Nine Facts about Global Warming

Consensus my arse...

Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says
Kate Ravilious
for National Geographic News
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070228-mars-warming.html

February 28, 2007

Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human-induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory.

Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. (Get an overview: "Global Warming Fast Facts".)

Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures.

In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row.

Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun.

"The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said.


Solar Cycles

Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets.

Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories.

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars.

Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists.

"His views are completely at odds with the mainstream scientific opinion," said Colin Wilson, a planetary physicist at England's Oxford University.

"And they contradict the extensive evidence presented in the most recent IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] report." (Related: "Global Warming 'Very Likely' Caused by Humans, World Climate Experts Say" [February 2, 2007].)

Amato Evan, a climate scientist at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, added that "the idea just isn't supported by the theory or by the observations."

Planets' Wobbles

The conventional theory is that climate changes on Mars can be explained primarily by small alterations in the planet's orbit and tilt, not by changes in the sun.

"Wobbles in the orbit of Mars are the main cause of its climate change in the current era," Oxford's Wilson explained. (Related: "Don't Blame Sun for Global Warming, Study Says" [September 13, 2006].)

All planets experience a few wobbles as they make their journey around the sun. Earth's wobbles are known as Milankovitch cycles and occur on time scales of between 20,000 and 100,000 years.

These fluctuations change the tilt of Earth's axis and its distance from the sun and are thought to be responsible for the waxing and waning of ice ages on Earth.

Mars and Earth wobble in different ways, and most scientists think it is pure coincidence that both planets are between ice ages right now.

"Mars has no moon, which makes its wobbles much larger, and hence the swings in climate are greater too," Wilson said.

No Greenhouse

Perhaps the biggest stumbling block in Abdussamatov's theory is his dismissal of the greenhouse effect, in which atmospheric gases such as carbon dioxide help keep heat trapped near the planet's surface.

He claims that carbon dioxide has only a small influence on Earth's climate and virtually no influence on Mars.

But "without the greenhouse effect there would be very little, if any, life on Earth, since our planet would pretty much be a big ball of ice," said Evan, of the University of Wisconsin.

Most scientists now fear that the massive amount of carbon dioxide humans are pumping into the air will lead to a catastrophic rise in Earth's temperatures, dramatically raising sea levels as glaciers melt and leading to extreme weather worldwide.

Abdussamatov remains contrarian, however, suggesting that the sun holds something quite different in store.

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."
 
Oh my, what a rectal extraction........

First, this guy acknowledges the contributions of man-made greenhouse global warming:

"Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said.

But then goes on to extrapolate the minute effects of solar irradiance, concluding with this doozey:

"The solar irradiance began to drop in the 1990s, and a minimum will be reached by approximately 2040," Abdussamatov said. "It will cause a steep cooling of the climate on Earth in 15 to 20 years."

If the solar irradiance "began to drop in the 1990s", and according to this guy (well, to be fair, Abdussamatov only "hints" of a connection, but this is amplified by the thread starter to be THE CAUSE THAT DISPUTES MAN-MADE CAUSES!!!!) solar irradiance is to blame for the earth's warming, then how do you explain the HARD DATA in the graph below??

gtc2005-circled.GIF
 
Let me ask one question.. And I dont really have a position...

Since we really dont know who is right or wrong... Do you want to err on the side of playing it safe or on the side of possible catastrophe?
 
Let me ask one question.. And I dont really have a position...

Since we really dont know who is right or wrong... Do you want to err on the side of playing it safe or on the side of possible catastrophe?

Depends on your definition. Do you mean safe as in the nebulous possibility that we could avoid some doomsday, or do you mean safe as in protecting our economic interests?

Would it be a catastrophe for most middle income families if their electric bills and gasoline bills tripled?
 
Well, ofcourse most people want to err on the side of caution. Climatologists of the 70's were swearing up and down that an Ice age was upon us. They even wanted to go as far as to sprinkle some sort of heat absorbing material at the poles, to keep the planet warm. I don't have any links that talks about this. Mike McConnel was talking about it one day, a few weeks ago.

What would have happened today if we erred on the side of caution then and had layed down this heat absorbing material in the 70's?
 
A: None of these folks really knows what's going on.

