Ding, Dong, the Koyoto Treaty is Dead - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Ustwo · 12-03-2003, 09:50 AM

Quote:

MOSCOW – A senior adviser to President Vladimir Putin said Tuesday that Russia could not ratify the Kyoto Protocol limiting emissions of greenhouse gases, dealing a mortal blow to the pact that required Russia's ratification to take effect.
"In its current form, the Kyoto Protocol places significant limitations on the economic growth of Russia," Putin's economic adviser, Andrei Illarionov, told reporters in the Kremlin. "Of course, in this current form this protocol can't be ratified."

This got surprisingly little play in the press, and I'm sure Bush is blamed for it, but after all the flap Bush got for not embracing the Kyoto treaty I thought the final nail in the Kyoto coffin would have made a bigger splash. Good riddance.

Macheath · 12-03-2003, 10:06 AM

This was not the final nail. The United States, as the world's most powerful nation, had an opportunity to show leadership on this issue. America's unwillingness to do this was the true final nail; Russia's decision to not ratify the treaty was merely a epilogue.

Phaenx · 12-03-2003, 10:14 AM

Take that, hippies! Hahaha!

Ustwo · 12-03-2003, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Macheath
This was not the final nail. The United States, as the world's most powerful nation, had an opportunity to show leadership on this issue. America's unwillingness to do this was the true final nail; Russia's decision to not ratify the treaty was merely a epilogue.

If by leadership you ment economic suicide based on poor science, then yes I would agree with you.

Superbelt · 12-03-2003, 10:23 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3288683.stm

Quote:

Russia says it has not yet reached a decision on whether to ratify the Kyoto Protocol, the global climate treaty.
It has effectively disowned an official who said on Tuesday that Russia would not ratify, and it is still in the process of coming to a decision.

The official, Andrei Illarionov, said Russia would not back Kyoto in its present form, citing economic reasons.

The treaty cannot acquire the force of international law unless Russia, one of the world's big polluters, ratifies it.

Mr Illarionov, President Putin's chief adviser on economic issues, said in Moscow: "Of course, in its present form, this protocol cannot be ratified. It is impossible to undertake responsibilities that place serious limits on the country's growth."

But Russia's deputy economy minister, Mukhamed Tsikhanov, said the country was moving towards the treaty.

He said: "There are no decisions about ratification apart from the fact that we are moving towards ratification.

Take that, Slash and Burners! hahaha!

geep · 12-03-2003, 10:28 AM

Solemnly, I will burn a stack of styrofoam cups in tribute.

Ustwo · 12-03-2003, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
Solemnly, I will burn a stack of styrofoam cups in tribute.

Ok that really made me laugh

Superbelt · 12-03-2003, 10:38 AM

Are you burning them in rememberance of Illarionov's discreditment?

Superbelt · 12-03-2003, 10:41 AM

Ooh, by the way Ustwo, where did you find that bit of outdated news?

Macheath · 12-03-2003, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ustwo
If by leadership you ment economic suicide based on poor science, then yes I would agree with you.

Poor science? What, like Dr Rush Limbaugh's assertion that soluble chlorine from volcanoes that gets rained out in the lower atmosphere somehow does more environmental damage than insoluble CFCs in the upper atmosphere. What a pack of lies. Just keep laughing and burning styrofoam cups and pretend that nothing is happening.
Because when nothing is happening, there's no need to refine, revise or rework a supposedly "suicidal" environmental treaty. Just. Do. Nothing.

Superbelt · 12-03-2003, 10:48 AM

Wow, THIS guy is a senior advisor to Putin?

Quote:

Illarionov said that the United States and Australia opted out of the protocol after deciding that compliance would be too expensive, and that it would be even less affordable for Russia, which has a much smaller economy.

He elaborated on Putin's statement Monday that Russia could benefit from global warming, saying that warmer temperatures would help increase harvests, cut energy consumption and open ice-encrusted seas to navigation.

There will be no real benefit from Global Warming. There is not an even warming worldwide in global warming. Certain systems get affected by a general warming in different ways.

For instance, global warming will force the Gulf stream to flow south, most likely hitting the mediterranean sea. The only reason England is as warm as it is, is because of the gulf streams heat transfers. Without it it will be much more like the north coast of Alaska, which is its longitudinal cousin. And that isn't conducive to economic growth.

