The real inconvenient truth

[fsquid]

so what happens if we sign these "treaties" (is this really what the UN was chartered for?) along with other countries like Russia and China. What happens when those other countries don't comply, and maybe we fall short on one or two things. Will the UN really force any of the countries to comply? Will we voluntarily comply, putting us at a competitive disadvantage when countries like Russia and China don't comply?

[XXXIV]

so what happens if we sign these "treaties" (is this really what the UN was chartered for?) along with other countries like Russia and China. What happens when those other countries don't comply, and maybe we fall short on one or two things. Will the UN really force any of the countries to comply? Will we voluntarily comply, putting us at a competitive disadvantage when countries like Russia and China don't comply?

Air Strikes baby...

[fsquid]

so what happens if we sign these "treaties" (is this really what the UN was chartered for?) along with other countries like Russia and China. What happens when those other countries don't comply, and maybe we fall short on one or two things. Will the UN really force any of the countries to comply? Will we voluntarily comply, putting us at a competitive disadvantage when countries like Russia and China don't comply?

Air Strikes baby...

Maybe we can just talk to them then, that will work too.

[XXXIV]

so what happens if we sign these "treaties" (is this really what the UN was chartered for?) along with other countries like Russia and China. What happens when those other countries don't comply, and maybe we fall short on one or two things. Will the UN really force any of the countries to comply? Will we voluntarily comply, putting us at a competitive disadvantage when countries like Russia and China don't comply?

Air Strikes baby...

Maybe we can just talk to them then, that will work too.

We could post links to obscure web sites showing them how dangerous non compliance really is.

[pk500]

And your BS meter is malfunctioning, probably from overexposure to the content of your posts this year, because 180 countries have ratified the Kyoto Protocol and more than a few of them were governed by parties on the right of the political spectrum. It's not even controversial to say that the American rightwing's general position on global warming is heavily influenced by the policy implications of dealing with it, they're always hyping up the likely economic costs of dealing with climate change.

Kyoto is nothing but symbolism right now. Please provide hard evidence that Kyoto is efficiently reducing the Earth's temperature.

Here's my proof that, at least right now, Kyoto is an inefficient PR exercise:

*In its first year, from 2005-06, Kyoto cost an estimated $150 billion. The Earth's temperature dropped .0015 of a degree Celsius during that time. At that rate, it will take 667 years and $100 trillion for Kyoto to lower the Earth's temperature by 1 degree Celsius.

I would love to see data that shows a significant increase in the effectiveness and efficiency of Kyoto in the last two years. If that's presented, I would like a bottle of Frank's Red Hot sauce with my heaping plate of crow.

Take care,
PK

[Feanor]

I don't really think Kyoto has been particularly effective so far just based on all the anecdotal evidence you hear about loopholes and non-compliance, but no doubt strong proponents of the Protocol would tell you that without Kyoto the earth's temperature would have gone up this year, not down.

I only mentioned the 180 states that have ratified the Kyoto Protocol as evidence that support for taking action to reduce global warming is a lot stronger outside the United States, where the rightwing isn't so far to the right.

[fsquid]

Don't really care if it is big outside the US. Only care about what this country does. As you know, just because everyone else doesn't, doesn't mean we should do it.

[Feanor]

Yee-haw.

[Teal]

Who the hell said anything about 'young earth', Feanor?! You're making alot of stupid and ill-advised leaps, just to make a point that can't reasonably be made. And in so doing, you've made my point very well and very clearly-the Global Warming stupidity is entirely political. "If only those damned 'right wingers' wouldn't be so skeptical". To which I say "If only those damned left wingers wouldn't be so gullible".

It's political bullshit. That is it, and that is all.

[XXXIV]

It's political bullshit. That is it, and that is all.

Are you saying Al Gore is a politician?

Thats crazy talk!

[Jared]

Here's my proof that, at least right now, Kyoto is an inefficient PR exercise:

*In its first year, from 2005-06, Kyoto cost an estimated $150 billion. The Earth's temperature dropped .0015 of a degree Celsius during that time. At that rate, it will take 667 years and $100 trillion for Kyoto to lower the Earth's temperature by 1 degree Celsius.

Kyoto wasn't ratified until 2005, and I'm pretty sure that the effects of cutting greenhouse emissions can't be quantified by one year of data (with fluctuations making it really difficult to see whether changes were effective or not). I wouldn't take this data point as evidence for or against the efficacy of Kyoto.