B: Any actions we can take would have unknown results.

C: Global warming has been going on since the end of the last ice age. All in all it's been a good thing so far.

D: Trace the money, who's going to get it to "clean up" the climate?
 
Follow the money!

D: Trace the money, who's going to get it to "clean up" the climate?

Al Gore's Inconvenient Loot

Former Vice President Al Gore has built a Green money-making machine capable of eventually generating billions of dollars for investors, including himself, but he set it up so that the average Joe can't afford to play on Gore's terms. And the US portion is headed up by a former Gore staffer and fund raiser who previously ran afoul of both the FEC and the DOJ, before Janet Reno jumped in and shut down an investigation during the Clinton years.

As Bill Hobbs first pointed out, Gore supposedly pays for his extra-large carbon footprint through Generation Investment Management (GIM) - and if you're looking to go green, and have your wallet go along with Gore, think again - average people are too insignificant to play - verifiable from this pdf.

Generation is based in London, with its U.S. offices in Washington, DC. The firm will manage the assets of institutional investors such as pension funds, foundations and endowments, as well as those of select high net worth individuals.* Generation expects to make extensive use of long-term performance based fees. Generation will begin its investment management business in early 2005.

* like Al Gore

Gore's company, GIM was specifically established to take financial advantage of new technologies and solutions related to combating Global Warming. The Global Warming crowd has told us that just recently new science emerged confirming the alleged fact that Global Warming is man made. So, ask yourself, why is it that Gore set up his Green money machine three years ago back in 2004? Is it possible Gore knew what the science would say before it was out? And even if not, can an individual who stands to make millions from Global Warming really be trusted as an honest broker on that topic? Talk about giving the fox the keys to the hen penthouse.

Even if Global Warming did exist, in principle, what's the difference between war profiteering and this? One could justifiably argue that Gore is taking advantage of, in his opinion, a catastrophic situation to clean up - and I don't mean the environment.

Here's a list indicating what it takes to make money along with Al. Funds associated with these companies have placed millions of dollars under Al Gore's control. And, as you'll see below, Gore's selection for the US President of GIM might raise a few eyebrows as well.

AFLAC INC - AQUANTIVE INC - AUTODESK INC - BECTON DICKINSON & CO BLACKBAUD INC - GENERAL ELECTRIC CO - GREENHILL & CO INC - JOHNSON CTLS INC - LABORATORY CORP AMER HLDGS - METABOLIX INC - NORTHERN TR CORP - NUVEEN INVTS INC -STAPLES INC - SYSCO CORP - TECHNE CORP - UBS AG - VCA ANTECH INC - WATERS CORP - WHOLE FOODS MKT INC

According to their own documents, GIM intends to invest in, or buy companies poised to cash in on Global Warming concerns. If we borrow John Edward's so-called two Americas concept for a second, this all means higher prices and taxes with more regulation and an altered standard of living for people like you and me, while Al Gore sits ensconced in his other America reaping profits from each new government mandate for us, business and even government itself. It's win win, alright, but mostly for Al.

To add insult to injury, Gore chose Peter S. Knight, an old friend and colleague some are sure to recall, as the US President of GIM.

Peter S. Knight, formerly Managing Director Met West Financial, lawyer, Chief of Staff for Senator Al Gore (D-TN) from 1977-1989, and Campaign Manager for President Clinton's successful re-election in 1996, is President of Generation U.S.

This would be him: Reno Rejects Inquiry Into a Clinton Aide

Atty Gen Janet Reno decides against any further investigation of Peter Knight, Pres Clinton's 1996 campaign manager in connection with office building development in nation's capital; such an investigation could have led to naming independent counsel to look further into activities of Knight, who is also former top assistant to Vice Pres Al Gore.

Yes, thanks to Janet Reno, no one ever found out how $20,000 in stock turned up in an account for Knight's then 13 year old child.

