Kyoto Protocol

[Informer]

Global climate disruption is the most serious threat facing the planet today. Studies conducted by the world's most respected climate scientists demonstrate that we must act collectively and immediately to make significant reductions in the the amount of greenhouse gases that we are releasing into the atmosphere. Our failure to act will result in catastrophic and irreversible consequences for all life on this planet.

 

Countries around the globe are attempting to address this problem. In an agreement known as the Kyoto Protocol, most industrialized countries have agreed to cut their greenhouse gas emissions. Unfortunately, for years the United States steadfastly refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol. Even now in 2010, with an administration that claims to understand the crisis we are facing, the federal government is still unable to respond with the type of bold action that is needed to begin to reverse the decades of uncontrolled burning of fossil fuels and the continuing destruction of the planet's forests.

 

Without the active participation of the U.S., the world community's ability to slow the heating of the atmosphere is unlikely. The U.S. alone produces 25% of the world's greenhouse gases. Currently, China and India are developing quickly are are modeling much of their development on the unrestricted consumption of fossil fuels. Without a strong and demonstratable commitment by the US to reduce its carbon emissions, it is unlikely that China and India will act on their own.

 

While the U.S. government struggles with a political response to the need to reduce GHGs, a growing number of States are forming regional alliances that are establishing limits on greenhouse gas emissions.

 

http://www.kyotousa.org/

 

This is something that really pisses me off. The world is trying to work together to reduce our emissions, but we don't have a say in our countries stand on the matter. This is another reason for direct democracy, because even though we know what needs to be done, and are willing to sacrifice a bit of our comfort, it doesn't matter because a couple guys says so. The only ones who would take a stand against the Kyoto Protocol are those who put greed above need. People who put profits above people, above the future, and above the planet. I am pissed off that each person in the united states don't get a chance to have a say in this matter so that we may all decide. I am sick an tired of a couple guys assuming control and assuming to be our voice.

 

It's bullshit.

Edited January 3, 2012 by Informer

[joeblast]

So what of everyone else that signed on to this fantasy of a trace gas somehow becoming the main climate driver of the entire planet - and havent even come anywhere near close to meeting the entirely unrealistic targets?

[Informer]

So what of everyone else that signed on to this fantasy of a trace gas somehow becoming the main climate driver of the entire planet - and havent even come anywhere near close to meeting the entirely unrealistic targets?

 

Funny you should ask, everyone else is not the top 4 polluters is what.

[joeblast]

Sidestepping isnt actually addressing, in case you didnt know

 

You entire opening paragraph is pure conjecture, and asserting that there is any sort of "scientific consensus" is quite unscientific. And quite artificial, I might add - shoddy math and dubious statistical manipulations are no basis upon which to stifle economies - countries like Spain damn near bankrupted themselves high on green fumes.

 

What of the sensitivity corrections coming out as of late that show even a 1 degree sensitivity is still a little high, nevermind the 3+ that those invested in the paradigm claim (is necessary for their theoretical models...to...reflect reality?)

 

The CO2 scare, and the inaccurate models that have driven it, is in the midst of suffering a death of a thousand cuts by actual science. Tree ring proxies showing other than what briffa et al selectively presented; it is no coincidence that the last what, 3 satellites that went up that were supposed to definitively prove something" about the climate went down before ever getting to orbit.

 

Its laughable hearing proponents of AGW claim "follow the money" noting that oil companies make a lot of money - but really, it pales in comparison to the annual $1.6 Trillion that the UN is telling is will magically solve climate change!

 

Or is it that they believe that by reducing the globe economic output by 1.6T/yr will result in less-enough emissions that it will magically be solved

 

Yes, please, follow the money.

[Informer]

double post.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Informer

[joeblast]

I do so love the ad hominem attacks when I say something somebody doesnt like. You are aware there's an insult policy here, correct? Now get off your anti-science horse and smile

 

There's a thread in the pit if you're interested in attempting to present technical details, but pretty much every time I ask for the cards to be shown, the players leave the table - you're welcome to come get corrected with technicalities if you feel you can support your statements _/\_

[Informer]

Sidestepping isnt actually addressing, in case you didnt know

 

You entire opening paragraph is pure conjecture, and asserting that there is any sort of "scientific consensus" is quite unscientific. And quite artificial, I might add - shoddy math and dubious statistical manipulations are no basis upon which to stifle economies - countries like Spain damn near bankrupted themselves high on green fumes.

