Global Warming - Rupert Murdoch Weighs In

Curiosity

Senate Member
Jul 30, 2005
7,326
138
63
California
http://www.terradaily.com/reports/Rupert_Murdoch_Changes_Mind_On_Global_Warming_999.html

CLIMATE SCIENCE
Rupert Murdoch Changes Mind On Global Warming

"The Kyoto Protocol was found to be faulted in many ways and certainly impossible to accept in some countries and unlikely to be followed in some of the largest emerging countries. But we certainly have to have rules," he said. Any treaty "must apply to all countries" -- including the United States, Japan and European nations, along with China, India and Russia. Photo courtesy AFP.
by Shaun Tandon
Tokyo (AFP) Nov 6, 2006
Conservative media mogul Rupert Murdoch said Monday he has had a change of heart on climate change and now believes global action is needed -- although not in the form of the Kyoto Protocol which the US opposes. Murdoch -- whose powerful News Corp. empire includes Britain's The Sun tabloid newspaper and The Times -- called for a new treaty that is acceptable to all countries and brings in emerging economies.

"I have to admit that, until recently, I was somewhat wary of the warming debate. I believe it is now our responsibility to take the lead on this issue," Murdoch told a conference in Tokyo.
"Some of the presumptions about extreme weather, whether it be hurricanes or drought, may seem far-fetched. What is certain is that temperatures have been rising and that we are not entirely sure of the consequences," he said.
"The planet deserves the benefit of the doubt."
He spoke as an international summit got underway in Nairobi to discuss the future of the Kyoto Protocol, the world's most far-reaching environmental treaty, which requires industrialized nations to slash greenhouse gas emissions.
The United States, the world's biggest polluter, and Murdoch's native Australia have boycotted the Kyoto treaty, arguing that is unfair as it makes no demands of large developing countries such as China and India.
"Kyoto was a bad idea in 1997, and it's a bad idea today," Murdoch's New York Post said in a December 2003 editorial as Russia prepared to ratify the treaty and as a result bring it into effect.
Murdoch said he now believed a treaty was needed but not necessarily the Kyoto Protocol, which was negotiated in 1997 in Japan's ancient capital for which it is named.
"I think that we should certainly have a protocol and probably a new one," Murdoch said.
"The Kyoto Protocol was found to be faulted in many ways and certainly impossible to accept in some countries and unlikely to be followed in some of the largest emerging countries. But we certainly have to have rules," he said.
Murdoch said any treaty "must apply to all countries" -- including the United States, Japan and European nations, along with China, India and Russia.
"It is meaningless, really, all of this, unless we get the four or five major industrial countries in the world," he said.
He credited Japanese automakers such as Toyota Motor Corp. for developing hybrid cars that guzzle less gas and said his own company was trying to do its bit.
He said British Sky Broadcasting, which is run by his son James Murdoch, was moving to be "carbon neutral" -- or not contributing any net carbon emissions.
"He has proved that being environmentally sound is not sentimentality. It is a sound business strategy and an example that the whole of News Corp is trying to emulate."
A recent report commissioned by the British government estimated that worldwide inaction could cost the equivalent of between five and 20 percent of global gross domestic product every year if nothing is done.
The report's author, former World Bank chief economist Sir Nicholas Stern, said the economic fallout of climate change could be on the scale of the two world wars and the Great Depression of the 1930s.
While saying he was still skeptical of doomsday scenarios, Murdoch said he was convinced that the problem was serious.
"The world is certainly warming. How much of it is warming due to human error? Regardless of that we should (act) and there are good geopolitical reasons as well to find alternative fuels," Murdoch said.
earlier related report

US Says No Change On Kyoto Rejection During Bush Administration
Nairobi (AFP) Nov 6 - The United States, the world's largest polluter, said Monday there would be no change in its rejection of the Kyoto Protocol on global warming until at least the end of US President George W. Bush's second term in office. Harlan Watson, the acting head of the US delegation at a UN conference on climate change here, said there was no sign of any policy shift on the matter, which has attracted heavy criticism from environmentalists and others.

