Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

Byron · 2003-12-04 07:41:58

I've been reading in the newspaper the past couple of days about whether Russia may sign on to the Kyoto Protocol or not. Yesterday they were saying no, which would kill the whole thing, but they seem to be waffling today, as they apparently have about $1bil US in reserve CO2 credits they'd be able to trade with other nations.

Personally, I think the whole Kyoto Protocol should be scrapped...as a 5% reduction of CO2 levels by the year 2010 isn't going to amount to a hill of beans. If the Earth really is experiencing global, CO2-induced warmth, there is precious little we can do about it for at least 100 years, perhaps even longer. Another thing, Kyoto lets developing nations (like China and India...the twin industrial powerhouses of the 21st century) off the hook for trimming their CO2 emissions, while the U.S. and Europe would be forced to make painful cuts in fossil energy use (through the use of heavy taxation to induce change). Talk about your unfair advantage!

So, if Russia bails out of Kyoto, killing it for good, I'll be not shedding any tears...I got a kick out of Putin's remarks stating "We'll probably be better off if we were 2 or 3 degrees warmer. We would burn less oil and gas to heat our homes in winter." While this was intended as a joke, I think the man's remarks should be taken somewhat seriously. If the northern hemisphere winters are indeed warmer, then you really would have less energy usuage, plus the positive benefits of less cold. If you ask the average street person in Canada, Europe or Russia whether they'd prefer a warm or cold winter, I would bet that a majority of them would say they'd take a warmer winter. And indeed, if you elimate the 20% of computer models that paint the "worst case" scenario of a warmed Earth by 2100, it's really quite ambigious about whether global warming would have negative or positive effects. Some things are certain, such as the northward migration of the vast boreal forest, which I don't think is such a bad thing at all. The southwestern US may turn hotter and drier...but those folks are used to hot and dry already, right ?? Canada would be the breadbasket of the world, as vast areas of their territory become suitable for agriculture. Another curious thing about the computer models is that a large number of runs indicate that the southeastern US would be the *least* effected by global warming, which is in line with climate trends of the past 30 years in which this region has actually cooled by a fraction of a degree. (Which makes me biased, I know....lolol...)

So it should be quite clear to most people that there will be both winners and losers if the Earth does warm up a few degrees. My biggest fear (not that it's a huge one) is the prospect of rising sea levels...if it goes up 2.25 meters, I'll be able to take a dip in the ocean right out my back door...hehe.. But I send to side with the scientists that say as oceans warm, more water will be transported to the poles in the form of thicker snowpacks, which could very well act as a self-regulating thermosat, keeping a lid on further warming.

Not that I don't support "clean" and renewable energy sources, if only to inoculate ourselves from the turbulent Middle East...I just don't think the U.S. (or any other nation) should be bound by arbitrary CO2 levels...especially when nearly everyone agrees that it won't effect the climate whatsoever, as we've been pumping CO2 into the atmosphere for 100's of years....which certainly can't be reversed in a couple of decades.

I'll stop here and leave it up to you guys to state your opinions. Should we wait for more data to come in before deciding what to do about global warming, if anything at all? Or is Kyoto really the beginning of a vital, cooperative effort that will lead to humanity's struggle to deal with a climate gone wild? Or should we just let Mother Nature do her thing, and just hope for the best...?

B

clark · 2003-12-04 08:23:10

I saw a shining city upon the hill,
Beside the raging sea,
Which broke against the city gates,
Protecting you and me,

The walls did tower mightily,
Keeping untamed nature far at bay,
It held long past our wars and woe,
Making safe our everyday;

Yet never content was our mother earth,
Whose fury knows no bounds,
Even ever arrogant mountains high
Are reduced to paltry mounds,

She will wear and tear at us,
Our walls will all fall down,
We shall succumb to her endless wrath,
Every person, city, and town;

It matters not the here or there,
Nor the manner in which you speak,
The lines of history so far etched,
Damn both the powerful and the meek,

Some may pile sandbags high,
to stave off coming years,
Some will close their eyes by day,
Never once listening to these fears,

But come one day, beyond this night,
Beside the raging sea,
The shining city upon the hill,
Will evermore cease to be.

