Yet more Politics using scare tactics for Global Warming

[RichardJensen]

"the false debate is still raging on thanks to oil industry funded lobbyists spreading dis-information"

 

Okay, this is exactly what I was talking about earlier.

 

This will stop, or this topic will be closed.

 

As far as global warming is concerned, the only thing that is absolutely definitive is that it is happening, relative to a fixed point in the past, beyond which data is not reliable.

 

Any assertions as to the factuality of any CAUSE will also be a basis for closing this thread.

 

There are only THEORIES governing the observed PHENOMENON of global warming.

 

------------

 

For those of you who would rather pontificate than approach this scientifically, there is a very important difference between OBSERVED PHENOMENA and THEORIES.

 

I am not going to take sides in this debate, but these are the ground rules. If it strikes any of the 'industrial activities as cause' advocates as taking sides, I'm sorry. Regardless of how many people believe a theory, it is still a theory. Regardless of how strenuously it is insisted that the theory is a 'proven fact', it is not.

 

If you cannot come to terms with this, this thread will be closed.

[Blueblood]

Heres an excerpt from State of Fear By Michael Crichton

 

http://www.crichton-official.com/fear/index.html

 

Let's take a look at this guy, and de-bunk his nonsense just like the other oil company shills..

 

Michael Crichton’s State of Confusion II: Return of the Science Our first post on Crichton's new novel "State of Fear" hits most of the key points, though there are a few more errors in the book that we hope to expand upon in future posts.

 

But for those of you uninterested in buying and reading the book, you can actually find a similar-minded opinion piece by Crichton criticizing climate science (and everything from SETI and the "Drake Equation" to Carl Sagan in the process) here in the public domain.

 

Among other odd comments in the piece, is this one (italics added for emphasis):

 

No longer are models judged by how well they reproduce data from the real world

-increasingly, models provide the data. As if they were themselves a reality

 

Crichton should know that this assertion is false. He cites in the 'bibliography' at the end of his book, the report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). But he appears unaware, for example, of the 54 page chapter (chapter "8") in that report on "Model Evaluation", which describes in detail how observed data are used to evaluate the performance of climate models. He also appears unaware of the 44 page chapter (chapter "12") on "Detection of Climate Change and Attribution of Causes" which describes in detail how model-predicted changes are explicitly compared to the actual climate observations in determining the extent to which human influence on climate can be established. Finally, he appears unaware of the 56 page chapter (chapter "10") on "Regional Climate Information - Evaluation and Projections" evaluating the success of model-based regional climate predictions as measured against actual instrumental data.

 

Crichton then goes on to make the classic error of confusing "weather" and "climate":

 

Nobody believes a weather prediction twelve hours ahead. Now we're asked to believe a prediction that goes out 100 years into the future?

 

As we in this line of research are fond of pointing out to students in our introductory classes, "Climate is what you expect; Weather is what you get". Crichton would have been well served if he had read this tutorial on the distinction between the two, or perhaps this one and especially, this one.

 

And finally, we get this complaint from Crichton:

 

Certainly the increased use of computer models, such as GCMs, cries out for the separation of those who make the models from those who verify them

 

which we again find puzzling. Again, if Crichton has read the IPCC report, he should be aware of the fact that largely (though admittedly, not completely) independent communities of scientists are involved with (1) the processing and evaluation of empirical climate data (see the list of authors of chapter 2 on "Observed Climate Variability and Change", (2) model-based projections of future climate change (see the list of authors of chapter 9 on "Projections of Future Climate Change", and (3) the comparisons of model predictions against observations (see the list of authors of chapters 8,10, and 12 discussed above). Broadly distinct communities of scientists specialize in processing and analyzing observational climate data, constructing and running climate models, and developing and applying methods for statistically comparing observed and modeled attributes of the climate.

 

We find it disappointing that a prominent individual such as Crichton did not take greater care in acquainting himself with all of the facts before making such rather inflammatory public pronouncements as those detailed above.