 

What of the sensitivity corrections coming out as of late that show even a 1 degree sensitivity is still a little high, nevermind the 3+ that those invested in the paradigm claim (is necessary for their theoretical models...to...reflect reality?)

 

The CO2 scare, and the inaccurate models that have driven it, is in the midst of suffering a death of a thousand cuts by actual science. Tree ring proxies showing other than what briffa et al selectively presented; it is no coincidence that the last what, 3 satellites that went up that were supposed to definitively prove something" about the climate went down before ever getting to orbit.

 

Its laughable hearing proponents of AGW claim "follow the money" noting that oil companies make a lot of money - but really, it pales in comparison to the annual $1.6 Trillion that the UN is telling is will magically solve climate change!

 

Or is it that they believe that by reducing the globe economic output by 1.6T/yr will result in less-enough emissions that it will magically be solved

 

Yes, please, follow the money.

 

It was not "my" paragraph, and your "question" wasn't a question at all. The "question" is more of a broad exclamation.

 

If you want to argue against Global Warming and how CO2 emissions accelerates this phenomena, you are ignorant. The vast majority scientists have observed and witnessed these effects in their own lifetimes. Much more so then any evidence of macro-evolution could ever produce.

 

Get off your anti-environment regime. You and your cronies are the reason we are in this mess and then have the gall to argue that there is no mess. Evidence says otherwise and there is plenty of it. It has even become such "common knowledge" that no citations are even necessary.

 

This has nothing to do with the economy of today, this is as short-sided of a view as there comes. It is necessary for survival of the human species and evolution into a symbiotic relationship with such, economies be damned.

 

If the economy is your greatest concern for the future survival of our race on this planet, then your mind is obviously a dollar sign, wrapped in greed and profits. There is more to the world than your little meaningless wants and desires.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Informer

[Informer]

I think that it is horrible that you would choose to be a virus in relation to this planet than to achieve a symbiotic relationship. That is exactly what you are saying, that we should continue to be detrimental and destructive rather than seeking an equilibrium, because it could mess up your little money system.

[Taomeow]

If you want to argue against Global Warming and how CO2 emissions accelerates this phenomena, you are a fool.

Get off you anti-environment regime and suck me.

Get off your anti-environment regime and suck it. You and your cronies are the reason we are in this mess

 

your mind is obviously a dollar sign, wrapped in greed and profits. There is more to the world than your little meaningless wants and desires.

 

--------Moderator's Warning-------

 

Informer, kindly remove and rephrase the parts of your argument which are violating this forum's "no personal insults" policy. The alternative would be, your posts end up in the Pit and you may earn a suspension. Please do not use a difference of opinions as an excuse for name-calling and invitations to perform acts on you which TTB's posted guidelines do not mention as being offered here.

 

TM for mod squad

[Informer]

"If the economy is your greatest concern for the future survival of our race on this planet, then your mind is obviously a dollar sign, wrapped in greed and profits."

 

This isn't a direct insult.

[Informer]

I do so love the ad hominem attacks when I say something somebody doesnt like. You are aware there's an insult policy here, correct? Now get off your anti-science horse and smile

 

There's a thread in the pit if you're interested in attempting to present technical details, but pretty much every time I ask for the cards to be shown, the players leave the table - you're welcome to come get corrected with technicalities if you feel you can support your statements _/\_

 

I don't see your post Joe.

[Informer]

I guess they put unsubstantiated claims into college text books as proof now eh? That is what you are saying. I will bring you citations from various Academic resources and Scholarly Articles, if you agree to one thing.

[Everything]

The air above is filled with huge, thick and lengthy chemtrails that cover the atmosphere like a thin blanket as the wind blows it about. It has been good weather here so far. Just a chill breeze, no snow. Still haven't used my gloves at this time of the year even. Its abnormal the amount of chemtrails I see these days. Then when I see one of those regular big commercial passengers aircraft flying right above my head it leaves not even the slightest of smoke behind, when everyone says that the chemtrails are from passenger aircrafts, when these planes that leave the trails gain altitude in a way that a passenger aircraft can not even dream of doing. When people say that these are pilots, I still wonder why they practice right above our heads, when they could do that above the ocean. Not to mention that these planes never fly at the same spot twice. As if they wish to tactically spread the chemtrails over the atmosphere. Also when it rains, the rain smells like rotten eggs sometimes. Especially if the chemtrails are allot.

