Re: Kyoto
Are you suggesting that there was no Medieval Climate Optimum or Little Ice Age?
Reverend Blair said:
Are you suggesting that there was no Medieval Climate Optimum or Little Ice Age?
Kyoto Protocol
- Thread starter Reverend Blair
- Start date
RE: Kyoto
I am sure the natural evolution of the earth plays a part albeit a very small part as the earth does go in cycles but we have helped it accelerate, especially in the last 100 years with polluting the atmosphere from hair spray to polluting with our combustable engines which produce horrible amounts of pollution.
I see gas here was 101.9 at the local gas station and people still driving their big suv's etc, crude is going through the roof up 1.57 today(may hit 100-110 in the next few months) according to Rob tv and yet people do not get the message. I have no sympathy for people using gas guzzlers and spending 80 bucks on a fill. More people need to ride transit and cities need to greatly improve transit service. Also with all the obesity around more people should ride a bike or walk to the corner store and not drive anyways. ( i did not mean to offend anyone, like most people I could afford to lose 20-30 pounds myself)
We have to stop being "controlled" or "brainwashed" by the big car and oil companies. We need to rise up and force them to make energy effecient and environment friendly vehicles at an affordable cost, not the token "vehicles" that come out now at a huge price to consumers. Yet again it all comes around to money and greed and in my opinion another reason to eliminate currenecy, if we ever did eliminate the need for greed (money) a lot of our problems could be solved. But I do not ever think I will see a world like (as we are a "I need all the latest gadget's society) that in my lifetime, as greed and money will destroy the planet I think within 200 years. Just my 3 cents.
I am sure the natural evolution of the earth plays a part albeit a very small part as the earth does go in cycles but we have helped it accelerate, especially in the last 100 years with polluting the atmosphere from hair spray to polluting with our combustable engines which produce horrible amounts of pollution.
I see gas here was 101.9 at the local gas station and people still driving their big suv's etc, crude is going through the roof up 1.57 today(may hit 100-110 in the next few months) according to Rob tv and yet people do not get the message. I have no sympathy for people using gas guzzlers and spending 80 bucks on a fill. More people need to ride transit and cities need to greatly improve transit service. Also with all the obesity around more people should ride a bike or walk to the corner store and not drive anyways. ( i did not mean to offend anyone, like most people I could afford to lose 20-30 pounds myself)
We have to stop being "controlled" or "brainwashed" by the big car and oil companies. We need to rise up and force them to make energy effecient and environment friendly vehicles at an affordable cost, not the token "vehicles" that come out now at a huge price to consumers. Yet again it all comes around to money and greed and in my opinion another reason to eliminate currenecy, if we ever did eliminate the need for greed (money) a lot of our problems could be solved. But I do not ever think I will see a world like (as we are a "I need all the latest gadget's society) that in my lifetime, as greed and money will destroy the planet I think within 200 years. Just my 3 cents.
Re: Kyoto
I'm suggesting that the real science takes those into account and that the global warming deniers routinely misrepresent the science in order to keep the pay cheques flowing in from Exxon.
That's something the global science deniers prey on, No1important. There are cycles and there are other factors. The only that explains what we are seeing is our own actions though. The other factors are taken into account in the real science. The astroturfs and their oil sponsors then mine that science and take parts of it out of context.
I'm suggesting that the real science takes those into account and that the global warming deniers routinely misrepresent the science in order to keep the pay cheques flowing in from Exxon.
That's something the global science deniers prey on, No1important. There are cycles and there are other factors. The only that explains what we are seeing is our own actions though. The other factors are taken into account in the real science. The astroturfs and their oil sponsors then mine that science and take parts of it out of context.
Re: Kyoto
It's very true that the last 100 years have seen a lot of pollution put into the air land and water, but CO2 is not pollution, it's part of the atmosphere, totally necessary for life. (Since 1975 atmospheric CO2 has remained basicly constant.) The slight rise in global temperatures is nowhere near historic fluctuations in previous centuries and tiny when compared to what science indicates are prehistoric changes. Consider that all our heat comes from the sun, and even miniscule changes in the sun's output can have major implications for the earth. Our star is very unusual in that it burns quite steadily (which is a good thing or life would be impossible) but even so, it does fluctuate a little.
