade) EVEN THOUGH AT LEAST THE AMOUNT OF CO2 ( which of course is the suspected agent of Global Warming) spewed into the atmosphere was judged to be FIVE TIMES greater than that which went into the atmosphere from 1910 to 1940.



This anomaly is quite puzzling. Perhaps an environmental expert like Mr> Kuvasz can explain it for us. But, I am sure that all is well, at least from Mr. Kuvasz' position since he has told us that the Computer Models( which, of course, can perfectly predict the climate fifty years from now and is, of course, not subject to political leanings of the scientists who are setting up the parameters for the models--we all know that scientists are disinterested and objective--unless they are in the pay of the oil companies.


The source for my data above is Jones, P. D. et. al.--"Global and hemispheric temperature anomalies--land and marine instrumental records" in "Trends: A Compendium of Data on Global Change"

Now, the learned environmentalist scholar, Mr. Kuvasz, has predicted chaos unless we put together a Environmental Master Plan. I feel he is being a bit hysterical.

The US is currently involved( as I have made clear in another post) in setting up huge "clean" power plants. Recommendations have been made to set up wind farms to lessen our dependence on pollutants but, suprisingly, the obese and addled Ted Kennedy, the consience of the Senate. has proposed his opposition to wind farms outside of his "sailing" region near Nantucket. The extremist crazies from the Sierra Club and other organizations like them have shot down an obviously clean source of electric power( widely used in France)--nuclear power plants( none have been built for a long time because of left wing hysteria but recent improvements in nuclear power plant construction is such that they are adjudge to be very very safe. Nonetheless, research is on going and the country will have adopted numerous new technologies by 2050 that will substantially cut down Co2 emissions IF IN FACT THOSE EMISSIONS WOULD BE CAUSING S U B S T A N T I A L L Y HIGHER TEMPERATURES(unknown at this time except to the Computer models fed by the most objective and scientific minded European Scientists, who, of course, would never allow their tweakings of data be at all influenced by political concerns)


But, if we examine the PREDICTIONS OF THE IPCC, we find a range of predictions based on FUTURE ENVIRONMENTAL INPUTS. The future inputs are, of course, tied to the actions taken by the world's"polluting countries" such as the USA, the EU and, unfortunately, China and India.

Note below:



FIGURE 5-1 Global CO2 emissions (billion tons of carbon per year) from all sources for the four scenario families (A1, A2, B1, B2) from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios (SRES). The four scenario families had different assumptions about population, technological and land-use changes, and gross domestic product (GDP) growth rates. Each colored band represents the range of results for each scenario from the six emissions models used in the SRES report. Within any one scenario family, the emissions models all used the same scenario-specific global input assumptions for population and GDP growth. SOURCE: Nakićenović et al. (2000).



There are obviously four scenarios. The IPCC does not, I repeat does not, tell us which one of these scenarios will be present in the future. It tells us where we will be under certain circumstances.

Only the hysterical will say that the world will end by 2010. Cooler heads predict that a slow infusion of technology will limit Global Warming to a level which is certainly consistent with the warmings we have seen in the world in past times--eg The Medieval Warming Period.

Bernard,
I see no reason to respond to your continuing strawman argument. I have said this already. It isn't going to change by posting the same crap over and over. You continually misrepresent my opinion and call me names. Your argument is completely void of any intellectual integrity. You get math wrong. You misquote sources. You lie about the positions of others.

like you said

falsus in unum, falsus in omnia

"falsus in omnia" describes you perfectly Bernard. I will not respond to your articles meant to support your ludicrous strawman. I have never said the US should shut down its economy. That is not my thesis, it is your falsehood.

I am well aware of the idea of CO2 sequestration. It has been discussed for several years. Why don't you find something new before you pretend I don't know about it. Of course you do realize that CO2 sequestration is one of the many possible ways to try to meet the requirements of Kyoto, don't you? Why do you say Kyoto is unreachable at the same time you post methods of reducing emissions? You do realize you are arguing against yourself when you do that. Don't you?

If you don't know that Kyoto is unreachable, Mr. Parados, You have not read Mr. Samuelson's Article which I posted several times. The Article shows that most of the EU countries have not reached their Kyoto goals.

Now, is sequestration possible? Certainly. You seem to confuse the fact that Co2 emissions CAN be lowered with the fact that it requires POLITICAL WILL to actually lower them.

You do know, of course, that China and India( as developing countries) are not under the Kyoto Protocol's rules.

You do know, of course, that the Russians have declared that they have no intention of harming their struggling economy be adherence to any kind of Kyoto type regulations.


As I have already stated, and you must have forgotten, Dr, Lomborg has given us a possible answer to the as yet truly specifically unquantified co2 emissions and the unspecified actual problems which will surely develop as CO2 emissions continue.

Dr.Lomborg wrote:

l. 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?

and

2. 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 those funds FAR MOR EFFICIENTLY IN THE DEVELOPING WORLD.`

Samuelson uses figures from 2002. Kyoto went into effect on Feb 16, 2005. 3 years after Samuelson's figures. I see a small problem with his claim. Do you?

Now to your statements. There was no 2002 goal. In fact the first target period is from 2008-2012. Funny how you claim none of the EU countries have reached a target that is still 6 years in the future. Falsus in omnia, Bernard.
I don't confuse anything since I have said nothing about political will. Is this another strawman on your part? Falsus in omnia again Bernard.

Being developing countries has nothing to do with whether China or India are under the Protocol. It has to do with whether a country is party to the protocol and whether they ratified it. It works just like any other treaty. China and India are not party to the protocol. The US hasn't ratified it. So China, the US and India aren't bound by the treaty.

Do you have a source for this? Russia has ratified Kyoto. Do you know what Russia's target is? Russia doesn't have to reduce its emissions from the base year.

That sentence makes no sense. "the as yet truly specifically unquantified?"

ROFLMAO.. that quote has NOTHING to do with CO2 emmissions or any lack of specificity with those emissions. It seems it is YOU that is confusing 'political will" with CO2 emissions.