Dispute over Democratic Party campaign-financing shifts to Zachary Knight, 13-year-old son of Peter S Knight, Clinton-Gore campaign chairman in 1996, who was given $20,000 in stock by William Haney 3d, chairman of Molten Metal Technology Inc; Republicans believe gift, which came after father was named chairman of campaign, was really payment to Knight, who had worked as $7,000-per-month lobbyist for company; Knight denies involvement in any impropriety; photo

If Gore's motivation in pushing Global Warming is so altruistic, was it really necessarily for the already wealthy Gore to establish a multi-million dollar corporation in England to cash in? And given the history of Gore and Knight, are these people we should trust to drive a re-vamping of the world economy at the same time they're lining their pockets because of our much smaller carbon footprints?

If Al Gore is successful with this latest scheme, Gore and his cronies are going to be much more $green$ than most of the earth. And the only green in this for you and me is the kind that accompanies envy as Gore trucks around on private jets putting dollars to offset his extravagance into a cash machine generating profits on the backs of the middle class with misrepresented science that doesn't deserve to be called science at all.

Mr. Gore starts out, ironically enough, asserting the importance of peer-reviewed science. I call this ironic because the misrepresentation that follows (a) hasn’t been peer reviewed, and (b) the peer-reviewed literature contradicts the misrepresentation.

From the Center For Public Integrity: one of the issues involving both Knight and carbon friendly Al was the installation of a hot tub and steam shower in the Master Bedroom of the VP's house. How Green is that?

Here's what the Center found about some of the most generous contributors to the foundation: Peter S. Knight...

Peter S. Knight, Gore's former chief of staff, managed Gore's first bid for the presidency in 1988. In 1989, he began lobbying for the firm Wunder, Diefendorfer, Cannon and Thelan. Given his closeness to Gore and the rest of the Clinton administration, corporations now pay Knight upward of $10,000 a month to wield his influence with Gore. With the help of his new clients, Knight soon cemented a new role for himself as Gore's "chief of fund raising."

Since 1996, Knight's various lobbying and fund-raising activity has been the subject of a Federal Election Commission investigation, a Justice Department inquiry and two House Commerce Committee probes.

Gore chose Knight to act as chairman of the foundation during Gore's first vice presidential term. Three of Knight's clients - millionaire publishing magnate Vance Opperman, Bell Atlantic and Fluor Corporation — showered the foundation with $10,000 each.

Knight also solicited $10,000 contributions from foundations run by Atlantic Richfield Company (ARCO), Coca-Cola Company, MCI Communications (now MCI WorldCom, Inc.), Time Warner Inc. and Microsoft Corporation (Chairman Bill Gates also contributed a $30,000 glass sculpture). Under Gore's supervision, the foundation pledged to take corporate money only through their foundations, not from corporations directly. The $10,000 paid by the Coca-Cola Company, however, came out of the corporate account.

*owned*
 
U.S. Predicting Steady Increase for Emissions
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/03/science/03climate.html?hp
The Bush administration estimates that emissions by the United States of gases that contribute to global warming will grow nearly as fast through the next decade as they did the previous decade, according to a long-delayed report being completed for the United Nations.

The document, the United States Climate Action Report, emphasizes that the projections show progress toward a goal Mr. Bush laid out in a 2002 speech: that emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases grow at a slower rate than the economy. Since that speech, he has repeated his commitment to lessening “greenhouse gas intensity” without imposing formal limits on the gases.

Kristen A. Hellmer, a spokeswoman for the White House on environmental matters, said on Friday, “The Climate Action Report will show that the president’s portfolio of actions addressing climate change and his unparalleled financial commitments are working.”

But when shown the report, an assortment of experts on climate trends and policy described the projected emissions as unacceptable given the rising evidence of risks from unabated global warming.

“As governor of Texas and as a candidate, the president supported mandatory limits on carbon dioxide emissions,” said David W. Conover, who directed the administration’s Climate Change Technology Program until February 2006 and is now counsel to the National Commission on Energy Policy, a nonpartisan research group that supports limits on gases. “When he announced his voluntary greenhouse-gas intensity reduction goal in 2002, he said it would be re-evaluated in light of scientific developments. The science now clearly calls for a mandatory program that establishes a price for greenhouse-gas emissions.”

According to the new report, the administration’s climate policy will result in emissions growing 11 percent in 2012 from 2002. In the previous decade, emissions grew at a rate of 11.6 percent, according to the Environmental Protection Agency.