"I certainly (have) no indication that there is any change in our position or there is likely to be during this presidency," he told reporters at the Nairobi conference, the 12th on climate change and second on Kyoto.
Bush's second mandate expires in January 2009, after which he will be succeeded by the winner of presidential elections the previous November.
Bush has incurred the wrath of environmentalists and ecological experts by abandoning the 1995 Kyoto Protocol, which aims to reduce the emission of climate change-causing greenhouse gases, saying it would hurt the US economy.
Washington says it is pursuing alternative measures to deal with global warming and Watson said the United States was working within the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) of which Kyoto is an annex.
"The USA is focused on making progess under the UNFCC," he said.
"President Bush and his administration are firmly committed to taking sensible action on climate change, which is a serious, long-term challenge," Watson said.
"The administration's climate change policy is scince-based and encourages research breakthroughs that lead to technological innovation," he added.
Source: Agence France-Presse

Related Links
Learn about Climate Science at TerraDaily.com

CLIMATE SCIENCE
ESA Joins UN Climate Talks In Kenya
Nairobi, Kenya (SPX) Nov 07, 2006
The United Nations annual summit on climate change this week in Nairobi, Kenya, seeks to negotiate a successor to the Kyoto Protocol strategy, which becomes obsolete in 2012, to restrict emissions of heat-trapping gases that drive climate change. ESA joins the activities to share results of its satellite-based Kyoto-supporting services.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
This bloody "media mogul", deems to tell us Kyoto is faulted in many ways, and that Americans would not support it. I wonder if we should say here that 74 percent of Australians, and 54 percent of Americans were in favour of ratification of the accord. If Australians weren't lied to by their leaders, the accord would have been ratified across the board, except for the U.S.. Bush has said point blank, that the U.S. would not change it's stand on Kyoto regardless of how it was changed .. Funny how that is coming from the leader of the worst polluter in the world. It remains to be seen if the Democrats will do any differently.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
Well I suppose they could have just done what Canada did....sign it anyways and have no intentions of living up to it.

Why are lefties so attached to this protocol anyways?


called for a new treaty that is acceptable to all countries and brings in emerging economies.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Jay, you don't know what Canada did, and you don't know what Kyoto is. As far as I can tell, you are just spouting Bush's worn rhetoric.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
I see you haven't changed much, Juan.

How am I supposed to react to your little statements?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
Does prescribing to one particular school of thought automatically make someone a lefty?
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
There are such things as lefties and righties and they tend to prescribe to particular schools of thought
 

Gonzo

Electoral Member
Dec 5, 2004
997
1
18
Was Victoria, now Ottawa
Lefties and Righties live on the same planet. Kyoto was good because it got all countries on board. Look what happens when countries decide to set there own goals. You get Canadas "Hot Air Act", I mean, clean air act. "We'll reach our goals by 2050"!
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
Well I suppose they could have just done what Canada did....sign it anyways and have no intentions of living up to it.

Why are lefties so attached to this protocol anyways?


Read your post Jay. Do you know how much money Canada spent on wind power? There were plenty of other things in the works that Harper no doubt threw out. You set the tone of this discussion with your "lefty" comment. It doesn't bother me but I refuse to take your sarcastic one liners as serious discussion.



 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
It's an honest question.

Why are lefties so attached to this protocol? I said lefties because it appears to me that it is the left in Canada that supports the agreement and critiques America for not doing it.

Its' not so much about exactly how much we spent on wind power it's the fact emissions rose dramatically instead of being reduced. The point I make is we signed something we couldn't (and had no intentions of) live up too. The agreement isn’t right for us.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
I was getting at the fact that it's not that honest a question. First it lumps someone who supports this idea into a group that is diverse as any "rightie" group, completely irregardless of what that person may or may not agree with. If you see it as some lefty agenda or whatever else, what is the answer to the follow up of the question you posed, Why are righties so opposed to this protocol?

