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?

Arctic ice pack melting at record rate - Environment - smh.com.au (http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/arctics-record-melt/2007/12/13/1197135655544.html)

Isn't it true that Rudd signed Kyoto fast enough and now he is backing off enforcement ?
Kevin Rudd recoils from climate change pledge | Herald Sun (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22883548-662,00.html)

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.

More on the issue of "settled science"


“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 (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010763)

Edit added info:

Bali organizers cancelled a scheduled press conference Thursday morning by the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) - a group of international scientists who protest the scientific basis of climate alarmism.Skeptical Scientists Kicked Off UN Press Schedule in Bali ... Again (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-13-2007/0004722557&EDATE=)

It's the second such incident in a week.


The Heartland Institute reports that “earlier in the week.. . (UN official) Barbara Black interrupted the press conference and demanded the scientists immediately cease. She threatened to have the police physically remove them from the premises. (In addition) ICSC scientists have been prevented from participating in panel discussions, side events, and exhibits.”
U.N. Blackballs International Scientists from Climate Change Conference - by Tom Swiss - The Heartland Institute (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22401)


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."

Skell,

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.

Elliot

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.

History will judge us, and it won't be good.

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 it's 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.

Skuffy,

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 it's a bad thing at all.

Without that information, how can you know what is best for the planet and for humanity?

Elliot

More on the solar impact .

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.”

Global warming study by universities says it's natural (http://www.enjoyfrance.com/content/view/1167/31/)

Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news (http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1501&status=article&id=282441606882585)

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.

Kangaroo farts could ease global warming | Herald Sun (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22879806-5005961,00.html)

Ananova - Flatulent sheep cause global warming (http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_101581.html?nav_src=newsIndexHeadline)

Did you know that Canadian beer drinkers cause global warming ?

Your View: Cold beers warming the planet, study finds (http://www.cbc.ca/news/yourview/2007/11/cold_beers_warming_the_planet.html)

Or that using toilet paper causes it ?

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Crow calls for limit on loo paper (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/6583067.stm)

That turning food sources into biofuel is creating a huge inflation problem in food costs world wide ;especially with pasta ?

BBC NEWS | Europe | Italians facing pasta price rise (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6287850.stm)

Skuffy is right... people are bad for the planet!! Children 'bad for planet' | NEWS.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21684156-5009760,00.html)

Everyone quit breathing! Will California Make Breathing Illegal? - Center for Global Food Issues (CGFI) (http://www.cgfi.org/materials/articles/2002/jul_24_02.htm)

No doubt that is on the Bali agenda also .

tomder55 agrees: not quite but you are close . Congress is set to pass mandatory Café standards that will be very difficult for the auto industry to meet.

Hadn't seen that yet... interesting stuff. Thanks!

There are a number of different arguments against it. One is that it would slow the growth of the world's industrial democracies and also transfer wealth to the third world in what they claim is a global socialism initiative.

Will China and India sign on?

Would it be enforceable?

If the US does and India and China do not, what trade implications are there?
How can US business compete, not only with their labor costs, but with the added reglations and costs?

Jawbone from ancient polar bear discovered - Natural History Museum (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/about-us/news/2007/december/news_13144.html)

He carried out dating tests on the fossil and the results suggest an age of between 80,000 and 150,000 years old

Previous fossils thought to belong to polar bears have been found as far south as the UK, including one from Kew Bridge in London, thought to be 70,000 years old

---- so #1] the polar bear may have been around 10,000 to 80,000 years longer than scientists originally thought
Wow - what a margin of error

#2] the polar bear was once as far south as UK and despite the earth warming they continue to survive and will probably continue to survive.



Conserving energy, seeking alternate means to fossil fuels and general good stewardship of the earth is a good and worthy cause - just do it and stop politicizing it.

The US had a change of heart on the final day in Bali. It seemed the pressure from the other nations did have an impact!

Skell, I am curious, but I thought that the Canadian government were also opposed as well with the states. Has the canadian government had a change of heart as well, or were there provisions that finally were agreed upon to pass kyoto. Hope you can answer these things for me.
Thanks.

Canada signed Kyoto back in 1997 (along with the US). Canada however also ratified this in 2002 and actually adopted the agreement and agreed to reduce emissions. Australia and the US were the only 2 developed countries not to do this.

