navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Labor Party Wins in Australia
The Alley
Post A Reply Post New Topic Labor Party Wins in Australia Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA

0 posted 2007-11-24 01:49 PM



SYDNEY, Australia - Conservative Prime Minister John Howard suffered a humiliating defeat Saturday at the hands of the left-leaning opposition, whose leader has promised to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.


That is sad news. I hope our Australian friends don't regret this decision.

© Copyright 2007 Michael Mack - All Rights Reserved
TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
1 posted 2007-11-24 04:05 PM


oh, dear sir, after "turkey", you start worrying about Australia.

You know that Conservative /liberal means differently in different countries. Are you sure that you felt the RIGHT sad?

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
2 posted 2007-11-24 04:07 PM



I agree, I was looking forward to warmer summers too.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
3 posted 2007-11-24 06:09 PM


Tom, I wasn't referring to liberal/conservatives but rather the Kyoto treaty.

Grinch, you won't see warmer summers in your lifetime, or your children's lifetimes, or your grandchildren's lifetime....unless you want to come visit me in Florida

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
4 posted 2007-11-24 07:33 PM



quote:
Grinch, you won't see warmer summers in your lifetime, or your children's lifetimes, or your grandchildren's lifetime....unless you want to come visit me in Florida


And be on the same continent as a super volcano? No thanks!

Actually historical global trends in meteorology suggest it will get warmer here in Europe, regardless of mans intervention. Of course that’s only until the Atlantic Conveyor ceases to function due to the freshwater melt currently underway at the polar icecap. At that point the 5-7 degree drop in temperature should kick off a long overdue period of global cooling.

That’s if a meteor or bird flu hasn’t finished us all off.


TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
5 posted 2007-11-24 07:47 PM


What is wrong with Kyoto protocol? Bush himself after refusing sign it made some "kind" comments  to the nature to wipe his mouth. He purely wanted to protect US industry...not wrong but at what price?

warm or cool, extra CO2(and other gases) is not good.

Tomtoo

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
6 posted 2007-11-24 09:50 PM


No doubt, grinch. It will get warmer...and it will get colder...and the continents will merge...and it's factual that the Milky Way will collide with the Andromeda galaxy and all life will end.........nothing of which has to due with our current "blame it on global warming" routines.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
7 posted 2007-11-24 09:55 PM


Tomtoo, I could go on for hours about the Kyoto protocol but let me just say that (1) it hurts the economy of the developed nations (2) it stunts growth of the undeveloped nations (3) it causes the undeveloped nations to demand compensation from the developed ones for not allowing them to develop (4) it has not been working (5) it tries to solve a non-problem, according to many hundreds of scientists around the world. That's enough for starters....
TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
8 posted 2007-11-24 10:57 PM


Wah, Wah, wah, this is Alley and I am talking to a Moderator.

The only thing halt economy growth is war or unjustified internal policy. not Kyoto as you said, it is not working, in either way!!

As for developing economy, what do you think American people want?  A 767 jet each house hood? let along many are complaining about the big SUV.


Under-developed world...many have historic reasons...and if the government is right, people will sure live better life as to food, clean water, shelter, and political freedom. and the world is changing all the time. 300 years ago, US was not there. 300 hundred years later, who knows? nothing is related to CO2. but individual human life could be influenced. How many health tragedies have we seen due to industrial pollution?

"it has not been working" ...you are right. US's attitude is an example of the world. Acknowledging it or not, US's living style set an example for the world because it is a free country and it is a freeland that everyone has a chance to develop oneself. But if government is for the F-500 and protect them at any cost as saving them from down in market with government money and not tighten the rule of emission of waste which help them to reduce the cost so they can earn more....Kyoto just one of them. Whose interest is it protecting by not sign it or loosing some industry rules?  Now some of the industry of pollution has gone east and south. Do you call this helping developing countries? I think WHO has many stories on this topic.

Someday, We shall all drink polluted bottled water, eat contaminated organic food and breath the filtered CO2..May new technology gives us fins. We may end up starting real evolution, evolve back to  Amoeba. ????

anything...extra  more is bad.

[This message has been edited by TomMark (11-24-2007 11:46 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
9 posted 2007-11-24 11:05 PM


Wah, Wah, wah, this is Alley and I am talking to a Moderator.

I have no idea what that is supposed to mean. have a nice evening.....

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
10 posted 2007-11-24 11:13 PM


Dear Sir Balladeer, I mean that I shall not talk back to a beloved moderator.....

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
11 posted 2007-11-24 11:48 PM


We are all the same in here, Tom...(except for Brad)
TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
12 posted 2007-11-25 10:49 AM


My dear sir, finally you agree with me. Thank you    

And it is indeed a good corner to gossip about Sir Brad

Sir Brad brought out bright bars
to set several serious stands up
for poets to post on CA per piptalk
but drove my dream of drill into drain.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
13 posted 2007-11-25 09:54 PM


I only have one real central complaint about the Kyoto Protocol which is, simply, rapidly developing countries such as China and India are not included in its requirements to reduce greenhouse gases. Without their inclusion, it is unfair, I believe, and I do believe the US Senate was right to vote in 1999 not to ratify it unless they do their part as well.

As far as the other common critiques are concerned, however, I believe the Kyoto Protocol is a worthy cause. I believe a lot of the economic arguments being made by its chief critics are exaggerative, Chicken Little-esque "the sky is falling" speculations, which, by the way, many of which are not that different at all from the arguments quite a few were making about many pieces of environmental legislation during the conservation movement, including the initial 1963 Clean Air Act and its 1970 extension, where such pieces of legislation would overreach and be a burden on both our national economy and state economies. And, as we now know, those fears were much ado about nothing, with these large-scale environmental interventions turning out to be significantly cheaper than expected, such as the cost of reducing SO2 emissions to battle acid rain, where opponents of the original Clean Air Act originally argued that it would cost our nation anywhere from $400 to $1,000 per ton under that act, but in 2000 SO2 allowances were priced between $130 and $155 per ton. Heck, businesses, including a mining company known as Inco, who originally railed against such legislation are now PROFITING due to the act pressuring them and others to adopt new mining operations that emit less pollution.

In addition, many of the studies that argue that Kyoto will hamper the American economy were 1) carried out before our nation was ever even a signatory, and 2) they do not consider or account for the the human health benefits, the benefits of government and consumer investment in new technology and infrastructure and the mounting costs of climate change themselves which, as one Tellus Institute study researched and argues, ultimately brings about a net benefit for developed nations including the United States, even economically in the longer run.

As for the claims that the Protocol will result in job losses, particularly in the maufacturing sector: I actually believe the opposite. I believe it ushers and encourages new job opportunities by developing a green economic model. In fact, I read that investments in energy efficiency create four times as many jobs as investments in new energy do, with the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy even estimating that an annual investment of $46 billion from 1992 to 2010 would have resulted in a 24% reduction in carbon emissions and created approximately 1.1 million new American jobs by 2010. So, sustainability creates many jobs, with far more longevity than the call by some to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge ever would, which would be fleeting, temporary jobs.

*

I certainly understand that there is a pricetag to this, and in the short term some sacrifices will be made, which I consider minor as they are when you consider the overall future of our planet, as well as the availability of more sustainable, renewable and cost-efficient energy resources and technology. But in the longer term, I think this is a rather reasonable proposal, and will ultimately only benefit us all around.