Shaun Barrett · 2003-12-04 19:48:09

Bravo, Byron!
How refreshing to hear a note of optimism about the future of Earth's climate!
I agree with you whole-heartedly that we need to free ourselves of fossil-fuel usage, and the sooner the better. As Josh so rightly points out, solar energy is the way to go but other forms of renewable energy can be helpful.

We should be aware of the dangers of playing with things we don't understand, like Earth's climate, but we should also realise our lack of understanding of its mechanisms makes it very difficult to make sensible and far-reaching decisions based on such an uncertain data base.

Cobra Commander · 2003-12-06 09:56:46

I'm pleasantly surprised, Byron. As soon as I saw the thread posted I half expected a rant against Russia and the US.

I don't know why anyone even considered the Kyoto protocol in the first place, compare the smog in Beijing with any city in the US and you really have to wonder why China gets looser restrictions than we do. It seems almost like it's more about punishing the dominant nations than helping the enviroment.

Do we even know with any certainty that human activity is the primary reason for global temperature increases? I often have people telling me that temperatures have increased (by about 1 degree) over the last century, but so what? Go back 10,000 years and global temperatures have skyrocketed. From where I'm sitting they've decreased by 50 degrees since August! Oh the horror! Global climate has always fluctuated, and unless someone wants to start blaming dinosaur industry the notion that we are causing it lack credibility. Contributing maybe, but causing?
Damn T. Rex with their SUV's...

In short, I'm of the opinion that not only is the Kyoto protocol a worthless piece of extreme-leftist trash that any reasonable government would reject, but that the entire premise of man-made "global warming" is at best unsubstantiated theory.

Palomar · 2003-12-06 10:03:35

In short, I'm of the opinion ... that the entire premise of man-made "global warming" is at best unsubstantiated theory.

*And I suppose aerosols had nothing to do with the increasing size of the ozone hole?

Emissions (pollution) do affect the environment; to deny so is akin to saying smoking does not affect the lungs.

Shaun says: "We should be aware of the dangers of playing with things we don't understand, like Earth's climate, but we should also realise our lack of understanding of its mechanisms makes it very difficult to make sensible and far-reaching decisions based on such an uncertain data base."

*This seems reasonable to me. What's not reasonable is denying pollution is harmful. I'm all for outlawing SUV's, 1/2 ton pickup trucks (except for use on farms and ranches), and the like. More Americans need to get off their lazy butts and quit acting like the world is ours to trash. Pedal a bicycle for a change, or use your legs to walk...at the very most, get an economy car with great gas mileage, frequent tuneups, etc.

--Cindy

Christina · 2003-12-06 10:21:03

I take it that you don't care about the increased volumes of fresh water pouring into the North Atlantic and diluting the salinity of the Gulf Stream to the point where it ceases to flow altogether, thus plunging North Europe into a devastating Ice Age.

No, of course you don't, because it won't affect you. Well, not until the vast quantities of water that then get locked in the ice instead of circulating in the worlds weather systems start to impact on your own cozy way of life. And the failure of the tropical storms, the monsoon that India depends on for it's crops result in famine and mass migration of people in search of somewhere else to live.... and they come knocking on YOUR door. Then you'll wish the whole world had woken up to what is going on a lot earlier, and that EVERY nation had agreed a course of action in everyone's best interest.

Josh Cryer · 2003-12-06 14:59:44

Global warming is fact, citing assumptions about past history doesn't change this. CO2 acts as an insulator, and humans are emitting CO2. There is no leap of logic for one to conclude that the emissions of CO2 are causing a given level of temperature change. So unless someone can prove that temperature changes in the past were due to fossil fuel emissions, there can be no correlation. It is a non sequitur cite presumed past temperature variations without there being an actual relation between the two.

