Poke fun all you want but the evidence is very clear that rate of planetary warming since the late 19th century is absolutely unprecedented. That this warming corresponds with the Industrial Revolution cannot be purely coincidental. What effect will this warming have on the human population... Well, time will tell, won't it?

Posted by E. Nonee Moose at March 20, 2006 12:14 PM

Moose, I'm not denying man's influence on the climate. But, time will tell, and we have a lot of time to study this.

If we started implementing the Kyoto accord today, what affects would we notice in a decade? Nothing measurable. What costs would there be and would they be justified? High costs not justified from what I've seen. I'm for real science on this--not assumptions based on anecdotal evidence over a short-term period that will cost jobs and lower our living standards.

Let's not go off half-cocked until we have acceptable climate models. There is time to do this right.

Posted by Woody at March 20, 2006 12:32 PM

There is time to do this right.

Actually, probably not. Some scientists believe we've already reached the tipping point where even if we eliminated ALL greenhouse gas emissions, it would not halt the warming process that has already started. It might slow it down some... but that would be all. Still, that might be a worthwhile goal.

Posted by E. Nonee Moose at March 20, 2006 01:04 PM

Moose, all this is based on the wild assumption that we CAN stop or even slow down the warming trend. If natural phenomena are causing global warming at a faster or more powerful rate than human causes and the "tipping point" has already been reached, then it's futile. Solar output has increased! Let's ban the sun! But really - look at what they propose will be the outcome if all countries cut down right now - today. They expect that we can reduce temperatures by a fraction of a degree in 100 years. That's IF the causes are strictly human in nature. Notice how they excluded the two fastest growing nations on the planet, China and India, from the treaty. Notice how the self-loathing Europeans jumped right on board. Self-loathing is thankfully not an American value - yet. Notice how not a single one of them has met any of the requirements. It's all a bunch of people stroking their egos with self-congratulatory bull____.

You can't say the warming trend is "unprecedented without have data collected from thousands, if not millions, of years. There are many scientists that assert that the planet has gone through much warmer and much colder periods naturally.

In this I'm not disputing that temperatures are warming. I'm not disputing that we could be more responsible. What I AM disputing is the manner in which they hope to achieve unrealistic goals. The Kyoto Treaty, if adhered to, will cripple the economies of those countries, which are essential in keeping weaker economies from collapsing or providing better standards of living for their citizens. Most notably, Africa. No one is berating the European nations which have not met stated goals, but I guarantee that had the US signed on, we'd still be the target of just as much scorn as we recieve by not signing it.

Look at how people openly applauded (and still do) the ban on DDT. "We've saved species from extinction!" As it turns out they traded human life for another species. Even the bald eagle has barely recovered from being endangered. There were a number of measures taken to protect them and the ban on DDT was only one. Who's to say which measure has yeilded any resuts in saving them at all? Yet, the ban threatens the extinction of whole populations of people still. Many millions have died as a result from malaria. But scientists and activists are too busy patting themselves on the back to see what damage they have wrought. Much of the fear was based on junk science and politics and outright intimidation.

Now their latest is "global warming".

Frankly, it may not matter once the "global caliphate" is installed. Global warming will be the least of our worries.

Posted by Oyster at March 20, 2006 03:15 PM

Wow, Oyster. Well said. I think that one reason the left has grabbed onto this issue is that it will take thousands of years to prove them wrong versus the two or three that it normally takes.

Posted by Woody at March 20, 2006 03:33 PM

Here is a site with pros and cons of the global warming debate:

Was U.S. wise to reject Kyoto treaty on climate change?
http://www.ncpa.org/sid/2005/20050501.htm

Posted by Woody at March 20, 2006 05:39 PM

The evidence that man is responsible for the undeniable warming is thin. The paleoclimatic record is also very questionable before about 1850. The statement that the warming rate is unprecedented is utterly without evidence. Man-caused global warming is much harder to prove that the general trend that the earth is warming.