Reverend Blair said:
It's very true that the last 100 years have seen a lot of pollution put into the air land and water, but CO2 is not pollution, it's part of the atmosphere, totally necessary for life. (Since 1975 atmospheric CO2 has remained basicly constant.) The slight rise in global temperatures is nowhere near historic fluctuations in previous centuries and tiny when compared to what science indicates are prehistoric changes. Consider that all our heat comes from the sun, and even miniscule changes in the sun's output can have major implications for the earth. Our star is very unusual in that it burns quite steadily (which is a good thing or life would be impossible) but even so, it does fluctuate a little.
RE: Kyoto
There are several innaccuracies in that, Extrafire. We know that CO2 causes global warming. That's basic science...without the greenhose effect the earth would be habitable.
We know that we have been increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere. That is measurable. The atmosphere is a delicate balance and we are putting CO2 into it. We are changing the balance.
CO2 has not remained constant since 1975. We have increased our emissions every year. Do you think that just disappears?
The prehistoric changes happened gradually, allowing time for plants and animals to adapt. In the instances where it happened quickly the fossil records show mass extinctions. The changes that we are seeing are happening too fast for plants and animals to adapt. We are already seeing a mass extinction, some driven by global warming and some driven by habitat destruction (which furthers global warming).
The sun does have an effect. Responsible scientists take that effect into account. It does not explain the extent of the warming that we are seeing. It does not explain the atmospheric changes. It does not explain the amount of energy being put into the atmosphere.
Again though, just follow the money. When you see somebody speaking out against global warming, have a look into their past. As soon as you come across a tie to an oil company, especially Exxon, you have your ultimate answer...they are being paid to tell lies.
There are several innaccuracies in that, Extrafire. We know that CO2 causes global warming. That's basic science...without the greenhose effect the earth would be habitable.
We know that we have been increasing the CO2 in the atmosphere. That is measurable. The atmosphere is a delicate balance and we are putting CO2 into it. We are changing the balance.
CO2 has not remained constant since 1975. We have increased our emissions every year. Do you think that just disappears?
The prehistoric changes happened gradually, allowing time for plants and animals to adapt. In the instances where it happened quickly the fossil records show mass extinctions. The changes that we are seeing are happening too fast for plants and animals to adapt. We are already seeing a mass extinction, some driven by global warming and some driven by habitat destruction (which furthers global warming).
The sun does have an effect. Responsible scientists take that effect into account. It does not explain the extent of the warming that we are seeing. It does not explain the atmospheric changes. It does not explain the amount of energy being put into the atmosphere.
Again though, just follow the money. When you see somebody speaking out against global warming, have a look into their past. As soon as you come across a tie to an oil company, especially Exxon, you have your ultimate answer...they are being paid to tell lies.
RE: Kyoto
Not to mention that a large part of the rise in CO2 is partially caused by deforestation. As we remove more trees and our population grows, we are increasing the amounts of CO2 thrown up into the atmosphere. We are a closed system, because of this, a lot of factors, that we control, are interlinked. The fluctuations in the suns output add to the problem we have caused. It doesn't mean we should ignore the evidence right in front of us. Nor does it mean we should blindly follow data presented by companies with a vested interest in production of oil based products.
Not to mention that a large part of the rise in CO2 is partially caused by deforestation. As we remove more trees and our population grows, we are increasing the amounts of CO2 thrown up into the atmosphere. We are a closed system, because of this, a lot of factors, that we control, are interlinked. The fluctuations in the suns output add to the problem we have caused. It doesn't mean we should ignore the evidence right in front of us. Nor does it mean we should blindly follow data presented by companies with a vested interest in production of oil based products.
RE: Kyoto
You should read A Brief History of Progress by Ronald Wright, Extrafire. It isn't directly about global warming, but it does show what the results will lead to.
Everybody should read it.
You should read A Brief History of Progress by Ronald Wright, Extrafire. It isn't directly about global warming, but it does show what the results will lead to.
Everybody should read it.
Re: Kyoto
Without the greenhouse effect the earth would indeed be uninhabitable. Yes, that's basic science, well known. What is also well known is that CO2 is a small part of that, and that water vapour is the major greenhouse gas.
We have been increasing CO2 emissions, but the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere seems to have been relatively unchanged for the last while.