Ill agree that there were / are some fundamental issues with Kyoto, however I think they are now being ironed out. Canada, along with other nations agreed with the US on some of these issues, however were still committed to finding a solution.

The problem in the recent talks in Bali was that the US stood in the way, at least until the very final day, of progress being made. Bali was designed for Kyoto nations to look at ways of continuing to reduce emissions beyond 2012.

Although the US actually didn't ratify Kyoto in Bali, they did agree to stay part of the 'climate change process'! Basically Washington has stood its ground on emission cuts claiming that setting goals would hurt its economic growth.

Doesn't really help smaller countries like Samoa, Tonga, Fiji etc. who are directly effected by climate change and rising sea levels. Someone should probably tell them they are just part of the cycle of life so put up with it! Im a little more understanding though. Its probably just a tad disheartening for them to hear that other countries can't 'afford' to do anything while there very existence is in jeopardy.

The reason why I asked is our present government has been absent and many people do not agree with the stance of our current government and in all honesty they wanted to scrap kyoto and not even try to reach their targets. The government here was also talking about bringing in their own targets for just us in Canada and not even be involved in kyoto but I also think that this stance was not well tolerated with the public so the government stood for certain changes in kyoto. In order for it to proceed. The governments point is do not just enforce this on the bigest countries but all developing countries.

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?

Elliot

I don't know the answer to that Elliot. But I'll take the fact that during this 1500 year cycle your talking about, human life has survived and flourished just fine. Meaning we, and the rest of the life on this planet, like the temperature just how it is. There may be no proof Elliot that rising temperatures are bad thing (many will argue with that - I'm not sure your citizens in Hawaii will agree with you there), but there is proof (and your it) that the current temperature is a good thing.

So if life as we know it survives good enough at its current temperature, I say lets look at keeping it there. Id much rather look at our options and act now, then take our chances and hope that when the world heats up everything will be fine and dandy.

There may be no proof that rising temperatures are a bad thing, but there isn't proof that it is a good thing either.

We have a few options the way I see it.

We don't act, we save our money and the world doesn't survive. Well then nothing much is lost is it, because we were always going to lose anyway.

We do act, spend some money and save the world. I'd see it as money well spent don't you?

We do act even though we never had to (unknown), there is downturn in the world economy because of this, but nevertheless we still survive and we live to fight another day. The economy recovers and we move forward.

We don't act and nothing happens (again unknown). Everything goes on as normal.

Im a betting man Elliot but when it comes to the planet Earth id like to have a little more up my sleeve than a 1 in 2 unknown pop that may just very well determine the fate of the planet we live on.

Id prefer to have a few bob each way on something proactive even if I I'm not entirely convinced on whether I really need to throw my money on it in order to win.

That's just me.

Im betting you'd be happy to simply do nothing and just hope for the best. You're a banker Elliot, surely that's a risk you wouldn't take with your money is it?

The reason why I asked is our present government has been absent and many people do not agree with the stance of our current government and in all honesty they wanted to scrap kyoto and not even try to reach their targets. The government here was also talking about bringing in their own targets for just us in Canada and not even be involved in kyoto but I also think that this stance was not well tolerated with the public so the government stood for certain changes in kyoto. In order for it to proceed. The governments point is do not just enforce this on the bigest countries but all developing countries.

I think you'll find that Kyoto was originally signed by a previous government (Liberal) and the current administration doesn't go along with that policy (probably only because it wasn't theres). You had a similar problem to us. Our ex-PM was a staunch Bush ally and basically took his policy on almost every international issue even though it wasn't the feelings of his electorate.

I guess that is why he was annihilated (the largest swing against a sitting government ever, and Howard, the PM, actually lost his own seat in parliament) at the recent federal elections and we now have a new government.

The French were publicly critical of your governments change in attitude. However it should be noted that they have succumbed to outside pressure and now agree with the rest of the Kyoto worlds decisions in Bali.

Did you see the news that a study in the Royal Metereological Society plugged the info on climate into 22 different models the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC) uses to model future climate trends . All 22 math models failed to predict the last twenty-five years accurately .

New study increases concerns about climate model reliability (http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-12/w-nsi121107.php)


"The usual discussion is whether the climate model forecasts of Earth's climate 100 years or so into the future are realistic," said the lead author, Dr. David H. Douglass from the University of Rochester. "Here we have something more fundamental: Can the models accurately explain the climate from the recent past? It seems that the answer is no."

