Global Warming vs. Terrorism

okie wrote:

To reduce your mountain of obfuscation on this subject, the Kyoto protocol aims for reducing by 2008 or 2012 or some such date, a reduction of a whopping 5% from the emission levels of 1990. These targets will probably not be met, and the nations exempted will more than make up for the reduction even if it happened.

It is clear and it is obvious, kuvasz, if the problem is as severe as you and Parados believe, any political action that would affect the trend in any significant way simply is not realistic. Any action that would affect it significantly, if proposed, would be more than draconian, it would be catastrophic.

So, according to you an actual sensitivity to the economic impact of Kyoto Protocol (which you have been bitching about by those who recognize GW) is actually their weakness?

Kyoto and other proposals surrounding this issue are obviously nothing more than window dressing, feel good proposals, and political agendas directed at certain nations, as the U.S. Much like LBJ's Great Society. We threw money at the problem, we did something, even if the problem is made worse, but we all went home feeling good about our conscience.

So now an actual direct and useful reponse to GW would disrupt world-wide economies and you are now bitching that the current Kyoto protocols are insufficient to deal with the problem.

So instead, Party On, Live Fast, Die Young and leave a wasted Earth for our descendents.

What a maroon.

It is obvious you don't know what you are talking about vis-a-vis GW and Kyoto.

The Kyoto Protocol is an important first step - as it was intended to be. It has always been recognized that the Kyoto Protocol will not be enough on its own. To avoid dangerous climate change the world needs at least 30 percent cuts by industrialized countries by 2020, increasing to 70-80 percent cuts by mid-century. Anything less than this will consign our children and theirs to a very unpleasant and very unstable world.

Conclusion, your understanding of the problem is nothing more than scientific speculation based on computer modeling using plugged in factors of unproven validity, and your solutions are worthless.

btw: those "solutions" were presented by a Nobel prize winning economist. I don't want to rub your nose in it, but your opinion is worth less than a bucket of warm pi$$ compared to Stiglitz's in the field of economics.

The effectiveness of Kyoto really depends on whether it lays a good foundation for the climate convention process, which might lead to greater reductions later. Are the targets a step in the right direction? Can it help to build trust between diverse regional groups? Does it set good precedents in the rules for flexible mechanisms and accounting? Such questions require consideration of diplomacy as well as science.

Although it is the only international agreement which limits the emissions that cause climate change, the Kyoto Protocol is far from perfect, and contains potential loopholes. Over the years of negotiations, many of these have been closed or restricted, but enough remain to undermine the effectiveness of the agreement if the international community is not vigilant.

The information I linked of Joseph Stiglitz's ideas further the human response to GW as intially laid out by the Kyoto Protocol.

It is unfortunate that you see this as a problem as only one for your descendents to be worried about.

0 Replies

Okie- The most hilarious part of this debate is that the EXPERTS, Parados and Kuvasz ask us to answer questions which THEY must answer since they hold that Global Warming will practically destroy the world in the future. I have asked Parados four questions thus far in this last round--I labeled them #1, #2, #3 and #4. HE, THE EXPERT, has answered NONE of the questions.

Here is # 5. If necessary, I will repost all of them under his nose so that he can wake up to defend his thesis--

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Point # 5

How does the IPCC make its predictions for the alleged future warming? Does it use Atmosphere-Ocean General Circulation MODELS?

Are the assumptions loaded into these Models based on evidence?

Is the evidence correct?

How do we know?

Yes,Mr. Parados, How do we know, Indeed!

0 Replies

When we ask whether science or special interests are the source for George Bush's climate change policy, I think this article speaks for itself:

Revealed: how oil giant influenced Bush

White House sought advice from Exxon on Kyoto stance

John Vidal, environment editor
Wednesday June 8, 2005
The Guardian

President's George Bush's decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's most powerful oil company, and other industries, according to US State Department papers seen by the Guardian.
The documents, which emerged as Tony Blair visited the White House for discussions on climate change before next month's G8 meeting, reinforce widely-held suspicions of how close the company is to the administration and its role in helping to formulate US policy.

