Welcome to PatsFans.com

Newsweek: Inconvenient Kyoto Truths

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by Real World, Feb 5, 2007.

  1. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,787
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +287 / 4 / -2

    Interesting article in Newsweek. Flush the quran down the toilet Newsweek. Anyhow, these are excerpts from the article.

    Inconvenient Kyoto Truths

    Was life better when a sheet of ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there?

    By George F. Will
    Newsweek

    Climate Cassandras say the facts are clear and the case is closed. (Sen. Barbara Boxer: "We're not going to take a lot of time debating this anymore.") The consensus catechism about global warming has six tenets: 1. Global warming is happening. 2. It is our (humanity's, but especially America's) fault. 3. It will continue unless we mend our ways. 4. If it continues we are in grave danger. 5. We know how to slow or even reverse the warming. 6. The benefits from doing that will far exceed the costs.

    Only the first tenet is clearly true, and only in the sense that the Earth warmed about 0.7 degrees Celsius in the 20th century. We do not know the extent to which human activity caused this.

    ....

    We do not know how much we must change our economic activity to produce a particular reduction of warming. And we do not know whether warming is necessarily dangerous. Over the millennia, the planet has warmed and cooled for reasons that are unclear but clearly were unrelated to SUVs. Was life better when ice a mile thick covered Chicago? Was it worse when Greenland was so warm that Vikings farmed there? Are we sure the climate at this particular moment is exactly right, and that it must be preserved, no matter the cost?

    ....

    In 1997, when the Kyoto Protocol's essential provisions were known, a "sense of the Senate" resolution declared opposition to any agreement that would do what the protocol aims to do. The Senate warned against any agreement that would require significant reductions of greenhouse-gas emissions in the United States and other developed nations without mandating "specific scheduled commitments" on the part of the 129 "developing" countries, which include China, India, Brazil and South Korea—the second, fourth, 10th and 11th largest economies. Nothing Americans can do to reduce greenhouse-gas emissions will make a significant impact on the global climate while every 10 days China fires up a coal-fueled generating plant big enough to power San Diego. China will construct 2,200 new coal plants by 2030.

    President Clinton and his earnest vice president knew better than to seek ratification of Kyoto by a Senate that had passed its resolution of disapproval 95-0. Fifty-six of those 95 senators are still serving. Two of them are John Kerry and Barbara Boxer. That is an inconvenient truth.

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16960409/site/newsweek/
  2. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,379
    Likes Received:
    137
    Ratings:
    +278 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    That's basically the point I've been trying to make. Find a real solution or STFU because asking me to conserve is bull when you look at the expansion of energy use around the world.
  3. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,787
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +287 / 4 / -2

    That, and this, was the crux of my point earlier about Kyoto. If it is truly the enviroment who's condition is in such a dire state that we only have "ten years" to change it as Al Bore states, then why such an economically, and politically driven policy? To me, Kyoto isn't worth the paper it's written on. If we, as in the USA, feels that it needs to curb its emissions, or pollution contribution, then we, as in the USA, should do it, but do it independently. All these people that are waving the UN flag on this one truly do scare me.
  4. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,043
    Likes Received:
    123
    Ratings:
    +326 / 1 / -9

    If the do-gooders want to feel all important and gooey they should organize all of America's SUV Haters, elect Crazy Boob Gore as their president, they can call him "Mr President" then they should go to all of the planets third world sh!t holes and try to stop the natives from throwing their garbage out the window, then teach them how to bury their grandfather instead of dumping him in the nearest river, these people should also be told that most of the world don't keep live chickens in their bedrooms, they should also send a group to Africa led by Jimmy and Rosylin Carter to pass out Kleenex and set up "Nose Blowing Schools".

    We all know that the Bush family and White Conservative Christians are the real cause behind all this
    f-cking ice melting.

    The best way to stop Global Warming is to elect a Looney Left Wing Democrat as President in 2008, if we have a Democrat in the White House the liberal media will stop talking about all this melting sh!t and it will all go away.

    I am in Maine, and right now I am looking at an outdoor thermometer, it is 6 below zero.
  5. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,722
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +157 / 4 / -4

    You quote from George Will and asking why such a politically driven policy? Obviously, the Republicans saw a political opportunity to embarrass Clinton who supported Kyoto. Dems went along with the Republicans (who had the votes to defeat Kyoto) so as to kill it as a political issue altogether. Now, with Bush in charge, he's politicizing it for the sake of the oil companies who backed him. He's shown no inclination to address environmental issues, though he did recently express concern about polar bears, so I suppose that's a start.