 

 

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=76

 

 

Distort Reform A review of the distorted science in Michael Crichton's State of Fear Michael Crichton's new novel State of Fear is about global-warming hysteria ginned up by a self-important NGO on behalf of evil eco-terrorists ... or by evil eco-terrorists on behalf of a self-important NGO. It's not quite clear. Regardless, the message of the book is that global warming is a non-problem. A lesson for our times? Sadly, no.

 

In between car chases, shoot-outs, cannibalistic rites, and other assorted derring-doo-doo, the novel addresses scientific issues, but is selective (and occasionally mistaken) about the basic science involved. Some of the issues Crichton raises are real and already well-appreciated, while others are red herrings used to confuse rather than enlighten.

 

The fictional champion of Crichton's climate skepticism is John Kenner, an MIT academic-turned-undercover operative who runs intellectual rings around two other characters -- the actor (a rather dim-witted chap) and the lawyer (a duped innocent), neither of whom know much about science.

 

So, for the benefit of actors and lawyers everywhere, I will try to help out.

 

Early on in State of Fear, a skeptical character points out that while carbon dioxide was rising between 1940 and 1970, the globe was cooling. What, then, makes us so certain rising CO2 is behind recent warming?

 

Good question. Northern-hemisphere mean temperatures do appear to have fallen over that 30-year period, despite a concurrent rise in CO2, which if all else had been equal should have led to warming. But were all things equal? Actually, no.

 

In the real world, climate is affected both by internal variability (natural internal processes within the climate system) and forcings (external forces, either natural or human-induced, acting on the climate system). Some forcings -- sulfate and nitrate aerosols, land-use changes, solar irradiance, and volcanic aerosols, for instance -- can cause cooling.

 

Matching up what really happened with what we might have expected to happen requires taking into consideration all the forcings, as best as we can. Even then, any discrepancy might be due to internal variability (related principally to the ocean on multi-decadal time scales). Our current "best guess" is that the global mean changes in temperature, including the 1940-1970 cooling, are quite closely related to the forcings. Regional patterns of change appear to be linked more closely to internal variability, particularly during the 1930s.

 

No model that does not include a sharp rise in greenhouse gases (GHGs), principally CO2, is able to match up with recent warming. Thus the conclusion that GHGs are driving warming.

 

The book also shows, through the selective use of weather-station data, a number of single-station records with long-term cooling trends. In particular, characters visit Punta Arenas, at the tip of South America, where the station record posted on the wall shows a long-term cooling trend (though slight warming since the 1970s). "There's your global warming," one of Crichton's good guys declares dismissively.

 

Well, not exactly. Global warming is defined by the global mean surface temperature. No one has or would claim that the whole globe is warming uniformly. Had the characters visited the nearby station of Santa Cruz Aeropuerto, the poster on the wall would have shown a positive trend. Would that have been proof of global warming? No. Only by amalgamating all available records can we have an idea what the regional, hemispheric, or global means are doing. That's why they call it global warming.

 

 

Source

Edited February 8, 2007 by RichardJensen

[RichardJensen]

Blueblood.

 

You have two choices:

 

Either edit that last post, or I'm editing it for you.

 

Those insults are going away one way or the other.

 

If you can't let your citations speak for themselves, get lost.

[Blueblood]

"the false debate is still raging on thanks to oil industry funded lobbyists spreading dis-information"

 

Okay, this is exactly what I was talking about earlier.

 

This will stop, or this topic will be closed.

 

 

What on Earth are you talking about? That is absolutely true.

 

So I can't tell the truth that big oil keeps a false "debate" alive by spreading false information through think tanks and other means to keep the heat off of them?

 

Is that an "insult" to somebody? I don't know how I can respond to all the incorrect articles and the incorrect statements by people herre without the ability to let people know where this "skepticism" originates.

 

 

 

As far as global warming is concerned, the only thing that is absolutely definitive is that it is happening, relative to a fixed point in the past, beyond which data is not reliable.