The report also contains sections describing growing risks to water supplies, coasts and ecosystems around the United States from the anticipated temperature and precipitation changes driven by the atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping greenhouse gases.

Drafts of the report were provided to The New York Times by a government employee at the request of a reporter. The employee did not say why this was done, but other officials involved with producing it said they have been frustrated with the slow pace of its preparation. It was due more than one year ago.

The report arrives at a moment when advocates of controls are winning new support in statehouses and Congress, not to mention Hollywood, where former Vice President Al Gore’s cautionary documentary on the subject, “An Inconvenient Truth,” just won an Academy Award. Five western governors have just announced plans to create a program to cap and then trade carbon-dioxide emissions. And on Capitol Hill, half a dozen bills have been introduced to curb emissions, with more expected.

Ms. Hellmer defended Mr. Bush’s climate policy, saying the president was committed to actions, like moderating gasoline use and researching alternative energy, that limited climate risks while also increasing the country’s energy and national security. She said Mr. Bush remained satisfied with voluntary measures to slow emissions.

Myron Ebell, who directs climate and energy policy for the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a group aligned with industries fighting curbs on greenhouse gases, said Mr. Bush was right to acknowledge the inevitability of growing emissions in a country with a growing population and economy. Mr. Ebell added that the United States was doing better at slowing emissions than many countries that had joined the Kyoto Protocol, the first binding international treaty limiting such gases.

“Since 1990, for every 1 percent increase in emissions the economy has grown about 3 percent,” Mr. Ebell said. “That’s good, and it’s better than the European Union’s performance.”

Several environmental campaigners said there was no real distinction between Mr. Bush’s target and “business as usual,” adding that such mild steps were unacceptable given recent findings by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and other research groups tying recent warming more firmly than ever to smokestack and tailpipe gases.

“If you set the hurdle one inch above the ground you can’t fail to clear it,” said David D. Doniger, the director of climate policy for the Natural Resources Defense Council, which has long criticized the administration and sought binding cuts in greenhouse gases.

The report is the fourth in a series produced periodically by countries that are parties to the 1992 Framework Convention on Climate Change, a treaty signed by the first President Bush. It is a self-generated summary of climate-related trends and actions, including inventories of emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, research on impacts of climate change, and policies to limit climate risks and emissions.

The last such report, completed in 2002, put the administration in something of a bind because it listed many harmful or costly projected impacts from human-caused warming. Environmental groups used those findings to press President Bush to seek mandatory caps on greenhouse gases, while foes of such restrictions criticized the findings and criticized the administration for letting them stay in the document.

While that report was approved by senior White House and State Department officials, Mr. Bush quickly distanced himself from it, saying it was “put out by the bureaucracy.”

The new report has been bogged down for nearly two years. In April 2005, the State Department published a notice in the Federal Register saying it would be released for public comment that summer.

Several government officials and scientists involved with preparing or reviewing parts of the report said that the recent departures of several senior staff members running the administration’s climate research program delayed its completion and no replacements have been named. The delays in finishing the report come even as Mr. Bush has elevated global warming higher on his list of concerns. This year, for the first time since he took office in 2001, he touched on “global climate change” in the State of the Union Message, calling it a “serious challenge.”

The draft report contains fresh projections of significant effects of human-caused warming on the environment and resources of the United States and emphasized the need to increase the country’s capacity to adapt to impending changes.

Drought, particularly, will become a persistent threat, it said: “Warmer temperatures expected with increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are expected to exacerbate present drought risks in the United States by increasing the rate of evaporation.”

Water supplies in the Northwest and Southwest are also at risk. “Much of the water used by people in the western United States comes from snow melt,” the report said. “And a large fraction of the traditionally snow-covered areas of this region has experienced a decline in spring snow pack, especially since mid-century, despite increases in winter precipitation in many places.” Animal and plant species face risks as climate zones shift but urbanized regions prevent ecosystems from shifting as well, according to the draft report.

“Because changes in the climate system are likely to persist into the future regardless of emissions mitigation, adaptation is an essential response for future protection of climate-sensitive ecosystems,” it said.
 
A: None of these folks really knows what's going on.

B: Any actions we can take would have unknown results.