Much of the CO2 sequesters in the oceans, but what happens to the rest of the excess is as yet unknown.
Mass extinctions have come from external events such as asteroid collisions. Although extinctions are a natural occurance, and human activity contributes considerably to the rate of extinctions, there are no mass extinctions underway. There is movement of species into new territories (dragonflies and robins into the far north) and some distress on organisms, but no mass extinctions.
Yes it does, more than any other hypothesis.
It's always a good idea to look for the backers, but no matter what the evidence alone must be what determines the truth. It's a common practice to say something like "You can't believe him, he's a (enter here the despised group of your choice, Jew, Christian, athiest, communist, socialist, capitalist etc. They've all been used.) To a thinking person, this is a dead giveaway that the person making such accusations has no evidence to back up his position. Make your evaluations based on the evidence, not the messanger.
Hmmmm, let me think... We cut down trees, make the majority of the carbon content into lumber and build a house that stands for 100 years, thus creating a carbon sink. Then we plant new trees that sequester more carbon as they grow. Nope, that won't add to atmospheric CO2 at all. Humans deforesting in order to build farms and cities? Yup, that might do it, except there's more forested land in the world now than there was 100 years ago.
Then you would agree with me that Mann's hockey stick is not real science since it completely eliminates those historic events?
Re: Kyoto
Of course you wouldn't want people to look at this site.
Some quotes from that site:
Front Groups
Various front groups have been formed to oppose measures to prevent global warming, particularly in the US. They include the Global Climate Information Project which was formed just before the Kyoto meeting and spent millions on newspaper and television advertising aimed at scaring the public about what an agreement at Kyoto might mean in terms of increased prices for everything. The Coalition for Vehicle Choice, which is funded by car manufacturers including Ford, GM and Chrysler, also ran advertisements in the lead up to Kyoto.[17]
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) held a sweepstakes to encourage grassroots lobbying against a treaty. TASSC is funded by corporations such as 3M, Amoco, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon, Philip Morris, Procter and Gamble and General Motors. To be eligible for the $1000 prize contestants had to visit the Junk Science Web site, where global warming science is portrayed as junk science, and email President Clinton to either sign or not sign the Kyoto treaty. A sample letter urged Clinton not to sign because of the harm it would do to energy prices and "our standard of living."[18]
The Information Council on the Environment, which is a coal industry front group, incorporating the National Coal Association, Western Fuels, and Edison Electrical Institute amongst others, was formed in 1991 to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)." It has a large advertising budget and in a media strategy obtained by Ozone Action, detailed its plan to target "older, less-educated males from larger households who were not typically active information seekers", and to use scientists as spokespeople as they are more credible with the public.[19]
In the negotiating sessions leading up to the Kyoto Conference, industry representatives made up most of the observers, under a provision that enables organisations `qualified in matters covered by the Convention' to attend. They did not represent their firms at these meetings but corporate front groups such as the Global Climate Coalition and the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association.[20]
The Global Climate Coalition, a coalition of 50 US trade associations and private companies representing oil, gas, coal, automobile and chemical companies and trade associations, put together with the help of PR giant Burson-Marsteller, has spent millions of dollars in its campaign to persuade the public and governments that global warming is not a real threat.[21] On its home page it describes its membership as representing "a broad spectrum of virtually all elements of U.S. industry including the energy producing and energy consuming sectors" and says its concern is with the "potentially enormous impact that improper resolution [of global climate issues] may have on our industrial base, our customers and their lifestyles and the national economy."
The Coalition's tactics have included the distribution of a video to hundreds of journalists which claims that increased levels of carbon dioxide will increase crop production and help to feed the hungry people of the world. In the lead up to the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 the Global Climate Coalition and other industry interests successfully lobbied the US government to avoid mandatory emissions controls. Instead the Framework Climate Convention was watered down to suit the US. Industrialised countries, including Australia, pledged to stabilise their emissions at 1990 levels but this goal was not binding. It was soon recognised that this Convention was not enough. Emissions steadily increased in many countries including Australia and the US.