There would be positive benefits, and there would be negatives.
This guy has no grasp on what the true effects to his region will really be. But be assured, they will by no means be a general warming over all of Russia.

Ustwo · 12-03-2003, 11:03 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Macheath
Poor science? What, like Dr Rush Limbaugh's assertion that soluble chlorine from volcanoes that gets rained out in the lower atmosphere somehow does more environmental damage than insoluble CFCs in the upper atmosphere. What a pack of lies. Just keep laughing and burning styrofoam cups and pretend that nothing is happening.
Because when nothing is happening, there's no need to refine, revise or rework a supposedly "suicidal" environmental treaty. Just. Do. Nothing.

My first degree is in Ethology, Ecology, and Evolution. Its a classic tree hugger degree. I've debated global warming with non-scientist global warming fear mongers for years and years. The result in the end is always 'well since we don't KNOW, it couldn't HURT to reduce CO2'. Hurting the economy of the world is not something that matters to them. I can't say I'm in the mood to get into it again. I could talk about how NO global warming climate models agree or can even 'predict' the past known temperatures and that we are still recovering from a 'cool' period. I could talk about the natural fluctuation of the earth temperatures. I could talk about conflicting data. I could talk about the political and social motivation behind the global warming crowd. I could go on and on but like a lab rat repeatedly completing an electric circuit, I eventually stop repeating the same motions. Perhaps if I had the foresight I would have saved all my past postings on global warming and could just cut and paste, but I didn't and they are lost to time.

Superbelt · 12-03-2003, 11:37 AM

Well even though.... I will have a go.

Global warming models do agree. It is the regional models that have wide discrepancies.
Just like you can more accurately predict the result of 100 pennies landing face up as opposed to one penny. So to can you more accurately predict the sum of all atmospheric factors as opposed to what only a few environmental factors produce.

We are "recovering" from a cooling period. Fluctiations in earths orbit around the sun are on a 100,000 year cycle. The cycle we started on 6000 years ago tells us we should be cooling off, because we are getting farther and farther away from the sun as this part of the cycle progresses. And we were cooling off, up until the industrial revolution.

Natural fluctuations are static at 100,000 years long, proving that model is correct.

Finally physics proves global warming to be correct.

Carbon in the carbon dioxide and methane have a very specific heat capacity. Carbon is the reason life is on this planet. Without the warming effect of carbon in our atmosphere this planet would be a steady 32 degrees farenheit. Too cold for anything. We know from measurements that we have increased the atmospheres carbon content by 30% in the last 300 years. And this increase can be directly traced back to human sources. Basic physics and chemistry just shout it out to you that the carbon we are putting into the atmosphere is warming the planet.

Phaenx · 12-03-2003, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by geep
Solemnly, I will burn a stack of styrofoam cups in tribute.

Do it in front of the greenpeace headquarters. Whoevers garage that's located in.

rgr22j · 12-03-2003, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Superbelt
Ooh, by the way Ustwo, where did you find that bit of outdated news?

I found a similiar article on the front page of the New York Times, dated December 03.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/03/in...pe/03KYOT.html

It looks like the recent development is only hours old (only a handful of articles at the Google News search). I imagine we'll see a corrected article tomorrow.

-- Alvin

james t kirk · 12-03-2003, 02:51 PM

Personally, I am not a big believer in the Greenhouse effect.

But i figure that any law that helps to control pollution is a good thing, and therefore, i was and am for the Kyoto accord.

There's enough pollution in this world already, we don't need more. And I never for a moment bought this impact on our economy BS either.

Just make our world a cleaner place and stop dumping tons of crap into the rivers and lakes.

Enough is enough already.

They should build a paper plant in Crawford Texas without pollution controls and see how shrub likes it then.

Superbelt · 12-03-2003, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Phaenx
Do it in front of the greenpeace headquarters. Whoevers garage that's located in.

Why do you hate geep? You trying to get him killed?

Phaenx · 12-03-2003, 06:32 PM

He won't die.

Not if he uses the force.

Ustwo · 12-03-2003, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by james t kirk
Personally, I am not a big believer in the Greenhouse effect.

