This is a very interesting article on global warming. Long but better than these supposed sites run by “scientists who are not employed by Exxon.”
theatlantic.com/doc/200007/global-warming
and just so you understand, this article and its conclusions are not in alignment with what I think. It is a whole new “paragdigm.” But again, I think that this is very interesting and the points are well-made.
fred
[quote]Treasury Secretary Nominee Says Failure To Ratify Kyoto Undermines U.S. Competitiveness
President Bush’s new nominee for Treasury Secretary, Goldman Sachs Chairman Henry M. Paulson Jr., not only endorses the Kyoto Protocol to limit greenhouse emissions, but argues that the United States’ failure to enact Kyoto undermines the competitiveness of U.S. companies. Here’s a statement from the Nature Conservancy, where Paulson serves as chairman of the board:
The Kyoto Protocol is a key first step to help slow the onslaught of global warming and benefit conservation efforts…Until the United States passes its own limits on global warming emissions, innovative companies based here will lose out on opportunities to sell reduced emission credits to companies complying with the Kyoto Protocol overseas. Additionally, without enacting our own emission limits, U.S. companies will lose ground to their competitors in Europe,[b] Canada[/b], Japan, and other countries participating in the Protocol who are developing clean technologies.
Goldman Sachs, under Paulson’s leadership, argued that the danger from global warming is imminent and requires “urgent” action by government to reduce emissions:
[C]limate change is one of the most significant environmental challenges of the 21st century and is linked to other important issues such as economic growth and development… Goldman Sachs is very concerned by the threat to our natural environment, to humans and to the economy presented by climate change and believes that it requires the urgent attention of and action by governments, business, consumers and civil society to curb greenhouse gas emissions.
As a result, Paulson’s nomination is strongly opposed by a coalition right-wing groups seeking to cast doubt on climate science, such as the National Center for Public Policy Research, describing Paulson as “diametrically opposed to the positions of [the Bush] Administration.”[/quote]http://thinkprogress.org/2006/05/30
Well, under the Tories, Canada will join the losers…
Well, it’s a good thing he will be in charge of overall financial policy and not environemental policy then I guess eh? EH? haha
This is not about global warming, but environmental protection. Kyoto Protocol just did not jive with Bush’s policy platform, but he does not have the power to reverse past laws past. One of the few advantages of four-year terms
More:
link
More from James Hansen, Director of NASA’s Goddard Institute on On Point Radio
and an article in The New York Review of Books
Oh dear, what are all these inconvenient truths about? Better find out… Oh dear. Not what I expected not at all…
[quote]With An Inconvenient Truth, the companion book to former Vice President Al Gore’s global-warming movie, currently number nine in Amazon sales rank, this is a good time to point out that the book, which is a largely pictorial representation of the movie’s graphical presentation, exaggerates the evidence surrounding global warming. Ironically, the former Vice President leaves out many truths that are inconvenient for his argument. Here are just 25 of them.
Carbon Dioxide’s Effect on Temperature. The relationship between global temperature and carbon dioxide (CO2), on which the entire scare is founded, is not linear. Every molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere contributes less to warming than the previous one. The book’s graph on p. 66-67 is seriously misleading. Moreover, even the historical levels of CO2 shown on the graph are disputed. Evidence from plant fossil-remains suggest that there was as much CO2 in the atmosphere about 11,000 years ago as there is today.
Kilimanjaro. The snows of Kilimanjaro are melting not because of global warming but because of a local climate shift that began 100 years ago. The authors of a report in the International Journal of Climatology “develop a new concept for investigating the retreat of Kilimanjaro’s glaciers, based on the physical understanding of glacier–climate interactions.” They note that, “The concept considers the peculiarities of the mountain and implies that climatological processes other than air temperature control the ice recession in a direct manner. A drastic drop in atmospheric moisture at the end of the 19th century and the ensuing drier climatic conditions are likely forcing glacier retreat on Kilimanjaro.”
Glaciers. Glaciers around the world have been receding at around the same pace for over 100 years. Research published by the National Academy of Sciences last week indicates that the Peruvian glacier on p. 53-53 probably disappeared a few thousand years ago.
