Republicans = Scum of the Earth
Joe
Lies to go to war, lies to cover-up their torture and their human rights
abuses. What Scum Bags these Republicans be!
Today, the American representative to the Climate Summit in Canada walked
out!
Just fucking walked out of the talks.
These Republicans need to be disgraced, impeached and imprisoned.
Republicans really are the scum of the earth. Disgusting vermin, every one
of them. Dishonest mother fuckers, each and every one of them.
But, you already knew that.
Joe
Steve Terry
"Joe" <jo...@nospam.com> wrote in message:
> Today, the American representative to the Climate Summit in Canada walked
> out!
>
> Just fucking walked out of the talks.
Mebbe a "bathroom break" was needed like when GW had to go weewee at the UN
summit awhile back.
Joe
> > Just fucking walked out of the talks.
> Mebbe a "bathroom break" was needed like when GW had to go weewee at the UN
> summit awhile back.
Hardly. He walked out in the sense that the United States refused to
participate in this conference. AND, to make matters even worse, Bush
apparently told world leaders at that G8 conference a month or two back
that the US would take part in the talks.
I coined the phrase "Bush lies about everything" and it's turning out to
be 100% accurate.
Imagine that?
What fucking losers these Republicans are.
When is the next round of indictments? When is DeLay's trial beginning?
I want justice! I want to see this entire administration imprisoned. I
want honesty. But, these Republicans are incapable of that.
Even the poorest nations in the world are taking part in this
environmental conference. But, not America.
I guess the US is way too busy making war on innocent peoples, stealing
their natural resources, and fucking over its citizens by sending their
children to die.
America has become a nation all about death and dishonesty and deception.
And, I'm disgusted.
Aren't you?
If not, something is wrong, very very wrong.
IMPEACH BUSH
Joe
gb
the worst of it all is that they have mastered election theft and they are
here to stay unless we do something about election fraud.
if you want to learn more about this, check my website below. I've been
working day and night since 11/04 to make people aware of what is going on
because the media is not reporting it.
I think that's part of the reason they act so badly, because they know they
can steal elections. They don't have anyone to answer to. They no longer
have to worry about the next election.
80% of all votes were counted in secret by private companies who support the
republicans. That is a fact.
scarlet...@hotmail.com
to do but write my weekly hate mail to my "representative" (who he
does not represent). All we can do is work towards the 2006 election
and hope to get our country back. In the mean time, he gets my weekly
hate mail.
k sturm
The longer those idiots are in charge, the more vocal my elderly father is
about them. He keeps saying that Bush and Cheney should both be tried for
treason and hanged in the town square. Sounds like Dad and Joe would get
along with each other pretty well...
scarlet...@hotmail.com
scarlet...@hotmail.com
Joe
Kathy said:
>The longer those idiots are in charge, the more vocal my elderly
>father is about them. He keeps saying that Bush and Cheney
>should both be tried for treason and hanged in the town square.
>Sounds like Dad and Joe would get along with each other pretty
>well...
>And Joe and my 82 year old father... Dad hates Bush.
I'll be diplomatic (for a change) and just say that I'm very flattered.
Joe
Carlisle
Why don't you tell us how you REALLY feel?? Stop mincing words
already!!
You and my father probably would not be the best of friends coming from
different planets and all, but he did say this, "George Bush is no
Ronald Reagan, that's for sure!"
Your mileage may vary.
Carrie
"Express yourself"~Madonna
Bradish
"gb" <no...@none.com> wrote in message
news:VuKdnfeWcdVl3wfe...@adelphia.com...
> you are right. these people are pure evil.
Yes, as I watched the sunrise this AM, I thought to myself "its the end of
the world because I dont like the folks in power for 2 more years"
Give it a rest, they will be gone in a few years.
Ego Rancher
And so might much of tbe human race if Chimp is allowed to attack Syria
and Iran and pull China and Russia into war with us.
Pocky Way
>
> The longer those idiots are in charge, the more vocal my elderly father is
> about them. He keeps saying that Bush and Cheney should both be tried for
Hey, no religious ceremonies on public property!
Maranatha
"Ego Rancher" <j...@jcmcneil.com> wrote in message
news:1134233380.9...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Allowed to? Who 'allowed' him to invade Iraq?
Roxanne McDaniel
<scarlet...@hotmail.com> wrote in message ...
I'm glad to hear you do that too Miss Begonias!
Effty
I read about this yesterday on the internets, then I turn on the news
(CNN, MSNBC, Faux, etc.) expecting it to be a top breaking story. You
know, I was kinda outraged and looking for some more info. Scandalous
pictures, that sort of thing.
NOTHING. I haven't seen anything yet today either.
Are these people all sleeping together or something?
I just don't get it. I have no faith in America anymore.
~e.
Ego Rancher
Congress. Of course they were lied to by the neocons like the rest of
us, so they should know better now.
Maranatha
but did they not merely pass a resolution and not actually declare war
ratifying the executive? Didn't they basically just say in effect;"Huh, you
want to invade Iraq? So who's stoppin' ya?" The whole point about Congress
having the power to decalre war came up pre-invasion but i never heard a
clear explaination about why what we all thought was the Constitutional
imperative was overstepped,they just said how much money do you need....
scarlet...@hotmail.com
Corzine, Frank Lautenberg and the Dishonorable Scott Garrett. Garrett
holds the ranking of being one of the worst members of Congress.
Theresa
Papa
Joe
I'm signed up to get e-mail from Barbara Boxer, my Senator, and from Lynn
Woolsey, my Congresswoman.
I love them both, and everytime I get an e-mail from them, I nod my head
in agreement, smile knowing that they speak for me, and am just so pleased
that they're both out-spoken uppity Liberal women that I want to jump up
and down and cheer.
Just because you're in America doesn't mean you have to have Fascist
Criminal Republican Swine representing you, sending your children to die
for ExxonMobile.
Keep it up, Theresa & Roxanne! Let those mass-murdering criminal fascist
scumbag Republicans who supposedly represent you (but really represent
Halliburton, Monsanto, and Merck) know they don't speak for you!
Give 'em hell, you beautiful ladies of rmgd!
Joe
Joe
> You and my father probably would not be the best of friends coming from
> different planets and all, but he did say this, "George Bush is no
> Ronald Reagan, that's for sure!"
> Your mileage may vary.
> Carrie
Yo Carrie.
If Bush were compared to a pile of steamy dog shit, the dog shit would be
more honest and more ethical than Bush.
Hang around here long enough, my Dead Head sister, and you'll come to
accept the truth too.
Joe
Joe
> I read about this yesterday on the internets, then I turn on the news
> (CNN, MSNBC, Faux, etc.) expecting it to be a top breaking story. You
> know, I was kinda outraged and looking for some more info. Scandalous
> pictures, that sort of thing.
> NOTHING. I haven't seen anything yet today either.
> Are these people all sleeping together or something?
> I just don't get it. I have no faith in America anymore.
There wasn't even a mention in the San Francisco Chronicle.
Just like the US military paid the Iraqi newspapers to plant stories, it's
seeming more and more like the same thing here. The media has been paid
off; the media has been silenced.
So, it's up to you and me now, to rally the anti-warriors of rmgd to save
America from Fascism.
Joe
Seth Jackson
>Now why would corporate media want to talk about it?
'Cause they're all a bunch of libruls! I know it's true because Rush
told me!
Effty
Maybe they're too busy discussing the use of the word 'holiday' in
place of 'Christmas' and other equally moronic topics.
*gag*
~e.
Effty
A take from the BBC. Again, I didn't see any of Clinton's speech on
the news today, even though that was what this hubbub was all about.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4515898.stm
Here's what Bill had to say...
______________________________________
'Meet and surpass'
The US appears to have been stung by negative coverage in the US media
after it walked out in protest at Canadian attempts to get it to accept
mandatory targets, as well as by Mr Clinton's strong comments , our
correspondent says.
Bill Clinton in Montreal
"There is no longer any serious doubt that climate change is real,
accelerating and caused by human activities."
Clinton damns Bush policy
Mr Clinton attacked a central plank of the Bush administration's
resistance to targets for cutting emissions - that it would harm the US
economy.
If the US "had a serious, disciplined effort to apply on a large scale
existing clean energy and energy conservation technologies... we could
meet and surpass the Kyoto targets easily in a way that would
strengthen, not weaken, our economies," he said.
Global warming and melting ice, he suggested, could lead to a future
climate conference in Canada being held on "a raft somewhere".
_____________________________________________
~e.
Carlisle
the Kyoto Protocol that was being pushed by the UN at the conference on
climate change. This is a huge issue in that implementation of a
Kyoto-like Protocol could have serious ramifications for all countries
that would actually enforce this treaty. IF you are interested in
another perspective on what went down in Montreal then read carefully.
It's a short piece. Just because it's in the WSJ and Ray says that the
opinion page is a "rag" does not necessarily mean they aren't right on
here. Or in other instances as well. It's a respected paper and
although the Review and Outlook certainly has a pro-business bias
(being the Wall Street Journal and all), its reputation is generally
given credence within the mainstream media. Note: I don't agree with
their stance on many things!! This just happens to be one where I do.
Please point out where you think the editorial falls short or skews the
truth.
HOT TOPIC
Kyoto's Dead Hand
Even signatories are giving up on their emissions targets.
Saturday, December 10, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
Global gabfests can be fun, which may explain the paradox of the 12-day
U.N. conference on climate change that ended yesterday in Montreal. On
the one hand, the conferees spelled out the fine print that will make
the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which has been ratified by 156 countries,
"fully operational," according to conference chairman Stephane Dion.
On the other hand, even those who support radical cuts in
carbon-dioxide emissions are realizing that the Kyoto Protocol is a
failed instrument for achieving their goals. "The blunt truth about the
politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice
its economy in order to meet this challenge," says British Prime
Minister Tony Blair.
He can say that again. India and China, which are exempt from Kyoto's
emissions cuts, have no plans to submit to those mandates any time
soon, though China is the world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse
gases. The U.S. has also consistently rejected Kyoto. This has been
true throughout the Bush years, but it was equally so during the
Clinton ones. In 1997, the U.S. Senate adopted the Byrd-Hagel
Resolution by 95-0, urging the Clinton Administration not to sign any
climate-change protocol that "would result in serious harm to the
economy." In 1998 Al Gore signed the Protocol. Yet President Clinton,
who was in Montreal yesterday to scold the Bush Administration for its
inaction, never submitted it to the Senate.
And then there is the performance of Kyoto's signatories in meeting
their own targets. Kyoto requires developed nations to bring their
total greenhouse-gas emissions to 5% below their 1990 levels by 2012.
Yet in 2003, emissions were above the 1990 baseline by more than 10% in
Italy and Japan, more than 20% in Ireland and Canada, and more than 40%
in Spain.
Germany and Britain have met their Kyoto targets, but this is the
result of one-time events: the collapse of British coal and the
shuttering of much of the former East Germany's industrial base. Given
Germany's anemic economy and Britain's reduced growth forecasts, the
appetite in either country for costly environmental virtue is not
likely to increase.
Nor should it. For even as the Montreal crowd treats man-made global
warming as established fact, the science behind the long-term forecasts
remains ambiguous and sketchy, while the benefits of "doing something
about it" are by no means clear.
Consider a few recent developments. In 2003, Canadian researchers
Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick demonstrated that the
"hockey-stick" analysis--a key element of global-warming dogma that
purports to demonstrate that global temperatures held steady for
centuries until rising sharply in the last 100 years--was riddled with
"collation errors, unjustifiable truncation or extrapolation of source
data, obsolete data," and so on. The Canadians found that the Medieval
warm period had indeed occurred, suggesting that periods of warming and
cooling were natural trends unrelated to the number of SUVs on the
road.
In 2004, a conference of leading economists met in Copenhagen to
prioritize the world's environmental needs, and they put global warming
at the bottom of the list. "The benefits [of dealing with climate
change] are far into the future and the substantial costs are up front
and immediate," wrote Nobelist Douglass North. "Given the uncertainties
associated with both the projections and the consequences, climate
change cannot compete with other urgent issues we confront."
More recently, scientists have been grappling with data distortions
caused by the 1991 eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines. That
eruption initially caused ocean temperatures to cool; now temperatures
are rising as the "Pinatubo Effect" unwinds and distorts the long-term
trend data. Scientists have also noted weakenings in Atlantic currents
that move cold waters south and warm waters north, leading to
predictions that Britain may experience Siberia-like temperatures in
the coming decades. Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."
The lesson we draw from all of this is that the uncertainties in
climate forecasting remain huge. And given the costly and fraudulent
scares we have just lived through--mad-cow disease, genetically
modified foods--the End Is Nigh crowd should be held to a higher
standard of proof than it has been before. The needs of the world's
poor and sick are too pressing to squander limited economic resources
on what could be another false alarm.
Fortunately, there's another game in another town. Next month, the
U.S., Japan, China, South Korea, India and Australia--collectively
accounting for nearly half the world's population--will meet in Sydney
to launch the Asia-Pacific partnership. Unlike Kyoto, which pits
developing countries against developed ones, the Partnership is a
collaboration to develop cleaner energy resources.
Unlike Kyoto, too, it is a voluntary partnership that seeks to address
environmental issues through economic growth and technology, and not by
targets and command-and-control mechanisms. Some of the technological
fixes--zero-emissions power plants, efficient hydrogen fuel cells--may
be decades away. Then again, so are the real-world consequences of
global warming, if they materialize at all.
So many politicians and activists have committed so much to their faith
in man-made global warming that events like Montreal will continue
regardless of the evidence. But anyone who cares seriously about the
needs of the poor--and of the environment--needs to get out from under
Kyoto's dead hand.
Effty
> trend data. Scientists have also noted weakenings in Atlantic currents
> that move cold waters south and warm waters north, leading to
> predictions that Britain may experience Siberia-like temperatures in
> the coming decades. Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."
This was printed in the Wall Street Journal???
That's hard to believe. This paragraph is total crap.
The melting of polar ice has and is causing a measurable effect on the
salinity of the North Atlantic. The less saline water does not sink
(and therefore circulate) as it once did. THAT'S the weakening of
Atlantic currents, and it IS an effect of global warming.
If we were talking about the warming of the British Isles it would be
called "local warming" or something like that, and by all accounts of
"global warming" the British Isles are NOT going to get warmer.
Why do you think Bush wants all that oil? Because in 20 years the
Brits will be needing to buy shitloads of it to heat their homes.
> The lesson we draw from all of this is that the uncertainties in
> climate forecasting remain huge. And given the costly and fraudulent
> scares we have just lived through--mad-cow disease, genetically
> modified foods--the End Is Nigh crowd should be held to a higher
> standard of proof than it has been before. The needs of the world's
> poor and sick are too pressing to squander limited economic resources
> on what could be another false alarm.
Since the "needs of the world's poor and sick" are so incredibly far
removed from my tax dollars and the agenda of the Bush administration
that I'm not even sure why this would be even remotely valid. We need
to save the "economic resources" we would spend on global warming so we
can give that money to the "poor and sick?"
Not likely.
SOOOOOOO not likely.
SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO incredibly not-fucking-likely.
Also, mad-cow disease was fraudulent???? More like some really scary
shit that is very capable of decimating one of our biggest food
industries.
> Fortunately, there's another game in another town. Next month, the
> U.S., Japan, China, South Korea, India and Australia--collectively
> accounting for nearly half the world's population--will meet in Sydney
> to launch the Asia-Pacific partnership. Unlike Kyoto, which pits
> developing countries against developed ones, the Partnership is a
> collaboration to develop cleaner energy resources.
This is the only point of the article. Whatever happens, China needs
to ratify it too. Otherwise they have the upper hand in all things
industrial leaving the U.S. "bound by" some treaty and unable to
compete.
Ahhh... The joys of the global economy! No ONE country can do the
right thing if any other country continues to do the wrong thing!
> Unlike Kyoto, too, it is a voluntary partnership that seeks to address
> environmental issues through economic growth and technology, and not by
> targets and command-and-control mechanisms. Some of the technological
> fixes--zero-emissions power plants, efficient hydrogen fuel cells--may
> be decades away. Then again, so are the real-world consequences of
> global warming, if they materialize at all.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. We should have been looking
at these "technological fixes" decades ago. There was a flurry of
activity after the oil crisis of the 70's and Carter passed some tax
breaks for the development new technology, but then we up and forgot.
Anyone who thought we weren't ever going to face another crisis because
of our consuming and polluting ways is seriously smoking crack.
> So many politicians and activists have committed so much to their faith
> in man-made global warming that events like Montreal will continue
> regardless of the evidence. But anyone who cares seriously about the
> needs of the poor--and of the environment--needs to get out from under
> Kyoto's dead hand.
Again with the poor? WTF??? Leave them out of this. This has so much
more to do with the bottom lines of big industries that are set in
their ways.
WHY NOT let those industries write their own legislation? Afterall,
with the money they save they are going to help the "poor and sick."
Yeah sure.
This article is crap.
~e.
Everybody's Gonna Be Happy
> Effty <gospa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> I read about this yesterday on the internets, then I turn on the news
>> (CNN, MSNBC, Faux, etc.) expecting it to be a top breaking story. You
>> know, I was kinda outraged and looking for some more info. Scandalous
>> pictures, that sort of thing.
>
>> NOTHING. I haven't seen anything yet today either.
>
>> Are these people all sleeping together or something?
>
>> I just don't get it. I have no faith in America anymore.
> There wasn't even a mention in the San Francisco Chronicle.
>
> Just like the US military paid the Iraqi newspapers to plant stories, it's
> seeming more and more like the same thing here. The media has been paid
> off; the media has been silenced.
The story got big play in the Bend Bulletin.
EGBH
leftie
> As it stands now, I agree with the Bush Administration's rejection of
> the Kyoto Protocol...
Oh well. I tried.
Now who wants to start on pool on how long it will take 'til the next
meltdown?
I'll take next Friday, 10am Pacific time.
JC Martin
You truly are a dick.
-JC
Carlisle
"leftie", it's very late/early here so I'll wait until tomorrow to
respond to a couple of things Effty stated about the piece. He's a
sincere person so I want to share my opinion with him.
I'll respond to what you posted though. I had a "melt down" for
personal reasons. Talking news/politics does not cause me to lose it,
leftie. Perhaps you don't know, but some trouble began when someone
attacked me personally on rec.phish (having nothing to do with
politics), I was taken aback and I didn't let it go. I was already
upset that I complained to this person again...then I was trolled and
personally piled on on this newsgroup almost to a comical extent. A
couple of kind people said something at the time to me on and off
rec.music.gdead. Yeah, I got upset, not because Ray, Richard, or JC
ever disagreed with me though!! <###>
I hope to ignore gratuitious negative slams. In fact, I don't plan to
even converse with Ken Fortenberry again because of his rude
belligerance. If we can't discuss and have civil debates as
Theresa/scarletbegonias stated so well, then too bad.
I hope that helps.
Carrie
Ray
> As it stands now, I agree with the Bush Administration's rejection of
> the Kyoto Protocol that was being pushed by the UN at the conference on
> climate change. This is a huge issue in that implementation of a
> Kyoto-like Protocol could have serious ramifications for all countries
> that would actually enforce this treaty.
And there could be serious ramifications for all countries on the
planet f the treaty is not enforced.
> IF you are interested in
> another perspective on what went down in Montreal then read carefully.
> It's a short piece.
Hey look, another WSJ editorial page blast-fax from Carrie - how nice.
###
Carrie, you do realize that it takes a *lot* more effort for someone to
point out the disinformation in these rag editorials than it does for
you to post them, right? Which would be ok if you actually absorbed
what was written in response. But you don't - you just keep posting
more editorials.
I have already gone around on the global warming issue with you twice
now, and twice now I've already addressed and debunk many of the
"points" made by you and in this WSJ editorial. And yet you posted
these misleading and debunked points here yet again anyway. And that's
not arguing in good faith.
> Just because it's in the WSJ and Ray says that the
> opinion page is a "rag" does not necessarily mean they aren't right on
> here.
This article is yet another demonstration of exactly why and how the
WSJ editorial page is a rag.