In any case, global warming may indeed be fact, but the Kyoto protocol is only necessary on diplomatic grounds.

Josh Cryer · 2003-12-06 15:19:34

BTW, since this is a thread which discusses solar energies, etc, I just wanted to clear up something I think you guys don't understand about me.

I like so called "green technologies" primarily because they can be decentralied, not because they're necesarily more effecient or even more powerful (though solar energy has some pretty dang convincing arguments toward it in the inner solar system!).

As a simple example, wouldn't it be great if shingles could be cheap, lightweight, solar panels, capable of producing hundreds of megawatts a day? No need for a central power grid, or at least, the need would be greately reduced, and even then, it could be a local grid, etc. This is why I like solar energy (and why my sig has had a comment about how much solar energy reaches Earth for so long).

It's never been a statement about "green," it's always been about a kind of individualism.

GCNRevenger · 2003-12-06 20:33:47

Global warming is fact, citing assumptions about past history doesn't change this. CO2 acts as an insulator, and humans are emitting CO2. There is no leap of logic for one to conclude that the emissions of CO2 are causing a given level of temperature change. So unless someone can prove that temperature changes in the past were due to fossil fuel emissions, there can be no correlation. It is a non sequitur cite presumed past temperature variations without there being an actual relation between the two.

Not so fast... Though we can't prove human-induced unnatural global warming isn't occuring, I don't think its very likly. CO2 may be an insulator, but as insulators go, its pretty lousy; even water vapor is a better insulator. A 50% increase of a really small number is still a really small number. Its a leap of logic to assume that the puny CO2 IS causing anything out of the ordinary. Moving on, I think it is more likly we are in a natural temperature swing that has nothing to do with humans, because the climate goes through rapid swings all the time with or without us.

I like these people, take a quick read when you get a minute...: http://www.co2science.org/subject/r/sum … change.htm
A particularly interesting paper cited on the page is this one: http://www.co2science.org/journal/2001/v4n11c3.htm

Look at those numbers! A 7C jump in only 30 years back near in the early AD's, alot like whats going on today... but CO2 levels remained unchanged. These aren't questionable, shady computer models either or stuff like the famous "hocky stick" alarmist paper that has more holes in its data treatment that a sieve, but real measurements. The truth of the matter is, there is as much or more good science against CO2-induced global warming than there is for, but the alarmist "sky is falling" media wouldn't have a story after that or environmentalists are a recruiting issue, would they?

I have no problems believeing that the Earth is getting warmer, at least some, what I think is silly, and perhaps born of this modern insanity that man is evil, is that we are the cause. Kyoto is just bad, with how it lets the developing world off and doesn't lower CO2 much: I am half-convinced that it was invented to try and slow down the US/Russian/Japanese economies and elevate the status of the ailing UN.

Now about Green Tech

"Green Technology" is by and large a good thing, but I think that its promise is very over-optimistic. Fuel cell cars, solar shingles, thermal deploymerization and such are promising technologies but have their limits... Fuel cell power for large vehicles won't ever replace diesel-style engines probably, solar shingles won't ever produce enough power to eliminate the need for power plants (especially given the increasing demand), and recycling is only so efficent before it becomes uneconomical. Powering cities, factories, etc will require vast amounts of energy from traditional centralized power sources, and at night/cloudy weather solar shingles won't do you much good either, for example. Solar power on a multi-megawatt plant scale is far far too expensive at the moment.

Cobra Commander · 2003-12-06 20:34:37

In short, I'm of the opinion ... that the entire premise of man-made "global warming" is at best unsubstantiated theory.
*And I suppose aerosols had nothing to do with the increasing size of the ozone hole?
Emissions (pollution) do affect the environment; to deny so is akin to saying smoking does not affect the lungs.

