Kyoto Protocol

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

You obviously haven't got a clue how science works, Extrafire. Global warming theory and all of its smaller parts are challenged every day. That happens when scientists analyse data, conduct experiments, and do further research based on their findings. It causes the theory to grow and change over time, for new variables to be considered, for new models to be developed.

That's the way that science...real science...works. Very few theories have met as many serious challenges in so short a time and from so many disciplines as anthropogenic-caused climate change. Not only has the theory survived, but it has grown more comprehensive and stronger with each valid challenge.

You can choose to believe the charlatans and snake oil salesmen if you wish, but please don't try to put them forth as serious scientists. They are nothing but purveyors of self-serving voodoo.

 

[Extrafire]

RE: Kyoto

You have already demonstrated that you have no respect for science or scientists who contradict your dogmatic beliefs so any further comment by you or reply by me would be irrelevant.

 

[Reverend Blair]

Re: Kyoto

:roll: :lol:

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: Kyoto

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

I was picking up my neighbors mail while he’s on holidays and was able to take a glance at his latest edition of Discover magazine. One article “Up a Creek” had a few experts discussing the answers to global warming. One of them mentioned a method of extracting CO2 from the atmosphere and sequestering it deep underground as a solution that would allow us to keep burning fossil fuels for 200 years. Apparently it’s easy enough to extract, and from what I was able to glean from a quick glance [all I had time for] it may be part of hydrogen production [never heard that before] There’s a possible problem with leakage from underground, but something they apparently weren’t aware of, is that CO2 sequestered in the deep ocean becomes solidified by cold and pressure into pebbles which are heavier than water and sink to the bottom, never to return.

If there is a problem with human produced CO2, [and I still don’t think there is] this would seem to make a lot more sense as far as doing something about it, rather than the totally ineffective Kyoto accord. Worth looking at. The article is online at http://www.discover.com/issues/sep-05/features/up-a-creek/ but you’ll have to register to read it all. I’ll leave it with you.

 

[Extrafire]

Re: Kyoto

Here’s an article in Der Spiegel on the coming and goings of glaciers. http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,357366,00.html
They’ve discovered the remains of an old growth forest from 6500 years ago, over 7000 ft. elevation where today there is a glacier. Seems that melting glaciers aren’t a harbinger of doom, that it’s been going on for millennia. The glacier in question seems to have been largest at the “little ice age” and has been retreating ever since. Of course, the global warming industry continues to insist that it has never been warmer than it is now, in spite of historical records and scientific data to the contrary.

But whatever your views on global warming, this is a very interesting article in itself. Take a look. [Can’t cut & paste because of copywrite.]

Just HAD to drop in and post these. Bye again.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

Sequestering CO2 is not as easy as all that, EF. Also that CO2 that you say is:

sequestered in the deep ocean becomes solidified by cold and pressure into pebbles which are heavier than water and sink to the bottom, never to return.

does return. In fact the release of that CO2 is thought to have been responsible for at least one major extinction of the past. Oddly enough that release closely resembled the global warming that we are presently seeing.

Your misinterpretation of the coming and going of glaciers is misleading at best. If you'd take the time to learn what the scientists are saying, you would find that it is the speed of the change that points to man-made influence to global warming and the accellerated greenhouse effect.

Anyway, try keeping the data in context and understanding what climate scientists are actually saying instead of picking and choosing.

Bye for now. I'm sure you'll be back when you find more misleading articles.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Kyoto

.

That's the way that science...real science...works. Very few theories have met as many serious challenges in so short a time and from so many disciplines as anthropogenic-caused climate change. Not only has the theory survived, but it has grown more comprehensive and stronger with each valid challenge.

Extra brings up the "LIA", which in itself is interesting, but left out one of the "possible" contributing factors (aside for little to no sunspot activity during that period). Human activity was at an all time low due to the massive deaths from the Black Plauge in Europe, where the effects of the LIA were experienced the most (and in N. America also). Of course, this output would be primarily agriculturally based, still interesting nonetheless. There was also a lot of volcanic activity around then too!

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

It's funny....the little ice age has been tied to everything from Arthurian myth to the failure of the Norse colony in Greenland. Data from the little ice age, including tree ring data and ice core samples, are integral to climate science and global warming theory. For some reason though the climate change deniers point to the little ice age, largely by taking data out of context and misinterpreting the science, in an attempt to prove that there is no global warming.

 

[Said1]

Re: RE: Kyoto

It's funny....the little ice age has been tied to everything from Arthurian myth to the failure of the Norse colony in Greenland. Data from the little ice age, including tree ring data and ice core samples, are integral to climate science and global warming theory. For some reason though the climate change deniers point to the little ice age, largely by taking data out of context and misinterpreting the science, in an attempt to prove that there is no global warming.