The Medieval Warm Period. Al Gore says that the “hockey stick” graph that shows temperatures remarkably steady for the last 1,000 years has been validated, and ridicules the concept of a “medieval warm period.” That’s not the case. Last year, a team of leading paleoclimatologists said, “When matching existing temperature reconstructions…the timeseries display a reasonably coherent picture of major climatic episodes: ‘Medieval Warm Period,’ ‘Little Ice Age’ and ‘Recent Warming.’” They go on to conclude, “So what would it mean, if the reconstructions indicate a larger…or smaller…temperature amplitude? We suggest that the former situation, i.e. enhanced variability during pre-industrial times, would result in a redistribution of weight towards the role of natural factors in forcing temperature changes, thereby relatively devaluing the impact of anthropogenic emissions and affecting future temperature predictions.”
The Hottest Year. Satellite temperature measurements say that 2005 wasn’t the hottest year on record — 1998 was — and that temperatures have been stable since 2001 (p.73). Here’s the satellite graph:
Heat Waves. The summer heat wave that struck Europe in 2003 was caused by an atmospheric pressure anomaly; it had nothing to do with global warming. As the United Nations Environment Program reported in September 2003, “This extreme wheather [sic] was caused by an anti-cyclone firmly anchored over the western European land mass holding back the rain-bearing depressions that usually enter the continent from the Atlantic ocean. This situation was exceptional in the extended length of time (over 20 days) during which it conveyed very hot dry air up from south of the Mediterranean.”
Record Temperatures. Record temperatures — hot and cold — are set every day around the world; that’s the nature of records. Statistically, any given place will see four record high temperatures set every year. There is evidence that daytime high temperatures are staying about the same as for the last few decades, but nighttime lows are gradually rising. Global warming might be more properly called, “Global less cooling.” (On this, see Patrick J. Michaels book, Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media.)
Hurricanes. There is no overall global trend of hurricane-force storms getting stronger that has anything to do with temperature. A recent study in Geophysical Research Letters found: “The data indicate a large increasing trend in tropical cyclone intensity and longevity for the North Atlantic basin and a considerable decreasing trend for the Northeast Pacific. All other basins showed small trends, and there has been no significant change in global net tropical cyclone activity. There has been a small increase in global Category 4–5 hurricanes from the period 1986–1995 to the period 1996–2005. Most of this increase is likely due to improved observational technology. These findings indicate that other important factors govern intensity and frequency of tropical cyclones besides SSTs [sea surface temperatures].”
Tornadoes. Records for numbers of tornadoes are set because we can now record more of the smaller tornadoes (see, for instance, the Tornado FAQ at Weather Underground).
European Flooding. European flooding is not new (p. 107). Similar flooding happened in 2003. Research from Michael Mudelsee and colleagues from the University of Leipzig published in Nature (Sept. 11, 2003) looked at data reaching as far back as 1021 (for the Elbe) and 1269 (for the Oder). They concluded that there is no upward trend in the incidence of extreme flooding in this region of central Europe.
Shrinking Lakes. Scientists investigating the disappearance of Lake Chad (p.116) found that most of it was due to human overuse of water. “The lake’s decline probably has nothing to do with global warming, report the two scientists, who based their findings on computer models and satellite imagery made available by NASA. They attribute the situation instead to human actions related to climate variation, compounded by the ever increasing demands of an expanding population” (“Shrinking African Lake Offers Lesson on Finite Resources,” National Geographic, April 26, 2001). Lake Chad is also a very shallow lake that has shrunk considerably throughout human history.
Polar Bears. Polar bears are not becoming endangered. A leading Canadian polar bear biologist wrote recently, “Climate change is having an effect on the west Hudson population of polar bears, but really, there is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear (sic) to be affected at present.”
The Gulf Stream. The Gulf Stream, the ocean conveyor belt, is not at risk of shutting off in the North Atlantic (p. 150). Carl Wunsch of MIT wrote to the journal Nature in 2004 to say, “The only way to produce an ocean circulation without a Gulf Stream is either to turn off the wind system, or to stop the Earth’s rotation, or both”
Invasive Species. Gore’s worries about the effect of warming on species ignore evolution. With the new earlier caterpillar season in the Netherlands, an evolutionary advantage is given to birds that can hatch their eggs earlier than the rest. That’s how nature works. Also, “invasive species” naturally extend their range when climate changes. As for the pine beetle given as an example of invasive species, Rob Scagel, a forest microclimate specialist in British Columbia, said, “The MPB (mountain pine beetle) is a species native to this part of North America and is always present. The MPB epidemic started as comparatively small outbreaks and through forest management inaction got completely out of hand.”
