Global Warming

[Thorolf]

Vern,

At the risk of repeating myself, data is increasing that indicates the discrepancy between observation and the doomsday models is most likely because the models are wrong, rather than due to errors in observation, as has been claimed by the doomsayers.

As such, the models that indicate how much we KNOW about the effects of greenhouse gases must be taken with a grain of salt.

Again, I fully accept that we have a responsibility to our planet to reduce the size of our footprint... but this is another area where it is hardly certain what has happened, what role we have had in it, or what will happen. Theories and models are interesting and cause for concern, but they aren't really matching up with observation, and it's not because the observation is flawed.

Vern, I have a very good understanding of economics and the impact of new technology - and you're dramatically overstating any economic benefits, while downplaying the economic impact of enacting something like Kyoto. I'm not Chicken Little, and resent the insinuation...

[metis]

At the risk of repeating myself, data is increasing that indicates the discrepancy between observation and the doomsday models is most likely because the models are wrong, rather than due to errors in observation, as has been claimed by the doomsayers.  As such, the models that indicate how much we KNOW about the effects of greenhouse gases must be taken with a grain of salt.

Again, you can quote Joe Schmoe all you want, but the consensus is that global warming is taking place and that humans are "very likely" to be the main cause, to quote the last very diplomatic wording just released a few days ago.

Vern, I have a very good understanding of economics and the impact of new technology - and you're dramatically overstating any economic benefits, while downplaying the economic impact of enacting something like Kyoto. I'm not Chicken Little, and resent the insinuation...

That was not an insinuation towards you, but merely a statement that there are those who insist that a change in this technology somehow will doom our economy simply are apparently not tapping into our knowledge of how new technological development tends to stimulate an economy.  This does not mean, however, that there will not be any hardships and that all spheres of our economy will be affected the same.  If you're aware of the effect of new development, then you must be aware that the potential benefits (and detriments) cannot always be predicted.  However, when we've seen new technology kicking in big time, as we've seen at times in the past, we usually see a great many spin-off benefits, including new jobs. 



Shalom,
Vern       

[metis]

Here's a report from the National Academy of Science, which is the main scientific advisory group to Congress and to most U.S. administrations:

"Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising. The changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to human activities, but we cannot rule out that some significant part of these changes is also a reflection of natural variability. Human-induced warming and associated sea level rises are expected to continue through the 21st century. Secondary effects are suggested by computer model simulations and basic physical reasoning. These include increases in rainfall rates and increased susceptibility of semi-arid regions to drought. The impacts of these changes will be critically dependent on the magnitude of the warming and the rate with which it occurs"...  (http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=10139&page=1).

Shalom,
Vern

[Thorolf]

0.25 degrees Fahrenheit...

I am not arguing against the observation of an increase in average temperature... and I'm not arguing against the notion that humans need to be more responsible in our use of resources.

I am arguing against the notions that a) kyoto is something to get upset over, b) that global warming promises some sort of short-term, catastrophic climate change, and c) that the consensus opinion is still an opinion - and this is not a particularly well-supported one, at that. Statements of belief notwithstanding, the NUMBERS show a discrepancy that indicates the models are not particularly trustworthy. Doomsday predictions based on those models are similarly not particularly trustworthy...

[gluadys]

Approving a UN agreement under a previous government is only valid if the current government accepts it. We can discuss the impotence of the UN and its agreements in another thread if you like.   Regardless, I was speaking primarily of the US.

Not true.  An agreement is only enforced if the current government accepts it, but lack of enforcement does not mean the agreement is not valid.  If a change in administration invalidated previous agreements, there could be no international treaties at all. 

Yes, the UN has no power to enforce compliance; it has to rely solely on moral suasion. 

[quote ]
You misunderstand what I said. First of all, we MAY produce more than other countries, but we do NOT produce the "lion's share" of all greenhouse gases. But regardless, my point was that other countries couldn't care less what anyone else produces - they see environmentalism as a way of taking down the US a notch.

