the Global Warming debate

[Artegal 1]

The U.S. is behind even China when it comes to fuel efficiency standards. While the rest of the industrialized world has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, we've thumbed our noses. It's not because of capitalism - it's because of lack of leadership in making it an important issue.

So China is a good example. All we need to do is replace cars with bicycles and interstates with cow trails. And do they still have a law that limits population growth in China. If humans cause the problem then just get rid of the source. Lets all take birth control and stop breathing.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Common sense should dictate that our cars should have as efficient (and clean) engines as possible. 12-24mpg for a passenger car these days is frankly atrocious.

Having lived in LA I'd rather not suck on stale exhaust gases every time I step out my door - When I first came here I was shocked by the fact that on a bad the smog obscures the mountains a mere 1/4 mile away.

And if you're looking for 'proof' of a greenhouse effect, look no further. It seems to get hotter the smoggier it gets.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Kyoto is nothing more than an attempt by anti-capitalist and devoloping countries to wreck our economy. It seems odd that we are subject to it but a lot of other countries are not. If you remember Clinton, your liberal god, was the first not to sign it. He was right not to do so. Kyoto is social engineering on a global scale.

I showed evidence in the other thread that Co2 that humans make do nothing to raise the global temps. But for some reason I was ignored. So I will post it again,

As you can see Co2 from natural sources FAR outweigh what humans do. Would you like to discount this source?

You've bought into the rhetoric that anytime regulations are set, it's inhibiting the free market, which is utter nonsense. We have a right as citizens and an obligation as a country to set limits on industries which produce pollution.

Despite its refusal to submit the protocol to Congress for ratification, the Bush Administration has taken some actions towards mitigation of climate change. In June 2002, the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the "Climate Action Report 2002". Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol.

The Administration's position is not uniformly accepted in the US. For example, Paul Krugman notes that the target 18% reduction in carbon intensity is still actually an increase in overall emissions. [12] The White House has also come under criticism for downplaying reports that link human activity and greenhouse gas emissions to climate change and that a White House official and former oil industry advocate, Philip Cooney, watered down descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, charges the White House denies. BBC (2005) Critics point to the administration's close ties to the oil and gas industries. In June 2005, State Department papers showed the administration thanking Exxon executives for the company's "active involvement" in helping to determine climate change policy, including the US stance on Kyoto. Input from the business lobby group Global Climate Coalition was also a factor.

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

[GaryC 7]

So? It's good policy for the country. Kyoto is BS. Global Warming is BS. Capitalism is good for the country. What's the matter, don't you like capitalism?

But don't forget. Clinton didn't sign Kyoto!!!!

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

The U.S. is behind even China when it comes to fuel efficiency standards. While the rest of the industrialized world has ratified the Kyoto Protocol, we've thumbed our noses. It's not because of capitalism - it's because of lack of leadership in making it an important issue.

China is doing to the environment what we did to it from 1940 to 1980. I'm cleaning up mess now so maybe I'll have a job in China in a few years.

[GaryC 7]

I don't think that the oil companies are the evil world destroying money grubbing corporate antichrist that you seem to think they are. This world runs on oil. Without oil and the oil companies it all comes to a grinding halt. They make the most money because they produce a product that everyone wants. If you don't like it sell your car, buy a bike and have your SO swim here when she gets her visa. If you don't want to practice what you preach then please don't preach.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

So? It's good policy for the country. Kyoto is BS. Global Warming is BS. Capitalism is good for the country. What's the matter, don't you like capitalism?

But don't forget. Clinton didn't sign Kyoto!!!!