But i figure that any law that helps to control pollution is a good thing, and therefore, i was and am for the Kyoto accord.

Horrible, horrible, logic. I'm all for lowering pollution, BUT the most 'pollution free' ICE' produces what? CO2 and H2O.

If you don't think of CO2 as a pollutant, then you shouldn't be for Kyoto.

m0ntyblack · 12-04-2003, 09:17 PM

Quote:

He elaborated on Putin's statement Monday that Russia could benefit from global warming, saying that warmer temperatures would help increase harvests, cut energy consumption and open ice-encrusted seas to navigation.

ROFLMAO. Hahahahahaha..... Well...that takes the cake for the funniest thing I've read today! The thing that I'm trying to figure out is: Is he saying this tonge-in-cheek as a way of stating that he doesn't believe in global warming, or is he actually serious? And if he's actually serious, he's gonna get along GREAT with Bush...that "whatever works for us and bugger the rest of the world" ideology is sure catching on fast!

MB

Superbelt · 12-04-2003, 09:39 PM

Actually, I did some research and found that there will be severe negative affects on Russia because of global warming.

Most of Russias oil fields are on tundra, like the ones they have in Siberia. When the tundra melts it will wash away all the oil rigs which were built for dry, solid land.

That will be a huge financial burden for Russia who will then have to eat that cost plus build new, more expensive rigs suitable for extracting oil in a marsh.

Ustwo · 12-05-2003, 07:05 AM

Survey says NYET.......

Quote:

President stands firm on Kyoto: he will not ratify the present protocol

Nick Paton Walsh in Moscow
Friday December 5, 2003
The Guardian

After days of conflicting statements from ministers, Russia made clear yesterday that it was not prepared to ratify the Kyoto protocol in its present form.
A presidential spokesman told the Guardian that Moscow could not sign the 1997 international protocol to combat global warming "in its current state because it prescribes limitations for Russia that will create the most serious obstacles for economic growth and contradict its national interests".

The spokesman added that Moscow did not reject the treaty - which needs Russian consent to come into force worldwide - but wanted continued dialogue, and "expects that some of the demands made on Russia would be changed".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...100270,00.html

Its from the left wing uk Guardian, news a liberal can trust.

Superbelt · 12-05-2003, 09:13 AM

Again that is Illarionov talking.

It seems, and several news stories I have seen and heard offer this up, that Russia is playing the fence right now.

This is the single most powerful position they have had in the decision of a worldwide policy they have had in a long time. And they are trying to get some favors out of it. So, by playing both sides of the fence they are hoping that several European nations and Japan would give them some economic incentives to ratify the treaty.

Also they don't want to piss off the Bush admin by ratifying it. So they may want to hold off on making a decision until later in 2004 when a clear picture of which way our leadership will be going before they make their decision.

I think that is very likely what is happening with two government factions apparently warring over this issue.

ARTelevision · 12-06-2003, 06:19 PM

I do believe Ustwo's reporting of the science is the most verifiable version of how these things are to be interpreted given the best currently available research. Kyoto is/was an attempt to politicalize and place undue pressure the scientific process.

Superbelt · 09-30-2004, 06:32 AM

Ding, Dong, The Kyoto Treaty is now fully awake and active

Russian Cabinet Approves Kyoto Protocol
Head of Russian Bureau of Meterology Supports Kyoto

Putin has officially signed on to Kyoto!! Now, onto the Duma. As his puppet it will pass the treaty as well.

Now, the countries responsible for production and emmission of 61% of greenhouse gasses have signed on.
This allows the Kyoto treaty to actually be implemented, despite the US refusal to join. America forces itself out of a worldwide coalition.
The Kyoto Protocol is by no means perfect. But it is a good first step towards a true planetary effort to stop global warming. Hopefully after America drags itself into this we can work to revise it to make it an effective treaty with teeth.

All we need is for the US to elect Kerry, who will actually approve the treaty so he can send it to the Legislature. I am not sure how our legislature will vote actually, we will have to see after the election.

cthulu23 · 09-30-2004, 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ARTelevision

I do believe Ustwo's reporting of the science is the most verifiable version of how these things are to be interpreted given the best currently available research. Kyoto is/was an attempt to politicalize and place undue pressure the scientific process.