It may be per capita rather than total amount, but I believe that even in total amount the production of greenhouse emissions is far greater in developed countries.  And in total amount it continues to increase. 

I think you are being naive to suppose only the US ever acts from noble motives.  No country is perfectly ethical, but others can be at least as ethical as the US. 

It's politics as usual.

You have something against politics?  Just what would you have instead? 

Incidentally, the claims of catastrophic climate change are simply specious.

Keep up with the research.  That line was outdated nearly a decade ago. 

Well, no... we can't expect either for it to be democratic, or that the consensus would be followed.

I think we are using "expect" with slightly different meanings.  I meant it in the sense of this is what we should advocate and require, not in the sense of what actually is at present. 

Your allegation of "picking up your marbles" is nonsense. You may not like the current US administration, and frankly I couldn't care less whether you do or do not, but refusing to sign an accord is hardly unique to this administration, or even the US in general. It's done by EVERY state.

The failings of others don't justify your own.  Rather it gives others license to imitate yours. 


 

It doesn't. That's the point... it's not necessarily about right and wrong as much as what is expedient.

And what is wrong with that?  Americans are proud of their democracy, in spite of the fact that it operates though representatives and senators seeking what is expedient for their district/state.  They also tend to be pro-capitalist and it is basic to capitalism that every participant act in view of what is expedient for him/her. 

So, why object to it on the international level? 

That is simply not the case. The UN is NOT democracy.

In terms of Assembly procedure, it is.  One country, one vote.  The Security Council is a little different with its permanent members and power of veto.

I'm sure that ranting about the perceptions of US foreign policy makes non-Americans feel a little better about their jealousy and spite, but the fact is that it's not nearly as much about America's policies as it is about America's success.

Again, I question your negative assessment of others' motives.  I wouldn't claim there is no jealousy.  But their is also a lot of frustration at the US bullying strategies too, and I would say with good reason. 

[gluadys]

By the way, since Kyoto's development and signing in 1997 and 2004, worldwide emissions increased 18 percent.

Kyoto signatories increased an average of 21.1 percent.

Non-signers increased 10.0 percent.

US emissions increased 6.6 percent.

Why do you suppose that is?

Because, as originally stated, the American people, including a number of states and a number of private corporations, are well ahead of the federal administration on this issue.  The fact that the US government is  stubbornly blocking international agreement doesn't mean nothing is happening in the US. 

Canada's emissions have gone up more than those of the US and a lot of the reason for that can be said in two words:  tar sands. 

[gluadys]

I believe that this issue is not so much about Chicken little as it is about Liberals, who hate America and capitalism, counting their chicken little's before they hatch.

And I say this is a self-serving ostrich explaining why she is keeping her head in the sand.  This totally discounts the data and the fact that the scientists involved in the International Panel are all government appointees--and so many of their bosses are allies of the US.  This is simply NOT an anti-US conspiracy. 

that at least on this issue many of you folks will be eating humble pie, just like in the 70's with the next "Ice Age."

In fact, the guys in the 70s were right.  We are due, under natural climate fluctuations, for a cooling down period, not global warming.  This is one of the reasons global warming is seen as in part human-generated.

[metis]

I am arguing against the notions that a) kyoto is something to get upset over,

First of all, you'll note in my previous posts that I never stated that I supported the Kyoto treaty.  I do believe there are things in it that may need to be possibly altered.  What was a real problem, however, is when this current administration dismissed the original report without offering any serious alternative.  Several months after the rejection of Kyoto, I was spending several weeks in Italy, and the people there, and in Europe in general, were livid!  Even though Bush had only been President for half a year, the cost to us diplomatically was very significant.  It wasn't just that he rejected the treaty, but how he just rejected it out of hand.  But then he expects other countries to help us out when it comes to dealing with international terrorism?  