I agree that pollution affects the environment, but affecting the environment and being the primary or sole factor altering it are very different things. It's easy to look at short-term temperature increases (we've only been recording the data for a couple centuries) and ozone irregularities and conclude that we, as the center of creation are the cause of it; but the conclusive link just isn't there. Maybe human activity is the one and only reason for the climate change we've recorded, but one could just as credibly blame it on release of CO2 from the oceans, decomposing trees, cow farts or invisible flying super-monkeys. I'm not claiming that the premise is absurd and unworthy of consideration, but merely pointing out that the evidence is circumstantial at best.

Global warming is fact, citing assumptions about past history doesn't change this. CO2 acts as an insulator, and humans are emitting CO2. There is no leap of logic for one to conclude that the emissions of CO2 are causing a given level of temperature change.

Josh, is CO2 the only insulator? Are humans the only source of it on the planet? No, so isn't more data needed before decided that humans are causing global warming and making policy on that premise? Should we just go ahead and cripple our industry based on such faulty intelligence?

So unless someone can prove that temperature changes in the past were due to fossil fuel emissions, there can be no correlation.

Which is my whole and entire point. If temperature change has repeatedly occured in the absence of fossil fuel emissions then how can we be so certain that this time those very emissions are causing it?

Christina · 2003-12-06 23:46:55

They may not be causing it, but given the current rapid trend compared with the ice records of previous temperature changes, they do appear to be having an accelerating effect.

GCNRevenger · 2003-12-07 00:49:52

Although our rise in temperature may be rapid, it is not unprecidented either... seven degrees centegrade in thirty years is similar to the rate we are in now. Just like bad hurricane seasons, we have bad climate swings now and then.

Even if CO2 were powerful enough to accelerate the effect, which I don't think that it is, the damage caused will not be signifigant to the environment given how accelerating the rise a year or two compared to the dramaticly short ~30-50 years the rising lasts is not going to matter much. With how wimpy a greenhouse gas that CO2 is, I think it almost silly to think it would do much harm.

Josh Cryer · 2003-12-07 02:55:13

GCNRevenger, you're saying the NOAA "has more holes in its data treatment that a sieve"? The same guys who, you know, predict the weather with alarming accuracy these days? (When I was a kid, predicting the weather was almost like freaking witchcraft, our local weather guy was a freak. But now I am almost guaranteed that they'll get it right.)

Again, showing that the earth has dynamic weather variations doesn't address what is happening now, so it's not really relevant (though the magical core samples everyone seems to love do show that methane and carbon dioxide emissions follow these trends, despite what you may believe; read Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis).

I never once said man was evil and so on. In fact, you may be surprised to find that I frankly couldn't give a crap about global warming. I'm just not trying to sow illusions, since it seems that the "in thing" is to throw out the facts about global warming just because a few radical environmentalists use these facts to spread their little messages (and sometimes they themselves distort the facts in the process).

In any case, I don't think the Earth is going to cascade into a melting inferno. I think at most weather is just going to get nastier.

About green technologies, I agree that currently they're infeasible, I was speaking theoretically. There's more than enough sunlight hitting the planet on a given day to provide for... everything. And then, power consumption decreases as technology advances (just look at fridges and air conditioners), so optimism isn't exactly a bad thing when it comes to technologies like that.

Cobra, no, I didn't say that at all.

And we can be certain, or at least, fairly sure (science is never certian) that greenhouse gas emissions are causing the latest temperature changes, because physics tells us so. GCN says that the effect of carbon dioxide is 'puny,' but I've read that we're emitting several gigatons yearly, and that basically CO2 levels haven't been this high in some 20 million years (certainly not the last half million years). It's like, duh?

Even if we did say that greenhouse gasses weren't causing the warming (we'll ignore that the term "greenhouse gas" relates directly to gasses which help contain thermal energy), we'd have to explain why our gas laws aren't working the way we say they should.