 

Any assertions as to the factuality of any CAUSE will also be a basis for closing this thread.

 

There are only THEORIES governing the observed PHENOMENON of global warming.

 

------------

 

For those of you who would rather pontificate than approach this scientifically, there is a very important difference between OBSERVED PHENOMENA and THEORIES.

 

I am not going to take sides in this debate, but these are the ground rules. If it strikes any of the 'industrial activities as cause' advocates as taking sides, I'm sorry. Regardless of how many people believe a theory, it is still a theory. Regardless of how strenuously it is insisted that the theory is a 'proven fact', it is not.

 

If you cannot come to terms with this, this thread will be closed.

 

 

Why not just let people debate it? It's an interesting and an important one.

[Blueblood]

Blueblood.

 

You have two choices:

 

Either edit that last post, or I'm editing it for you.

 

Those insults are going away one way or the other.

 

If you can't let your citations speak for themselves, get lost.

 

So now you are threatening to censor my post?

 

What insults are you talking about?

 

So only articles by GW skeptics are allowed here?

[RichardJensen]

Why not just let people debate it?

You are FREE to DEBATE this issue.

 

What you have been doing with your snotty little asides is NOT DEBATING.

 

If you don't understand this, that is not my problem. I am not here to teach you how to debate the relative merits and credibility of opposing arguments.

 

If you cannot be bothered to separate your ad hominem jibes from your valid points, your contributions are not welcome here.

[RichardJensen]

Like I said above, if you cannot tell the difference between debating issues and characterizing your opponents, that's your problem, not mine.

 

But, for your edification, this language is extremely insulting, and has no place in this discussion:

 

And you strike out as well..

 

I find it quite sad you guys will trash actual scientists yet post trash like this..

 

...

 

This is why you don't just cling onto anybody dude, you are being taken for a ride..

 

Leave the condescension out. Capiche?

[Blueblood]

You are FREE to DEBATE this issue.

 

What you have been doing with your snotty little asides is NOT DEBATING.

 

If you don't understand this, that is not my problem. I am not here to teach you how to debate the relative merits and credibility of opposing arguments.

 

If you cannot be bothered to separate your ad hominem jibes from your valid points, your contributions are not welcome here.

 

 

Well then you need to make up some rules, tell people what is and isn't allowed. Until recently this board was un-moderated, you should have seen this place 5 years ago! I've been here since 1998, almost a decade, which is almost hard to believe.

 

Now all of a sudden there's all these rules in place, yet I don't know what the "rules" are. Maybe some clarity would help.

 

I never thought a little sarcasm amounted to ad hominem jibes.

 

If we have to debate like we're at church just say it.

 

noob... :angel:

[Blueblood]

Like I said above, if you cannot tell the difference between debating issues and characterizing your opponents, that's your problem, not mine.

 

But, for your edification, this language is extremely insulting, and has no place in this discussion:

 

 

 

Leave the condescension out. Capiche?

 

 

Ok, um, I wasn't aware these new rules were so harsh, on other moderated forums that's playing nice, I guess I just wasn't aware. Thank for spelling it out for me, maybe I'll just stick to car talk.

[RichardJensen]

I never thought a little sarcasm amounted to ad hominem jibes.

Most topics, it's okay. I mean, seriously, you drive me NUTS!!!!! but there's nothing wrong with what you do elsewhere on the board.

 

However, this subject is just too inflammatory. People have hair-triggers on this issue, and are often ready to leap into the insults at the first chance they get. I posted warnings for BlackHorse as well.

Edited February 8, 2007 by RichardJensen

[Ford Jellymoulds]

That's kind of the point. 30 years ago, the doom and gloom "scientists" were warning about global cooling. Now the same doom and gloom "scientists" are talking about warming. Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth....

 

It's amazing anyone takes these people seriously.

 

Could not of put it better myself Nick, you have hit the nail on the head.

 

Failing governments around the world see the word Global Warming and the word "GREEN", as a great tax CASH revenue raising generator Cash Cow Mountain.