Why do make it into a 'for or against capitalism'? If you believe in having an unregulated free market then there's no point in arguing further. Setting standards and regulations for industry holds them accountable for their actions in terms of how it effects our environment and ultimately our quality of life. We as citizens have to abide by laws... you can't go squat in the middle of the street and take a dump - not without legal consequences. Is it an infringement on your freedoms to have such laws? Sure. But that's so I don't have to step in your sh!t. Industry should not have a carte blanche ability to do what they please with regard to our environment. You either agree with that premise or you don't.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I don't think that the oil companies are the evil world destroying money grubbing corporate antichrist that you seem to think they are. This world runs on oil. Without oil and the oil companies it all comes to a grinding halt. They make the most money because they produce a product that everyone wants. If you don't like it sell your car, buy a bike and have your SO swim here when she gets her visa. If you don't want to practice what you preach then please don't preach.

Oil companies are motivated by profit and profit alone doesn't take into account the ethical implications of how that profit is created.

It was Teddy Roosevelt, a Republican, who broke up Standard Oil, which at the time controlled 88% of the refined oil flows in the United States.

ExxonMobil, a break off from Standard Oil is now the world's largest publicly traded integrated oil and gas company in the world. Among many of their actions...

-Intentional negligence and indifference to the environmental consequences of the Valdez disaster.

-Price gouging in the United States at a retail level.

-Shortchanging retail fuel marketing and lubricants marketing partners (known in the industry as "distributors" or "jobbers") (The marketers won a $1.4 billion judgment against ExxonMobil for anticompetitive practices in federal court in 2003)

-Abuse of U.S. corporation law and perpetration of clever marketing schemes to avoid proper responsibility for its actions (For example, after the Valdez disaster, the company took the name "Exxon" out of its tanker shipping subsidiary, renaming it "SeaRiver Maritime," and giving it a separate (but wholly Exxon-controlled) corporate charter and board of directors. The former Exxon Valdez is now the "SeaRiver Mediterranean" and is legally owned by a small, allegedly undercapitalized, stand-alone company, which would have minimal ability to pay out on claims in the event of a further accident.

-Violation of the Bribes & Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (ExxonMobil controls concessions covering 11 million acres (44,500 km²) off the coast of Angola that hold an estimated 7.5 billion barrels (1.2 km³) of crude. [11] Questions have been raised about ExxonMobil's actions in securing these concessions—Forbes Magazine alleging that "ExxonMobil handed hundreds of millions of dollars to the corrupt regime of President José Eduardo dos Santos in the late 1990s".

-Trade in violation of economic sanctions against regimes hostile to the United States (In 2003, the Office of Foreign Assets Control reported that ExxonMobil engaged in illegal trade with Sudan and along with dozens of other companies had to settle with the United States government for US$50,000.

-Human rights violations in the Indonesian territory of Aceh. In June 2001, ExxonMobil became the target of a lawsuit in the Federal District Court of the District of Columbia, under the Alien Tort Claims Act. The suit alleged that the company knowingly assisted human rights violations, including torture, murder and rape, by employing and providing material support to Indonesian military forces, who committed the alleged offenses in Aceh. Human rights complaints involving ExxonMobil's relationship with the Indonesian military first arose in 1992; the company denies these accusations and has filed a motion to dismiss the suit, which is still pending as of 2005;

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

Edited August 23, 2006 by Steven_and_Jinky

[GaryC 7]

Hey, I can google also!

Careful Tests

The global-warming hypothesis, however, is no longer tenable. Scientists have been able to test it carefully, and it does not hold up. During the past 50 years, as atmospheric carbon dioxide levels have risen, scientists have made precise measurements of atmospheric temperature. These measurements have definitively shown that major atmospheric greenhouse warming of the atmosphere is not occurring and is unlikely ever to occur.

The temperature of the atmosphere fluctuates over a wide range, the result of solar activity and other influences. During the past 3,000 years, there have been five extended periods when it was distinctly warmer than today. One of the two coldest periods, known as the Little Ice Age, occurred 300 years ago. Atmospheric temperatures have been rising from that low for the past 300 years, but remain below the 3,000-year average.

Source: http://www.junkscience.com/news/robinson.htm

And I state again, if you don't like big oil then don't support them. Sell your car and ride a bike!!

