A
AndyF
Guest
That is what is left of the UK after a sea rise of 15 feet.
Andy
- Status
Andy
A
AndyF
Guest
norbert:
Ironically, the US is indirectly to blame for this accumulative phenomina, with a certain percentage going to the UK and USSR. Their 100 year industrialization, mass production of the auto for the two car family decades before third world were still in carriages.
So the “we” who have to do something about it includes the third world, when it should be “us” period. After mopping up after the next unusual storm for that area, the poor in Borneo, will never understand the indirect cause of their misfortune.
Andy
Ironically, the US is indirectly to blame for this accumulative phenomina, with a certain percentage going to the UK and USSR. Their 100 year industrialization, mass production of the auto for the two car family decades before third world were still in carriages.
So the “we” who have to do something about it includes the third world, when it should be “us” period. After mopping up after the next unusual storm for that area, the poor in Borneo, will never understand the indirect cause of their misfortune.
Andy
W
walstan
Guest
And America produces 25% of the worlds total polution. So who benefited most from an opt out I wonder?
W
walstan
Guest
If you don’t control pollution, if you don’t control greenhouse gases, if you don’t control all the rubbish we are pumping into the atmosphere, I wouldn’t worry about the economy, YOU WON’T HAVE ONE TO WORRY ABOUT!
N
Nohome
Guest
In the end, this isn’t about pollution. The root cause is excessive use of natural resources. The present economy isn’t sustainable and will collapse as demand surpasses supply. The result will be no economy AND excessive pollution.
Nohome
N
norbert
Guest
I don’t know the specifics of the Kyoto treaty, and I’m not a climatologist, but it seems awfully pessimistic to say that the earth is warming, and it might be catastrophic, but there’s probably nothing we can do about it, so we shouldn’t even try. The “probably” gets me, because maybe there is something we can do right now - even if it takes a little sacrifice - that will prevent potential disaster in the decades to come. I’m still young, and I hope to be alive in 4 or 5 decades, and I want a world that I and my kids and their kids can live in.
The impact of an ever-growing human population on the earth is enormous, and not just in the potential effects we have on climate. I think the US, as the richest and most powerful country on the planet, should lead the way in implementing environmentally responsible policies, not throw up our hands and say, “Well China isn’t doing anything so we won’t either.” We should set the example for the world.
G
geezerbob
Guest
Norbert, the US has been expending enormous sums of money and effort for the past 40 or so years in an effort to reduce or eliminate many forms of pollution, not just greenhouse gases. That we found the Kyoto agreement to be tilted in favor of certain countries and refused to participate does not mean that we are throwing up our hands and quitting. Your appraisal of the situation seems most unfair.
W
Wolseley
Guest
The problem is, greenhouse gases have been accumulating in the atmosphere for the last 18,000 years, which is a heckuva lot longer than the 250 some-odd years since the Industrial Revolution began: clearlight.com/~mhieb/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
This cycle began a long time ago, it’s not the first time it’s happened, and it won’t make the slightest bit of difference what we do.
Yes, human beings may be contributing to the problem, but even if we stopped all pollution tomorrow, it would be the equivalent of trying to bail the ocean with a teaspoon. The Earth itself is contributing to the greenhouse gas problem at a rate we can’t even compete with, as the article above demonstrates:
N
norbert
Guest
I’m not a climatologist, but most climatologists believe the global warming phenomenon is due to the activity of man. They are the people who know these things, so I will trust them. Radical organizations like the EPA - George W. Bush’s EPA, even - admit that warming is occurring due to the greenhouse effect due to man’s impact on the environment. Look at the EPA’s website.
And it may only take a fraction of a percent more CO2 in the atmosphere to tip the balance of climate into an unfavorable and potentially disastrous warming trend, so the 0.28% numbers you cite don’t necessarily mean anything.
We can cover our ears and close our eyes and shout “liberal hippie environmentalists go away” all we want, but I think the globe really is warming and we probably are responsible and a lot of people are going to be sorry in a few decades that they didn’t try to do something when they could.