So lets talk about the Kyoto treaty as if it means something.

First, if one takes the (highly suspect) global circulation models used by the IPCC (UN organization of climate change), they show that full compliance with Kyoto for 100 years would only slow the warming by 6 years, and the change in temperature would be undetectable. Furthermore Kyoto didn't bind India or China, the most populous countries on earth, which happen to be enjoying an economic boom leading to heavy use of fossil fuels.

In other words, Kyoto is a fraud. The purpose of Kyoto was two-fold: (1) damage US competitiveness against Europe, and (2) set up a framework in which much more drastic measures could be taken.

Those latter measures would, at a minimum, cause major world-wide economic depression.

................

Furthermore, for any climate change treaty to work, the countries of the world have to adhere to it. And yet even the European countries that have been pushing it are already failing to meet their Kyoto obligations. There is no way they could meet obligations that would actually make a difference (again, if you believe the models).

So let's do a though experiment. Assume it is 1906 and we have such a global problem. The major countries of Europe (who controlled most of the rest of the world) decide to do something about it - a la Kyoto++ ). They don't realize that in a few years the first world war will break out, colonialism will fall apart, and quantum theory will be developed. They don't realize that automobiles will ciompletely replace horses. They don't know about the atomic bomb, nuclear power, the rise and fall of imperialistic Communism, the development of the computer, and many other things.

In other words, it is hubristic to propose a treaty that requires the whole world to follow it for 100 years, when we have no idea what is going to happen in that century.

..................

Now back to the "science." The hypothesis that man is causing global warming rests on two grounds: the known behavior of CO2 as a "greenhouse gas;" and, global circulation models.

CO2 traps heat. We have significantly increased its concentration in the atmosphere. But it is still only about 360 parts per MILLION. It is a trace gas, in other words. Water vapor, a much more potent greenhouse gas, is in much higher abundance.

But simple physical calculations show that increased CO2 will cause warming even at the tiny levels we see.

However, this fails to take into account feedback. Increased carbon dioxide causes increased plant growth. Those plants sequester the CO2. Furthermore, the earth has many, many complex feedback loops, which are very poorly understood.

None the less, scientists are making predictions with models which "parameterize" much of this and ignore a bunch of other factors. Parameterization means putting in fudge factors because of either lack of data or inadequate spacial and temporal resolution in the models. Naturally, these fudge factors get twiddled to try to forecast the past, and when a set is found that works, it is used.

But we don't really know the climate history of the earth beyond the last 150 years. The rest is derived from indirect markers such as tree rings, isotopic ratios and other means. But these markers usually reflect the influence of a number of factors - pulling temperature out of this is controversial and often wrong. So much for model calibration!

Although one would think, from reading the press, that all scientists but a few wackos agree with the alarming predictions, this really isn't true. I personally know several climatologists who argue that the models and paleoclimatic data are so bad that the predictions are just plain worthless. The summaries of the IPCC reports are not written by the scientists who do the research - they use much less certainty - writing in language full of conditioinals. But guess what part of the report gets all the press. Yep - the summary.

.......................

I do want to correct one poster. Using "green" fuels, if they have a postiive net energy balance, will in fact reduce carbon dioxide emissions.

Posted by John Moore at March 20, 2006 06:10 PM

Excellent, John.

Posted by Oyster at March 21, 2006 02:52 PM

Latest theory from Russia is that warming is due to the meteor that hit the earth in 1908. The data looks like a good fit. Shows how water vapor is the most impactful of the green house gases

Another recent set of papers argues that the global models fail to explain temp changes at different altitudes. Again we see that satalite temps are trending lower actually are more accurate.

Yet another recent study challenges consistent earth temp increases when looking at geography. We have both heating and cooling.

The FACTS are not clear on whatis happening. Fanatics like to insist we know we have a problem. The facts are not so clear

Posted by bernie at March 28, 2006 09:41 PM