Global warming is real
- Thread starter #juan
- Start date
China is set to build over 500 coal fire electric power stations, this should help the environment.
I'm glad they're just a "developing" Nation.
Kyoto Prototcol=...
Who are they buying their credits from? The US?
They aren't buying credits!!!
That's the problem, they are exempt.
That is why the Protocol is nothing more then social engineering vailed as a scientific necessaity. It allows certain "developing" nations to exploit and damage the environmet at will. This of course gives them an advantage against western industry. While our monthly bills sky rocket to cover purchases of credits from "developing" nations and the enforcement of unrealistic targets based on junk science, the third world will endevour to surpass our industrial production, unincumbered and without regard for the environment.
Yet to the sheeple, Kyoto will mend the climete...
BS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Incorrect, China is a signatory.
They love the protocol, it protects them and exempts them from any financial bounds. Gotta love the socialist hidden agenda in Kyoto blah.
Your right. I found out why too.
Position of the People's Republic of China
The People's Republic of China insists that the gas emissions level of any given country is a multiplication of its per capita emission and its population. China endorses this because of the advantage it would get within the new restrictions. Because China has emplaced population control measures while maintaining low emissions per capita, it claims it should therefore in both the above aspects be considered a contributor to the world environment. China considers the criticism of its energy policy unjust.[28] China is currently the second largest emitter of greenhouse gases, and is expected to become the largest by 2030.[29]
In 2004 the total greenhouse gas emissions from China were about 54% of the USA emissions [1]. China is now building on average a coal-fired power plant every week and plans to continue doing so for years [2][3]. Some predictions are that China will emit more greenhouse gas than the USA in 2 or 3 years [4] [5].
Foubd here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kyoto_Protocol
So if global warming is still debatable exactly what would bring that small group of science community skeptics on board who still refuse their ticket? As a boomer, I have an advantage in the anecdotal. Winters in rural eastern Ontario have changed dramatically since the 60's. The last decade has seen increasingly bold change. This winter didn't begin 'til the second week in January. January 2006 was one of the warmest on record. There seems to be a trend in place and yet the skeptics will insist it's merely anomaly. If the trend persists into the next decade is there any point where they concede? Surely, doubters have some threshold that even they would respect if it was crossed. So what is it?
US urges 'global discussion' on UN warming report
By Deborah Zabarenko and Chris Baltimore
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration played down the U.S. contribution to world climate change on Friday and called for a "global discussion" after a U.N. report blamed humans for much of the warming over the past 50 years.
"We are a small contributor when you look at the rest of the world," U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said of greenhouse gas emissions. "It's really got to be a global discussion."
The United States is responsible for one-quarter of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide and uses one-quarter of the world's crude oil.
A unilateral U.S. program to cut emissions might hurt the economy and send business overseas, Bodman said.
But Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who chairs the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said: "This report must serve as a wake-up call to those policymakers who have ignored this issue. We must take action now."
http://tinyurl.com/yu82sb
By Deborah Zabarenko and Chris Baltimore
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Bush administration played down the U.S. contribution to world climate change on Friday and called for a "global discussion" after a U.N. report blamed humans for much of the warming over the past 50 years.
"We are a small contributor when you look at the rest of the world," U.S. Energy Secretary Sam Bodman said of greenhouse gas emissions. "It's really got to be a global discussion."
The United States is responsible for one-quarter of the world's emissions of carbon dioxide and uses one-quarter of the world's crude oil.
A unilateral U.S. program to cut emissions might hurt the economy and send business overseas, Bodman said.
But Sen. Barbara Boxer, a California Democrat who chairs the U.S. Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, said: "This report must serve as a wake-up call to those policymakers who have ignored this issue. We must take action now."
http://tinyurl.com/yu82sb
Not to many deny that global warming is indeed occuring, many question not only the science, but the agenda behind centering out one field of contibutions, to the cause of said climate change. The dismissal of documented increases in solar activity, the glossing over of deforestion(trees and plants being a natural CO2 filter), all these omissions lead the sceptic to beleive there is something afoot with in the community that continuously foists Kyoto on the sheeple.
I just love hearing from the left coast. Not surprising though, to hear more calls for doing something without actually contibuting anything, well new at least.
Bear
I'm going to assume (yes I know that assume makes me...) you're familiar with basic chemistry and physics.
During the last ice-age there weren't a gazillion cars on the roads... but beyond that...
The star we call "Sun" is a thermo-nuclear engine that life on this planet is reliant upon. The engine has bombarded earth with radiation..photons and electromagnetic energy...forever...
Living organisms (plants mostly) store the energy of the Sun as they grow. This energy is re-united at a basic atomic level with all the constituent elements that comprise the substance of plants...carbon hydrogen...all kinds of stuff..
As life without human beings progressed, this vegetable matter dies and under pressure over a very long time...becomes petroleum...black gold...Texas tea...
This energy is what makes fossil fuels worth so much....
Do you really believe that a system of growth and decay over millions of years...won't be affected when the two-legged variety of intelligent beings who dominate this planet release the energy of millions of years (stored underground) into an atmosphere already suffering the substitution of phenobenzopyrene and other poisonous substances in place of oxygen and nitrogen...