C: Global warming has been going on since the end of the last ice age. All in all it's been a good thing so far.

D: Trace the money, who's going to get it to "clean up" the climate?

Overall I can agree with that.
 
Well, ofcourse most people want to err on the side of caution. Climatologists of the 70's were swearing up and down that an Ice age was upon us. They even wanted to go as far as to sprinkle some sort of heat absorbing material at the poles, to keep the planet warm. I don't have any links that talks about this. Mike McConnel was talking about it one day, a few weeks ago.

What would have happened today if we erred on the side of caution then and had layed down this heat absorbing material in the 70's?



Very good point as well.
 
Oh my, what a rectal extraction........

First, this guy acknowledges the contributions of man-made greenhouse global warming:
Rearding Ravilious's view that man-made CO2 is contributing to some degree to global warming, I would like to know how much of a contribution. Let's be honest, Ravilious knows squat about man-made C02 and global warming. Again, since there are many prominent scientists that disagree with the notion that CO2 is causing global warming it's still just an unproven theory.

I don't believe CO2 is making any contribution--at least, there isn't sufficient evidence to draw a definitive conclusion. A tremendous amount of C02 is produce naturally, yet global warming advocates want us to believe that only human produced CO2 is the culprit. If the sun has nothing to do with global warming then explain why Mars is warming.
 
Let me remind you doomsdayers of one very pesky fact: We NEED CO2. This planet cannot survive without CO2. If you ever took science class in junior high, you know that plants convert CO2 to oxygen which we and all the animals need in order to breathe. What a crock being foisted on us by the doomsday crowd, that CO2 suddenly bad for the planet. What a joke.
 
Let me remind you doomsdayers of one very pesky fact: We NEED CO2. This planet cannot survive without CO2. If you ever took science class in junior high, you know that plants convert CO2 to oxygen which we and all the animals need in order to breathe. What a crock being foisted on us by the doomsday crowd, that CO2 suddenly bad for the planet. What a joke.

News flash. HUMANS ARE ANIMALS AND ANIMALS NEED OXYGEN. Don't they teach than in schools in the back-woods of Kentucky? And how RETARDED can you be to suggest the "GW crowd" is trying to ELIMINATE CO2?? (That was a JOKE! I'd never insult mentally disabled people by comparing them to you. That would be mean!) :rolleyes:

The PLANET needs a proper balance of CO2 and O2 in the atmosphere for both plants and animals to thrive. The more CO2, the less O2. Too much CO2 and too little O2 is GREAT for plants, but bad for animals. Any IDIOT can see that if there is too much CO2 and not enough O2, that there is not enough plants on the planet turning CO2 back into O2 to sustain the needs of animals. That's why deforestation with no compensation to replace the natural O2 generators is bad for animals.

Bottom line, we need a BALANCE of CO2 and O2. And the fact is, the US is the biggest generator of CO2. So it's OK for us to sh!t on the rest of the planet? "Compassionat conservative" my ass.
 
News flash. HUMANS ARE ANIMALS AND ANIMALS NEED OXYGEN. Don't they teach than in schools in the back-woods of Kentucky? And how RETARDED can you be to suggest the "GW crowd" is trying to ELIMINATE CO2?? (That was a JOKE! I'd never insult mentally disabled people by comparing them to you. That would be mean!) :rolleyes:

The PLANET needs a proper balance of CO2 and O2 in the atmosphere for both plants and animals to thrive. The more CO2, the less O2. Too much CO2 and too little O2 is GREAT for plants, but bad for animals. Any IDIOT can see that if there is too much CO2 and not enough O2, that there is not enough plants on the planet turning CO2 back into O2 to sustain the needs of animals. That's why deforestation with no compensation to replace the natural O2 generators is bad for animals.

Bottom line, we need a BALANCE of CO2 and O2. And the fact is, the US is the biggest generator of CO2. So it's OK for us to sh!t on the rest of the planet? "Compassionat conservative" my ass.

I see, so you're comparing CO2 to sh!t? And you call yourself intelligent? What an absolute idiot. There isn't a scientists alive today who can predict the correct amount of CO2 the planet is supposed to have.

By the way, if you'd just stop talking, planetary levels of sh!t would return to normal.
 