Species Loss. When it comes to species loss, the figures given on p. 163 are based on extreme guesswork, as the late Julian Simon pointed out. We have documentary evidence of only just over 1,000 extinctions since 1600 (see, for instance, Bjørn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist, p. 250).
Coral Reefs. Coral reefs have been around for over 500 million years. This means that they have survived through long periods with much higher temperatures and atmospheric CO2 concentrations than today.
Malaria and other Infectious Diseases. Leading disease scientists contend that climate change plays only a minor role in the spread of emerging infectious diseases. In “Global Warming and Malaria: A Call for Accuracy” (The Lancet, June 2004), nine leading malariologists criticized models linking global warming to increased malaria spread as “misleading” and “display[ing] a lack of knowledge” of the subject.
Antarctic Ice. There is controversy over whether the Antarctic ice sheet is thinning or thickening. Recent scientific studies have shown a thickening in the interior at the same time as increased melting along the coastlines. Temperatures in the interior are generally decreasing. The Antarctic Peninsula, where the Larsen-B ice shelf broke up (p. 181) is not representative of what is happening in the rest of Antarctica. Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, Professor Emeritus of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology at Stockholm University, acknowledges, “Some small areas in the Antarctic Peninsula have broken up recently, just like it has done back in time. The temperature in this part of Antarctica has increased recently, probably because of a small change in the position of the low pressure systems.” According to a forthcoming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, climate models based on anthropogenic forcing cannot explain the anomalous warming of the Antarctic Peninsula; thus, something natural is at work.
Greenland Climate. Greenland was warmer in the 1920s and 1930s than it is now. A recent study by Dr. Peter Chylek of the University of California, Riverside, addressed the question of whether man is directly responsible for recent warming: “An important question is to what extent can the current (1995-2005) temperature increase in Greenland coastal regions be interpreted as evidence of man-induced global warming? Although there has been a considerable temperature increase during the last decade (1995 to 2005) a similar increase and at a faster rate occurred during the early part of the 20th century (1920 to 1930) when carbon dioxide or other greenhouse gases could not be a cause. The Greenland warming of 1920 to 1930 demonstrates that a high concentration of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is not a necessary condition for period of warming to arise. The observed 1995-2005 temperature increase seems to be within a natural variability of Greenland climate.” (Petr Chylek et al., Geophysical Research Letters, 13 June 2006.)
Sea Level Rise. The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change does not forecast sea-level rises of “18 to 20 feet.” Rather, it says, “We project a sea level rise of 0.09 to 0.88 m for 1990 to 2100, with a central value of 0.48 m. The central value gives an average rate of 2.2 to 4.4 times the rate over the 20th century…It is now widely agreed that major loss of grounded ice and accelerated sea level rise are very unlikely during the 21st century.” Al Gore’s suggestions of much more are therefore extremely alarmist.
Population. Al Gore worries about population growth; Gore does not suggest a solution. Fertility in the developed world is stable or decreasing. The plain fact is that we are not going to reduce population back down to 2 billion or fewer in the foreseeable future. In the meantime, the population in the developing world requires a significant increase in its standard of living to reduce the threats of premature and infant mortality, disease, and hunger. In The Undercover Economist, Tim Harford writes, “If we are honest, then, the argument that trade leads to economic growth, which leads to climate change, leads us then to a stark conclusion: we should cut our trade links to make sure that the Chinese, Indians and Africans stay poor. The question is whether any environmental catastrophe, even severe climate change, could possibly inflict the same terrible human cost as keeping three or four billion people in poverty. To ask that question is to answer it.”
Energy Generation. A specific example of this is Gore’s acknowledgement that 30 percent of global CO2 emissions come from wood fires used for cooking (p. 227). If we introduced affordable, coal-fired power generation into South Asia and Africa we could reduce this considerably and save over 1.6 million lives a year. This is the sort of solution that Gore does not even consider.
Carbon-Emissions Trading. The European Carbon Exchange Market, touted as “effective” on p. 252, has crashed.