    I don't think the issue is the Kyoto Protocol. While people like me would prefer that we take advantage of synergies and opportunities that a treaty provides, I'm perfectly okay with the US going it alone. The most important thing is that we address global warming. While there's an outside chance that the issue may not be as serious as some fear, there are enough prominent scientists who believe it's an issue worth addressing that we should so. The atmosphere is too fundamental not to err on the side of caution.
  6. Holy Diver

    Holy Diver Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    10,800
    Likes Received:
    6
    Ratings:
    +6 / 0 / -0

    I don't understand all of this....


    whats bad about carpooling or recycling or driving more fuel efficiant cars? who gets hurt by trying to help out?

    Oh yeah.....BIG OIL DOES!

    Money money money MONEY.........MOney

    $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
  7. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,613
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +120 / 7 / -11

    Nothing, you are free to do that stuff if you want. I just don't my freedom restricted by government fiat based on faulty science. So feel free to get rid of your car if your want please leave mine alone.
  8. BelichickFan

    BelichickFan B.O. = Fugazi PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    31,379
    Likes Received:
    137
    Ratings:
    +278 / 9 / -9

    #24 Jersey

    Don't want to.

    My wife does that. I just toss my Diet 7 Up bottles in her bag. Whatever.

    I do that too.

    But none of it really matters.
  9. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,722
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +157 / 4 / -4

    Man conservatives do not like to help others, you know that. No one gets hurt by trying to help out, and no one is about to pass a law mandating car pools. But, one would hope as our nation evolves we'll be concerned enough about the environment to develop clean air technologies, more fuel efficient machines, and better mass transit.
  10. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,787
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +287 / 4 / -2

    That is the stupidest excuse I've ever seen in here. So Kyoto failed because of the Republicans? IT LOST 95-0. HELLO? ANYBODY HOME? :eek:

    So your saying that all of your Dem friends in the Senate voted against their president and VP, and with the republicans, so as to kill the issue altogether? Well, if the evironment was so critical to them, then why would they WANT TO KILL THE ISSUE ALTOGETHER? HELLO? ANYBODY HOME? :eek: So your saying John Kerry & Co. have no principles, that the environment was so important to them, that they wouldn't even vote for it so as to make it 90-5? Why not vote for it, if the environment was so critical, if you knew it would fail? Where's the harm?

    The insanity by the extremists of any, and every, issue, not just Global Warming, is truly disturbing. When someone waves a flag that has dooms day written on it, it makes me skeptical.
  11. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    26,787
    Likes Received:
    142
    Ratings:
    +287 / 4 / -2


    Big Oil, and governments. Think about it this way, how much does each state, and the fed, take in from gasoline taxes? What happens if we don't use gas anymore? Where do they make up all that revenue? So when you think Big Oil, you're correct, but don't forget that other elephant in the room.
  12. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,613
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +120 / 7 / -11

    This is a link to the first of 10 articles printed in the National Post from Canada. Each article profile a couple of deniers and their research/ A few of them have participated in contributing to IPCC studies. As a side note it is fascinating how different scientist in different climatic disciplines tell the same story about their research being distorted and misrepresented by the bureaucrats and NGO members of the IPCC process.

    Each article is a page, long read worth the effort ....IF you are willing to approach the subject with an open mind. If you read the articles it is tough to assert that there is a 'consensus' on the human influence on Global Warming. This makes the current asseration that no debate is left to be demagogic on the part of the politicans pushing this.

    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=22003a0d-37cc-4399-8bcc-39cd20bed2f6&k=0
  13. scout

    scout Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    7,699
    Likes Received:
    26
    Ratings:
    +36 / 0 / -1

    #15 Jersey

    Not that I want to argue with George Will, but, I always thought the Vikings farmed in Iceland as oppose to Greenland which in the 1300's was too cold to farm except in sheltered areas. The flip flop on names (Greenland/Iceland) was to throw off enemies. Secondly, don't the majority of scientists believe in at least 1/2 of items 1-6?
  14. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,613
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +120 / 7 / -11

    Majorities are irrelevant to science. In the middle ages the majority thought Copernicus and Galileo were wrong when they asserted that the Earth wasn't the center of the solar system. In that case the minority was correct the majotiry was wrong.
  15. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,722
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +157 / 4 / -4

    Well, Wegman's work is amplified here. I don't know if he can be called a Denier since his study was no narrow and his work didn't refute the hockey stick. Here's a good clarification:

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.ph...missing-piece-at-the-wegman-hearing/#more-328

    The article discussing Richard S.J. Tolpits him against a World Bank economist, not exactly a parallel matchup since both have different stakes. (Tol believes we have time before addressing global warming, while Stern, the economist, believes we have to move quickly. Both probably look at risk very differently.) It's worth noting that the article says, "Global warming is real, he believes, and yes, measures to mitigate it should be taken. But unlike the advocates who believe that the science is settled, and the global warning debate is over, Tol thinks that much research needs to be done before we know how best to respond."