Edited August 23, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I don't know - it seems kind of crazy to me to suggest that pollution and disregard for the environment won't have far reaching negative effects. Desertification for one, not to mention as I said - having lived in Southern California the significant air pollution down there not only poses a direct threat to human health (respiratory illnesses are more common there too) but on a hot day the prescence of heavy smog actually increases the ambient temperature by a good few degrees.

[GaryC 7]

Suspending Disaster: The Myth Of Global Warming

Green groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and Earth First are using their influence to persuade people that an environmental disaster of historic proportions is just around the corner. As Barbara Mass of the Pan African Conservation Group succinctly puts it: "I think we're going to drown in our own muck."

Environmentalist thinking is now widely accepted in the West. However, many scientists argue that what the Greens say about global warming and pollution is wrong. Professor Wilfred Beckerman, a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, was himself an enthusiastic environmentalist until he started examining the facts. He told Against Nature: "Within a few months of looking at the statistical data, I realised that most of my concerns about the environment were based on false information and scare stories."

According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point — around 1880 — was colder than average. What's more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 —before human-caused emissions of 'greenhouse' gases became significant.

According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. "As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age," remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.

Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, "When proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years."

But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down.

"Global warming is above all global climatic destabilisation," says Edward Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, "with extremes of cold and heat when you don't expect it. You can't predict climate any more. You get terrible droughts in certain cases; sometimes you get downpours. In Egypt, I think, they had a rainfall for the first time in history — they suddenly had an incredible downpour. Water pouring down in places where it's never rained before. And then you get droughts in another area. So it's going to be extremely unpredictable."

Scientists also point out that nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide— almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.

What's more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.

Although many environmentalists have been forced to accept much of the scientific evidence against global warming, they still argue that it is better to be safe than sorry. So they continue to use global warming as a reason to oppose industrialisation and economic growth.

Source: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend

I don't know - it seems kind of crazy to me to suggest that pollution and disregard for the environment won't have far reaching negative effects. Desertification for one, not to mention as I said - having lived in Southern California the significant air pollution down there not only poses a direct threat to human health (respiratory illnesses are more common there too) but on a hot day the prescence of heavy smog actually increases the ambient temperature by a good few degrees.

I do agree that smog and air polution are very bad things and should be controlled. What you are describing is a local pollution effect. In order for it to effect the global climate it would have to occur in the upper atmosphere. You are also experiencing something called the "heat island effect" That is also very real but still has nothing to do with the global climate. I agree it is irresposable to trash the planet. I just don't believe in the Global Warming BS. There is no real science that backs it up.

[hockeygal 0]

I have a hard time accepting as scientific fact anything from a website that says stuff like this:

Fascism, animal rights and human rights

The most notorious environmentalists in history were the German Nazis. The Nazis ordered soldiers to plant more trees. They were the first Europeans to establish nature reserves and order the protection of hedgerows and other wildlife habitats. And they were horrified at the idea of hydroelectric dams on the Rhine. Adolf Hitler and other leading Nazis were vegetarian and they passed numerous laws on animal rights.

Not to mention that they refer to "Greens" in italics, almost as if they have to pause to clear the bile from their throats.

PS - I ride my bike and walk - no car. I am not anti oil companies though, and not anti environmentalists. I don't see why seeing the need for one negates the need for the other though. I think it is hard to be perfect in this day and age.. too many acts connected to too many other acts etc.

Edited August 23, 2006 by hockeygal

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Suspending Disaster: The Myth Of Global Warming

Green groups such as Friends of the Earth, Greenpeace, the World Wildlife Fund and Earth First are using their influence to persuade people that an environmental disaster of historic proportions is just around the corner. As Barbara Mass of the Pan African Conservation Group succinctly puts it: "I think we're going to drown in our own muck."