Are we, as Americans, willing to adapt their lifestyles for such an endeavor? Well, the fact we're already a signatory is notable as it is, but beyond that, we have always been a green nation, in that we're sensitive about our environment and value clean air, clean waters, clean forests, etc. even if our government sometimes doesn't seem eye to eye with us on that. And fron what I've heard, I've heard from many that they'd be willing to pay up to about $500 a year to implement Kyoto, if it meant what I hinted out in the previous paragraph of my response.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
14 posted 2007-11-25 11:40 PM


But in the longer term, I think this is a rather reasonable proposal, and will ultimately only benefit us all around.

A lot of people disagree with you,  Noah. for example.....

the document agreed upon in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December is a flawed one: it has none of the drastic emissions curbs scientists say are essential in averting climate chaos.

Yes, the agreement is historically important as it will, for the first time, legally bind developed countries to rein in emissions of heat-trapping gases. But in practical terms the Kyoto Protocol is an empty vessel which is unlikely to turn down the heat.

The protocol fails on all points. It is a compromise, acknowledges Malaysia's climate treaty negotiator Chow Kok Kee, a Meteorological Services director.

'The protocol is unlikely to make any difference. It gives the false impression that a breakthrough has been achieved but there are too many loopholes,' says Gurmit Singh, regional co-ordinator of Climate Action Network South-East Asia, an organisation of public interest groups working on the climate issue.

The holes in the protocol essentially mean business as usual for the large greenhouse gas emitters, as long as they pay poorer nations to do the dirty job of cutting emissions.

Environment group Greenpeace says the Kyoto targets will produce an actual overall reduction of gases by 1% or 2% only. We need a 60% reduction to make a dent on the gaseous 'glass' dome which now envelopes the globe, says the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the advisory scientific body to the climate treaty).

To make matters worse, reduction targets can be changed only with the consent of the concerned party. In other words, 'it gives the country a veto mechanism. So you cannot raise the emission target as long as the country disagrees. This makes future target changes difficult,' Gurmit points out.

Topping a long list of loopholes in the Kyoto Protocol is 'emissions trading'. This enables a country which has exceeded its emissions quota to 'buy' another country's unused quota.  Critics also cry foul over 'emissions banking', whereby a country that emits less than it's supposed to can 'carry forward' the surplus to the subsequent period.

Equally controversial is the concept of joint implementation, where a country which invests in climate-friendly projects, such as reforestation or clean energy facilities, elsewhere can claim credits to offset its own emissions.  Yet another flaw in the protocol is the inclusion of carbon sinks (natural entities such as forests and soil which can absorb carbon dioxide) in emissions accounting.

So a country can subtract the amount of greenhouse gases supposedly absorbed by sinks from its total emissions. However, the case against this is the fact that there is much scientific uncertainty about exactly how much carbon the sinks can remove from the atmosphere.

Ultimately, though, you have to ask the question: what use is a treaty if there are no penalties for non-compliance?
This issue was pushed aside at Kyoto, and will only be sorted out sometime in the future.

Given the long list of caveats, it is no wonder that Greenpeace's Bill Hare labels the Kyoto outcome a 'tragedy and a farce'.
http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/kyt-cn.htm  


The Kyoto Treaty is not working, Noah. It's similar to the UN, good at issuing orders with no ability to enforce them. The "emmisions trading' is a joke, also, similar to Al Gore's buying energy credits to continue using obscene amounts of energy while claiming to be working toward cutting energy. I wonder if he got the idea from them or they from him???

There are many more flaws in it which I would be happy to dwell on, if necessary, but just the fact that someone like Bill Hare of Greenpeace would label it a "farce" speaks volumes.

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
15 posted 2007-11-26 01:11 AM


.


“I have no doubt that … a trend of global warming exists. I am not sure that it is fair to say that it is a problem we must wrestle with. To assume that it is a problem is to assume that the state of Earth's climate today is the optimal climate, the best climate that we could have or ever have had and that we need to take steps to make sure that it doesn't change. First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings. I think that's a rather arrogant position for people to take.”


Michael Griffin
NASA Administrator

.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
16 posted 2007-11-26 01:50 AM


So, post the rest of the story John.
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
17 posted 2007-11-26 03:53 PM


I consulted one of the world's great thinkers on the subject and this is what she said...


TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
18 posted 2007-11-26 05:48 PM


My dear Sir Balladeer, you finally got the right reference.  She has obviously got into an very hormone unbalanced stage and she needs a gynecologist!!!!

You certainly meant that the climate was out of balance. i agree with ya!!!

Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
19 posted 2007-11-26 08:46 PM



LR,


There is no "story".
The comment speaks for itself?

Answer it . . .

John


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
20 posted 2007-11-27 12:03 PM


What does the comment say for itself John?

What are Griffin's qualifications to be making such a statement?  Any more or less than yours?

Do you usually hire a plumber to fix your leaky roof?

What did climatologists have to say about Griffins comment?

Is Griffin glad he made the statement?

Who appointed Griffin to be head of NASA?  When?

What did Griffin work on before that?

Is there any indication that Griffin might have a particular political bias that is contributing to his 'non-technical' opinion?

There is always a story John.  People don't just say things in a vacuum.

It is apparent though that the reason the Right is so concerned about Kyoto is they fear it may impede thier ability to spew hot-air into the atmosphere.

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
21 posted 2007-11-27 09:52 AM


"Prominent climate scientists have referred to his (Griffin's)remarks as ignorant. In particular, James Hansen, NASA's top official on climate change, said Griffin’s comments showed “arrogance and ignorance”, as millions will likely be harmed by global warming. Jerry Mahlman, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, said that Griffin was either “totally clueless” or “a deep antiglobal warming ideologue.”"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_D._Griffin

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
22 posted 2007-11-28 10:40 AM


hmmm...need qualifications to make comments valid, LR? Ok, then....

The following list includes more than 500 qualified researchers, their home institutions, and the peer-reviewed studies they have published in professional journals providing historic and/or physical proxy evidence that:

1) Most of the recent global warming has been caused by a long, moderate, natural cycle rather than by the burning of fossil fuels;

2) The sun’s varying radiance impacts the Earth’s climate as more or fewer cosmic rays create more or fewer of the low, wet clouds that act as the Earth’s thermostats, deflecting more or less solar heat out into space.

3) Sea levels are not rising rapidly nor are they likely to;

4) Wild species are not being driven to extinction but rather are increasing the biodiversity of our wildlands;

5) Fewer human deaths are likely rather than more as the current warming continues, since cold is far more dangerous and the Earth is always warming or cooling;

6) Food production is likely to thrive during the decades ahead, rather than collapsing due to climate overheating;

7) Our storms are likely to be fewer and milder as the declining temperature differential between the equator and the poles reduces their power.

The list includes researchers from many of the world’s top research institutions, such as the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory affiliated with Columbia University, the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysical Research, the Woods Hole and Scripps Oceanographic Institutes, Sweden’s Upsala University, Australia’s Waikato University, South Africa’s Witwatersrand University, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.

http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21977

need more???


Sixty scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming (An open letter to Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper)

Observational evidence does not support today's computer climate models, so there is little reason to trust model predictions of the future. Yet, this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto, and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based. Even if the climate models were realistic, the environmental impact of Canada delaying implementation of Kyoto or other greenhouse-gas reduction schemes, pending completion of consultations, would be insignificant. Directing your government to convene balanced, open hearings as soon as possible would be a most prudent and responsible course of action.

While the confident pronouncements of scientifically unqualified environmental groups may provide for sensational headlines, they are no basis for mature policy formulation. The study of global climate change is, as you have said, an "emerging science," one that is perhaps the most complex ever tackled. It may be many years yet before we properly understand the Earth's climate system. Nevertheless, significant advances have been made since the Protocol was created, many of which are taking us away from a concern about increasing greenhouse gases. If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.