Some of these corporate front groups have come and gone as they have been exposed, only to be replaced by others. The Greening Earth Society was established in April 1998 by Western Fuels Association to convince people that "using fossil fuels to enable our economic activity is as natural as breathing". Another recent addition to the campaign has been the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which according to CLEAR, the Washington-based Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and Research, seems to have a strong working relationship with both Western Fuels and Greening Earth Society.[22]
Scientists
Corporations and their front groups have utilised a handful of dissident scientists to cast doubt on the likelihood of adverse impacts arising from global warming. These scientists who oppose the general scientific consensus on global warming have had their voices greatly amplified by fossil fuel interests. Gelbspan notes that "Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns. Most damaging has been their influence on decision makers..."[23]
Such scientists do not disclose their funding sources when talking to the media or before government hearings. An example is Patrick Michaels, who is generally described in the media as being from the University of Virginia. Michaels edits the World Climate Report, which is funded by Western Fuels Association (a consortium of coal interests) and associated companies. Additionally Michaels has received funding for his research from Western Fuels Association, Cyprus Minerals Company, the Edison Electric Institute and the German Coal Mining Association.[24] Michaels is on the advisory board of TASSC and was at one time on the advisory board of the Information Council on the Environment.
Michaels was featured in New Scientist in July 1997 as "a climatologist at the University of Virginia" and one of the "world's top scientists." Michael's criticisms of global warming models are cited in the article without any mention of his funding sources.[25] Michaels in turn cites the New Scientist article as supporting his views without mentioning the article was based on an interview with him.[26]
Michaels told an Australian business audience that global warming would lead to milder winters, longer agricultural seasons in cold climates and little extra heat in warmer climates. He was referred to in the Sydney Morning Herald as "a leading American climatologist" from the University of Virginia. The paper quoted him as saying "You'd have a very hard time saying it was a net negative.... I find it very hard to believe that the folks in the Pacific Islands won't adapt to a 30 centimetres sea level rise."[27]
Other scientists involved in the campaign to discredit greenhouse emission reduction targets include Dr Richard Lindzen, Dr Robert Balling, and Dr S. Fred Singer. Lindzen, who was also featured in the New Scientist article and in the Australian Institution of Engineers' Engineering World as an independent scientist is a consultant to the fossil fuel industry, charging $2500 a day for his services.[28]
Balling is also heavily funded by fossil fuel interests. Balling is reported in The Arizona Republic as saying that he had "received more like $700,000 over the past five years" from coal and oil interests in Great Britain, Germany and the US in the previous six years. A report by Ozone Action also details how Balling received research money from the Kuwait Government. His book, The Heated Debate, was commissioned by the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, a think tank opposed to environmental regulation.[29] Balling was also on the advisory council for the Information Council on the Environment.
Fred Singer is executive director of the think tank, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). This project was originally set up in 1990 with the help of the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy (funded by the Rev Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church) which provided it with free office space. (SEPP is no longer affiliated with Moon and receives its funding from various foundations.)[30]
SEPP argues that global warming, ozone depletion and acid rain are not real but rather are scare tactics used by environmentalists. Singer, speaks and writes prolifically on these subjects and is in demand by anti-environment groups.[31] He is on the advisory board of TASSC. Two of the leading Australian conservative think tanks have sponsored him to tour Australia, putting his views on global warming. Most recently he toured Austria in November 1997, prior to the Kyoto conference, and presented a speech to the Austrian parliament. He has worked for companies such as Exxon, Shell, and Arco.[32] According to the Environmental Research Foundation:
For years, Singer was a professor at the University of Virginia where he was funded by energy companies to pump out glossy pamphlets pooh-poohing climate change. Singer hasn't published original research on climate change in 20 years and is now an `independent' consultant, who spends his time writing letters to the editor, and testifying before Congress, claiming that ozone-depletion and global warming aren't real problems.[33]
The recently uncovered API documents reveal a new plan to "Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach... this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who are already vocal."[34]
Notice how everything is footnoted? That's because this paper contains real research. The same has been done for Sally Baliunas and her little buddies. They are funded by Exxon.
For the rest of your post check out The Charge of the Clueless Brigade. It shows not just what outright frauds the global warming deniers are, but how they resort to dirty tricks and spam in attempts to shut up anybody who dares to tell the truth.
Of course you wouldn't want people to look at this site.