 

In the UK we pay $10 for a gallon of fuel (Taxed $8). If you live in Richmond you are going to be charged $1,000 PA for every car space, so if you can get one car in your garage and have room to park two on your driveway you will be taxed £3,000 PA, and a higher rate for 4x4 owners.

 

http://www.richmond.gov.uk/press_office/pr...ing_charges.htm

 

We have congestion charging once you start to drive on the streets of London, you pay $50 a day to drive on the roads in a 4x4 Land Rover, with $200 fine or car crushed if you don't option, introduced by a loony left winger who does not drive.

 

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/motoring/moto...dest.-1086.html

 

4x4 pay $500 road tax per year in the UK.

 

We have got a new $80 a trip Global warming Air Travel tax which will raise $2 billion a year, the government has not put $1 of it back into tacking the problems of Global Warming or melting ice cap's. It's a new great big tax con, and Brits just accept everything.

 

British government have a new road pricing scheme planned for the future that will also collect just a bit under $3 for every mile you drive so for a 100 mile trip you would pay a tax of $260. Once again all this extra revenue will not go into improving roads or public transport or tackling the problems Global Warming, it will mostly end up propping up bankrupt government pensions etc.

 

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1997092,00.html

 

The French are pushing hard for 120g per kilometre driven carbon limit on all new vehicles after 2012, as most the cars they build are eco box’s anyway and will all meet the new French imposed mandatory laws, and they don't have any quality brands like Aston Martins, Jaguar's, Land Rovers that will become dinosaurs and extinct, so they are not a bit bothered. So come on Ford/GM "get involved" join the Germans and kick French arses.

 

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/industr...rman-carmakers/

 

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction...;guiLanguage=en

 

http://stopurban4x4s.blogspot.com/2006_11_...4s_archive.html

 

Back in the 1970's when folk were worried about heading into a new Ice Age, all the professors with woolly grey in white coat were ranting on about this then. I tend to agree with as the sun will cool down over time, not to mention once you get up in the tropopause temperature remains at a constant -51 above this height. What annoys the hell out of me every time you earthquakes, plates moving flooding, who is first on the Scene with there Membership forms Greenpeace & Friends of the Earth "It's Global Warming". No it's not Global Warming, the Earth has had thousands of floods millions of years before "idiot Government officials" gave planning permission to build on Flood planes like the New Orleans, which have always been below sea level. If there are FOE fans out there please answer me this question in East Anglia in the UK, we had massive parts of this area flooded in years 1236, 1287, 1613, 1762, 1878, 1912, 1938 and 1953, with tragic loss of life.

 

http://www.about-norfolk.com/about/county/...her%201900s.htm

 

These were mostly years before Cars & Aircraft were ever invented, the vast majority used to cycle in 1953 and very few folk owned cars, so if there were no cars or aircraft what caused this flooding Mr FOE Doom and Gloom merchant, maybe the cows farted more in them days might be the answer, sorry if l sound so cynical but governments around Europe are using "Global Warming" as tax raising "Cash Cow" and they are milking us and taxing us to death, and nothing is being put back into tacking "Global Warming" or melting ice caps most of it is going back into propping up bankrupt government pension schemes etc, which is not helping Global Warming.

 

What’s the biggest problem that both FOE & Greenpeace should be addressing? Sorting out the No 1 issue is World Over Population, numbers are getting out of control, a billion extra folk every few years it is going to destroy the planet for sure, We have let in 2 million extra immigrants into the UK our water levels are running on empty most of the year due to the massive demand on a system that just was not mention to cope with such high numbers of people, maybe no one should take a bath that would save 70 gallons a week per person. They will all want homes, cars etc, destroying natural habitats of Animals, plants and wildlife what are FOE doing on the subject NOTHING, l have not seen to many Greenpeace folk in China protesting about coal/nuclear powered stations, a new plant opening up every other week, another spineless do NOTHING.