> Or in other instances as well. It's a respected paper
Again: The *paper* is respected. The WSJ *editorial page*, however, is
taken seriously as a source of reliable information by no one except
the far too credulous.
> Kyoto's Dead Hand
> Even signatories are giving up on their emissions targets.
>
> Saturday, December 10, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
>
> Global gabfests can be fun, which may explain the paradox of the 12-day
> U.N. conference on climate change that ended yesterday in Montreal. On
> the one hand, the conferees spelled out the fine print that will make
> the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which has been ratified by 156 countries,
> "fully operational," according to conference chairman Stephane Dion.
>
> On the other hand, even those who support radical cuts in
> carbon-dioxide emissions are realizing that the Kyoto Protocol is a
> failed instrument for achieving their goals. "The blunt truth about the
> politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice
> its economy in order to meet this challenge," says British Prime
> Minister Tony Blair.
What the WSJ doesn't point out is that this doesn't mean that Blair
doesn't support the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, Blair does support Kyoto.
> He can say that again. India and China, which are exempt from Kyoto's
> emissions cuts, have no plans to submit to those mandates any time
> soon, though China is the world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse
> gases.
And the WSJ #coincidentally# failed to explain why. Carrie here's what
I previously wrote to you directly on this topic, which you didn't
respond to:
The great majority of the man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
today got there as a result of the activities of the advanced
countries. This is why the developing countries argue that the rich
countries ought to take the first steps to control emissions. From a
"global fairness" perspective, developing countries like China and
India have a point. The data argues clearly that the industrialized
countries have placed the world in its current ecological position.
Developed nations have emitted, and continue to emit, far more
greenhouse gases than developing countries, despite having much smaller
populations. Per capita emissions are even more uneven. There can be
no arguments on these points. Moreover given the tremendous poverty in
many developing nations, particular China and India and their
comparatively low per capita emissions, one must acknowledge the
legitimacy of developing country claims that they cannot be expected to
sacrifice much needed economic growth solely to achieve the same level
of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions as developed countries.
On the other hand, the yearly emission of greenhouse gases by the
developing countries is expected to catch up to that of the advanced
countries around 2030. By about the year 2100, the cumulative
contribution of the developing countries is expected to reach 50
percent of the total. So the developing countries will have to control
their emissions eventually; unrestrained greenhouse gas growth in these
countries could result in ecological disaster. From this perspective,
their arguments for significant delays in implementing binding controls
appear less compelling. This is not a scientific issue, but one of
ethics and equity.
>From my perspective, the pattern achieved in the Montreal Protocol
appears appropriate. As agreed in Kyoto, the industrialized countries
should take the first, significant cuts. These efforts are then
followed, after a appropriate grace period of 10 years, by similar
steps on the part of developing countries. A system of emissions
trading combined with some aid could be established to assist the
transition in developing countries and promote appropriate technology
transfer.
> The U.S. has also consistently rejected Kyoto. This has been
> true throughout the Bush years, but it was equally so during the
> Clinton ones. In 1997, the U.S. Senate adopted the Byrd-Hagel
> Resolution by 95-0, urging the Clinton Administration not to sign any
> climate-change protocol that "would result in serious harm to the
> economy." In 1998 Al Gore signed the Protocol. Yet President Clinton,
> who was in Montreal yesterday to scold the Bush Administration for its
> inaction, never submitted it to the Senate.
As president, Clinton supported Kyoto. The only reason Clinton never
submitted it to the Senate is because, as the WSJ alludes to above, the
Senate already had made it clear that they wouldn't ratify it.
> And then there is the performance of Kyoto's signatories in meeting
> their own targets. Kyoto requires developed nations to bring their
> total greenhouse-gas emissions to 5% below their 1990 levels by 2012.
> Yet in 2003, emissions were above the 1990 baseline by more than 10% in
> Italy and Japan, more than 20% in Ireland and Canada, and more than 40%
> in Spain.
What the WSJ misleadingly fails to mention here is that the Kyoto
Protocol wasn't in effect in 2003. That's the whole point of Kyoto --
which didn't come into effect until this year -- to reverse those
trends.
> Nor should it. For even as the Montreal crowd treats man-made global
> warming as established fact
Not just the "Montreal Crowd" - far from it
Carrie, as I've pointed out to you twice before:
The scientific consensus on global warming is that the Earth has been
warming over the past 100 years, and that humanity's greenhouse gas
emissions are making a significant contribution. This consensus is
summarized by the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change's the Third Assessment Report, which that "most of the warming
observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".
Here's the US National Academy of Sciences, from their '2001 report
"Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions": "The
changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to
human activities."
And here's atmospheric scientist Ralph J. Cicerone, current President
of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S. Senate testimony, July 21,
2005)
"Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's
current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil
fuels."
And then there's the Pentagon:
"There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global
warming will occur during the 21st century... because of the
potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change,
although uncertain and quite possibly small, should be elevated beyond
a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."
http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html
>, the science behind the long-term forecasts
> remains ambiguous and sketchy, while the benefits of "doing something
> about it" are by no means clear.
Carrie, as I've written to you before: The benefits of NOT "doing
something about it" are by no means clear either. As I've written to
you twice previously:
Some of the more likely global warming consequences include: increased
frequencies of powerful hurricanes, deadly heat waves, drought, and
fires, and increased disease (disease-carrying mosquitoes are even now
spreading as climate shifts allow them to survive in formerly
inhospitable areas).
And these are merely some of the more likely global warming
consequences. Did you read the Pentagon's report on the worst-case
scenario that I provided the excutive summary and a link to, Carrie?
Worldwide devastation and upheaval is a real possibility here. Consider
for example this scenario for China (and its neighbors):
________________________
China, with its high need for food supply given its vast population, is
hit hard by a decreased reliability of the monsoon rains. Occasional
monsoons during the summer season are welcomed for their precipitation,
but have devastating effects as they flood generally denuded land.
Longer, colder winters and hotter summers caused by decreased
evaporative cooling because of reduced precipitation stress already
tight energy and water supplies. Widespread famine causes chaos and
internal struggles as a cold and hungry China peers jealously across
the Russian and western borders at energy resources.
__________________________
http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html
Yeag - I know, I know - the Pentagon report is only "speculating" here;
we don't know "with certainty" that this will happen.
True, but 2 points:
1) Even without taking into account the worst-case scenario, as noted
above the adverse consequences of unchecked global warming will with
much higher likelihood nonetheless still be massively devastating and
astrononically expensive.
2) Consider the current terrorist threat, which this Adminstration has
focused on with, well, blinders: with that threat, too, we are only
"speculating" that there will be another attack - we don't know "with
certainty" that such an attack will happen either. But does that mean
that we shouldn't prepare for such that possibility? Of course not -
providing safety and security in large degree about anticipating and
doing what one can to thwart reasonably *possible* serious threats. And
the threat of global warming certainly qualifies in that regard. Which
is why the Pentagon report concluded that global warming "should be
elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security
concern."
> Scientists have also noted weakenings in Atlantic currents
> that move cold waters south and warm waters north, leading to
> predictions that Britain may experience Siberia-like temperatures in
> the coming decades. Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."
As Effy put it:
+ This paragraph is total crap.
+
+ The melting of polar ice has and is causing a measurable effect on
the
+ salinity of the North Atlantic. The less saline water does not sink
+ (and therefore circulate) as it once did. THAT'S the weakening of
+ Atlantic currents, and it IS an effect of global warming.
He's right, you know.
> The lesson we draw from all of this is that the uncertainties in
> climate forecasting remain huge.
As I've pointed out to you before, Carrie: So do the uncertainties in
terrorism forecasting. Does that mean we shouldn't seriously address
terrorism? Of course not.
> And given the costly and fraudulent
> scares we have just lived through--mad-cow disease, genetically
> modified foods--the End Is Nigh crowd should be held to a higher
> standard of proof than it has been before. The needs of the world's
> poor and sick are too pressing to squander limited economic resources
> on what could be another false alarm.
Here's a classic example of how wild exaggeration by *some*
environmentalists and their allies can hurt their cause -- note for the
example here the GMO food referrence, a reference to exaggerated claims
that GMO foods kill people -- the WSJ editorial page is using that to
discredit another environmental issue that is completely unrelated.
Which is to say, it's nothing but an unfair ad hominem attack. And
unfortunately, it works to obfuscate the issue here.
> So many politicians and activists have committed so much to their faith
> in man-made global warming that events like Montreal will continue
> regardless of the evidence.
Man what disgusting irony - these people really have no shame. As the
scientific consensus demonstrates, the evidence is unquestionably in
favor of man-made global warming.
Did I mention that the WSJ editorial page is a rag?
Ray
_______________
"Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's
current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of
greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil
fuels."
- Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences,
U.S. Senate testimony, July 21, 2005
Ray
> Carlisle wrote:
>
> > trend data. Scientists have also noted weakenings in Atlantic currents
> > that move cold waters south and warm waters north, leading to
> > predictions that Britain may experience Siberia-like temperatures in
> > the coming decades. Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."
>
> This was printed in the Wall Street Journal???
>
> That's hard to believe.
Not at all. This is the WSJ editorial page, and this sort of
environmental science disinformation is par for the course for them.
The WSJ is otherwise a great paper, but their editiorial page is a rag.
> This article is crap.
You're right, you know.
Ray
gb
> Give it a rest, they will be gone in a few years.
>
>
not when they can steal elections. check the facts. the electronic voting
scam is for real.
Ken Fortenberry
> <snip>
> even converse with Ken Fortenberry again because of his rude
> belligerance. If we can't discuss and have civil debates as
> Theresa/scarletbegonias stated so well, then too bad.
> I hope that helps.
Better rude than stubbornly stupid. You cannot claim to be
"discussing" things here when all you ever do is cut and
paste the same old easily debunked prattle spewed forth by
big business and their lackeys. If you want to "discuss" an
issue you must first read and digest what others point you
to in response to your cut and paste. You won't even read it
and that's not a "discussion", that's just a silly little
ditz trolling for attention. And if I'm rude for saying so,
that's just too bad for you dearie.
--
Ken Fortenberry
Carlisle
> Carlisle wrote:
>
> > trend data. Scientists have also noted weakenings in Atlantic currents
> > that move cold waters south and warm waters north, leading to
> > predictions that Britain may experience Siberia-like temperatures in
> > the coming decades. Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."
>
> This was printed in the Wall Street Journal???
>
> That's hard to believe. This paragraph is total crap.
warming of about a degree in the last century, just that it is a
complicated picture and the conclusions do not always support what is
being proposed by some at the United Nations and the environmentalist
community.
>
> The melting of polar ice has and is causing a measurable effect on the
> salinity of the North Atlantic. The less saline water does not sink
> (and therefore circulate) as it once did. THAT'S the weakening of
> Atlantic currents, and it IS an effect of global warming.
cyclical part of the natural world? Moreover, would it be worth the
cost to our economy (energy prices) to attempt to reverse this slight
bump in temperatures?! The Kyoto Protocol, if made law would require
developed nations to "bring their total greenhouse gas emissions to
*below 1990 levels* by 2012. This would have serious repercussions on
the economies of nations who would actually enforce it.
>
> If we were talking about the warming of the British Isles it would be
> called "local warming" or something like that, and by all accounts of
> "global warming" the British Isles are NOT going to get warmer.
>
> Why do you think Bush wants all that oil? Because in 20 years the
> Brits will be needing to buy shitloads of it to heat their homes.
the Arabs will be "getting more oil" from that deal. But saying what
you said is true, how does this correlate with the bipartisan rejection
of the KP?
>
> > The lesson we draw from all of this is that the uncertainties in
> > climate forecasting remain huge. And given the costly and fraudulent
> > scares we have just lived through--mad-cow disease, genetically
> > modified foods--the End Is Nigh crowd should be held to a higher
> > standard of proof than it has been before. The needs of the world's
> > poor and sick are too pressing to squander limited economic resources
> > on what could be another false alarm.
>
> Since the "needs of the world's poor and sick" are so incredibly far
> removed from my tax dollars and the agenda of the Bush administration
> that I'm not even sure why this would be even remotely valid. We need
> to save the "economic resources" we would spend on global warming so we
> can give that money to the "poor and sick?"
economic growth and prosperity are in a far better position to help the
world's poor and even begin to have the luxury and sophistication to
protect the environment.
>
> Not likely.
>
> SOOOOOOO not likely.
>
> SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO incredibly not-fucking-likely.
>
> Also, mad-cow disease was fraudulent???? More like some really scary
> shit that is very capable of decimating one of our biggest food
> industries.
fine without creating a costly panic.
>
> > Fortunately, there's another game in another town. Next month, the
> > U.S., Japan, China, South Korea, India and Australia--collectively
> > accounting for nearly half the world's population--will meet in Sydney
> > to launch the Asia-Pacific partnership. Unlike Kyoto, which pits
> > developing countries against developed ones, the Partnership is a
> > collaboration to develop cleaner energy resources.
>
> This is the only point of the article. Whatever happens, China needs
> to ratify it too. Otherwise they have the upper hand in all things
> industrial leaving the U.S. "bound by" some treaty and unable to
> compete.
main concerns are trying to feed/improve the lives of over a billion
people and grow economically from being a third world country into a
superpower. They are gaining on us too.
>
> Ahhh... The joys of the global economy! No ONE country can do the
> right thing if any other country continues to do the wrong thing!
sacrifice their economies over an uncertain environmental prospect when
the world's most populous and economically growing countries would be
scoffing at our naivete?! The result is that China and India could
finally become stronger economically and militarily.
>
> > Unlike Kyoto, too, it is a voluntary partnership that seeks to address
> > environmental issues through economic growth and technology, and not by
> > targets and command-and-control mechanisms. Some of the technological
> > fixes--zero-emissions power plants, efficient hydrogen fuel cells--may
> > be decades away. Then again, so are the real-world consequences of
> > global warming, if they materialize at all.
>
> I've said it before and I'll say it again. We should have been looking
> at these "technological fixes" decades ago. There was a flurry of
> activity after the oil crisis of the 70's and Carter passed some tax
> breaks for the development new technology, but then we up and forgot.
> Anyone who thought we weren't ever going to face another crisis because
> of our consuming and polluting ways is seriously smoking crack.
his Administration proposed that may be feasible and improve American
lives.
My larger point here is that instead of fighting windmills, perhaps the
US should concentrate on more concrete goals like developing
alternative energy sources (Carter), encouraging conservation,
developing better technologies to deal with pollution and waste, and
increasing domestic energy production.
>
> > So many politicians and activists have committed so much to their faith
> > in man-made global warming that events like Montreal will continue
> > regardless of the evidence. But anyone who cares seriously about the
> > needs of the poor--and of the environment--needs to get out from under
> > Kyoto's dead hand.
>
> Again with the poor? WTF??? Leave them out of this. This has so much
> more to do with the bottom lines of big industries that are set in
> their ways.
in a third world country or an economically thriving United States?
>
> WHY NOT let those industries write their own legislation? Afterall,
> with the money they save they are going to help the "poor and sick."
there is no welfare like a good education and a being employed.
>
> Yeah sure.
>
> This article is crap.
Thankfully both Democrats and Republicans have recognized this and
overwhelmingly rejected this massive government response to conflicted
scientific conclusions.
>
> ~e.
sincerely,
C.
kpn...@yahoo.com
Everytime I read one of your posts, your comments about
Dave Kelly and his mom are always in the back of my mind.
Kurt
Joe
> As it stands now, I agree with the Bush Administration's rejection of
> the Kyoto Protocol that was being pushed by the UN at the conference on
> climate change.
Psst. Hey you, Dead Head Sister.
Stock up on gas masks and air filters and reverse osmosis water
purification systems.
As the skies darken and water turns red with the blood on innocent
victims of Republican imbecility and selfishness-to-the-extreme, you are
going to need the above items.
Or better yet, just start praying to Jesus. After all, he saves
Republicans and polluters and Masters-of-War and wayward and delusional
Dead Heads, doesn't he?
Joe
Carlisle
Ray wrote:
> Carlisle wrote:
> > As it stands now, I agree with the Bush Administration's rejection of
> > the Kyoto Protocol that was being pushed by the UN at the conference on
> > climate change. This is a huge issue in that implementation of a
> > Kyoto-like Protocol could have serious ramifications for all countries
> > that would actually enforce this treaty.
>
> And there could be serious ramifications for all countries on the
> planet f the treaty is not enforced.
>
> > IF you are interested in
> > another perspective on what went down in Montreal then read carefully.
> > It's a short piece.
>
> Hey look, another WSJ editorial page blast-fax from Carrie - how nice.
It doesn't seem to be a problem unless it goes against the conventional
wisdom of rmgd.
>
> Carrie, you do realize that it takes a *lot* more effort for someone to
> point out the disinformation in these rag editorials than it does for
> you to post them, right? Which would be ok if you actually absorbed
> what was written in response. But you don't - you just keep posting
> more editorials.
the WSJ that I've posted. It was in response to the
simplistic::Republicans are evil scum for rejecting the Montreal
agenda, etc...
>
> I have already gone around on the global warming issue with you twice
> now, and twice now I've already addressed and debunk many of the
> "points" made by you and in this WSJ editorial. And yet you posted
> these misleading and debunked points here yet again anyway. And that's
> not arguing in good faith.
>
> > Just because it's in the WSJ and Ray says that the
> > opinion page is a "rag" does not necessarily mean they aren't right on
> > here.
>
> This article is yet another demonstration of exactly why and how the
> WSJ editorial page is a rag.
>
> > Or in other instances as well. It's a respected paper
>
> Again: The *paper* is respected. The WSJ *editorial page*, however, is
> taken seriously as a source of reliable information by no one except
> the far too credulous.
own program if they were on par with the National Enquirer, News Max,
Drudge, Daily Kos or The Nation?!
http://www.opinionjournal.com/cnbc/
>
> > Kyoto's Dead Hand
> > Even signatories are giving up on their emissions targets.
> >
> > Saturday, December 10, 2005 12:01 a.m. EST
> >
> > Global gabfests can be fun, which may explain the paradox of the 12-day
> > U.N. conference on climate change that ended yesterday in Montreal. On
> > the one hand, the conferees spelled out the fine print that will make
> > the 1997 Kyoto Protocol, which has been ratified by 156 countries,
> > "fully operational," according to conference chairman Stephane Dion.
> >
> > On the other hand, even those who support radical cuts in
> > carbon-dioxide emissions are realizing that the Kyoto Protocol is a
> > failed instrument for achieving their goals. "The blunt truth about the
> > politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice
> > its economy in order to meet this challenge," says British Prime
> > Minister Tony Blair.
>
> What the WSJ doesn't point out is that this doesn't mean that Blair
> doesn't support the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, Blair does support Kyoto.
naive?
>
> > He can say that again. India and China, which are exempt from Kyoto's
> > emissions cuts, have no plans to submit to those mandates any time
> > soon, though China is the world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse
> > gases.
>
> And the WSJ #coincidentally# failed to explain why. Carrie here's what
> I previously wrote to you directly on this topic, which you didn't
> respond to:
>
> The great majority of the man-made greenhouse gases in the atmosphere
> today got there as a result of the activities of the advanced
> countries. This is why the developing countries argue that the rich
> countries ought to take the first steps to control emissions. From a
> "global fairness" perspective, developing countries like China and
> India have a point. The data argues clearly that the industrialized
> countries have placed the world in its current ecological position.
> Developed nations have emitted, and continue to emit, far more
> greenhouse gases than developing countries, despite having much smaller
> populations. Per capita emissions are even more uneven. There can be
> no arguments on these points. Moreover given the tremendous poverty in
> many developing nations, particular China and India and their
> comparatively low per capita emissions, one must acknowledge the
> legitimacy of developing country claims that they cannot be expected to
> sacrifice much needed economic growth solely to achieve the same level
> of cuts in greenhouse gas emissions as developed countries.
careful.
>
> On the other hand, the yearly emission of greenhouse gases by the
> developing countries is expected to catch up to that of the advanced
> countries around 2030. By about the year 2100, the cumulative
> contribution of the developing countries is expected to reach 50
> percent of the total. So the developing countries will have to control
> their emissions eventually; unrestrained greenhouse gas growth in these
> countries could result in ecological disaster. From this perspective,
> their arguments for significant delays in implementing binding controls
> appear less compelling. This is not a scientific issue, but one of
> ethics and equity.
stagnation. And STILL we don't know if warming/cooling trends are not a
cyclical part of nature.