The “Scientific Consensus.” On the supposed “scientific consensus”: Dr. Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California, San Diego, (p. 262) did not examine a “large random sample” of scientific articles. She got her search terms wrong and thought she was looking at all the articles when in fact she was looking at only 928 out of about 12,000 articles on “climate change.” Dr. Benny Peiser, of Liverpool John Moores University in England, was unable to replicate her study. He says, “As I have stressed repeatedly, the whole data set includes only 13 abstracts (~1%) that explicitly endorse what Oreskes has called the ‘consensus view.’ In fact, the vast majority of abstracts does (sic) not mention anthropogenic climate change. Moreover — and despite attempts to deny this fact — a handful of abstracts actually questions the view that human activities are the main driving force of ‘the observed warming over the last 50 years.’” In addition, a recent survey of scientists following the same methodology as one published in 1996 found that about 30 percent of scientists disagreed to some extent or another with the contention that “climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.” Less than 10 percent “strongly agreed” with the statement. Details of both the survey and the failed attempt to replicate the Oreskes study can be found here.
Economic Costs. Even if the study Gore cites is right (p. 280-281), the United States will still emit massive amounts of CO2 after all the measures it outlines have been realized. Getting emissions down to the paltry levels needed to stabilize CO2 in the atmosphere would require, in Gore’s own words, “a wrenching transformation” of our way of life. This cannot be done easily or without significant cost. The Kyoto Protocol, which Gore enthusiastically supports, would avert less than a tenth of a degree of warming in the next fifty years and would cost up to $400 billion a year to the U.S. All of the current proposals in Congress would cost the economy significant amounts, making us all poorer, with all that that entails for human health and welfare, while doing nothing to stop global warming.
Finally, Gore quotes Winston Churchill (p. 100) — but he should read what Churchill said when he was asked what qualities a politician requires: “The ability to foretell what is going to happen tomorrow, next week, next month and next year. And to have the ability afterwards to explain why it didn’t happen.”
—Iain Murray is a senior fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.[/quote]
Here’s a Fredian reply…
blah blah blah wrong blah blah no global warming blah blah.
Interesting to note that, in the article, both glaciers and temperatures began the decline both at 100 years ago. What happened around 100 years ago? An exponential increase in global manufacturing and emissions perhaps?
other statements are just conclusionary or based on faulty logic.
That said, the quotations or studies of the cited scientists, I won’t dismiss out of hand without looking at the source.
What an odd coincidence that Fred should post his anti-science propaganda on the same day that the US’s top science organization, the National Academies, just published a paper endorsing an earlier study that found strong evidence of global warming caused by man.
[quote]Science Panel Backs Study on Warming Climate
WASHINGTON, June 22 — A controversial [color=red]paper asserting that recent warming in the Northern Hemisphere was probably unrivaled for 1,000 years was endorsed today, with a few reservations, by a panel convened by the nation’s pre-eminent scientific body. [/color]. .
The study, led by Michael E. Mann, a climatologist now at Pennsylvania State University, was the first to estimate widespread climate trends by stitching together a grab bag of evidence, including variations in ancient tree rings and temperatures measured in deep holes in the earth.
It has been repeatedly attacked by Republican lawmakers and some business-financed groups as built on cherry-picked data meant to create an alarming view of recent warming and play down past natural warm periods.
At a news conference at the headquarters of the National Academies, several members of the panel reviewing the study said they saw no sign that its authors had intentionally chosen data sets or methods to get a desired result. . .
the panel . . . expressed high confidence that[color=red] warming over the last 25 years exceeded any peaks since 1600[/color]. And in a news conference here today, three panelists said the current warming was[color=red] probably, but not certainly, beyond any peaks since the year 900.[/color]
The experts said there was no reliable way to make estimates for surface-temperature trends in the first millennium A.D.
In the report, the panel stressed that the significant remaining uncertainties about climate patterns over the last 2,000 years did not weaken the scientific case that the current warming trend was caused mainly by people, through the buildup of heat-trapping greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
[color=red]“Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities[/color], and they are not the primary evidence,” the report said. . .
The report was done at the request of Representative Sherwood Boehlert, the New York Republican who is chairman of the House Science Committee, who called last November for a review of the 1999 study and related research to clear the air.