In briefing papers given before meetings to the US under-secretary of state, Paula Dobriansky, between 2001 and 2004, the administration is found thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, and also seeking its advice on what climate change policies the company might find acceptable.
Other papers suggest that Ms Dobriansky should sound out Exxon executives and other anti-Kyoto business groups on potential alternatives to Kyoto.

Until now Exxon has publicly maintained that it had no involvement in the US government's rejection of Kyoto. But the documents, obtained by Greenpeace under US freedom of information legislation, suggest this is not the case.

"Potus [president of the United States] rejected Kyoto in part based on input from you [the Global Climate Coalition]," says one briefing note before Ms Dobriansky's meeting with the GCC, the main anti-Kyoto US industry group, which was dominated by Exxon.

The papers further state that the White House considered Exxon "among the companies most actively and prominently opposed to binding approaches [like Kyoto] to cut greenhouse gas emissions".

But in evidence to the UK House of Lords science and technology committee in 2003, Exxon's head of public affairs, Nick Thomas, said: "I think we can say categorically we have not campaigned with the United States government or any other government to take any sort of position over Kyoto."

Exxon, officially the US's most valuable company valued at $379bn (£206bn) earlier this year, is seen in the papers to share the White House's unwavering scepticism of international efforts to address climate change.

The documents, which reflect unanimity between the company and the US administration on the need for more global warming science and the unacceptable costs of Kyoto, state that Exxon believes that joining Kyoto "would be unjustifiably drastic and premature".

This line has been taken consistently by President Bush, and was expected to be continued in yesterday's talks with Tony Blair who has said that climate change is "the most pressing issue facing mankind".

"President Bush tells Mr Blair he's concerned about climate change, but these documents reveal the alarming truth, that policy in this White House is being written by the world's most powerful oil company. This administration's climate policy is a menace to humanity," said Stephen Tindale, Greenpeace's executive director in London last night.

"The prime minister needs to tell Mr Bush he's calling in some favours. Only by securing mandatory cuts in US emissions can Blair live up to his rhetoric," said Mr Tindale.

In other meetings documented in the papers, Ms Dobriansky meets Don Pearlman, an international anti-Kyoto lobbyist who has been a paid adviser to the Saudi and Kuwaiti governments, both of which have followed the US line against Kyoto.

The purpose of the meeting with Mr Pearlman, who also represents the secretive anti-Kyoto Climate Council, which the administration says "works against most US government efforts to address climate change", is said to be to "solicit [his] views as part of our dialogue with friends and allies".

ExxonMobil, which was yesterday contacted by the Guardian in the US but did not return calls, is spending millions of pounds on an advertising campaign aimed at influencing politicians, opinion formers and business leaders in the UK and other pro-Kyoto countries in the weeks before the G8 meeting at Gleneagles.

0 Replies

Plain Ol wrote:

BernardR wrote:

A real hysteric, Ehrlich did not know that not only would population slow much more dramatically than he dreamed but that the GREEN REVOLUTION in which more crops, sturdier crops. more nourishing crops and crops that were able to be harvested more than once a year would cut famine down to nothing.

*************************************************************

It is apparent that Plain Ol, who knows literally nothing about Literature and, judging from her posts,less than that about Science, has never read the hysterical output of Paul Ehrlich.

Paul Ehrlich wrote the book- The Population Bomb-

I will quote some of its more idiotic passages. Ehrlich is the same kind of hysteric who we note addressing the spectre of Global Warming:

Ehrlich has now been laughed off of the pages of the newspapers of the world because he did what the Global Warming lunatics are doing--MADE FALSE ASSUMPTIONS!!

Quote from Ehrlich's book--

"The battle to feed all of humanity is OVER. In the 1970's the world will undergo famine--HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF PEOPLE ARE GOING TO STARVE TO DEATH IN SPITE OF ANY CRASH PROGRAMS EMBARKED ON NOW....The Birth rate must be brought into balance with the death rate or mankind will breed itself into oblivion"
end of quote
( The deluded Ehrlich, a student of Malthus, made the ASSUMPTION that Population would increase exponentially and that there would not be enough food for the world's population)

He assumed the population growth would not slow down. He assumed that the Agronomists of the world would not create new seeds and plants to meet the challenge.

