Is anyone actually worried about global warming?
 

From what I have read, there is absolutely no conclusive proof that CO2 causes global warming. Also, even if it did, it effects the temperature at such and alarmingly small rate (.6 C since the industrial revolution!?) that worrying about it in our lifetime seems foolish. Also, as I understand it, global warming would provide a net benefit to agriculture anyway.

So seriously, what is the big deal?

Environmentalist please opine.

yep, lets screw our kids. Why worry about something that could affect them?

Yep, as long as you don't live in the Pacific or near a coast. Or do you mean "underwater agriculture"?

The deal is, that our planet has to deal with a lot of natural caused changes (ide ages, hot periods etc.) so I don't think it is wise to throw some extra spanners in the works. We should try to keep our impact as small as possible because when we see the big changes we made it might be too late.

as for you claim about no evidence, a recent study:
http://www.physorg.com/news3118.html
more at google:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...nG=Search+News

i'm concerned about finding better sources of energy but global warming itself doesn't worry me that much.

Pacifier-

I want to see something from a peer review journal or something with dissenting opinions. There is lots of information on the internet. I can find something that says that says global warming is a myth.

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba230.html

I would like to hear the scientists argue with each other. It is dangerous to read some report in the news and assume it is trustworthy.

I read some of your suggested reading: http://edition.cnn.com/2005/TECH/sci....warming.reut/

To me it seems that Tim Barnett, wants us to believe global warming because the planet is obviously warming. Trust him, he is Tim Barnett, brilliant scientist of the Scripps Institution of Oceanography. It says he took a few temps from around the world and put them in his computer model. This does NOT prove global warming. This proves that the computer model he made came up with the result he was probably hoping for.

I am not here to say global warming is real or a myth. I am just saying, I am not convinced that it is a threat to our life or even our children's lives.

I heard that if it wasn't for the greenhouse gases we've been pumping into the atmosphere we would be in an ice age right now. When I get a chance I'll try to find some sort of documentation.

http://library.curtin.edu.au/infotrekk/trek6.html

Or go to a university/public library and use lexis nexis to search for peer reviewed journal articles.

I can give you lots of articles on it (outside of links I already gave you. Over lunch I will review some recent journal articles that should be relevant.
http://www.environmentaldefense.org/...contentid=2971
ED is an environmental advocacy and lobbying group, they have very good resources if you want the environmental side of it.
It includes reports of the current science as well.
http://www.undoit.org/undoit_article.cfm#sec5

Not in, but moving towards it rather than away from it. That is still a long way away. It's a hundred thousand year cycle and we are only four to six thousand years out of the warming phase. So, we have a long way to go.

Currently reading -> http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.co...al_warming.pdf

Something that I have never seen brought up (or hardly ever ) is what effect are things like the Ozone layer holes and mass amouts of smog in places like LA having?

i firmly believe that global warming is a myth created by scientists to keep their funding. The articles like the one retsuki03 posted have more proof that it is a myth than all the articles I've ever seen saying it's true.

I see it as a parallel to the armageddon. People keep saying the world will be flooded, but it hasn't...it's just fear mongering.

Nope, not worried. I live in New England & would be happy with a winter that is 15-30 degrees warmer. A sea rise would be nice too as it would be closer to my front door then.

We'd also have a longer growing season, I could ditch the whole "layering" concept to dressing, my heating bill would drop 90%, my car would not need to be warmed up in the morning thus I'd get better mileage. And on & on.

soundmotor

Any Angelenos on this board?

I lived in Socal until the mid 1970's and the smog was so bad, my lungs would hurt for days if I was outside exercising during a "smog alert". I've been back to LA 6 times in the last 3 years and each time I was there I was stunned to see BLUE SKIES! Unleaded fuel, catalytic converters, drastic reductions in particulates & CO, etc. at work now.

soundmotor

Indeed! Conservation is the easiest to start doing today. Long-term, solar is very attractive but there will need to be ready-made solutions that consumers can adapt to existing structures and see an immediate financial benefit.

soundmotor

No one really understands the earths warming and cooling cycles. It may take 1,000s of years to completely prove anything. In the meantime, it seems that dumping poisons in the atmosphere and in our water is a bad idea, regardless. As a species, we really need to clean up our act, global warming or not. I can teach my dog not to crap where she lives, you'd think we could do the same with people.

retsuki01: Interesting article and the guy is right about alot of things but ignores others.
I sort of question this journal when I see an article titled "LaRouche on the Pagan worship of Newton." Please tell me this isn't the whacko LaRouche I think it is....

Anyway, the article is right that solar cycles determine our climate in the natural world. Our oscillation from a circular to ellyptical orbit are what has our planet vary from ice age, to warm period to ice age again.
But the CO2 levels we have now are not natural. In nature large amounts of CO2 may be spewn forth at one time by volcanoes and other such things. But when these large amounts get shot out, saturation happens very quickly and the concentrations fall out relatively quickly.
Humans send a steady stream of CO2 into the atmosphere every day and we aren't stopping. We are creating an artificial, constant blanket over the earth.
There are certain absolute properties of carbon and it's ability to absorb heat. We know these, can measure them and can measure the concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere as it rises with human emissions. The numbers add up

http://www.nrdc.org/globalWarming/fgwscience.asp
Click on the years to access journal articles from the National Academy of Science, Science Magazine, American Geophysical Union, USDOD... etc.

yatzr: There is just as much money in researching negatively on global warming (especially from the fossil fuel industry) It's not about the money, it's about the research.

soundmotor: It doesn't work that way. there will be a general warming of the earth, but global warming will affect the poles most, that 0.6 degree celsius rise in earths temperature is much greater at the poles and almost non existant at the equator. The melting of the freshwater polar ice caps will destroy the North Atlantic Oscilation. The North Atlantic Oscilation is what keeps the northern US and UK from being an even colder place. take a look at our latitudes and compare them with siberia and alaska. That is what we would be like without NAO. The NAO is like a river that pulls warm water up to us from the Gulf and warms us more than our location would allow. It shuts down and that water stays put and we freeze.

Ah, I'm getting you. The poles melt & the equator freezes so instead of poles we get an ice belt. Is that what you are saying? Still sounds to me though that New England is the best place to be.

soundmotor

I would think pretty much Everyone living in California for the last week.....is a bit worried about Global Warming.

The effects are complicated and there is unlikely to be conclusive evidence of the impact until it has already begun.....kinda like this week.