No one is denying that natural occurances do cause dramatic changes in climate and weather patterns, BUT contributing to global warming adds to these natural warming and cooling patterns. Duh.

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

Which is why I'm trying to talk Mrs. Rev into getting one of those little scooters. Well, that and I could call her Batgirl then. ;-)

 

[Jo Canadian]

Re: Kyoto

 

[MMMike]

Re: Kyoto

Business leaders call for climate change action
Last Updated Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:04:01 EST
CBC News
The leaders of a group of major Canadian corporations have called for urgent action on climate change, a major reversal of the business community's position on the Kyoto protocol.

http://www.cbc.ca/story/business/national/2005/11/17/kyotobiz-051117.html

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

Maybe they're finally figuring it out...the potential damage is far costlier than their having to adjust to a reality that's coming anyway.

Not to mention that there are huge profits to made from being environmentally friendly.

 

[MMMike]

Re: Kyoto

Conversion on the road to Damascus??

 

[Jay]

Re: Kyoto

Conversion on the road to Damascus??

Good one.

But that would imply they were right. :lol:

 

[Reverend Blair]

RE: Kyoto

Conversion on the way to selling insulation, more likely. Home Depot retails products that people will buy. Alcan can supply foil for several different products (there's a lot of foil-backed insulation out there for instance. Desjardins Group sells mortgages on new homes and for refinancing to upgrade. Falconbridge can supply a lot of metal for building supplies. Shell has been investing in alternative energies pretty heavily for a few years according to their commercials.

The message that business has been refusing to understand for a very long time is that being environmentally friendly offers them savings in their operations and profits from selling envirnmentally sound products.

It's about frigging time they figured it out.

The relatively small size of this group and continued resistance from other corporations points to something else as well. Business is slow moving and not very business savvy.

 

[I think not]

Re: Kyoto

NEW YORK - Kyoto Treaty RIP. That's not the headline in any newspaper this morning emerging from the first day of the Clinton Global Initiative, but it could have been -- and should have been.

Onstage with former president Bill Clinton at a midtown Manhattan hotel ballroom, British Prime Minister Tony Blair said he was going to speak with "brutal honesty" about Kyoto and global warming, and he did. And Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice had some blunt talk, too.

Blair, a longtime supporter of the Kyoto treaty, further prefaced his remarks by noting, "My thinking has changed in the past three or four years." So what does he think now? "No country," he declared, "is going to cut its growth." That is, no country is going to allow the Kyoto treaty, or any other such global-warming treaty, to crimp -- some say cripple -- its economy.

Looking ahead to future climate-change negotiations, Blair said of such fast-growing countries as India and China, "They're not going to start negotiating another treaty like Kyoto." India and China, of course, weren't covered by Kyoto in the first place, which was one of the fatal flaws in the treaty. But now Blair is acknowledging the obvious: that after the current Kyoto treaty -- which the US never acceded to -- expires in 2012, there's not going to be another worldwide deal like it.

So what will happen instead? Blair answered: "What countries will do is work together to develop the science and technology….There is no way that we are going to tackle this problem unless we develop the science and technology to do it." Bingo! That's what eco-realists have been saying all along, of course -- that the only feasible way to deal with the issue of greenhouse gases and global warming is through technological breakthroughs, not draconian cutbacks.

Blair concluded with a rhetorical question-and-answer: "How do we move forward, post-Kyoto? It can only be done by the major players coming together and pooling their resources, to find their way to come together."

Continued

 

[Jay]

RE: Kyoto

"Bingo! That's what eco-realists have been saying all along, of course -- that the only feasible way to deal with the issue of greenhouse gases and global warming is through technological breakthroughs, not draconian cutbacks. "

No doubt!

 

[Hard-Luck Henry]

RE: Kyoto

That's not really what Blair's saying, Jay - he thinks there should be room for both targets and technological solutions. The problem with target-based policies is they fall down when not everyone is willing to accept them.

This is more political realism than "eco-realism". Blair merely recognises that progress on climate change is impossible as long as certain other countries refuse to participate. At present, any nation that moves first to solve global warming would carry the risk of economic sacrifice and invite capital and corporations to move business and jobs to those other less regulated, more profitable countries.

Some of these countries may have the excuse that they need growth, in order to bring their populations out of poverty. Other countries don't have that excuse, and their resistance to doing anything about climate change is due simply to corporate greed and populations seemingly addicted to consuming crap they don't need.