HE, LIKE THE GLOBAL WARMING HYSTERICS, MADE THE WRONG ASSUMPTIONS!!!!

Read what the poor deluded man wrote---

quote
If growth continued at that rate( doubling time-37 years) for about 900 years, there would be some 6,000,000,000,000,000 people on the face of the earth. Sixty Million Billion People.
end of quote
Only those who do not know that humans are intelligent and can solve problems would write words like that. Of course, THEORETICALLY, Ehrlich was correct, but he could not or would not anticipate that by the year 2000, many European Countires were not reproducing themselves fast enough to avoid losing population and that China would put a strict ban on the number of children one could have.

Any examination of the ASSUMPTIONS fed into the Computer Models of the IPCC will show the same failings. The models ASSUME a certain population growth--The Models ASSUME the concentration of the greenhouse gas. Methane(Ch4) to continue to increase. The Models ASSUME that the Co2 concentrations will grow by 0.64 per year, from 1990 to 2100. According to Dr. Lomberge in "The Skeptical Environmentalist" P. 279--

quote

The IPCC have ASSUMED that the Co2 concentration will grow by 0.64 per year, from 1990 to 2100. HOWEVER THIS IS MUCH HIGHER THAN THE OBSERVED GROWTH RATE. In the 1908's the Co2 concentrations grew by 0.47percent, In the 1990's by just 0.43 percent. FOCUSING ON SUCH SMALL PERCENTAGES IS NOT MERELY PEDANTIC, SINCE THESE ARE CUMULATIVE GROWTH RATES, THE IPCC ESTIMATE MEANS THAT CO2 CONCENTRATION WILL DOUBLE IN 109 YEARS, WHEREAS A SUSTAINED GROWTH AT THE OBSERVED RATE MEANS A CO2 DOUBLING IN 154 YEARS>

end of quote

I do not expect the experts, Kuvasz or Parados, to even attempt to rebut this evidence DIRECTLY AND SPECIFICALLY LINE BY LINE.

Instead they run like scared rabbits whenever they see evidence that challenges their ASSUMPTIONS!

0 Replies

Kuvasz writes:( At last,he reveals himself)

To avoid dangerous climate change the world needs at least 30 percent cuts by industrialized countries by 2020, increasing to 70-80 percent cuts by mid-century. Anything less than this will consign our children and theirs to a very unpleasant and very unstable world.

LAUGHING OUT LOUD..LAUGHING OUT LOUD...

THIS IS A PRESCRIPTION FOR DISASTER.

Dr, Lomborg writes:

"We could, of course, achieve almost instant stabilization fo the atmosphere's co2 content and achive a slow stablization of the climate by BANNING ALL USE OF FOSSIL FUELS RIGHT NOW BUT AT THE SAME TIME DOING SO WOULD BRING THE WORLD TO A STANDSTILL WITH INCALCULABLE CONSEQUENCES , BOTH ECONOMIC, HEALTH-RELATED AND ENVIRONMENTAL.

We could, of course, chooseto let things take their course and then pay the costs by adapting society in 2100.

In between these two extremes, we have the option of reducing co2 emissions somewhat and accepting some greenhouse warming. The question is whether BETWEEN STABILIZATION OF THE CLIMATE AND BUSINESS AS USUAL THERE CAN BE FOUND A SOLUTION THAT DOES NOT UPSET PRESENT SOCIETY TOO MUCH BUT DOES NOT RESULT IN TOO HIGH CLIMATIC COSTS IN THE FUTURE EITHER.

One of the most important model builders in this field is the professor William Norhaus of Yale University. HE PRODUCED THE FIRST COMPUTER MODEL, THE DYNAMIC INTEGRATED CLIMAE ECONOMY MODEL IN ORDER TO EVALUTE THE PROS AND CONS OF DIFFERENT POLITICAL CHOICES.