GCNRevenger · 2003-12-07 11:58:25

Ummmm since our ability to acertain that CO2 is causing global warming is limited, even with the best of our science, I doubt that its predictions could hold a candle of liklyhood versus past natural climate change that is much more concretely proven with actual physical evidence. Past data is very much applicable, if you can only make an educated guess to the positive, but can essentially prove the negative, then the negative wins.

NOAA isn't exactly the biggest research agency, and frankly I doubt their capabilities to accuratly model a few decades of supposed articfical change in the face of thousands of years of past weather evidense for comparison. The IPCC are the same nuts who came up with the Kyoto Protocol that only seeks to reduce CO2 by a few percent? Their out-dated computer models have proven to be lousy at best and I bet their core sampling is pretty limited.

You would be surprised about how much we don't understand about our upper atmosphere's behavior, upper atmospheric chemistry is a fledgeling field... And as i've mentioned before, with the 50% increase in CO2 in our atmosphere today, increasing an already tiny figure of energy trapped is still a tiny figure. 150% of 0.01 is only 0.015, so it is far from a "duh" thing: the magnetude of the effect means everything. Physics can only tell you somthing accuratly if it includes all the signifigant variables and uses statisticly high-quality data, which physics currently cannot do concerning the heating of our atmosphere with confidance.

How much solar energy is converted to molecular rotation versus translation? How much do decreases in ice coverage reflect solar energy? How much will increased water vapor from heating trap energy as opposed to CO? How much does CO2 increase water vapor, as opposed to a different mechanism that increases water vapor? How does the condensing of increased water vapor affect global temperatures? ...The list of variables is a long one. Hence, any predictions made that forgets an important one, or a collection of smaller ones, is hardly even an educated guess, easily trumped by past climate variation evidence.

The supposed notion that energy conservation is as good as a new source of energy is a borderline half-truth, because there is still an increasing amount of energy demand, and some things (like heating chemical reactors or electric production of aluminum) in industry can't be improved much.

Christina · 2003-12-07 13:53:23

Well, whatever, there are people who want to make the US pay for not cleaning up it's act to the same extent as other countries are.

Demand for 'Kyoto tax' on the US

Countries refusing to cut their emissions of greenhouse gases should face trade sanctions, according to a British independent think-tank.
The United States has not signed the Kyoto agreement on climate change and Russia has indicated it may follow.
The New Economics Foundation wants the EU to tax imports from these countries because they enjoy a competitive disadvantage as energy costs increase.
Signed-up countries are currently meeting in Italy to discuss the treaty.
New Economics Foundation spokesman Andrew Simms told BBC Radio 4's Today programme EU countries would be within their rights to "work out the cost of the free ride America is getting" and raise that amount.
"There are very few signals the United States understands - they do understand economic signals," Mr Simms added.
"There is only a certain amount of time people can go around behaving like teenagers who don't have to care about anybody else," he told Today.
"We are about half a century away from being ecologically and economically bankrupt because of global warming."

Oh, I do hope so.

Josh Cryer · 2003-12-07 13:58:47

Did you even read the climate report, GCN?

GCNRevenger · 2003-12-07 15:39:54

Global warming tax? Please, if another country wants to disembowel itself because of alarmist envrionmentalist propoganda based on shakey scientific evidence, thats their problem...

Let me reiterate, that just because somebody does research of some level doesn't make it good science.

The entire body of the IPCC report is a rather large document, hence I have relied primarily on reviews of it by experts... Have you read the entire multi-volume document? But at your "credability game" insistance I have read part of the document concerning the underlying science, especially concerning past climate varience in Chapter 2 the first volume, which has not in any way changed my mind. Here are a few of the more amusing phrases that the IPCC presumes to break the legs of our economy for...:

"(water vapor) feedbacks amplifies the temperature increase to 1.5 to 4.5?C... this uncertainty range arises from our limited knowledge of clouds and their interactions with radiation" ...So, the IPCC is only sure about our doom plus or minus 300%?