If this is so then why do the vast majority of scientists agree that the phenomenon is real? I heard Fred Singer, the major climate change denier out there, speak in the Hague at the 6th UNFCC conference and he stated that even though increases of carbon dioxide SHOULD increase temperatures globally, it just isn't. He couldn't explain why this was but he had a few graphs that supposedly illustrated that the laws of physics don't apply in this case.

If anything, it's opponents of limiting CO2 emissions that are politicizing the climate change issue.

The_Dunedan · 09-30-2004, 06:51 AM

The problem is this: Most "scientists" believe it's real. Most Climatologists, however, do not. IOW, a Geologist's opinion doesn't mean squat. There was a protocol recently signed in Geneva ( I think it was ) by over 100 of the worlds' leading Climatologists in which they denounced the currently-held theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, basing their assertions upon the Vostok Ice Cores from Antarctica, which showed ( among other things ) that we are still -below- the 100,000-year average temperature. Technically speaking, we've just barely gotten out of the Little Ice Age, and are approaching the beginning of the Medieval Warming Period ( termp-wise, that is ).
These things are happening slightly ahead of schedual. However, they're hardly the end of the world. Among other things, the Medieval Warming Period allowed for a longer growing season, milder weather, and the population increase that spurred exploration into the New World. Now, that same population increase also allowed for the Black Death: however, this was due to unsanitary living conditions and a lack of understanding about how the disease spread, both of which are much more controllable today.

Superbelt · 09-30-2004, 06:58 AM

It's all about physics, like I said at the beginning of this thread.

The Carbon in carbon dioxide and methane have a very specific heat capacity. Carbon is the reason life is on this planet. Without the warming effect of carbon in our atmosphere this planet would be a steady 32 degrees farenheit. Too cold for anything. We know from various measurements that we have increased the atmospheres carbon content by 30% in the last 300 years. And this increase can be directly traced back to human sources. Basic physics and chemistry just shout it out to you that the carbon we are putting into the atmosphere is warming the planet.

Simply Physics says that:
Carbon holds a specific measure of heat. Carbon has increased dramatically in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, The temperature of the earth has gone up, in the past 300 years, at a rate that is in agreement with the increased level of carbon in our atmosphere.

If there is no anti-global warming answer to that, you have no argument.

Ustwo · 09-30-2004, 07:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

It's all about physics, like I said at the beginning of this thread.

The Carbon in carbon dioxide and methane have a very specific heat capacity. Carbon is the reason life is on this planet. Without the warming effect of carbon in our atmosphere this planet would be a steady 32 degrees farenheit. Too cold for anything. We know from various measurements that we have increased the atmospheres carbon content by 30% in the last 300 years. And this increase can be directly traced back to human sources. Basic physics and chemistry just shout it out to you that the carbon we are putting into the atmosphere is warming the planet.

Simply Physics says that:
Carbon holds a specific measure of heat. Carbon has increased dramatically in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, The temperature of the earth has gone up, in the past 300 years, at a rate that is in agreement with the increased level of carbon in our atmosphere.

If there is no anti-global warming answer to that, you have no argument.

Superbelt before you get all scientific why don't you dig up that old global warming thread we had?

edwhit · 09-30-2004, 07:07 AM

I heard a brief mention on the radio late one night that our sun is actually heating up. That is, a few degrees over the last hundred years. The opinion of the man speaking was that this is having more of an impact on global warming then the media likes to address.

He then started mentioning his theories as to why it is a big cover up (big money programs spent on anti pollution and ozone layer protection programs etc.)

Has anyone heard much on this? I'm not trying to assert that we ignore pollution levels or what have you, but it would seem to my laymen's mind that a warmer sun would make a warmer earth.

Ustwo · 09-30-2004, 07:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwhit

I heard a brief mention on the radio late one night that our sun is actually heating up. That is, a few degrees over the last hundred years. The opinion of the man speaking was that this is having more of an impact on global warming then the media likes to address.

He then started mentioning his theories as to why it is a big cover up (big money programs spent on anti pollution and ozone layer protection programs etc.)

Has anyone heard much on this? I'm not trying to assert that we ignore pollution levels or what have you, but it would seem to my laymen's mind that a warmer sun would make a warmer earth.