"The 22 climate models used in this study are the same models used by the UN Intergovernmental Panel of Climate Change (IPCC), which recently shared a Nobel Peace Prize with former Vice President Al Gore."

"We suggest ... that projections of future climate based on these models should be viewed with much caution," said Dr. Fred Singer from the University of Virginia.

Hello skell:

There are still a few righty's who think global warming is Gore's idea. We have some here.

However, it would seem that ordinary conservatives would embrace it for the following two reasons: 1) It would be prudent to embrace a policy that "conserves" the status quo. I don't mean the BUSINESS status quo. I mean the LEVELS OF THE OCEANS status quo. 2) There's jillions to be made in the new industries being created. That too would seem to be right up a conservatives alley.

However, they don't seem to be pleased with the news. I don't know why. Maybe the people who deny global warming aren't real conservatives at all. Maybe they're stockholders in the entrenched polluters. They surely sound like it.

excon

Bali organizers cancelled a scheduled press conference Thursday morning by the International Climate Science Coalition (ICSC) - a group of international scientists who protest the scientific basis of climate alarmism.Skeptical Scientists Kicked Off UN Press Schedule in Bali ... Again (http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/12-13-2007/0004722557&EDATE=)

It’s the second such incident in a week.


The Heartland Institute reports that “earlier in the week. . . (UN official) Barbara Black interrupted the press conference and demanded the scientists immediately cease. She threatened to have the police physically remove them from the premises. (In addition) ICSC scientists have been prevented from participating in panel discussions, side events, and exhibits.”
U.N. Blackballs International Scientists from Climate Change Conference - by Tom Swiss - The Heartland Institute (http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=22401)

Didn't Bush catch all kind of hell for 'censoring' an alleged climate expert at NASA? It's good to know that silencing critics isn't just a Bush thing...

Skell,

You make a few good arguments in your post.

However, consider that mankind as been around for either 6,000 years or 50,000-150,000 years, depending on whether you believe that Bible or archeology/paleantology. That is considerably longer than the 1500-year cycle of global warming and cooling that we are talking about. Mankind grew and flourished at colder temperatures and at warmer temperatures because we are the most adaptable creatures on Earth. The argument that we need to stop global warming because of our own safety and survival is somewhat lacking, in my opinion. We've survived these natural cycles for a long time.

Second, your argument assumes that anything we do will have an appreciable effect on global warming. If it is a natural phenomenon, then nothing we do is going to change it or slow it or stop it from happening.

Your argument that we have nothing to lose and everything to gain from taking action is the best argument out there. And to a certain extent, I agree. But not to the point of creating an economic downturn that will have a greater effect on human survival than global warming ever will. More people will starve to death or die from disease and other poverty-related issues due to economic upheaval than ever will die from global warming. Just take a look at the most poverty-striken parts of the world and tell me that they will be better off for the kind of economic downturn we're talking about. If THEY were given a choice which do you think they go for... action to stop global warming or an improved economic situation in their part of the world?

You, like many others I speak to, fail to realize that the economy effects REAL PEOPLE. When you say "there is downturn in the world economy because of this, but nevertheless we still survive and we live to fight another day. The economy recovers and we move forward" you are forgetting that people are affected by economic decisions, and in some places they are effected in a real life-or-death way. "The Economy" is not some nebulous thing for businessmen and investors and bankers like myself. It is the lifeblood that keeps food on the tables, roofs over the heads, and clothing on the backs of billions of people. And messing with it has huge consequences... and some people won't recover from those consequences. So I don't agree that we have everything to gain and nothing to lose. It is true to a point, but only to a point, and past that point, we REALLY need to be very careful of what actions we take toward the economy.

