Replies

Petetion Project:

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm

I am one of the signers.

Its unusual to have a liberal come on this forum and discuss things with an intent to expose facts or falsehoods, rather than feelings. Very refreshing. Welcome aboard. The comments can get rough here, but don't take it personally, we do it to ourselves too.

On to the discussion. Ask yourself the following questions:

1) Why does the Kyoto treaty exclude China and India, the two biggest net producers of manmade CO2?
2) If the true goal was to reduce CO2, why is the United States penalized when it and its forests are a net consumer of CO2?
3) If mankind were able to heat the earth with its activities, is there any technology that would allow mankind to cool the earth (one that would be cheaper than partial-global carbon regulation)?

Kidd I thank you for your welcome and for your concern. Don't worry about me - I can take care of myself.

Gentlemen I apologive for my late and certainly inadequate reply - I simply have too little time, to do proper research or even be sure I have read and understood all the responses. But I do want to get the following out for review:

Scientific American ran an article on Richard Lindzen - "Dissent in the Maelstrom (Sci.-Am., november 2001)", which I think does a good job in presenting his views and outlining the controversy.

"(Lindzen)fiercely disputes the conclusions of this past spring's report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)...and those of a recent NAS report that reviewed the panel's work."

Why?

"Lindzen dismisses this analysis (of observed historical climate change) by questioning the method for determining historical temperatures...Mann (Michael E. Mann, geologist at University of Virginia and lead author of the IPCC's past-climate chapter) was flabbergasted when I questioned him about Lindzen's critique, which he called 'nonsense' and 'hogwash'".

"Past climate isn't the only point of divergence. Lindzen also says there is little cause for concern in the future. The key to his opitimism is a parameter called 'climate sensitivity'. This variable represents the increase in global temperature expected if the amount of carbon dioxide in the air doubles over pre-industrial levels...Whereas the IPCC and the NAS calculate climate sensitivity to be somewhere between 1.5 and 4.5 degrees C., Lindzen insists that it is in the neighborhood of 0.4 degrees. The IPCC and the NAS derived the higher range after incorporating positive feedback mechanisms...(Lindzen) says negative...feedback rules the day."

After reading this I concluded that it was impossible for even a scientifically literate amateur to add anything to the dispute. Spunkets I find your idea that "A high school person should be able to answer that question. A college grad should understand it. It follows from the gas law..." to be ridiculous. Some of the world's top scientists, in the face of the most intense scrutiny by peers and public, continue to maintain their position even though high-school graduates can see the flaw in their position? No-way. PeaceBeWithYou, your suggestion that I should slink away because I can't refute Seitz's contentions is pathetic. If any amateur could do so what would that say about his creditials? Kidd, I find it disturbing that I cannot find any reference to Seitz and his petition in the mainstream literature. Why is that? Am I simply missing it? To those who criticize my conflict of interest argument regarding businessmen, unfortunately there's a lot of truth in what you say. No-one is free from bias or greed, or a deadly mix of the two. But I think people also have integrity - they try to remain true to what they believe. Which is why I conclude that people often support politicians who share their views rather than believing that politicians are always for sale to the highest bidder. Scientists principle motivation is a search for understanding of the objective world. Businessmens principle motivation is a devotion to the bottom line. That makes a difference.

1) Why does the Kyoto treaty exclude China and India, the two biggest net producers of manmade CO2? 2) If the true goal was to reduce CO2, why is the United States penalized when it and its forests are a net consumer of CO2? 3) If mankind were able to heat the earth with its activities, is there any technology that would allow mankind to cool the earth (one that would be cheaper than partial-global carbon regulation)?

1) Because there's no way to force them to conform.

2) I don't know - but it seems the answer is in "and its forests".

3) How would I know? I haven't seen any relevant proposals - except the obvious one which you reject as too expensive.