:lol:.......... :lol: ..........Sorry couldn't help myself. So our pollution from the last few hundred years have helped prevent an Ice Age, give me a break. 200 years is a microcosm in the history of the world, Ice Age take much longer to occur, especially when most of the pollution that has occured has happened mostly in the last 50-75 years. Please show some evidence to this unsupportive point, I would to see "who" the expert was that would say something like that. Check out the North Pole if you don't think the climate hasn't gotten warmer, I think you would agree that the majority of the evidence does lean towards our pollution is causing global warming. The evidence is in a many of journals which I'm sure other people will post to show the "little" documentation that there is to point to my conclustion. Do you think Bush is listening to all scientists or the small minority that actually think there is nothing wrong with our climate. Please show some documentation to make your point so I can send the mountain of evidence against it. Good Luck. :thumbsup:

OK....how about the E.P.A. as a credible source of information.


Climate

An Introduction
According to the National Academy of Sciences, the Earth's surface temperature has risen by about 1 degree Fahrenheit in the past century, with accelerated warming during the past two decades. There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities. Human activities have altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere through the buildup of greenhouse gases – primarily carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. The heat-trapping property of these gases is undisputed although uncertainties exist about exactly how earth’s climate responds to them. Go to the Emissions section for much more on greenhouse gases.
Our Changing Atmosphere

Energy from the sun drives the earth’s weather and climate, and heats the earth’s surface; in turn, the earth radiates energy back into space. Atmospheric greenhouse gases (water vapor, carbon dioxide, and other gases) trap some of the outgoing energy, retaining heat somewhat like the glass panels of a greenhouse.
Information on how the greenhouse affect effects the earth. Without this natural “greenhouse effect,” temperatures would be much lower than they are now, and life as known today would not be possible. Instead, thanks to greenhouse gases, the earth’s average temperature is a more hospitable 60°F. However, problems may arise when the atmospheric concentration of greenhouse gases increases.

Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earth’s atmosphere. Sulfate aerosols, a common air pollutant, cool the atmosphere by reflecting light back into space; however, sulfates are short-lived in the atmosphere and vary regionally.

Why are greenhouse gas concentrations increasing? Scientists generally believe that the combustion of fossil fuels and other human activities are the primary reason for the increased concentration of carbon dioxide. Plant respiration and the decomposition of organic matter release more than 10 times the CO2 released by human activities; but these releases have generally been in balance during the centuries leading up to the industrial revolution with carbon dioxide absorbed by terrestrial vegetation and the oceans.

What has changed in the last few hundred years is the additional release of carbon dioxide by human activities. Fossil fuels burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses, and power factories are responsible for about 98% of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions, 24% of methane emissions, and 18% of nitrous oxide emissions. Increased agriculture, deforestation, landfills, industrial production, and mining also contribute a significant share of emissions. In 1997, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global greenhouse gases.

Estimating future emissions is difficult, because it depends on demographic, economic, technological, policy, and institutional developments. Several emissions scenarios have been developed based on differing projections of these underlying factors. For example, by 2100, in the absence of emissions control policies, carbon dioxide concentrations are projected to be 30-150% higher than today’s levels.
Changing Climate

Global mean surface temperatures have increased 0.5-1.0°F since the late 19th century. The 20th century's 10 warmest years all occurred in the last 15 years of the century. Of these, 1998 was the warmest year on record. The snow cover in the Northern Hemisphere and floating ice in the Arctic Ocean have decreased. Globally, sea level has risen 4-8 inches over the past century. Worldwide precipitation over land has increased by about one percent. The frequency of extreme rainfall events has increased throughout much of the United States.


Increasing concentrations of greenhouse gases are likely to accelerate the rate of climate change. Scientists expect that the average global surface temperature could rise 1-4.5°F (0.6-2.5°C) in the next fifty years, and 2.2-10°F (1.4-5.8°C) in the next century, with significant regional variation. Evaporation will increase as the climate warms, which will increase average global precipitation. Soil moisture is likely to decline in many regions, and intense rainstorms are likely to become more frequent. Sea level is likely to rise two feet along most of the U.S. coast.

Calculations of climate change for specific areas are much less reliable than global ones, and it is unclear whether regional climate will become more variable.

Check out the Link.....it is enlightening

http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwa...t/climate.html

Actually the poles melt and the equator gets slightly warmer, but no where near the heating that the poles get.

Read the other part of my post about the North Atlantic Oscillation and realize that New England isn't an altogether great place to be.

While I agree it is difficult to say with certainty how much man-made global warming will have, and indeed whether (in the short term anyway) it will have a deleterious effect on our civilization, the things that do concern me are that A) the effects are very hard to reverse, once begun and B) the results will not be temporary, but something we would have to live with for, literally, hundreds if not thousands of years.

Those reasons are, I think, enough to warrant taking the foot off the gas pedal of global warming - and it appears the rest of the civilized world agrees, outside the US.

I don't really consider the EPA as a credible source. They have an agenda just like everyone else. It is useful to examine both sides of an arguement.


The world has already been much warmer than it is now.

"Doomsayers preaching the horrors of warming are not troubled by the fact that in the Middle Ages, when for a few hundred years it was warmer than it is now."

I think that many of the people who care about the environment (being most people) don't really know any information about it. Many environmentalists promote a culture of fear without actually knowing any hard facts. It leads to disinformation and confusion. Everyday you can look up a story on the news that says the world is ending or changing dramatically because of this or that. It scares a person, and the person then becomes opposed to this or that. It is sensationalism and often transparently biased.

I will bow before your understanding of the science involved in this debate. As I find the likelyhood of fifty some-odd scientists working together on a problem attempting to force an agenda......unlikely.

First of all, the rest of the world does not agree. However, even if they did- would that make them right just because they all agree?
Does the rest of the civilized world include India or China? The same people who bitch about Kyoto would bitch about unemployment or a stagnant economy that would result if we agreed to it.

It seems to me that they just haven't thought the full implications through.

Many assume that Bush hates the environment and loves corporations, just because he is a Republican. Bush is not the elitist. The people who condemn him as being an idiot are the elitists and the real idiots. The envirnmental effects of the implementation of Kyoto vs. the economic impact make the decision of whether or not to participate staggeringly easy.