Just a couple of weeks ago, again there was an obvious stone-walling on negotiations by the U.S. delegation-- that's until the delegate from Papua, New Guinea, got up and directly addressed the assembly and said that if America was not willing to lead, then at least get out of the way.  There was loud applause and, several hours later, the U.S. delegation suddenly got "religion" and signed on.  We virtually were isolated, and even our former partner that rejected Kyoto, Australia, told us we were making a mistake by not agreeing to a consensual course of action.
 

b) that global warming promises some sort of short-term, catastrophic climate change, and

The models are just that-- models.  If the models are true, then they should be verified as the years go on by unusual climate activity.  We are seeing some of that happening, but it's too early to tell exactly what's going to happen with any certainty.  However, to simply sit by and do nothing in the face of what evidence we have is sort of like playing Russian roulette.  

Again, what I have said is an evolution of change-- not a revolution.  We have the technology NOW that can deal with this issue, and some of these changes, which the administration has finally agreed with, are going to be phased in.

  

c) that the consensus opinion is still an opinion - and this is not a particularly well-supported one, at that. Statements of belief notwithstanding, the NUMBERS show a discrepancy that indicates the models are not particularly trustworthy. Doomsday predictions based on those models are similarly not particularly trustworthy...

Quite the contrary.  To cite a scientist here and there (yes, even 400-- because what is their expertise and who's paying their income?) who don't agree with the vast majority, including the NAS report (which does report on minority conclusions, btw), makes very little sense when it come to what kinds of action may or may not be needed.  

But the bottom line is this:

1. it is agreed that there is global warming

2. it is mostly agreed that humans are significantly contributing to it

3. that there are steps that can be phased in that may reduce emissions while at the same time dealing with other problems, such as our reliance of foreign oil, researching alternative fuels, gradually repairing our infrastructure, etc.  

4. that we recognize the concerns of other countries and do the best we can to have a cooperative effort in this and other areas.



Shalom and Merry Christmas,
Vern  

[metis]

I believe that this issue is not so much about Chicken little as it is about Liberals, who hate America and capitalism, counting their chicken little's before they hatch. 

So liberal Americans hate America and hate capitalism?  Wow, that's a convenient little stereotype.  Tell us, do you stereotype other groups as well?

So go ahead and hate America, capitalism and or Republicans and claim victory on this issue of global warming, but I have a good feeling (and willing to make a monetary wager....gotta love capitalism) that at least on this issue many of you folks will be eating humble pie, just like in the 70's with the next "Ice Age."

What nonsense.

And don't even try to claim you two (Vern, Glaudy's) weren't on that band wagon.

I find it ironic that some of the conservative people I know call me a "liberal", but then some of the liberal people I know call me a "conservative".  It's so "nice" being in the middle because you catch it from both sides.

If you want to attach a label to me that's far more accurate than your prejudicial statement above, try calling me a "moral pragmatist".  I have been very critical of what I call "ideological constipation" whereas conservatives feel a need to ignore reality and push their p.c. agenda and liberals do much the same with their agenda.  The "moral" part of the label comes in because I certainly don't believe that taking any action, even though it may work, can always be justified on a religious or humanistic basis.

So when you are done stereotyping and making prejudicial statements, maybe we can actually have a civilized discussion.



Shalom and Merry Christmas,
Vern 

[Thorolf]

Gluadys,

In your first response, somehow you managed to not quite understand ANYTHING I was saying... I don't have the energy to try to clarify/correct so much right now. Maybe later.

BTW, Voting is not democracy. It's a function of a democratic government, but the fact that the bodies of the UN engage in voting does not, by definition, make it democratic.

Again... WAY too much to go into right now.

One last thing... the LATEST analyses of the data indicate a pretty thorough lack of evidence for the "catastrophic change" theories. NO, it most certainly was NOT "outdated" a decade ago. Once again, too much to deal with at 3:20am, and quite frankly, I doubt you'd ever be willing to concede any of my points.

[metis]

One last thing... the LATEST analyses of the data indicate a pretty thorough lack of evidence for the "catastrophic change" theories. NO, it most certainly was NOT "outdated" a decade ago.

Could you please say where this information comes from?  I subscribe to Scientific American and get daily scientific updates from Reuters, A.P., and BBC, and I have not seen any reference to any change of mind in this area.