"The effect of the increasing amount of aerosols on the radiative forcing is complex and not yet well known." ...Which they attribute rather large energy figures to.

And one of my favorites, the use of the word "Qualitatively" all over the place, which means: "we aren't even going to guess how much."

In chapter 2, the IPCC report seems to avoid resolutions of CO2/CH4 and temperatures over scales of less than thousands of years, which by your standard, means that it does not apply to today's rapid rise in temps. Further, the events that they did include on decade-scale temperature changes do not corrispond well with certainty to greenhouse gasses.

In chapter 6, they admit that their knowledge about past Solar activity, the cheif source of all this in the first place, is very limited. How do they know that the Sun's brightness does not factor in more? We are at/near Solar Maximum...

In dealing with CO2, which is a minor componet of the atmosphere, the report lists its absorptive power of being a very small percentage of the amount of solar energy that reaches the Earth, around 1%. Clearly not enough to cause global warming of apocalyptic scale given how the Sun's energy isn't a constant... the report goes on to state that water vapor is the big culprit created by warmer temperatures, but can't prove that its linked to CO2 with good certainty.

The thing that put me off most though was this "LOSU" index, a subjective "score" put on data/papers/etc that determined if it would weigh heavily in the report, which was entirely assigned by the authors of the report who seem to agree with uncanny regularity...

GCNRevenger · 2003-12-07 15:54:31

And don't forget about the famous Hocky Stick Mann paper...

Other interesting links...
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PO0312/S00036.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/

I have no probleming believing the Earth is warming... it has happend before after all... but to think that we are causing it is unsubstantiated.

Bill White · 2003-12-07 16:38:51

And don't forget about the famous Hocky Stick Mann paper...
Other interesting links...
http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/PO0312/S00036.htm
http://www.junkscience.com/
I have no probleming believing the Earth is warming... it has happend before after all... but to think that we are causing it is unsubstantiated.

The problem is that many models involve "tipping points" rather than gradual, linear changes. William Calvin calls human CO2 discharge the "feather" that might break the camel's back. GNCR, how much proof would you deem necessary to conclude "substantiated?" How much proof do we really have to substantiate Darwin's theory of human origins rather than the Book of Genesis?

William Calvin argues that "abrupt climate change" has been a very common event in global history with abrupt non-linear consequences. For example, the disappearance of the Arctic ice cap and Greenland ice sheets (happening today!) can either:

(a) lead to rapidly accelerating global warming due to less ice to reflect sunlight; or

(b) riccochet into a new Ice Age as the salt conveyors (the Gulf Stream is one example) shut down trapping more heat in the equatorial regions while glaciers rapidly advance across the northern hemisphere; or

? maybe very little.

A few degress of warming doesn't really bother me =unless= we cross a climatic "tipping point" and Calvin's idea is that humanity should err on the side of cautioun and stay away from tipping point event horizons precisely because we do not know exactly what will happen.

While another Ice Age might lead to another evolutionary leap side effects could include millions or billions of deaths and related political and economic instability.

As for living in interesting times, a blue water north pole has a high degree of probability of creating some very interesting times indeed.

Palomar · 2003-12-07 18:21:26

In short, I'm of the opinion ... that the entire premise of man-made "global warming" is at best unsubstantiated theory.
*And I suppose aerosols had nothing to do with the increasing size of the ozone hole?
Emissions (pollution) do affect the environment; to deny so is akin to saying smoking does not affect the lungs.
I agree that pollution affects the environment, but affecting the environment and being the primary or sole factor altering it are very different things. It's easy to look at short-term temperature increases (we've only been recording the data for a couple centuries) and ozone irregularities and conclude that we, as the center of creation are the cause of it; but the conclusive link just isn't there. Maybe human activity is the one and only reason for the climate change we've recorded, but one could just as credibly blame it on release of CO2 from the oceans, decomposing trees, cow farts or invisible flying super-monkeys.