"Climate change is real" is a meaningless phrase, used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming, and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes all the time, due to natural causes, and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural "noise."

        Dr. Ian D. Clark, professor, isotope hydrogeology and paleoclimatology, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
        · Dr. Tad Murty, former senior research scientist, Department of Fisheries and Oceans, former director of Australia's National Tidal Facility, and professor of earth sciences, Flinders University, Adelaide; currently adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.
        · Dr. R. Timothy Patterson, professor, Department of Earth Sciences (paleoclimatology), Carleton University, Ottawa.
        · Dr. Fred Michel, director, Institute of Environmental Science and associate professor, Department of Earth Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa.
        · Dr. Madhav Khandekar, former research scientist, Environment Canada. Member of editorial board of Climate Research and Natural Hazards.
        · Dr. Paul Copper, FRSC, professor emeritus, Department of Earth Sciences, Laurentian University, Sudbury, Ontario.
        · Dr. Ross McKitrick, associate professor, Department of Economics, University of Guelph, Ontario.
        · Dr. Tim Ball, former professor of climatology, University of Winnipeg; environmental consultant.
        · Dr. Andreas Prokocon, adjunct professor of earth sciences, University of Ottawa; consultant in statistics and geology.
        · Mr. David Nowell, M.Sc. (Meteorology), fellow of the Royal Meteorological Society, Canadian member, and past chairman of the NATO Meteorological Group, Ottawa.
        · Dr. Christopher Essex, professor of applied mathematics and associate director of the Program in Theoretical Physics, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
        · Dr. Gordon E. Swaters, professor of applied mathematics, Department of Mathematical Sciences, and member, Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Research Group, University of Alberta.
        · Dr. L. Graham Smith, associate professor, Department of Geography, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
        · Dr. G. Cornelis van Kooten, professor and Canada Research Chair in environmental studies and climate change, Department of Economics, University of Victoria.
        · Dr. Peter Chylek, adjunct professor, Department of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax.
        · Dr./Cdr. M. R. Morgan, FRMS, climate consultant, former meteorology advisor to the World Meteorological Organization. Previously research scientist in climatology at University of Exeter, U.K.
        · Dr. Keith D. Hage, climate consultant and professor emeritus of Meteorology, University of Alberta.
        · Dr. David E. Wojick, P.Eng., energy consultant, Star Tannery, Virginia, and Sioux Lookout, Ontario.
        · Rob Scagel, M.Sc., forest microclimate specialist, principal consultant, Pacific Phytometric Consultants, Surrey, B.C.
        · Dr. Douglas Leahey, meteorologist and air-quality consultant, Calgary.
        · Paavo Siitam, M.Sc., agronomist, chemist, Cobourg, Ontario.
        · Dr. Chris de Freitas, climate scientist, associate professor, The University of Auckland, N.Z
        · Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan professor of meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
        · Dr. Freeman J. Dyson, emeritus professor of physics, Institute for Advanced Studies, Princeton, New Jersey.
        · Mr. George Taylor, Department of Meteorology, Oregon State University; Oregon State climatologist; past president, American Association of State Climatologists.
        · Dr. Ian Plimer, professor of geology, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of Adelaide; emeritus professor of earth sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia.
        · Dr. R.M. Carter, professor, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia.
        · Mr. William Kininmonth, Australasian Climate Research, former Head National Climate Centre, Australian Bureau of Meteorology; former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology, Scientific and Technical Review.
        · Dr. Hendrik Tennekes, former director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.
        · Dr. Gerrit J. van der Lingen, geologist/paleoclimatologist, Climate Change Consultant, Geoscience Research and Investigations, New Zealand.
        · Dr. Patrick J. Michaels, professor of environmental sciences, University of Virginia.
        · Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner, emeritus professor of paleogeophysics and geodynamics, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
        · Dr. Gary D. Sharp, Center for Climate/Ocean Resources Study, Salinas, California.
        · Dr. Roy W. Spencer, principal research scientist, Earth System Science Center, The University of Alabama, Huntsville.
        · Dr. Al Pekarek, associate professor of geology, Earth and Atmospheric Sciences Dept., St. Cloud State University, St. Cloud, Minnesota.
        · Dr. Marcel Leroux, professor emeritus of climatology, University of Lyon, France; former director of Laboratory of Climatology, Risks and Environment, CNRS
        · Dr. Paul Reiter, professor, Institut Pasteur, Unit of Insects and Infectious Diseases, Paris, France. Expert reviewer, IPCC Working group II, chapter 8 (human health).
        · Dr. Zbigniew Jaworowski, physicist and chairman, Scientific Council of Central Laboratory for Radiological Protection, Warsaw, Poland.
        · Dr. Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, reader, Department of Geography, University of Hull, U.K.; editor, Energy and Environment.
        · Dr. Hans H.J. Labohm, former advisor to the executive board, Clingendael Institute (The Netherlands Institute of International Relations), and an economist who has focused on climate change.
        · Dr. Lee C. Gerhard, senior scientist emeritus, University of Kansas, past director and state geologist, Kansas Geological Survey.
        · Dr. Asmunn Moene, past head of the Forecasting Centre, Meteorological Institute, Norway.
        · Dr. August H. Auer, past professor of atmospheric science, University of Wyoming; previously chief meteorologist, Meteorological Service (MetService) of New Zealand.
        · Dr. Vincent Gray, expert reviewer for the IPCC, and author of The Greenhouse Delusion: A Critique of "Climate Change 2001," Wellington, N.Z.
          Dr. Howard Hayden, emeritus professor of physics, University of Connecticut.
        · Dr. Benny Peiser, professor of social anthropology, Faculty of Science, Liverpool John Moores University, U.K.
        · Dr. Jack Barrett, chemist and spectroscopist, formerly with Imperial College London, U.K.
        · Dr. William J.R. Alexander, professor emeritus, Dept. of Civil and Biosystems Engineering, University of Pretoria, South Africa. Member, United Nations Scientific and Technical Committee on Natural Disasters, 1994-2000
        · Dr. S. Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences, University of Virginia; former director, U.S. Weather Satellite Service.
        · Dr. Harry N.A. Priem, emeritus professor of planetary geology and isotope geophysics, Utrecht University; former director of the Netherlands Institute for Isotope Geosciences; past president of the Royal Netherlands Geological & Mining Society.
        · Dr. Robert H. Essenhigh, E.G. Bailey professor of energy conversion, Department of Mechanical Engineering, The Ohio State University.
        · Dr. Sallie Baliunas, astrophysicist and climate researcher, Boston, Mass.
        · Douglas Hoyt, senior scientist at Raytheon (retired) and co-author of the book, The Role of the Sun in Climate Change; previously with NCAR, NOAA, and the World Radiation Center, Davos, Switzerland.
        · Dipl.-Ing. Peter Dietze, independent energy advisor and scientific climate and carbon modeller, official IPCC reviewer, Bavaria, Germany.        ·
          Dr. Boris Winterhalter, senior marine researcher (retired), Geological Survey of Finland, former professor in marine geology, University of Helsinki, Finland.
        · Dr. Wibjörn Karlén, emeritus professor, Department of Physical Geography and Quaternary Geology, Stockholm University, Sweden.
        · Dr. Hugh W. Ellsaesser, physicist/meteorologist, previously with the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, California; atmospheric consultant.
        · Dr. Art Robinson, founder, Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, Cave Junction, Oregon.
        · Dr. Arthur Rörsch, emeritus professor of molecular genetics, Leiden University, The Netherlands; past board member, Netherlands organization for applied research (TNO) in environmental, food, and public health.
        · Dr. Alister McFarquhar, Downing College, Cambridge, U.K.; international economist.
        · Dr. Richard S. Courtney, climate and atmospheric science consultant, IPCC expert reviewer, U.K.
http://www.restoringamerica.org/SpecialFeatures/sixty_scientists_call_on_harper_.htm


If those aren't enough qualified people, I can come up with more......

