Dealing with `greenhouse'

Boston Herald ^ | Oct. 31, 2004

[Ahriman]

Russia's ratification of the Kyoto ``greenhouse effect'' treaty will bring the agreement into force among those who have ratified, and that will increase pressure on the United States to join in. The next president, whoever he is, should resist this siren's call.

U.S. policy should be devoted to trying to produce a new treaty on entirely different lines without loopholes big enough to drive a small asteroid through.

The major loophole is what it has always been: failure to impose any requirements on rapidly industrializing countries - or even to include them as members of the endeavor. Their inclusion is essential.

China, India, Mexico and Indonesia are not subject to emissions requirements. This is a major lure for energy-intensive industries (steelmaking, for example) to locate there, and for these countries to resist all blandishments to join the treaty regime. Environmentalists argue that countries like these can be brought along later - a dubious proposition.

[vigilence]

Russia will sign...and then cheat after they've gotton what they want in concessions from EU, etc. Remember what Reagan said, "Trust...but verity!!!".

[Soliton]

Because Russia has had a massive decline in industrialization since 1990, their co2 output is BELOW what their Kyoto requirements are. They would immediately become an exporter of co2 credits. (In other words, Kyoto signitories who are over the quota will pay Russia for the priviledge).

[JesseHousman]

Actually what needs to be adressed and studied for about 50 years is the flatulence emanating from cows.

This whole greenhouse nonsense is nothing but another nail the world wants to drive into our coffin and drag us down to third world status. (With the help of at least 60% of our elected traitorous officials.)

With our nation being larded up with ignorant louts from South of The Border, and a gaggle of Hatians and primitive Africans , it will only be a matter of time when our children will turn around, look the situation over, and say "What happened?"

[JesseHousman]

They would immediately become an exporter of co2 credits.

Utter nonsense!

[Flatus I. Maximus]

It's pretty simple. The Kyoto Protocols penalize developed countries for CO2 emissions and give the 3rd world a pass. If you wanted to deliberately create an incentive program to encourage entire manufacturing industries to move to 3rd world countries, you'd be hard pressed to do better.

You cannot be for the Kyoto Protocols and against offshoring. End of story.

[TChris]

Do I smell a TROLL? This sciento-political environmental BS is going to become (already has become?) a bigger drag on our economy than taxes.

Global warming? What a load of poppycock!

Breaking the "Hockey Stick"

Core Temperature Reconstructions from Svalbard, Norway

[TChris]

Sorry for broken link above...

Global Warming? What a load of poppycock!

[agere_contra]

Just say NO to junk science.

[Edgerunner]

So we see that we have more junk science backing the Kyoto Protocols.
Does Russia signing the treaty mean we can be sanctioned if we don't comply?
And do we care?

[TChris]

...more junk science backing the Kyoto Protocols.

Here's another good link for debunking liberal agendas:

Brave New Schools: Saving the Earth

[AuntB]

I just heard on the TV, that Robt. Kennedy Jr. is in line for head of the EPA if Kerry gets in. Kiss your private property rights goodbye!

[ancient_geezer]

The major loophole is what it has always been: failure to impose any requirements on rapidly industrializing countries - or even to include them as members of the endeavor.

The major loophole in reality being the whole debate is based in fraudulent representation.

 

"On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but - which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands, and buts. On the other hand, we are not just scientists but human beings as well. And like most people we'd like to see the world a better place, which in this context translates into our working to reduce the risk of potentially disastrous climatic change. To do that we need to get some broadbased support, to capture the public's imagination. That, of course, entails getting loads of media coverage. So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we might have. This 'double ethical bind' we frequently find ourselves in cannot be solved by any formula. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest. I hope that means being both." (Steven Schneider, Quoted in Discover, pp. 45-48, Oct. 1989; see also (Dixy Lee Ray in 'Trashing the Planet', 1990) and (American Physical Society, APS News August/September 1996).

"Scientists who want to attract attention to themselves, who want to attract great funding to themselves, have to (find a) way to scare the public . . . and this you can achieve only by making things bigger and more dangerous than they really are." (Petr Chylek, Professor of Physics and Atmospheric Science, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, commenting on reports that Greenland's glaciers are melting. Halifax Chronicle-Herald, August 22, 2001)

"We've got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing"
(Tim Wirth 1990, former US Senator) as quoted in NCPA Brief 213; September 6, 1996

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there is no scientific evidence to back the [enhanced] greenhouse effect"
(Richard Benedict, US Conservation Foundation)

 

Human Contribution to Climate Change Remains Questionable
S. Fred Singer
EOS, Transactions, American Geophysical Society, Vol 80, page 183-187, April 20, 1999
http://www.sepp.org/scirsrch/EOS1999.html

" There is no dispute at all about the fact that even if punctiliously observed, (the Kyoto Protocol) would have an imperceptible effect on future temperatures -- one-twentieth of a degree by 2050. "

Dr. S. Fred Singer, atmospheric physicist
Professor Emeritus of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia,
and former director of the US Weather Satellite Service;
in a Sept. 10, 2001 Letter to Editor, Wall Street Journal

 

Ice Ages & Astronomical Causes
Brief Introduction to the History of Climate
by Richard A. Muller

Origin of the 100 kyr Glacial Cycle

Figure 1-1 Global warming

Figure 1-2 Climate of the last 2400 years

 

Figure 1-3 Climate of the last 12,000 years

Figure 1-4 Climate of the last 100,000 years

Figure 1-5 Climate for the last 420 kyr, from Vostok ice

[B4Ranch]

>>I just heard on the TV, that Robt. Kennedy Jr. is in line for head of the EPA if Kerry gets in. <<

Is this fact or are you trying to scare the britches off me?

Wouldn't the recent court decision about the gov't having to pay for taking land affect that?

[Clintonfatigued]

"China, India, Mexico and Indonesia are not subject to emissions requirements. This is a major lure for energy-intensive industries (steelmaking, for example) to locate there, and for these countries to resist all blandishments to join the treaty regime."

That alone is reason enough to reject the treaty. It's not truly global and it will not stem air pollution. The only thing it will accomplish is that it will undermine the American economy.

There is global warming and it's causing some ecological problems, but its cause is not clear. The Earth has had temperature fluctuations throughout its history, including before the invention of fossil fuel. So the claim of air pollution being the only cause is just a theory.

The supporters of Kyoto want to base environmental policy on anti-Americanism and fads, not science.

[farmfriend]

I just heard on the TV, that Robt. Kennedy Jr. is in line for head of the EPA if Kerry gets in. Kiss your private property rights goodbye!

He is the one who writes Arnold environmental policy. Already kissed mine good bye with his election.

[farmfriend]

Rights, farms, environment ping.
Let me know if you wish to be added or removed from this list.
I don't get offended if you want to be removed.

[farmfriend]

Waspman, see auntb's post #12.

[AuntB]

Are you serious? I hadn't heard that.

[SierraWasp]

Ok, find her the link that calcowgirl found for you last Friday, or whenever it was.

AuntB, in case you were including me in the reply you made a few weeks ago about how nasty it got on FR during the election of Governor Schwarzenegger, you may begin to understand why some of us were so adamant in our positions against his election.

Included in that highly informational link will be his stated intention on his website to impose the gigantic Sierra-Nevada Conservancy on 1/5^th of CA!

This monster will make it harder on Californians in the future than the desperate problems faced by the Klamath Falls farmers! It puts the very framework in place to butcher landowners rights on some very flimsy pretenses.

Please read it and then try to understand why some of us have felt so strongly about Arnold being totally misguided by Robert Kennedy, Jr. and why we tried so hard to warn everyone on FR, at least.