Let me clarify. My point about the ozone hole is not that it is gone but it is strangely absent from the media these days. Why? If it was a problem 10 years ago and it was a problem of grave proportions, why isn’t it still front-page news today? Why?
[/quote][/quote]
Gee, by the same token, I guess poverty, AIDS, crime aren’t problems of grave proportions anymore since I didn’t read it on the front page today.
Loving you logic, Fred. Wish I too could live in a bubble world like yours. Must be marvelous.
[quote=“fred smith”]Any comments regarding these nations which continue to flout international law and sensibilities? After all, the US never agreed to sign Kyoto. These nations did. So how’re they doing? Not very well. Any front page headlines for these failures. Nahhhh.
Cannot prove your point so you try to make it seem that I do not care about AIDS, the poor, etc. etc. Typical Leftist claptrap when Republicans do not agree with them. Then, suddenly we not care about the poor, etc. but remember it was under enlightened Democrat leadership that the whole poverty and single-family explosion among poor black families occurred. Never have heard a Democrat say “sorry” about that. Why is that? Don’t you really care about the poor?
DB:
Poor loser? Why? I am merely pointing out that for all the media hype, we may not actually know the true causes of global warming. Why then was the Earth in a relatively warm period from 1100 to 1500? There were no mass burnings of fossil fuels then. And one volcanic eruption can do more to affect the climate than all the cars in one country.
Finally, if the US is to be constantly held up in the media for shame because it refuses to sign on to Kyoto what then are we to make of those countries who signed on and yet refuse or cannot make their targets? I mean once they sign on this becomes a matter of “international law” does it not? And if these nations are then breaking international law which the media claims would set such dangerous precedents for say action in Iraq, where are the howls of outrage from our concerned international citizenry? Oh you mean that they are being selective in their outrage? No. Really?
Finally, when someone can account for the warm period from 1100 to 1500 and then explain why the scientific community was mostly in agreement a mere 20 years ago that we were entering a new Ice Age, then I might sit up and listen to this global warming debate with a bit more concern. Yes, it may be a problem, just as a cooling Earth would be a problem and even one that remains at the same temperature is still going to suffer natural disasters like hurricanes and tornadoes etc. then I will listen.
Until then, I do not believe in Kyoto as the solution. Six years over the next 100 is not good enough for to suffer the economic dislocation that Kyoto would cause. I put my faith in human beings and their natural abilities to come up with new innovative ways to deal with problems and I do not believe that global warming will cause all the worst-case scenarios that are being predicted. If we look at what we can reasonably expect, the picture is very different. So, it is not that I am not concerned about global warming, I am merely skeptical about the causes of the global warming that we see occurring and I wonder if
a. there will be new technological advances that will help remedy this.
b. there will be a change in scientific perception and once again we will be facing a new Ice Age
c. the worst-case scenarios will not emerge and we will 99.5 percent chance face new problems while on the other hand experiencing some net benefits as well.
d. Growing economies will be able to better afford the necessary environmental spending that will help remedy this problem better than economies that are growing more slowly because of Kyoto caps.
[quote=“fred smith”]Nice weak argument as usual JB:
Cannot prove your point so you try to make it seem that I do not care about AIDS, the poor, etc. etc. Typical Leftist claptrap when Republicans do not agree with them. Then, suddenly we not care about the poor, etc. but remember it was under enlightened Democrat leadership that the whole poverty and single-family explosion among poor black families occurred. Never have heard a Democrat say “sorry” about that. Why is that? Don’t you really care about the poor?
DB:
Poor loser? Why? I am merely pointing out that for all the media hype, we may not actually know the true causes of global warming. Why then was the Earth in a relatively warm period from 1100 to 1500? There were no mass burnings of fossil fuels then. And one volcanic eruption can do more to affect the climate than all the cars in one country.
Finally, if the US is to be constantly held up in the media for shame because it refuses to sign on to Kyoto what then are we to make of those countries who signed on and yet refuse or cannot make their targets? I mean once they sign on this becomes a matter of “international law” does it not? And if these nations are then breaking international law which the media claims would set such dangerous precedents for say action in Iraq, where are the howls of outrage from our concerned international citizenry? Oh you mean that they are being selective in their outrage? No. Really?