Shalom,
Vern

[Thorolf]

I mentioned it earlier... an article from October of this year that examined the full spectrum of satellite data available and cast serious doubt on the models that have been the basis of the general hysteria the last several years - because the observation and the models simply don't mesh. I don't recall exactly what the article was, but I mentioned it, and I think I linked to it earlier.

For what it's worth, not EVERYTHING interesting appears in Scientific American or in the quick shots from Reuters, AP, BBC, etc...

[metis]

I mentioned it earlier... an article from October of this year that examined the full spectrum of satellite data available and cast serious doubt on the models that have been the basis of the general hysteria the last several years - because the observation and the models simply don't mesh. I don't recall exactly what the article was, but I mentioned it, and I think I linked to it earlier.  For what it's worth, not EVERYTHING interesting appears in Scientific American or in the quick shots from Reuters, AP, BBC, etc...

I never said they did, but I would tend to think that a supposed "discovery" of this magnitude would make it into one of them sooner or later. 

So I did find the publication, and I read it, and it's interesting that even in his own conclusion he does NOT state that there is no greenhouse effect, but that the effect is over-exaggerated.  But I went a step further and got this out of Wikipedia on him:

"David H. Douglass is an American physicist at the University of Rochester. Douglass is considered a global warming skeptic and his research appears to focus on the role of natural forces and the debunking of anthropogenic climate change. He is a harsh critic of Al Gore and other global warming popularizers and is known to end his talks with an image of the former vice president juxtaposed with the mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion in order to underscore his dislike of Gore's ideas."

Note that last sentence.  It seems to me that just maybe he might have a bit of a political agenda in his presentations.  Gee, I wonder what kind of crowds he was talking to? 

Anyway, even though the thoughts of an individual scientist or even a small team might be interesting, it hardly offers any particular reason to conclude that the other models are somehow false since there appears to be much more of a consensus of others that the greenhouse effect is very much a reason for concern.  Even though the NAS is not to be viewed as a body of inerrant deities by any means, I'd be far more inclined to lean in their direction than some other group that may have their p.c. agenda in high gear. 

And, btw, it does appear that this administration finally has come to realize that there is a problem and has taken steps to begin to deal with it.  Better late than never, I guess.

Shalom,
Vern   

[julrich]

"hope that everyone here is alive to either gloat or look like a fool."

I'm glad there are other future possibilities to hope for than these.

jules

[Acumen]

Seems like it's getting hot in here.

[metis]

I just got into Douglass' website and here's what I found:

"'Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but BOLD COLORS which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people...' -RONALD W. REAGAN (03/01/1975)"

also

"A group of credible scientists published a report in the Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology which makes the “inescapable conclusion” that:  'the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming'.

Al Gore will ignore the study though, as it’s a lot easier to hide behind an imaginary cloak of “consensus” rather than answer any dissent.  In his convenient little world, they might as well be making the case that the earth is flat" (http://boldcolorconservative.com/2007/12/11/i-thought-there-was-a-consensus/)

Also to be found there are links to various conservative political and religious groups and Fox "News", etc.  

Shalom,
Vern

[metis]

Seems like it's getting hot in here.

See, I told you so!!! 

Shalom,
Vern

[Thorolf]

Approving a UN agreement under a previous government is only valid if the current government accepts it. We can discuss the impotence of the UN and its agreements in another thread if you like.   Regardless, I was speaking primarily of the US.

Not true.  An agreement is only enforced if the current government accepts it, but lack of enforcement does not mean the agreement is not valid.  If a change in administration invalidated previous agreements, there could be no international treaties at all. 

Yes, the UN has no power to enforce compliance; it has to rely solely on moral suasion. 

[quote ]
You misunderstand what I said. First of all, we MAY produce more than other countries, but we do NOT produce the "lion's share" of all greenhouse gases. But regardless, my point was that other countries couldn't care less what anyone else produces - they see environmentalism as a way of taking down the US a notch.