Edited February 8, 2007 by Ford Jellymoulds

[ebritt]

I'll trust the top scientists from around the world over some keyboard kommandos on the internet who have what credentials exactly to blow off these scientists?

 

Let's see you build a craft that that fly to the moon and back, I mean, you know more than scientists and all.

First and foremost...you are as much a "keyboard Kommando " as anyone here. So shut the hell up.

Second, there are actually more scientist who disagree about man's involvement in "global warming". So shut the hell up.

Third a large portion of the scientists on your side are not even climate specialists and have political agendas. So shut the hell up.

Fourth, your precious report from the UN (Idiots) even stated that basically nothing we do will change "global warming". So shut the hell up!

 

Fifth , I drive a Cavavlier that gets 30 MPG most of the time, I just changed out all the bulbs in my house to flourescents and I am going through the house to reinuslate. If that is not enough for you......piss off!

 

And BTW, which "global warming" scientist built a craft to go to the moon and back?? HMMM???

Edited February 8, 2007 by ebritt

[ebritt]

Could not of put it better myself Nick, you have hit the nail on the head.

 

Failing governments around the world see the word Global Warming and the word "GREEN", as a great tax CASH revenue raising generator Cash Cow Mountain.

 

In the UK we pay $10 for a gallon of fuel (Taxed $8). If you live in Richmond you are going to be charged $1,000 PA for every car space, so if you can get one car in your garage and have room to park two on your driveway you will be taxed £3,000 PA, and a higher rate for 4x4 owners.

 

http://www.richmond.gov.uk/press_office/pr...ing_charges.htm

 

We have congestion charging once you start to drive on the streets of London, you pay $50 a day to drive on the roads in a 4x4 Land Rover, with $200 fine or car crushed if you don't option, introduced by a loony left winger who does not drive.

 

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/motoring/moto...dest.-1086.html

 

4x4 pay $500 road tax per year in the UK.

 

We have got a new $80 a trip Global warming Air Travel tax which will raise $2 billion a year, the government has not put $1 of it back into tacking the problems of Global Warming or melting ice cap's. It's a new great big tax con, and Brits just accept everything.

 

British government have a new road pricing scheme planned for the future that will also collect just a bit under $3 for every mile you drive so for a 100 mile trip you would pay a tax of $260. Once again all this extra revenue will not go into improving roads or public transport or tackling the problems Global Warming, it will mostly end up propping up bankrupt government pensions etc.

 

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1997092,00.html

 

The French are pushing hard for 120g per kilometre driven carbon limit on all new vehicles after 2012, as most the cars they build are eco box's anyway and will all meet the new French imposed mandatory laws, and they don't have any quality brands like Aston Martins, Jaguar's, Land Rovers that will become dinosaurs and extinct, so they are not a bit bothered. So come on Ford/GM "get involved" join the Germans and kick French arses.

 

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/industr...rman-carmakers/

 

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction...;guiLanguage=en

 

http://stopurban4x4s.blogspot.com/2006_11_...4s_archive.html

 

Back in the 1970's when folk were worried about heading into a new Ice Age, all the professors with woolly grey in white coat were ranting on about this then. I tend to agree with as the sun will cool down over time, not to mention once you get up in the tropopause temperature remains at a constant -51 above this height. What annoys the hell out of me every time you earthquakes, plates moving flooding, who is first on the Scene with there Membership forms Greenpeace & Friends of the Earth "It's Global Warming". No it's not Global Warming, the Earth has had thousands of floods millions of years before "idiot Government officials" gave planning permission to build on Flood planes like the New Orleans, which have always been below sea level. If there are FOE fans out there please answer me this question in East Anglia in the UK, we had massive parts of this area flooded in years 1236, 1287, 1613, 1762, 1878, 1912, 1938 and 1953, with tragic loss of life.