Finally, when someone can account for the warm period from 1100 to 1500 and then explain why the scientific community was mostly in agreement a mere 20 years ago that we were entering a new Ice Age, then I might sit up and listen to this global warming debate with a bit more concern. Yes, it may be a problem, just as a cooling Earth would be a problem and even one that remains at the same temperature is still going to suffer natural disasters like hurricanes and tornadoes etc. then I will listen.
Until then, I do not believe in Kyoto as the solution. Six years over the next 100 is not good enough for to suffer the economic dislocation that Kyoto would cause. I put my faith in human beings and their natural abilities to come up with new innovative ways to deal with problems and I do not believe that global warming will cause all the worst-case scenarios that are being predicted. If we look at what we can reasonably expect, the picture is very different. So, it is not that I am not concerned about global warming, I am merely skeptical about the causes of the global warming that we see occurring and I wonder if
a. there will be new technological advances that will help remedy this.
b. there will be a change in scientific perception and once again we will be facing a new Ice Age
c. the worst-case scenarios will not emerge and we will 99.5 percent chance face new problems while on the other hand experiencing some net benefits as well.
d. Growing economies will be able to better afford the necessary environmental spending that will help remedy this problem better than economies that are growing more slowly because of Kyoto caps.[/quote]
Let me tell you a story boys and girls. Come sit by the fire, and get cozy. Grab your marshmellows and hot cocoa.
There once was a man called Chicken Little. One day, he looked up at the sky…
[quote=“fred smith”]Nice weak argument as usual JB:
Cannot prove your point so you try to make it seem that I do not care about AIDS, the poor, etc. etc. Typical Leftist claptrap when Republicans do not agree with them. Then, suddenly we not care about the poor, etc. but remember it was under enlightened Democrat leadership that the whole poverty and single-family explosion among poor black families occurred. Never have heard a Democrat say “sorry” about that. Why is that? Don’t you really care about the poor?
DB:
Poor loser? Why? I am merely pointing out that for all the media hype, we may not actually know the true causes of global warming. Why then was the Earth in a relatively warm period from 1100 to 1500? There were no mass burnings of fossil fuels then. And one volcanic eruption can do more to affect the climate than all the cars in one country.
Finally, if the US is to be constantly held up in the media for shame because it refuses to sign on to Kyoto what then are we to make of those countries who signed on and yet refuse or cannot make their targets? I mean once they sign on this becomes a matter of “international law” does it not? And if these nations are then breaking international law which the media claims would set such dangerous precedents for say action in Iraq, where are the howls of outrage from our concerned international citizenry? Oh you mean that they are being selective in their outrage? No. Really?
Finally, when someone can account for the warm period from 1100 to 1500 and then explain why the scientific community was mostly in agreement a mere 20 years ago that we were entering a new Ice Age, then I might sit up and listen to this global warming debate with a bit more concern. Yes, it may be a problem, just as a cooling Earth would be a problem and even one that remains at the same temperature is still going to suffer natural disasters like hurricanes and tornadoes etc. then I will listen.
Until then, I do not believe in Kyoto as the solution. Six years over the next 100 is not good enough for to suffer the economic dislocation that Kyoto would cause. I put my faith in human beings and their natural abilities to come up with new innovative ways to deal with problems and I do not believe that global warming will cause all the worst-case scenarios that are being predicted. If we look at what we can reasonably expect, the picture is very different. So, it is not that I am not concerned about global warming, I am merely skeptical about the causes of the global warming that we see occurring and I wonder if
a. there will be new technological advances that will help remedy this.
b. there will be a change in scientific perception and once again we will be facing a new Ice Age
c. the worst-case scenarios will not emerge and we will 99.5 percent chance face new problems while on the other hand experiencing some net benefits as well.
d. Growing economies will be able to better afford the necessary environmental spending that will help remedy this problem better than economies that are growing more slowly because of Kyoto caps.[/quote]
Let me tell you a story boys and girls. Come sit by the fire, and get cozy. Grab your marshmellows and hot cocoa.
There once was a man called Chicken Little. One day, he looked up at the sky…
I am glad you see it that way but you may not have wished to use Chicken Little. Chicken Little, as I recall, was always seeing the sky falling down but it never happened. Chicken Little got hit by an acorn or something and merely assumed foolishly that the sky was falling. Got it? I do and I thank you for your newly enlightened stance. Besides, a little flooding around the Bay area would certainly not be something that would send me rushing to bag sand.
For gawd’s sake, don’t you know that CATTLE in NEW ZEALAND account for the emission of more global-warming gases (methane, for one) than anything else on Earth?