And the fact is, the US is the biggest generator of CO2. So it's OK for us to sh!t on the rest of the planet? "Compassionat conservative" my ass.

Ummm...dumb@ss, you should really read the news before commenting. I know that we are currently barely ahead of China, but I don't see you commenting on the imminent change in leadership of carbon emissions. I guess you don't have a problem with China being exempted from Kyoto, either, do you , Mr. America-hater? Maybe you should move to China. I hear they hate Christians there also, and your political views are much more in line with theirs.

A WARMING WORLD
China about to pass U.S. as world's top generator of greenhouse gases
Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer

Monday, March 5, 2007


Far more than previously acknowledged, the battle against global warming will be won or lost in China, even more so than in the West, new data show.

A report released last week by Beijing authorities indicated that as its economy continues to expand at a red-hot pace, China is highly likely to overtake the United States this year or in 2008 as the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases.

This information, along with data from the International Energy Agency, the Paris-based alliance of oil importing nations, also revealed that China's greenhouse gas emissions have recently been growing by a total amount much greater than that of all industrialized nations put together.

"The magnitude of what's happening in China threatens to wipe out what's happening internationally," said David Fridley, leader of the China Energy Group at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

"Today's global warming problem has been caused mainly by us in the West, with the cumulative (carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere, but China is contributing to the global warming problem of tomorrow."

New statistics released in Beijing on Wednesday by China's National Bureau of Statistics show that China's consumption of fossil fuels rose in 2006 by 9.3 percent, about the same rate as in previous years -- and about eight times higher than the U.S. increase of 1.2 percent.

While China's total greenhouse gas emissions were only 42 percent of the U.S. level in 2001, they had soared to an estimated 97 percent of the American level by 2006.

"The new data are not encouraging," said Yang Fuqiang, China director for the Energy Foundation, a San Francisco organization that works extensively with Lawrence Berkeley scientists and the Chinese government on energy-saving programs. "China will overtake the United States much faster than expected as the No. 1 emitter."

China's top environmental official admitted Wednesday that the results show the government's environment agenda of the past few years has been ineffective.

"Economic growth is still excessive ... and there is slow progress in restructuring obsolete and backward production capacity," said Zhou Shengxian, director of the State Environmental Protection Agency.

"The new data show that many local officials are more concerned about economic development, about increasing gross domestic product, and see energy efficiency and environmental protection as a lower priority," said Yang, of the Energy Foundation.

In an attempt to force local governments to obey energy-efficiency edicts from Beijing, the government recently announced that local officials' pay and promotion will be judged in part based on their environmental record, not just their economic success. The first evaluation period will be in July.

China's emergence as a global warming polluter has been intensely controversial in international negotiations over climate change.

The Bush administration refused to join the Kyoto Protocol in part because the pact committed only industrialized nations, but not fast-growing poorer nations like China, to reduce their emissions of greenhouse gases.

Chinese officials, however, note that the country's per capita emissions are far below those in the West, and they say any move to adopt mandatory cuts now would restrain its economic growth and in effect penalize its 1.3 billion people for being poor. The officials say China must be given the chance to attain the West's standard of prosperity before it will cut emissions. [LOL if that isn't envy and hypocrisy...]

"It must be pointed out that climate change has been caused by the long-term historic emissions of developed countries and their high per-capita emissions," China's Foreign Ministry spokeswoman, Jiang Yu, said last month.

"Developed countries bear an unshirkable responsibility," she said, adding that they should "lead the way in assuming responsibility for emissions cuts."

[snip]

*owned*
 
Ummm...dumb@ss, you should really read the news before commenting. I know that we are currently barely ahead of China, but I don't see you commenting on the imminent change in leadership of carbon emissions. I guess you don't have a problem with China being exempted from Kyoto, either, do you , Mr. America-hater? Maybe you should move to China. I hear they hate Christians there also, and your political views are much more in line with theirs.

A WARMING WORLD
China about to pass U.S. as world's top generator of greenhouse gases
Robert Collier, Chronicle Staff Writer

Monday, March 5, 2007


Far more than previously acknowledged, the battle against global warming will be won or lost in China, even more so than in the West, new data show.

.............