The advantage of these models is that they take into account BOTH the costs and benefits of business as usual and compare them to the costs and benefits of say HEROIC co2 cuts( see the laughable scenario laid down by Kuvasz above)

Dr. Lomborg continues:

If it should prove that our co2 emissions have NO EFFECT ON THE CLIMATE, IF WOUDL MEAN A GAIN OF LITTLE LESS THAN 3 Trillion Dollars.

Global stablilization of Co2. Emissions, on the other hand, is very very costly. The cost would be about 8.5 Trillion, or almost twice the cost of global warming itself. The COST OF LIMITING THE TEMPERATURE INCREASE TO 1.5c IS AN ALMOST UNIMAGINABLE 38 TRILLION!!!!

Parados and Kuvasz will not address the above!!!

0 Replies

Username- Wake up!!!

You wrote:

President's George Bush's decision not to sign the United States up to the Kyoto global warming treaty was partly a result of pressure from ExxonMobil, the world's most powerful oil company, and other industries, according to US State Department papers seen by the Guardian.

The Kyoto Protocol was summarily rejected by the Senate of the United States in July 1997.

First of all(in case you are unaware of it, The "Guardian" is a notoriously left wing newspaper. When they PUBLISH THE US State Department Papers, I will read them but until then, I do not believe anything they say.
Just as you, I am sure, would not believe what is written in "National Review"

SECONDLY, AND MOST IMPORTANT--PRESIDENT BUSH WAS NOT, I REPEAT, NOT PRESIDENT WHEN THE SENATE SUMMARILY AND OVERWHELMINGLY R E J E C T E D THE KYOTO PROTOCOL IN 1 9 9 7( NINETEEN NINETY SEVEN) BY THE AMAZING TOTAL OF 95-0.

One would have thought that the amazing policy wonk, Bill Clinton, might have worked his magic on the Senate to get at least 30 or 40 votes for Kyoto, but he did not do so. Perhaps he was too busy in the Oval Office with Monica!!!!

0 Replies

Bernard, do learn how to read. I did not write that quote. It is from the Guardian.

The Senate vote is irrelevant. Apparently you don't remember, but among Bush's campaign promises in the 2000 election was the promise that if elected he would sign the Kyoto Protocol. He flipflopped shortly after assuming office. Now we know why.

I am aware of the editorial slant of the Guardian. I am also aware that this articlegives every appearance of being in large part straight reportage of the contents of FOI-obtained papers. Given the context of things like Cheney's "energy policy task force" consisting largely of oil company folks according to White House entrance records, given Exxon's support of "think tanks" promoting climate change denialism, given Exxon's support of the execrable public relations hack Steven Milloy, given their huge budget devoted to climate change denialism, given their documented attempts to buy people to buy their views, given Bush's nestled-like-spoons-in-bed ties to the oil industry, yes, I give this report credence.

And Bernard, I have to tell you that on at least one occasion I have cited material from the National Review on A2K when it was apparently straight reportage.

0 Replies

Facts are facts, no matter where they come from. If they try to spin 'em, f*ck 'em.

0 Replies

Bush flip-flopped? I never read that, username. Do you have a link?

The Senate vote is "irrelevant"?????

Please!!!

When a Senate votes 95-0 against the ratification of a Protocol just three years before you become president and when the large majority of the Senators who voted 95-0 are still in the Senate, IT IS IRRELEVANT TO THE OCCUPANT OF THE PRESIDENCY?

Only in Utopia!

And, with regard to the ALLEGED INFLUENCE OF THE OIL INDUSTRY ON THE POLITICAL DECISIONS OF THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION-

I can only quote the policy wonk, President Bill Clinton, who, when asked about the DOCUMENTED DONATIONS OF THE CHINESE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE TO HIS CAMPAIGN FUND SAID:

"I don't think anybody can show that I changed any legislation or made an decisions ONLY because of any political donation"

Neat, huh?

What is your PROOF? I mean PROOF--EVIDENCE--THE KIND OF THING THAT WOULD STAND UP IN COURT BEYOND THE SHADOW OF A DOUBT>

You have nothing but conjecture!!!