In a statement, Mr. Boehlert, who is retiring at the end of the year, expressed satisfaction with the results, saying, [color=red]"There is nothing in this report that should raise any doubts about the broad scientific consensus on global climate change .[/color] . .[/quote]
nytimes.com/2006/06/22/scien … r=homepage
My only question is “Fred, why do you hate science?”
haha nice try. Again, my MAIN POINT in all of this is global warming or climate change as it is now called since the global warming thing did not work out so well is that what are we going to do about it? I completely disagree with Kyoto which under the best of circumstances is going to postpone global warming by 6 years in the next 100 at huge economic cost. WHY should we support Kyoto? I believe that the best solution is to rely on human ingenuity and INCREASED economic development to reduce these problems. Notice that 30 percent of global warming (as stated by Gore) is caused by wood fires in poor countries. Give them development and that is going to go away. Again, economic development not Kyoto is the solution. Shouldn’t those nations who have actually signed onto Kyoto actually be the first to meet their targets before criticizing those who have refused to sign on because they know the treaty is fatally flawed?
So unless these scientist have signed on to Kyoto which I noticed that they did not, then I have no problem with the report. I have no problem with the fact that temperatures are rising. I merely pointed out that the Medieval Warming period occurred without human causes. How do we know that this time the increased temperatures are human caused? and not just a natural phenomenon and why should we lose billions in economic development for what? postponing this by six years in the next 100 under OPTIMAL conditions. Stop trying to deflect this point. The point remains that even under the best conditions, the global warming advocates and Kyoto treaty advocates can do nothing to stop this change.
This just today, from CNN: [quote]The National Academy of Sciences, reaching that conclusion in a broad review of scientific work requested by Congress, reported Thursday that the “recent warmth is unprecedented for at least the last 400 years and potentially the last several millennia.”
A panel of top climate scientists told lawmakers that Earth is heating up and that “human activities are responsible for much of the recent warming.” [/quote]
And today feels like 39 degrees C! 
More glorious news on the carbon fighting front from one of the er frontline states. Glorious news. Claba the environment! Glory to the environment and the efforts of the workers to achieve success!
[quote]The German government has unveiled a plan to cut carbon emissions from business by less than 1% by 2012. The figures were revealed as part of Germany’s submission to Europe’s flagship environment policy, the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (ETS). The German government depicts this as a 6% cut from the period 2000-2002. But set against the real allocation for Germany industry in 2005 it amounts to a cut of only 0.63%, which campaign groups have greeted with dismay.
“These figures are unbelievable, pathetically unambitious,” said Regina Gunther from WWF Germany. “It is shameful that our environment minister has agreed to this.” The German position is ridiculous - this agreement is nothing to do with protecting the climate. Critics are even more upset that the limits will not apply to new power plants for 14 years from 2008, and that the government has decided to hand industry all its emission permits free of charge. The EU encourages member states to auction up to 10% of permits in order to create a more genuine market in which firms have to reveal their true intentions; but this has been rejected. The UK says it will auction between 2% and 10% of permits. Professor Michael Grubb of the UK Carbon Trust, set up by the British government to help create a low-carbon economy, said: "I have been a big supporter of the EU ETS, but hearing the German news I feel more depressed than I ever have done about our ability to tackle climate change. “I really believed that Europe would lead the way through the EU ETS, but now I wonder whether this will ever happen.” A German environment ministry spokesman, Michael Schroeren, argued that Germany’s carbon targets up to 2012 were stricter than they appeared. He said last year’s carbon emissions total of 474 million tonnes from big industry might have been an anomaly, so Germany had to allow for that.
He said Germany was still committed to its Kyoto Protocol target, but would achieve carbon cuts through other measures. One plan is to cut three million tonnes of carbon by training motorists to drive more economically. The normally temperate Prof Grubb poured scorn on the suggestion of an anomaly. “The German position is ridiculous - their emissions had been coming down over a long period of time - last year’s figures are definitely not a blip and this agreement is certainly nothing to do with protecting the climate.”