In fact, they area part of nature. The question is: to what extent is
the current warming trend albeit miniscule, caused in part by natural
phenomenon?
>
> >From my perspective, the pattern achieved in the Montreal Protocol
> appears appropriate. As agreed in Kyoto, the industrialized countries
> should take the first, significant cuts. These efforts are then
> followed, after a appropriate grace period of 10 years, by similar
> steps on the part of developing countries. A system of emissions
> trading combined with some aid could be established to assist the
> transition in developing countries and promote appropriate technology
> transfer.
comply with that which would result in economic reversals.
>
> > The U.S. has also consistently rejected Kyoto. This has been
> > true throughout the Bush years, but it was equally so during the
> > Clinton ones. In 1997, the U.S. Senate adopted the Byrd-Hagel
> > Resolution by 95-0, urging the Clinton Administration not to sign any
> > climate-change protocol that "would result in serious harm to the
> > economy." In 1998 Al Gore signed the Protocol. Yet President Clinton,
> > who was in Montreal yesterday to scold the Bush Administration for its
> > inaction, never submitted it to the Senate.
>
> As president, Clinton supported Kyoto. The only reason Clinton never
> submitted it to the Senate is because, as the WSJ alludes to above, the
> Senate already had made it clear that they wouldn't ratify it.
adopted the Byrd-Hagel Resolution by 95-0, urging the Clinton
result in serious harm to the economy'" You know, Paul Wellstone was in
the Senate at this time. If this was such a serious imperative, why
didn't even he champion it?? 95-0
>
> > And then there is the performance of Kyoto's signatories in meeting
> > their own targets. Kyoto requires developed nations to bring their
> > total greenhouse-gas emissions to 5% below their 1990 levels by 2012.
> > Yet in 2003, emissions were above the 1990 baseline by more than 10% in
> > Italy and Japan, more than 20% in Ireland and Canada, and more than 40%
> > in Spain.
>
> What the WSJ misleadingly fails to mention here is that the Kyoto
> Protocol wasn't in effect in 2003. That's the whole point of Kyoto --
> which didn't come into effect until this year -- to reverse those
> trends.
nature herself!!
>
> > Nor should it. For even as the Montreal crowd treats man-made global
> > warming as established fact
>
> Not just the "Montreal Crowd" - far from it
>
> Carrie, as I've pointed out to you twice before:
>
> The scientific consensus on global warming is that the Earth has been
> warming over the past 100 years, and that humanity's greenhouse gas
> emissions are making a significant contribution. This consensus is
> summarized by the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> Change's the Third Assessment Report, which that "most of the warming
> observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".
do not know this for sure. The *experts* do not know that this whole
trend has been caused by human activites or not. They don't. To reduce
greenhouse emissions to 5% below their 1990 levels by 2012 based on
academic theory is heavy medicine indeed.
>
> Here's the US National Academy of Sciences, from their '2001 report
> "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions": "The
> changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to
> human activities."
>
> And here's atmospheric scientist Ralph J. Cicerone, current President
> of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S. Senate testimony, July 21,
> 2005)
>
> "Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's
> current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of
> greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil
> fuels."
>
> And then there's the Pentagon:
>
> "There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global
> warming will occur during the 21st century... because of the
> potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change,
> although uncertain and quite possibly small, should be elevated beyond
> a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."
>
> http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html
>
> >, the science behind the long-term forecasts
> > remains ambiguous and sketchy, while the benefits of "doing something
> > about it" are by no means clear.
>
> Carrie, as I've written to you before: The benefits of NOT "doing
> something about it" are by no means clear either. As I've written to
> you twice previously:
Earth", by TC Boyle. It's a fun novel but the premise of the book is
mirrored often on this newsgroup.
>
> Some of the more likely global warming consequences include: increased
> frequencies of powerful hurricanes, deadly heat waves, drought, and
> fires, and increased disease (disease-carrying mosquitoes are even now
> spreading as climate shifts allow them to survive in formerly
> inhospitable areas).
>
> And these are merely some of the more likely global warming
> consequences. Did you read the Pentagon's report on the worst-case
> scenario that I provided the excutive summary and a link to, Carrie?
> Worldwide devastation and upheaval is a real possibility here. Consider
> for example this scenario for China (and its neighbors):
> ________________________
>
> China, with its high need for food supply given its vast population, is
> hit hard by a decreased reliability of the monsoon rains. Occasional
> monsoons during the summer season are welcomed for their precipitation,
> but have devastating effects as they flood generally denuded land.
> Longer, colder winters and hotter summers caused by decreased
> evaporative cooling because of reduced precipitation stress already
> tight energy and water supplies. Widespread famine causes chaos and
> internal struggles as a cold and hungry China peers jealously across
> the Russian and western borders at energy resources.
more to eradicate hunger and disease than any U.N. protocol.
> __________________________
> http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html
>
> Yeag - I know, I know - the Pentagon report is only "speculating" here;
> we don't know "with certainty" that this will happen.
>
> True, but 2 points:
>
> 1) Even without taking into account the worst-case scenario, as noted
> above the adverse consequences of unchecked global warming will with
> much higher likelihood nonetheless still be massively devastating and
> astrononically expensive.
>
> 2) Consider the current terrorist threat, which this Adminstration has
> focused on with, well, blinders: with that threat, too, we are only
> "speculating" that there will be another attack - we don't know "with
> certainty" that such an attack will happen either. But does that mean
> that we shouldn't prepare for such that possibility? Of course not -
> providing safety and security in large degree about anticipating and
> doing what one can to thwart reasonably *possible* serious threats. And
> the threat of global warming certainly qualifies in that regard. Which
> is why the Pentagon report concluded that global warming "should be
> elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security
> concern."
Pentagon's *worst-case scenario*. What about the DoD's predictions on
WMD?!
The US government certainly overreacted to the terror scare (DHS, Iraqi
War, ludicrous airport security changes lacking common sense, etc.)
However, what happened 9/11/01 was real is not contested!!
>
> > Scientists have also noted weakenings in Atlantic currents
> > that move cold waters south and warm waters north, leading to
> > predictions that Britain may experience Siberia-like temperatures in
> > the coming decades. Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."
>
> As Effy put it:
>
> + This paragraph is total crap.
> +
> + The melting of polar ice has and is causing a measurable effect on
> the
> + salinity of the North Atlantic. The less saline water does not sink
> + (and therefore circulate) as it once did. THAT'S the weakening of
> + Atlantic currents, and it IS an effect of global warming.
>
> He's right, you know.
;-}
>
> > The lesson we draw from all of this is that the uncertainties in
> > climate forecasting remain huge.
>
> As I've pointed out to you before, Carrie: So do the uncertainties in
> terrorism forecasting. Does that mean we shouldn't seriously address
> terrorism? Of course not.
me straight. Not that you don't throughly enjoy it! With that said: The
United States, Canada, the UK, and Western Europeshould very well
address terror and the environment in sensible, concrete and realistic
ways that would not put our economic and security interests risk.
>
> > And given the costly and fraudulent
> > scares we have just lived through--mad-cow disease, genetically
> > modified foods--the End Is Nigh crowd should be held to a higher
> > standard of proof than it has been before. The needs of the world's
> > poor and sick are too pressing to squander limited economic resources
> > on what could be another false alarm.
>
> Here's a classic example of how wild exaggeration by *some*
> environmentalists and their allies can hurt their cause -- note for the
> example here the GMO food referrence, a reference to exaggerated claims
> that GMO foods kill people -- the WSJ editorial page is using that to
> discredit another environmental issue that is completely unrelated.
> Which is to say, it's nothing but an unfair ad hominem attack. And
> unfortunately, it works to obfuscate the issue here.
>
> > So many politicians and activists have committed so much to their faith
> > in man-made global warming that events like Montreal will continue
> > regardless of the evidence.
>
> Man what disgusting irony - these people really have no shame. As the
> scientific consensus demonstrates, the evidence is unquestionably in
> favor of man-made global warming.
>
> Did I mention that the WSJ editorial page is a rag?
>
> Ray
>
> _______________
>
> "Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's
> current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of
> greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil
> fuels."
>
> - Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences,
> U.S. Senate testimony, July 21, 2005
"The benefits of dealing with with climate change are far into the
future and the substantial costs are up front and immediate...Given the
uncertainties associated with both the projections and the
consequences, climate change cannot compete with other urgent issues we
confront."
-Douglass North, Nobel prize winner in economics, from a conference of
leading economists meeting in Copenhagen in 2004 to prioritize the
world's environmental needs.
YMMV.
mjd
>leading economists
>world's environmental needs.
does this make anyone else suspicious, or is it just me?
Carlisle
Does that make the statement wrong though?
Here is a scientific link-course it will be dismissed by those who
already have their minds made up.
http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/KyotoAssessment.htm
I appreciate your viewpoints.
sincerely,
Carrie
Everybody's Gonna Be Happy
"Carlisle" <carri...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:1134403051.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> True, but the it begs the question: Is this man-made or is this trend a
> cyclical part of the natural world?
I refused to believe this was a man-made deal at first too. I thought Al
Gore was out of his mind. But literally everyone except some very vested
economic interets now accept the role of man in the indisputable fact of
global warming.
> Moreover, would it be worth the
> cost to our economy (energy prices) to attempt to reverse this slight
> bump in temperatures?! The Kyoto Protocol, if made law would require
> developed nations to "bring their total greenhouse gas emissions to
> *below 1990 levels* by 2012. This would have serious repercussions on
> the economies of nations who would actually enforce it.
Only if Bush and his cronies continue to refuse to launch a Manhattan style
project to discover, create, and implement new energy sources. This has to
be done at some point; why wait until oil hits $300 a barrel?
The single biggest threat to US security isn't a handful of fanatical
Muslims planting roadside bombs or flying planes into a couple of buildings.
The big threat is our dependence on the Arab world, Venezuela, Iran, Mexico,
Indonesia, etc. for our energy supply. That situation causes presidents to
send thousands of Americans to their deaths on a regular basis. How much do
all these Arab wars cost us? Hundreds of billions.
Wouldn't it be simpler and (probably) less costly to just acknowledge the
reality of global warming and DO SOMETHING about it by launching a national
program to create new energy sources? Instead of sending hundreds of
thousands of young people to get shot at by ungrateful Arabs, hows about we
create hundreds of thousands of domestic jobs in our new energy independence
program instead?
Remember when the US was actually a world leader instead of a rogue military
power imposing its will on people who want nothing to do with us? Remember
when the US led the world in science and technology? The current
administration denies science and poo poos technology. After all, OIL is
the wave of the future, right?
Even if man caused global warming is a cruel hoax, we STILL need to depend
on something other than our military to obtain our energy.
Bush has his head in the sand.
> We agree here. But China will never ratify anything like this. Their
> main concerns are trying to feed/improve the lives of over a billion
> people and grow economically from being a third world country into a
> superpower. They are gaining on us too.
China has surpassed us in many areas already. They're going to take over
the world; unless their current dependence on oil causes an economic
collapse when the price rises by a factor of ten as the supply begins to run
out. I say let THEM depend on oil, let us depend on something else. This
Kyoto treaty would force the Bush administration to at least begin to move
away from oil as our primary energy source.
If we don't do this, China may get there first with new sources and then
their takeover will be a fait accompli.
And we'll be stuck where we are right now; spending hundreds of billions of
dollars not on developing new energy sources, but spending that money
instead on invading Arab oil countries filled with people who despise us.
And don't think for a moment that we would have invaded Iraq if they didn't
have oil, or if they weren't smack dab in the middle of the biggest oil
producing area in the entire world. There are quite a few horrible
dictatorships that are far worse than that of Saddam Hussein, like say
Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and you don't see us invading them.
EGBH
leftie
>leftie wrote:
>> Carlisle wrote:
>>> As it stands now, I agree with the Bush Administration's rejection
>>> of the Kyoto Protocol...
>> Oh well. I tried.
>> Now who wants to start on pool on how long it will take 'til the
>> next meltdown?
>> I'll take next Friday, 10am Pacific time.
> You truly are a dick.
Looks like the meltdown came early! And it wasn't Carrie's; it was JC's.
Well I'm not surprised that you feel the need to jump to Carrie's
defense JC. You seem to have the same aversion to acknowledging logic,
reason and evidence when "discussing" topics that she does.
Carlisle
> "Carlisle" <carri...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
> news:1134403051.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > True, but the it begs the question: Is this man-made or is this trend a
> > cyclical part of the natural world?
>
> I refused to believe this was a man-made deal at first too. I thought Al
> Gore was out of his mind. But literally everyone except some very vested
> economic interets now accept the role of man in the indisputable fact of
> global warming.
True, but to what extent and how strong does the *medicine* have to be?
>
> > Moreover, would it be worth the
> > cost to our economy (energy prices) to attempt to reverse this slight
> > bump in temperatures?! The Kyoto Protocol, if made law would require
> > developed nations to "bring their total greenhouse gas emissions to
> > *below 1990 levels* by 2012. This would have serious repercussions on
> > the economies of nations who would actually enforce it.
>
> Only if Bush and his cronies continue to refuse to launch a Manhattan style
> project to discover, create, and implement new energy sources. This has to
> be done at some point; why wait until oil hits $300 a barrel?
>
> The single biggest threat to US security isn't a handful of fanatical
> Muslims planting roadside bombs or flying planes into a couple of buildings.
> The big threat is our dependence on the Arab world, Venezuela, Iran, Mexico,
> Indonesia, etc. for our energy supply. That situation causes presidents to
> send thousands of Americans to their deaths on a regular basis. How much do
> all these Arab wars cost us? Hundreds of billions.
>
> Wouldn't it be simpler and (probably) less costly to just acknowledge the
> reality of global warming and DO SOMETHING about it by launching a national
> program to create new energy sources? Instead of sending hundreds of
> thousands of young people to get shot at by ungrateful Arabs, hows about we
> create hundreds of thousands of domestic jobs in our new energy independence
> program instead?
There is global warming but part of the trend may be caused by Mother
Nature herself, ie: the "Pinatubo Effect". Part of the larger energy
program being championed by the Bushies includes developing alternative
energy sources. In the meantime, we need a growing economy and likewise
increased domestic energy production today, so we don't have to be at
the mercy of the Middle East. Good point.
>
> Remember when the US was actually a world leader instead of a rogue military
> power imposing its will on people who want nothing to do with us? Remember
> when the US led the world in science and technology? The current
> administration denies science and poo poos technology. After all, OIL is
> the wave of the future, right?
I wouldn't exactly call the US a rogue military power and as far as I
know, we still lead the world in science and technology, ie: Silicon
Valley, MIT, our pharmacuetical industry and hospitals, etc.
>
> Even if man caused global warming is a cruel hoax, we STILL need to depend
> on something other than our military to obtain our energy.
This is true!
>
> Bush has his head in the sand.
>
> > We agree here. But China will never ratify anything like this. Their
> > main concerns are trying to feed/improve the lives of over a billion
> > people and grow economically from being a third world country into a
> > superpower. They are gaining on us too.
>
> China has surpassed us in many areas already. They're going to take over
> the world; unless their current dependence on oil causes an economic
> collapse when the price rises by a factor of ten as the supply begins to run
> out. I say let THEM depend on oil, let us depend on something else. This
> Kyoto treaty would force the Bush administration to at least begin to move
> away from oil as our primary energy source.
Maybe, but it would impose an awful strong mandate that would hurt our
economy and spike energy prices for those least able to afford it.
>
> If we don't do this, China may get there first with new sources and then
> their takeover will be a fait accompli.
>
> And we'll be stuck where we are right now; spending hundreds of billions of
> dollars not on developing new energy sources, but spending that money
> instead on invading Arab oil countries filled with people who despise us.
>
> And don't think for a moment that we would have invaded Iraq if they didn't
> have oil, or if they weren't smack dab in the middle of the biggest oil
> producing area in the entire world. There are quite a few horrible
> dictatorships that are far worse than that of Saddam Hussein, like say
> Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and you don't see us invading them.
You and I have some common ground on these last two paragraphs that's
why we need to free ourselves from middle east oil. I don' t think we
need something punitive like the KP for our economy though. Like I said
before::increase domestic production in every way possible from Jimmy
Carter's ideas to drilling in the frozen tundra of ANWAR to nuclear
power. We really need to get real. Otherwise we will be in a perpetual
war and eventually have to reinstate a draft. Although, I was not in
favor of the US invading Iraq for the reasons EGBH stated, I do believe
if the Iraqis can establish a stable constitutional government that
stands against organizations like Al Qaeda that the world could be a
better place.
Thanks for an informative discussion!
>
> EGBH
CC
JC Martin
LOL
Discussing? From where I stand, all I see coming out of your mouth are
personal slights. Like I said, check your own arrogance and ignorance
at the door and don't worry so much about others. If you wanna get
honest and bring your voice to the table, do so. But save us the
elitist bullshit.
-JC
Ken Fortenberry
> Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>>Better rude than stubbornly stupid. You cannot claim to be
>>"discussing" things here when all you ever do is cut and
>>paste the same old easily debunked prattle spewed forth by
>>big business and their lackeys. If you want to "discuss" an
>>issue you must first read and digest what others point you
>>to in response to your cut and paste. You won't even read it
>>and that's not a "discussion", that's just a silly little
>>ditz trolling for attention. And if I'm rude for saying so,
>>that's just too bad for you dearie.
>
> Everytime I read one of your posts, your comments about
> Dave Kelly and his mom are always in the back of my mind.
Don't fret your pointy little head about Dave Kelly, he's
a mean-spirited jackass masquerading as a benign buffoon.
And don't sweat whatever war of words passes between a
jackass like Sweetbac and an asshole like me on a Usenet
newsgroup. I sure as hell don't and I doubt DK does either.
I will never apologize for anything I post here but I will
point out once again that I never posted any comments about
Dave Kelly's mom, only comments about Dave Kelly.
--
Ken Fortenberry
mjd
actually, no, not entirely. I happen to think those economists are
correct in stating that the benefits of dealing with climate change are
far into the future while the costs are immediate. That's how
economists think - in terms of cost/benefit analysis. The fact that
economists were prioritizing the world's environmental needs is still
suspicious to me, in the sense that I suspect their analysis is going
to be biased toward prioritizing environmental issues in a way that
maximizes economic benefits and resources. It's been proven time and
again that while such a strategy might be great for economics, it might
not be so great for the environment.
Thanks for the link - I'll read it and try to absorb it. I try not to
dismiss anything, unless it's blatant BS.
Ray
> * Good morning, Ray.
Hi Carrie.
> > Hey look, another WSJ editorial page blast-fax from Carrie - how nice.
>
> People copy and paste articles from various sources here all the time.
> It doesn't seem to be a problem unless it goes against the conventional
> wisdom of rmgd.
The issue I have with you copying and pasting that WSJ editorial has
nothing to do with the fact that it goes against "conventional wisdom'
-- and FTM the fact that it goes simply wisdom. This issue I have with
you copying and pasting that WSJ editorial is instead this:
> > Carrie, you do realize that it takes a *lot* more effort for someone to
> > point out the disinformation in these rag editorials than it does for
> > you to post them, right? Which would be ok if you actually absorbed
> > what was written in response. But you don't - you just keep posting
> > more editorials.
> >
> > I have already gone around on the global warming issue with you twice
> > now, and twice now I've already addressed and debunk many of the
> > "points" made by you and in this WSJ editorial. And yet you posted
> > these misleading and debunked points here yet again anyway. And that's
> > not arguing in good faith.
> Btw, this is the first editorial from the Review & Outlook section of
> the WSJ that I've posted.
It's an editorial written by the WSJ editorial staff. And many of the
topics that it purportedly addresses you and I have already been
through twice.
> It was in response to the
> simplistic::Republicans are evil scum for rejecting the Montreal
> agenda, etc...
When he became president one of Bush's first major acts was to reject
Kyoto. At that time he ditched Kyoto he also promised, however, that
he would produce a climate change policy of his own:
"I am today committing the United States of America to work within the
United Nations framework and elsewhere to develop, with our friends and
allies and nations throughout the world, an effective and science-based
response to the issue of global warming."