 

http://www.about-norfolk.com/about/county/...her%201900s.htm

 

These were mostly years before Cars & Aircraft were ever invented, the vast majority used to cycle in 1953 and very few folk owned cars, so if there were no cars or aircraft what caused this flooding Mr FOE Doom and Gloom merchant, maybe the cows farted more in them days might be the answer, sorry if l sound so cynical but governments around Europe are using "Global Warming" as tax raising "Cash Cow" and they are milking us and taxing us to death, and nothing is being put back into tacking "Global Warming" or melting ice caps most of it is going back into propping up bankrupt government pension schemes etc, which is not helping Global Warming.

 

What's the biggest problem that both FOE & Greenpeace should be addressing? Sorting out the No 1 issue is World Over Population, numbers are getting out of control, a billion extra folk every few years it is going to destroy the planet for sure, We have let in 2 million extra immigrants into the UK our water levels are running on empty most of the year due to the massive demand on a system that just was not mention to cope with such high numbers of people, maybe no one should take a bath that would save 70 gallons a week per person. They will all want homes, cars etc, destroying natural habitats of Animals, plants and wildlife what are FOE doing on the subject NOTHING, l have not seen to many Greenpeace folk in China protesting about coal/nuclear powered stations, opening up every a new other week.

What a bunch of wackos!!

 

You wont see greenpeace in China. They know they cant win there so they come here and use wacko lib judges to make stupid rulings that they never would be able to get people to support.

[BlackHorse]

Man, ebritt just pretty much drove my point home for me. So I'll just shut the hell up. You go boy.

 

lol

 

Seriously though, this notion that the only people who object to the global warming data are on the payrolls of big oil is just not true. I've seen and read interviews by "scientists" who are university funded or state funded and still object. I'm not sure how you could attribute their views to big oil. I think blaming big oil is just another part of the agenda most of the time.

 

Oh by the way Richard, I knew you didn't mean me directly about the "idiot" thing, I was just giving you a hard time bud. But you see how easy it is to type something and have in misinterpreted, i.e. the eleptical orbit exchange. Finally, yes I absolutely do accuse people within various world governments of having agendas with relation to this subject matter. Those people are not idiots though, they are ruthless and smart and in the end all they really want is more of our personal income. GW is just a means to get it. From my point of view, taking more of my income is the same as taking more of my freedoms. But it's entirely possible that along the way they'll take certain freedoms too. If you look around it's already begun. In New York city you can't smoke unless you're hiding in a closet in the basement of your apartment building. You can't eat transfats, and right now they are trying to make it against the law to use a cell phone or ipod if you're in a crosswalk.

 

Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny. ---- Thomas Jefferson

 

You fellas keep that in mind when they start demanding more and more from you.

Edited February 8, 2007 by BlackHorse

[RichardJensen]

So shut the hell up!

Okay, why do you think that previous warnings do not apply to you?

 

There will be no more of this kind of crap on this topic. If you post this kind of garbage again, it will be edited out.

[RichardJensen]

in the end all they really want is more of our personal income

See, you can't prove that, it's a theory, and thus it should never be asserted as fact.

 

And yes, I'm being a bit picky on this subject, but as ebritt has just demonstrated, this is not a subject that tends to bring out rational debaters.

[NickF1011]

Could not of put it better myself Nick, you have hit the nail on the head.

 

Failing governments around the world see the word Global Warming and the word "GREEN", as a great tax CASH revenue raising generator Cash Cow Mountain.

 

In the UK we pay $10 for a gallon of fuel (Taxed $8). If you live in Richmond you are going to be charged $1,000 PA for every car space, so if you can get one car in your garage and have room to park two on your driveway you will be taxed £3,000 PA, and a higher rate for 4x4 owners.

 

http://www.richmond.gov.uk/press_office/pr...ing_charges.htm

 

We have congestion charging once you start to drive on the streets of London, you pay $50 a day to drive on the roads in a 4x4 Land Rover, with $200 fine or car crushed if you don't option, introduced by a loony left winger who does not drive.

 

http://www.femalefirst.co.uk/motoring/moto...dest.-1086.html

 

4x4 pay $500 road tax per year in the UK.