Get your straw out of your glass-a-milk, and start trying to do something about it.
First of all, who is providing the most money for AIDS right now? Which country?
Second, who is doing the most to help Africa in your opinion right now? Which countries?
Third, if global warming were the crisis it is claimed to be why did none of the development experts invited for that panel discussion raise it as an issue?
Fourth, I know that cows emit methane gas. Thank you very much. What do you want to do about it?
Fifth, given your “concerns” do you think that Kyoto is the only way to deal with global warming? Do you think that it is the best way to deal with global warming?
Sixth, will global warming be ONLY bad or might there be some good from global warming?
Seventh, even if global warming were proved to be caused ONLY by humans, what steps would you take to remedy the situation? How much would it cost? Would this money be better spent elsewhere? How much economic dislocation (the kind we are trying to avoid happening from global warming) will occur and how will you deal with that?
Fred, I’d be very interested to hear just what benefits you think global warming will bring to us. Aside from the fact that people in Michigan will no longer need to shovel their driveways in winter.
Global warming will not only bring disasters. In fact, Canada, Russia, et al will have much longer growing seasons and will need to consume lots less heating oil during the winter. In fact, much of the global warming that we are experiencing now could be a natural reversal of the relatively cold weather that we have experienced from 1500 to 1900. After all, 900 to 1400 was a warm period during which the Vikings expanded and traveled across the north Atlantic to places like Vineland and Greenland which were MUCH warmer. Ergo perhaps the cooling could be seen from their point of view as a disaster as it was during the 1600s when the cold snap meant much shorter growing season throughout much of Europe with a disastrous effect on food supplies. My point throughout all this debate is that there really is no debate. We are being dictated to by the same militant groups that have in turn supported communism, marxism et al. It is really about leashing the forces of capitalism regardless of whether it is done through economic or environmental means. Now, I am not saying all the people in the environmental movement do not have the best of intentions but those who supported communism did famously as well. I think this requires a bit more rational thought and a lot less of the emotional histrionics of which the Left is so notorious for. I think that we are seeing this again. Communism was a religion to the Left. Now Environmental fascism is. The inflexible demand that all adhere to a certain code of orthodox and acceptable thought has me worried. While you and many others may believe that global warming is a threat, I and others may not be so worried. Why is it that we allow you and your side to voice their opinion but as soon as we try to dissent, we are somehow labeled as troglodytes that do not care about the environment? Again, if the environment and global warming were such crucial issues, why did the latest meeting on development not even list it in its top 10 issues?
I believe that global warming is more natural than manmade. Otherwise please account for the warm spell during 900 to 1400. I believe that human ingenuity and technology are much better tools to invest resources in than limiting carbon emissions though this can certainly be a goal as well. Let’s just not engage in self-mutilating economic pain to prevent ironically economic pain from occurring (maybe?) in 100 years? When the Kyoto Treaty’s best accomplishment for all the economic dislocation is to prevent warming but up (get this UP TO) six years in the next 100, then I think that it is not the right solution or approach to this problem. That is UP TO six year. The treaty cannot even guarantee that these stringent measures will even have this desired effect. Also, given that no one can predict the weather for tomorrow, I am certainly very curious as to how so many of these scientists are “so sure” today that these weather patterns will emerge in 100 years.
First of all, who is providing the most money for AIDS right now? Which country?
— and assorted rantings and ravings deleted to save space —
Hmmm?[/quote]
In the spirit of fighting global warming, I’ve decided not to answer you, because the amount of poisonous hot air you emit cannot be good for the global-warming situation.
So nothing to say. No facts to back up your argument Banshette. Hah! Typical leftist. Nothing but mindless drivel and outraged “feelings.” Bah! hahahaha Anyway have a nice Christmas and Happy New Year.
Hi Fred, back from a Christmas outing. Hope your holiday was entertaining. Now back to the question at hand…
Yes, I thought you might mention longer growing seasons - The Economist has tried to use that argument a few times in some of their anti-global-warming articles. Unfortunately, this bit of “good news” has a hole large enough to drive a logging truck through.