 

What is the meaning of all this?

[Informer]

Yet the document also calls for a guaranteed end to warfare altogether -- for the sake of curbing climate change.

 

One section, noting that "conflict-related activities emit significant greenhouse gas emissions," calls on all parties to "cease destructive activities" like warfare -- and then channel the money that would have been spent on war and other defense projects toward "a common enemy: climate change."

 

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/12/10/un-floats-global-climate-court-to-enforce-emissions-rules/#ixzz1gAa6VApq

[johndoe2012]

from http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/05/climate-change-cuts-a-frances-worth-of-wheat-out-of-global-agriculture.ars

 

With all the focus on the potential future impacts of climate change and ocean acidification, it's possible to lose track of the fact that the CO2 concentrations and temperatures have already risen significantly, and that we might already be seeing the impacts of climate change. In fact, plenty of evidence, from altered growing seasons and changed animal migrations, indicate that climate change is already having an effect on the biosphere.

 

Evidence is now beginning to build that things are hitting us where it hurts. Last year, data was published that indicated commercially important shellfish were already being hurt by ocean acidification. Now, a paper that will be released by Science later today indicates that rising temperatures are cutting into agricultural productivity.

 

The authors of the new paper have combined a variety of public databases that track crop locations, productivity, temperature trends, and changes in precipitation. They then focus on four specific crops that, in total, account for about 75 percent of the calories that humans consume: maize, wheat, rice, and soybeans.

 

Since 1980, there haven't been any statistically significant trends in precipitation. When it comes to temperature, however, the story was very different, with many countries experiencing temperature increases that were a standard deviation or more from the historic norm. That includes just over half of the soybean producing nations, 65 percent of rice and maize growers, and 75 percent of the countries that grow wheat. Notably absent from that list: the US, where the trends in temperature have been very minor.

 

Based on the crop yield models and data obtained by the authors, the effects of these temperature changes were somewhat mixed (the study focused on the 1980-2008 period). Compared to a projection in which the temperatures remained stable, rice productivity dropped in many areas where it's cultivated, but productivity at higher latitudes offset this, leaving the global impact minimal. The same was true for soybeans. Wheat and maize, however, were very different stories, with temperatures driving a 3.1 percent drop in productivity for maize, and a 4.9 percent drop for wheat.

 

For context, the authors note that this is one Mexico's worth of maize, and the equivalent to France's annual wheat crop. "Climate trends were large enough in some countries to offset a significant portion of the increases in average yields that arose from technology, CO2 fertilization, and other factors," the authors conclude.

 

But carbon dioxide impacts plant growth through mechanisms other than climate. The authors reran their calculations using data that estimates the boost in productivity that's gained from the additional CO2, which plants require for photosynthesis. As long as water and fertilizers aren't constrained, rice and soybeans would have actually seen productivity gains during the study period, and some of the loss of wheat productivity would be offset. Maize is not affected by increased carbon dioxide.

 

Overall, if you exclude the carbon fertilization, temperature changes have translated into an average price increase of 19 percent on the global agricultural market. The offset of carbon fertilization drops that figure to 6.4 percent.

 

As the authors emphasize, these changes are taking place against a backdrop of technological innovation that has generally sent agricultural yields upwards. The work does suggest, however, that we may not be seeing the full benefit of these changes. It also does not account for extreme precipitation and temperature events, which can cut into yields dramatically, but won't be visible in the monthly averages used by the authors.

 

The key question that the study doesn't address is whether the agricultural community is beginning to respond to some of the challenges posed by climate change. This is best illustrated by the example of Russia, where the authors calculate that temperature changes have knocked 15 percent off the annual wheat yield. Rising temperatures have the potential to turn Russia into one of the agricultural winners in a warming climate, but will require that farmers and the infrastructure they need relocate to optimal growing areas. If they continue to farm in existing locations, then the sorts of losses seen in this study could mount.

 

No climate change?

[johndoe2012]

[Taomeow]

"If the economy is your greatest concern for the future survival of our race on this planet, then your mind is obviously a dollar sign, wrapped in greed and profits."

 

This isn't a direct insult.

 

Thank you for your kind cooperation. I'm not going to nit-pick if the above statement is valuable to you... though it is still an ad hominem entry that we do try to make folks feel safe from being slammed with in liew of arguments.

 

Generally, it's usually "obvious" that someone disagrees with what "we" hold dear but it's seldom obvious "why." I don't think Joeblast's mind is a "dollar sign wrapped in greed and profits." Seriously. All I know is that his research and cognitive process regarding this issue differ from yours. When we rush to demonize the opponent, we might miss something, don't you think? E.g., a valid point or two... a new fact we weren't aware of... and a golden opportunity to prevent our own minds from closing shut around whatever we've "decided."

[ralis]

Joe and the global warming denier crowd are irrelevant to this conversation! The deniers are paid shills by the petroleum industry. Further, Joe's TV weatherman who by the way, has no scientific background or credentials, knows nothing of the science of dynamic systems and specifically, a complex biosphere. Yet this TV weatherman parades partial data and non sequiters as if his conclusions were truth. It is this misuse of partial data, reframed by Frank Luntz et aliae, which is paraded as truth. Luntz famously reframed "global warming" to "climate change" to appease the masses into believing that the earth is just having a different cycle which happens periodically. This pseudo scientific inquisition combined with reframing semantics and age old propaganda techniques, opposes rigorous scientific inquiry. The new inquisitors do not have access to the data accumulated nor the computational power only available at a few labs in the world. Only with extremely high speed teraflop computing power that can model a complex system i.e, a system with more than two variables, are scientists able to reach precise approximations.

 

Anti-intellectualism and the pursuit of pseudo-science as truth, are the fault of a poorly funded and second rate educational system. E.g, high school students in Japan are learning advanced math that is not taught until the second year at MIT.

 

Anthony Watts the TV weatherman that passes pseudoscience as factual.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthony_Watts_%28blogger%29

 

http://wattsupwiththat.com/

 

http://thinkprogress.org/romm/2009/07/29/204427/the-video-that-anthony-watts-does-not-want-you-to-see-the-sinclair-climate-denial-crock-of-the-week/

 

http://sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

Edited December 11, 2011 by ralis

[johndoe2012]

from http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2011/10/climate-skeptics-perform-independent-analysis-finally-convinced-earth-is-getting-warmer.ars

 

Climate skeptics perform independent analysis, finally convinced Earth is getting warmer

 

Last week, a project called Berkeley Earth released drafts of its findings. The project was started by a physicist, Richard Muller, who had previously expressed doubts about the mathematical rigor of climate science; it received funding from a variety of sources, including the Department of Energy and foundations set up by Bill Gates and the Koch brothers. The Berkeley Earth team set out to analyze records of the Earth's surface temperatures to answer questions about the trajectory of the planet's recent warming that had been raised by skeptics and contrarians. To a very large degree, it discovered that climatologists had been doing a pretty good job after all.

 

...

 

In any case, the Berkeley Earth project set out to answer all of those questions. It would use many more stations, perform an independent reconstruction of global temperatures, and examine the effect of urbanization. And it has now completed that analysis and posted drafts of the four papers it has submitted to peer reviewed journals (they're currently in the review process).

 

It's not clear that they will all be published, because a few of them largely duplicate information that's already out there, as even the project head admits. "Our biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK," said Richard Muller. "This confirms that these studies were done carefully and the potential biases identified by climate change skeptics did not seriously affect their conclusions."

 

But Watts still doesn't trust Berkeley Earth's results. And, based on the comments on his blog, most of his readers don't either. That suggests that, contrary to Muller's expectations, this won't be the end of the skepticism of the temperature record.

 

What it may help do is drive those who keep questioning whether the Earth has warmed further to the fringes, where they can join those who question whether the greenhouse effect exists even after a century of work has confirmed that it does. That's a territory that doesn't merit the label skepticism anymore.

 

Actual skeptics might see this as an opportunity to focus on the scientific community's attribution of the temperature changes Berkeley Earth has confirmed, which is primarily ascribed to anthropogenic influences. There's an entire chapter of the IPCC report devoted to attribution, though, so any scientific skepticism should at least start by addressing the arguments outlined there.

 

and so it goes. Skeptics can always find something fishy and the discussion never ends!

[Informer]

Thank you for your kind cooperation. I'm not going to nit-pick if the above statement is valuable to you... though it is still an ad hominem entry that we do try to make folks feel safe from being slammed with in liew of arguments.

 

Generally, it's usually "obvious" that someone disagrees with what "we" hold dear but it's seldom obvious "why." I don't think Joeblast's mind is a "dollar sign wrapped in greed and profits." Seriously. All I know is that his research and cognitive process regarding this issue differ from yours. When we rush to demonize the opponent, we might miss something, don't you think? E.g., a valid point or two... a new fact we weren't aware of... and a golden opportunity to prevent our own minds from closing shut around whatever we've "decided."

 

I understand what you're saying, however this statement isn't directed at joeblast, it is directed at a point of view that somehow economics and personal desires is more important than global well-being. Do we go out of our way to be politically correct not to insult murderers in any of the texts throughout history? I found an outlook that I think is despicable, and gave a pretty fitting analogy of it imo. If it applicable to Joe or not is not my knowing.

 

I hope this disclaimer makes sense.

Edited December 10, 2011 by Informer

[doc benway]

I find the whole global warming / climate change issue somewhat of a misdirection.

 

I don't imagine that anyone would argue against the assertion that the continued exploitation of resources and unchecked use of fossil fuels and petroleum products (along with many other insults) are seriously harmful to human health and the environment.

Whether we are facing an imminent crisis or a slow burn, if we don't alter our course we will be dooming ourselves and our descendants to an increasingly toxic environment. This means ever climbing rates of pulmonary disease, allergic illness, cancer, and so on. So whether we truly understand the current status of Earth's homeostasis or not (and I doubt we have adequate insight into this unfathomably complex situation), we are making the Earth less and less suitable for human habitation.

 

To date, most seem to think that we can mitigate the damage through technology. Perhaps we can in the future, but it's clearly not working currently. All facets of our environment are becoming increasingly toxic - atmosphere, water, food... And the critical thing to understand is that we ARE, each and every one of us, the Earth. Just because we are mobile, does not mean that we are in any way independent of the environment. We do not end at our skin, that is the illusion that allows us to continue to live in denial when it comes to exploitation and destruction of our home and our Self. Unfortunately, we cannot expect our leadership to do anything about it because they are hopelessly corrupt and controlled by the very special interests that are benefiting the most from the status quo.

 

I do think it is worth our continued efforts, however, to create change. We must live the change we hope to see. Several of us on this site are doing just that. It must start at home with each of us making environmentally conscious choices. I have no idea how to fix our leadership.... grass roots action is probably our best hope but we have a long way to go.

[Informer]

I guess I'm angry that my voice is being misrepresented by some guy who didn't ask any of us.

[doc benway]

I guess I'm angry that my voice is being misrepresented by some guy who didn't ask any of us.

You SHOULD be angry - we are being poisoned and are relatively helpless to change things....

[ralis]

Currently I am in the Mojave desert and last week was in the Sonora desert. The weather is unusually cold. Freezing my ass off at night! :lol:

[Seth Ananda]

My question is why are we allowed to defend our selves from a direct attack on our person, with deadly force if necessary, yet we are not allowed to defend ourselves against an Indirect attack?

 

Mega corporations are killing us off, threatening the very future of our species and many of the other ones we share this beautiful planet with.

 

If someone told you that they have every Intention of murdering your grandchildren, you could arrest them for that threat.

If A corporation is actually directly taking actions to kill your kids kids kids, or maybe their kids, why haven't we started tearing down their buildings and put them in chains, behind bars?

 

That would Include the sponsors of climate scepticism.

 

Criminal minds are in most of the seats of power on this planet, and Inspired by Informer, their souls are Dollar signs, wrapped in greed and profit.

 

Climate sceptisism is nothing but Big Oil funded propaganda, aimed at slowing any action we try to take to fix this planet - all so they can profit as much as possible before they get any restraints slapped on their mindless devouring of our resources.

It is a most despicable and appalling view.

It has been proved wrong over and over again by well established scientific circles.

 

But you can't really make a conservative stop talking and posting links, no matter how stupid his ideas are.

Climate scepticism will go down in history as one of the most vile Ideas the power hungry came up with.

 

It will rightly be lumped in with female circumcision, Racial Purity and superiority, Nationalism, Patriotism and torture.

 

 

As I sit here deciding whether to press the 'post' button, I think people will say that my post is an over reaction, and hot headed, but is it really?

 

These people are actually threatening our lives right now.

Imagine a man in a balaclava, is swinging a large metal wrench at your head, because he wants your stuff. How do you feel?

This is what is actually happening, but the wrench may take several generations to collide with your skull.

We better start getting mad soon, or it will be too late...