- George W. Bush, June 10, 2001
#Surprise# however - Bush never followed through on his 'committment.'
> > Again: The *paper* is respected. The WSJ *editorial page*, however, is
> > taken seriously as a source of reliable information by no one except
> > the far too credulous.
>
> Ray, do you respect CNBC?
I think that some of their stuff is of value, and that some of it is
not.
> Why would they give the editoral board its
> own program if they were on par with the National Enquirer, News Max,
> Drudge, Daily Kos or The Nation?!
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/cnbc/
Because it sells.
In any event, that doesn't change the fact editorials authored by the
WSJ and published in their paper and on their website are quite often
misleading crap. Including this one.
> > > On the other hand, even those who support radical cuts in
> > > carbon-dioxide emissions are realizing that the Kyoto Protocol is a
> > > failed instrument for achieving their goals. "The blunt truth about the
> > > politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice
> > > its economy in order to meet this challenge," says British Prime
> > > Minister Tony Blair.
> >
> > What the WSJ doesn't point out is that this doesn't mean that Blair
> > doesn't support the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, Blair does support Kyoto.
>
> Blair also supported the Iraqi War--maybe he's a bit misguided and
> naive?
If Blair is misguided and naive, then why did this WSJ editoral quote
him to support their position?
The WSJ editorial quoted Blair in such a way that could give one the
impression that Blair doesn't support Kyoto. He does.
> > On the other hand, the yearly emission of greenhouse gases by the
> > developing countries is expected to catch up to that of the advanced
> > countries around 2030. By about the year 2100, the cumulative
> > contribution of the developing countries is expected to reach 50
> > percent of the total. So the developing countries will have to control
> > their emissions eventually; unrestrained greenhouse gas growth in these
> > countries could result in ecological disaster. From this perspective,
> > their arguments for significant delays in implementing binding controls
> > appear less compelling. This is not a scientific issue, but one of
> > ethics and equity.
>
> It is not based on common sense--this would result in economic
> stagnation.
And you know this... how?
> And STILL we don't know if warming/cooling trends are not a
> cyclical part of nature.
As I've told you several times over now, the scientific consensus is
that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is
attributable to human activities". This is not an opinion - it's a
fact.
> In fact, they area part of nature. The question is: to what extent is
> the current warming trend albeit miniscule, caused in part by natural
> phenomenon?
So what part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's
declaration that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years
is attributable to human activities" do you not understand, Carrie?
Or the the US National Academy of Sciences' declaration that "The
changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to
human activities"? What part of these statements do you not
understand?
The scientific consensus is that "most of the warming observed over the
last 50 years is attributable to human activities". This is not an
opinion - it's a fact.
> You must be more credulous than me to think China, et al. would ever
> comply with that which would result in economic reversals.
If it's in their overall best interests to do so -- and it is -- then
they will. Consider for example this plausible scenario (per the
Pentagon) for China that I've brought to your attention repeatedly now:
________________________
China, with its high need for food supply given its vast population, is
hit hard by a decreased reliability of the monsoon rains. Occasional
monsoons during the summer season are welcomed for their precipitation,
but have devastating effects as they flood generally denuded land.
Longer, colder winters and hotter summers caused by decreased
evaporative cooling because of reduced precipitation stress already
tight energy and water supplies. Widespread famine causes chaos and
internal struggles as a cold and hungry China peers jealously across
the Russian and western borders at energy resources.
__________________________
http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html
> > As president, Clinton supported Kyoto. The only reason Clinton never
> > submitted it to the Senate is because, as the WSJ alludes to above, the
> > Senate already had made it clear that they wouldn't ratify it.
>
> So Clinton didn't champion it.
Yes, Clinton did. You do understand pragmatic politics, right?
> Here are the stats: "the US Senate
> adopted the Byrd-Hagel Resolution by 95-0, urging the Clinton
> Administration not to sign any climate change protocol that 'would
> result in serious harm to the economy'" You know, Paul Wellstone was in
> the Senate at this time. If this was such a serious imperative, why
> didn't even he champion it?? 95-0
There were several clauses in the Byrd-Hagel Resolution in addition to
the 'would result in serious harm to the economy' clause, including,
notably: 'the exemption for Developing Country Parties is inconsistent
with the need for global action on climate change.' That's a valid
position. I disagree with it for reasons I stated in my previous post,
but it's a valid position.
> > > And then there is the performance of Kyoto's signatories in meeting
> > > their own targets. Kyoto requires developed nations to bring their
> > > total greenhouse-gas emissions to 5% below their 1990 levels by 2012.
> > > Yet in 2003, emissions were above the 1990 baseline by more than 10% in
> > > Italy and Japan, more than 20% in Ireland and Canada, and more than 40%
> > > in Spain.
> >
> > What the WSJ misleadingly fails to mention here is that the Kyoto
> > Protocol wasn't in effect in 2003. That's the whole point of Kyoto --
> > which didn't come into effect until this year -- to reverse those
> > trends.
>
> Trends that are relatively insignificant and/or in part caused by
> nature herself!!
The fact that "in 2003, [greenhouse-gas] emissions were above the 1990
baseline by more than 10% in Italy and Japan, more than 20% in Ireland
and Canada, and more than 40% in Spain" is not "relatively
insignificant" and it's not "in part caused by nature herself."
Again: The WSJ misleadingly failed to mention here is that the Kyoto
Protocol wasn't in effect in 2003. Their rhetoric gave the
misimpression that Kyoto wasn't working.
> > > Nor should it. For even as the Montreal crowd treats man-made global
> > > warming as established fact
> >
> > Not just the "Montreal Crowd" - far from it
> >
> > Carrie, as I've pointed out to you twice before:
> >
> > The scientific consensus on global warming is that the Earth has been
> > warming over the past 100 years, and that humanity's greenhouse gas
> > emissions are making a significant contribution. This consensus is
> > summarized by the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> > Change's the Third Assessment Report, which that "most of the warming
> > observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".
>
> An increase of one degree (give or take). Human activites---they just
> do not know this for sure. The *experts* do not know that this whole
> trend has been caused by human activites or not. They don't.
Whether the "whole trend" is due attributable to human activities or
not is irrelevant. Again: the scientific consensus is that "MOST of
the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human
activities". THAT'S what's important here.
> > Here's the US National Academy of Sciences, from their '2001 report
> > "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions": "The
> > changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to
> > human activities."
> >
> > And here's atmospheric scientist Ralph J. Cicerone, current President
> > of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S. Senate testimony, July 21,
> > 2005)
> >
> > "Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's
> > current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of
> > greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil
> > fuels."
> Again, you know as well as I that this is contested.
So what? It was "contested" in some circles until quite recently that
smoking causes cancer. The scientific consensus for decades, however,
was that it did.
Again: the scientific consensus is that "MOST of the warming observed
over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".
> > And then there's the Pentagon:
> >
> > "There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global
> > warming will occur during the 21st century... because of the
> > potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change,
> > although uncertain and quite possibly small, should be elevated beyond
> > a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."
> >
> > http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html
> >
> > >, the science behind the long-term forecasts
> > > remains ambiguous and sketchy, while the benefits of "doing something
> > > about it" are by no means clear.
> >
> > Carrie, as I've written to you before: The benefits of NOT "doing
> > something about it" are by no means clear either. As I've written to
> > you twice previously:
>
> The End-Is-Nigh.
Says an "Kyoto Protocol is economic gloom-and-doom" person.
> May I recommend a book real quick?--"A Friend of the
> Earth", by TC Boyle. It's a fun novel but the premise of the book is
> mirrored often on this newsgroup.
What is the book's premise that you think is relevant here?
May I recommend a book real quick? Seinfeld & Pandis' "Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change" - as
anyone with an atmospheric science background will tell you, it's the
bible on the subject. Here's an excerpt from the introduction:
"Evidence is mounting [that] 'greenhouse gases' [have] the potential to
lead to an increase in the earth's temperature by several degrees
Celsius... [which] could create dramatic changes in climatic extremes."
> > 1) Even without taking into account the worst-case scenario, as noted
> > above the adverse consequences of unchecked global warming will with
> > much higher likelihood nonetheless still be massively devastating and
> > astrononically expensive.
>
> No this IS taking the worst-case scenario into account!!
No. The Pentagon's worst case scenario includes even larger scale
massive global disruption and destablization, and would be even more
astrononically expensive.
http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html
> > 2) Consider the current terrorist threat, which this Adminstration has
> > focused on with, well, blinders: with that threat, too, we are only
> > "speculating" that there will be another attack - we don't know "with
> > certainty" that such an attack will happen either. But does that mean
> > that we shouldn't prepare for such that possibility? Of course not -
> > providing safety and security in large degree about anticipating and
> > doing what one can to thwart reasonably *possible* serious threats. And
> > the threat of global warming certainly qualifies in that regard. Which
> > is why the Pentagon report concluded that global warming "should be
> > elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security
> > concern."
>
> Yes I did look at the linked Pentagon report...It explains is the
> Pentagon's *worst-case scenario*. What about the DoD's predictions on
> WMD?!
What about them?
> The US government certainly overreacted to the terror scare (DHS, Iraqi
> War, ludicrous airport security changes lacking common sense, etc.)
> However, what happened 9/11/01 was real is not contested!!
And your point is... ?
> > > Scientists have also noted weakenings in Atlantic currents
> > > that move cold waters south and warm waters north, leading to
> > > predictions that Britain may experience Siberia-like temperatures in
> > > the coming decades. Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."
> >
> > As Effy put it:
> >
> > + This paragraph is total crap.
> > +
> > + The melting of polar ice has and is causing a measurable effect on
> > the
> > + salinity of the North Atlantic. The less saline water does not sink
> > + (and therefore circulate) as it once did. THAT'S the weakening of
> > + Atlantic currents, and it IS an effect of global warming.
> >
> > He's right, you know.
>
> Oh of course. I dare I question conventional environmentalist wisdom!!
No - he is right. Factually. Except that he left out the qualifier
that this is an unproven global warming scenario - it needs more
research. The WSJ took that stuff out of context to make the
misleading assertion that 'Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."'
That's a lie: it is indeed global warming.
Need proof? Here:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_ice_age.html
> > > The lesson we draw from all of this is that the uncertainties in
> > > climate forecasting remain huge.
> >
> > As I've pointed out to you before, Carrie: So do the uncertainties in
> > terrorism forecasting. Does that mean we shouldn't seriously address
> > terrorism? Of course not.
>
> Thank you, Ray for having the patience and the fortitude to try and set
> me straight. Not that you don't throughly enjoy it!
Actually, for the most part I don't. I enjoy setting the record
straight the first time around, but going around and around on the
exact same points and getting nowhere on it gets tiresome.
> With that said: The
> United States, Canada, the UK, and Western Europeshould very well
> address terror and the environment in sensible, concrete and realistic
> ways that would not put our economic and security interests risk.
In the real world most things are a risk - it's all a matter of degree,
and also risk trade-offs.
> > Here's a classic example of how wild exaggeration by *some*
> > environmentalists and their allies can hurt their cause -- note for the
> > example here the GMO food referrence, a reference to exaggerated claims
> > that GMO foods kill people -- the WSJ editorial page is using that to
> > discredit another environmental issue that is completely unrelated.
> > Which is to say, it's nothing but an unfair ad hominem attack. And
> > unfortunately, it works to obfuscate the issue here.
>
> Not that "the left" would ever do that!! <jk>
Of course some on "the left" do that. That doesn't make what the WSJ
editorial page did here any more honorable or any more honest.
> > > So many politicians and activists have committed so much to their faith
> > > in man-made global warming that events like Montreal will continue
> > > regardless of the evidence.
> >
> > Man what disgusting irony - these people really have no shame. As the
> > scientific consensus demonstrates, the evidence is unquestionably in
> > favor of man-made global warming.
> >
> > Did I mention that the WSJ editorial page is a rag?
>
> Did I mention that it should be taken seriously?
The only reason I take it seriously is because too many far too
credulous people take it seriously, and therefore it has a serious
impact on how things like global warming are (mis)perceived. The WSJ
editorial page is a rag.
Carrie: Do you agree that this WSJ editorial gives the impression that
the theory that global warming is mostly man-made is not the scientific
consensus?
> > "Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's
> > current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of
> > greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil
> > fuels."
> >
> > - Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences,
> > U.S. Senate testimony, July 21, 2005
>
> "The benefits of dealing with with climate change are far into the
> future and the substantial costs are up front and immediate...Given the
> uncertainties associated with both the projections and the
> consequences, climate change cannot compete with other urgent issues we
> confront."
> -Douglass North, Nobel prize winner in economics, from a conference of
> leading economists meeting in Copenhagen in 2004 to prioritize the
> world's environmental needs.
Economics is not science.
Also, and per the Pew Center for Climate Change:
_______________________________________
Any effort to significantly limit greenhouse gas emissions will require
changes in behavior and investments in technology - in short, changes
in economic activity that could impose costs on society. The costs of
climate change mitigation reflect the magnitude of the emissions
reduction, the timing of these reductions, and the means of
implementation. Of course, left unaddressed, climate change will
impose costs on society as well - and so, the benefits of undertaking
climate change mitigation must also be considered.
The Pew Center's economics program has analyzed several commonly used
models to determine how they work, what inputs and assumptions
influence their results, and what important elements are missing.
Differences among economic modeling results can often be explained by
the way the following factors are represented in each model:
* the economy's and environment's assumed baselines (i.e., how the
economy will perform in the absence of climate policies);
* the precise climate policies employed (e.g., emissions trading,
inclusion of non-CO2 gases, etc.);
* whether estimates of damage resulting from climate change are
included;
* the economy's flexibility when subject to sudden price shocks or
government regulation; and
* how technological change is characterized.
If models adequately address all five of these 'drivers' - and few
currently do - the projected costs of climate policies would likely be
lower than they are now.
_______________________________________
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/economics/
Ray
Shawn Lucas
wrote:
>Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote:
>
>> "Carlisle" <carri...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>> news:1134403051.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > True, but the it begs the question: Is this man-made or is this trend a
>> > cyclical part of the natural world?
>>
>> I refused to believe this was a man-made deal at first too. I thought Al
>> Gore was out of his mind. But literally everyone except some very vested
>> economic interets now accept the role of man in the indisputable fact of
>> global warming.
>True, but to what extent and how strong does the *medicine* have to be?
>>
I've been wanting to stay out of this shit because I'd rather discuss
music in here (or at the very least the yanking of music from our
favorite SBD feeding trough) but this is something I gotta comment on
because I'm working in the field.
I'm at Ohio State working on my PhD and my project involves carbon
sequestrtion in soils as a means to mitigate global C emmissions and
ultimately global warming. In laymans terms that means storing carbon
that has been "harvested" by plants in soils to offset what we're
putting in the atmosphere. I've also worked with Carbon dynamics in
my Masters project at the Univ. of Maryland so I'm pretty qualified to
comment on, at the very least, the carbon related aspects of the issue
at hand. I'm not a climatologist or an economist so I'll leave that
to someone else.
Ok my comment, based on science, is this:
Anyone who doubts the greenhouse effect needs to have their head
examined. The greenhouse effect is a natural phenomenon that actually
has facilitated the existence of life on this planet. If our
atmosphere, specifically gasses such as CO2 and methane didn't trap
heat radiation near the surface of the planet none of us would be
here, at least as we know things now. Our planet would be a much
colder venue. Having said that, it is true that atmospheric CO2 (and
methane too) levels have fluctuated throughout the course of Earth's
existence. As a result the global temperature as influenced by the
greenhouse effect has also fluctuated. However (and I forget who I
need to cite here but I can find it if people really want the info)
the last time in history that CO2 levels changed by about 100mg of CO2
per kilogram of air it took about 65 million years...we've managed to
do it (from 270mg/kg to current levels of about 370mg/kg) in a little
over 100 years...how's that for perspective. So I'd say we need to
start developing some pretty potent medicine here pretty damn quick,
in fact we should've been on this decades ago.
Ice sheets are melting at the poles, glaciers are receding at faster
paces than ever recorded, permafrost layers in the arctic are thawing
(and releasing even more CO2) so this stuff is real. Anyone who says
otherwise, or is trying to sow seeds of doubt is a shill.
Maranatha
--
http://users.adelphia.net/~cpkver8/
"Shawn Lucas" <slucas_2@ya_nospam_hoo.com> wrote in message
news:439ddbb5...@news.col.sbcglobal.net...
Have you looked at large scale world wide reminerlization via industrial
scale rock dust deposition as a means of boosting greenplant
photosynthetic activity? As green plants thrive on CO2 exchanging O2 could
not a dramatic increse in green plant life abate the increaced CO2 or is
the time scale involved in maturing the qantity of the greelife too much to
be effective in a timeframe usefull to the present concern?
http://www.remineralize.org/
Everybody's Gonna Be Happy
> Everybody's Gonna Be Happy wrote:
>
>> "Carlisle" <carri...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
>> news:1134403051.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> > True, but the it begs the question: Is this man-made or is this trend a
>> > cyclical part of the natural world?
>> I refused to believe this was a man-made deal at first too. I thought Al
>> Gore was out of his mind. But literally everyone except some very vested
>> economic interets now accept the role of man in the indisputable fact of
>> global warming.
> True, but to what extent and how strong does the *medicine* have to be?
1) vote these oil tycoons out of office
2) vote in someone who recognizes the threat of oil dependence and who will
actually MOVE THE COUNTRY FORWARD instead of pretending he's James McKinley
3) if that means some Kyoto type treaty, so be it. This problem of
depending on fucking Arabs for everything is THAT serious. Bush's response
to Arabs is "I want to help you, but I'm going to kill a bunch of you
first". My response to Arabs: FUCK YOU! Just turn our backs and flip 'em
the bird. But we need to have a PLAN, some ACTION, to be able to do that.
I don't particulary care WHAT'S causing it. It really makes no difference.
Hate pollution or hate licking the boots of Arab princes, the answer is to
DO SOMETHING besides sending kids to kill and be killed by a plethora of
primitive towel headed fuckwads.
>Part of the larger energy
> program being championed by the Bushies includes developing alternative
> energy sources.
LOL.
PLEASE! They've done less than nothing in that regard, unless you count
subsidizing corn growing agribusiness. Corn is not the answer, NEW
TECHNOLOGIES are the answer.
> in the meantime, we need a growing economy and likewise
> increased domestic energy production today, so we don't have to be at
> the mercy of the Middle East. Good point.
What we need is to be the first country on this planet to figure out a way
to drive cars and heat homes with something other than oil and gas.
>> Remember when the US was actually a world leader instead of a rogue
>> military
>> power imposing its will on people who want nothing to do with us?
>> Remember
>> when the US led the world in science and technology? The current
>> administration denies science and poo poos technology. After all, OIL is
>> the wave of the future, right?
> I wouldn't exactly call the US a rogue military power
We are. When you invade a country that did NOTHING to this country just
because you think they might do something bad someday, you are a rogue
military power. Especially when the vast majority of the world wants
nothing to do with our adventures.
> and as far as I
> know, we still lead the world in science and technology, ie: Silicon
> Valley, MIT, our pharmacuetical industry and hospitals, etc.
LOL.
We're WAY down on the list in terms of science education, creativity, and
new technology creation. FINLAND is ahead of us. Our glory days are
loooong gone. Not to say we can't get it back, but we have no chance if all
our money is wasted on humvees and treating wounds and war profiteering.
We've become the Hessians of the modern world, fighting and dying for the
House of Saud, Halliburton, and the desperate pleas of the Republic of the
Marshall Islands to invade Iraq (according to Bush).
No country spends one tenth of what we do on war. China spends almost
nothing in comparison. This is a huge advantage for them.
>> Even if man caused global warming is a cruel hoax, we STILL need to
>> depend
>> on something other than our military to obtain our energy.
> This is true!
Then lets DO SOMETHING about it!
>> Bush has his head in the sand.
>> > We agree here. But China will never ratify anything like this. Their
>> > main concerns are trying to feed/improve the lives of over a billion
>> > people and grow economically from being a third world country into a
>> > superpower. They are gaining on us too.