It is apparent though that the reason the Right is so concerned about Kyoto is they fear it may impede thier ability to spew hot-air into the atmosphere.

I think you know as well as I that hot air is in abundance on both sides of the aisle




TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
23 posted 2007-11-28 02:24 PM


Sir Balladeer, you selected the voices to speak for you but be objective so you shall not quote from Heartland, a very self-interest group.

Let's take Global warming  as science but not politics no matter how many politicians are jumping on that to get credit.  

And interestingly, you list "the Chinese Academy of Sciences" as top research institute. I would not put my trust on those confused old-fix minds." young, fresh thought has not get a chance to get in yet.

I believe that there are pure scientific voices there
and GW being a theory are to be argued by two sides and we can choose what we believe but not president related.

[This message has been edited by TomMark (11-28-2007 03:39 PM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
24 posted 2007-11-28 04:26 PM


You are right, Tom. There are many experts on both sides on this topic which raises an interesting point. How can something considered to be  so completely factual by the UN, Al Gore, and many governments have so many professional dissenters on the other side? Certainly the fact alone that there are so many on both sides would indicate that it is not as clear as some would have you believe.

I feel pretty confident that if one were to study the credentials of those on both sides, it would be overwhelmingly evident the the pro-gw by human activity would be more government supported than the anti's. Just a guess....

Let's take Global warming  as science but not politics no matter how many politicians are jumping on that to get credit.

Study the reports I just displayed and you will see science, not politics.

[This message has been edited by Balladeer (11-28-2007 05:02 PM).]

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
25 posted 2007-11-28 04:58 PM


You are very right. Government sets out foundlings---I am wrong...GM study is president related. Bush would cut the founding for research on GW while Hillary night give out more.  Stem cell research is a typical example that to avoid using human  embryonic stem cell to make humans so government funded more project on research of adult stem cells...which to me is totally waste of money and time....but it is very important issue to politician.

But I do believe that industries has ruined climate(weather) and there are many fact like acid rain, and many other. By curbing green house gas...which, I believe, is related to many other harmful by-products, Kyoto shall be a good thing for the world. (politically right or not)

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
26 posted 2007-11-28 05:06 PM


Working stem cell research into global warming, Tom? Wow, you're learning here...

But I do believe that industries has ruined climate(weather) and there are many fact like acid rain, and many other

I grant you your beliefs. Some day back them up with something more factual and scientific than "how you feel about it" and see what you come up with...

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
27 posted 2007-11-28 05:12 PM


Oh, my dear sir Balladeer, I wish you happy today but not on this topic. Wait till I  give you some data after I read more if i got extra hour a day.

Tom

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
28 posted 2007-11-28 06:15 PM


http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/stateofknowledge.html


Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

    * Human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times are well-documented and understood.
    * The atmospheric buildup of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities such as the burning of fossil fuels.
    * An “unequivocal” warming trend of about 1.0 to 1.7°F occurred from 1906-2005. Warming occurred in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheres, and over the oceans (IPCC, 2007).
    * The major greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries. It is therefore virtually certain that atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases will continue to rise over the next few decades.
    * Increasing greenhouse gas concentrations tend to warm the planet.

And more come out daily, sir  



The data will be updated hourly if my time is right.

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
29 posted 2007-11-28 06:28 PM


and http://www.tamug.edu/labb/Global_Warming_Info.htm

And they are very academic information.

and to your beloved Florida
http://www.nrdc.org/globalwarming/fflamap.asp

[This message has been edited by TomMark (11-28-2007 09:08 PM).]

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
30 posted 2007-11-28 10:57 PM


quote:

hmmm...need qualifications to make comments valid, LR? Ok, then....



If an opinion is going to be offered as 'expert' -- yes qualifications are required Mike.

You don't really want to get into a numbers game do you Mike?  Naw.  You know you'll lose.  You'd just like to see us earthy green types spend a lot of carbon footprint wasting our time doing research and posting information that you'll promptly ignore.

quote:

You are right, Tom. There are many experts on both sides on this topic which raises an interesting point. How can something considered to be  so completely factual by the UN, Al Gore, and many governments have so many professional dissenters on the other side? Certainly the fact alone that there are so many on both sides would indicate that it is not as clear as some would have you believe.



It isn't interesting at all Mike.  Remeber all those doctors who used to tell us that smoking was healthy?  And then raised 'questions' for decades about the conclusive link between smoking and cancer?  Sure you do.

Oh yeah -- and those 'scientists' who used to say that we didn't know for sure that nuclear radiation was bad for us?  ROFL

You crack me up Mike.

You really do.  

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
31 posted 2007-11-28 11:13 PM


Oh what the heck -- since this is all fun and games -- why not throw out a few links for you to ignore Mike...
http://www.no-smoke.org/getthefacts.php?id=74
http://www.petroretail.net/uploads/featurearticles/2006/npnMarketPulse/111506_mp2.asp

For what it's worth your Heartland Institute takes money from the Tobacco industry too to try to influence Tobacco policy.

You just keep cracking me up Mike.  

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
32 posted 2007-11-28 11:54 PM


You crack me up too,  Mike
Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
33 posted 2007-11-29 12:46 PM


Have some more punchlines then Tom!
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Friends_of_Science
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Heartland_Institute

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
34 posted 2007-11-29 01:10 AM


LR is absolutely right.

So, Sir balladeer, CAN YOU HANDLE THE TRUTH?

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
35 posted 2007-11-29 04:24 AM


Yep, I remember the doctors, LR, and John Wayne and his cigarette ads....what a jerk he was, the Duke. I also remember using chlordane to treat houses and asbestos to insulate schools. The point? I also remember the scientists in the eighties warning us of the impending global cooling, which has now been revised to global warming. Perhaps one day someone will say "Remember those idiot scientists and doomsayers who warned us of global warming?" Time will tell..

I only ignore you, LR, when you decide to head off in different paths to avoid addressing issues or responses, just as you have conveniently ignored the last posts I made here and poo-pooed the credentialed scientists and their testimonies. The Heartland Institute? What can the scientists who support them know. They accept funding from tobacco companies!   Hey, if you can't trash the message, trash the messenger, right? Your submitting a no smoking campaign thread into a  global warming/Kyoto protocol subject is about as clever as getting a waterboarding link into a pledge allegiance one. Perhaps you think that sarcasm and personal insults will smokescreen out the rest. Well, they always say the best defense is a good offense. The scientists for global warming are geniuses and those against are just amatures with lousy opinions who would probably condone waterboarding.

As for me, I can rest easy in my grave knowing I have brought laughter and amusement to you and your sidekick   I can live with that (until the global warming gets me   )

[This message has been edited by Balladeer (11-29-2007 05:00 AM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
36 posted 2007-11-29 04:28 AM


Oh, and for the record, I have no friends at the Heartland Institute, do not know any ofthe 60 scientists listed who sent the letter to the Canadian PM, and know no one at the CATO Institute, who submitted the following....