Yes, yes I have.

Climate change is happening, it happens all the time, it continues. The earths climate is not static. I'll see if I can dig up the old thread. I've had this debate MANY times over the years and one of these days I'll remember to just save it to my HD so I can repost without starting from scratch

Superbelt · 09-30-2004, 07:13 AM

Why?
Because of that one instance where I couldn't provide you with a source.
I found where I got that information from.
I took a Graduate class called "Problems of the Atmosphere" (The class included us having to take part in a professionally run/scored public debate) right before we got into that thread. That particular piece of information came from a panel discussion on Global Warming. There were two for and two against (Actually included Fred Singer) One of the "For" made that point that I posted on in the thread. The against side never challenged that point. I wrote the information in my notebook but do not have the name of the debate or know where to find it.
I willingly concede that point since I have no source to give you. I suggest though that if you will continue to criticise me for not providing that source whenever the Global Warming issue comes up, that perhaps you should be more diligent in providing the proper attribution to your own information from here on out.

Superbelt · 09-30-2004, 07:21 AM

edwhit, where did you get that information?

[note, this is all copied info that i had previously posed in one of the other golbal warming threads here.]
The suns radiation has been dimmer in the past couple hundred years.
This is because we are getting farther from the sun.
Earth trends show us we are entering a glacial period.

This planets orbit around the sun oscillates from a round orbit to an ellyptical one.
6000 years ago the planets orbit peaked in it's circular and began its transition to its ellyptical.

Why this is important is that the round orbit gives a more regular warming which allows the earth to generally warm up. The ellyptical one is uneven and produces a general cooling.

We know this cycle has persisted for at least 700,000 years from measurements we made through ice core and sea bed samples.

The science is that the ellyptical orbit we are presently getting further and further into affords us less and less insolation. This is the reason for the back and forth of the planets glacial cycles.

This is all irrefutable, observable evidence and along with the physics of carbon (it's heat absorbing properties) blows to shit any argument that says global warming RIGHT NOW is a natural process.

edwhit · 09-30-2004, 08:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

edwhit, where did you get that information?

Quote:

Originally Posted by edwhit

I heard a brief mention on the radio late one night

I was making a quick 15 minute trip and caught about 10 mins of it (commercials are so annoying). I don't recall the name of guest. Not sure I even heard it. But I thought it was an interesting point.

Not knowing the source or having a way of proving the point I decided to ask here in the off chance someone had heard of it and had more info.

Superbelt · 09-30-2004, 08:06 AM

I was kind of angling for what kind of show it was. Anyway. Your opinion of what I posted in response to that?

edwhit · 09-30-2004, 08:34 AM

I don't recall what show I was listening too. I'm guessing it was Coast to Coast. A show I don't tend to walk away from having changed my mind about most things. But a nice conversation starter. The subject that time did peak my interest enough that when I read this thread I remembered is all.

Right now my overall opinion on this issue is that pollution needs to be controlled but that there often tends to be a little over-hype from the green community pushing their agenda. (Funny example was the lady accusing Americans of killing babies by driving SUV's and supporting terrorism as she flew on a private plane from speaking location to location lol. My point? They can be full of shit)

As to the debate that you and Ustwo have been having for awhile now, I am still listening. I don't have any kind of background in this field and have never really studied it to much degree at all.

I see your point about the "zen" (as ustwo put it I believe) of having too much c02 causing warming. I also (as stated recently in another thread) tend to take any info I hear with a grain of salt. While you may be able to list 1000 sources that believe exactly the same way that doesn't change the fact that they can have agendas or be over looking something relevant that could prove them false.

What you posted above sounds very credible to me. However that last part...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Superbelt

This is all irrefutable, observable evidence and along with the physics of carbon (it's heat absorbing properties) blows to shit any argument that says global warming RIGHT NOW is a natural process.

I consider your opinion based on the data you've seen. While it is a valid opinion at the very least I'm not going to take it for fact just yet. You know, the whole grain of salt thing... Cause you know. Just because A=B and B=C A doesn't always =C.