"Developed countries bear an unshirkable responsibility," she said, adding that they should "lead the way in assuming responsibility for emissions cuts."

[snip]

*owned*


You didn't own squat, dimwad. Read the title of the article. It doesn't change the FACT as I had stated it. And I'm well aware of China's growing contributions and I have stated many times already that China needs to be bitch-slapped into alignment before things get out of hand. I've NEVER defended China's growing contributions to the problem. But upon which leg would you expect the US to stand to convince China they need to step up if we are not willing to step up our selves? Oh yeah, you are one of those who believes in the "do as I say, not as I do". Hypocrite.
 
You didn't own squat, dimwad. Read the title of the article. It doesn't change the FACT as I had stated it. And I'm well aware of China's growing contributions and I have stated many times already that China needs to be bitch-slapped into alignment before things get out of hand. I've NEVER defended China's growing contributions to the problem. But upon which leg would you expect the US to stand to convince China they need to step up if we are not willing to step up our selves? Oh yeah, you are one of those who believes in the "do as I say, not as I do". Hypocrite.

I've never seen you once say that China should be "bitch-slapped into alignment before things get out of hand." Not only that, but how is the US killing its own economy somehow "bitch-slapping" China? The only one you want to see bitch-slapped is the U.S.
 
Uh Oh!

There is a crack in the levee!!!

Johnny....
This is THE prominent scientist in France. Is he now on the payroll of Big Oil? LOL. Don't you ever tire of being on the wrong side of every issue?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2f4cc62e-5b0d-4b59-8705-fc28f14da388

Allegre's second thoughts
The Deniers -- The National Post's series on scientists who buck the conventional wisdom on climate science
LAWRENCE SOLOMON, Financial Post
Published: Friday, March 02, 2007
Claude Allegre, one of France's leading socialists and among her most celebrated scientists, was among the first to sound the alarm about the dangers of global warming.

"By burning fossil fuels, man increased the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere which, for example, has raised the global mean temperature by half a degree in the last century," Dr. Allegre, a renowned geochemist, wrote 20 years ago in Cles pour la geologie.." Fifteen years ago, Dr. Allegre was among the 1500 prominent scientists who signed "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity," a highly publicized letter stressing that global warming's "potential risks are very great" and demanding a new caring ethic that recognizes the globe's fragility in order to stave off "spirals of environmental decline, poverty, and unrest, leading to social, economic and environmental collapse."

In the 1980s and early 1990s, when concern about global warming was in its infancy, little was known about the mechanics of how it could occur, or the consequences that could befall us. Since then, governments throughout the western world and bodies such as the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change have commissioned billions of dollars worth of research by thousands of scientists. With a wealth of data now in, Dr. Allegre has recanted his views. To his surprise, the many climate models and studies failed dismally in establishing a man-made cause of catastrophic global warming. Meanwhile, increasing evidence indicates that most of the warming comes of natural phenomena. Dr. Allegre now sees global warming as over-hyped and an environmental concern of second rank.
[snip rest of article]
 
I've never seen you once say that China should be "bitch-slapped into alignment before things get out of hand." Not only that, but how is the US killing its own economy somehow "bitch-slapping" China? The only one you want to see bitch-slapped is the U.S.

Considering how bad you got bitch-slapped in this thread and how much you'd rather forget about it, this post should remind you.........

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=265654&postcount=28

JohnnyBz00LS said:
But that doesn't change the fact that global warming is REAL, and that the US is the major contributor to greenhouse gases. And YES, CHINA's increase in CO2 contributions is the worst, and that MUST be corrected.