The reason emissions have risen so dramatically is because nothing was done. It has nothing to do with the fact that it wasn't right for us, more of an indication of hard it is for the government to do anything which meets opposition regardless of whether or not it is the right thing to do, and also an indication of Industry apparently knowing what is better for us.
 

#juan

Hall of Fame Member
Aug 30, 2005
18,326
119
63
It's an honest question.

Why are lefties so attached to this protocol? I said lefties because it appears to me that it is the left in Canada that supports the agreement and critiques America for not doing it.

Its' not so much about exactly how much we spent on wind power it's the fact emissions rose dramatically instead of being reduced. The point I make is we signed something we couldn't (and had no intentions of) live up too. The agreement isn’t right for us.

For God's sake Jay..

74 percent of Canadians were in favour of ratification. That is a sizable majority. You are not qualified to tell us whether or not the agreement is right for us. We lost a year under Harper and I'm not convinced we couldn't have made our targets. The Important thing about Kyoto was that a hundred and eighty countries signed on to it. It was very important that we get the world on side, because it is a world problem.
 

Jay

Executive Branch Member
Jan 7, 2005
8,366
3
38
74 percent of Canadians were in favour of ratification.

And these people are qualified to tell us the agreement is right for us?
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
It says that 74% of Canadians believe it is right for us. If three out of every four Canadians want this, I think thats a pretty clear mandate.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
I'm all for an open debate on this. That is what I'm sure will be happening at the meetings in Kenya. Here we have a group of scientists saying one thing, and we have a whole othe rbunch of scientists saying otherwise. That doesn't dispute the fact that 74% are siding on one side of this issue. It also doesn't mean they are right. I happen to believe it is right, I have browsed through plenty of papers on this subject. When I first started looking at the climate change issue, I thought it was hogwash. I didn't know anything about it, but I still had an opinion. Now, after years of looking at the different studies, models and findings, I have to side with Kyoto. However, it doesn't have my full support as far as the changes in the near future. Like some of those scientists in the letter to the National Post said, we were expected to be in a global cooling trend. But we're still warming? I think that our increased green house gas production is going to accelerate the cooling trend.
 

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Tonington

I respect your opinion. I don't believe anybody REALLY questions if Global Warming is indeed happening, it is whether or not it is anthropogenic or a natural occuring cycle. I won't claim to be any sort of expert, but there are questions from the Kyoto crowd that remain unanswered.

For example the issue of water vapor which constitutes 95% of the greenhouse gas effect. Now I know basic science enough to realize even a small portion of any type of element can create "problems". But the fact remains we are speaking of the same effect. I have never even read any article from the Kyoto crwod that addresses this issue, and I'm wondering why. Do you have an answer for it? Because I don't.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
First off, we have to realize that greenhouse gases are not a bad thing, mind you in limited quantities. If there were no greenhouse gases, it would be hellishly cold here. Water vapour does constitute the majority of greenhouse gas effect. The major contributors are gases like methane and carbon dioxide. They have a larger "forcing" effect in our upper atmosphere which traps in the reflected heat. The sun itself causes forcing, at it's current peak of solar activity, it is responsible for approximately 0.3 watts/metre squared. As of the most recent measurements, greenhouse gases are forcing at about 2.4 watts/metre squared. The effect of this heat capture in turn increases warming, which increases th e albedo effect. That is to say the melting icecaps increase the absorption of heat, and ultimately increases the water vapour in the atmosphere.
 
Last edited:

I think not

Hall of Fame Member
Apr 12, 2005
10,506
33
48
The Evil Empire
Tonington

I'm going to direct you to this site. It is a publication by Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia, and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service.


I have no clue if the man has oil stocks or any other "hidden" agenda. You appear to be well versed on what's going on. It's not a very long or incomprehensible publication. For me, it makes alot of sense. I would appreciate your input when and if you have the time.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html