Superbelt · 09-30-2004, 08:46 AM

I should have put the word "wholly" in between global warming RIGHTNOW is a _____ natural process.
using Absolutes are never good discussional tactics.

scout · 09-30-2004, 11:09 AM

Ok, everyone stop driving. No more carbonated drinks. Everyone with air conditioners needs to contact their local hvac/r contractors and have them removed ASAP. Winter is coming so if your furnace burns natural or propane gas you will need to shut it off. Can't burn wood either because this means less trees to absorb that awful CO2 and it also produces carbon.
In all seriousness, this argument could go on forever and never be resolved.

Superbelt · 09-30-2004, 03:39 PM

Good job having absolutely no grasp on the issue whatsoever.
Building a stawman is a sight to behold.

smooth · 09-30-2004, 10:13 PM

I just finished watching a PBS special the other day where an experiment has been running for some time now (and is still currently going on) in the Colorado mountains.

The team is sectioning off hectares and submitting them to various green-house conditions that are supposed to mimic the conditions people are arguing over in this thread.

The team sectioned off other hectares for its control group.

The conclusions were alarming to them: not only are the green-house hectares demonstrating severe repurcussions (the point was made the new vegetation was no longer the lush flowers of the colorado mountains, but more like the barren, weed whipped deserts of california), the control hectares had actually degraded faster than they were supposed to during the experiment.

That is, I don't know if people are confused, or myself, but global warming is occurring at a known rate. My understanding is that knowledgable people are disputing how it is occurring, not whether it is. But this team was extremely concerned because their plots were degrading even faster than they were expected to--global warming sped up during the experiment, was his point.

That was on PBS like maybe a couple weeks ago. It should be around on their website for more information.

12-03-2003, 10:14 AM	#3 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	Take that, hippies! Hahaha! __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

12-03-2003, 06:32 PM	#18 (permalink)
Phaenx The Northern Ward Location: Columbus, Ohio	He won't die. Not if he uses the force. __________________ "I went shopping last night at like 1am. The place was empty and this old woman just making polite conversation said to me, 'where is everyone??' I replied, 'In bed, same place you and I should be!' Took me ten minutes to figure out why she gave me a dirty look." --Some guy

12-06-2003, 06:19 PM	#24 (permalink)
ARTelevision I change Location: USA	I do believe Ustwo's reporting of the science is the most verifiable version of how these things are to be interpreted given the best currently available research. Kyoto is/was an attempt to politicalize and place undue pressure the scientific process. __________________ create evolution

09-30-2004, 10:13 PM	#40 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	I just finished watching a PBS special the other day where an experiment has been running for some time now (and is still currently going on) in the Colorado mountains. The team is sectioning off hectares and submitting them to various green-house conditions that are supposed to mimic the conditions people are arguing over in this thread. The team sectioned off other hectares for its control group. The conclusions were alarming to them: not only are the green-house hectares demonstrating severe repurcussions (the point was made the new vegetation was no longer the lush flowers of the colorado mountains, but more like the barren, weed whipped deserts of california), the control hectares had actually degraded faster than they were supposed to during the experiment. That is, I don't know if people are confused, or myself, but global warming is occurring at a known rate. My understanding is that knowledgable people are disputing how it is occurring, not whether it is. But this team was extremely concerned because their plots were degrading even faster than they were expected to--global warming sped up during the experiment, was his point. That was on PBS like maybe a couple weeks ago. It should be around on their website for more information. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

12-03-2003, 10:06 AM	#2 (permalink)
Macheath Junkie Location: Sydney, Australia	This was not the final nail. The United States, as the world's most powerful nation, had an opportunity to show leadership on this issue. America's unwillingness to do this was the true final nail; Russia's decision to not ratify the treaty was merely a epilogue.

12-03-2003, 10:28 AM	#6 (permalink)
geep Insane Location: Imprisoned in Ecotopia	Solemnly, I will burn a stack of styrofoam cups in tribute.

12-03-2003, 10:38 AM	#8 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Are you burning them in rememberance of Illarionov's discreditment?

12-03-2003, 10:41 AM	#9 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Ooh, by the way Ustwo, where did you find that bit of outdated news?

