The Rusky gets it.A Liberal against Kyoto? Where's my scorecard?
Someone should tell Blair that the Russians are IN FAVOR of global warming.
Their country would be very valuable if it wasn't frozen solid.
carbon dioxide emissions <P.Its all make up
"President Vladimir Putin's personal adviser on all things economic"
"It is not clear how much sway Illarionov has with Putin, a fellow St. Petersburger."
Huh?
What? He's taking lessons from castro?
FMCDH(BITS)
If Russia is smart they won't sign that treaty. There is nothing in it for them and basically, it won't do anything anyway. Actually, I think that the EU has figured out what a boondoggle it is and would love to have a face saving way out.
The Rusky gets it. Isn't that historical SOP for the Russians?
And if he was threatening to bury Kyoto, shouldn't he have followed traditional Russian procedure and banged his shoe on the podium?
the Kyoto Protocol, which will die if Russia does not ratify it.one quibble -- the Kyoto Protocol was born dead.
GO ANDREI GO!!!
Global warming sounds like a good idea in many parts of Russia.
LMAO... good old dependable Russia, always has its own interest at heart!
NOT A PING LIST, merely posted to: adam_az; Bonaparte; COEXERJ145; Cronos; expatpat; fat city; MadIvan; McGavin999; madrussian; nothingnew; nypokerface; proxy_user; Redcoat LI; RightWhale; struwwelpeter; swilhelm73; take; thoughtomator; ValerieUSAStudy: Siberian Bogs Big Player in Greenhouse GasThe barren peatlands of Siberia have been a massive methane producer since soon after the last ice age some 12,000 years ago, far longer than previously thought, scientists say. They also found evidence that suggests peat bogs rank among the world's top carbon stores, absorbing huge amounts of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere... Radiocarbon dating revealed that the bogs were 2,000 to 3,000 years older than previously thought, and researchers believe the bogs may be responsible for a huge rise in atmospheric methane levels (identified from Arctic ice core records) 9,000 to 11,500 years ago.
National Geographic News
January 15, 2004Breaking the "Hockey Stick"Consider that if 1) the amount of uncertainty is doubled (an appropriate representation of the "sheath"), 2) appropriate 20th century increases in observed air temperature are applied (a correct representation of the "blade"), or 3) the period from A.D. 200 to 1900 correctly reproduces millennial-scale variability (a reliable representation of the "shaft"), then one can have no confidence in the claim that the 1990s are the warmest decade of the last two millennia. The assertions of Mann and his colleagues — and, consequently, the IPCC — are open to question if even one component of their temperature reconstruction is in error, let alone all three!
by David R. Legates
Monday, July 12, 2004
FR topic
Yahoo
NewswireFossils nag at carbon's climate roleTheir first reconstruction of tropical sea surface temperatures during the Phanerozoic eon, dating from 544 million years ago, used a database of oxygen isotopes in calcite and aragonite shells... It is during two periods, the glaciation of the Late Ordovician period around 440 million years ago, and the cool climate of the Jurassic and early Cretaceous (about 220-120 million years ago), that expectations based on the CO2 record contradict the fossil data. According to the second reconstruction, tropical temperatures should have been higher than today during these two cold periods. The researchers say their findings have several possible implications. It could be that the reconstructed past CO2 levels are partly incorrect. There is also the chance that climate models are calibrated to the present and are therefore unable to reproduce correctly past climate modes. But they say there is a third possibility: that "the role of CO2 as the main driving force of past global (long-term) climate changes is questionable, at least during two of the four main cool climate modes of the Phanerozoic"... Lee Kump, of the Earth Systems Science Center at Pennsylvania State University, says their conclusion that CO2 "may not be the climate driver it has been made out to be deserves close scrutiny, because the policy implications are huge. If large changes in atmospheric CO2 in the past have not produced the climate response we thought they had, that undermines the case for reducing fossil fuel emissions." He considers the Jurassic mismatch "more persistent and problematic" than that of the Late Ordovician, though he says that neither of "these seeming paradoxes" is new.
by Alex KirbyClimatic Variations In Last 400.000 Years Derived From Polar Ice CoresFrom Antarctic ice cores one can now document the climate variations for the last 400,000 years. Four major climatic cycles can be recognized in this time interval. For about 10 per cent of this time the climate was similar to the present one (interglacial climate), for the remaining, hence for the most, period, it was colder (glacial climate). Interglacial climates typically last a few thousand years, while glacial climates last tens of thousands, with a series of internal variations, characterized by colder and colder temperatures. Transition to interglacial climates are usually fast. This cycle appears to be correlated with variations in the Earth orbital parameters.
