I think, based on my statements above, that this is flawed reasoning.[/quote]
Sorry, but I can’t see the flaw in my reasoning.
wix, I’ll make time to read the article you posted.
Yes. And that is precisely the position taken by the US government.
I think, based on my statements above, that this is flawed reasoning.[/quote]
Sorry, but I can’t see the flaw in my reasoning.[/quote]
You’re right… there is nothing wrong with your statement above.
What I meant, and didn’t state clearly, is that if the US is forced to make the largest reductions, while those nations that currently burn fossil fuels the least efficiently are exempted, as per the Kyoto Protocol, then even if the US makes substantial reductions, the other nations will burn more fuel, but less efficiently.
If I now understand you correctly, you are stating that if all nations reduce, and the US reduces the most proportionately, then there would be an overall reduction.
OK, I can’t argue with that.
"The Kyoto treaty in many ways represents a triumph of politics over science. Despite all the controversy in the science over what you think may or may not happen to the climate, there has been very little controversy over what one expects the Kyoto emissions caps to do to climate, and that is nothing. If you have a model that predicts 4 degrees warming by 2100, Kyoto might knock it back to 3.8. Sometimes argued it does so little because it only involved the developed world, rather than China and India, but the truth is if China and India also agreed to cap their emissions at 1990, if you predicted 4 you might get 3. The point is, if you expect a lot of warming, Kyoto will leave you with a lot of warming. And the question is why go through what could be a wrenching economic reorientation of society, to do nothing about climate? I don
well i am not saying kyoto is perfect, but it represents a global united effort, regardless of its flaws, because countries realize that efforts like this must involve everyone and would be pointless if they were not concerted especially if a major player like US backs out. it’ can be a start to something better… that’s what is significant. but it will require everyone to jump aboard.
i agree with Wix on Tigerman’s query. developing countries have a burden, just a lower threshold.
it’s a shame that the federal govt seems to be shirking its responsibility. Case in point, the states themselves with CA in the lead, believe that the Federal regs are not enough and have prescribed higher standards for pollutants. Fortunately, the Supreme Court agreed that States have that right. thank goodness for states rights. So now several other states all have higher environmental standards cf. to fed EPA regulations.
and yes, there was a time (in my life time) when it was safe and not “not a good idea” to drink from a river (except downstream from where your friend is pissing). and there was a time when city tap water did not need huge amts of chlorification. to me, clean water is a right not a privilege. its a *&%$ shame.
So in your book, “doing something”, even if it’s useless and won’t fix the problem, is better than looking for a solution that WILL work.
Reminiscent of a lot of new laws, but unfortunately they’re the ones which screw things up to prevent people from really doing anything, in my opinion. . . .
Oh yes, like the CA “zero emissions” law that was passed, what, around 1990 or so, to require that 10% of vehicles sold in that state by 2000 would be electric or otherwise zero-emission.
Of course, what happened was that it proved technologically IMPOSSIBLE, and so the “standards” were conveniently dropped when the deadline approached.
That may be your memory, but unfortunately it’s not realistic. Giardia has been around for millenia, not just since hikers discovered that drinking untreated water was making them permanently sick.
As my father is fond of saying, “It was the bears around [his childhood hometown] that gave the water its distinctive flavor.”
Boyle, second law (I think) - ultimately it all produces heat.
Trapping it in the atmosphere may not be that smart, but producing more of the stuff can’t help either. Nuclear fusion, ‘safer’ fission, oil, coal, it all releases energy into the system.
Thoughts anyone?
Well, there’s heat and there’s [color=red]
H E A T !
[/color]
From Scientific American:
Humans may be shouldering too much of the blame for global warming, according to a new look at data from six sun-gazing satellites. They suggest that Planet Earth has been drenched in a bath of solar radiation that has been intensifying over the past 24 years–an increase of about 0.05 percent each decade. If that trend began early last century, it could account for a significant component of the climatic warm-up that is typically attributed to human-made greenhouse gases, says Richard C. Willson of Columbia University’s Center for Climate Systems Research in Coronado, Calif. Willson concedes that the climate’s sensitivity to such subtle solar changes is still poorly understood, but the evidence merits keeping a close eye on both the sun and humans to better gauge their relative influences on global climate. “In 100 years I think we’ll find the sun is in control,” he says. His team’s report appears in the March 4 Geophysical Research Letters.