Some quotes from that site:
Front Groups
Various front groups have been formed to oppose measures to prevent global warming, particularly in the US. They include the Global Climate Information Project which was formed just before the Kyoto meeting and spent millions on newspaper and television advertising aimed at scaring the public about what an agreement at Kyoto might mean in terms of increased prices for everything. The Coalition for Vehicle Choice, which is funded by car manufacturers including Ford, GM and Chrysler, also ran advertisements in the lead up to Kyoto.[17]
The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition (TASSC) held a sweepstakes to encourage grassroots lobbying against a treaty. TASSC is funded by corporations such as 3M, Amoco, Chevron, Dow Chemical, Exxon, Philip Morris, Procter and Gamble and General Motors. To be eligible for the $1000 prize contestants had to visit the Junk Science Web site, where global warming science is portrayed as junk science, and email President Clinton to either sign or not sign the Kyoto treaty. A sample letter urged Clinton not to sign because of the harm it would do to energy prices and "our standard of living."[18]
The Information Council on the Environment, which is a coal industry front group, incorporating the National Coal Association, Western Fuels, and Edison Electrical Institute amongst others, was formed in 1991 to "reposition global warming as theory (not fact)." It has a large advertising budget and in a media strategy obtained by Ozone Action, detailed its plan to target "older, less-educated males from larger households who were not typically active information seekers", and to use scientists as spokespeople as they are more credible with the public.[19]
In the negotiating sessions leading up to the Kyoto Conference, industry representatives made up most of the observers, under a provision that enables organisations `qualified in matters covered by the Convention' to attend. They did not represent their firms at these meetings but corporate front groups such as the Global Climate Coalition and the International Petroleum Industry Environmental Conservation Association.[20]
The Global Climate Coalition, a coalition of 50 US trade associations and private companies representing oil, gas, coal, automobile and chemical companies and trade associations, put together with the help of PR giant Burson-Marsteller, has spent millions of dollars in its campaign to persuade the public and governments that global warming is not a real threat.[21] On its home page it describes its membership as representing "a broad spectrum of virtually all elements of U.S. industry including the energy producing and energy consuming sectors" and says its concern is with the "potentially enormous impact that improper resolution [of global climate issues] may have on our industrial base, our customers and their lifestyles and the national economy."
The Coalition's tactics have included the distribution of a video to hundreds of journalists which claims that increased levels of carbon dioxide will increase crop production and help to feed the hungry people of the world. In the lead up to the Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro in 1992 the Global Climate Coalition and other industry interests successfully lobbied the US government to avoid mandatory emissions controls. Instead the Framework Climate Convention was watered down to suit the US. Industrialised countries, including Australia, pledged to stabilise their emissions at 1990 levels but this goal was not binding. It was soon recognised that this Convention was not enough. Emissions steadily increased in many countries including Australia and the US.
Some of these corporate front groups have come and gone as they have been exposed, only to be replaced by others. The Greening Earth Society was established in April 1998 by Western Fuels Association to convince people that "using fossil fuels to enable our economic activity is as natural as breathing". Another recent addition to the campaign has been the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change, which according to CLEAR, the Washington-based Clearinghouse on Environmental Advocacy and Research, seems to have a strong working relationship with both Western Fuels and Greening Earth Society.[22]
Scientists
Corporations and their front groups have utilised a handful of dissident scientists to cast doubt on the likelihood of adverse impacts arising from global warming. These scientists who oppose the general scientific consensus on global warming have had their voices greatly amplified by fossil fuel interests. Gelbspan notes that "Through their frequent pronouncements in the press and on radio and television, they have helped to create the illusion that the question is hopelessly mired in unknowns. Most damaging has been their influence on decision makers..."[23]
Such scientists do not disclose their funding sources when talking to the media or before government hearings. An example is Patrick Michaels, who is generally described in the media as being from the University of Virginia. Michaels edits the World Climate Report, which is funded by Western Fuels Association (a consortium of coal interests) and associated companies. Additionally Michaels has received funding for his research from Western Fuels Association, Cyprus Minerals Company, the Edison Electric Institute and the German Coal Mining Association.[24] Michaels is on the advisory board of TASSC and was at one time on the advisory board of the Information Council on the Environment.
