Hope for end of climate deadlock

BBC ^ | Wednesday, February 14, 2007 | Roger Harrabin, BBC environment analyst

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

ping.

[Sidebar Moderator]

Please include links when appropriate.

[Jedi Master Pikachu]

Whoops. Sorry about that.

[nyconse]

A couple of points, 1: companies are only doing the carbon thing because they are afraid of getting left out. 2: The senate rejected the anti USA treaty (Kyoto) 95-0. Even wackos like Feingold rejected it. 3: The only consensus of the scientific community are the ones on the government dole.

[xcamel]

FReepmail me to get on or off
Click on graphic for full GW rundown

~ hurl ~

[sgtbono2002]

Why do I get the feeling we are about to get screwed?

I dont know who to distrust the most. China,Japan, The EU ,or our own politicians.

I keep getting this feeling we will be sacrificed on the altar of Diplomacy.

[ClaireSolt]

This is bogus. While they are talking about their caps and bogus carbon market, Bush formed a Pacific initiative with Japan et al and is pedling clean coal technology and nuke plants to India and China. Not only will that curb polution there, but we stand to amke money, too.

[dirtboy]

Presidential hopeful John McCain is among the delegates

And Rudy's a convert as well. So much for the two frontrunners.

[Louis Foxwell]

Don't they understand that global warming will open vast tracts of tillable (and habitable) land in Alaska, Canada and Russia and will double crop capacities in the lower 48, Europe and china? Global warming is our friend.

[Thermalseeker]

Leading US politicians are meeting with legislators from the EU, China, Japan and India to seek a breakthrough in the international climate deadlock.

In other news today, Congressional leaders cancelled their hearing on Global Warming today in Washington, DC, due to ice and snow......

[Tenacious 1]

I'm sure most of us have heard it before so I won't do the complete diatribe. But someone pointed out something else noteworthy regarding the Science behind global warming that I think is relevant and important.

Science is based on hypothesis tested and retested. Test and experiments are supposed to be set up to disprove hypothesis. If a scientist cannot disprove his hypothesis then he calls it a theory. Scientists of all walks then set out to disprove a given theory. If a theory is tested and challenged long and hard enough but still can't be disproved, some start to refer to them as laws. This is why you have the Newton's laws, etc. Whether it be theories on gravity, the solar system, atomic fission or fusion or Einstein's "law" of relativity (is actually a theory but often called laws), scientists are always out to disprove them and the "industry" encourages it. This is how discoveries are made and technology advances. In fact, Einstein's relativity theory is still being challenged today. Just recently, scientists have reported (theage.com.auMotion) that the theory doesn't work at slow speeds per Einstein's specs. I don't know if their right or wrong.

The point is, science is suppose to be about challenging theories and testing hypothesis until, that is, we get to global warming. Then suddenly, anyone who challenges the "science" behind the "proof" that humans cause global warming, is likened to a heretic and is dismissed as a fool.

Whether you believe in man made global warming or not, you should be skeptical and have doubts based on the corrupted scientific approach ALONE. To put it in perspective; say you take your car to a mechanic and he asks you what is wrong with it. You tell him it is hard to start, idles to fast and vibrates at speeds above 40 MPH. He walks over to your car and sniffs the driver side mirror and tells you that your fuel injectors need to be replaced and it will cost you $650. Would you just write him a check? He could be right?

[Darnright]

>China and, particularly, India are outraged that the US refuses to take the lead in emissions cuts when it has much higher pollution per person <

Does anyone else see the extreme irony in this statement?

[CarrotAndStick]

Many Republicans still demand that the competitor economies of China and India accept emissions cuts to prevent industry being re-located without any benefit to the global atmosphere.

This question will need somehow to be addressed, but China and, particularly, India are outraged that the US refuses to take the lead in emissions cuts when it has much higher pollution per person and has signed the 1992 UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, which obliges rich nations to reduce emissions first.

It is perhaps unsurprising that the only Indian delegate to the meeting has dropped out.

[honolulugal]

~ hurl ~

Well said.

[Gengis Khan]

You tell us what you see.

[Darnright]

>You tell us what you see.<

China and India have populations with over a billion souls each. The US can't come close.

Therefore, when the Global Warming crowd tells us China and India have less pollution "per person" than does the US, it doesn't mean China and India pollute less than we do by any stretch of the imagination. You can see the air pollution in China on satellite.

[Gengis Khan]

If China and India starts consuming energy the way US does and cause average emission levels to increase (per person) in a way no other country in the world does, the world will very soon have to breath Carbon Monoxide and Sulfur Dioxide instead Oxygen. In fact its not a question of "if" but "when". With rising economies India and China will start consuming many times more energy then its doing now. And you cant ask them to stop their consumption of energy and stall economic growth when America herself uses more energy "per person" then any country on this planet.

Let me understand what exactly you are trying to communicate, is it you point that "Global Warming" isn't really a threat and US should just continue the way it does and also allow other countries to pollute similarly or US should just continue the way it does but other countries shouldn't follow your footsteps. Is economic prosperity and right to pollute exclusively reserved for the US?

[Darnright]

>Let me understand what exactly you are trying to communicate, is it you point that "Global Warming" isn't really a threat and US should just continue the way it does and also allow other countries to pollute similarly or US should just continue the way it does but other countries shouldn't follow your footsteps. Is economic prosperity and right to pollute exclusively reserved for the US?<

Not at all. However, that said, I think that the US has made great strides in reversing pollution. There was a time when we were in danger of poisoning our water supplies beyond repair, and the danger from air pollution was very real. Do I feel we've solved all our problems? No. Should people take reasonable steps to conserve energy, and to pollute as little as possible? Of course.

I am dead set against giving "developing" countries a free pass to pollute at will, while destroying our economy, simply because Al Gore thinks Kyoto is the way to save Civilization, and the United Nations sees a dandy way to redistribute wealth, while padding their pockets.

As for Global Warming, until proved otherwise, I will consider it a part of the natural process of the planet, influenced far more by solar cycles than by American drivers and their automobiles.

[Gengis Khan]

"However, that said, I think that the US has made great strides in reversing pollution."

And so has other countries. Every country claim have done their bit while in reality none of the countries have done much (that includes even US).

"I am dead set against giving "developing" countries a free pass to pollute at will, while destroying our economy, simply because Al Gore thinks Kyoto is the way to save Civilization, and the United Nations sees a dandy way to redistribute wealth, while padding their pockets. "

That does not change the fact that US is still among the worst polluter on this planet. And regardless of who thinks what at least US should not have the right to pollute at will. Why? Because US is amongst the only country that has more resources then any country to prevent pollution. Emission reduction is not (and cannot be the) poor man's burden (read third world) while developed countries enjoy the benefits of economic prosperity at the cost of polluting the environment. Again no takers for that kinda typical US hypocrisy. In fact US should not be allowed to destroy other country's economy while itself pollutes at will, which currently is the case. Kyoto protocol, Rio summit, UN and similar such regimes operate merely as tools in the hand of US to prevent other counties from making economic development, just like NPT, CTBT, FMCT are regimes that are meant to prevent other countries joining the nuclear club. These are merely exclusive, clubs hardly anything to do with the real cause of Global warming.

BTW tell me if Global warming is not a threat then why would you care about "developing" countries polluting at will? Why not allow both the "developing" and the "developed" to freely pollute? Or are you saying Global warming is a threat only when the third world countries pollute and not when the US does?