What worries me is the fact that anyone would be pushing an agenda either way on this. Someone is right and someone is wrong; it's as simple as that. If global warming does not exist, then it is a scapegoat for environmentalists who are running low on ammunition against corporations and industries. If there is such a thing as global warming, then the corporations and industries are lying to us and selling the future of mankind for a profit today. The worst part is that the scientific organizations with good reputations are contradicting each other on this, so I don't know who to trust. Near as I can tell, no one really knows.

It would be foolish of me to try and take a side on this. For now the contradictions worry me more than the global warming or lack thereof.

Wait, retsuki03, for someone who purports to not take either side it seems clear that you do NOT believe in global warming.

There is no proof that Kyoto is bad for the economy. I have repeatedly asked for proof or reference in the Kyoto thread but have been ignored so that people can continue arguing amongst themesleves instead of "nipping it in the bud".

Regardless of whether global warming is happening, just look at the weather patterns and outside your window. Doesn't matter the science, obviously hedging our bets or trying to improve our environment isn't a bad thing. Who could be against clean air and clean water? Poolution does not discriminate. Forest fires in Indonesia have fallout all the way the American MidWest (last year or the year before). There was a measureable difference in air quality.

I don't care who's in the White House, I DO care about clean air and clean water. Richard Nixon created the EPA for cryin' out loud!!(LOL).

I live in LA, and I definitely see, feel the effects. A report showed school children (of all race, socio-economic background cause remember, pollution doesn't discriminate) have an abnormal rate of asthma. Which in turn leads to longer absences in school, which leads to reduced funding for schools.

The pollution also contributes to acid rain. Not too sure of the efffects but acid rain just doesn't sound good too me.

My friends in San Diego can see LA (by the brown cloud above it) hundreds of miles away. After stringent anti-pollution laws drastically reduced pollution levels, recent changes to the law (more lax on pollution) have reversed all the benefits.

Pollution also contributes to beach closures every summer. Kind of sucks when we're known as a beach town and the beaches are clesed due to pollution. Same goes with fishing. Not safe to eat any of the fish caught in the LA area.

I don't see why the issue of pollution has to framed in left-right or libeal-conservative diads. It affects us all. Plus, as a conservative, I do care about the environment and like to CONSERVE resource (it just makes more sense Nothing wrong with that).

Fear mongering is silly, denial is silly. Just exercise common sense.

Thank you.

It hasn't rained here in Oregon in almost a month, other than a very few showers. Oregon, mind you... in the winter. California is getting more than double it's normal rain.

Freak weather will continue to get weirder and stronger as the atmosphere is more fucked up.

I said I am not convinced that global warming is a threat. That does not mean that I believe in Global Warming or not. It means that even if there is Global Warming, I don't think it is a threat.

I can't offer proof either. But I can offer some idea as to why many think Kyoto is bad for the economy. http://www.econ.yale.edu/~nordhaus/homepage/Kyoto.pdf

I am from Houston where the pollution rivals and often excedes LA. I now live in Austin and I have heard that the pollution from Houston is so bad it effects our air quaility here. At the same time, having lived in houston for 19 years and Austin for 2, I have not noticed any difference in the air apart for less humidity. I am all for clean air/land, the question is at what cost.

Pollution causes asthma? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1099418.stm

Once again, I am from Houston where the water is very polluted. The fish taste fine. I think it would be great if the water was nice and pretty, but it isn't.

I agree with your there. :)

Fair enough, we are essentially in the same boat. Good counter post there, I like your rebuts.

I was thinking that Houston is one of the most polluted cities in US. There must be some studies done there. It is "forbidden" or at least advised not to eat the fish here (signs posted LA County Ordinance or something). The sewage here drains straight into the ocean (Santa Monica Bay) untreated. I'm no scientist but that just sounds gross.

I agree cost is an issue but I don't think it's impossible. I think a little careful planning and common sense, a good policy can be produced and implemented.

The thing is, while you may not be affected (I don't think I am or have, not sure) it has been suggested that many have been affected, in the same way that there are lots of smokers who never get lung cancer and many non-smokers who do (go figure).

So I guess, there's a lot of compelling arguments, in the end, we have to decide for ourselves. It seems for every credible argument out there, there's a credible counter.

It's kind of like asking economists how's the economy doing? You'll get a ton of different answers.

So, in that case, just like the environment, I look around me and try to exercise good judgement the best I can. I notice many people have lost their jobs, and a few are buying Hummers (not so much lately). The one constant: Prices have gone up, up, up! Especially gas, food, clothes, rent, health care, and education. I suppose the ecnomoy is good for some, and bad for others.

In the same vein, the environment is bad in some areas (LA, Houston) and good in others ( I dunno, Alaska?, canada?).

BUT, one thing's for sure: No one is immune to any of the effects (of economics or environment). Therefore, it's in all our interest to make sound policy concerning these matters. I just doesn't make sense to shit in our drinking water or waste all our resources ( I tend to be a hoarder - I have a six-month water and food supply at home). Conservaton, recycling has paid off for me. Make it more attractive and we should see results.

Heh, never seen it rain so much in CA in the last few months in a very long long long time - 5 straight days of rain scared me.

FWIW given that the Earth cycles take a long time, we have little way of knowing the long term effects given our impact has only been felt in the last few decades, which is but a flash in the scope of the Earth.

The idea of global warming is somewhat wrong - it warms up to a point, then can have the reverse effects, where it cools the earth. The bigger question, imo isn't whether its effects are what are stated - that the earth gets unbearably warm. The bigger problem, imo, is whether human effects are accelerating or altering Earth cycles.

For instance, a theory is that warming will melt the ice at the poles. This has been observed in the Arctic and Antarctic ice where land previously covered in snow has snowly melted - snow and ice previously permanently frozen.

The theory is that if so much water is melted into the ocean, cooling the currents, many places currently kept warm by those currents, will slowly freeze. Take Europe for example. They're at much more northern latitudes than most of the United States, yet they often have warmer weather than we do. That is because of the warm ocean currents - should they cool down, suddenly, temperatures drop, and bad stuff happens, perhaps accelerating an Ice Age there.

Asking for warmer weather in New England is fine - but hey, if its 15-30 degrees warmer there, imagine what it would be like for other parts in the country, when 100 degree weather in the summer is unbearable 115-130 degree weather. I dont like the idea of bringing Death Valley to L.A.

As for finding alternate energy sources - sure, but I dont see why that has to exclude caring about the environment. They're not mutually exclusive. The path lies in fusion power IMO - the current problem is of course making them self-sufficient. We know how to contain it, and in Europe, one of their fusion plants is running at 0.7 sufficiency (as in it can power 70% of itself, it needs to be above 1.0 to be self sufficient in power). A middle-sized lake has enough hydrogen/deuterium to power a small country for 1000+ years. Also, given that hydrogen is the most plentiful element in the universe, its not a bad prospect.

But IMO doing what we can do now to slow the use of energy until we get there is important - keep in mind that it takes fuel and power to build those fusion plants. Lots of it. If we one day do run out, we'd be in a shitty situation when we need to build those plants, and can't. And anyways, while I think the big thign is humans will need to move off this planet to other planets/space, I say, why not take care of what you have now? Its that simple to me.

Eh, I find my opinion relatively unimportant, but while global warming isn't the biggest of my concerns, I'm pissed that it's getting completely ignored by many countries.


Global warming info & news:

Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research - yearly report brochures

UK global warming commitee reports

Greenhouse Gases Warm Oceans

Oxford & WWF study claims increase in global temperatures of 2*C by 2060 (or as early as 2026)

This one is clutch - I've learned about this before (READ THIS ONE!):
Scientists have underestimated the greenhouse effect - Decreases in particulate will f*ck us

That's plenty for now, I'm sure.

Global warming info & news:

Discusses what to do and possibilites of changing climate, not what causes it or if indeed the climate is truly changing.

Same as above.

Addressed in a previous post. The main problem I have with this is it is a computer model. It even says "compelling" evidence, not proof. If you have links to the actual science of the study, or peer reviewed journals I would love to take a look.

Again. There is no science. Dr Mark New of Oxford University does not offer and evidence to show why he arrived at this conclusion. Although, again, I would like to see it.

Clutch?

How many SUV's were those nasty American's driving around in during the Ice Age? From what I have read this is has mostly been covered in the UK and not the rest of the world, because a lot of people don't agree. At least, however, this guy attempts to explain how he has arrived at his conclusions, although, he neglects to mention any possible problems with his theory.

Analysis
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=105

You know, I think we'll never really know. It's hard to "test" any theories on this. Aside from computer modeling. So it really comes down to whom you believe (there are plenty of competent and knowledgeable scientists on both sides) and what you personally believe. Computer modeling is a common method among scientists (I think). It's up to you how much weight you want to give it. Isn't an MRI 'computer modeling'? Aren't alot of buildings designed and built based on computer modeling? The main problem is there is no other way to test it other than to let it run its course. But the problem is that we only get to do it once. How about running tests in a "biosphere" or some other "mini-earth" mock up and simulating the conditions?

Zeld2.0, I also live in LA and I agree with your contention of alternate energy sources. It doesn't have to be mutually exclusive. I believe we can profit and conserve etc. ( I just wish I knew how).

Whatever global warming is happening, one thing is for sure: I don't like temperature rising. I would rather it get 'cooler' cause I can always put on another sweater but if it gets too hot and I'm down to my skivies, well then I'm running out of options.

If people in New England welcome global warming cause they think it's too cold, well, that's a bit short-sighted. Just move to Florida.

The global warming debate is like the evolution debate in that regard: No conclusive proof - there's compelling evidence, but no conclusive proof. I guess we can just pick and choose what we want to believe then.

Well there is proof but its that type of proof you get from an experiment that takes 1000 years perhaps to get a conclusion. Of course, 1000 years haven't passed, so to claim anyone has the conclusive proof that the other is wrong is futile at best.

As for me, I err on the side of caution - the point is, if I dont have to waste resources, if I don't have to pollute, etc. then I don't do it. Its like the gun analogy - better to have and not need than to need and not have. Well its the same thing here - better to conserve/preserve and be wrong and have no such thing as global warming than to pollute and be wrong and have such a thing as global warming.

Yes, clutch... You're obviously missing the idea on this one. Yes, a similar increase in CO2 levels have increased temperatures much more in the past, however in the past there was significatly less particulate in the air.

Okay, so the story goes a little like this... Back in the industrial revolution, humans started pumping out greehouse gases into the atmosphere, which according to modern scientists should have increased global temperatures, however it didn't because there were significant particulate releases along with it, which decreased the amount of energy the Earth recieved from the Sun by reflecting photons back out of the atmosphere before they hit the Earth, and thus counterbalancing the greenhouse effect with an almost equal amount of cooling.

More recently, humanity's rate of CO2 production is still accelerating, while the amount of particulate we are producing is slowing, mostly due to environmental regulations which are harder on particulate than CO2. As there becomes less and less particulate comparative to CO2, the greenhouse effect will overwhelm the cooling effect of the particulate, and the average temperature of the Earth will rise at an incredible rate.

For those of you who think it would be nice if it was a little warmer, just don't forget that any significant increase in temperature would have major effects on climate (and thus agriculture), could cause mass extinctions of plant and animal species, and I'm sure do a few other nasty things that I'm not thinking of at the present time. Also, if the earth warms up 5*C, then what? Let it warm another 5*C? We're going to have to put a stop to it eventually, or eventually it's going to become to hot for humanity. If it's going to be necessary anyway, then we might as well get to work on it now.

Of course there's no science there... It's a news brief. The whole idea is to give you the point without drawing you into a 10-page essay.

Here, you want the science, have it.
WWF Arctic Report

Dr. New's report is in there (page 7) along with a few others. If you want to go read it and try to point out something he did wrong, go ahead. Oh, let me guess... You're not going to believe anything it concludes because it's a simulation. Well, how else are we going to do climate prediction? Can you propose a method of climate prediction, taking into account all the significant variables, which doesn't involve a computational model?

Well, your "Clutch" article shows just how accurate these computer models can be. The problem is knowing all the significant variables.

From your article:
So I guess that means even the models that predicted the worst are quite potentially completely wrong. The more modest predictions would, of course, be way fucking off.

This only proves how far we are from knowing the right variables to predict the climate in the future. The local weatherman can often not even tell me if it is going to rain on the weekend. He uses the information he knows, and makes a guess. Just like these computer models do. Sometimes they are right, and sometimes they are wrong. Apparently, up until your ground breaking clutch article- all of them were wrong.

So basically your article is a demonstration of how erroneous information can be used to develop often entirely wrong climate predicting computer models in conjunction with yellow journalism to convince people that there is a cataclysmic change pending in the environment all the while getting people to watch the BBC and arousing a "sceptical response from other scientists."

Damn, you're right. That IS clutch.

The truth be told, I just don't buy it. I have looked on the internet can find could very few articles supporting Stanhill. Neither your article, or the Analysis of your article that I posted before address the prospect of cosmic radiation. However, the article by Dr. Jaworowski I posted before does. I honestly wonder if you even looked at either.

My general view is that the prediction models are inaccurate. Your article makes the case for me.

But maybe your right, and I might be just missing the idea.

Rather than argue about the computer models, lets examine a central observation of this panda organization- "that the earth will have warmed by 2°C relative to pre-industrial temperatures by between 2026 and 2060."

This apparently is a big fucking deal, and if you haven't heard yet, all the polar bears are going to die. It's a big fucking deal you see- dead polar bears. How tragic. Have I garnished any sympathy yet? Hell, penguins are even cuter. And shit! They will die too! This is horrible fucking news, I better run out and buy that hybrid car or perhaps first I should scold my neighbor for driving the truck he obviously doesn't need.

Ok, enough sarcasm. :)

Anyway, the earth has risen 0.6 C since around the 1850s right? And let's see, the temp. during the middle ages was over 1.5 C higher than the current temps. So that means the the earth has already been 2.0+ C higher than the pre-industrial revolution time. And surprise? The fucking bears are still here (and those cute little penguins).

This also makes an astoundingly solid case for CO2 induced global warming due to the large number of coal burning power plants and SUV's in America during the period 900 to 1100 AD. (just a little more sarsasm :) )

Bingo... see, i'm no weatherologist, thats not what i went to school for... but seems strange to me that there have been what, like 3 tornados in Californa in the last week... and like 50 total in recorded history? A grip of hurricanes last year smashing Florida on the constant. I dont need a fancy panel of 50 scientists to tell me something is fucked up.

I believe the article said "predictions", which in my book would not single out computer models, but all predictions made. It seems to me that you're taking a general statement about the accuracy of predictions in general and applying it specifically to computer models, which seems to suit your position in this debate quite nicely. :hmm:

And I said that when? I'm not saying that other people's ideas are wrong, and I don't believe Dr. Cox or Dr. Stanhill were either. I was merely presenting a piece of information which few people had likely considered.

I take it you're not a scientist, or you wouldn't be speaking like that. Please, indicate what information is erroneous. Being that we're speaking of a complex aspect of the FUTURE, I guess we can't really know what would be erroneous or not, now do we?

Yes, I've looked at both. They both make interesting points. Before you go giving Dr. Jaworowski's article preferential treatment, think about some things... Beside that Dr. Jaworowski is obviously biased, this magazine article would never be accepted as a scientific journal review. About half of his references are not even from scientific studies, but rather other magazine articles, newspapers, and interviews. That would be the equivalent of me stating that my opinion is truth and citing the BBC article. Mind you, the other half are credible, but I wonder why he has to back up many of his supposed "fact" with non-scientific sources. Perhaps he just wants to believe he is right. (Not to say he's not... I think we've established that no one can totally accurately predict the future). Oh, and your previous statement of: would apply to this magazine and Dr. Jaworowski's article as well, wouldn't it?

I know you're being sarcastic, but I just want to make a comment about the WWF's use of the article. The WWF's goal is to save the animals, and shit the bed every time something with fur dies. I think most of us would agree that they can go overboard in many situations (and perhaps this is one of them) but the purpose of my bringing it up is merely to indicate the possibility for severe climate change, and perhaps one could also derive from that how a high rate of climate change could, over a not-too-long time frame have an adverse effect on the environment which humanity would also feel the effects of. Trust me, the LAST people that I would take my environmental position from is the WWF, as they also have quite a well-defined agenda... or could I call that a crusade? Haha...

The erroneous informantion refered to and linked to twice:

Excuse me. Let's review what you said about computer models:

Well, gee. I would have to agree with you there. It does suit my little debate to agree, that as inaccurate as computer models have proven to be, they seem to be the most scientific way of guessing. You seem to agree as well. That being said, what other predictions did you think the article was talking about?

I will admit he is biased. All scientists are. The have an agenda- to convince people that they are right. But so far, I have not seen any blatent attempt to mislead the reader. This probably explains why Stanhill was met with a "sceptical response from other scientists." Jaworowski point of view is different than Stanhill's. That alone does not make it wrong, nor does citing articles from Discover or Nature magazines. If you want to make a case against Jaworowski's article, make it. However, it is a fallacy to state that because he has an agenda and cites articles, he therefore is using erroneous information. So, the part about:

Yes. That would apply to the Jaworowski article if you can find some erroneous information used as a fundamental part of his arguement AND suggestion of a cataclysmic change in the environment occuring in the near future AND prove it gets people to watch the bbc.

The fact that they use misinformation, lies, and hyperbole to push their agenda is what bothers me. I agree with their goals. Saving animals is great. Caring about the environment is a good thing. But the means with which they attempt to achieve those goals is condemnable. Honestly, if the problem was really so urgent, should they have to lie?

QUOTE: Honestly, if the problem was really so urgent, should they have to lie?

Isn't that everyone though? Doesn't everyone lie or exaggerate things? Remember the "Willie Horton" campaign enciting fears of blacks or how about WMD? Did they or didn't they? If there's a report on the news saying don't swim to day cause of sharks to you say, "nah, they're lying, go ahead kids, swim to your hearts content."

I think we have to decide for ourselves what to believe. I don't trust any one of those sources.

But if I read a report citing toxic level of "whatver toxin" in the water supply, I would err on the side of caution and procure alternate water supply. I wouldn't gamble on whether or not the report was a "lie", especially if I had kids etc.

I dunno, something like that.

Gotcha. I thought you were referring to erroneous information in the article that we were discussing at the time (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4171591.stm).

...I'm going to disagree with you on two things here. First off, I don't believe all scientists have an agenda, specifically those that work at universities (such as Dr. New) since very, very few universities have a scientific agenda. Most universities just like to see results and grant money, regardless of what the findings are.

Also, I'm not convinced that the WWF is lying, per se, as I'm not so sure that they're statements are totally untrue or their intent is to decieve. Are they being selective in the information that they are using? Probably. Would they like to influence other people's opinions? Definitely. But again, the issue they are addressing (future climate changes) would be nearly impossible to verify with current scientific methods one way or the other, so saying that they're lying is a little extreme in my opinion.

As over 140 countries, last i checked, had ratified Kyoto, I'd say that accounts for most of the "rest of world".

As for the economic arguments, I see economic opportunity in developing, implementing and supporting cleaner technologies - rather than your citizens making 6 bucks an hour as McDonald's workers and Wal-Mart clerks, how about an opportunity to work in a growing, technologically advanced and better paying environment? Or do you think the 75% of Americans (or Canadians or whatever) working in a service environment is truly good for the economy?


Change is not a bad thing.

Doom and gloom are big business....Kyoto will cost the nations of the world billions to affect the global temp a billionth of a degree.

Funny stuff.

Here the Timetable of doom http://www.co2andclimate.org/wca/2004/wca_32a.html

Australia didn't sign either

When I said the rest of the world, I was not refering to nations, but people, and not so much people, but scientists.

But you bring up a good point. With 140 countries signing on, the US would have had to pay 2/3 of the Global cost. That is $517 billion. In addition, we would be giving other countries billions in dollars in return for emissions permits. The idea is insane. There is no way the US is going to spend that kind of money for such meaningless results.

Even if excess CO2 was causing global warming, the Kyoto Treaty would not be an effective way to combat it.

The Kyoto Treaty is a scam. People who don't know anything about it assume the US (and that cowboy Bush) are diplomatic retards. The reality is it is completely counter to the US interests. THAT is why we aren't going to sign it.


EDIT: forgot source. http://titan.iwu.edu/~econ/ppe/2002/alexis.pdf

How can you possibly know this with such dogmatic certainty?

In order to come to this conclusion, you would have had to:

--know the magnitude/rate of global warming;
--know the causes of global warming;
--know fully what the ecological impacts of global warming will be in the near and distant future;
--know fully what the direct economic impacts of global warming will be in the near and distant future;
--know fully what the toll in human lives and health of global warming will be in the near and distant future;
--make a calculus that converts the human toll into current economic marginal value;
--make a calculus that converts the ecological toll (incl. species extinctions) into current economic marginal value;
--know fully what the current economic cost of the Kyoto treaty will be.

In the absence of this detailed knowledge, I think the appropriate attitude is open-minded scepticism, with respect and willingness to synthesize and evaluate opposing points of view.

From everything I read, I believe my comment is a fair characterization of the Kyoto Treaty. It is just my opinion, relax.
Ok, In order for all these things to be necessary, one would have to prove global warming was related to GHG emissions, namely CO2. Can you find any proof that shows a correlation between CO2 and rising global temperature? Provided you can actually prove global warming exists and is caused by CO2? Then can you even attempt to argue that the Kyoto Treaty is remotely effective at combating global warming.

For Instance:
That doesn't seem very effective to me. Especially if the United States is slated to spend over 500 billion dollars.
And I have to throw this in there for all the bleeding hearts.
I'll let you do the calculus. Your the one who wants to convince me, right?
Here is a guess.
I would be happy to synthesize and evaluate your viewpoint. I do have an open mind. I am not uninformed. Perhaps you might need more "detailed knowledge" but I have read enough. :)

Actually no. I have no doubt that you've already made up your mind.

But if you want to convince me of your point of view (i.e. that Kyoto is a "scam") then you'll have to do a lot more than you've done here.

I can't imagine arguing that damaging the environment is not a cost-effective issue to address.

It would be easy to argue that, however. For every report or study, someone has done another report or study showing almost the opposite result.

So, although I could sit here and claim that there is "no evidence" that anyone should be concerned with pollution, global warming and the overall negative impact of industrialization on the environment - I just can't imagine why anyone would. It seems like far too much of a common sense issue: pollution is something we want to limit.

There you go: Manx that is what I have been trying to say but couldn't figure out how.

In a way, science is always in dispute, and if we're relying on science, is it any wonder why we have so much disagreement? But I agree, doesn't matter your political affiliation, I mean no one os "Pro-pollution" right? There's no Pollution Party.

I also don't think it's necessarily a zero-sum game. Is Kyoto really bad for the economy? Is conservation so ruinous? I suppose that is where the math comes in.

I would say it is just the opposite, which is why the U.S. will, sooner or later, find itself joining the treaty. As with most international trade agreements, which Kyoto assuredly is, there are typically plenty of negative consequences but in regards to the global economy, they are a boon.

The U.S. will eventually find it is not in contention for certain aspects of trade due to its' self-exclusion from the treaty. When nearly all the rest of the West is making agreements with China and India, as those two countries explode with industrialization, the U.S. is going to be losing a lot of money.

To paraphrase the above statements, there are just as many economists saying it's good as there are economists saying it's bad. Might as well toss a coin *groan*

I believe it may cost a bit more in the short/near term, but will most definitely yield benefits in the long term (no proof guys, just my opinion). However, in the same spirit or to be consistent, I also think that China and India need to be a part of it as well.

I'm more worried about using up all of our natural resources (primarily energy resources) and pollution than global warming. They are supposedly connected though, so I guess being concerned about one would beget being concerned about the other.

What international trade agreements are related to Kyoto apart from the emissions credits trading program? How are they a blessing to the global economy?

I don't see the US join ever joining a the Kyoto or a treaty like it. If the US decides to limit or lower emissions, it will be on its own terms without regard to international treaties.

I was curious if you had any reading saying that Kyoto was good for the US economy? Assuming that their are conflicting reports on the economical impact of Kyoto, I think it would be best to read them, and then make a decision (rather than flipping a coin :) ) I know you were just kidding, but I would like to read anything you have.

One thing that I find interesting is how I saw many reports on the day Kyoto went into effect titled, "Kyoto Starts Despite US Boycott." I realize that the US CO2 emissions amount to about 30% of the total global emissions, but I think the real reason for this framing is to perpetuate an anti-american sentiment. I don't believe the papers in the UK and France are actively or maliciously trying screw the US, but I believe they are catering to their audience. Much like conservatives read the WSJ and liberals the NY Times.

Regardless of my little theory, I did notice that most the articles I read did not mention Australia, China, or India.

There are probably no other trade agreements that are directly related to the Kyoto treaty, nor did I suggest that there were - but they all are affected by the Kyoto treaty.

When most of the world forms an agreement on trade, the global economy becomes entwined in that agreement. If you are not part of that agreement, you are limited in how efficiently you fit in with the global economy. Countries that are part of the agreement will have far more compatibility in negotiating trade of all kinds than countries that are not part of the agreement. As the U.S. has decided not to become a part of this significant aspect of the future global economy, it will suffer. Until it decides to put its head down and accept the terms that every other country requires.
It seems naive to suggest that the absence of the single most polluting country on the planet would not make the headline, and to then "blame" the presence of that country in the headline on anti-Americanism. Also, China and India are part of the treaty - they have simply been afforded the understandable, and temporary, leeway in meeting the requirements of the treaty as their infrastructure is built. There is no logical explanation that could be made to require them to hinder their infrastructure development considering most of the other countries in the agreement have already been afforded that priviledge, particularly if that explanation is coming from the largest polluting nation on the planet.

But you said?
I think you suggested that Kyoto was an international trade agreement.

Regardless, I think the US will suffer much less negative effects by not signing the treaty, than by signing it. Other countries will begin to see the problems and ineffectiveness of Kyoto, and wish they had done as the US.

The idea that they should get a pass is absurd to me. Fair is fair, but when considering the population size of China and India, the overall supposed goal of reducing global emissions, the sharp competition with the US, Indian, and Chinese economies, and the absolute cost ineffectiveness of the treaty- it should surprise no one that the US would not sign this rag.

And I was curious, are you a fan of Malik el-Shabazz?

If you are referring to his avatar, it looks like a jazz piano player like Herbie Hancock or Thelonious Monk or something. It does look a bit like Malcolm X but if you look closely I think he's playing th piano. I dunno, that's what it looks like to me.

So how about it Manx, who's the guy in your avatar?

As for any reading to Kyoto being good for the economy, let me get back to you and see if I can find any related articles. I thought I read something somewhere (you know how it is). I'm gonna have to start flagging everything I read so I can cite them. Man, it's like writing a paper...

Not only did I suggest it, I flat out stated it was. The Kyoto treaty is an international trade agreement. I did not state that it was directly related to other trade agreements.
I don't see any rational basis for that opinion. Probably the entirety of the West has completed the progression through industrialization. As a result, the environment of the planet suffered. You are suggesting that simply because China and India have not yet progressed as the West, they should be penalized for that exact same progression, even while the West was not penalized for that progression. I don't see why the time line of progression is even a factor in determining who should and should not be penalized, other than as a concern that Western economies will suffer - which, even if true (though I already stated I do not agree with that analysis), is irrelevant to the concept of global responsibility coupled with fairness.
I am a great fan of Malcolm X. Jorgelito, yes, my avatar is a young Thelonius Monk playing piano.

Well, at least someone is honest about Kyoto's true intention.

Also, shouldn;t the third world counties in Africa and Central and South America be forced to pay a price too? Afterall, their slash and burn practices have harmed the enviroment more so than the West's industrialization

I think China and India don't need a "pass" because (I believe) they don't need to go through the same exact process that the West (Industrial Revolution) had.

I believe they have an advantage as it would be relatively "cheaper" to upgrade their facilities as the infrastructure they have in place is rather old or non-existent.

So, if China and India are in the throes of construction (which they are) then essentially they are starting from scratch.

So, why not build it right the first time? They already have a cost advantage so why not? No need to build a brand new "old school" factory - why not build a new, efficient, less-polluting etc factory? It may be a bit more costly now, but shouldn't it pay off down the line? Sounds like good business to me.

I guess what I am trying to say is I don't believe that China and India have to go throught the same process that the West did. They have an advantage, our experience and the learning curve. They stand to gain from our knowledge, experience and tech advances.

No. They've been raped by the West for centuries. Their slash and burn practices were and are at the behest of and benefit of the West.
I absolutely agree that they will have an easier relative time of it than the West did due to the progress in efficiency from the West breaking that ground. But they are not given a complete pass - they have a time limit, and it is exceptionally short in comparison to the time frame that the West took to industrialize.

Raped by the west?? Their slash and burn policies have been praciticed because they do nont know how to cultivate properly. The West has poured gobs of money and education programs into these areas, but they still practice slash and burn. You know why? Because it's easier that rotating crops to replenish the soil. ie...laziness

And as far as the west raping these countries, if it weren't for the generosity and compassion of the west (especially the American people), they would be in far more shitty condition.

I don't understand many of the opinions and motivations here. I believe that conservation is not only the ethical thing to do, but it is also preferrable on political, economic and social grounds as well.

Who gets to design all the new energy efficient stuff? Who gets to live in more pleasant surroundings? Who gets to shed the yoke of over dependancy on Middle Eastern Oil? Exactly in what way would failure to sign up to Kyoto be bad for a country?

Sorry, but whinging on about climate models not being 100% accurate is unhelpfull and itself and expression of bad scientific principles. There never ever has been any such thing as 100% proof until after the even occurs. I could build a number models that would suggest that running across a highway during rush hour would result in an accident, and you could (quite rightly) argue that because I don't know all the variables etc, that my model is flawed and that my results inaccurate.

If you are such a good analysist of the facts, then please explain what detremental effects there are involved in having more efficienct and better technology, better living conditions and in curbing the rampant and unsustainable stripping of resources that we engage in today?

I wish I could believe that.

Even better, I wish it were true.

The reason it is profitable to slash and burn is that the western model of capitalism promotes getting rich quick - it's perfectly acceptable in the western model to make a fast buck and move to Hawaii - who cares what you leave behind?

Likewise, it's perfectly acceptable for the US to not enter the Kyoto treaty and continue in its own lazy way towards an effective global slashing and burning. Why NCB is it that wehn the US acts like this, it's economically reasonable, but when another country does it, it's because they are lazy? Believe it? - It doesn't even make sense.

I guess it is like anything else we might consider beneficial it depends on the costs involved. The original post asked if anyone is actually worried about global warming. If you really believe that global warming is going to destroy the planet then no amount of money is too much to spend. If you believe that global warming is junk science and not a problem then any amount is too much. If you are somewhere in between and are not sure then maybe the $700 billion (or whatever the latest estimate is) Kyoto price tag is justified. There is nothing detremental in newer and better technology cleaning up the environment other than the cost/benefit judgement.

This cost/benefit argument is a false one as well - Where does the money go? Where does it come from? It's not all government funds being collected off the populace and buried underground. All the money goes into developing existing and new forms of technology to do what we do currently but better. That means new jobs and a boost to the economy - not the opposite. In addition it means that there will be a number of products that will be developed with environmental issues in mind. These will be freely tradable (and desirable) in the countries under the Kyoto treaty. Those countries outside will find their more polluting products harder to sell.

Do I believe that global warming could happen? Yes I do. Greenhouse gasses do trap solar energy. That the amount of solar energy coming directly from the source has a greater effect is important, but it doesn't negate the fact that greenhouse gasses (CO2, Methane, CFCs etc) all have a warming effect. I like the warm - If my home country had been warmer, I might never have left it - but I'd like to see us attempt to build a future where we have a greater chance of dealing with this issue if it ever does become a problem (i.e. when the solar luminance cycle turns round and we REALLY start warming up) and the best way to do that is to develop the appropriate technologies. The best way to do that is to skew the international market in favour of non-polluting technology. It really isn't complicated at all.

Well said.

The momentum behind the cost/benefit argument comes from industrial lobbyists who know that they will either have to spend money to adapt their technology to come out on top again or end up being replaced by their competitors who will spend money to adapt their technology to come out on top.

If you're already on top, you don't want new rules that require you to face more risk through competitive innovation.

So you believe that third world countries would have a better standard of living if it were not for the West? .

Undoubtedly.

3rd world countries are used as effective slave labor for Western corporations. In the process of paying pennies for manual labor, tyrannical gov'ts are propped up to provide more favorable trade regulations.

As a result, Western corporations can offer a gallon of pickles for $3 and glow-in-the-dark toothbrushes. They spend pennies producing it off the labor of someone who can still barely afford to feed their family (let alone receive healthcare, vacation and other benefits) and make millions in profit back home in the States.

That's the "generosity and compassion" you were speaking of.

Well, what can I say. The fact is, the West has given more to help people's lives in 3rd world countries. If it weren't for us and the tech advancemet from the West, they'd still be in the 10th century. Why you hold this amount of hostility to a culture that has afforded you a lifestyle that your African brethern would die for (I'm assuming you're black, of course) is just puzzling to me.

If it weren't for them, the tech advancement in the West would be nearly non-existent. It's an eco-system of wealth redistribution - both sides require the others present state to exist. We take their resources and provide next to nothing in return.

Of course African's would "die" for my lifestyle. I am part of the society that has effectively stolen from them. Who wouldn't want to be on the receiving end of profit?

There is no doubt that 3rd world countries have advanced due to technology provided by the West. But they have not advanced in proportion to the work they produce whereas the West has advanced beyond the work it has produced. This is the nature of moving manual labor to countries that do not have our employment regulations and are governed by despots, who work directly with the Western corporations and Western governments to ensure their own mutually satisfying profit.

Essentially all of the technology that has been provided to 3rd world countries is specifically to maximize the ability for the Western corporation to earn money off the resources of those countries. It most certainly is not the good will you would have me believe.

Why you hold no hostility towards yourself and the society you excuse and promote, while your Caucasian brethren continue to rape and limit 3rd world countries (I'm assuming you're white, of course) is beyond me.

And no, I am not black. That's just an avatar.

I'd take issue with this statement - the happy position that the west occupies at the moment is largely based on the huge wealth built up during the great Imperial days of Europe. Empires that were built on the back of exploiting distant regions for their human and natural resources.

It should be us thanking them, not the other way around.

Sorry Manx, you said it first - one of those cross-post situations there.

You still haven't addressed where the third world would be without the west. Better off? Worse off?


:lol:

The irony!! You're white and I'm Latino (Mexican father/Cuban mother).


No, the tech advances of the West precede the imperial age.

I already addressed that. It is a silly question, ultimately - the state of one does not exist without the state of the other - the West is on top because the 3rd world is on the bottom. And I addressed that aspect as well.
Some tech advances preceded the imperial age. Sure. The West raped its own people and land enough that it became cost effective to travel greater and greater distances to rape new people and new land.

The West has raped this people, the West has raped that people, the West has raped it's own people.

Feeling guilt does not constitute an argument. I guess we'll just agree to disagree

You should understand it's nothing personal. If, in the long ago past, the present day 3rd world countries had been just a little more ruthless to their own people than the West was to theirs, it would have been these 3rd world countries that would have advanced more rapidly and been able to travel greater distances to take advantage of the less advanced, present day, Western societies. In which case, you and I both would be suffering and you'd finally realize your mistake.

I'm not going to congratulate the West for its ruthlessness, even though I have benefitted (in comparison) due to its ruthlessness.

I don't feel guilty. I hold people who share your philosophy at complete fault.

Telling me not to feel guilty, particularly when I do not, most certainly does not constitute an argument.

All this has what to do with global warming....?

Nothing. It's just one of the sideroads these conversations take from time to time that make these discussions intresting.

If you're that concerned about the topic staying on course, perhaps a post getting us back on would be better than a snotty little remark. Just sayin'

I didn't realize you were so sensitive. Should I say, "can we please talk about global warming" next time instead of being so snotty?

As long as we are off topic, I want to say Go Nationals!

Well as far as Global Warming, Screw the Grandkids, I'm cold now.

/sarcasm

The heart of the issue seems to be greenhouse gases, I wonder though how much all the concrete and asphalt contribute to the rising temp. of the world.

I too have noticed strange weather patterns for the past several years. I lived in coastal North Carolina for four years. My mom told me it never snowed there...lo and behold, it snowed there every year I was there, one year an absolute blizzard. It has rained several times here in Utah this winter....it NEVER rains here in winter. In all the many years I've lived here I've never seen rain in winter, just sleet or snow. I really have no idea if this can be contributed to global warming or it's simply a cyclic earth thing. Even if all of the pollutants released into the air don't have an effect on the earth's temperature, it still has its effects on its inhabitants. Often times in the winter we get an inversion here in Salt Lake valley, and during those times I get congestion, cough, fatigue, and headaches. That needs to be taken into consideration.

Well, well, well....The idiot conservative may be onto something....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...ooking_climate

Ha. China and India should have to limit the amount of cooking fires they have as part of the Kyoto Protocol.

It says South Asia, not China.

I think China qualifies.

http://img225.exs.cx/img225/4355/asia1jl.jpg

No, China does not qualify. China is generally considered to be in East Asia. I have never seen China referred to be in South Asia

However, in geopolitical terms, South Asia is India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.

Also, nowhere in your article did it mention China.

I don't really care what is generally considered. I can read the fucking map. It is close enough to affect the environment in SOUTH asia.

Nice rude response. Really shows your maturity. Grow up.

Your the one quibbling over semantics.