R
rlg94086
Guest
As they said in 1970 regarding the coming ice age?
I listen to a climatologist, as well. He has a radio show and says the fears are a lot of bunk. Quite frankly, I’m not convinced either way and believe we should work toward cutting emissions, but not in an “oh, the sky is falling!” sort of way, putting artificial limits on some countries but not on others.
W
Wolseley
Guest
Who do you think provided the information which was used by the authors who wrote the articles in the links I provided, window washers?
What we run into here are competing schools of thought, where not even the scientists agree with each other----and whatever one’s previously-held concepts on the subject are will determine which school of thought one decides to hold as truth.
Paleoclimatoligists will tell you this same trend has happened before, over and over again, for the last 500 million years----and mankind wasn’t around burning hydrocarbons until about 1650. So there is a considerable body of evidence to indicate that CO2 buildup is a more or less naturally-occuring phenominon.
Besides, that disastrous warming trend culminates in an ice age, so everything will even out in the end.
Probably the same environmentalists would be totally shocked if all greenhouse gas emission ended today at midnight, and the planet continued to heat up anyway.
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
It’s NOT actually true that “most climatologists” believe that climate changed is due to man’s activities.
Visit this link and read:
oism.org/pproject/
More than 15,000 vetted scientists have signed a petition to the contrary, that climate change is normal and natural, and NOT man-made.
N
norbert
Guest
I might be a little dubious about the scientific credentials of a climatologist with a radio show.As they said in 1970 regarding the coming ice age?
I listen to a climatologist, as well. He has a radio show and says the fears are a lot of bunk. Quite frankly, I’m not convinced either way and believe we should work toward cutting emissions, but not in an “oh, the sky is falling!” sort of way, putting artificial limits on some countries but not on others.
N
norbert
Guest
Al Masetti:
The “15,000 vetted scientists” includes people who aren’t scientists. Look at their petition form. If you have a BS, then you are a scientist eligible to sign the internet petition, perhaps as many times as you want, too.
It is true that most actual climatologists believe this global warming stuff. When I have time, I will try to find some official proclamation of that sort for you to read.
This guy Frederick Seitz is not a climatologist, and according to what the internet says, maybe even a little bit of a kook.
The “15,000 vetted scientists” includes people who aren’t scientists. Look at their petition form. If you have a BS, then you are a scientist eligible to sign the internet petition, perhaps as many times as you want, too.
It is true that most actual climatologists believe this global warming stuff. When I have time, I will try to find some official proclamation of that sort for you to read.
N
norbert
Guest
There really are no competing schools of thought. This is the thing that some groups want people to believe - that it’s controversial whether warming is going to happen and whether humans are responsible. Those groups have done a good job of indoctrinating people (like you, Wolseley, I guess) into believing there’s a “controversy” but there’s really not one.
M
MikeWM
Guest
I guess I could have done if I were still in the USA. Assuming they count maths as a science, that is (and there lies a complicated debate that interests few people
I erroneously guessed 99% in a thread some time back. That was too many. There was much discussion. This was the thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=76985
Mike
A
Al_Masetti
Guest
There is actually a little more to it than that:
Here’s the URL, and a summary of some of the key issues:
SEPP News Release: More Than 15,000 Scientists Protest Kyoto Accord; Speak Out Against Global Warming Myth
FAIRFAX, VIRGINIA, APRIL 21, 1998—More than 15,000 scientists, [8/4/98: now about 17,000] two-thirds with advanced academic degrees, have now signed a Petition against the climate accord concluded in Kyoto (Japan) in December 1997. The Petition (see text below) urges the US government to reject the Accord, which would force drastic cuts in energy use on the United States. This is in line with the Senate Resolution, approved by a 95-to-0 vote last July, which turns down any international agreement that damages the economy of the United States while exempting most of the world’s nations, including such major emerging economic powers as China, India, and Brazil.