by Giuseppe Orombelli
Ice cores from Greenland allow a finer analysis but are applicable only to the last 100,000 years. The northern climate shows variations with respect to the southern climate. It shows variations of high amplitude and short duration (the Dansgaard-Oescher events), which have been related to variations in the oceanic circulation. Even with respect to the last transition from glacial to interglacial the northern hemisphere has shown stronger climate variations, some happening in a matter of some dozen years.More Than 15,000 Scientists Protest Kyoto Accord"Spending any money at all to curb CO2 emissions is a complete waste of time," Dr. Arthur Robinson, professor of chemistry at the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, told WorldNetDaily. "There is absolutely not a shred of evidence that humans are causing any change in the climate by generating CO2."
Speak Out Against Global Warming Myth
SEPP News Release
Global Warming Petition Project
Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine
Bush taking 'dark path' on global warming?
by Art Moore
February 15, 2002Greenhouse gas 'plan B' gaining supportThe Kyoto protocol is dying a death of a thousand cuts. Last week, the US reiterated that it wants nothing to do with the sole international agreement designed to save the world from runaway global warming. The European Union, Kyoto's main promoter, revealed that most of its members will not meet their treaty's obligations. And Russia once again seemed to be on the point of wrecking the protocol completely... [Plan B] goes by the name "contraction and convergence", or C&C... [T]he UK's Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, the UN Environment Programme, the European Parliament and the German Advisory Council on Global Change... [support] the idea... While Kyoto has become a convoluted, arbitrary and short-term measure to mitigate climate change, C&C could provide a simple, fair, long-term solution. And above all, it is based on science rather than politics... [I]ncreasing numbers of delegates are viewing Kyoto as part of the problem, not part of the solution. Its labyrinthine rules allow nations to offset emissions with devices such as carbon-sink projects, and are so complex they are virtually unenforceable. Even if Kyoto becomes international law, it cannot be the blueprint for future deals beyond 2012... [U]nder the C&C proposals, national emissions will converge year by year towards some agreed target based upon each country's population... [B]y a target date that the Royal Commission and Germany's advisory council agree should be 2050, every citizen of the world should have an equal right to pollute... Bush called it unfair that Asian trading competitors, as developing nations, had no targets. Under C&C every nation would ultimately have the same target. Some, such as China, already have per-capita emissions in excess of targets they might have to meet by mid-century... Six years after the heady Kyoto night when 171 nations thought they had signed up to save the world, the disconnect between the science and the politics remains huge.
by Fred Pearce
19:00 10 December 03Environmental Fast-fact SourceMatt Richardson draws attention to Ten Second Response, a reference site maintained by the National Center for Public Policy Research, providing concise answers and facts to the most commonly encountered questions and misconceptions regarding environmental issues...
Posted on August 28, 2002Ten Second ResponseIssue: George W. Bush killed the Kyoto Protocol.
National Center for Public Policy Research
Response 1: President Bush did not kill the Kyoto Protocol. It was dead when he took office. Senate Res. 98, approved 95-0 on July 25, 1997, states that the Senate will not ratify any climate treaty that would harm the U.S. economy or fails to require developing nations to reduce emissions. Kyoto fails both tests. The President simply recognized these facts.
Response 2: President Clinton signed appropriations bills in 1999, 2000 and 2001 prohibiting the Environmental Protection Agency from using any funds to "issue rules, regulations, decrees of orders for the purpose of implementation, or in preparation for implementation, of the Kyoto Protocol" until the Protocol is ratified by the Senate.Nets Treat EPA Report Change as Scandal, CNN Sees Flat-EarthersCNN's Aaron Brown ridiculously compared the Bush administration doubting global warming is fueled by industrialization to naive politicians of centuries ago who castigated Galileo for saying the Earth was round and not flat. If anything, the analogy could be applied in reverse, with modern environmentalists and their toadying media followers the equivalent of flat-Earthers with the Bush administration and conservatives willing to challenge the establishment orthodoxy... [O]ther than CNBC anchor Forrest Sawyer questioning an environmentalist during an interview, none of that subtlety made it into any of the hyperbolic network stories which assumed liberal environmentalists were correct, failed to feature a single non-liberal activist scientist and only tossed in a brief mention of how EPA Administrator Christie Todd Whitman denied politics motivated the changes to the report.
CyberAlert
Tracking Liberal Media Bias Since 1996
Friday June 20, 2003