Michaels was featured in New Scientist in July 1997 as "a climatologist at the University of Virginia" and one of the "world's top scientists." Michael's criticisms of global warming models are cited in the article without any mention of his funding sources.[25] Michaels in turn cites the New Scientist article as supporting his views without mentioning the article was based on an interview with him.[26]
Michaels told an Australian business audience that global warming would lead to milder winters, longer agricultural seasons in cold climates and little extra heat in warmer climates. He was referred to in the Sydney Morning Herald as "a leading American climatologist" from the University of Virginia. The paper quoted him as saying "You'd have a very hard time saying it was a net negative.... I find it very hard to believe that the folks in the Pacific Islands won't adapt to a 30 centimetres sea level rise."[27]
Other scientists involved in the campaign to discredit greenhouse emission reduction targets include Dr Richard Lindzen, Dr Robert Balling, and Dr S. Fred Singer. Lindzen, who was also featured in the New Scientist article and in the Australian Institution of Engineers' Engineering World as an independent scientist is a consultant to the fossil fuel industry, charging $2500 a day for his services.[28]
Balling is also heavily funded by fossil fuel interests. Balling is reported in The Arizona Republic as saying that he had "received more like $700,000 over the past five years" from coal and oil interests in Great Britain, Germany and the US in the previous six years. A report by Ozone Action also details how Balling received research money from the Kuwait Government. His book, The Heated Debate, was commissioned by the Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, a think tank opposed to environmental regulation.[29] Balling was also on the advisory council for the Information Council on the Environment.
Fred Singer is executive director of the think tank, the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP). This project was originally set up in 1990 with the help of the Washington Institute for Values in Public Policy (funded by the Rev Sun Myung Moon's Unification Church) which provided it with free office space. (SEPP is no longer affiliated with Moon and receives its funding from various foundations.)[30]
SEPP argues that global warming, ozone depletion and acid rain are not real but rather are scare tactics used by environmentalists. Singer, speaks and writes prolifically on these subjects and is in demand by anti-environment groups.[31] He is on the advisory board of TASSC. Two of the leading Australian conservative think tanks have sponsored him to tour Australia, putting his views on global warming. Most recently he toured Austria in November 1997, prior to the Kyoto conference, and presented a speech to the Austrian parliament. He has worked for companies such as Exxon, Shell, and Arco.[32] According to the Environmental Research Foundation:
For years, Singer was a professor at the University of Virginia where he was funded by energy companies to pump out glossy pamphlets pooh-poohing climate change. Singer hasn't published original research on climate change in 20 years and is now an `independent' consultant, who spends his time writing letters to the editor, and testifying before Congress, claiming that ozone-depletion and global warming aren't real problems.[33]
The recently uncovered API documents reveal a new plan to "Identify, recruit and train a team of five independent scientists to participate in media outreach... this team will consist of new faces who will add their voices to those recognized scientists who are already vocal."[34]
Notice how everything is footnoted? That's because this paper contains real research. The same has been done for Sally Baliunas and her little buddies. They are funded by Exxon.
For the rest of your post check out The Charge of the Clueless Brigade. It shows not just what outright frauds the global warming deniers are, but how they resort to dirty tricks and spam in attempts to shut up anybody who dares to tell the truth.
Re: Kyoto
You still haven't directly answered this one.
Your quotes in red and blue were all about the backers, but in spite of all that, to form an accurate opinion of the truth, you must examine the evidence on it's own merits independant of the identities of those who fund it.
Not only that, we need only check back to see if predictions of doom and gloom have come true. IPCC predictions consistantly fail to do that. Not even close. Reminds me of Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon. Simon was constantly belittled by the likes of your friends at those websites, yet all his predictions came true and Ehrlich's failed.
A hundred years from now, people will wonder how our generation could have been so gullible.
You still haven't directly answered this one.
Your quotes in red and blue were all about the backers, but in spite of all that, to form an accurate opinion of the truth, you must examine the evidence on it's own merits independant of the identities of those who fund it.
Not only that, we need only check back to see if predictions of doom and gloom have come true. IPCC predictions consistantly fail to do that. Not even close. Reminds me of Paul Ehrlich and Julian Simon. Simon was constantly belittled by the likes of your friends at those websites, yet all his predictions came true and Ehrlich's failed.
A hundred years from now, people will wonder how our generation could have been so gullible.