One of my French friends told me the best way the US could f*** with Kyoto would be to set up a separate regimen that would emphasize different factors:
To wit, stress phase out of nuclear power because of the long-term contamination (France gets 80 percent of its power from nuclear sources). All its officials would have to do is keep bringing up the dangers of nuclear energy every time the Kyoto supporters speak.
Second, would be to stress that not only each nation but each region would have to look at per capita emissions AND also per kilometer emissions. Europe fares much worse when these statistics are taken into consideration.
Europe, in his opinion, led by France, has set several policies that favor it directly at the expense of the rest of the “community.”
He was furious that Jacques Chirac invited all the Third World to the G8 summit in Evian, spent all this time talking about debt relief and Third World aid and then REFUSED to negotiate reducing agricultural subsidies or reform the Common Agricultural Policy from which France’s farmers benefit disproportionately.
The prime minister of Burkina Faso said without the subsidies, his country would not even need aid since it could earn more by exporting cotton if the world markets were open and not flooded with cheap cotton (from the US). The US however has tried to get Europe to talk about agriculture at Doha as has the Cairns. Development of agriculture in the Third World could also lead to less urbanization, etc. etc. which would also be better for the climate. That said, many are doubtful that the US is really serious about reforming agricultural trade and just argues that it is knowing that France is damned and determined never to reform.
Side note: In the US, 80 percent (est) of the subsidies go to large agrobusinesses NOT family farmers so there are some major corporate interests which do not necessarily want agricultural reform either (no doubt they vote Republican and support Bush?)
When you can’t convince 'em, just utilize executive power and cut and paste in your own opinions over what your own EPA scientists have written…
nytimes.com/2003/06/19/politics/19CLIM.html
White House Makes Hefty Changes to E.P.A. Report
By ANDREW C. REVKIN with KATHARINE Q. SEELYE
he Environmental Protection Agency is preparing to publish a draft report next week on the state of the environment, but after editing by the White House, a long section describing risks from rising global temperatures has been whittled to a few noncommittal paragraphs.
…
“Political staff are becoming increasingly bold in forcing agency officials to endorse junk science,” said Jeremy Symons, a climate policy expert at the National Wildlife Federation. “This is like the White House directing the secretary of labor to alter unemployment data to paint a rosy economic picture.”
Drafts of the report have been circulating for months, but a heavy round of rewriting and cutting by White House officials in late April raised protest among E.P.A. officials working on the report.
An April 29 memorandum circulated among staff members said that after the changes by White House officials, the section on climate “no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change.”
…
[quote=“Neo”]When you can’t convince 'em, just utilize executive power and cut and paste in your own opinions over what your own EPA scientists have written…
nytimes.com/2003/06/19/politics/19CLIM.html
White House Makes Hefty Changes to E.P.A. Report
By ANDREW C. REVKIN with KATHARINE Q. SEELYE[/quote]
What makes you think this story is any more accurate (or unbiased) than those by Jayson Blair?
Good point. But then again, the safest time to fly an airplane is immediately following a big crash… 
There is a lot of debate about climate change and some people at Forumosa are obviously yet to be convinced about it. It can be very confusing when people quote lots of statistics or isolated scientific studies. For example, Timbuktu just had its hottest May on record, etc. On its own data like this is quite meaningless.
For those who want read a very thorough scientific assessment of climate change I suggest visiting the website of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). The IPCC is a body established by the World Meteorological Organisation and the UN Environment Program. To quote from the website: “The role of the IPCC is to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation.”
In particular I suggest looking at the following resources:
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (20 page summary in pdf format)
Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis (full report in html format)
All of the data and information in this document is based on information from peer-reviewed and published scientific/technical journals and literature. As such it is very objective.
nytimes.com/2003/06/19/politics/19CLIM.html
[quote]An April 29 memorandum circulated among staff members said that after the changes by White House officials, the section on climate “no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change.”
…[/quote]
Neo, The story is crap, just like 90% of the other stories from the NYT. Why?
Because… there is NO “scientific consensus” on climate change.