As for that Telegraph op-ed, it's pretty stupid. For example, it says that "global temperatures have dropped sharply enough to cancel out much of their net rise in the 20th century". 2008 looks like it will be the coolest year since 2000, but is still the 10th warmest year on record since 1850. So that statement is a bunch of bull. It's second point is that the "Manhattan Declaration" came out with "hundreds of proper scientists" rallying to sign against the consensus re: global warming. So I look at the first ten people on the signatory list, and there are only 3 PhDs, and only one seems to have any climate science background. However, there is a marketing professor and the Executive Vice President of the Center for the Defense of Free Enterprise. Why are most right-wing op-eds so factually challenged? And considering how often they are wrong, why don't people question them more often?

Teal,

I don't want to believe that the earth is warming because of man-made causes. I don't want to believe in evolution, I don't want to believe in physics, I don't want to believe in plate tectonics. There's no psychic joy to me, or scientists, in believing any of those things. It's a matter of whether the evidence supports one theory or the other. And, for the most part, the evidence supports the idea of anthropogenic global warming. It's not a finalized issue, but the majority of the evidence points that way.

As for the process, it is often very objective. That's not to say that humans can't lie, be blinded by things, etc. But on these issues, there is a LOT of evidence in support. And when the evidence gathered against it are op-eds that get the basic facts wrong and declarations that exaggerate the qualifications of their signers, that makes me really skeptical about the other side of the issue.

I really suggest reading primers on these topics to understand the evidence, logic, and models...it might demonstrate that this stuff isn't just hippies wanting to hate industrialists, but an actual issue. And it might demonstrate that it's not just a matter of "belief"

[Feanor]

Who the hell said anything about 'young earth', Feanor?! You're making alot of stupid and ill-advised leaps, just to make a point that can't reasonably be made.

I was comparing your ideologically motivated dismissal of the scientific evidence that most of the temperature increase since the mid-twentieth century is "very likely" due to the increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations, to the way Young Earthers dismiss the scientific evidence that this planet is 4.5 billion years old. It's a very small leap.

The political bullshit is coming from American rightwingers such as yourself who wouldn't have a word to say about climate change science if the consensus was that human activity wasn't contributing to global warming.

"If only those damned left wingers wouldn't be so gullible".

John Key, the leader of the National party and the Prime Minister of New Zealand, is not a left winger. The National Party currently advocates policies of reducing taxes, reducing welfare payments, promoting free trade, restoring or maintaining New Zealand's traditional (Western) defence and security alliances and promoting one standard of citizenship for all New Zealanders ("One law for all"). And yet he says:

We are a fair-minded people and we're rightly proud that our country is a responsible international citizen. Tackling climate change requires global action, and New Zealand should stand up and be counted in the battle.

National will not pull out of the Kyoto Protocol; we are committed to honouring our international obligations.

Evidence suggests global greenhouse gas emissions need to be within the range of 450-55O parts per million to stabilise climate change.

The Stern Report indicates that in order to reach that target, global greenhouse gas emissions would have to drop by 25% by 2050. The report suggests that, in general, rich countries need to take responsibility for reducing emission by 60-80% by 2050, as compared to 1990 emissions levels. However, it notes that each country's reduction target needs to take account of a number of factors, including wealth, historic emissions and the nature of emissions.

[wco81]

To be fair, Kyoto was rejected by the Senate by an overwhelming majority of Democrats and Republicans. Even with the 50-50 split of the outgoing Senate, you would think the vote would be much closer now.

And these days, $150 billion for a global effort is chump change. That's about 1% of US GDP. The Sir Nicholas Stern report estimated the costs of combatting global warming to be 1% of global GDP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern_Review

Kyoto is almost moot now. Gradually, US multinationals which do business with compliant nations must adopt its requirements.

But the countries need to look beyond Kyoto as well. Bush talked about doing this, including making China and India compliant. But he never followed through or pushed for a new deal, because he was looking more for an excuse to avoid compliance than a genuine interest in doing a new treaty.

It's one thing to say Kyoto is no good. But the naysayers aren't offering alternatives because they deny there's a problem.

Or, if they admit there's warming, it's not man-made, so we do nothing, just wait to see if the predictions of disaster happen.

Or if the predictions turn out to be true, then learn to swim and simply move more inland.