>> China has surpassed us in many areas already. They're going to take over
>> the world; unless their current dependence on oil causes an economic
>> collapse when the price rises by a factor of ten as the supply begins to
>> run
>> out. I say let THEM depend on oil, let us depend on something else.
>> This
>> Kyoto treaty would force the Bush administration to at least begin to
>> move
>> away from oil as our primary energy source.
> Maybe, but it would impose an awful strong mandate that would hurt our
> economy and spike energy prices for those least able to afford it.
They're spiking already, in case you haven't noticed. I say make China and
India comply too.
But whatever happens with this treaty, the Bush administration will DO
NOTHING in regards to leading us towards eenergy independence. More
domestic production? Ok, fine, I'm fine with that. But since the oil
companies refuse to spend ANY of their hundreds of billions of profits on
building NEW oil refineries, what difference will it make? How come they
need tons of new tax breaks every session of Congress? THEY HAVE THE CASH,
DO SOMETHING!
>> If we don't do this, China may get there first with new sources and then
>> their takeover will be a fait accompli.
>>
>> And we'll be stuck where we are right now; spending hundreds of billions
>> of
>> dollars not on developing new energy sources, but spending that money
>> instead on invading Arab oil countries filled with people who despise us.
>>
>> And don't think for a moment that we would have invaded Iraq if they
>> didn't
>> have oil, or if they weren't smack dab in the middle of the biggest oil
>> producing area in the entire world. There are quite a few horrible
>> dictatorships that are far worse than that of Saddam Hussein, like say
>> Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe, and you don't see us invading them.
> You and I have some common ground on these last two paragraphs that's
> why we need to free ourselves from middle east oil. I don' t think we
> need something punitive like the KP for our economy though. Like I said
> before::increase domestic production in every way possible from Jimmy
> Carter's ideas to drilling in the frozen tundra of ANWAR to nuclear
> power. We really need to get real. Otherwise we will be in a perpetual
> war and eventually have to reinstate a draft. Although, I was not in
> favor of the US invading Iraq for the reasons EGBH stated, I do believe
> if the Iraqis can establish a stable constitutional government that
> stands against organizations like Al Qaeda that the world could be a
> better place.
Better than what?
Before invasion: locked down Muslim nutjobs under the boot heel of a
dictator. No threat whatsoever.
Post invasion: a nation run by Shiite clerics with the assistance of Iran,
with the added bonus of "Al Qaeda in Iraq" doing whatever they can to kill
Americans. There was no such group before we invaded.
How is this better?
> Thanks for an informative discussion!
I'm always informative................
EGBH
Shawn Lucas
<uts...@REPENTadelphia.net> wrote:
>
> Have you looked at large scale world wide reminerlization via
> industrial scale rock dust deposition as a means of boosting greenplant
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I honestly have never heard of nor do I know what this is. I'll have
to take a look when I get some time.
>photosynthetic activity? As green plants thrive on CO2 exchanging O2 could
>not a dramatic increse in green plant life abate the increaced CO2 or is
>the time scale involved in maturing the qantity of the greelife too much to
>be effective in a timeframe usefull to the present concern?
>http://www.remineralize.org/
As far as plant uptake of CO2 goes, the increased levels of CO2,
theorectically would increase the productivity of plants that fix CO2
via the C3 pathway (like soybeans). Plants that use the C4 pathway
would benefit too up to a point and then the productivity increase
would level off asymtotically. This is because they're already
operating closer to maximal efficiency as far as assimilation of CO2
goes withing the C4 pathway. There are other potential limiting
factors however that would obviously come into play...me being a soil
scientist, I'll point out things like soil moisture availability and
nutrient avalability.
With regards to the issue at hand there are sveral areas of interest
as far as using plants to store C. In forest systems the mantra is
trees, trees, trees and more trees. The more tree biomass we have the
more CO2 is harvested and stored C compounds within recalcitrant
substances such as lignin and cellulose. Trees that grow fast and
live long are the hot items these days, but preserving old growth
areas and converting marginal lands back to natural ecosystems are
also an important areas.
In agricultural systems the plants tend to be annuals so they really
only store C for one growing season...unless as those plants
decompose that C is converted into stablized soil organic matter,
which is what I am working on. The fact is that many agricultural
soils used to have much higher levels of C in them, stored as soil
organic matter. These soils have been degraded through years of
agricultural use. Plowing causes a lot of problems, acceleration the
breakdown of soil organic matter and making a soil susceptible to
erosion, which also strips away soil organic matter. So now we have
all these degraded soils that have "room" in them in which to store C
if we can find the best ways to promote stabilization and
sequestration.
Shawn
leftie
ignore each other in the future?
Please?
Ray
> Effty wrote:
> > Carlisle wrote:
> >
> > > trend data. Scientists have also noted weakenings in Atlantic currents
> > > that move cold waters south and warm waters north, leading to
> > > predictions that Britain may experience Siberia-like temperatures in
> > > the coming decades. Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."
> >
> > This was printed in the Wall Street Journal???
> >
> > That's hard to believe. This paragraph is total crap.
>
> The editorial is not disputing that there has been a increase of global
> warming of about a degree in the last century, just that it is a
> complicated picture and the conclusions do not always support what is
> being proposed by some at the United Nations and the environmentalist
> community.
2 points:
1) You didn't address Effy's point that the WSJ editorial's assertion
that 'Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."' is total crap. And
it is total crap - bullshit even.
2) The WSJ editorial went much further than present global warming
theory and evidence as "a complicated picture" -- it deceptively tries
to present the theory and evidence that global warming exists and is
primarily man-made as not being the scientific consensus. Still more
crap.
Which is to say, this editorial is par for the WSJ editorial page
course -- just more WSJ editorial page bullshit disinformation.
Did I mention that the WSJ editorial page is a rag?
Ray
Carlisle
He obviously believes (along with an overwhelming Congressional
majority/95-0) that Kyoto is the wrong approach to deal with the
reality of global warming.
>
> > > Again: The *paper* is respected. The WSJ *editorial page*, however, is
> > > taken seriously as a source of reliable information by no one except
> > > the far too credulous.
> >
> > Ray, do you respect CNBC?
>
> I think that some of their stuff is of value, and that some of it is
> not.
>
> > Why would they give the editoral board its
> > own program if they were on par with the National Enquirer, News Max,
> > Drudge, Daily Kos or The Nation?!
> > http://www.opinionjournal.com/cnbc/
>
> Because it sells.
Yeah it sells, but would CNBC put their reputation on the line for the
creators of a dishonest "rag"?
>
> In any event, that doesn't change the fact editorials authored by the
> WSJ and published in their paper and on their website are quite often
> misleading crap. Including this one.
>
> > > > On the other hand, even those who support radical cuts in
> > > > carbon-dioxide emissions are realizing that the Kyoto Protocol is a
> > > > failed instrument for achieving their goals. "The blunt truth about the
> > > > politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice
> > > > its economy in order to meet this challenge," says British Prime
> > > > Minister Tony Blair.
> > >
> > > What the WSJ doesn't point out is that this doesn't mean that Blair
> > > doesn't support the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, Blair does support Kyoto.
> >
> > Blair also supported the Iraqi War--maybe he's a bit misguided and
> > naive?
>
> If Blair is misguided and naive, then why did this WSJ editoral quote
> him to support their position?
Because he is the Prime Minister of Great Britain and it's a direct
quote?
>
> The WSJ editorial quoted Blair in such a way that could give one the
> impression that Blair doesn't support Kyoto. He does.
Maybe PM Blair is for a Kyoto-like agreement, but that does not negate
his statement.
>
> > > On the other hand, the yearly emission of greenhouse gases by the
> > > developing countries is expected to catch up to that of the advanced
> > > countries around 2030. By about the year 2100, the cumulative
> > > contribution of the developing countries is expected to reach 50
> > > percent of the total. So the developing countries will have to control
> > > their emissions eventually; unrestrained greenhouse gas growth in these
> > > countries could result in ecological disaster. From this perspective,
> > > their arguments for significant delays in implementing binding controls
> > > appear less compelling. This is not a scientific issue, but one of
> > > ethics and equity.
> >
> > It is not based on common sense--this would result in economic
> > stagnation.
>
> And you know this... how?
It's just my opinion, Ray. Kyoto would require the United States to
bring their greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2012.
How could this not have a serious economic impact??
>
> > And STILL we don't know if warming/cooling trends are not a
> > cyclical part of nature.
>
> As I've told you several times over now, the scientific consensus is
> that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is
> attributable to human activities". This is not an opinion - it's a
> fact.
As I've told you several times now, there is a difference of opinion on
how much is attributed to man vs. nature. Certainly you will dismiss
out of hand anything S. Fred Singer reports here, but this goes into
detail about differeing scientific conclusions on the global warming
phenomenon.
http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/KyotoAssessment.htm
>
> > In fact, they area part of nature. The question is: to what extent is
> > the current warming trend albeit miniscule, caused in part by natural
> > phenomenon?
>
> So what part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's
> declaration that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years
> is attributable to human activities" do you not understand, Carrie?
I understand their perspective!!
There is global warming and no one knows for certain what has caused
the increase of about a degree over the last century. Throughout
recorded history, there has been warming and cooling trends. You know
this. We don't know why, not for certain.
>
> Or the the US National Academy of Sciences' declaration that "The
> changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to
> human activities"? What part of these statements do you not
> understand?
"likely"...what are the remedies? Can't we improve on conservative with
fuel economy standards and development, etc. without increasing energy
prices on working people??
>
> The scientific consensus is that "most of the warming observed over the
> last 50 years is attributable to human activities". This is not an
> opinion - it's a fact.
I believe that some warming certainly IS attributable to human
activites. Common sense dictates that. My issue is on the solution and
I think Kyoto unfairly penalizes countries like the
US/Britain/Australia that are on the cutting edge of developing ways to
improve the environment and therefore the human condition.
>
> > You must be more credulous than me to think China, et al. would ever
> > comply with that which would result in economic reversals.
>
> If it's in their overall best interests to do so -- and it is -- then
> they will. Consider for example this plausible scenario (per the
> Pentagon) for China that I've brought to your attention repeatedly now:
Right, if it's in their best interests.
> ________________________
>
> China, with its high need for food supply given its vast population, is
> hit hard by a decreased reliability of the monsoon rains. Occasional
> monsoons during the summer season are welcomed for their precipitation,
> but have devastating effects as they flood generally denuded land.
> Longer, colder winters and hotter summers caused by decreased
> evaporative cooling because of reduced precipitation stress already
> tight energy and water supplies. Widespread famine causes chaos and
> internal struggles as a cold and hungry China peers jealously across
> the Russian and western borders at energy resources.
> __________________________
> http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html
>
> > > As president, Clinton supported Kyoto. The only reason Clinton never
> > > submitted it to the Senate is because, as the WSJ alludes to above, the
> > > Senate already had made it clear that they wouldn't ratify it.
You know the statistics, Ray. Why was the vote 95-0 in the US Senate??
Why didn't any leading Democrat champion this particular Protocol?
Perhaps becasue it would hurt the American economy and was based on
questionable science.
> >
> > So Clinton didn't champion it.
>
> Yes, Clinton did. You do understand pragmatic politics, right?
Clinton was the master of pragmatic politics. Can we agree here?
Triangulation.
>
> > Here are the stats: "the US Senate
> > adopted the Byrd-Hagel Resolution by 95-0, urging the Clinton
> > Administration not to sign any climate change protocol that 'would
> > result in serious harm to the economy'" You know, Paul Wellstone was in
> > the Senate at this time. If this was such a serious imperative, why
> > didn't even he champion it?? 95-0
>
> There were several clauses in the Byrd-Hagel Resolution in addition to
> the 'would result in serious harm to the economy' clause, including,
> notably: 'the exemption for Developing Country Parties is inconsistent
> with the need for global action on climate change.' That's a valid
> position. I disagree with it for reasons I stated in my previous post,
> but it's a valid position.
Well nothing has changed since 1997.
>
> > > > And then there is the performance of Kyoto's signatories in meeting
> > > > their own targets. Kyoto requires developed nations to bring their
> > > > total greenhouse-gas emissions to 5% below their 1990 levels by 2012.
> > > > Yet in 2003, emissions were above the 1990 baseline by more than 10% in
> > > > Italy and Japan, more than 20% in Ireland and Canada, and more than 40%
> > > > in Spain.
> > >
> > > What the WSJ misleadingly fails to mention here is that the Kyoto
> > > Protocol wasn't in effect in 2003. That's the whole point of Kyoto --
> > > which didn't come into effect until this year -- to reverse those
> > > trends.
> >
> > Trends that are relatively insignificant and/or in part caused by
> > nature herself!!
>
> The fact that "in 2003, [greenhouse-gas] emissions were above the 1990
> baseline by more than 10% in Italy and Japan, more than 20% in Ireland
> and Canada, and more than 40% in Spain" is not "relatively
> insignificant" and it's not "in part caused by nature herself."
>
> Again: The WSJ misleadingly failed to mention here is that the Kyoto
> Protocol wasn't in effect in 2003. Their rhetoric gave the
> misimpression that Kyoto wasn't working.
No, I never got from this piece that Kyoto was in effect.
>
> > > > Nor should it. For even as the Montreal crowd treats man-made global
> > > > warming as established fact
> > >
> > > Not just the "Montreal Crowd" - far from it
The Montreal crowd/UN respresents the position of those who would
support draconian environmental mandates.
> > >
> > > Carrie, as I've pointed out to you twice before:
> > >
> > > The scientific consensus on global warming is that the Earth has been
> > > warming over the past 100 years, and that humanity's greenhouse gas
> > > emissions are making a significant contribution. This consensus is
> > > summarized by the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> > > Change's the Third Assessment Report, which that "most of the warming
> > > observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".
> >
> > An increase of one degree (give or take). Human activites---they just
> > do not know this for sure. The *experts* do not know that this whole
> > trend has been caused by human activites or not. They don't.
>
> Whether the "whole trend" is due attributable to human activities or
> not is irrelevant. Again: the scientific consensus is that "MOST of
> the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human
> activities". THAT'S what's important here.
Not so fast. There are many in the scientific community that dispute
the information you have posted as the end all of knowledge. Check it
out--
http://www.oism.org/pproject/
>
> > > Here's the US National Academy of Sciences, from their '2001 report
> > > "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions": "The
> > > changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to
> > > human activities."
> > >
> > > And here's atmospheric scientist Ralph J. Cicerone, current President
> > > of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S. Senate testimony, July 21,
> > > 2005)
> > >
> > > "Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's
> > > current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of
> > > greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil
> > > fuels."
>
> > Again, you know as well as I that this is contested.
>
> So what? It was "contested" in some circles until quite recently that
> smoking causes cancer. The scientific consensus for decades, however,
> was that it did.
The defenders of tobacco were primarily the cigarette companies.
Although, not everyone who smokes is going to get lung cancer, etc..
Different topic. But an interesting one.
>
> Again: the scientific consensus is that "MOST of the warming observed
> over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".
>
> > > And then there's the Pentagon:
> > >
> > > "There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global
> > > warming will occur during the 21st century... because of the
> > > potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change,
> > > although uncertain and quite possibly small, should be elevated beyond
> > > a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."
> > >
> > > http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html
> > >
> > > >, the science behind the long-term forecasts
> > > > remains ambiguous and sketchy, while the benefits of "doing something
> > > > about it" are by no means clear.
How dare you quote the warmongers at the Pentagon??!! I'm kidding, but
really it is the job of the DoD to sketch out all scenarios.
> > >
> > > Carrie, as I've written to you before: The benefits of NOT "doing
> > > something about it" are by no means clear either. As I've written to
> > > you twice previously:
> >
> > The End-Is-Nigh.
>
> Says an "Kyoto Protocol is economic gloom-and-doom" person.
*heh*
>
> > May I recommend a book real quick?--"A Friend of the
> > Earth", by TC Boyle. It's a fun novel but the premise of the book is
> > mirrored often on this newsgroup.
>
> What is the book's premise that you think is relevant here?
That the sky is falling.
>
> May I recommend a book real quick? Seinfeld & Pandis' "Atmospheric
> Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change" - as
> anyone with an atmospheric science background will tell you, it's the
> bible on the subject. Here's an excerpt from the introduction:
>
> "Evidence is mounting [that] 'greenhouse gases' [have] the potential to
> lead to an increase in the earth's temperature by several degrees
> Celsius... [which] could create dramatic changes in climatic extremes."
Sure, I often have trouble with insomnia. Sounds like a good remedy.
>
>
> > > 1) Even without taking into account the worst-case scenario, as noted
> > > above the adverse consequences of unchecked global warming will with
> > > much higher likelihood nonetheless still be massively devastating and
> > > astrononically expensive.
> >
> > No this IS taking the worst-case scenario into account!!
>
> No. The Pentagon's worst case scenario includes even larger scale
> massive global disruption and destablization, and would be even more
> astrononically expensive.
So this is the second to worst case scenario?
>
> http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html
>
> > > 2) Consider the current terrorist threat, which this Adminstration has
> > > focused on with, well, blinders: with that threat, too, we are only
> > > "speculating" that there will be another attack - we don't know "with
> > > certainty" that such an attack will happen either. But does that mean
> > > that we shouldn't prepare for such that possibility? Of course not -
> > > providing safety and security in large degree about anticipating and
> > > doing what one can to thwart reasonably *possible* serious threats. And
> > > the threat of global warming certainly qualifies in that regard. Which
> > > is why the Pentagon report concluded that global warming "should be
> > > elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security
> > > concern."
> >
> > Yes I did look at the linked Pentagon report...It explains is the
> > Pentagon's *worst-case scenario*. What about the DoD's predictions on
> > WMD?!
>
> What about them?
Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney all stated that Iraq was
developing WMD and we should take militarly action before they had a
chance to attack us, ie: the sky is falling!! It's been a heavy price
to pay to secure an alliance in Mesopotamia.
>
> > The US government certainly overreacted to the terror scare (DHS, Iraqi
> > War, ludicrous airport security changes lacking common sense, etc.)
> > However, what happened 9/11/01 was real is not contested!!
>
> And your point is... ?
Be wary having the federal government overreact to anything. Terror,
drugs, the environment, poverty...The cure can be worse than the
disease.
>
> > > > Scientists have also noted weakenings in Atlantic currents
> > > > that move cold waters south and warm waters north, leading to
> > > > predictions that Britain may experience Siberia-like temperatures in
> > > > the coming decades. Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."
> > >
> > > As Effy put it:
> > >
> > > + This paragraph is total crap.
> > > +
> > > + The melting of polar ice has and is causing a measurable effect on
> > > the
> > > + salinity of the North Atlantic. The less saline water does not sink
> > > + (and therefore circulate) as it once did. THAT'S the weakening of
> > > + Atlantic currents, and it IS an effect of global warming.
> > >
> > > He's right, you know.
> >
> > Oh of course. I dare I question conventional environmentalist wisdom!!
>
> No - he is right. Factually. Except that he left out the qualifier
> that this is an unproven global warming scenario - it needs more
> research. The WSJ took that stuff out of context to make the
> misleading assertion that 'Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."'
> That's a lie: it is indeed global warming.
You may have a point there. I took it to mean that the climate issue is
rather complex and easy answers aren't always available. During the
70's, environmentalists were fearing another Ice Age. So let's take it
easy and know what medicine we will be force feeding American
business/consumers before we prescribe it.
>
> Need proof? Here:
>
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_ice_age.html
>
> > > > The lesson we draw from all of this is that the uncertainties in
> > > > climate forecasting remain huge.
I closely read National Geographic. It's one of my favorite magazines.
I have no doubt what they are saying is true...It's the solutions that
concern me.
> > >
> > > As I've pointed out to you before, Carrie: So do the uncertainties in
> > > terrorism forecasting. Does that mean we shouldn't seriously address
> > > terrorism? Of course not.
> >
> > Thank you, Ray for having the patience and the fortitude to try and set
> > me straight. Not that you don't throughly enjoy it!
>
> Actually, for the most part I don't. I enjoy setting the record
> straight the first time around, but going around and around on the
> exact same points and getting nowhere on it gets tiresome.