It may be per capita rather than total amount, but I believe that even in total amount the production of greenhouse emissions is far greater in developed countries.  And in total amount it continues to increase. 

I think you are being naive to suppose only the US ever acts from noble motives.  No country is perfectly ethical, but others can be at least as ethical as the US. 

I didn't suppose or say that the US acts from noble motives, nor did I suppose or say that the US is the only one.

It's politics as usual.

You have something against politics?  Just what would you have instead? 

Again, I didn't say I have something against politics. But it's a very different world, and one that does NOT fit neatly into a particular worldview. Politics is what it is, and it's important to recognize that fact.

Incidentally, the claims of catastrophic climate change are simply specious.

Keep up with the research.  That line was outdated nearly a decade ago. 

Already responded to this one. Simply put, the environmentalist lobby may have created a talking point that scoffs at the conclusion, but as I have mentioned before - research from THIS YEAR indicates that the models are flat-out not accurate, and can no longer blame observational error for the discrepancies.

Well, no... we can't expect either for it to be democratic, or that the consensus would be followed.

I think we are using "expect" with slightly different meanings.  I meant it in the sense of this is what we should advocate and require, not in the sense of what actually is at present.

Regardless, we cannot expect democracy - in any sense of the word. The UN may take votes from time to time, but that in and of itself is not democracy.

Your allegation of "picking up your marbles" is nonsense. You may not like the current US administration, and frankly I couldn't care less whether you do or do not, but refusing to sign an accord is hardly unique to this administration, or even the US in general. It's done by EVERY state.

The failings of others don't justify your own.  Rather it gives others license to imitate yours.

I didn't justify anything. I stated a fact. Picking and choosing which of these events to get upset about is hardly fair when it is not only a common practice, but a firmly held and protected RIGHT of the individual states to make the decision for themselves which treaties and accords they choose to accept. 

It doesn't. That's the point... it's not necessarily about right and wrong as much as what is expedient.

And what is wrong with that?  Americans are proud of their democracy, in spite of the fact that it operates though representatives and senators seeking what is expedient for their district/state.  They also tend to be pro-capitalist and it is basic to capitalism that every participant act in view of what is expedient for him/her. 

So, why object to it on the international level? 

I don't object. I point out the way things are. You're welcome to rail against the essentially impotent structure of the United Nations all day if you like. I couldn't care less - but at least understand how the UN is structured, what is acceptable for the individual states, and what each state expects to get from their membership in the United Nations.

That is simply not the case. The UN is NOT democracy.

In terms of Assembly procedure, it is.  One country, one vote.  The Security Council is a little different with its permanent members and power of veto.

No. That is not a democracy, in either form or function. I fear it's a fairly common misconception that the act of voting equates to a democratic form of government. That is not the case.

I'm sure that ranting about the perceptions of US foreign policy makes non-Americans feel a little better about their jealousy and spite, but the fact is that it's not nearly as much about America's policies as it is about America's success.

Again, I question your negative assessment of others' motives.  I wouldn't claim there is no jealousy.  But their is also a lot of frustration at the US bullying strategies too, and I would say with good reason. 

Perhaps there is a lot of frustration over the perception of bullying tactics, but in my experience - EVERYONE bullies. The US is actually LESS able to pull it off than most other countries in the UN. Even small states tend to be both more active and more effective at bullying.

I'll put it as simply as I can - the US is the big dog. Like it or not, the US is still a superpower, still wealthy, and still strong. We do use our strength at times to get what we want, but we actually do it a lot less than most people suppose. The fact of the matter is that the US has been a target of derision by the rest of the world for a very long time - and it has virtually NOTHING to do with the current administration. Oh, sure... the rest of the world doesn't like Bush, and thanks in large part to the media they are encouraged by AMERICANS to hate him, but they will continue to insult and attack the US well after Bush is gone. But I lived in France during the Clinton administration, and the europeans were brutal to the US then, too. I actually had a debate with one guy, a Swiss, because he stormed up to me and practically shouted in my face "You AMERICANS! You make too much GARBAGE!!"

Maybe he was right... that's not really the point.