12-03-2003, 11:37 AM	#13 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Well even though.... I will have a go. Global warming models do agree. It is the regional models that have wide discrepancies. Just like you can more accurately predict the result of 100 pennies landing face up as opposed to one penny. So to can you more accurately predict the sum of all atmospheric factors as opposed to what only a few environmental factors produce. We are "recovering" from a cooling period. Fluctiations in earths orbit around the sun are on a 100,000 year cycle. The cycle we started on 6000 years ago tells us we should be cooling off, because we are getting farther and farther away from the sun as this part of the cycle progresses. And we were cooling off, up until the industrial revolution. Natural fluctuations are static at 100,000 years long, proving that model is correct. Finally physics proves global warming to be correct. Carbon in the carbon dioxide and methane have a very specific heat capacity. Carbon is the reason life is on this planet. Without the warming effect of carbon in our atmosphere this planet would be a steady 32 degrees farenheit. Too cold for anything. We know from measurements that we have increased the atmospheres carbon content by 30% in the last 300 years. And this increase can be directly traced back to human sources. Basic physics and chemistry just shout it out to you that the carbon we are putting into the atmosphere is warming the planet.

12-03-2003, 02:51 PM	#16 (permalink)
james t kirk Junkie Location: Toronto	Personally, I am not a big believer in the Greenhouse effect. But i figure that any law that helps to control pollution is a good thing, and therefore, i was and am for the Kyoto accord. There's enough pollution in this world already, we don't need more. And I never for a moment bought this impact on our economy BS either. Just make our world a cleaner place and stop dumping tons of crap into the rivers and lakes. Enough is enough already. They should build a paper plant in Crawford Texas without pollution controls and see how shrub likes it then.

12-04-2003, 09:39 PM	#21 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Actually, I did some research and found that there will be severe negative affects on Russia because of global warming. Most of Russias oil fields are on tundra, like the ones they have in Siberia. When the tundra melts it will wash away all the oil rigs which were built for dry, solid land. That will be a huge financial burden for Russia who will then have to eat that cost plus build new, more expensive rigs suitable for extracting oil in a marsh.

12-05-2003, 09:13 AM	#23 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Again that is Illarionov talking. It seems, and several news stories I have seen and heard offer this up, that Russia is playing the fence right now. This is the single most powerful position they have had in the decision of a worldwide policy they have had in a long time. And they are trying to get some favors out of it. So, by playing both sides of the fence they are hoping that several European nations and Japan would give them some economic incentives to ratify the treaty. Also they don't want to piss off the Bush admin by ratifying it. So they may want to hold off on making a decision until later in 2004 when a clear picture of which way our leadership will be going before they make their decision. I think that is very likely what is happening with two government factions apparently warring over this issue.

09-30-2004, 06:32 AM	#25 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Ding, Dong, The Kyoto Treaty is now fully awake and active Russian Cabinet Approves Kyoto Protocol Head of Russian Bureau of Meterology Supports Kyoto Putin has officially signed on to Kyoto!! Now, onto the Duma. As his puppet it will pass the treaty as well. Now, the countries responsible for production and emmission of 61% of greenhouse gasses have signed on. This allows the Kyoto treaty to actually be implemented, despite the US refusal to join. America forces itself out of a worldwide coalition. The Kyoto Protocol is by no means perfect. But it is a good first step towards a true planetary effort to stop global warming. Hopefully after America drags itself into this we can work to revise it to make it an effective treaty with teeth. All we need is for the US to elect Kerry, who will actually approve the treaty so he can send it to the Legislature. I am not sure how our legislature will vote actually, we will have to see after the election.

09-30-2004, 06:51 AM	#27 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	The problem is this: Most "scientists" believe it's real. Most Climatologists, however, do not. IOW, a Geologist's opinion doesn't mean squat. There was a protocol recently signed in Geneva ( I think it was ) by over 100 of the worlds' leading Climatologists in which they denounced the currently-held theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming, basing their assertions upon the Vostok Ice Cores from Antarctica, which showed ( among other things ) that we are still -below- the 100,000-year average temperature. Technically speaking, we've just barely gotten out of the Little Ice Age, and are approaching the beginning of the Medieval Warming Period ( termp-wise, that is ). These things are happening slightly ahead of schedual. However, they're hardly the end of the world. Among other things, the Medieval Warming Period allowed for a longer growing season, milder weather, and the population increase that spurred exploration into the New World. Now, that same population increase also allowed for the Black Death: however, this was due to unsanitary living conditions and a lack of understanding about how the disease spread, both of which are much more controllable today.