Well let's agree to disagree. I've gotten all your information. I will
try and read it all more closely. You don't have to post it all again.
You made an excellent argument for your point of view. You are
definitely my debating superior.
>
> > With that said: The
> > United States, Canada, the UK, and Western Europeshould very well
> > address terror and the environment in sensible, concrete and realistic
> > ways that would not put our economic and security interests risk.
>
> In the real world most things are a risk - it's all a matter of degree,
> and also risk trade-offs.
>
> > > Here's a classic example of how wild exaggeration by *some*
> > > environmentalists and their allies can hurt their cause -- note for the
> > > example here the GMO food referrence, a reference to exaggerated claims
> > > that GMO foods kill people -- the WSJ editorial page is using that to
> > > discredit another environmental issue that is completely unrelated.
> > > Which is to say, it's nothing but an unfair ad hominem attack. And
> > > unfortunately, it works to obfuscate the issue here.
> >
> > Not that "the left" would ever do that!! <jk>
>
> Of course some on "the left" do that. That doesn't make what the WSJ
> editorial page did here any more honorable or any more honest.
>
> > > > So many politicians and activists have committed so much to their faith
> > > > in man-made global warming that events like Montreal will continue
> > > > regardless of the evidence.
> > >
> > > Man what disgusting irony - these people really have no shame. As the
> > > scientific consensus demonstrates, the evidence is unquestionably in
> > > favor of man-made global warming.
http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/KyotoAssessment.htm
> > >
> > > Did I mention that the WSJ editorial page is a rag?
> >
> > Did I mention that it should be taken seriously?
>
> The only reason I take it seriously is because too many far too
> credulous people take it seriously, and therefore it has a serious
> impact on how things like global warming are (mis)perceived. The WSJ
> editorial page is a rag.
Tell us how you really feel?! I disagree, but then again I know they
have a bias and I know what it is. Also I disagree with the WSJ editors
on plenty of issues::immigration, drugs, war taxes, etc..But I still
think all the paper is worthy of study.
>
> Carrie: Do you agree that this WSJ editorial gives the impression that
> the theory that global warming is mostly man-made is not the scientific
> consensus?
Sure. But there is a scientific debate going on out there. And by
reading you, no one would know that either.
Ray, we have a legitimate difference of opinion. I'm not denying that
your sources are not all great ones, I'm saying that there are
differing conclusions in the scientific community and that a Kyoto-like
protocol could be dire for our economy and it not at all realistic.
I've said everything I can on this subject. Feel free to disagree.
Thanks for being polite.
sincerely,
Carrie
ps-Ray, you have the last word.
take care.
leftie
> Ray wrote:
> > > "Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's
> > > current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of
> > > greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil
> > > fuels."
> > >
> > > - Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences,
> > > U.S. Senate testimony, July 21, 2005
> I'm saying that there are
> differing conclusions in the scientific community
So that must mean that most of those those with "differing conclusions"
are not "climate scientists."
When discussing climate changes, shouldn't we be turning to the
conclusions of the "climate scientists?"
JC Martin
If ya keep all the little personal jabs to yourself, sure.
-JC
Shawn Lucas
>
>2 points:
>
>1) You didn't address Effy's point that the WSJ editorial's assertion
>that 'Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."' is total crap. And
>it is total crap - bullshit even.
>
>2) The WSJ editorial went much further than present global warming
>theory and evidence as "a complicated picture" -- it deceptively tries
>to present the theory and evidence that global warming exists and is
>primarily man-made as not being the scientific consensus. Still more
>crap.
>
>Which is to say, this editorial is par for the WSJ editorial page
>course -- just more WSJ editorial page bullshit disinformation.
>
>Did I mention that the WSJ editorial page is a rag?
>
>Ray
>
It is so damn frustrating to me that there are still people out there
who exist solely to sow seeds of doubt about this issue. Are these
WSJ writers getting paid by Exxon? I doubt it. I think they just
have the political talking points crammed so far up their asses that
they can't help but spew them forth from their mouths.
Sherry
> in a third world country or an economically thriving United States?
Hmmm. Do you really think poverty-striken people have the option to decide
where to live? I've been to a 3rd world country or two, and my opinion after
traveling the US, Europe and a very small part of Asia is: Being that poor
sucks no matter WHERE you live. Being poor is the US is not better than
being poor anywhere else, if you're comparing the same kind of poverty.
Sherry in Vermont
Sherry
> know, we still lead the world in science and technology, ie: Silicon
> Valley, MIT, our pharmacuetical industry and hospitals, etc.
HA HA HA HA HA! Oh yes - Intelligent Design will lead the US straight to the
top of the dumbass heap!
Been paying attention to the news in the past few years?
Too many Americans confuse religion with science, and it the US is being
outpaced by Asian and European scientists all over the world.
Hmmm. You wouldn't call the US a rogue military power? What else would you
call a nation run by a man who chose to go to war just because he damn well
wanted to go to war?! Either the man's a goddamn idiot (which I'm not
discounting) or deliberately ignored reality get what HE wanted.
You've really got to start reading some interational news, Carrie. US papers
are barely touching on the issue.
Sherry in Vermont
Maranatha
--
http://users.adelphia.net/~cpkver8/
"Sherry" <sher...@together.net> wrote in message
news:BFC36805.5EBD4%sher...@together.net...
reeeoowwww.... hisss hissssssss..
Shawn Lucas
wrote:
>Too many Americans confuse religion with science, and it the US is being
>outpaced by Asian and European scientists all over the world.
>
One of the Professors here in my department at OSU went to Brussels
last summer for a scientific conference and during one of his
conversations with a European scientist the European fella said "what
the hell is going on with the US, you're country USED to be the leader
in this area and everyone else had to play catch-up" .
But hey some intelligent designer must've wanted it to be this way so
what can we do. Fuckin' dumbass Jesus-ass-kissing fucktards, they
will be the downfall of this nation unless the rest of us start
fighting back.
RickNBarbInSD
You can say THAT again!!!!
Rick
Carlisle
Mercy!
Calm down, Vermont. I realize you would disagree with me. However, I'm
not some kind of uneducated born-again Christian. Yes, I have been
paying attention the last couple of years, Sherry.
I've seen poverty in India, Nepal, the Middle East and Appalachia and I
would rather be poor in America. Although as you say, poverty sucks.
Americans have much competition from Asian countries. Europe is in a
relative decline. And no I don't confuse religion with science. <???>
I don't particularly consider the US a "rogue military power", we went
to war along with 30 other nations (with the US carrying the vast
amount of the burden, of course) to ostensibly enforce UN mandates. I
didn't agree with it, but I don't put the US in league with outlaw
terrorist countries. That doesn't make it right or wise, but we are a
nation of laws. (In fact, the US Senate gave Bush authorization to take
military action if he saw fit against Iraq in 2002.)
So the American media is now in league somehow with the Bush propaganda
machine?!
gracious,
Carrie
Shawn Lucas
wrote:
>So the American media is now in league somehow with the Bush propaganda
>machine?!
Uh yeah some of it is. I refer you Libby, Scooter and Miller, Judith,
The NY Times, and a certain leak of a CIA persons identity.
Effty
Hot Topic indeed!
This may take me the better part of the evening to sort through.
One thing I wanted to say is that environmentalism and business do not
have to be mortal enemies. It's not an either/or situation.
Developing new and cleaner ways of life is an economic boom just
waiting to happen.
Also, our politicians should be leading the world. We should set the
highest possible example for other countries to aspire toward. Instead
we are dragging our feet, and trying to level the playing field among
countries which have very few similarities.
It's political gesturing with global implications, which is altogether
weird and kind of sickening.
I appreciate the hard science from Shawn Lucas. His two cents are
worth two dollars on this topic.
Cheers!
~e.
Shawn Lucas
>I appreciate the hard science from Shawn Lucas. His two cents are
>worth two dollars on this topic.
>
<blush> aww shucks! Thanks for the props e.
I'm tryin' to keep my cool in this "hot" thread but it can be tough to
remain objective.
Shawn
Sherry
> machine?!
Carrie,
Where've you BEEN the past 5 years?!
Sherry in Vermont
Carlisle
> Carlisle wrote:
> > Effty wrote:
> > > Carlisle wrote:
> > >
> > > > trend data. Scientists have also noted weakenings in Atlantic currents
> > > > that move cold waters south and warm waters north, leading to
> > > > predictions that Britain may experience Siberia-like temperatures in
> > > > the coming decades. Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."
> > > This was printed in the Wall Street Journal???
> > >
> > > That's hard to believe. This paragraph is total crap.
> >
> > The editorial is not disputing that there has been a increase of global
> > warming of about a degree in the last century, just that it is a
> > complicated picture and the conclusions do not always support what is
> > being proposed by some at the United Nations and the environmentalist
> > community.
>
> 2 points:
>
> 1) You didn't address Effy's point that the WSJ editorial's assertion
> that 'Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."' is total crap. And
> it is total crap - bullshit even.
winters because of weakenings in the Atlantic currents? No that in and
of itself is not *warming*..
The larger point of the paragraph is that the eruption from Mount
Pinatubo in the Phillipines initially was enough to cause oceans to
cool: now those temperatures are warming. Hence, a natural phenomenon
had that effect in this instance.
>
> 2) The WSJ editorial went much further than present global warming
> theory and evidence as "a complicated picture" -- it deceptively tries
> to present the theory and evidence that global warming exists and is
> primarily man-made as not being the scientific consensus. Still more
> crap.
all. What the Kyoto Protocol mandates would be pretty heavy medicine
for a problem that we may have no significant control over regardless.
>
> Which is to say, this editorial is par for the WSJ editorial page
> course -- just more WSJ editorial page bullshit disinformation.
>
> Did I mention that the WSJ editorial page is a rag?
And that's fine. You will be strongly backed up here on this message
board.
>
> Ray
ps-The reason I responded again although I've exhausted the subject is
that you implied that I someone ignored Effty's points. I wanted to
acknowledge that. You and I will never totally agree here...I've stated
another opinion this subject is all. Food for thought.
Your Mileage WILL Vary.
Carrie
Shawn Lucas
So I'm here late at the lab trying to get some work done with an
automated machine (gas chromatograph) that is being a pain in the ass
and takes about 38 minutes to generate data on a sample so i have some
time in between each run.
I should be reading up on some scientific methods and such, and here
and there I am, but I've also got caught up in the "Hot Topic" thread
and found some time to make a few smart assed remarks here and there
in the newsgroup.
Anyway to the point...i just went to a certain website where one can
download live GD music and I thought I might point and click and fill
a few gaps in the collection. Someone mentioned 10/21/71 a few posts
up so I decided to grab that...
Jesus this university connection, which I don't usually use for
non-school related business, friggin' trucks. I'm getting download
speeds of 700-900KB/s where at home, on DSL, I get between 60 - 100
KB/s.
I've already snatched 10/21/71, 4/17/71 set II (all that is available
on this particular site...anyone have set I?), and part of 10/16/81.
Maybe it is a good thing that I'm going to be here a while
tonight...Heh.
Shawn
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> > When he became president one of Bush's first major acts was to reject
> > Kyoto. At that time he ditched Kyoto he also promised, however, that
> > he would produce a climate change policy of his own:
> >
> > "I am today committing the United States of America to work within the
> > United Nations framework and elsewhere to develop, with our friends and
> > allies and nations throughout the world, an effective and science-based
> > response to the issue of global warming."
> >
> > - George W. Bush, June 10, 2001
> >
> > #Surprise# however - Bush never followed through on his 'committment.'
>
> He obviously believes (along with an overwhelming Congressional
> majority/95-0) that Kyoto is the wrong approach to deal with the
> reality of global warming.
Right. But then he went on to promise an alternative that he never
delivered on. BTW say what you will about Kyoto, but Bush's misleading
rhetoric notwithstanding it is indeed "science-based".
> > > > Again: The *paper* is respected. The WSJ *editorial page*, however, is
> > > > taken seriously as a source of reliable information by no one except
> > > > the far too credulous.
> > >
> > > Ray, do you respect CNBC?
> >
> > I think that some of their stuff is of value, and that some of it is
> > not.
> >
> > > Why would they give the editoral board its
> > > own program if they were on par with the National Enquirer, News Max,
> > > Drudge, Daily Kos or The Nation?!
> > > http://www.opinionjournal.com/cnbc/
> >
> > Because it sells.
>
> Yeah it sells, but would CNBC put their reputation on the line for the
> creators of a dishonest "rag"?
Like I said: because it sells.
In any event, that doesn't change the fact editorials authored by the
WSJ and published in their paper and on their website are quite often
misleading crap. Including this one.
> > The WSJ editorial quoted Blair in such a way that could give one the
> > impression that Blair doesn't support Kyoto. He does.
>
> Maybe PM Blair is for a Kyoto-like agreement
Nothing 'maybe' or 'Kyoto-like' about it - Blair supports the Kyoto
agreement. Though I can see how the WSJ editorial's wording could
mislead you to think otherwise.
Here's Blair on Kyoto:
"In truth Kyoto is not radical enough. Yet it is, at present, the most
that is politically doable."
### Gee I wonder why the WSJ editorial didn't use that quote instead.
###
>, but that does not negate
> his statement.
No, it doesn't. However the WSJ editorial quoted Blair in such a way
that could give one the impression that Blair doesn't support Kyoto.
He does.
> > > It is not based on common sense--this would result in economic
> > > stagnation.
> >
> > And you know this... how?
>
> It's just my opinion, Ray. Kyoto would require the United States to
> bring their greenhouse gas emissions to 5% below 1990 levels by 2012.
> How could this not have a serious economic impact??
In the short run it may have an adverse economic impact, though how
'serious' it would be is unknown, and moreover in the longer term it
may well be an economic gain. The fact is, nobody really knows.
> > > And STILL we don't know if warming/cooling trends are not a
> > > cyclical part of nature.
> >
> > As I've told you several times over now, the scientific consensus is
> > that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is
> > attributable to human activities". This is not an opinion - it's a
> > fact.
>
> As I've told you several times now, there is a difference of opinion on
> how much is attributed to man vs. nature.
Not amongst the scientific consensus - the scientific consensus is that
"MOST" of it is man-made.
There will always be contrarians - hell even today there are some
'scientists' who say that smoking is not the primary cause of lung
cancer.
> Certainly you will dismiss
> out of hand anything S. Fred Singer reports here, but this goes into
> detail about differeing scientific conclusions on the global warming
> phenomenon.
> http://www.sepp.org/NewSEPP/KyotoAssessment.htm
Well, S. Fred Singer is a prominent official of the Cato Institute -
the Libertarian think tank that is opposed to global warming
regulations on political principle. And the Cato Institute as well as
his "Science and Environmental Policy Project" organization here
receive significant sponsorship from Big Oil. As does he personally.
That said, I don't dismiss what you linked to here out of hand -- I
instead dismiss it more because: 1) It contains blatent disinformation,
and 2) It is out of date.
There are many points of disinformation with that citation, and
addressing all of them would take several hours, if not days. Instead
of doing that, I'll address one of the biggest ones:
"[T]here is certainly no scientific consensus favoring global warming."
This is simply a lie - the scientific consensus is both that global
warming exists and that it is primarily man-made.
Singer goes on to "support" his lie with: "If anything, the largest
number of scientists, some 17,000, signed a petition against the Kyoto
Protocol in 1998. And in July 1997, the US Senate passed a Resolution
opposing a Kyoto-like treaty by a vote of 95 to zero."
First off, the US Senate (at least most of them, anyway) are not
scientists, and so that Senate resolution means nothing about whether
there is a scientific consensus favoring global warming or not.
Moreover, that Senate resolution made no statement or assertions along
those lines in any event. Which is it say, it's irrelevant here.
Singer's other declaration here is even more deceptive - the petition
he is referring to here is a hoax. The Sierra Club (CA) explains
further:
_______________________________________
The petition is a hoax. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists
of the USA:
In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet
from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a
Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a
Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased
levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon
global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), Frederick Seitz, and a short petition
calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a
reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the
advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of
mankind."
The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine,
tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this
packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both
by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an
article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the
Academy's Proceedings, which it was not.
The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a
statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of
expert reports of the Academy."
The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and
to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto
Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of
global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of
climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition
was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early
2001 in a renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty
negotiations.
In fact, American experts agree with the IPCC on its fundamental
assertions:
In the summer of 2001, George W. Bush asked for the assistance of the
US National Academy of Sciences "in identifying the areas in the
science of climate change where there are the greatest certainties and
uncertainties," and for its "views on whether there are any substantive
differences between the IPCC Reports and the IPCC summaries." The NAS
was given only a month to respond but did so nonetheless:
Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions
Despite the fact that the committee producing this report includes a
notable skeptic who allegedly colludes with industry* (Dr. Richard
Lindzen of M.I.T.), the NAS report states:
"The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50
years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas
concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the
scientific community on this issue. ... Despite the uncertainties,
there is general agreement that the observed warming is real and
particularly strong within the past 20 years" (p.3).
For further publications of the NAS see:
Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises (2002)
Under the Weather: Climate, Ecosystems, and Infectious Disease (2001)
_______________________________________
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html
So who are you going to trust: a deceiver, or the National Academy of
Sciences?
And then there's the Australian Academy of Sciences, Royal Flemish
Academy of Belgium for Sciences and the Arts, Brazilian Academy of
Sciences, Royal Society of Canada, Caribbean Academy of Sciences,
Chinese Academy of Sciences, French Academy of Sciences, German Academy
of Natural Scientists Leopoldina, Indian National Science Academy,
Indonesian Academy of Sciences, Royal Irish Academy Accademia Nazionale
dei Lincei (Italy), Academy of Sciences Malaysia, Academy Council of
the Royal Society of New Zealand, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences,
and the Royal Society (UK).
All of these scientific organizations released the following joint
statement endorsing the legitimacy of the process and the conclusions
of the IPCC:
_______________________________________
The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
represents the consensus of the international scientific community on
climate change science. We recognise IPCC as the world's most reliable
source of information on climate change and its causes, and we endorse
its method of achieving this consensus. Despite increasing consensus on
the science underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts
have been expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed
by global climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified.
There will always be some uncertainty surrounding the prediction of
changes in such a complex system as the world's climate. Nevertheless,
we support the IPCC's conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that
temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface
temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8°C above 1990
levels by 2100. This increase will be accompanied by rising sea levels,
more intense precipitation events in some countries, increased risk of
drought in others, and adverse effects on agriculture, health and water
resources.
We recognise IPCC as the worlds most reliable source of information on
climate change and its causes, and we endorse its method of achieving
this consensus. But despite increasing consensus on the science
underpinning predictions of global climate change, doubts have been
expressed recently about the need to mitigate the risks posed by global
climate change. We do not consider such doubts justified. & . There
will always be some uncertainty surrounding the prediction of changes
in such a complex system as the worlds climate. Nevertheless, we
support the IPCCs conclusion that it is at least 90% certain that
temperatures will continue to rise, with average global surface
temperature projected to increase by between 1.4 and 5.8oC above 1990
levels by 2100 [1]. This increase will be accompanied by rising sea
levels, more intenseprecipitation events in some countries, increased
risk of drought in others, and adverse effects on agriculture, health
and water resources.
_______________________________________
http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/jsct/kyoto/sub58_1.pdf
And again your Singer link is out of date - the IPCC report it purports
to debunk is outdated. A newer IPCC report -- a report that has even
stronger wording and conclusions re- the fact that global warming
exists and is man-made -- has been released more recently.
(BTW did you notice that 'Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has
spoken: Global Warming Is a Myth"' reference above? Did I mention that
the WSJ editorial page is a rag?)
> > > In fact, they area part of nature. The question is: to what extent is
> > > the current warming trend albeit miniscule, caused in part by natural
> > > phenomenon?
> >
> > So what part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's
> > declaration that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years
> > is attributable to human activities" do you not understand, Carrie?
> I understand their perspective!!
>
> There is global warming and no one knows for certain what has caused
> the increase of about a degree over the last century. Throughout
> recorded history, there has been warming and cooling trends. You know
> this. We don't know why, not for certain.