STATEMENT of

Patrick J. Michaels
Professor of Environmental Sciences, University of Virginia, and Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies at Cato Institute

On the Kyoto Protocol before the

Committee on Small Business
United States House of Representatives
Kyoto Protocol: "A useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty"

July 29, 1998

Thank you for soliciting my testimony on the science of climate change as it pertains to the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Nearly ten years ago, I first testified on climate change in the U.S. House of Representatives. At that time, I argued that forecasts of dramatic and deleterious global warming were likely to be in error because of the very modest climate changes that had been observed to that date. Further, it would eventually be recognized that this more moderate climate change would be inordinately directed into the winter and night, rather than the summer, and that this could be benign or even beneficial. I testified that the likely warming, based on the observed data, was between 1.0 and 1.5�C for doubling the natural carbon dioxide greenhouse effect.

The preceding paragraph was excerpted verbatim from my last testimony before this House, on November 6, 1997. Since that last testimony, new scientific advances have been published in the refereed literature that have now proven the validity of this position. The key findings include:

    * Documentation that observed climate change is several times below the amount predicted by the climate models that served as the basis for the Framework Convention on Climate Change (Hansen et al., 1998),

    * Documentation that observed changes are largely confined to winter in the very coldest continental airmasses of Siberia and northwestern North America (Balling et al., 1998),

    * Documentation that the variation, or unpredictability, of regional temperatures has declined significantly on a global basis while there was no change in precipitation (Michaels et al., 1998),

    * Documentation that, in the United States, drought has decreased while flooding has not increased (Lins and Slack, 1997),

    * Documentation that carbon dioxide is increasing in the atmosphere at a rate below the most conservative United Nations� scenarios, because it is being increasingly captured by growing vegetation (Hansen et al., 1998),

    * Documentation that the second most important human greenhouse enhancer�methane�is not likely to increase appreciably in the next 100 years (Dlugokencky et al., 1998),

    * Documentation that the direct warming effect of carbon dioxide was overestimated (Myhre et al., 1998), and

    * Documentation that the Kyoto Protocol to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change will have no discernable impact on global climate within any reasonable policy timeframe (Wigley, 1998).

In toto, these findings lead inescapably to the conclusion that the magnitude and the threat from global warming is greatly diminished. They should provoke a re-examination of the need for the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, and the subsequent Kyoto Protocol.

In conclusion, the observed data on climate and recent emissions trends clearly indicate that the concept of "dangerous" interference in the climate system is outmoded within any reasonable horizon. This makes the Kyoto Protocol a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty. It is time to reconsider the Framework Convention.



I don't even know anyone atthe National Academy of Sciences...

From 1998 through 2007 the Oregon Petition ("Global Warming Petition"), sponsored by Dr. Frederick Seitz, former president of the National Academy of Sciences, was signed by 17,200 scientists including 2,660 physicists, geophysicists, climatologists, meteorologists, oceanographers, and environmental scientists. It urged the US to reject the Kyoto Protocol.

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
37 posted 2007-11-29 02:19 PM


good scientists make bad politicians. bad scientists are worst politicians. Why scientist wants to involve in policy making based on uncertain data(it is the trend but not absolute certainty)? THEY ARE REPUBLICANS   Seeing brutally cutting of scientific research  fund by Bush Government, most scientists are suffering. why do they want to line with him?
Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
38 posted 2007-11-29 03:55 PM


Tom, if you bother to re-read the findings of all the scientists which the Cato report made public, you will see that they were made in 1998. Bush was not president and there was a Democrat in the White House. If you are going to yell BUSH and REPUBLICANS at least get your facts a little straighter  

Same goes for the 17,000+ scientists who signed the Oregon Petition, which covered 1998-2007.

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
39 posted 2007-11-29 05:07 PM


Thank you, sir Balladeer. I'll check the facts soon.

Tom

Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
40 posted 2007-11-29 11:58 PM


quote:
Scientists know with virtual certainty that:

That's just the kind of garbage all global warming harpies espouse as the argument to cut of discussion. Well, it don't work. There are also plenty of highly respected scientists who disagree. No, the discussion and decision is far from over.

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
41 posted 2007-11-30 12:18 PM


Mainly to find out who has changed mind due to new data collected in the past 5 years.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
42 posted 2007-11-30 12:31 PM


quote:

I only ignore you, LR, when you decide to head off in different paths to avoid addressing issues or responses, just as you have conveniently ignored the last posts I made here and poo-pooed the credentialed scientists and their testimonies.


No Mike -- you're the one, by going back to the same old arguments that have been asked and answered that is being personally insulting and sarcastic by ignoring the factual data that's been provided.

You can say -- "but what about this study? or that scientist?" until the cows come home -- but it doesn't matter because dissent is already stipulated -- it is consensus of the Scientific community that is not impressed by the dissenting conclusions -- they aren't peer reviewed and the data isn't persuasive Mike -- 30 National Academy of Sciences around the globe have endorsed the IPCC report on Anthropogenic Global Warming -- until someone can put a dent in that with some conclusive data -- then they are just whistling Dixie.

In fact -- the credentialed scientists who oppose the IPCC report is so short it can be listed:
wiki/List of scientists opposing global warming

Now you may want to say that the IPCC report and the endorsement of it by the scientists of the world is a conspiracy like Micheal Crichton or many others would like to suggest -- Global_warming_conspiracy_theory

but, the problem with conspiracies is that someone always cracks -- like, say -- Scott McClellan in the cover-up of the outing of Valerie Plame; http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,312349,00.html

quote:

The Heartland Institute? What can the scientists who support them know. They accept funding from tobacco companies!   Hey, if you can't trash the message, trash the messenger, right? Your submitting a no smoking campaign thread into a  global warming/Kyoto protocol subject is about as clever as getting a waterboarding link into a pledge allegiance one. Perhaps you think that sarcasm and personal insults will smokescreen out the rest. Well, they always say the best defense is a good offense. The scientists for global warming are geniuses and those against are just amatures with lousy opinions who would probably condone waterboarding.



There is something in logic called comparison and analysis Mike.  We can, for instance -- look at two bodies in space and see how they may be different or similar. What we know about one thing can tell us something about the other.

We can also look at the similarities between the way big Tobacco and Big Oil are pursuing the disinformation campaigns -- using the same tactics and even the same organizations like --  Heartland -- You brought them into the thread Mike -- once again -- you want to pick up the marbles when it shoots you in the foot.

Now -- if you think that big oil money funding studies to attempt to debunk the IPCC report doesn't taint  that study then you're not a very good scientist -- or engineer.

But, all of this stuff is so easy to find on the web, and our previous conversations have lead me to wonder if you actually believe all the stuff you're posting here -- or if you're just trying to get a rise out of the audience -- or if you have a portfolio full of Exxon-Mobile and Phillip Morris stocks.  But since I know for a fact that you're you love to make a good joke -- I just assume you aren't serious -- so I'm still cracked up -- just as I used to be at those funny adults who used to think that I couldn't see them when they hid thier eyes from me and played peekaboo --

quote:

I also remember the scientists in the eighties warning us of the impending global cooling, which has now been revised to global warming. Perhaps one day someone will say "Remember those idiot scientists and doomsayers who warned us of global warming?" Time will tell..



I think you actually mean the seventies?
/wiki/Global_cooling

But it wasn't the scientific community -- as there was no consensus -- there were a few indidividual reports that the media distorted out of proportion -- particularly Newsweek.  But, the Academy of Sciences clearly stated they didn't know enough at that time to even form a consensus -- but instead reccomended the issue needed to be studied.