If you’re not already familiar with the term “taiga” or “boreal forest”:
Along with the tropical rain forests (which are fast disappearing), the taiga are the “lungs” of the earth. It’s largely thanks to these forests that the earth’s atmosphere is 21% oxygen. Get rid of this forest, and you’ll an even more rapid increase in carbon dioxide buildup. Quite simply, it would be a really bad idea to cut down the forest so that we can grow wheat or tomatoes. But even if we don’t cut it down for agriculture, the warmer weather is killing these trees anyway. And it’s already causing huge economic losses, devastating Alaska’s logging industry:
There is also the simple matter that any significant global warming will lead to sea level rises. Despite the impressive photos of Mt. McKinley, much of the Arctic is low-lying, and valuable land will be lost beneath the waves (including Anchorage, Alaska’s largest city). This is in addition to the loss of very good coastal agricultural land in such places like Bangladesh, where there are a lot of mouths to feed. I do kind of wonder where all those Bangladeshis are going to move to - do you think the Canadians or Russians will welcome them with open arms? Perhaps they can emigrate to your favorite country, France.
Well, you are right that Alaskans, Canadians and Russians will save on the heating oil. In fact, they are already saving, with all those dead trees supplying logs for their wood stoves. However, I can’t help but think that elsewhere in the world, people are going to be spending more on air conditioning. As they say, what goes round, comes round.
Have a happy new year, Fred, and don’t let the cheese-eating surrender monkeys get you down.
best regards,
Robert
Ever notice that the word “therapist” breaks down into “the rapist”? Simple coincidence? Maybe…
There are how many billion automobiles on this planet? How many thousands of square miles of forest destroyed every year? And yet some otherwise apparently intelligent people still doubt that the rise in tempatures that we are seeing is related to these human activities. Unbelievable
Then, please explain to me why all these disastrous events and occurrences did NOT take place when the world was naturally warmer from 900 to 1400? Why is it that during the Roman period, grapes were grown all over England? The unnatural event was the cold snap of the past 400 years. Given that all of these earlier events occurred without human automobiles etc. I believe that these represent natural cycles that humans may contribute to but are not primarily responsible for. AND most importantly, if Kyoto can only stave off global warming by six years in the next 100 and this is a BEST CASE scenario, then I am not interested in the economic restrictions that it imposes. The cost does not translate into acceptable benefits.
Therefore, we will have to agree to disagree but I will be voting against any signing on to any Kyoto Treaty or any other such policy that severely curtails economic growth for “presumed” benefits that may or may not occur 100 years from now.
More unsubstantiated claims and stubborn denial from the Right. You claim that humans didn’t cause the gobal warming from 900 to 1400? Prove it. Please provide a link stating that automobiles were not at least partly to blame for the Middle Ages Warm Period.
I think most of us suspect that the environmental devestation of the Middle Ages was brought about by the US auto industry (including Halliburton) and a lack of sufficient environmental regulations by the Republican administrations of that time. So if you want to assert that the previous Global Warming spell was not caused by humans (specifically Republicans) then I think we’d all like to see a little evidence to back up your lame denial/defense.
A lot of us are sick of the noise and stink of automobiles regardless of whether or not they cause global warming. We are sick of traffic jams, gory accidents, air/noise pollution, living space wasted on automobiles, cities designed not for people but for cars. We are sick of spending so much time working just to pay for our cars. Developed nations should increase the tax on gas and use the revenue to build more effecient mass rapid transit.
I think this is a perfectly legitimate position. And if people want to lobby their representatives for this (or organize a ballot initiative if they’re worried that the reps are in the pocket of the auto-makers lobby) then I think that’s perfectly legitimate too.
The only concern I would have would be if policies like this were to be enacted top-down, as a paternalistic government progam along the lines of “We know what kind lifestyle you little people should want, and so that’s what we’re going to give you. If you don’t understand that this is better then that’s just because you are not educated/sophisticated enough to appreciate it – not having gone to college back east or and travelled to Europe on your parents’ money.”
So I guess the question is: what is it that most people want? I have no idea. In some places (Manhattan, for example) people do seem to want the dense urban environment – and many people do use public transportation.
In many other places, it seems that people are flocking to suburbs and communities that are specifically designed for cars, and large parks, and wide open spaces – because many people seem to prefer that way of living.
Whenever this subject has come up with my friend who is an urban planner (and a very nice and well-meaning person), she tells me with complete sincerity that people don’t really prefer that – they just haven’t been exposed to the European style, or they have been brainwashed by the auto industry, or something along those lines. Again, I truly believes that she wants to improve people’s lives, but she just cannot get her mind around the idea that people less educated than her might just have their own preferences that are right for them but wrong for her.