The Homer Simpson approach to life, ignore the problem and hope it goes away.

[matthewk]

Ah, yes - the Volkischer Beobachter.....probably the only newspaper to describe the day that Adolf Hitler committed suicide as a 'black day for civilisation'. Beloved paper of retired colonels, upper-class twits and those who thought that Margaret Thatcher was a slightly suspect 'pinko'.

Your choice of that particular organ says everything that needs to be said.

I chose it because it was an article I googled, read, and happened to agree with. Sorry for not doing an exhaustive investigation on the background of the author and/or paper.

Figures though, that you would choose to go the attack route you did instead of acutally addressing any of the content in the article.

GW lemmings continuously ask for proof that GW does not exist. When proof is presented, it's not the facts that are argued, but rather the source, which just HAD to be bought and paid for by some evil group with an evil motive.

[matthewk]

Teal posted that link two pages ago, but it's still funny the second time to see the dear old Telegraph popping up.

Hey, great minds think alike.

[pk500]

Kyoto wasn't ratified until 2005, and I'm pretty sure that the effects of cutting greenhouse emissions can't be quantified by one year of data (with fluctuations making it really difficult to see whether changes were effective or not). I wouldn't take this data point as evidence for or against the efficacy of Kyoto.

Well, two more years have passed since those initial stats, so where is the monetary and climate data indicating Kyoto is reducing the Earth's temperature more effectively and efficiently?

Or are we just supposed to take it on blind faith because about 175 of the 185 countries that signed Kyoto are lemmings that simply follow what most of the big boys on their block are doing?

Take care,
PK

[Feanor]

If going with the scientific consensus makes a country a lemming, then I guess every country that's followed the trend of banning smoking in public places after digesting the evidence on second-hand smoke is a lemming, too.

It's kind of odd that you are using the fact that the Earth's temperature dropped after Kyoto as evidence that it isn't working. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most global warming scientists and even activists would be happy if it just stops rising and remains more or less at its current temperature.

[pk500]

It's kind of odd that you are using the fact that the Earth's temperature dropped after Kyoto as evidence that it isn't working. Maybe I'm wrong, but I think most global warming scientists and even activists would be happy if it just stops rising and remains more or less at its current temperature.

It dropped .0015 of a f*cking degree Celsius -- at a huge expense. Can such an insignificant drop be directly attributed to Kyoto, or quite possibly it be just -- gasp! -- the cycles of nature?

Again, I'd love to see anyone who is a strong supporter of Kyoto provide evidence that it's working effectively and efficiently, and I'd like to see more than the membership list.

Take care,
PK

[Jared]

Kyoto wasn't ratified until 2005, and I'm pretty sure that the effects of cutting greenhouse emissions can't be quantified by one year of data (with fluctuations making it really difficult to see whether changes were effective or not). I wouldn't take this data point as evidence for or against the efficacy of Kyoto.

Well, two more years have passed since those initial stats, so where is the monetary and climate data indicating Kyoto is reducing the Earth's temperature more effectively and efficiently?

Well it looks like 2008 will be the coldest year on record in the 21st century. However, that sample size (2005-2008) isn't big enough to say that it's due to Kyoto. Basically, you need a larger sample (amongst other things) to get at whether it's Kyoto-related or not. I wouldn't say that it is. But it's folly to try and measure the effects of Kyoto over such a short period of time. It's kind of like if someone went on a diet, and after a day they didn't lose any weight, so you concluded that the diet doesn't work.

Though as for costs, I don't think that the $150 billion figure is correct. The people who provided that number are at junkscience.com (Steven Milloy), and have called it an "optimistic guesstimate", based on an estimate of a 1.5% GDP growth restraint. I have no idea where that number comes from, and they don't back that estimate up with any projections. Estimates for Europe from some studies, are a GDP loss ranging from 0.13–0.81%, with slightly larger numbers for Canada, and slightly smaller for Japan. Also, a recent study in Nature projects that complying with Kyoto actually results in lower, not higher overall costs.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v4 ... 478a0.html

Furthermore, Milloy (the provider of these numbers and the one trillion for one degree blurb in your previous post) has also pushed that secondhand smoke doesn't lead to health risks (while receiving undisclosed funds from the tobacco industry), pushes that silicon breast implants are safe, doesn't believe that mad cow comes from prions, etc.

[pk500]

Well it looks like 2008 will be the coldest year on record in the 21st century. However, that sample size (2005-2008) isn't big enough to say that it's due to Kyoto. Basically, you need a larger sample (amongst other things) to get at whether it's Kyoto-related or not. I wouldn't say that it is. But it's folly to try and measure the effects of Kyoto over such a short period of time. It's kind of like if someone went on a diet, and after a day they didn't lose any weight, so you concluded that the diet doesn't work.

So what is the realistic time frame and expense before we learn if Kyoto is effective or not?

I don't dispute climate change. But I question whether it's man-made or the cycles of nature.

And I have a problem with nations jumping on the bandwagon of a treaty that includes provisions that no one seems to know will reverse climate change or not. But since the world community and scientific community have bought into the merry band, then I guess we'll just spend money and wait, keeping our fingers crossed that it works.

Kyoto reminds me a lot of the financial and auto bailouts. They're both spending a lot of money, with no guarantee of effectiveness. But since there's a massive media, think tank and public rush to action, anyone who questions the return on investment of the bailouts and/or Kyoto is considered a right winger or crank.

Call me crazy, but I like a few more assurances of ROI before I put all my chips at the center of the table.

Take care,
PK

[Jared]

I don't dispute climate change. But I question whether it's man-made or the cycles of nature.

And I have a problem with nations jumping on the bandwagon of a treaty that includes provisions that no one seems to know will reverse climate change or not. But since the world community and scientific community have bought into the merry band, then I guess we'll just spend money and wait, keeping our fingers crossed that it works.

I have no idea what a realistic time frame would be. Ten years? Twenty years? Regardless, accords like Kyoto isn't the same as going all-in; that is, Kyoto isn't causing a global recession. If there was such a drastic economic impact of Kyoto, then we should see Europe, Canada, and Japan feeling major economic downturns, with much less of an effect in the United States. But that hasn't happened, and it's consistent with most estimates of the effects of Kyoto on GDP. And considering that there is lots of evidence that global warming is anthropogenic, and that the possible effects of rapid global warming are serious, it's worth taking action.

(It is interesting that right-wing/libertarian organizations get all worked up about the relatively minor impact of environmental regulation on the economy, yet those same editorial sources have their heads in the sand regarding the much, much larger impact of the removal of financial regulations on the market and economy. At least they can't blame the recession on Kyoto, though I'm sure they'd try if possible.)

[Feanor]

It dropped .0015 of a f*cking degree Celsius -- at a huge expense. Can such an insignificant drop be directly attributed to Kyoto, or quite possibly it be just -- gasp! -- the cycles of nature?

Again, you are assuming that Kyoto hasn't prevented the temperature actually rising. I don't think it has, but to accurately measure the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol you have to compare what has happened with it in effect to what would have happened without it.

As far as I know, the Kyoto Protocol was aimed at stopping the Earth's temperature from rising year after year after year, not to cool the planet by half a degree in 12 months or whatever you regard as the litmus test for its effectiveness.

Furthermore, Milloy (the provider of these numbers and the one trillion for one degree blurb in your previous post) has also pushed that secondhand smoke doesn't lead to health risks (while receiving undisclosed funds from the tobacco industry), pushes that silicon breast implants are safe, doesn't believe that mad cow comes from prions, etc.

The BELIEF that secondhand smoke can cause health problems in non-smokers is just more of that left-wing, hippie junk science.

[wco81]

Greenhouse gases stay in the atmosphere for 200 years.

But I don't think they know if we've reached a tipping point where the consequences are reversible or even preventable.

The kind of measures we're talking about doesn't involve radically changing our standard of living. Cheaney said we're not going to change one bit, give up SUVs, etc.

Nobody is saying give up automobiles over night or shut down the coal plants tomorrow. But if the US doesn't exercise leadership, all the developing countries will try to reach our level of fossil fuel consumption and GHG emissions.

Why should they not have cars or not burn coal if we're going to continue the same pattern of behavior as before?

If the earth is warming, it doesn't matter what the cause is, because it doesn't necessarily follow that because it's not anthropogenic that we shouldn't try to mitigate the process.

Or do we want to trust supernatural forces to rescue us?

[XXXIV]

Or do we want to trust supernatural forces to rescue us?

Yes!

To rescue you from an imaginary foe one should call on the aid of the supernatural...

You could call Ghost Busters but I prefer this bad ass dude.

[Rodster]

^^^^^^