And in recent posts - you even want to go back to Al Gore's house vs. Bush's house -- even though the source you provided clearly outlined Gore's position of carbon neutrality -- it doesn't matter if he uses a billion killowatt hours per month Mike if he isn't producing any carbon.

But, let's once again assume that Al Gore is hypocritical -- it doesn't change the facts of global warming any more than Henry Hyde's or Newt Gingrich's extramarital affairs meant that Bill Clinton didn't have sex with that woman -- Monica Lewinsky.

And, in regards to post 36 -- do you want to argue whether Anthropogenic Global Warming exists -- as John and now apparently Pete do -- or do you want to talk about the efficacy of Kyoto?  They are two different issues.


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
43 posted 2007-11-30 01:11 AM


quote:

That's just the kind of garbage all global warming harpies espouse as the argument to cut of discussion. Well, it don't work. There are also plenty of highly respected scientists who disagree. No, the discussion and decision is far from over.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change#Scientific_consensus

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
44 posted 2007-11-30 02:12 AM


We can also look at the similarities between the way big Tobacco and Big Oil are pursuing the disinformation campaigns -- using the same tactics and even the same organizations like --  Heartland -- You brought them into the thread Mike -- once again -- you want to pick up the marbles when it shoots you in the foot.
Now -- if you think that big oil money funding studies to attempt to debunk the IPCC report doesn't taint  that study then you're not a very good scientist -- or engineer.


LR, you can use the big oil and big tobacco fundings to make Heartland and the Cato Instututes prejudiced if you wish, and you may even be partially right, but that has little to do with the reports, unless you are claiming that the 500 scientists Heartland quoted, the 17000 Cato quoted and the 60 that sent their letter and recommendations to the Canadian PM all belong to those institutions.....which they don't. The only thing Heartland and Cato did was to take this information from acclaimed scientists with impeccable credentials and make them public, something the mainstream media failed (call it refused) to do. You label it disinformation so I must assume that you consider it some conspiracy these 18000 scientists are all banded together to fool the public with.

And, in regards to post 36 -- do you want to argue whether Anthropogenic Global Warming exists -- as John and now apparently Pete do -- or do you want to talk about the efficacy of Kyoto?  They are two different issues.

Glad you mentioned that. They are definitely two different issues. Global warming certainly exists. It has existed since the beginning of time, taking turns with global cooling. The question is (1) is the man-made protion of it significant and (2) would the Kyoto protocol help to curb it?  I have addressed this in several replies throughout the thread to point out that the Kyoto Protocol is the subject matter at hand...

Reply 0.......whose leader has promised to immediately sign the Kyoto Protocol on global warming.

Reply 3.......Tom, I wasn't referring to liberal/conservatives but rather the Kyoto treaty.

Reply 7........Tomtoo, I could go on for hours about the Kyoto protocol but let me just say that (1) it hurts the economy of the developed nations (2) it stunts growth of the undeveloped nations (3) it causes the undeveloped nations to demand compensation from the developed ones for not allowing them to develop (4) it has not been working (5) it tries to solve a non-problem, according to many hundreds of scientists around the world. That's enough for starters....

Reply 14...... the document agreed upon in Kyoto, Japan, on 11 December is a flawed one: it has none of the drastic emissions curbs scientists say are essential in averting climate chaos.  Given the long list of caveats, it is no wonder that Greenpeace's Bill Hare labels the Kyoto outcome a 'tragedy and a farce'.

Reply 22.......Yet, this is precisely what the United Nations did in creating and promoting Kyoto, and still does in the alarmist forecasts on which Canada's climate policies are based.

Reply 36.......This makes the Kyoto Protocol a useless appendage to an irrelevant treaty. It is time to reconsider the Framework Convention.

After all of those references I made, you now ask me if I want to argue global warming or Kyoto? Perhaps it's you who have been doing the ignoring?   The IPCC links you just offered concern global warming only and nothing to do with Kyoto at all.

Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
45 posted 2007-11-30 02:37 AM


Nope not ignoring -- just clarifying.

Post 0 you only focus on Kyoto.

Post 15 John goes off into Anthropogenic Climate Change.

I answer him.

You answer me.

Then you switch back to Kyoto.

So -- you've clarified -- you want to talk about both.  I've only talked about anthropogenic climate change and haven't made any arguments pro or con on Kyoto.  - Which is why I don't understand 36.

And, if you choose not to ignore the information -- you'll see that Heartland is actively involved with the Oil and Tobacco industry and has board members from the said same, Mike -- the same companies that fund those scientists -- yep -- that is a conspiracy -- but like all conspiracies it's hard to keep it a secret -- except the mainstream media just doesn't cover it do they?  

It's a good damn thing Al Gore invented the internets!  

This enables you to look further into those '18,000' "scientists" -- the 60 and the 500 -- and see that it isn't above board.

The nature of science is that there will always be variance in opinion -- and there will be a consensus -- but the process is tainted when -- let's say the mainstream media blows a single report out of proportion like Rasool's and Mitchell's because it sells newspapers -- or when the Oil companies fund 'studies' to throw sand in the public's face -- sometimes it reminds me a little of Baghdad Bob -- which is again why I laugh.

It's all amazingly simply laid out at Wiki Mike -- maybe you should write to those 18,000 'scientists' and tell them to add thier names to the list -- they're just scientists after all -- they probably don't know about wikipedia?

[This message has been edited by Local Rebel (11-30-2007 05:58 AM).]

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
46 posted 2007-11-30 10:22 AM


he same companies that fund those scientists -- yep -- that is a conspiracy

So you are saying, then, that either Heartland or the oil companies are funding those nearly 20,000 scientists? Iassume you can provide another link for that?

but the process is tainted when -- let's say the mainstream media blows a single report out of proportion

Now I'm the one who is laughing....no, guffawing and rolling on the floor holding my sides. That's exactly what  the mainstream media has been doing for the past 7 years. If you don't believe me, ask Dan Rather.

maybe you should write to those 18,000 'scientists' and tell them to add thier names to the list -- they're just scientists after all -- they probably don't know about wikipedia?

A typical response, sadly. If you can't refute them, insult and trash them. That's what the left does. They ignore a man's 30 year record in service and, if they don't want him to be a judge, they find a point to trash him, ignoring his record. If General Petrakas (sp) gives opinions they don't want to hear, they ignore his sterling military record for three decades and try to discredit and trash him.  These 18,000 scientist who hold many of the absolute top positions in the scientific world, who have spent their lives in scientific research and matters, if they don't share the same opinions as what you want to hear, insult and trash them. Yes, they are "just scientists", LR. You have the right to wonder if they know Wikipedia exists....why not?

You bring up the Heartland funding again as if that's the key issue which makes everything suspect. I'd like to see the stock holdings of Kerry, Gore, Edwards, Kennedy and the boys to see how much stock they hold in those same oil and tobacco companies.....so what's the point?

If I hate my neighbor and I see him robbing a bank and turn him in, does my dislike of him taint the charge? Will you be the defense attorney who says "You just turned him in because you don't like him, right?" Maybe I did but that doesn't invalidate the action.  You can blast Heartland for their funding all you want and you can insult  the integrity and intelligence of 18000 scientists if you wish....I wouldn't expect any less - or more.

Mistletoe Angel
Deputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 10 ToursDeputy Moderator 5 Tours
Member Empyrean
since 2000-12-17
Posts 32816
Portland, Oregon
47 posted 2007-11-30 02:34 PM


I've been busy with finals so haven't been able to visit and participate in this thread this week as much as I'd like to.

However, I'll add two additional points for now, the first in response to several comments made regarding global warming is caused more by natural cycles rather than by emissions, and that is to consider the following statistic.