0 Replies

Okay, I was wrong about his flipflopping on Kyoto. Apparently that was not the global warming promise he made. The promise he made and flipflopped on was that if elected he would cap and regulate carbon dioxide emissions, particularly from electric power plants. Though Christine Todd Whitman, too, thought Bush supported Kyoto, at least until he blindsided her.

Bush Backs Away from Carbon Dioxide Pledge
By Susan Jones
CNS Morning Editor
March 14, 2001

(CNSNews.com) - President Bush is backing away from a campaign pledge to limit carbon dioxide emissions from power plants. The decision, sure to please Republican conservatives and the coal industry, has angered environmentalists, who never liked Bush to begin with.

In a letter to Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.) on Tuesday, President Bush said he takes global warming "very seriously" but that mandatory controls on carbon dioxide emissions would lead to higher electricity prices by forcing more utilities to shift to natural gas from cheaper coal.

Bush reportedly is abandoning his campaign pledge under pressure from Republican conservatives. Some of those conservatives said it looked like Bush, by supporting carbon dioxide reductions, was backing the controversial U.N. Kyoto climate treaty, which requires industrial countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions back to 1990 levels...

Bush's decision to abandon limits on power plants' carbon dioxide emissions took GOP moderates by surprise. Some of them were planning to introduce legislation on Thursday that would require limits on carbon dioxide releases.

Wire services, quoting unnamed sources, said Vice President Dick Cheney told some senators on Tuesday that Bush's campaign position on carbon dioxide was a mistake. Bush aides reportedly said they did not realize during the campaign that carbon dioxide is not classified as a pollutant under the Clean Air Act.

But as recently as March 3, Christie Todd Whitman, the head of the EPA, announced her intention to combat global warming. "We are supportive of the goal of Kyoto, nothing has changed," Whitman said at the time. She called global warming "one of the greatest environmental challenges we face, if not the greatest."

According to wire services, Vice President Cheney said Whitman was simply being "a good soldier" in repeating President Bush's campaign pledge. Whitman has not commented since Bush reversed course on carbon dioxide emissions.

In his letter to Sen. Hagel, Bush promised to keep looking for ways to reduce global warming through market incentives. He also pledged to further regulate mercury, sulfur and nitrogen oxide...

0 Replies

A fanatic is one who, losing sight of his goals, redoubles his efforts.

Backed away from his campaign pledge?

How is such a thing possible? It never has been done by any president in the History of the United States--not even when they learned that their pledge would not hold up in the light of new evidence!!!

President Clinton began his tenure opposed to any kind of massive welfare reform. He changed his mind during his second term!!!

0 Replies

And a dupe is someone who believes the spin of an interested party is fact.

And it's clear you're no lawyer. "Beyond a shadow of a doubt" is not a standard of proof used in court. In civil cases, a standard of proof is "balance of probabilities" or "preponderance of evidence", i.e. a greater than 50% chance it's true. And considering we've got the documents, I'd say there's a pretty good chance it would meet that standard. Of course one problem is that as far as I am aware flipflopping is not technically speaking a crime in any jurisdiction except the court of public opinion. Though being the lapdog of special interests isn't looked on too highly either, but is also probably not a crime. You wanna be the defendant and we'll see if we can get a hearing on "Judge Judy", Bernard? Are you feeling telegenic?

And the standard in criminal cases is "beyond a reasonable doubt", i.e. there's no "reasonable doubt" in the mind of a reasonable person, which is vague and determined by case law but is definitely not your "beyond a shadow of a doubt".

Since I don';t want Bush's head--yet--I'd say the standard is "preponderance of evidence" and here there's a long list of things you can bring in about Bush and the oil industry--not least, again, the FOI documents.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:

CO2 isn't poison okie. It won't kill us by itself. I suggest you go read up on the carbon cycle. I see you didn't bother to do the math. The time frame for global warming catastrophe is not 3 hours. It is a cumulative effect over that time frame. By reducing the accumulation you can ameliorate it.