The steady rise and decline of energy systems is part of the universes' "normal" operation...human industry and greed have introduced a new component into that machinery and we're beginning to see the results of that action.
Take a few billions gallons of petroleum (suns energy) and release it through the tailpipes of cars trucks and busses...and something's got to change...
Denying the effects of human industry and consumption as critical factor in causing this change is what Exxon and Shell and big business in general wants you to embrace.
It's a lie Bear.
I'm going to assume (yes I know that assume makes me...) you're familiar with basic chemistry and physics.
During the last ice-age there weren't a gazillion cars on the roads... but beyond that...
The star we call "Sun" is a thermo-nuclear engine that life on this planet is reliant upon. The engine has bombarded earth with radiation..photons and electromagnetic energy...forever...
Living organisms (plants mostly) store the energy of the Sun as they grow. This energy is re-united at a basic atomic level with all the constituent elements that comprise the substance of plants...carbon hydrogen...all kinds of stuff..
As life without human beings progressed, this vegetable matter dies and under pressure over a very long time...becomes petroleum...black gold...Texas tea...
This energy is what makes fossil fuels worth so much....
Do you really believe that a system of growth and decay over millions of years...won't be affected when the two-legged variety of intelligent beings who dominate this planet release the energy of millions of years (stored underground) into an atmosphere already suffering the substitution of phenobenzopyrene and other poisonous substances in place of oxygen and nitrogen...
The steady rise and decline of energy systems is part of the universes' "normal" operation...human industry and greed have introduced a new component into that machinery and we're beginning to see the results of that action.
Take a few billions gallons of petroleum (suns energy) and release it through the tailpipes of cars trucks and busses...and something's got to change...
Denying the effects of human industry and consumption as critical factor in causing this change is what Exxon and Shell and big business in general wants you to embrace.
It's a lie Bear.
Bear, deforestation would be classified as human activity and a catalyst. It's one of many levers at work contributing to the the global climate crisis unfolding today. I'd like to think this is just a bump on the road but the change does seem to be entrenched and accelerating. Something has to be done by human communities to slow the train.
Mikey, given Exxon's latest profit reports, I think we can expect some co-operation from the corporate sector in getting a fix going.
Mikey, given Exxon's latest profit reports, I think we can expect some co-operation from the corporate sector in getting a fix going.
Ah, but Mikey, I do not beleive that it is not part of the problem, I beleive that the people that have put together this roll of toilet paper together, have the best interests of the planet at heart. I hold up China as my example of the hypocracy in this document.
The environemet is not the clincher at the end of this sales pitch, it's social engineering.
Climate change is real, the scientists and politicians that are crying for us all to accept this and all documentation, leading us to support Kyoto, are lying and misleading to further their agenda.
Lets get one thing straight here. The Kyoto Protocol is not science. The Kyoto Protocol is the end result of 180 beurocratic delegates who couldn't agree on policy. The Protocol has three major flaws and note they are not scientific.
1) The decision to exclude 150 developing nations
2) The agreement is legally binding, with no way of enforcing
3) The agreement was premature, incomplete and adopted anyways.
So far what I'm seeing here is refutation of this new science based on old science, in some cases as someone mentioned earlier retired researchers who probably havn't touched a broad range spectrometer or sampled materials in over 10 years.
1) The decision to exclude 150 developing nations
2) The agreement is legally binding, with no way of enforcing
3) The agreement was premature, incomplete and adopted anyways.
So far what I'm seeing here is refutation of this new science based on old science, in some cases as someone mentioned earlier retired researchers who probably havn't touched a broad range spectrometer or sampled materials in over 10 years.
The ostriches just can't seem to understand the science. Bush and his cronies refused to understand it and Harper went right along with them. We will notice over the next few weeks that both Bush and Harper have changed course by about a hundred and eighty degrees. Now the irresponsible right can't get enough of climate change. What was a plot to "suck money" from the good guys is now a "real danger that we all have to address". Funny.....
We might rightly expect help from the corporate sector, but, Exxon cannot conduct war in the ME to save us from terrorism and participate in the war on CO2 at the same time. There's profit in only one of those endeavours for Exxon, reduction in the flow of oil to the market and a subsequent reduction in sales or higher unit prices which would reduce earnings as well, none of these alternatives secures profit growth for exxon, so I don't expect anything but the same crap from Exxon.
How about some hard data here folks. The Globe&Mail has had series of articles on the subject recently. I'd provide a link but I can't connect to their server right now. Last week it printed a pair of charts showing global average temperature and atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations over the last 400,000 years. What emerges instantly from even a casual glance at them is that they both have been rising and falling on about a 100,000 year cycle, with carbon dioxide concentration leading the temperature change by a few thousand years. The earth last began to warm sharply about 18,00 years ago, when global average temperature was about 8 degrees cooler than it is now. Over the next 8000 years it rose 8 degrees, and over the last 10,000 years it's fluctuated irregularly up and down within 2 degrees of the average temperature in 1950. Here's the temperature chart. I had to do it in two pieces because it's too wide for my scanner bed.