It has been widely estimated (check "Earth's Energy Budget" for the citation) that the total solar energy reaching Earth annually is approximately 1.74 × 1017 watts, while the annual tidal energy is approximately 3 × 1012 watts, with mankind’s waste heat from fossil fuel consumption estimated at 1.3 × 1012 watts.

Thus, if these figures are truly accurate, then our energy consumption represents more power than the power of the ocean's tides, which to me is unbelievable, and when you consider this statistic alone, I believe it's quite telling and demonstrates it would be naive to ignore the likely issue that our excess waste heat is affecting weather patterns and encouraging climate migration.

*

Secondly, regarding the point of how special interest groups and oil lobbyists are trying to control the debate and coin its terminology, that is without doubt the case.

Take Steven Milloy, for instance, the self-professed "Junk Science Guru", who led the The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition at one point, whose principal backer was, surprise surprise.........Philip Morris.

It has even been documented that, in April 1998, Milloy was involved as part of the Global Climate Science Team (GCST), which ExxonMobil played a major role in forming, with a primary aim at convincing the media to report and recognize uncertainties regarding climate change.

UCSUSA.org: Exxon Report

Early this year, the Union of Concerned Scientists published a report detailing how "ExxonMobil has funneled nearly $16 million between 1998 and 2005 to a network of 43 advocacy organizations that seek to confuse the public on global warming science."....................which references Milloy:

*

(Page 23 of the report)

...

"The important point in reviewing this history is that it is not a coincidence that ExxonMobil and its surrogates have adopted the mantle of “sound science.” In so doing, the company is simply emulating a proven corporate strategy for successfully deflecting attention when one’s cause lacks credible scientific evidence. From the start in 1993, in TASSC’s search for other antiregulation efforts to provide political cover, the organization actively welcomed global warming contrarians like Frederick Seitz, Fred Singer, and Patrick Michaels to its scientific board of advisors. Thanks to the online archive of tobacco documents, we know that in 1994, when Philip Morris developed plans with APCO to launch a TASSC-like group in Europe, “global warming” was listed first among suggested topics with which the tobacco firm’s cynical “sound science” campaign could profitably ally itself.

Given these historical connections, it is disturbing that ExxonMobil would continue to associate with some of the very same TASSC personnel who had overseen such a blatant and shameful disinformation campaign for Big Tobacco. The most glaring of ExxonMobil’s associations in this regard is with Steven Milloy, the former executive director of TASSC. Milloy’s involvement with ExxonMobil is more than casual. He served as a member of the small 1998 Global Climate Science Team task force that mapped out ExxonMobil’s disinformation strategy on global warming.

Milloy officially closed TASSC’s offices in 1998 as evidence of its role as a front organization began to surface in the discovery process of litigation against Big Tobacco. Thanks in part to Exxon-Mobil, however, the “sound science” disinformation campaign continued unabated. Resuscitating TASSC under the slightly altered name The Advancement of Sound Science Center (rather than Coalition), Milloy continues to operate out of his home in Maryland. Between 2000 and 2004, ExxonMobil gave $50,000 to Milloy’s Advancement of Sound Science Center, and another $60,000 to an organization called the Free Enterprise Education Institute (a.k.a. Free Enterprise Action Institute), which is also registered to Milloy’s home address.109 According to its 2004 tax return, this group was founded to “educate the public about the American system of free enterprise,” employed no staff, and incurred approximately $48,000 in expenses categorized as “professional services.”


*

The report also states Milloy is a contributor to Tech Central Station and an adjunct scholar at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, both funded by ExxonMobil.

The whole report is worth a read, as it highlights how oil barons and their special interest group sympathizers basically invented the terminology "sound science" to suit their own agenda.

Sincerely,
Noah Eaton


"If we have no peace, it is because we have forgotten that we belong to each other"

Mother Teresa

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
48 posted 2007-11-30 03:05 PM


  it doesn't matter if he uses a billion killowatt hours per month Mike if he isn't producing any carbon.....referring to Gore.

Lr. you have outdone yourself. That is the most incredible statement I;ve seen coming from your golden fingers. The lengths you go to to justify actions by the Gores and Edwards of your world are remarkable.

In an Inconvenient Truth Gore implores the world to cut back on energy use. I didn't hear of him mentioning use all of the energy you want as long as you don't have a carbon footprint.  Why doesn't Gore have a carbon footprint? Simple - he buys carbon-offsets, those handy little items which allow you to use up as much energy and produce as much carbon as you want as long as you donate to companies that are working to reduce carbon in the world. Putting aside the fact that the company he bought the carbon-offsets from he has a major share in which means he was basically paying himself, let me ask you this. Did the carbon-offsets he bought eliminate the carbon that he produced? Did it just up and vanish? Now you see it, now you don't?

I'm sure Gore would be happy to know you have given him your approval  to use a billion per month as long as he doesn't produce carbon.  Problem is, you can't do that without producing carbon and paying yourself for a free pass makes no difference to the environment you claim to be trying to protect.


Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
49 posted 2007-11-30 03:12 PM


Secondly, regarding the point of how special interest groups and oil lobbyists are trying to control the debate and coin its terminology, that is without doubt the case.

I don't disagree, Noah. That's the case on BOTH sides. We know what the oil side wants out of it. Ask yourself what the other side wants.

I'll ask you the same question I asked the rebel. Do you think those thousands and  thousands of scientists who have spoken up advocating no entry into the Koyota treaty are all being paid off to do so?

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
50 posted 2007-11-30 05:15 PM


==="I don't disagree, Noah. That's the case on BOTH sides. We know what the oil side wants out of it. Ask yourself what the other side wants."

My dear mercy magic Mike
Pray state your solid fact
before we try to trace back
along the scientific trend track.

hush
Senior Member
since 2001-05-27
Posts 1653
Ohio, USA
51 posted 2007-11-30 06:15 PM


I can't even stnad to read this crap, because it's all politics. Standing on one side and blaming the other contributes nothing to a genuine dialogue or solution. I can't argue with any certainty about Kyoto because I don't know enough about it. It has been shown that the planet is warming- once again, I'm no expert... I know that historically, over long periods of time, the earth has always fluctuated... but here's the thing, for me... whether or not human activity is causing this warming (and I do believe we're at least contributing), doesn't it simply make sense to cut down on environmental pollutants that we add to the atmosphere? Cleaner, renewable fuels... they make sense economically and environmentally. So why all the resistance? Why all the argument? Whether or not "climate change" is the issue, why wouldn't we want clean, renewable sources of energy?
Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
52 posted 2007-11-30 06:39 PM



quote:
Why all the argument? Whether or not "climate change" is the issue, why wouldn't we want clean, renewable sources of energy?


Thanks for the injection of common sense Hush

Sounds like a winning argument to me.

There is no concrete evidence that ties man to global warming, or global cooling or even which of the two cyclical cycles we happen to be in right now, the problem is that there’s simply not enough data due to the near geological timescales we’re talking about. So why not apply a little of Hush’s common sense and reduce emissions simply because it’s a good idea, if it saves the world too, well that’s a bonus.


Huan Yi
Member Ascendant
since 2004-10-12
Posts 6688
Waukegan
53 posted 2007-11-30 07:42 PM


"First of all, I don't think it's within the power of human beings to assure that the climate does not change, as millions of years of history have shown. And second of all, I guess I would ask which human beings — where and when — are to be accorded the privilege of deciding that this particular climate that we have right here today, right now is the best climate for all other human beings"


To me this is the essential question
which doesn't require a PHD to ask
but more than that to answer.