The decision represents a major success for the German business lobby. Green groups believe the government was warned by power firms that they would be unwilling to invest in new plant unless they were exempted for a period from the compliance regime. Last year German industries were so successful in lobbying that their government handed them 21 million more tonnes of carbon permits than they actually needed. This pushed down the value of carbon in the EU ETS carbon market and made emissions savings less attractive to businesses across the EU. The carbon price bounced back when traders found that some nations like the UK had forced unexpectedly large CO2 cuts on their power sectors. Britain has previously announced that it will cut CO2 between three and eight million tonnes during ETS phase two, although a new figure may be imminent. The UK government said it would wait on the German decision because in the previous phase of the ETS, British firms complained that their German peers had been given too many carbon permits which conferred a competitive advantage. The Swedish government has agreed to a lax cap on CO2 and is expected to stick to that unless Germany and the UK impose much stricter caps. This now looks most unlikely.
Germany’s lax ETS target will have disproportionate impact because other European nations have relied more than Germany on the trading system for their CO2 cuts. There is now unlikely to be upward pressure on carbon prices to drive new investment in clean technology. European weakness on ETS phase two targets will badly under-cut the EU’s position in international negotiations on climate. The German news came as the European Environment Agency released figures showing that
the EU is badly under-achieving on its Kyoto targets.
[/quote]
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/5126402.stm
Well, my my my my my… If this is what the proponents of climate change are doing to stop it… Why the big fuss when those of us who disagree with these methods as being counterproductive sit on the sidelines. Pathetic.
No doubt this is the fault of President Bush… 
No doubt. Did you catch the Taipei Times editorial today? Apparently when the UN was asked to set its priorities, global warming and the Kyoto Treaty came in at #27. Boy, it is so obvious from most of the world’s leaders that “climate change” is the real big issue over hunger, development, clean water, fighting disease, corruption, etc.
Interesting that there has been no reply to this new development. The UN has put global warming at #27 out of 40 “priorities.” I thought that so many of our earnest leftwing types found it most easy to genuflect before anything bearing the UN imprimatur. Why not now? eh? Cat got your tongues? haha
More on the global warming front…
[quote]"Global warming may or may not be the great environmental crisis of the next century, but – regardless of whether it is or isn’t – we won’t do much about it. We will (I am sure) argue ferociously over it and may even, as a nation, make some fairly solemn-sounding commitments to avoid it. But the more dramatic and meaningful these commitments seem, the less likely they are to be observed. Little will be done. . . . Global warming promises to become a gushing source of national hypocrisy.’’
Well, so it has. In three decades of columns, I’ve never quoted myself at length, but here it’s necessary. Al Gore calls global warming an “inconvenient truth,” as if merely recognizing it could put us on a path to a solution. That’s an illusion. The real truth is that we don’t know enough to relieve global warming, and – barring major technological breakthroughs – we can’t do much about it. This was obvious nine years ago; it’s still obvious. Let me explain.
From 2003 to 2050, the world’s population is projected to grow from 6.4 billion people to 9.1 billion, a 42 percent increase. If energy use per person and technology remain the same, total energy use and greenhouse gas emissions (mainly, carbon dioxide) will be 42 percent higher in 2050. But that’s too low, because societies that grow richer use more energy. Unless we condemn the world’s poor to their present poverty – and freeze everyone else’s living standards – we need economic growth. With modest growth, energy use and greenhouse emissions more than double by 2050.
Just keeping annual greenhouse gas emissions constant means that the world must somehow offset these huge increases. There are two ways: Improve energy efficiency, or shift to energy sources with lower (or no) greenhouse emissions. Intuitively, you sense this is tough. China, for example, builds about one coal-fired power plant a week. Now a new report from the International Energy Agency in Paris shows all the difficulties (the population, economic growth and energy projections cited above come from the report).
The IEA report assumes that existing technologies are rapidly improved and deployed. Vehicle fuel efficiency increases by 40 percent. In electricity generation, the share for coal (the fuel with the most greenhouse gases) shrinks from about 40 percent to about 25 percent – and much carbon dioxide is captured before going into the atmosphere. Little is captured today. Nuclear energy increases. So do “renewables” (wind, solar, biomass, geothermal); their share of global electricity output rises from 2 percent now to about 15 percent.
Some of these changes seem heroic. They would require tough government regulation, continued technological gains and public acceptance of higher fuel prices. Never mind. Having postulated a crash energy diet, the IEA simulates five scenarios with differing rates of technological change. In each, greenhouse emissions in 2050 are higher than today. The increases vary from 6 percent to 27 percent.