In signing the Petition within a period of less than six weeks, the 15,000 basic and applied scientists – an unprecedented number for this kind of document – also expressed their profound skepticism about the science underlying the Kyoto Accord. The atmospheric data simply do not support the elaborate computer-driven climate models that are being cited by the United Nations and other promoters of the Accord as “proof” of a major future warming. The covering letter enclosed with the Petition, signed by Dr. Frederick Seitz, president emeritus of Rockefeller University and a past president of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, states it well:
“The treaty is, in our opinion, based upon flawed ideas. Research data on climate change do not show that human use of hydrocarbons is harmful. To the contrary, there is good evidence that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is environmentally helpful.”
This freely expressed vote against the warming scare propaganda should be contrasted with the claimed “consensus of 2500 climate scientists” about global warming. This facile and oft-quoted assertion by the White House is a complete fabrication. The contributors and reviewers of the 1996 report by the
UN-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) actually number less than 2000, and only a small fraction – who were never polled – can claim to be climate scientists. Many of those are known to be critical of the IPCC report and have now become signers of the Petition.
“The ‘silent majority’ of the scientific community has at last spoken out against the hype emanating from politicians and much of the media about a ‘warming catastrophe.’ The Petition reflects the frustration and disgust felt by working scientists, few of whom have been previously involved in the ongoing climate debate, about the misuse of science to promote a political agenda,” said Dr. Seitz.
."
The Petition drive was organized by Dr. Arthur Robinson, director of the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine (Cave Junction, OR) and a vocal critic of the shaky science used to support the Kyoto Accord. It was staffed by volunteers and supported entirely by private donations, with no contributions from industry. The Petition mailing included a scientific summary, an editorial essay by Arthur and Zachary Robinson published in the Wall Street Journal (Dec. 4, 1997), and the covering letter by Dr. Seitz, holder of the National Medal of Science and board chairman of the George C. Marshall Institute (Washington, DC) and also of the Science & Environmental Policy Project (Fairfax, VA).
It was Dr. Seitz’ essay in the Wall Street Journal (A Major Deception on “Global Warming”, June 12, 1996), which first drew public attention to the textual “cleansing” of the UN scientific report that forms the basis for the Kyoto Accord. For details on the unannounced text changes and how they affected the sense of the IPCC report, consult .
The full text of the Petition follows.
The current list of signers, which is still growing rapidly, is available on (www.sepp.org) or on (zwr.oism.org/pproject).
Z
Zerith
Guest
Yes, I agree.
As I said before, does it matter if Global Warming might not be correct? Are there those here who are so stuck up, worried about the damage to “Industry”, and less about the world that God has created for us? His world, that we should respect and take care of, not rape the natural resources until the earth becomes barran and uninhabitable.
I’d love to see anti-Kyoto Agreement people before God: “And when people became concerned for the home I built for you, over developments at that time, why did you seek to ignore and disprove in the name of saving your precious “Industry”?” or the exact same, except add on the end: “Resulting in the degredation of the worlds climate, dooming millions, and making life harsh for the years to come”.
What I dislike about America, are you either belong to one of three groups:
Democrat - Pro homosexual, anti-religion and atheist etc…
Republican - Pro Christian, pro-war, pro-weaponry, apathetic to the environment
Or completely apathetic to everything.
And there are those here who’d forget it’s God’s creation we’re living upon, that the business should be protected, not the environment - And how, if you vote a “Pro-Christian” party, is that Christian? Whether you like it or not, protecting the economy, from rumour or fact, is our responsibility as Catholics.
R
rlg94086
Guest
Why is that? Climatologists are not allowed to have a personality or any other interests? His radio show is a typical political talk show, he just happens to have a scientific background.
R
rlg94086
Guest
I guess I could have done if I were still in the USA. Assuming they count maths as a science, that is (and there lies a complicated debate that interests few people
I erroneously guessed 99% in a thread some time back. That was too many. There was much discussion. This was the thread
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=76985
An oldie, but a goodie…We do occasionally go around in circles on this forum, don’t we? Makes me a little dizzy at times:whacky:
Mike
- Status