*Cow flatulence? Invisible air-borne primates?

Please accept my apologies, Cobra Commander...I didn't mean to sound so harsh. I went back and re-read my response to you, which in retrospect does sound rather intense. Sorry.

--Cindy

Cobra Commander · 2003-12-10 16:59:58

No apologies needed Cindy, but thank you. You are far more respectful and reasonable than most people I argue with And I mean that sincerely.

But now that I'm here I might as well be troublesome...

William Calvin argues that "abrupt climate change" has been a very common event in global history with abrupt non-linear consequences. For example, the disappearance of the Arctic ice cap and Greenland ice sheets (happening today!) can either:
(a) lead to rapidly accelerating global warming due to less ice to reflect sunlight; or
(b) riccochet into a new Ice Age as the salt conveyors (the Gulf Stream is one example) shut down trapping more heat in the equatorial regions while glaciers rapidly advance across the northern hemisphere; or
? maybe very little.

Yet we still have the little problem of not having compelling evidence that human activity is causing disappearence of the ice sheets in the first place. We may be the primary cause, or we may be utterly irrelevant. If we accept the above premise that we can't predict what the effects will be and they could range anywhere between wild extremes, how do we know we aren't stabilising it? I don't see any reason to make policy based on what we think could happen projected from what we think is happening, which we think we might be causing.

Gotta watch out for those invisible monkeys, they're bastards.

Bill White · 2003-12-10 18:08:43

Yet we still have the little problem of not having compelling evidence that human activity is causing disappearence of the ice sheets in the first place. We may be the primary cause, or we may be utterly irrelevant. If we accept the above premise that we can't predict what the effects will be and they could range anywhere between wild extremes, how do we know we aren't stabilising it? I don't see any reason to make policy based on what we think could happen projected from what we think is happening, which we think we might be causing.

First let me say I believe BOTH sides in the global warming debate have engaged in frankly dishonest arguments, IMHO.

I agree the science remains doubtful and inconclusive. On the other hand I am not persuaded this is all some liberal-leftist hoax designed to rob American business.

I have personally seen Jerry Falwell (on cable talk shows) say global warming is an invented hoax and who cares anyways because "The Rapture" will come before the climate collapses. "Therefore" he says, "I drive an SUV." Lets just say that tends to make me more sympathetic to the other side of the argument.

NO amount evidence will ever be sufficient to persuade him, even if glaciers start covering Indiana. Nope! wasn't us!

I do believe it has been well established that the past 10000 years have been unusually stable as for climate issues. This allowed our ancestors the opportunity to establish genuine agriculture and reading and writing. In other words create civilization.

Sensible risk management requires that we understand why and how the climate has remained so stable. Warming or cooling trends that could lead to persistent drought could destabilize the global food supply and nuclear weapons are just too dang prevalent to risk a collapse of the global food supply.

The odds? I surely do not know. However, I haven't had a car crash in about 15 years but do I dare cancel my auto insurance? Auto insurance is a fool waste of money!

Panic-mongering by the pro-Kyoto people has lead to a stiff necked denial-mode by the anti-Kyoto people and leaves us unprepared to deal with what may truly be a global crisis. Kyoto is a lousy deal for the United States. Responding to Kyoto with a raised middle finger is lousy diplomacy by the United States that will rebound badly for us in the future.

Cobra Commander · 2003-12-10 18:56:12

It looks like we're essentially in agreement on this one, Bill. Well, except that car insurance thing but at any rate... I'm more than willing to consider any evidence the pro-Kyoto crowd has, but so far it just hasn't been convincing and therefore I see no reason to accept the treaty. If the world wants to take that as a national digicus imputicus then so be it, all we did was not sign it.