As for using me as your example... last night we had temperatures in the low 20s (farenheit) in my area, and winds gusting into the high 40 MPH range. It was friggin' COLD out there, and it will probably get colder before it gets warmer. I certainly wouldn't mind if temperatures rose an everage of 2-3 degrees in my area over the next two or three decades. As for the really hot places (like Houston, Texas, where my wife's family lives) they already have summers that hit the 120 range. Would an increase in temps of 2-3 degrees really affect them? They already go from their air-conditioned homes to their air-conditioned cars, to their air-conditioned malls, to their air-conditioned offices, etc. The extra 2-3 degrees will not have an appreciable effect on them one way or the other. As I said, we're adaptable. That's why humans can live in climates that range from deserts to tundras to rain forests to mountain ranges. We're the only species on Earth that lives in such a diverse range of climates. Very few other animals can adapt to differing climates as we do. That's why we'll survive, and why global warming isn't all that big a deal to humanity.

And we have the ability to extend our adaptability to other species as well... we have created conservation ranges for near-extinct animals that are now thriving. So we have proven the ability to save other spieces from the effects of global warming too.

Simply put, Skell, it isn't that big a deal.

That said, there are some very good reasons to work on fuel efficiency and alternative fuels. The weakness of being reliant on Middle Eastern and Venezuelan oil sources is the major one, in my opinion. And we should allow the capitalist system to develop a solution to that problem as it has for most other problems we have encountered over the years. But global warming is NOT a reason to make major changes to our economy.

Elliot

Skuffy is right .......people are bad for the planet !!! Children 'bad for planet' | NEWS.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,21684156-5009760,00.html)

We already knew that, what with those folks now aborting babies to save the earth (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=495495&in_page_id=1879).

Hello skell:

There are still a few righty's who think global warming is Gore's idea. We have some here.

However, it would seem that ordinary conservatives would embrace it for the following two reasons: 1) It would be prudent to embrace a policy that "conserves" the status quo. I don't mean the BUSINESS status quo. I mean the LEVELS OF THE OCEANS status quo. 2) There's jillions to be made in the new industries being created. That too would seem to be right up a conservatives alley.

However, they don’t seem to be pleased with the news. I don't know why. Maybe the people who deny global warming aren't real conservatives at all. Maybe they're stockholders in the entrenched polluters. They surely sound like it.

Excon the science mon, for someone who bellyaches about losing rights and supports a guy name Ron Paul who says "The people of Texas do not need federal regulators determining our air standards," it seems odd you would take issue with conservatives telling the UN and the Greenies to mind their own business on this.

Like tom and others I believe it makes sense to clean the air and pollute less, but I take issue with the agenda - and it is an agenda - driven by politics and not science.

Take this quote by al-AP reporter Charles J. Hanley (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gBTCrOwOrOXV9BkLBDRmtO3XWbHQD8TI50E80) on the latest UN global warming scheme for instance:


What they decide in the next two years will help determine how much the world warms in the decades to come.

How so seeing as how science can't even guess what the weather will be at 2:00 o'clock, let alone in 2020? I guess they missed the fact that Oklahoma has been under a blanket of ice and snow for the last week.

Steve

When we talk about climate change I'm not so sure we are talking about the people of New York, Houston or Oklahoma. Sometime's the picture is a little bigger than our own back yard.

Whether it is cyclical or not I really don't know, but even in my short life time I have noticed some sharp differences in weather patterns, ocean currents and temperatures etc. I'm surfer and I can tell you now that water temperatures and currents have changed pretty dramatically pretty quickly down here. Dismissing scientists who claim that climate change is a problem is just as easy as dismissing those who don't. But it really appears to me that the bulk of the world now admits there is a problem and that we have contributed significantly to it.

If it was cyclical over 1500 years you wouldn't think id be able to notice a difference over 10 or so would you. I think it would be so gradual that you would hardly notice a difference in a lifetime.

India teams up with China, Pak at climate change meet-India-The Times of India (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/India_teams_up_with_China_Pak_at_climate_change_me et/articleshow/2593340.cms)

"At the ad-hoc working group meeting on Monday, India was told, "You have the largest number of billionaires. Why can't you accept cuts and targets."
The riposte from Indian and Chinese officials was almost instantaneous. "We are large countries. Our poverty is just as large," they said"


So India and China feel that climate change regulations will hinder their development.

India 1.12 billion
China 1.32 billion

That is quite a lot of people.

Look at any major US university college and graduate departments in computers , engineering, the 'hard' sciences. These Asians are way over represented compared to their proportion of the general population. These are not dumb or ignorant people, yet their native countries' governments are not marching in step at Bali. Hmmmm...

China and India must be right wing, and don't believe in the wisdom of Gore.