But wix, its not just a few posters on Forumosa who are skeptical doubting Thomases. More than 17,000 scientists have signed the Oregon Petition against the Kyoto Protocol because they see “no compelling evidence that humans are causing discernible climate change.”
In fact, in 1979, 10 scientists locked themselves in a room and begain filling it with CO2 to observe an experiment meant to mimic the effects of global warming. No word yet from the 10 on the results of the experiment. The 11th scientist, waiting outside, therefore concluded there can be no consensus whether CO2 is harmful.
In other news, Exxon, Shell and BP recently set up a commission to create a joint study on the effects of global warming. Last Monday, they hired over 17, 000 scientists from around the world as part-time consultants.
If the effects of global warming were discernible to the human eye and then also required global scientific consensus on the implication and cause, it would probably be too late by then. When did we ever require total scientific consensus to reach a conclusion?
This is the first time I have ever heard of the “Oregon Petition” so I just did a little research. First, a petition can in no way be considered proof that climate change is not occuring. The information that I linked to above is far more reliable and credible. The Oregon Petition was collected by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. They publish a monthly newsletter called “Access to Energy” which proclaims it is “Pro-Science, Pro-technology, Pro-Free Enterprise.” I would seriously question the politics and motivation of this organisation.
This is what another website has to say about the Oregon Institute of Medicine and the Oregon Petition.
[quote]Opponents of action on climate change portray the Oregon Petition as evidence of scientific division on the question and say it has the support of 18,000
Well, that’s certainly good enough for me. What the Spice Girls don’t know about global warming 'aint worth jack shit.
It wasn’t cited as proof of no climate change, but only as evidence that there is no such thing as consensus on the matter.
[quote=“wix”]The Oregon Petition was collected by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. They publish a monthly newsletter called “Access to Energy” which proclaims it is “Pro-Science, Pro-technology, Pro-Free Enterprise.” I would seriously question the politics and motivation of this organisation.
This is what another website has to say about the Oregon Institute of Medicine and the Oregon Petition. [/quote]
[quote]Opponents of action on climate change portray the Oregon Petition as evidence of scientific division on the question and say it has the support of 18,000
You can’t drink water from a river unless you boil it and you should definitely filter it. It’s filled with too many microorganisms and parasites that will have a grand old time in your body.
Global warming and Ice ages have been around longer than man and will probably be around after man too. Too many academics have too much ego and pride to lose out by changing their opinion.
Step back and think about it for a moment. No matter how wrong you were to you really change your mind after you had written so many papers, articles, treatises and done so much to advance your cause though you know it to be fundamentally flawed? If you think you would, than your a better man than me or a liar. I would bet that you’re a liar, having read the psychology behind it.
As Keynes would say and I think we need to all understand is: “It’s better to be almost right than perfectly wrong.”
I say that there is a lot of money and careers built up on all this debate. An industry is what I would call it. Who do you expect to fund antiglobal warming studies except people involved with such things. Who do you expect to fund global warming studies except people involved with such things. Any moderate proper look coming out of any research institute is ridiculed by one side or the other and denounced for using faulty logic and data. It’s easy to denounce it as data can be manipulated and even the way you write can manipulate by leaving out or excluding key pieces of information or taking things out of context and using them to your own advantage. The Lomborg guy puts out a bunch of info and amazingly becomes an overnight pariah and denounced for scientific dishonesty. Does this not tell you anything?
I grew up with enviromental, communist and oil scares. I say simply, piss off. What are you trying to sell and get on with it. From companies dumping nasty chemicals down the drain to enviromental groups taking bribes from those who go door to door to solicit donations so that they get the best areas(this actually happened to me). Enviromentalism is another cheap sales tactic. I mean open your eyes and see how many products use that symbolism to help sell their products. Then think, how many people buy those products but don’t properly recycle them. Think how much consumers, you and I, pollute our enviroment daily. Look at what you buy, what you wear, how you get to work, what you eat and drink. If you cared so much about the enviroment like you said, you’d walk or ride a horse/donkey/camel/mule/elephant to work, make your own clothes and soap, grow your own produce and raise your own animals. Here’s the kicker though, there isn’t enough land and the enviroment can not support that many people living organically. What does scarce resources get you? It gets you war, famine, pestilience and corruption.
CYA
Okami