Re: Kyoto
Actually, I answered it when you first asked it. The scientists took apart the theory put forth by a man from the mining industry and and economist.
I also noted that the myth about the hockey stick being central to both global warming theory and the Kyoto agreement was bunk...an outright lie actually.
The Charge of the Clueless Brigade also deals with those things. You should clicked on the link.
The evidence you present is questionable at best, which raises the question of why so many from unrelated fields are so interested in attacking the science behind global warming. When that question is asked, the answer, time after time, is Exxon. Think that's a coincidence? I don't.
Actually the predictions were for the very effects we are seeing in the arctic and antactic right now. The predictions were of more extreme weather events. The predictions were for the formation of micro-climates. The predictions were for glaciers on mountains melting. The only way the predictions have been off is that nobody thought we would see this much effect this quickly.
Are you going to tell me that the arctic isn't melting now? Are you going to take data from one micro-climate in Antarctica and refuse to acknowledge what's been happening on the rest of that continent? Are you going to blame the lack of snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro for the first time in 11,000 years on warm updrafts? The snow-caps melting off the Rockies is just a fluke, right?
Sorry...I've heard all these things before and the science behind them is sorely lacking. The evidence shows that climate is warming, that it's have a serious effect already, and that we are the cause. You can go play with your hockey stick all you want. You can't change fact.
Actually, I answered it when you first asked it. The scientists took apart the theory put forth by a man from the mining industry and and economist.
I also noted that the myth about the hockey stick being central to both global warming theory and the Kyoto agreement was bunk...an outright lie actually.
The Charge of the Clueless Brigade also deals with those things. You should clicked on the link.
The evidence you present is questionable at best, which raises the question of why so many from unrelated fields are so interested in attacking the science behind global warming. When that question is asked, the answer, time after time, is Exxon. Think that's a coincidence? I don't.
Actually the predictions were for the very effects we are seeing in the arctic and antactic right now. The predictions were of more extreme weather events. The predictions were for the formation of micro-climates. The predictions were for glaciers on mountains melting. The only way the predictions have been off is that nobody thought we would see this much effect this quickly.
Are you going to tell me that the arctic isn't melting now? Are you going to take data from one micro-climate in Antarctica and refuse to acknowledge what's been happening on the rest of that continent? Are you going to blame the lack of snow on Mt. Kilimanjaro for the first time in 11,000 years on warm updrafts? The snow-caps melting off the Rockies is just a fluke, right?
Sorry...I've heard all these things before and the science behind them is sorely lacking. The evidence shows that climate is warming, that it's have a serious effect already, and that we are the cause. You can go play with your hockey stick all you want. You can't change fact.
Re: Kyoto
I think the fact that Kyoto will work or not if everybody signs on is secondary. The main idea is the symbol of a step forward to curb our barbaric destruction of the Earth. Anybody who claims that what we are doing is not bad for us and/or the environment is either an idiot, a corporate maniac only worried about the bottom-line, or both.
Extra fire: would you stop babbling. Don't you realize that change is needed. Stop arguing for arguments sake. It doesn't take a scientist to realize we are destroying the Earth.
What is everybodies problem with Kyoto?? It's going to hurt our economy......boohooo......big business won't like it.....waaawaaaa. What we'll do is move you next door to an oil refinery or a 2-4-d plant and see how you like it. What are we going to do when all the ecosystems have been destroyed and we are screwed.
I think the fact that Kyoto will work or not if everybody signs on is secondary. The main idea is the symbol of a step forward to curb our barbaric destruction of the Earth. Anybody who claims that what we are doing is not bad for us and/or the environment is either an idiot, a corporate maniac only worried about the bottom-line, or both.
Extra fire: would you stop babbling. Don't you realize that change is needed. Stop arguing for arguments sake. It doesn't take a scientist to realize we are destroying the Earth.
What is everybodies problem with Kyoto?? It's going to hurt our economy......boohooo......big business won't like it.....waaawaaaa. What we'll do is move you next door to an oil refinery or a 2-4-d plant and see how you like it. What are we going to do when all the ecosystems have been destroyed and we are screwed.
Re: Kyoto
Those are straw-man arguments anyway. There hasn't been a technological advance in the history of man that didn't create more wealth and spread that wealth more equitably among the people.
That the opposition to Kyoto and the "scientists" from the anti-environment camp have ties to the oil industry is very telling. The only people seriously resisting this are those with a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry.
Those are straw-man arguments anyway. There hasn't been a technological advance in the history of man that didn't create more wealth and spread that wealth more equitably among the people.
That the opposition to Kyoto and the "scientists" from the anti-environment camp have ties to the oil industry is very telling. The only people seriously resisting this are those with a vested interest in the fossil fuel industry.
RE: Kyoto
The majority of Junk science comes from the anti-Kyoto side. They have an agenda...to show that global warming is not our fault.
The pro-Kyoto side has no such agenda. They take other factors into account (the anti-Kyoto crowd then mines their work for data and misrepresents it), they freely admit (and criticize) the Kyoto agreement for its shortcomings (which the anti-Kyoto crowd then uses as propaganda).
Of over 300 peer reviewed papers published on the subject between 1992 and 2002, 75% of them supported anthropogenic global warming theory. The remaining 25% did not deny it, but contested parts of it. Those are amazing numbers in scientific community. Rarely is that kind of consensus ever reached over that sort of time-frame.
The majority of Junk science comes from the anti-Kyoto side. They have an agenda...to show that global warming is not our fault.
The pro-Kyoto side has no such agenda. They take other factors into account (the anti-Kyoto crowd then mines their work for data and misrepresents it), they freely admit (and criticize) the Kyoto agreement for its shortcomings (which the anti-Kyoto crowd then uses as propaganda).
Of over 300 peer reviewed papers published on the subject between 1992 and 2002, 75% of them supported anthropogenic global warming theory. The remaining 25% did not deny it, but contested parts of it. Those are amazing numbers in scientific community. Rarely is that kind of consensus ever reached over that sort of time-frame.
RE: Kyoto
So basically a clash between large oil and resource corporations and the average citizen/environmentalist. I guess we will see how screwed our global society is by the results.
So basically a clash between large oil and resource corporations and the average citizen/environmentalist. I guess we will see how screwed our global society is by the results.
RE: Kyoto
That's what it really comes down to. The corporate interests have a lot more political power than the voters they represent though, and the media reports have been skewed as a result.
That's what it really comes down to. The corporate interests have a lot more political power than the voters they represent though, and the media reports have been skewed as a result.
RE: Kyoto
Yeah that makes sense. People aren't organized enough. Governments are worried about appeasing multinationals through subsidies rather than take a stance against them.
Yeah that makes sense. People aren't organized enough. Governments are worried about appeasing multinationals through subsidies rather than take a stance against them.
Re: Kyoto
Yup, Arctic is melting, but then it has happened before, like about 100 years ago (can't remember where I read that old account) but back then they thought it was a good thing. And the antarctic cap is growing.
Those predictions were only made after the temp increase predictions failed. Weather events have not become more extreme.
Hadn't heard that one. Friend of mine was in Tanzenia last summer and there was snow.
I never heard the argument that the hockey stick was central to global warming theory or Kyoto, and never said that. It was done after the fact, but it was advanced as supporting evidence for global warming, and still is. It doesn't show the little ice age. My question was, since it doesn't show this historic event, would you then agree that it is bad science? Or are you suggesting that the little ice age never happened? (I did click on the link but didn't have time to go through all the material. I didn't find anything there that answered that question either.)
Re: Kyoto
If indeed we are destroying the earth, wouldn't it make more sense to do something that will actually have an effect instead of wasting all that time and money on a symbol? Kyoto fully implemented (including USA and Australia) with all countries meeting their targets would have no effect. Do you seriously believe that countries like China and India will sign on to the next round? Do you realize the extent of the action that would have to be taken if global warming theory were true? We'd have to shut down all industry and most agriculture in the world. Do you have any comprehension the devastation that would cause? We don't have the technology to replace current emission energy. Better to use the money to develope new technologies.
They have a socialist agenda, and anti-capitalist agenda. Socialism is the politics of envy. It's not about climate, it's all about envy.
Right on! We agree on something. I'm a big booster of technology. Bjorn Lomborg has the same idea. Forget the Kyoto stuff and push the technology. The sooner we can develope a "cold fusion" type of energy production, the better.