09-30-2004, 06:58 AM	#28 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	It's all about physics, like I said at the beginning of this thread. The Carbon in carbon dioxide and methane have a very specific heat capacity. Carbon is the reason life is on this planet. Without the warming effect of carbon in our atmosphere this planet would be a steady 32 degrees farenheit. Too cold for anything. We know from various measurements that we have increased the atmospheres carbon content by 30% in the last 300 years. And this increase can be directly traced back to human sources. Basic physics and chemistry just shout it out to you that the carbon we are putting into the atmosphere is warming the planet. Simply Physics says that: Carbon holds a specific measure of heat. Carbon has increased dramatically in the atmosphere since the Industrial Revolution, The temperature of the earth has gone up, in the past 300 years, at a rate that is in agreement with the increased level of carbon in our atmosphere. If there is no anti-global warming answer to that, you have no argument.

09-30-2004, 07:07 AM	#30 (permalink)
edwhit Tilted	I heard a brief mention on the radio late one night that our sun is actually heating up. That is, a few degrees over the last hundred years. The opinion of the man speaking was that this is having more of an impact on global warming then the media likes to address. He then started mentioning his theories as to why it is a big cover up (big money programs spent on anti pollution and ozone layer protection programs etc.) Has anyone heard much on this? I'm not trying to assert that we ignore pollution levels or what have you, but it would seem to my laymen's mind that a warmer sun would make a warmer earth.

09-30-2004, 07:13 AM	#32 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Why? Because of that one instance where I couldn't provide you with a source. I found where I got that information from. I took a Graduate class called "Problems of the Atmosphere" (The class included us having to take part in a professionally run/scored public debate) right before we got into that thread. That particular piece of information came from a panel discussion on Global Warming. There were two for and two against (Actually included Fred Singer) One of the "For" made that point that I posted on in the thread. The against side never challenged that point. I wrote the information in my notebook but do not have the name of the debate or know where to find it. I willingly concede that point since I have no source to give you. I suggest though that if you will continue to criticise me for not providing that source whenever the Global Warming issue comes up, that perhaps you should be more diligent in providing the proper attribution to your own information from here on out.

09-30-2004, 07:21 AM	#33 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	edwhit, where did you get that information? [note, this is all copied info that i had previously posed in one of the other golbal warming threads here.] The suns radiation has been dimmer in the past couple hundred years. This is because we are getting farther from the sun. Earth trends show us we are entering a glacial period. This planets orbit around the sun oscillates from a round orbit to an ellyptical one. 6000 years ago the planets orbit peaked in it's circular and began its transition to its ellyptical. Why this is important is that the round orbit gives a more regular warming which allows the earth to generally warm up. The ellyptical one is uneven and produces a general cooling. We know this cycle has persisted for at least 700,000 years from measurements we made through ice core and sea bed samples. The science is that the ellyptical orbit we are presently getting further and further into affords us less and less insolation. This is the reason for the back and forth of the planets glacial cycles. This is all irrefutable, observable evidence and along with the physics of carbon (it's heat absorbing properties) blows to shit any argument that says global warming RIGHT NOW is a natural process.

09-30-2004, 08:06 AM	#35 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I was kind of angling for what kind of show it was. Anyway. Your opinion of what I posted in response to that?

09-30-2004, 08:46 AM	#37 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	I should have put the word "wholly" in between global warming RIGHTNOW is a _____ natural process. using Absolutes are never good discussional tactics.

09-30-2004, 11:09 AM	#38 (permalink)
scout Psycho	Ok, everyone stop driving. No more carbonated drinks. Everyone with air conditioners needs to contact their local hvac/r contractors and have them removed ASAP. Winter is coming so if your furnace burns natural or propane gas you will need to shut it off. Can't burn wood either because this means less trees to absorb that awful CO2 and it also produces carbon. In all seriousness, this argument could go on forever and never be resolved.

09-30-2004, 03:39 PM	#39 (permalink)
Superbelt This vexes me. I am terribly vexed. Location: Grantville, Pa	Good job having absolutely no grasp on the issue whatsoever. Building a stawman is a sight to behold.