    The Trenberth-Landsea issue is more unclear. I haven't read anything about Trenberth other than what the Deniers post. But, Trenberth I think believes that many weather anomalies can be explained by global warming, including unusual hurricane activity or lack of hurricane activity. The Deniers seems to believe that Trenberth has a hidden agenda and has locked out views of people like Landsea. Hard to tell if it's just sour grapes or bad science without reading more about both men.

    Duncan Wingham seems to question whether changes in the Antarctice ice shelf are due to global warming or other factors. He thinks it's due to other factors, but in this article (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/02/24/ice_shelf_collapse/) says, "I am not denying global warming. For instance, Greenland, in the northern hemisphere, does seem to be going. But Greenland's ice cap - Greenland is quite far south - is a last survivor from the ice age and only its height protects it. The more that cap melts, the more it will continue to melt as it gets lower and warmer. But Antarctica is different. Even in the Arctic I am skeptical of some claims that 40 per cent of the sea ice has already vanished, and that what remains is drastically thinning."

    Well, that's four of them. I guess I wonder what a Denier actually is? These impressive Deniers don't seem to be denying global warming, rather they're questioning certain specific aspects of it.
  16. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,613
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +120 / 7 / -11

    I did indicate that a number of the people cited in these article participated in the IPCC process. The issue of the Antartic ice cap won't be fully resolved until a complete mapping of the continent takes place. The work cited certianly don't support the extreme scenario's potrayed in the media. It also doesn't appear to reflect the opinions of many researchers in the field.

    The Hockey stick has been throughly refuted. The criticism of the sloppy stastical methodology used in this and apparently other climatic studieds and model is very disturbing given the lack of an explicit and defined physical mechanism for the forcing effects of CO2. Currently there has been a certain amount of curve fitting to make the data work to support the conclusions.
  17. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,722
    Likes Received:
    124
    Ratings:
    +157 / 4 / -4

    The hockey stick hasn't been refuted. As my link showed, fixing the alleged errors doesn't change the shape of the hockey stick. Just saying it's been refuted is about as good as citing the Heib brothers (who apparently have no credentials) as you did elsewhere. The hockey stick has been politicized by Inhofe who's called it all sorts of names, but by and large it's been supported by many similar studies. (12 according to Wikipedia, or see for example:

    http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2005/ammann.shtml)

    The Wikipedia article on the controversy presents a more balanced picture:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

    Try to look at global warming with some objectivity. While there are certainly valid questions, the preponderance of evidence, whether it's the hockey stick, visual evidence, analysis of CO2 particles trapped in ice for centuries, or other statistics is that we are living in a time with serious anomalies. T
  18. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,613
    Likes Received:
    64
    Ratings:
    +120 / 7 / -11

    The graph still doesn't reflect the data from the Midevil warming period. They are still trying to game the data.
  19. wistahpatsfan

    wistahpatsfan Rookie

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2005
    Messages:
    15,672
    Likes Received:
    11
    Ratings:
    +11 / 0 / -0

    Passing laws and signing treaties will do nothing. As you say, it's a mindset that involves changing the culture. We need to re-orient ourselves as a nation away from consumption of fossil fuels and declare an emergency of sorts, to re-focus our research and investments towards a "Manhattan Project" for renewable energy sources, Safer nuclear power, and containment field techniques that will help us develop the ultimate solution, fusion reaction power. I don't want the government to have anything to do with this, unless the president wants to get on TV each week and talk to us about this instead of how to turn medieval cultures into democracies.
  20. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    39,043
    Likes Received:
    123
    Ratings:
    +326 / 1 / -9

    Global Warming:
    A LIBERAL CAUSE, SOMETHING TO SPLUTTER ABOUT.

    IF THE EARTH IS CHANGING MOTHER NATURE OR GOD IS DOING IT, AL GORE AND HIS SILLY MOVIE CAN DO NOTHING ABOUT IT, GOD DOESN'T GO TO THE MOVIES.

    THE EARTH HAS BEEN CHANGING FOR BILLIONS OF YEARS AND WILL CONTINUE TO DO SO.

    GET BACK TO YOUR "BUSH BASHING".

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>