Palomar · 2003-12-11 07:59:14

I have personally seen Jerry Falwell (on cable talk shows) say global warming is an invented hoax and who cares anyways because "The Rapture" will come before the climate collapses. "Therefore" he says, "I drive an SUV." Lets just say that tends to make me more sympathetic to the other side of the argument.
NO amount evidence will ever be sufficient to persuade him, even if glaciers start covering Indiana. Nope! wasn't us!

*If glaciers were to start sliding down over Indiana, it'd just be another "sign" to Falwell of "The End Times." That man is so smug and self-righteous...::umph::...don't get me started. :;):

I think (hope) we can all agree that it is in the best interests of humankind to cut down on pollution as best we can, seek healthier alternatives, etc. My rule of thumb is: Would you want comparable conditions in your HOUSE that way (choking smog, acid rain, harmful emissions puffing out of your heating/cooling vents, etc.)? Earth is our house.

--Cindy

Mars_B4_Moon · 2023-08-20 05:52:34

an old topic perhaps worth a bump

If somehow they figured out that 'Cold Fusion' thing that would be a quick solution

“Mother Nature is Sending us a Warning,” says NASA During Climate Briefing
https://spaceref.com/earth/mother-natur … -briefing/

“Mother Nature is sending us a warning,” said NASA Administrator Bill Nelson

“At NASA, we’re observing the Earth so we can understand not only what’s happening today but also how that’s changed over time so we can observe the impacts of climate change like sea level rise, wildfire, and extreme heat,” Kate Calvin, NASA’s chief scientist and senior climate advisor, said at the conference.

as for the 'Kyoto Protocol'

https://www.mindprod.com/environment/kyoto.html

Kyoto round calls for a greenhouse gas emission reduction of 6% in Canada and 5% in the USA.

Developing countries classified as places in China, India, the European Union suddenly become places of super-emissions, places like Indonesia, Iran and South Korea still increasing their manufacturing emission and the Chinese although classed as poor and developing somehow figured out how to build futuristic looking super-cities.

later in the political elite of the world they tried something else, the 2015 adoption of the Paris Agreement, a separate instrument under the UNFCCC rather than an amendment of the Kyoto Protocol and Canada withdrew from the protocol, effective December 2012. United States (under former President George W. Bush) and Australia (initially, under former Prime Minister John Howard) did not ratify the Kyoto treaty.

On 4th day of August 2017, the Trump administration delivered an official notice to the United Nations that the United States, the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases after China, intended to withdraw from the Paris Agreement as soon as it was eligible to do so

https://web.archive.org/web/20170815062 … 17-Eng.pdf

Meanwhile 'Green' parties accused of being Anti-Tech Luddites sending industry and economy in a backward direction.

Last edited by Mars_B4_Moon (2023-08-20 06:04:48)

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#1 2003-12-04 07:41:58

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#2 2003-12-04 08:23:10

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#3 2003-12-04 19:48:09

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#4 2003-12-06 09:56:46

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#5 2003-12-06 10:03:35

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#6 2003-12-06 10:21:03

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#7 2003-12-06 14:59:44

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#8 2003-12-06 15:19:34

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#9 2003-12-06 20:33:47

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#10 2003-12-06 20:34:37

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#11 2003-12-06 23:46:55

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#12 2003-12-07 00:49:52

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#13 2003-12-07 02:55:13

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#14 2003-12-07 11:58:25

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#15 2003-12-07 13:53:23

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#16 2003-12-07 13:58:47

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#17 2003-12-07 15:39:54

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#18 2003-12-07 15:54:31

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#19 2003-12-07 16:38:51

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#20 2003-12-07 18:21:26

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#21 2003-12-10 16:59:58

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#22 2003-12-10 18:08:43

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#23 2003-12-10 18:56:12

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#24 2003-12-11 07:59:14

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

#25 2023-08-20 05:52:34

Re: Actions to Reduce Global Warming - is Kyoto really necessary?

Board footer