Carrie: Do you support fighting terrorism? And if so, how 'certain'
are you that terrorists will strike us like they did on 9/11 again?
Also: how 'certain' do you think we need to be before taking
substantive action re- global warming?
> > Or the the US National Academy of Sciences' declaration that "The
> > changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to
> > human activities"? What part of these statements do you not
> > understand?
>
> "likely"...what are the remedies? Can't we improve on conservative with
> fuel economy standards and development, etc. without increasing energy
> prices on working people??
Why yes, we can. Why do you ask?
> > The scientific consensus is that "most of the warming observed over the
> > last 50 years is attributable to human activities". This is not an
> > opinion - it's a fact.
>
> I believe that some warming certainly IS attributable to human
> activites. Common sense dictates that.
It's not just "some" - the scientific consensus is that "MOST of the
warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human
activities".
> My issue is on the solution and
> I think Kyoto unfairly penalizes countries like the
> US/Britain/Australia that are on the cutting edge of developing ways to
> improve the environment and therefore the human condition.
Why do you think that?
> You know the statistics, Ray. Why was the vote 95-0 in the US Senate??
That's not an answer that can be determined by statistics. However I
think a primary reason is one that I brought up in my previous post:
the resolution declares that 'the exemption for Developing Country
Parties is inconsistent with the need for global action on climate
change.' Again: that's a valid position. I disagree with it for
reasons I stated in my (now twice) previous post, but it's a valid
position.
> Why didn't any leading Democrat champion this particular Protocol?
Clinton and Gore did champion it. And IIRC they were leading
Democrats.
> Perhaps becasue it would hurt the American economy
Certainly some of the Senators believed that, though that doesn't make
it true.
> and was based on questionable science.
Read the Byrd-Hagel resolution - science was not addressed in it,
'questionable' or otherwise. And again most if not all Senators are
not scientists anyway.
> > > So Clinton didn't champion it.
> >
> > Yes, Clinton did. You do understand pragmatic politics, right?
>
> Clinton was the master of pragmatic politics. Can we agree here?
Sure. But Clinton did champion Kyoto. As did, especially, Gore.
> > > > > And then there is the performance of Kyoto's signatories in meeting
> > > > > their own targets. Kyoto requires developed nations to bring their
> > > > > total greenhouse-gas emissions to 5% below their 1990 levels by 2012.
> > > > > Yet in 2003, emissions were above the 1990 baseline by more than 10% in
> > > > > Italy and Japan, more than 20% in Ireland and Canada, and more than 40%
> > > > > in Spain.
> > > >
> > > > What the WSJ misleadingly fails to mention here is that the Kyoto
> > > > Protocol wasn't in effect in 2003. That's the whole point of Kyoto --
> > > > which didn't come into effect until this year -- to reverse those
> > > > trends.
> > >
> > > Trends that are relatively insignificant and/or in part caused by
> > > nature herself!!
> >
> > The fact that "in 2003, [greenhouse-gas] emissions were above the 1990
> > baseline by more than 10% in Italy and Japan, more than 20% in Ireland
> > and Canada, and more than 40% in Spain" is not "relatively
> > insignificant" and it's not "in part caused by nature herself."
> >
> > Again: The WSJ misleadingly failed to mention here is that the Kyoto
> > Protocol wasn't in effect in 2003. Their rhetoric gave the
> > misimpression that Kyoto wasn't working.
>
> No, I never got from this piece that Kyoto was in effect.
Then tell me: what do you think the point of WSJ editorial declaring:
+ And then there is the performance of Kyoto's signatories in meeting
+ their own targets. Kyoto requires developed nations to bring their
+ total greenhouse-gas emissions to 5% below their 1990 levels by 2012.
+ Yet in 2003, emissions were above the 1990 baseline by more than 10%
in
+ Italy and Japan, more than 20% in Ireland and Canada, and more than
40%
+ in Spain.
And do you not agree that some people reading that passage might
incorrectly assume that Kyoto was in effect in 2003?
> > > > > Nor should it. For even as the Montreal crowd treats man-made global
> > > > > warming as established fact
> > > >
> > > > Not just the "Montreal Crowd" - far from it
>
> The Montreal crowd/UN respresents the position of those who would
> support draconian environmental mandates.
You are referring to the Kyoto Protocol? 156 countries representing
almost 2/3rds of global greenhouse emissions have ratified the
Protocol.
Including England:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/publication.asp?id=2717
> > Whether the "whole trend" is due attributable to human activities or
> > not is irrelevant. Again: the scientific consensus is that "MOST of
> > the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human
> > activities". THAT'S what's important here.
>
> Not so fast. There are many in the scientific community that dispute
> the information you have posted as the end all of knowledge. Check it
> out--
> http://www.oism.org/pproject/
This is the same hoax that Singer referenced above. It's bullshit,
Carrie.
When I refer to the 'scientific consensus' re- global warming, I'm
refering to the consensus amongst *climate scientists*, as well as that
of official national scientific academies across the globe, including
the United States' own National Academy of Sciences.
Do you know who the signatories of that petition/hoax are, and the
conditions under which many of them signed it? Here's the Sierra Club
on that petition again:
_______________________________________
The petition is a hoax. According to the Union of Concerned Scientists
of the USA:
In the spring of 1998, mailboxes of US scientists flooded with packet
from the "Global Warming Petition Project," including a reprint of a
Wall Street Journal op-ed "Science has spoken: Global Warming Is a
Myth," a copy of a faux scientific article claiming that "increased
levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide have no deleterious effects upon
global climate," a short letter signed by past-president National
Academy of Sciences (NAS), Frederick Seitz, and a short petition
calling for the rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on the grounds that a
reduction in carbon dioxide "would harm the environment, hinder the
advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of
mankind."
The sponsor, little-known Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine,
tried to beguile unsuspecting scientists into believing that this
packet had originated from the National Academy of the Sciences, both
by referencing Seitz's past involvement with the NAS and with an
article formatted to look as if it was a published article in the
Academy's Proceedings, which it was not.
The NAS quickly distanced itself from the petition project, issuing a
statement saying, "the petition does not reflect the conclusions of
expert reports of the Academy."
The petition project was a deliberate attempt to mislead scientists and
to rally them in an attempt to undermine support for the Kyoto
Protocol. The petition was not based on a review of the science of
global climate change, nor were its signers experts in the field of
climate science. In fact, the only criterion for signing the petition
was a bachelor's degree in science. The petition resurfaced in early
2001 in a renewed attempt to undermine international climate treaty
negotiations.
In fact, American experts agree with the IPCC on its fundamental
assertions.
_______________________________________
http://www.sierraclub.ca/national/programs/atmosphere-energy/climate-change/ten-myths.html
BTW and not coincidentally: The coordinator and organiser of that
"Oregon Petition" hoax, Frederick Seitz, is also the chairman of S.
Fred Singer's "Science and Environmental Policy Project". He's also on
the national advisory board of Accuracy in Media - the right-wing
organization dedicated to "exposing liberal bias" in the mainstream
media.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frederick_Seitz
> > > > Here's the US National Academy of Sciences, from their '2001 report
> > > > "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions": "The
> > > > changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to
> > > > human activities."
> > > >
> > > > And here's atmospheric scientist Ralph J. Cicerone, current President
> > > > of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S. Senate testimony, July 21,
> > > > 2005)
> > > >
> > > > "Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's
> > > > current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of
> > > > greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil
> > > > fuels."
> >
> > > Again, you know as well as I that this is contested.
> >
> > So what? It was "contested" in some circles until quite recently that
> > smoking causes cancer. The scientific consensus for decades, however,
> > was that it did.
>
> The defenders of tobacco were primarily the cigarette companies.
The defenders of tobacco also included 'independent' scientists who
were outside of the consensus re- tobacco and cancer that were
significantly funded by the cigarette companies.
Here's the Royal Academy (the UK's national science academy) on the
similarities:
__________________________________
Not surprisingly, there exists a climate change "denial lobby", funded
to the tune of tens of millions of dollars by sectors of the
hydrocarbon industry, and highly influential in some countries. This
lobby has understandable similarities, in attitudes and tactics, to the
tobacco lobby that continues to deny smoking causes lung cancer, or the
curious lobby denying that HIV causes AIDS. Earlier, when some aspects
of the science were less well understood, they denied the existence of
evidence that human inputs of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases
were causing global warming. More recently, there is acknowledgement of
anthropogenic climate change, albeit expressed evasively, but
accompanied by arguments that the effects are relatively insignificant,
and/or that we should wait and see, and/or that technology will fix it
anyway.
But make no mistake, climate change is undeniably real, caused by human
activities, and has serious consequences.
__________________________________
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/publication.asp?id=3866
Carrie: Did you know that S. Fred Singer has received funding from
Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO? And did you also know that Singer and
Seitz' "Science and Environmental Policy Project" has received
significant funding from ExxonMobile? Check it:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Science_and_Environmental_Policy_Project
> Although, not everyone who smokes is going to get lung cancer, etc..
True. But the scientific consensus is that smoking causes lung cancer.
> > > > And then there's the Pentagon:
> > > >
> > > > "There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global
> > > > warming will occur during the 21st century... because of the
> > > > potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change,
> > > > although uncertain and quite possibly small, should be elevated beyond
> > > > a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."
> > > >
> > > > http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html
> > > >
>
> How dare you quote the warmongers at the Pentagon??!! I'm kidding, but
> really it is the job of the DoD to sketch out all scenarios.
True, and it is the job of the DoD to assess which scenarios are
plausible enough to be regarded as a significant U.S. national security
concern. Which they have done here.
> > > The End-Is-Nigh.
> >
> > Says an "Kyoto Protocol is economic gloom-and-doom" person.
>
> *heh*
> >
> > > May I recommend a book real quick?--"A Friend of the
> > > Earth", by TC Boyle. It's a fun novel but the premise of the book is
> > > mirrored often on this newsgroup.
> >
> > What is the book's premise that you think is relevant here?
>
> That the sky is falling.
In which case you should be able to appreciate the irony of your "the
Kyoto Protocol is economic gloom-and-doom" position.
> > May I recommend a book real quick? Seinfeld & Pandis' "Atmospheric
> > Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change" - as
> > anyone with an atmospheric science background will tell you, it's the
> > bible on the subject. Here's an excerpt from the introduction:
> >
> > "Evidence is mounting [that] 'greenhouse gases' [have] the potential to
> > lead to an increase in the earth's temperature by several degrees
> > Celsius... [which] could create dramatic changes in climatic extremes."
>
> Sure, I often have trouble with insomnia. Sounds like a good remedy.
As someone who studied that book in graduate school from cover to
cover, I can attest that it's fascinating stuff. Amongst other things
it goes through, in elaborate detail, the physics behind global
warming. Not "sky is falling" stuff at all - just straight up hardcore
physics and environmental science. Science, not politics.
> > > No this IS taking the worst-case scenario into account!!
> >
> > No. The Pentagon's worst case scenario includes even larger scale
> > massive global disruption and destablization, and would be even more
> > astrononically expensive.
>
> So this is the second to worst case scenario?
Nobody really knows.
FWIW, however, here's the Royal Society's take on all this:
________________________________
In their most recent report in 2001, the InterGovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) concluded that this warming would be in the range
of 1.4 to 5.80C by 210010. This would be the warmest period on earth
for at least the last 100,000 years. Many people (especially, it would
seem, some economists) find it hard to grasp the significance of such a
seemingly small change, given that temperatures can differ from one day
to the next by 100C. There is a huge difference between daily
fluctuations, and global averages sustained year on year; the
difference in average global temperature between today and the last
ice-age11 is only around 50C.
The impacts of global warming are many and serious: sea-level rise as
mentioned above (which comes both from warmer water expanding, and also
from ice melting at the poles); changes in availability of fresh water
(in a world where human numbers already press hard on available
supplies in many countries); and the increasing incidence of "extreme
events" - floods, droughts, and hurricanes - the serious consequences
of which are rising to levels which invite comparison with "weapons of
mass destruction". In particular, recent studies, made before Katrina,
suggest that increasing ocean surface temperature (the source of a
hurricane's energy) will have little effect on the frequency of
hurricanes, but strong effects on their severity13. The estimated
damage inflicted by Katrina is equivalent to 1.7% of US GDP this year,
and it is conceivable that the Gulf Coast of the US could be
effectively uninhabitable by the end of the century.
The timescales for some important non-linear processes involved in
climate change are uncertain. As the polar ice caps melt, the surface
reflectivity is altered, causing more warming and faster melting; the
timescale for the ice-cap to disappear entirely (a few decades?, a
century?, longer?) is unclear14. As northern permafrost thaws, large
amounts of methane gas are released, further increasing global warming
(methane is a more efficient greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide).
Nearer home, increased precipitation in the North Atlantic region, and
increased fresh water run-off, will reduce the salinity of surface
water.
Water will therefore be less dense and will not sink so readily. Such
changes in marine salt balance have, in the past, modified the fluid
dynamical processes which ultimately drive the Gulf Stream, turning it
off on decadal time-scales. I should emphasise, however, that current
thinking sees this as unlikely within the next century or more. But it
is worth reflecting that the Gulf Stream, in effect, transports "free"
heat towards the British Isles amounting to roughly 30,000 times the
total power generation capacity of the UK. These nonlinear and
potentially catastrophic events are less well understood than is the
direct warming caused by increased greenhouse gases. But their
potential impacts are great, and should be included in risk
assessments15.
On a more directly biological note, some other effects of climate
change are noted in two recent Royal Society reports. One16 deals with
the adverse impacts on marine biodiversity of the increase in acidity
of the world's oceans, caused by absorbing carbon dioxide. The other17
addresses the interplay between climate change and crop production,
unhappily emphasising that "Africa is consistently predicted to be
among the worst hit areas across a range of future climate change
scenarios". This echoes the disconnect between the two central themes -
Climate Change and Sustainable Development in Africa - of the UK's G8
Presidency. On the one hand, solemn promises were made to increase aid
and support development in Africa, while on the other hand the lack of
agreement on measures to curb greenhouse gas emissions means that
increasing amounts of aid will be spent on tackling the consequences of
climate change18. In this context, I emphasise the unprecedented step
initiated by the Royal Society of producing two brief statements, on
the science of climate change19 and on the role of science and
technology in promoting sustainable development in Africa20, signed by
the Science Academies of all the G8 countries (along with China, India
and Brazil for the first, and the Network of African Science Academies
for the second). The aim here was to clarify the consensus on climate
change for the Summit Meeting under the UK Presidency of the G8 in July
2005.
________________________________
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/publication.asp?id=3866
> Donald Rumsfeld, Colin Powell, Dick Cheney all stated that Iraq was
> developing WMD and we should take militarly action before they had a
> chance to attack us, ie: the sky is falling!! It's been a heavy price
> to pay to secure an alliance in Mesopotamia.
Unlike the Bush Administration's WMD deception, there is a consensus
amongst the experts in the field that there clear and compelling
evidence re- global warming.
> Be wary having the federal government overreact to anything. Terror,
> drugs, the environment, poverty...The cure can be worse than the
> disease.
On this we agree. However there is clear and compelling evidence that
global warming is real and is primarily man-made, and if we don't do
something about it there is a reasonable likelihood that the
consquences will be catastrophic.
> > > > > Scientists have also noted weakenings in Atlantic currents
> > > > > that move cold waters south and warm waters north, leading to
> > > > > predictions that Britain may experience Siberia-like temperatures in
> > > > > the coming decades. Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."
> > > >
> > > > As Effy put it:
> > > >
> > > > + This paragraph is total crap.
> > > > +
> > > > + The melting of polar ice has and is causing a measurable effect on
> > > > the
> > > > + salinity of the North Atlantic. The less saline water does not sink
> > > > + (and therefore circulate) as it once did. THAT'S the weakening of
> > > > + Atlantic currents, and it IS an effect of global warming.
> > > >
> > > > He's right, you know.
> > >
> > > Oh of course. I dare I question conventional environmentalist wisdom!!
> >
> > No - he is right. Factually. Except that he left out the qualifier
> > that this is an unproven global warming scenario - it needs more
> > research. The WSJ took that stuff out of context to make the
> > misleading assertion that 'Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."'
> > That's a lie: it is indeed global warming.
>
> You may have a point there.
So you agree, then, that the WSJ editorial page was dissembling there?
> I took it to mean that the climate issue is
> rather complex and easy answers aren't always available. During the
> 70's, environmentalists were fearing another Ice Age. So let's take it
> easy and know what medicine we will be force feeding American
> business/consumers before we prescribe it.
This isn't just "the environmentalists" - the scientific consensus is
that global warming is real and is primarily man-made, and if we don't
do something about it there is a reasonable likelihood that the
consquences will be catastrophic.
> > Need proof? Here:
> >
> > http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_ice_age.html
> >
> > > > > The lesson we draw from all of this is that the uncertainties in
> > > > > climate forecasting remain huge.
>
> I closely read National Geographic. It's one of my favorite magazines.
> I have no doubt what they are saying is true.
In which case, do you agree that the WSJ editorial page was dissembling
there?
> > Carrie: Do you agree that this WSJ editorial gives the impression that
> > the theory that global warming is mostly man-made is not the scientific
> > consensus?
>
> Sure.
In which case, do you agree that the WSJ editorial page was dissembling
there?
And did I mention that the WSJ editorial page is a rag?
Ray
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> > Carlisle wrote:
> > > Effty wrote:
> > > > Carlisle wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > trend data. Scientists have also noted weakenings in Atlantic currents
> > > > > that move cold waters south and warm waters north, leading to
> > > > > predictions that Britain may experience Siberia-like temperatures in
> > > > > the coming decades. Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."
> > > >
> > > > This was printed in the Wall Street Journal???
> > > >
> > > > That's hard to believe. This paragraph is total crap.
> > >
> > > The editorial is not disputing that there has been a increase of global
> > > warming of about a degree in the last century, just that it is a
> > > complicated picture and the conclusions do not always support what is
> > > being proposed by some at the United Nations and the environmentalist
> > > community.
> >
> > 2 points:
> >
> > 1) You didn't address Effy's point that the WSJ editorial's assertion
> > that 'Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."' is total crap. And
> > it is total crap - bullshit even.
>
> The point about the predictions that Britain will experience colder
> winters because of weakenings in the Atlantic currents? No that in and
> of itself is not *warming*..
What the WSJ said is not factually correct with 'Whatever else that is,
it isn't "warming"' - it IS warming, just on a larger scale.
> The larger point of the paragraph is that the eruption from Mount
> Pinatubo in the Phillipines initially was enough to cause oceans to
> cool: now those temperatures are warming. Hence, a natural phenomenon
> had that effect in this instance.
That wasn't the 'larger point' of the paragraph - that was just a
different "point" thrown in to obfuscate the fact that -- in the *true*
"bigger picture" -- since the dawn of the fossil fuel era the globe has
been warming, and mostly as a result of fossil fuel burning.
> > 2) The WSJ editorial went much further than present global warming
> > theory and evidence as "a complicated picture" -- it deceptively tries
> > to present the theory and evidence that global warming exists and is
> > primarily man-made as not being the scientific consensus. Still more
> > crap.
>
> There is differing viewpoints within the scientific community, that's
> all.
There are a relatively small number contrarians, yes. And a relatively
small number of them are even honest and not funded by Big Oil.
This WSJ editorial nonetheless gives the deceptive impression that the
theory that global warming is mostly man-made is not the scientific
consensus -- even you have now admitted as much, Carrie.
Did I mention that the WSJ editorial page is a rag?
Ray
Ray
Shawn Lucas wrote:
> On 12 Dec 2005 13:45:50 -0800, "Ray" <ray...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >Did I mention that the WSJ editorial page is a rag?
>
> who exist solely to sow seeds of doubt about this issue.
I'm with you.
> Are these
> WSJ writers getting paid by Exxon? I doubt it. I think they just
> have the political talking points crammed so far up their asses that
> they can't help but spew them forth from their mouths.
To be addressed effectively global warming requires strong business
regulations - an anathema to the notoriously conservative WSJ editorial
page. As I see it, WSJ editorial page the disinforms re- global
warming (and many other issues, FTM) because it puts its
anti-regulatory politics/belief system over scientific truth.
