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

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

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"

Quote:

---

“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

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

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

Quote:

---

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

Today in Investor's Business Daily stock analysis and business news

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

Ananova - Flatulent sheep cause global warming

Did you know that Canadian beer drinkers cause global warming ?

Your View: Cold beers warming the planet, study finds

Or that using toilet paper causes it ?

BBC NEWS | Entertainment | Crow calls for limit on loo paper

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

Skuffy is right... people are bad for the planet!! Children 'bad for planet' | NEWS.com.au

Everyone quit breathing! Will California Make Breathing Illegal? - Center for Global Food Issues (CGFI)

No doubt that is on the Bali agenda also .

Quote:

---

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

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ETWolverine

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?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jesushelper76

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

Quote:

---

"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.

---