 

We have got a new $80 a trip Global warming Air Travel tax which will raise $2 billion a year, the government has not put $1 of it back into tacking the problems of Global Warming or melting ice cap's. It's a new great big tax con, and Brits just accept everything.

 

British government have a new road pricing scheme planned for the future that will also collect just a bit under $3 for every mile you drive so for a 100 mile trip you would pay a tax of $260. Once again all this extra revenue will not go into improving roads or public transport or tackling the problems Global Warming, it will mostly end up propping up bankrupt government pensions etc.

 

http://business.guardian.co.uk/story/0,,1997092,00.html

 

The French are pushing hard for 120g per kilometre driven carbon limit on all new vehicles after 2012, as most the cars they build are eco box's anyway and will all meet the new French imposed mandatory laws, and they don't have any quality brands like Aston Martins, Jaguar's, Land Rovers that will become dinosaurs and extinct, so they are not a bit bothered. So come on Ford/GM "get involved" join the Germans and kick French arses.

 

http://www.motorauthority.com/news/industr...rman-carmakers/

 

http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction...;guiLanguage=en

 

http://stopurban4x4s.blogspot.com/2006_11_...4s_archive.html

 

 

It's scary that most Americans don't see that ALL of these same taxes and regulations will be hitting our shores before they even realize what happened. We are giving our rights away to the government.

[Bluecon]

See, you can't prove that, it's a theory, and thus it should never be asserted as fact.

 

And yes, I'm being a bit picky on this subject, but as ebritt has just demonstrated, this is not a subject that tends to bring out rational debaters.

Of course there is proof. The Kyoto treaty is a means to redistribute the money of the USA, Canada and Australia to Russia, China, etc.

 

You only need to look at the Kyoto treaty to see how political this is.

Only the USA, Canada and Australia were targeted. (I am not sure how Japan is treated)

Europe cleverly exempted themselves from needing to do anything by backdating the treaty to 1990.

Only Canada was foolish enough to sign on. (and then they did nothing to meet the requirements)

The treaty is a socialist attempt to distribute the USA's money.

It has always rankled the Europeans that the Americans could be so successful and in such a short time surpass them.

 

Good explanation of politics of Kyoto. Everyone except the USA, Canada, Japan and Australia are more or less exempt.

 

"Canada, the world's ninth-largest emitter of man-made greenhouse gases (2.1% of all emissions in 2000), faces cuts no other major industrialized (and northern) country agreed to -- 6% below 1990 levels by 2012 -- which the Grits had already missed by 35% when they were tossed from power a year ago.

 

By contrast, the U.S., the world's largest emitter of greenhouse gases (20.6%), refused to ratify Kyoto because of concerns about the harm it would do to its economy.

 

China, the second-largest emitter (14.8%) and India, fourth-largest (5.5%), don't have to cut emissions because Kyoto classifies them as "developing" countries.

 

Russia, the third-largest emitter. (5.7%) has lots of room to emit more greenhouse gases and sell carbon or "hot air" credits to other countries -- like us -- solely because its economy collapsed in the early 1990s, after the fall of the Soviet Union.

 

Australia, the world's largest per capita producer of man-made carbon dioxide emissions because of its reliance on coal, would be able to increase emissions by 8% above its 1990 levels, if it ratified Kyoto, which it hasn't, fearing major job losses.

 

While the nations of the European Union (14% of all global emissions) accepted Kyoto reduction targets of 8%, they insisted on being treated as a collective in order to benefit from the collapse of the East German economy after the fall of the Soviet Union."

 

http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...388153-sun.html

 

Walter Williams explains it in a nutshell.

 

"The environmental extremists' true agenda has little or nothing to do with climate change. Their true agenda is to find a means to control our lives. The kind of repressive human control, not to mention government-sanctioned mass murder, seen under communism has lost any measure of intellectual respectability. So people who want that kind of control must come up with a new name, and that new name is environmentalism."

 

http://jewishworldreview.com/cols/williams012407.php3

[RichardJensen]

And we're done.

 

This topic is closed.