Ray
JimK
Ray
> I closely read National Geographic. It's one of my favorite magazines.
> I have no doubt what they are saying is true.
In which case, did you catch their Sept.2004 issue? It was dedicated
to global warming. Here's an excerpt from the website:
__________________________________
Signs From Earth
By Tim Appenzeller and Dennis R. Dimick
Photographs by Peter Essick
There's no question that the Earth is getting hotter-and fast. The
real questions are: How much of the warming is our fault, and are we
willing to slow the meltdown by curbing our insatiable appetite for
fossil fuels?
Get a taste of what awaits you in print from this compelling excerpt.
Global warming can seem too remote to worry about, or too
uncertain-something projected by the same computer techniques that
often can't get next week's weather right. On a raw winter day you
might think that a few degrees of warming wouldn't be such a bad thing
anyway. And no doubt about it: Warnings about climate change can sound
like an environmentalist scare tactic, meant to force us out of our
cars and cramp our lifestyles.
Comforting thoughts, perhaps. But turn to "GeoSigns," the first chapter
in our report on the changing planet. The Earth has some unsettling
news.
>From Alaska to the snowy peaks of the Andes the world is heating up
right now, and fast. Globally, the temperature is up 1°F (.5°C) over
the past century, but some of the coldest, most remote spots have
warmed much more. The results aren't pretty. Ice is melting, rivers are
running dry, and coasts are eroding, threatening communities. Flora and
fauna are feeling the heat too, as you'll read in "EcoSigns." These
aren't projections; they are facts on the ground.
The changes are happening largely out of sight. But they shouldn't be
out of mind, because they are omens of what's in store for the rest of
the planet.
Wait a minute, some doubters say. Climate is notoriously fickle. A
thousand years ago Europe was balmy and wine grapes grew in England; by
400 years ago the climate had turned chilly and the Thames froze
repeatedly. Maybe the current warming is another natural vagary, just a
passing thing?
Don't bet on it, say climate experts. Sure, the natural rhythms of
climate might explain a few of the warming signs you'll read about in
the following pages. But something else is driving the planet-wide
fever.
For centuries we've been clearing forests and burning coal, oil, and
gas, pouring carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases into the
atmosphere faster than plants and oceans can soak them up (see "The
Case of the Missing Carbon," February 2004). The atmosphere's level of
carbon dioxide now is higher than it has been for hundreds of thousands
of years. "We're now geological agents, capable of affecting the
processes that determine climate," says George Philander, a climate
expert at Princeton University. In effect, we're piling extra blankets
on our planet.
Human activity almost certainly drove most of the past century's
warming, a landmark report from the United Nations Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) declared in 2001. Global temperatures
are shooting up faster than at any other time in the past thousand
years. And climate models show that natural forces, such as volcanic
eruptions and the slow flickers of the sun, can't explain all that
warming.
As carbon dioxide continues to rise, so will the mercury-another 3°F
to 10°F (1.6°C to 5.5°C) by the end of the century, the IPCC
projects. But the warming may not be gradual. The records of ancient
climate described in "TimeSigns" suggest that the planet has a sticky
thermostat. Some experts fear today's temperature rise could accelerate
into a devastating climate lurch. Continuing to fiddle with the global
thermostat, says Philander, "is just not a wise thing to do."
Get the whole story in the pages of National Geographic magazine
======================
More To Explore
======================
In More to Explore the National Geographic magazine team shares some of
its best sources and other information. Special thanks to the Research
Division.
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
www.ipcc.ch
The IPCC is the most authoritative source for statistics and figures on
climate change. Visit this site to view the latest assessment reports,
press releases, and graphics.
U.S. Global Change Research Program
www.usgcrp.gov
This site brings together information about federally funded research
on global warming, changing ecosystems, the carbon cycle, the water
cycle, and much more. It contains links to hundreds of U.S. and
international science organizations.
Global Warming
yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/content/index.html
The United States Environmental Protection Agency's global warming site
is a great place to begin investigating how your area will be affected
by climate change. Included are sections on sea-level rise, the impacts
of warming on health, and things you can do to help reduce the emission
of greenhouse gases.
Pew Center on Global Climate Change
www.pewclimate.org
This nonprofit organization is "dedicated to providing credible
information, straight answers, and innovative solutions in the effort
to address global climate change." It provides information on the
science behind climate change, the potential consequences of it, a
glossary of relevant terms, and other valuable material.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html
Log on here to get a synopsis of the 2001 report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and read scientists' replies
to questions that are commonly asked of climate experts.
Antarctica
www.wbur.org/special/antarctica/photogallery/multimedia.asp
Watch video footage of Adélie penguins on the western Antarctic
Peninsula and follow a narrated slide show of scientist Bill Fraser as
he explains how climate change has affected their populations.
Coral Reefs
www.aims.gov.au/pages/research/coral-bleaching/coral-bleaching.html
How is climate change affecting the world's oceans, and what is coral
bleaching? Visit the Australian Institute of Marine Science website to
find out.
Paleoclimatology
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/paleo.html
At this National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration website you can
learn about past abrupt climate change and global warming. The site
contains a long list of links and includes some material in Spanish.
National Snow and Ice Data Center
nsidc.org/index.html
Want to learn how the cryosphere-the world of ice and snow-is
sending signals of a changing climate? This site provides information
on mountain glacier fluctuations, permafrost conditions, ice-shelf
changes, and sea-ice decreases.
---
http://magma.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0409/feature1/index.html
Carlisle
Ray, I know the Earth is experiencing a *warming trend*..Overall the
world has seen an increase in approximately one degree over the last
century. I'm not a scientist, but common sense would dictate that
some/much/half or part of that is man-made. We don't know how much
though. The question is how do we deal with it with common sense and
keeping the standard of living of individual Americans in mind.
Personally I think the nature of the Kyoto protocol is unfair to our
country. It would most likely dramatically increase energy prices on
those who could least afford it, not to mention put an onerous burden
on companies. Sure, I'm thinking of American business. What do you
think most people's retirement/401Ks are comprised of?? Can we not have
a growing economy and a cleaner environment? I think we can..Like I
said, the more prosperous a nation is the more it can afford to improve
its environment. Technology has continued to develop cleaner/less
environmentally harmful ways of obtaining and producing energy.
Let's see what the US, Japan, China, South Korea, India and Australia
(the Asia-Pacific partnership) meeting next month in Sydney can agree
upon. Improving the environment should not pit developing country
against more developed ones.
I agree though, that was a very compelling issue of NG.
Carrie
Ken Fortenberry
> Carlisle wrote:
>>I closely read National Geographic. It's one of my favorite magazines.
>>I have no doubt what they are saying is true.
>
> In which case, did you catch their Sept.2004 issue? It was dedicated
On the off chance that Carlisle really is interested in
global warming here's a link to an excellent series of
articles that appeared in _The New Yorker_ back in April.
http://www.esr.org/outreach/inthenews/inthenews.html#05a
I should make some sort of wager with leftie as to which
will happen first, Carlisle reading the articles or me
ice skating through hell hoisting the Chicago Cubs World
Series trophy. ;-)
--
Ken Fortenberry
Ray
> Ray, I know the Earth is experiencing a *warming trend*..Overall the
> world has seen an increase in approximately one degree over the last
> century. I'm not a scientist, but common sense would dictate that
> some/much/half or part of that is man-made. We don't know how much
> though.
Carrie you keep repeating "we don't know how much" of global warming is
caused by human activity as if it means something of real significance
here. Again the scientific consensus is that, while we don't know the
*exact* percentages, MOST of it is man-made.
National Geographic, whom you say you have "no doubt" taht what they
are saying is true, has this to say on that question:
__________________________
Wait a minute, some doubters say... Maybe the current warming is
another natural vagary, just a passing thing?
Don't bet on it, say climate experts. Sure, the natural rhythms of
climate might explain a few of the warming signs you'll read about in
the following pages. But something else is driving the planet-wide
fever.
__________________________
National Geographic has declared here that something other than
"natural rhythms of climate" are what climate experts believe is
driving global warming. National Geographic then cites the IPCC
assessment that "Human activity almost certainly drove most of the past
century's warming."
So why do you keep repeating that "we don't know how much" of global
warming is caused by human activity as if that means something of
significance in this context?
Ray
leftie
> So why do you keep repeating that "we don't know how much" of global
> warming is caused by human activity as if that means something of
> significance in this context?
I think it's for the same reason she mentions first that the poor would
be adversely affected by Kyoto. Because the real opposition to Kyoto is
ultimately greed. That greed needs to be clothed in acceptable guises
such as protection of the poor and the (absolutely incorrect idea) that
the science is in doubt.
Ray
Without doubt many who oppose Kyoto do so for reasons of greed -
there's simply far too much money on the line for far too many very
powerful interests for that not to be a primary factor in many cases.
However I also think there are reasonable reasons to oppose Kyoto - IMO
it's a flawed treaty (though not because of the science, which is
sound), and I think there are people who honestly oppose it on those
grounds. (FWIW however I share Blair's opinion that "Kyoto is not
radical enough. Yet it is, at present, the most that is politically
doable.") But I also think that, if at this juncture one is going to
oppose Kyoto, that one should have *and enact, now* a viable
alternative -- IMO at this juncture it's too late in the game to not
act. Now.
That all said, while I can't mind-read Carrie my guess is that she
keeps repeating that "we don't know how much" of global warming is
caused by human activity in this context as if it meant something of
significance not because of greed but instead because she hasn't
thought this all the way through - she's instead just repeating WSJ
editorial page-style obfuscation/talking points, implicitly assuming
that if the WSJ editorial page and the like says it then it must be of
significant value. (Which it is, but only as obfuscation.)
Ray
Shawn Lucas
<kenfort...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>Ray wrote:
>> Carlisle wrote:
>>>I closely read National Geographic. It's one of my favorite magazines.
>>>I have no doubt what they are saying is true.
>>
>> In which case, did you catch their Sept.2004 issue? It was dedicated
>> to global warming. ...
>
>On the off chance that Carlisle really is interested in
>global warming here's a link to an excellent series of
>articles that appeared in _The New Yorker_ back in April.
>
>http://www.esr.org/outreach/inthenews/inthenews.html#05a
>
Ken,
While your posts in here piss me off on occasion, at least you show
some regard for critical thinking. Thanks for posting the above. My
girlfriend was also telling me about another relevant article,
possibly by Kolbert, in last weeks New Yorker, but I have yet to see
that.
Here is also a highly relevant article about the junk science being
used to push the "doubt":
http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/08/07/global_warming/index.html?x
If you've actually worked on issues related to global warming, doing
real science (not funded by Exxon-Mobil), it just makes you want to
bang the old noggin' into the wall the way some blowhards still have
their heads up their asses and some of them actually suceed in
getting others to insert head up ass. I guess I shouldn't be
surprised that we're still arguing over global warming when the even
more ridiculous issue of creationism vs. evolution is still hot in
this country. That sucker has been laid to rest among most scientists
for ages now.
Since I come in here to take a break from the rigours of life (and
presumably talk about music...heh!) I hate getting into these types of
threads but this one hits very close to home so I'll stick around and
keep it real.
Shawn
Ray
Ray wrote:
> leftie wrote:
> > Ray wrote:
> >
> > > So why do you keep repeating that "we don't know how much" of global
> > > warming is caused by human activity as if that means something of
> > > significance in this context?
> >
> > I think it's for the same reason she mentions first that the poor would
> > be adversely affected by Kyoto. Because the real opposition to Kyoto is
> > ultimately greed. That greed needs to be clothed in acceptable guises
> > such as protection of the poor and the (absolutely incorrect idea) that
> > the science is in doubt.
>
> Without doubt many who oppose Kyoto do so for reasons of greed -
> there's simply far too much money on the line for far too many very
> powerful interests for that not to be a primary factor in many cases.
I forgot to mention another primary reason that many oppose Kyoto -
ideology. Kyoto requires significant regulatory controls on
businesses, so many oppose Kyoto primarily for that reason - they
simply oppose laws and treaties that require significant regulatory
controls on businesses in general. And some of those people -- and I
put the WSJ editorial page in with this group -- are so ideologically
opposed to said regulations that they are willing to, and often do,
obfuscate the truth about the science of global warming to achieve
their ends.
Which is to say, with regards to global warming some people and groups
- including the WSJ editorial page - put ideology before science and
truth.
JC Martin
> On Tue, 13 Dec 2005 23:03:38 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
> <kenfort...@ameritech.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Ray wrote:
>>
>>>Carlisle wrote:
>>>
>>>>I closely read National Geographic. It's one of my favorite magazines.
>>>>I have no doubt what they are saying is true.
>>>
>>>In which case, did you catch their Sept.2004 issue? It was dedicated
>>>to global warming. ...
>>
>>On the off chance that Carlisle really is interested in
>>global warming here's a link to an excellent series of
>>articles that appeared in _The New Yorker_ back in April.
>>
>>http://www.esr.org/outreach/inthenews/inthenews.html#05a
>>
>
>
> Ken,
>
> While your posts in here piss me off on occasion, at least you show
> some regard for critical thinking. Thanks for posting the above. My
> girlfriend was also telling me about another relevant article,
> possibly by Kolbert, in last weeks New Yorker, but I have yet to see
> that.
>
> Here is also a highly relevant article about the junk science being
> used to push the "doubt":
>
> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2003/08/07/global_warming/index.html?x
Mmm...while I'm 100% behind environmental regulations for what seem like
obvious reasons to me, the fact of the matter is that even my own
feelings on this are tied into ideological and political framework.
Environmental reform requires economic reform, reform which would lead
to a more socialist form of government. Any meaningful reform would
cripple our economy and the adjustment period and suffering required
would be immense. Add to that, many on the right see this issue being
driven by left-wing scientists with a political agenda and on the far
right, viewed is as a bunch of pagan, earth-worshiping liberals looking
to take us back thousands of years. Here's the reality. If and when
the environment destroys large #'s of lives and the vitality of our
economy, ONLY THEN will any significant or long-lasting change take
place. And as to the danger we are in environmentally, it's all
theoretical at this point. I think WMD's are a more pressing concern.
-JC
Carlisle
No, I'm voicing a legitimate concern that obviously the US Senate had
regarding the Kyoto Protocol in 1997. The vote was 95-0 to shelve this
deal. Why was this Cause not more championed by some in Congress??
Perhaps because the predictions were murky and the consequences
alarming?? Yes.
Ray, you do not have a good challenge to your arguments around here.
Dissenters to the leftist perspective refrain from discussing politics
here for the most part. Wonder why??
If I'm all you have to challenge about scientific matters then you need
to go to a bigger classroom.
HTH,
A voice in the wilderness
Ray
> If you've actually worked on issues related to global warming, doing
> real science (not funded by Exxon-Mobil), it just makes you want to
> bang the old noggin' into the wall the way some blowhards still have
> their heads up their asses and some of them actually suceed in
> getting others to insert head up ass.
HRYK. For many of us with a deep understanding of this issue it's
actually sometimes painful to witness this sort of thing.
> I guess I shouldn't be
> surprised that we're still arguing over global warming when the even
> more ridiculous issue of creationism vs. evolution is still hot in
> this country. That sucker has been laid to rest among most scientists
> for ages now.
Another example or where, in the minds of many, ideology trumps
science.
Ray
leftie
I don't mean to say Carrie's greedy. I think she just is far to
credulous regarding the rhetoric of those who are greedy, e.g. the
interests the WSJ editorial page speak for.
RickNBarbInSD
Exasperating.
Rick
leftie
> If I'm all you have to challenge about scientific matters then you need
> to go to a bigger classroom.
Yeah, a classroom where they actually read, analyze and critique
information presented rather than just repeat over and over and over
again arguments that are demonstrably false, inaccurate and/or misleading.
leftie
She blinded me with sci, er, religion!
Ray
<snip>
Carrie, can you please answer the question?
Why do you keep repeating that "we don't know how much" of global
warming is caused by human activity as if that means something of
significance in this context?
Ray
RickNBarbInSD
Yeah. I'd say BushCo's policy(ies) can be summed up in two words:
"Science Schmience!!!"
Rick
Carlisle
Because if a significant part of the global warming trend of the past
century has been a result of natural warming/cooling trends recorded
throughout history then there's not much government can or should do
about it.
It matters.
Do you not agree?
I have to go bathe a baby!!
Mrs.C.
Shawn Lucas
wrote:
>
>Ray, I know the Earth is experiencing a *warming trend*..Overall the
>world has seen an increase in approximately one degree over the last
>century. I'm not a scientist, but common sense would dictate that
>some/much/half or part of that is man-made. We don't know how much
>though.
Here is a good, easily accessible point to start looking into the "how
much" issue:
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precautionary_Planning/New_Data/
You don't even have to read the article, but it is quite informative.
Just scroll on down to the figure labeled Antarctic Ice Core Data 1.
Now take a good close look at the red line. This line represents
atmospheric CO2. While looking at that, not how the blue line,
representing teperature deviation tends to jump up when the red line
goes up and it jumps down when the red line goes down. This implies a
correlation between the two. Now lets get back to the red line. Just
like all the oil-baron funded junk scientists like to say, it does
indeed fluctuate up and down. These are the natural fluctuations the
"doubters" like to tout. Now take a look at the range of the red
line, again representing atmospheric CO2 concentration, over FOUR
HUNDRED THOUSAND YEARS. For the most part it varies from around
180ppm to around 280ppm throughout the entire graph with one
exception...take a look at the spike there at the end, at 0 years
before present. That isn't a graphical error, that is for real. The
global atmospheric CO2 concentration over the last hundred years has
gone up about 100ppm. Doesn't it make sense that a shitload of the
carbon from coal and oil (which can be crudely described as liquid and
solid carbon, respectively) that we've extracted from the earth, and
converted to gasses, namely CO2, through combustion, and mostly (Oh
boy what a coincidence!) over the last 100 years, is now in the
friggin atmosphere and is causing climate change.
Christ, this is not that hard to get your head around. I've taught
this concept to people who were totally science inept and they figured
it out.
I'm outta here. I've got a Flyers game to watch and beers to
consume...and yeah its cold here in Columbus but I'm biking to the bar
because I practice what I friggin' preach and I sure as hell ain't
going to contribute any more CO2 to the atmosphere than I have
to...that is how real I think this situation is.
Wait wait I can't go yet, I forgot to address one more issue
>The question is how do we deal with it with common sense and
>keeping the standard of living of individual Americans in mind.
At the risk of seeming unAmerican, maybe, just maybe, friggin' spoiled
Americans need to think about sacrificing. Do you realize that the
land area needed to produce the food necessary for the average diet of
one American is far greater than the land area needed per person for
the rest of the world...and you know what we need to do to produce
that much food? Burn lots of fossil fuels (for tractor operations,
transport, fertilizer production and more), which in turn emits lots
more CO2. Common sense went out of style when our current lifestyle
came into vogue.
OK beer me.
Shawn
Shawn Lucas
wrote:
>Ray, you do not have a good challenge to your arguments around here.
>Dissenters to the leftist perspective refrain from discussing politics
>here for the most part. Wonder why??
>If I'm all you have to challenge about scientific matters then you need
>to go to a bigger classroom.
>HTH,
>A voice in the wilderness
>
Politics and lefty slants aside, Ray is spot on for this issue. I'm
taking my deadhead hat off here and posting as a someone who is also
part of the scientific community, there just isn't much doubt among
scientists these days as to the global warming issue. Its considered
real, and it is being influenced by people, unless you get your grant
money from big oil.
Shawn Lucas
wrote:
> Here's the reality. If and when
>the environment destroys large #'s of lives and the vitality of our
>economy, ONLY THEN will any significant or long-lasting change take
>place.
Uh...try Googleing hurricane and New Orleans. I'm not as up on this
stuff as some of the other things I've been posting in here, but some
are making the argument that this year's hurricane season was no
fluke, but in fact was influenced by the changing climate.
JC Martin
Not that I disagree with your findings in any way, but, how do we know
spikes haven't occurred in past centuries, before human beings monitored
this type of activity? Do we? Definitively?
-JC
JC Martin
Yeah, but that's definitely way in the theoretical realm. Certainly not
a wake-up call of any kind.
-JC
-JC