Greatest Danger Is Kyoto Protocol, Not Global Warming

For several years, the news media have been warning us of the impending doom of global warming. Well, they almost got it right. Forget their reports that blame everything from hot weather to cold weather on global warming. The impending doom lurking just around the corner is the Kyoto Protocol -- and Russia's decision to go along with this nonsense will make it a reality for a good bit of the globe. The U.S. is already under pressure to join in despite the potential price tag of more than $400 billion each year.

The treaty gives industrialized nations just eight years to cut their emissions of six key greenhouse gases. If the U.S. had gone along, we would have been required to cut emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels - nearly 20 percent below current estimates.

Think about that for just a second. Imagine cutting emissions 20 percent in just eight years. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that treaty could cost between $225 billion to more than $400 billion annually -- equal to every penny earned by more than 5.3 million U.S. households. It could also put between 1.1 million to 4.9 million Americans out of work.

Of course, you might not know any of this if you relied on the major media to tell you.

A new study by the Media Research Center's Free Market Project looked at how all five major news shows -- the three broadcast channels as well the Fox News Channel and CNN -- had handled the issues involving climate change. The study tracked the shows from Jan. 21, 2001, the beginning of the Bush presidency, through September 30, 2004.

What we found is that most network news shows hardly even admit there is a scientific debate on global warming. They only did so in 12 stories. That's 9 percent of the time. Sad to say, they aren't following the news. The Russian government moved ahead on Kyoto despite objections of its own Academy of Sciences that the thinking behind the treaty is faulty. Network news shows paid no attention.

Instead, they repeated the claim that global warming is a given, that mankind is to blame for this "problem" or both 55 percent (77 stories) of the time. That's roughly six times more often than they even admitted there might be some scientific objection. NBC was the worst of all five networks studied. It took this pro-Kyoto view in 30 stories (64 percent). It also had the lowest percentage of opposition to this view -- only three stories (6 percent). That's a ratio of 10 to 1.

Here is a fairly typical network comment -- from CBS Evening News reporter Jerry Bowen on August 29, 2002, "Whatever its cause, there is now abundant evidence that the Earth is having a heat wave." That claim is open to debate. Satellite and weather balloon data indicate no warming is taking place at all. Since those two different measures disagree with ground temperature results, the data deserve more investigation, not more hot air.

The networks are only seeing one side of the debate because they are only asking the questions of liberal environmental groups. The Natural Resources Defense Council is interviewed often, but they are never described as a strongly anti-Bush organization even though that is exactly what they are. According to their own website, the Bush administration, "threatens to do more damage to our environmental protections than any other in U.S. history."

No matter who the news shows interviewed, the coverage focused on the impact of global warming. The stories blamed everything from floods to drought on climate change. ABC blamed warming for "erratic" weather such as a Christmas Eve snowstorm in Buffalo of all places. Reporter Neal Karlinsky explained, "Scientists say there is a pattern here. The weather is becoming more erratic for one main reason, the earth is getting warmer."

This virtually guarantees the networks are correct on the issue of global warming. If the weather gets warmer, they were right. If it gets colder, they can blame that on warming. And lastly, if the weather simply changes and produces snow in Buffalo on Christmas Eve, then they can say the weather is changeable.

What should be changeable is how the networks handle their global warming coverage. Only the Fox News Channel made a respectable showing in our study. The other four networks need to learn to balance their coverage of this important issue. Until then, network bias is like the weather -- something we all complain about but the networks seem unable to do anything to fix.

Herman Cain, former president and chairman of Godfather's Pizza, Inc. and former Senate candidate in Georgia, is now the national chairman of the Media Research Center's Free Market Project, of which Dan Gainor is director.

Meteor has been running on the cable channels and I've caught it a number of times. The acting is bad too, I'm not sure about the premise, but I love to watch that movie.

I have no interest whatsoever in trying to watch the Day After Tomorrow, mostly because I haven't liked any of that directors other movies but also, actors today just don't have the gravitas of Karl Maldon and Sean Connery working together. And Brian Keith, I think his name is, the guy from Family Affair is in there too. And Martin Landau in a thankless role.

Oh, and, damned! I can't remember her name, Robert Wagner's wife, the girl from Rebel w/o a Cause. Anyway, the cast is great.

Still, Meteor is little more then Soviet agitprop, but at least it manages to be entertaining.

Now the Poseidon Adventure, that's probably the greatest disaster movie of all time.

I believe the political issues which arise in a connection to global warming may interfere with a more direct approach to the problem. This is not intended to mean that political entities may not participate in problem identification, analysis, and response, but instead to point out that there occurs a substantial investment of manhours and expense in sorting through the side issues. The central issue of global warming becomes a side issue in such a scenario where political entities upstage and redirect the flow of involvement & progress into directions where they are more proficient. The problem of global warming yet remains a problem of the physical sciences. See what I mean?

The following excerpts and URLs are gathered in support of a text which I am developing concerning the fundamental nature of global warming as a manifestation of the unified field; that manifestation arising thermodynamically & primarily within the sphere of equilibria & disequilibria of the mass-heat proportionality.

The reason I make this collection of notes available publicly now is to help fill in the blank concerning the seriousness of the problem in a very real sense, and to attempt to direct the question away from so much of a political foundation & stage, and more towards a physical sciences perspective. This helps to give global warming some tangible handles. It rises above opinion and hearsay to take on features & qualities of a substantial reality in the here & now and for the time to come.

Some excerpts follow:
http://www.psrc.usm.edu/macrog/tg.htm
Article titled "The Glass Transition."

"... change in mobility with temperature happens because the phenomenon we call "heat" is really a form of kinetic energy; that is, the energy of objects in motion. It is actually an effect of random motion of molecules, whether they are polymer molecules or small molecules. Things are "hot" when their molecules have lots of kinetic energy and move around very fast. Things are "cold" when their molecules lack kinetic energy and move around slowly, or not at all."

http://www.psrc.usm.edu/macrog/movies/tg.htm
A movie which simulates the increase of relative motion of substance as it receives an increase in heat energy. Notice how it resembles atmospheric motion in long range segmental translational movement from calm weather to storm systems and seasonal changes from winter to summer.

http://www.psrc.usm.edu/macrog/dsc.htm
An article discussing "Differential Scanning Calorimetry". The key connection to global warming and mass loss involves the function of heat reservoir substances to absorb heat; and the quantity of mass that is necessary for a given heat load to maintain states of phase & relative motion & turbulence within acceptable/inhabitable limits.

"There is a latent heat of melting as well as a latent heat of crystallization. When the polymer crystals melt, they must absorb heat in order to do so. Remember melting is a first order transition. This means that when you reach the melting temperature, the polymer's temperature won't rise until all the crystals have melted. This also means that the furnace is going to have to put additional heat into the polymer in order to melt both the crystals and keep the temperature rising at the same rate..."

Concerning ice effects & rising sea levels.
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3977712e1941.htm
""We see a significant trend (in loss of ice mass)," said William B. Krabill, first author of the study. "When we can go back after five years and see 10 meters of glacier gone, there is something happening."

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.