As a Canadian - think back. Has there EVER been a time when Canadians in general were just in love with their neighbors to the south? Friendly, sure... but ALWAYS critical. Admit it - you love negative press about the US. Even half of America has grown to love it...

 It doesn't matter WHO is president - people hate the US because of what we are - big, strong, and successful. Maybe Bush has given some additional ammunition, but he certainly didn't start the war. Pretending he did is just that - make believe.

So let's leave the anti-american and/or anti-bush rhetoric on the sideline and deal with things as they are. So the US hasn't signed Kyoto. Big hairy deal. Most of the countries that HAVE signed Kyoto have performed worse than the US since becoming signatories. But then again - Kyoto LETS them. But that's okay with everyone... the important thing is that the US hasn't signed. THAT would make all the difference... right?

It's not about proposing alternatives to Kyoto - it's about doing the right thing for the world WHILE protecting your own interests. The US is perfectly capable of adjusting its own behavior without signing onto an agreement that puts undue burden on the country.

[Thorolf]

I just got into Douglass' website and here's what I found:

"'Our people look for a cause to believe in. Is it a third party we need, or is it a new and revitalized second party, raising a banner of no pale pastels, but BOLD COLORS which make it unmistakably clear where we stand on all of the issues troubling the people...' -RONALD W. REAGAN (03/01/1975)"

also

"A group of credible scientists published a report in the Royal Meteorological Society’s International Journal of Climatology which makes the “inescapable conclusion” that:  'the human contribution is not significant and that observed increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases make only a negligible contribution to climate warming'.

Al Gore will ignore the study though, as it’s a lot easier to hide behind an imaginary cloak of “consensus” rather than answer any dissent.  In his convenient little world, they might as well be making the case that the earth is flat" (http://boldcolorconservative.com/2007/12/11/i-thought-there-was-a-consensus/)

Also to be found there are links to various conservative political and religious groups and Fox "News", etc.  

Shalom,
Vern

Let me see if I have this straight - you're going to reject his group's work because you don't agree with his conclusions?

Isn't that convenient?

FWIW, I'm more interested in John Christy than Douglass... but feel free to justify rejection for whatever makes you comfortable.

[Thorolf]

I never said they did, but I would tend to think that a supposed "discovery" of this magnitude would make it into one of them sooner or later. 

So I did find the publication, and I read it, and it's interesting that even in his own conclusion he does NOT state that there is no greenhouse effect, but that the effect is over-exaggerated. 

Which, I think, is what I've been saying...

But I went a step further and got this out of Wikipedia on him:

"David H. Douglass is an American physicist at the University of Rochester. Douglass is considered a global warming skeptic and his research appears to focus on the role of natural forces and the debunking of anthropogenic climate change. He is a harsh critic of Al Gore and other global warming popularizers and is known to end his talks with an image of the former vice president juxtaposed with the mushroom cloud of a nuclear explosion in order to underscore his dislike of Gore's ideas."

Note that last sentence.  It seems to me that just maybe he might have a bit of a political agenda in his presentations.  Gee, I wonder what kind of crowds he was talking to? 

He is a scientist. Do you have some REASON to care about his opinions on Gore? Perhaps something in his group's research that doesn't measure up?

Or are you rejecting his research based on a purely emotional basis?

Anyway, even though the thoughts of an individual scientist or even a small team might be interesting, it hardly offers any particular reason to conclude that the other models are somehow false since there appears to be much more of a consensus of others that the greenhouse effect is very much a reason for concern.  Even though the NAS is not to be viewed as a body of inerrant deities by any means, I'd be far more inclined to lean in their direction than some other group that may have their p.c. agenda in high gear. 

You just can't get away from the "might is right" argument, can you?  Every discussion we have had eventually gets to "consensus" or "majority" or the bigger/louder/better publicized group.

And, btw, it does appear that this administration finally has come to realize that there is a problem and has taken steps to begin to deal with it.  Better late than never, I guess.

One of the first things this administration did was start to take steps to deal with it... but whatever.