Environmentalist thinking is now widely accepted in the West. However, many scientists argue that what the Greens say about global warming and pollution is wrong. Professor Wilfred Beckerman, a former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, was himself an enthusiastic environmentalist until he started examining the facts. He told Against Nature: "Within a few months of looking at the statistical data, I realised that most of my concerns about the environment were based on false information and scare stories."

According to Piers Corbyn, Director of Weather Action, many scientists do not accept the idea that pollution is causing global warming. Environmentalists claim that world temperatures have risen one degree Fahrenheit in the past century, but Corbyn points out that the period they take as their starting point — around 1880 — was colder than average. What's more, the timing of temperature changes does not appear to support the theory of global warming. Most of the rise came before 1940 —before human-caused emissions of 'greenhouse' gases became significant.

According to the Greens, during the post-war boom global warming should have pushed temperatures up. But the opposite happened. "As a matter of the fact, the decrease in temperature, which was very noticeable in the 60s and 70s, led many people to fear that we would be going into another ice age," remembers Fred Singer, former Chief Scientist with the US Weather Program.

Even in recent times, the temperature has not behaved as it should according to global warming theory. Over the last eight years, temperature in the southern hemisphere has actually been falling. Moreover, says Piers Corbyn, "When proper satellite measurements are done of world temperatures, they do not show any increase whatsoever over the last 20 years."

But Greens refuse to accept they have could have been proved wrong. Now they say global warming can involve temperature going both up and down.

"Global warming is above all global climatic destabilisation," says Edward Goldsmith, editor of the Ecologist, "with extremes of cold and heat when you don't expect it. You can't predict climate any more. You get terrible droughts in certain cases; sometimes you get downpours. In Egypt, I think, they had a rainfall for the first time in history — they suddenly had an incredible downpour. Water pouring down in places where it's never rained before. And then you get droughts in another area. So it's going to be extremely unpredictable."

Scientists also point out that nature produces far more greenhouse gases than we do. For example, when the Mount Pinatubo volcano erupted, within just a few hours it had thrown into the atmosphere 30 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide— almost twice as much as all the factories, power plants and cars in the United States do in a whole year. Oceans emit 90 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide, the main greenhouse gas, every year. Decaying plants throw up another 90 billion tonnes, compared to just six billion tonnes a year from humans.

What's more, 100 million years ago, there was six times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as there is now, yet the temperature then was marginally cooler than it is today. Many scientists have concluded that carbon dioxide doesn't even affect climate.

Although many environmentalists have been forced to accept much of the scientific evidence against global warming, they still argue that it is better to be safe than sorry. So they continue to use global warming as a reason to oppose industrialisation and economic growth.

Source: http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/prog1.htm#suspend

Well it is clear that this has become as much a political debate as a scientific one. For the most part, I would argue that environmentalists are well-meaning.

You can't use industrialisation and the pursuit of profit as a justification for polluting the environment and putting the health of the general public at risk. For obvious reasons companies are no longer allowed to dump heavy metals residue into rivers because it finds its way into the groundwater. Similarly restrictions are placed on car emissions and those from factory smoke stacks. Some states even ban smoking - because they know (and there is justifying evidence) that these things cause all manner of diseases and health conditions.

Debunking the idea of global warming is all well and good, after all it is controversial and it would be inaccurate to say that we understand with absolute clarity exactly how the global climate system works. However, it should not be an excuse to disregard the very real environmental impacts posed by the activities of industrialised nations. Common sense dictates you should be as environmentally concious as possible. Living in an area of NJ where it is apparently acceptable to toss your fast food trash out the car window at the lights, would seem to be a case in point.

[GaryC 7]

Well it is clear that this has become as much a political debate as a scientific one. For the most part, I would argue that environmentalists are well-meaning.

You can't use industrialisation and the pursuit of profit as a justification for polluting the environment and putting the health of the general public at risk. For obvious reasons companies are no longer allowed to dump heavy metals residue into rivers because it finds its way into the groundwater. Similarly restrictions are placed on car emissions and those from factory smoke stacks. Some states even ban smoking - because they know (and there is justifying evidence) that these things cause all manner of diseases and health conditions.