Since 1800 there’s been modest global warming. I’m unqualified to judge between those scientists (the majority) who blame man-made greenhouse gases and those (a small minority) who finger natural variations in the global weather system. But if the majority are correct, the IEA report indicates we’re now powerless. We can’t end annual greenhouse emissions, and once in the atmosphere, the gases seem to linger for decades. So concentration levels rise. They’re the villains; they presumably trap the world’s heat. They’re already about 36 percent higher than in 1800. Even with its program, the IEA says another 45 percent rise may be unavoidable. How much warming this might create is uncertain; so are the consequences.
I draw two conclusions – one political, one practical.
No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they’re “doing something.” The result is grandstanding. Consider the Kyoto Protocol. It allowed countries that joined to castigate those that didn’t. But it hasn’t reduced carbon dioxide emissions (up about 25 percent since 1990), and many signatories didn’t adopt tough enough policies to hit their 2008-2012 targets. By some estimates, Europe may overshoot by 15 percent and Japan by 25 percent.
Ambitious U.S. politicians also practice this self-serving hypocrisy. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a global warming program. Gore counts 221 cities that have “ratified” Kyoto. Some pledge to curb their greenhouse emissions. None of these programs will reduce global warming. They’re public relations exercises and – if they impose costs – are undesirable. (Note: on national security grounds, I favor taxing oil, but the global warming effect would be trivial.) The practical conclusion is that if global warming is a potential calamity, the only salvation is new technology. I once received an e-mail from an engineer. Thorium, he said. I had never heard of thorium. It is, he argued, a nuclear fuel that is more plentiful and safer than uranium without waste disposal problems. It’s an exit from the global warming trap. After reading many articles, I gave up trying to decide whether he is correct. But his larger point is correct: Only an aggressive research and development program might find ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it. Perhaps some system could purge the atmosphere of surplus greenhouse gases?
The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it’s really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don’t solve the engineering problem, we’re helpless.[/quote]
To Fred Smith, ardent advocate of DDT…
news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/5145450.stm
[quote]It was already known DDT was linked to premature births and low birthweight.
For each tenfold increase in DDT levels measured in the mother, the team found a corresponding two to three-point decrease in the children’s mental development scores at 12 and 24 months.[/quote]
[quote=“fred smith”] No government will adopt the draconian restrictions on economic growth and personal freedom (limits on electricity usage, driving and travel) that might curb global warming. Still, politicians want to show they’re “doing something.” The result is grandstanding. Consider the Kyoto Protocol. It allowed countries that joined to castigate those that didn’t. But it hasn’t reduced carbon dioxide emissions (up about 25 percent since 1990), and many signatories didn’t adopt tough enough policies to hit their 2008-2012 targets. By some estimates, Europe may overshoot by 15 percent and Japan by 25 percent.
Ambitious U.S. politicians also practice this self-serving hypocrisy. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has a global warming program. Gore counts 221 cities that have “ratified” Kyoto. Some pledge to curb their greenhouse emissions. None of these programs will reduce global warming. They’re public relations exercises and – if they impose costs – are undesirable. (Note: on national security grounds, I favor taxing oil, but the global warming effect would be trivial.) The practical conclusion is that if global warming is a potential calamity, the only salvation is new technology. I once received an e-mail from an engineer. Thorium, he said. I had never heard of thorium. It is, he argued, a nuclear fuel that is more plentiful and safer than uranium without waste disposal problems. It’s an exit from the global warming trap. After reading many articles, I gave up trying to decide whether he is correct. But his larger point is correct: Only an aggressive research and development program might find ways of breaking our dependence on fossil fuels or dealing with it. Perhaps some system could purge the atmosphere of surplus greenhouse gases?
The trouble with the global warming debate is that it has become a moral crusade when it’s really an engineering problem. The inconvenient truth is that if we don’t solve the engineering problem, we’re helpless.[/quote]
washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co … 00789.html[/quote]
Congratulations fred. You are beginning to see the light. An oil tax would not only discourage to some extent the wasteful use of oil and lessen our reliance on middle eastern sources but would encourage the kind of technological research you mention. A portion of the revenue from the tax gas could be used to support such research and the rest used to fund public transit developments. These are the best alternatives and it is a moral issue. If you reject these logical alternatives politically, and practically by driving excessively or by driving an SUV or other such penis extension, you are behaving unethically.