If you asking an individual or a nation
or a world to divert its limited resources
from other concerns to resolving this issue
I think there should be less controversy as to the need.

I recently read that China's car usage
in the next generation will increase by
a factor of 15 which will make inconsequential all efforts combined currently proposed.


.

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
54 posted 2007-11-30 08:02 PM


Sir Huan, they are human-powered cars in China.
can't count in!

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
55 posted 2007-11-30 10:41 PM


quote:
... doesn't it simply make sense to cut down on environmental pollutants that we add to the atmosphere?

You mean like carbon dioxide, Amy? You know, that stuff you're exhaling with every breath?

Sure, cutting down on environmental pollutants makes a lot of sense. You really want to hold your breath that long, though?

Of course I'm being a little facetious by highlighting extreme examples, but I hope maybe it can help demonstrate the real problem. We all want to get rid of environmental pollutants -- as long as it's somebody else's pollutants. If I was in a slightly less cynical state of mind I might pose that a little differently, I suppose. I might, for example, contend that virtually all instances of pollution can be represented by a cost/benefit analysis. The CO2 you exhale carries a cost to the environment, but it's a cost greatly outweighed by the benefits of having you around. That's, again, the extreme example. But what about my SUV? There's a cost there, too, and a benefit as well, but neither is quite as extreme, nor, I believe, quite so trenchant. I *really* don't like being confined to the house every time it snows more than a few inches, so I'm willing to pay both the personal cost and the social cost.

I don't think anyone wastes energy because they're evil and want to destroy humanity. It's all about cost and benefit, about The Tragedy of the Commons, about finances and economics. I don't believe the solution to pollution is going to be an appeal to self-sacrifice, but rather, a leveraging of self-interest.

'Cause I, for one, sure don't intend holding my breath long enough to make any real difference.

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
56 posted 2007-11-30 11:57 PM


Sir Ron

==="If I was in a slightly less cynical state of mind I might pose that a little differently, I suppose. I might, for example, contend that virtually all instances of pollution can be represented by a cost/benefit analysis."

Oh, dear sir Ron, wish you a wonderful weekend and drive safely.

and what exact benefit can you get from any pollution? name them and list them Before you or any one else is able to calculate the cost and the cost to get rid of them?

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669
Michigan, US
57 posted 2007-12-01 12:38 PM


I already listed a few, TM. Did you read the post? What part(s) didn't you understand?
TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
58 posted 2007-12-01 12:48 PM


Dear Sir Ron, the planet has a status of what it is as what it is. Global warming is caused by extra...the extra---out of balance.

And it seems that the original status as human inhale/exhale worries you? you are too kind!


Local Rebel
Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767
Southern Abstentia
59 posted 2007-12-01 01:15 AM


quote:

I don't believe the solution to pollution is going to be an appeal to self-sacrifice, but rather, a leveraging of self-interest.



Ding ding ding ding ding ding -- Ron wins the green star... as it were....

Here again -- the Right wants to paint us into picturing the choices between status quo oil burning (think BP's 'green' advertising featuring a woman who says she doesn't want to give up her car) and becoming luddites.  Granted - we even have a luddite or two at this pub.

Amy illustrates quite well how well the big oil money campaign to just confuse is working -- somehow I don't think she's more concerned about Beyonce's arm pits or Paris Hilton's mating habits -- yet -- the entire scope of trying to understand the science is just overwhelming.

As I've pointed out numerous times before -- the solution to science problems is science.  Unfortunately -- policy becomes embroiled in the issue.  And, when there is a buck to be made -- and a market protected -- it's better to obfuscate and stall and make sure that all the oil gets pumped out of the ground and sold -- Ron -- you really, really, don't believe there aren't any evil people involved here do you?

And Mike -- if you really care about getting to the truth about the Oregon Petition -- I've left the cookie crumbs for you to follow.

Here are your questions for study;

How many of the signatories are climatologists or even in the physical sciences?

What is the National Academy of Science's position on the Oregon Petition?

Who is the principle author of the OP?  What are his credentials?

Who are the secondary authors? What institute are they tied to?  

What oil company do they work for?

Oops -- that last one just slipped out.

Now -- everyone dream tonite of a bacteria that belches hydrogen.....and what do we get when we burn hydrogen?  Ah -- yes -- water -- without carbon......

  

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
60 posted 2007-12-01 02:02 AM


So why all the resistance? Why all the argument? Whether or not "climate change" is the issue, why wouldn't we want clean, renewable sources of energy?

Well said, hush. The question is whether the Kyoto Protocol is the answer or even necessary.

LR, well, you're consistent. Instead of answering questions you throw out links like confetti and bread crumbs and say go find the answers...thanks anyway.

Grinch
Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929
Whoville
61 posted 2007-12-01 05:21 AM


Another example of common sense?
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/article.cfm?contentID=5828

It seems that even those big bad industrialists have their moments. I understand that the oil companies Shell and BP have also joined in the call for emmision caps and restrictions.

Perhaps they have children too.

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
62 posted 2007-12-01 10:43 AM


Dear Sir balladeer,
==="The question is whether the Kyoto Protocol is the answer or even necessary."

Answer to what?

Necessary for what?

Kyoto...a goodwill.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
63 posted 2007-12-01 06:37 PM


Tom, the answer to the question should the US join Kyoto or not and will Australia regret doing so?
TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
64 posted 2007-12-01 06:44 PM


My dear sir Balladeer, to be honest with you, I try to trap you to say that the answer to Global  Warming.

I did not get you. but I am still waiting for you to change mind.

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
65 posted 2007-12-03 11:26 PM


Dear Sir Balladeer, Time DEC 10,2007 Page 24.

Do you want to make a comment on the photo of Bush and Gore?

Tom

Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
66 posted 2007-12-04 11:06 AM


For one thing, Gore looks like he is way overindulging in more than just energy.

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
67 posted 2007-12-04 11:47 AM


I can't believe that Gore is that Bat(bad). But he is a politician who loves to make deals on money matter. You don't believe his sincerity on Global  Warming Issue? Not A Poet?

Tom

Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
68 posted 2007-12-04 02:20 PM


Absolutely not. How could anyone, considering his excessive consumption? And buying carbon credits from himself is a farce. In fact, the whole carbon credits scam is a farce.

Balladeer
Administrator
Member Empyrean
since 1999-06-05
Posts 25505
Ft. Lauderdale, Fl USA
69 posted 2007-12-04 03:22 PM


You say it like it is, Pete.
TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
70 posted 2007-12-04 03:44 PM


"Dangerous Liaisons" ---Brad

Sir Balladeer, I am glad that you finally get a teammate. But he is Not A Poet.

I think that Gore has spent quite amount of energy on that topic so I can't say that he took it as a joking matter. I think that you are biased..you two.


Not A Poet
Member Elite
since 1999-11-03
Posts 3885
Oklahoma, USA
71 posted 2007-12-04 05:12 PM


Yes, I am biased. I would prefer to hear truth from a speaker with some credibility. All right then, who is not biased?

TomMark
Member Elite
since 2007-07-27
Posts 2133
LA,CA
72 posted 2007-12-04 08:25 PM


Not A Poet,
BIASE MEANS NOT FAIR It is a matter of CHARACTOR.  

Post A Reply Post New Topic ⇧ top of page ⇧ Go to Previous / Newer Topic Back to Topic List Go to Next / Older Topic
All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format.
navwin » Discussion » The Alley » Labor Party Wins in Australia

Passions in Poetry | pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums | 100 Best Poems

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary