Now that Australia has officially ratified the Kyoto protocol do you expect the US to abandon its position as the last remaining developed nation holding out against global green-house gas reduction targets?
My answer under this administration would be no it won't.
I think the world will move forward without the US for a year or so, then a new President will ratify Kyoto and bring the worlds largest emitter in line with the rest of the developed world.
Or are you righty's still claiming it is all a load of hot air coming out of the scientists mouths?
He will have the Aussies join the ranks of the rest of the phony world ;signing onto emission reductions they know damn well they won't achieve. But it will make him FEEL GOOD .
Isn't it true that one of the best means of combatting CO2 emissions is by firing up nukes ? Isn't it true that there is a whole lot of uranium ready to mine in Australia ? But isn't it also true that Australia has no nuclear power industry ?
As to your question about American politics. All the Democrats would sign onto Kyoto .Probably Giuliani and McCain would based on their past comments. I suspect that Huckabee would also.
And finally:yes ,I think that "global warming " has been a reality and progressing steadily since the last ice age. I live in an area that used to be covered by glacier . But it became ice free long before the industrial revolution. The consensus science that has emerged is ridiculous.
“Global warming doesn't matter except to the extent that it will affect life--ours and that of all living things on Earth. And contrary to the latest news, the evidence that global warming will have serious effects on life is thin. Most evidence suggests the contrary.”
Daniel Botkin, president of the Center for the Study of the Environment and professor emeritus in the Department of Ecology, Evolution, and Marine Biology at the University of California, Santa Barbara OpinionJournal - Extra
James M. Taylor, senior fellow for The Heartland Institute explained, "It is not surprising the UN has completely rejected dissenting voices. They have been doing this for years. The censorship of scientists is necessary to promote their political agenda. After the science reversed on the alarmist crowd, they claimed 'the debate is over' to serve their wealth redistribution agenda."
I believe you are correct about Bush not signing Kyoto. At least I hope you are.
If a Conservative wins the Presidency next year, I expect that we will continue as we have without signing Kyoto. And if Hillary wins, she will likely not sign it either... Bill didn't sign it when he was President.
And finally, even if someone else wins and does sign it, will anyone enforce it? I mean for all the other countries that have signed it... We already know that the USA is held to a different standard than everyone else and will be held accountable for Kyoto. I'm talking about all the other countries that have signed. Will Kyoto ever be enforced?
Frankly, even if I agreed with the "science" of global warming... Which I do not... I would still think that Kyoto is a sham. It is unenforcable, it is not being adhered to by its signatories, and it isn't worth the piece of paper its written on.
The idea that human kind is not and will not have an effect on the planet is one of the most ignorant arguments I have ever heard. Of course Bush won't sign kuoto, he still thinks the planet earth is our enemy.
I do have to admire those who have decided that they are come down as tasking the stance against the planet. It is brave, bold, and unfortunately very American. No defense like a good offense.
No one is saying humans have no impact. I just don't think that human activity has significant impact on the climate. I certainly see no scientific evidence that convinces me of it. I have seen much more solid connection in solar activity influencing the earth's overall temperatures.
Do I think humans should take steps to reduce emissions ? Of course I do . I never think its a good idea to emit exhaust needlessly if the technology is there to create a viable alternative . Do I think Kyoto addresses that .. Nope . Like I said . Australia has the means to convert most of it's energy needs to nuclear. But they will not do that even though it can have an immediate impact on their CO2 emissions. Rudd is taking the lead on nothing but self serving phony rhetoric .
I think if it does get signed it will be because of immense political pressure from other member countries; not necessarily because the US wants to or agrees with it.
Then again, maybe the next president will work toward other means for reducing emissions and pollution without signing Kyoto. Maybe instead of REQUIRING the terms in Kyoto there will be benefits offered to organizations who reduce their emissions. Maybe the next president will make a governmental investment in solar power (which could reduce cost) and more citizens and businesses could afford to install solar panels. Maybe there will be a tax break offered to Ford and Chevy for manufacturing more vehicles that get better gas mileage. It certainly will be an interesting next few years.
It beats the idea of "humans bad, animals good" which is the other side of the coin you are talking about.
There is ample evidence that global waming has happened before, happens in natural cycles, and is currently happeneing again of its own volition, with no prompting from humanity. It's been happening for about 1500 years or so.
There is ample evidence of global warming on Mars, Saturn, Neptune, and the Moon. None of that has anything to do with human activity.
There is ample evidence that the Sun is getting hotter... The Sun gets hotter and cooler in cycles. It has nothing to do with human activity.
There is ample evidence that the models used to "prove" global warming is linked to human activity are very flawed.
So if I believe that the science of global warming is not "settled" as many would like us to believe, it's because there is ample scientific evidence to back that position.
By the way... What is the optimal temperature at which the Earth is supposed to operate at? Unless you know the answer to that question, how do you know that the planet is getting "too hot"? Maybe until now it has been too cold, and Nature is fixing that by raising temperatures. So what is the correct temperature of the planet supposed to be?
Fact is, the scientists never mention that point because they don't know the answer. They don't know what the optimal climate conditions are supposed to be, so they really can't say whether the world is getting too hot or too cold or just right. They can only say that temperatures are currently rising, and they ASSUME that this is a bad thing. But there is no proof that its a bad thing at all.
Without that information, how can you know what is best for the planet and for humanity?
The International Journal of Climatology of the Royal Meteorological Society published a study naming the sun as the real culprit in global warming. Study co-author S. Fred Singer of the University of Virginia said, “We are fairly sure that what’s causing the warming are changes in the sun.” Co-author David H. Douglass of the University of Rochester added, “The inescapable conclusion is that the human contribution is not significant.”
This report, though, is unlikely to change the minds of Australian scientists who want to cut greenhouse gases by giving cows and sheep kangaroo stomachs because ‘roo' flatulence is methane free and,more environmentally friendly than that of their bovine counterparts.
I am having a hard time thinking how to graph this and I was wondering if anyone can help me out?
Queens University has a theft problem. Bicycles and stereo equipment have been stolen from many campus locations.
To reduce the extent of the problem, the campus police have hired 5 new officers. The...