Debunking the idea of global warming is all well and good, after all it is controversial and it would be inaccurate to say that we understand with absolute clarity exactly how the global climate system works. However, it should not be an excuse to disregard the very real environmental impacts posed by the activities of industrialised nations. Common sense dictates you should be as environmentally concious as possible. Living in an area of NJ where it is apparently acceptable to toss your fast food trash out the car window at the lights, would seem to be a case in point.

I am agreeing with you fishdude! Trashing the planet is wrong! Industrial pollution should be stopped and it is being reduced. The climate in America is cleaner now than it was 30 years ago and that trend should continue! I am only speaking to the Global Warming, the world is coming to an end, the sky is falling crowd.

For Hockeygal here is a little less polliticly charged story:

Contrary to conventional wisdom, many fundamental questions about global warming remain unanswered. Two crucial questions are: 1) Is significant human-induced global warming actually occurring? 2) If it is occurring, will the net effects be beneficial or harmful? In neither case is the answer an unambiguous "yes."

First, significant global warming may not be occurring. Certainly, the historical relationship between CO and temperature changes is ambiguous. Although levels of atmospheric CO have risen nearly 40 percent since the turn of the century, data from within the United States indicates no statistically significant increase in mean annual temperatures. In fact, between 1920 and 1987, there was a slight cooling trend.

Data also indicates that the rise in hemispheric temperature has been significantly less than expected given the increase in CO. And the region most likely to see temperature increases, the Arctic, has actually cooled since about l940.

Furthermore, the climate models used to predict warming depend on numerous unknowns. For example, we do not know how changes in cloud cover will affect global temperatures. Although the models agree that a warmer earth is likely to be a cloudier earth, it is unknown whether more clouds will cool the planet by reflecting sunlight or warm the planet by trapping re-radiated heat before it escapes into space. The net effect is unclear. Neither do the models explain the impact of temperature changes on polar ice and snow. A warmer climate may increase precipitation and produce more ice and snow in colder areas. This would increase the earth's albedo and cool the planet.

The empirical and theoretical uncertainties surrounding global warming counsel caution before making policy. Scientists are certainly being cautious; a Feb. 13, 1992 Gallup poll shows that most climate scientists doubt there has been any significant human-caused global warming to date.

But even if global warming does occur, it is unlikely to be a catastrophe. Robert Balling, director of the Office of Climatology at Arizona State University, and Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at M.I.T., conclude that doubling atmospheric CO is likely to produce an average global temperature increase of approximately 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit. This, increase is likely to be most significant at night, at high latitudes, and during the winter. It will not melt polar ice caps nor raise sea levels more than a few inches. There will not be super-hurricanes and there will not be endless summers of blazing temperatures.

In fact, there are many benefits associated with increased atmospheric CO. Doubling CO levels will favor bigger plants and may increase average crop yields by an estimated 33 percent. More atmospheric CO allows plants to grow using less water by reducing evapotranspiration - water evaporating after it is released from plants' pores. Precipitation and soil moisture may rise, and droughts may become less frequent.

Source: http://www.free-eco.org/articleDisplay.php?id=294

Maybe a little Global Warming would be a good thing? It might end hunger and drougth?

Edited August 23, 2006 by Iniibig ko si Luz forever

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Its controversial, sure - but far from unproven. Rather like that whole evolution/creationism thing - environmentalism vs. capitalism has taken on an almost religious character.

Whether its true or not doesn't matter to me. Pumping millions of tonnes of exhaust gases into the atmosphere can't be good - for anyone. With regards to California are you saying then that the prescence of significant air pollution plays no role whatsoever in the increase of local ambient temperature in valley cities? Heat island effect is to do with population density and massive concentrations of a/c units, I thought.

Incidentally, Britain got slapped with the label of "the dirty man of Europe" a few years back because our industrial emissions were being blown northward and degrading the air quality as far away as Stockholm.