Open wide.......... *owned*

You keep bawling and crying about how taking steps within the US to reduce CO2 emissions is going to be "killing our economy", yet you've offered no proof of WHY or HOW that will happen. You've obviously drank the kool-aid of the econo-alarmist making those absurd claims, and I've totally debunked THAT before as well:

http://www.lincolnvscadillac.com/showpost.php?p=266511&postcount=61

All these “scare tactics” used by the non-believers (as evidenced in this very thread) that cry about how much IT’S GOING TO DESTROY OUR ECONOMY AND COST A GAZILLION DOLLARS is just that, scare tactics. The computer models they use to come up with these preposterous predictions CANNOT be any better than the same computer models that they themselves claim are wrong on global warming predictions. Additionally, most of these scary claims are based on false assumptions, such as this one:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/...opinion-sunday

This clown makes an absurd assumption then goes on to “extrapolate” what it’s going to “cost” to reverse global warming:

Quote:
The Earth got about 0.7 degrees Celsius warmer in the 20th century while it increased its GDP by 1,800%, by one estimate. How much of that 0.7 degrees can be laid at the feet of that 1,800% is unknowable, but let's stipulate that all of the warming was the result of our prosperity and that this warming is in fact indisputably bad (which is hardly obvious).


The fact of the matter is that there is NO WAY that all of our prosperity cost us some amount of GW in terms of temperature increase. In fact, the majority of our prosperity didn’t “cost” us a red cent of GW. Now these fear mongers want us to believe that the cost of “buying back” all the GW that has occurred over the last century is equal to all the “prosperity” that occurred over the same time??? You’d have to be a complete idiot to believe that BS.

These scare tactics also ignore the potential for new markets, new jobs, new industries and new opportunities. Every dollar spent on the reduction of GW is NOT going to be flushed down the toilet or “given away” to foreign countries (unless of course the US decides to sit on its hands and fails to seize these opportunities to keep that money at home). Depending on how the US acts, we have the opportunity to capitalize on this and open new avenues of cash flow and prosperity for our own fellow American citizens.

Additionally, there are (and will probably be thousands more) ways to reduce GW that actually pays for itself. Take the mini-fluorescent light bulb for example. At first glance, it appears to cost us more initially, but in the long run it lasts longer and saves energy (reducing GW) and ends up actually SAVING the consumer money compared to current technology (incandescent bulbs). Each bulb may be a drop in the bucket for its effect on reducing GW, but it’s a drop INTO the bucket and not a LEAK from it. And it doesn’t cost us a dime, it actually pays for itself.

Once again, open wide.......... *owned*

You are obviously are incapable of seeing the value of "leading by example", so I'm not going to waste my time explaining THAT to you too.

It's amazing that the meaning of the word "conserve" escapes you so-called "conservatives".
 
Johnny: *owned**owned**owned**owned**owned**owned*

You are soooo boring.
 
TommyB, a real scientist said you are obscene...

'Hannity & Colmes' Lists More Than 70 Scientists Skeptical of Global Warming Hysteria
Show proves case isn't closed, discusses major new documentary.

By Dan Gainor

The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow
Business & Media Institute
3/6/2007 6:08:12 PM

“Consider the case closed on global warming,” claimed Time magazine in the February 19 issue.

Not likely.

The March 5 “Hannity & Colmes” showed why. The show brought on Dr. Timothy Ball, one of the climatologists in the new documentary “The Great Global Warming Swindle.” While Ball discussed the new movie and how Al Gore has “got a lot of the facts wrong,” a list of global warming scientists rolled across the screen.

There was only one catch. The more than 70 names “indeed do question” and “are skeptics of this new mad hysteria here” about global warming, according to host Sean Hannity. The list had many prominent names, including three people connected to the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), climatologists, scientists and noted hurricane expert Bill Gray.

Many of the names might be familiar to readers who follow the issue, such as Dr. Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist from MIT, and Dr. Patrick Michaels, professor of environmental science from the University of Virginia.

The list also included two reviewers and an atmospheric science consultant affiliated with the U.N.’s IPCC. Those three were: Dr. Richard S. Courtney, a climate and atmospheric science consultant; Peter Dietze, an official reviewer and Dr. Vincent Gray, an expert reviewer.

Ball summed up the real nature of the current climate debate. “There’s no question it’s political and it’s driven by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a political organization.” Ball went on to point out that the 2,000 people who worked on the recent IPCC report included “bureaucrats” and “political people,” “not 2,000 scientists.”

Even then, co-host Alan Colmes asked Ball if he was “a denier” about global warming. Ball rejected the question and said “the Holocaust connotation is really quite obscene.”
TommyB said:
But to address your point, you can't accuse the IPCC of having a political agenda (well, you will anyway) without also considering the possibility that the GW deniers don't also have one.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top