Jack:
Thanks for the cute remark. It is nice that you care about the low-weight births. That clearly is so much more important than the remarks by numerous experts that use of DDT in Africa can save MILLIONS of LIVES. Get that? Hundreds of millions have died of malaria since DDT was banned but it is nice to know that DDT seems to be connected to low-weight births. 100s of millions compared with low-weight births. Do you people ever think before you respond? But like dude. I read like this book once and it was like so totally slamming like use of DDT like cuz you know birds will like have thinner egg shells and like Silent Scream, yeah, like I read that like in my environmental awareness class and this author Rachel Someone, like not that Corrie chick that got plowed by the bulldozer in Gaza but this other Rachel chick, you know, and she was like so against DDT cuz it was like bad for the environment. None of the findings were true? But like dude, birds were suffering and stuff. Nothing to do with DDT you say? But like I feel like chemicals are bad and even worse and like the corporations because all they care about is money and not the environment so like corporations make like DDT so like dude, DDT ergo you know must be bad for the environment and anyway I don’t care what you say because I don’t like corporations…
As to Bob…
Why oh why have so few development experts or others in charge of dealing with the world’s many problems put global warming as a key concern. It was #27 on the most recent list. Not even in the top 10 and barely in the top 30. Oh, and it was not global warming but climate change. That could include desertification in Africa or elsewhere which may not even be caused by “global warming.” So you are the big advocate of doing something about global warming. What do you have to say to the experts who do not even list it among their top concerns? Why is this? Are they evil Republicans too?
I am not in favor of oil taxes necessarily. I have merely quoted someone on the subject. He is of the opinion that oil and gas taxes will have a negligible effect on global warming. Answer him and don’t pretend that the view is mine.
Ah yes, you simpletons and your public transportation. Yet, in Europe, where such systems are highly developed… what is the effect on their carbon emission rates? are they then better able to meet their Kyoto Protocol commitments. No? Er. Bit embarrassing for you eh Bob?
So why no massive support among the development experts and those dealing with crucial global issues?
for YOU, it certainly is a moral issue. That is why I laugh when so many lefties claim that religion is stupid and adherents of established religions are somehow intellectually inferior. The environment has become a religion for many people such as yourself and satisfies your need to be “good.” I would attempt to launch another discussion of the psychological and philosophical ramifications of such needs but we all know that ain’t exactly your forte, eh Bob?
I love how you mix logically and politically in the same sentence and I am assuming that you are doing so with a very earnest straight face?
No. What is unethical is your morbid obsession with class issues and your (ironic) contempt for the mass-market consumption that you find so distasteful. On the one hand, you hate the ignorant masses for being “above you” for having more money to buy such cars and on the other hand you hate them for being “below you” for not have the same aesthetic appreciation for a non-car world. Yikes. I do not even want to “touch” your issues with “penis extension.” Why not just go online and do what you have to do, buy what you have to buy, to feel good about yourself.
Even by your usual low standards these are really cheap, stupid comments today fred. Almost below responding to but in case anybody else is foolish enough to read your garbage I’ll make a quick reply…
A movement towards mass transit is a move towards more sustainable, enjoyable living, not just a move away from global warming and a reliance on middle eastern oil.
Take a walk. Get to an intersection and as you stand there breathing the exhaust remind yourself that it is only cars that make such maddness necessary. If there were no cars there would be no need for traffic lights and no need to stand there increasing your risk of lung cancer.
If you don’t think rapid transit, as it has been developed so far in the cities you mentioned, or in Taipei for that matter, has helped to ease traffic congestion, check out those cities on one of the rare days the transit system is down.
Whether or not I can afford a car or would love to drive a car is an entirely “seperate issue” I can think of many things I would love to do and am capable of doing, but refrain from doing such things because they would be harmful to other, innocent people. Perhaps you are familiar with the concept.
I really wonder how you live with being SO WRONG ALL THE TIME. I have honestly never had the experience. Perhaps you could share with us some of the psychological defense mechanisms you employ to sustain your delusions in the face of such a total defeat.