Obviously, I don't believe the doomsdayers. I've read all the stuff, the reasoning. We've been through that already. I don't buy it. I think we are in at least in part a natural cycle of climate. The earth has experienced it before and climatic change is nothing surprising. I also think we may be underestimating the impact of solar cycles, plus the impact of cloud cover, water vapor, ocean currents, and a whole host of factors that are poorly understood.

I don't think we are drinking poison. You are the ones that think we are. I am simply pointing out that if you believe your own assertion, your solutions are inadequate, and if they were adequate, they would be draconian and catastrophic, economically.

Cite where I said we are drinking poison. Another strawman from you okie.

These are the countries of the world and the carbon the emitted in 2002. Tell us which ones are going to offset any cuts by the US. Then we can look at their history of emissions to see if you have any evidence at all.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2003.tot

0 Replies

I would love to see a link to the vote on Kyoto treaty in the Senate.

There is no such vote listed on the Congressional website. The Kyoto treaty was never presented to the Senate for a vote. The Senate has never voted against ratification of Kyoto treaty. Any claim that the Senate voted against the treaty is a lie.

It seems Bernard is in his usual state of confusion..

Falsus in omnia there Bernard.

0 Replies

So it was a resolution or some such thing rather than the actual treaty, big deal, Parados. It was voted down 95 zip. Typical lawyer, Parados. Is that what you are, I forgot?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

These are the countries of the world and the carbon the emitted in 2002. Tell us which ones are going to offset any cuts by the US. Then we can look at their history of emissions to see if you have any evidence at all.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/top2003.tot

Using numbers from 2002 is seriously misleading. China's rise in oil consumption over the past few years alone is quickly catching up to the US. With over a billion people in the country and the rate that they are expanding energy consumption, China alone has the potential to ofset any cuts the US makes.

http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/chartimages/c/c09oilconschina.gif

http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/chartimages/c/c10oilconschange.gif

Here is a link to Energy consumption broken down by country using 2005 numbers. Comparing oil consuption, China is still pretty far behind even with their impressive growth. However, they are expected to catch up with US consumption as early as 2020.

Also, they are 1st in coal and electric consumption. Here are the 2005 numbers for CO2 emissions. As you can see, China is not that far behind the US and rapidly approaching.

So to answer your question, China can easily offset any cuts the US makes.

0 Replies

By the way, the first chart is Oil Consumption (China) 1965-2005
http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/chartpages/c/c09oilconschina.html

The second chart is: Oil Consumption Change from 1965 to 2005
http://wolf.readinglitho.co.uk/chartpages/c/c10oilconschange.html

0 Replies

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

Here are the 2005 numbers for CO2 emissions. As you can see, China is not that far behind the US and rapidly approaching.

I was mistaken... those are not 2005 numbers so given the increased rate of oil consumption they are more than likely even closer.

0 Replies

1.) Parados -- Many folks here have pointed out Okie's deficiencies to him. He still doesn't get it.

2.) Irving Kristol is not a scientist.

3.) A projection is not a fact. Please look up the definition of fact.

4.) I read The Population Bomb years ago.

5.) As a former editor and a certified English teacher, I find some of the writing here appalling.

0 Replies

jpinMilwaukee wrote:

jpinMilwaukee wrote:
Here are the 2005 numbers for CO2 emissions. As you can see, China is not that far behind the US and rapidly approaching.

I was mistaken... those are not 2005 numbers so given the increased rate of oil consumption they are more than likely even closer.

Thanks for the numbers. It is obvious the United States has been ahead of the curve in its industrial development and energy consumption. As previously 3rd world nations or nations with more primitive economies join the modern world, industrialization of course increases their energy consumption dramatically. This has been known and projected for a long time. China and India alone are two of the fastest growing nations in the world in terms of development and energy consumption, and of course they will more than make up for any cosmetic reductions of CO2 achieved elsewhere. I say, "cosmetic," because one time reductions can sometimes be achieved by phasing out outdated power plants, and such, but unless a major new breakthrough is achieved in a big way, drastic reductions of CO2 worldwide is totally unforeseen and unachievable in the next few years or decade or two.

0 Replies

Global Warming vs. Terrorism

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know