Harper and Bush Should Resist Kyoto Fraud

[jbg]

Bush and Harper are coming under a lot of pressure from the chattering classes to endorse Kyoto and take self-destructive steps to "comply" with this global suicide pact. The invitation should be resisted, firmly

A little historical perspective is in order on the issue of global warming. In the days of the Vikings, around the year 1000, wine grapes were harvested in Newfoundland and Greenland and Iceland were both fit for agriculture. I doubt that man-made pollution made that possible.

Then, during the "Little Ice Age" of the late 1700's cannons could cross the Hudson River near New York City on the solid ice. Dickens' had the snowy settings for his stories in London. In short, we are at neither the warm nor cold extremes of recent history. We should remember that previously we worried about a man-made "Ice Age" during the three cold winters of 1976-77 (with record cold, record Buffalo area snow, though NYC got almost no snow, the Hudson River froze); 1977-78 (with record East Coast snows); and 1978-79 (with record Chicago area snows).

Before steps are taken that will bankrupt the Canadian and US economies (mostly to benefit European economies) a bit of calm reflection is in order. The details of the Kyoto accord show its cynicism; the base year for calculating greenhouse gases is 1990, just prior to when Europe and Japan started a major recession and just before the USA and Canada experienced economic growth.

If countries are forced to reduce emissions 15% from 1990 levels, guess which countries get to suffer? Almost entirely Canada and the US. On that score, I have a modest suggestion; suggest to the Europeans that the base year for measuring Kyoto compliance be changed from 1990 (12 years ago) to 2000. See how fast the Europeans would look to get out of Kyoto.

If you're interested, I refer you to these links:

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1305/

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1295/

and

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Libr...mingArticle.pdf or, if you're having trouble opening,

http://www.intellicast.com/DrDewpoint/Library/1395/

The summation of this is that there are many causes of climate change; there are the famous, roughly 3-5 year El Nino, La Nina cycles, there is the less famous 30 year Pacific Decadal Oscillation (that has biased towards warming from 1977 on and should now be causing a bias towards cooling), even longer sunspot cycles, etc

There have, over the millenia, been lots of incidents of both warming and cooling of climate. The Viking era (warm); the period when Dickens wrote (cold). Kyoto - billions for nothing.

On the other hand there have been natural cycles for centuries. It is most arrogant to think that just because we, as humans, congregate between approximately 35 degrees north and 50 degrees north, that the area will forever stay exactly the way we want it. There is nothing a bunch of politicians can do to change this.

[jdobbin]

All environmental laws should be eliminated to stimulate the economy.

[jbg]

All environmental laws should be eliminated to stimulate the economy.

That's not a fair characterization of my post, Jdobbin. Certain environmental laws, regulation toxic air and water pollution, are well worth it. Anyone with an ounce of brains knows that sulfure dioxide is poisonous when inhaled in large quantities. Anyone knows that industrial chemicals make water unsuitable for drinking, fishing or swimming. Attacking "global warming", a cyclical phenomena, with radical economic restrictions is pure waste.

[Leafless]

It would be foolish to suggest earth was created to accommodate man as the evidence suggest, it wasn't.

Over population and the effects of a polluted globe go hand in hand.

But saying this, it should be the responsibility of countries do do their part to help combat this problem and a plan such as Kyoto that somehow puts itself in the ludicrous position to blame and penalize certain countries is certainly not the route to take.

http://www.sierraclub.org/population/repor...obalwarming.asp

[PolyNewbie]

I think most people have caught on to the global warming hoax, except of course the coporate sponsored main stream media. Its in the Report From Iron Mountain. It is presented as a hoax in this link.

There are many stories surrounding this report, its only about 15 pages long. Some say it was a joke and its not authentic. I believe developments that have occured since it was written show that it is true. John Kenneth Galbraith said it was real and that he was part of it. A 15 minute speech by Aldous Huxley that can be found here is also quite educational in the context of today but not on the particulars of global warming but does reinforce the ideas behind the Report From Iron Mountain which does discuss global warming. Togather they will take 1/2 hour of your time.

[jdobbin]

That's not a fair characterization of my post, Jdobbin. Certain environmental laws, regulation toxic air and water pollution, are well worth it. Anyone with an ounce of brains knows that sulfure dioxide is poisonous when inhaled in large quantities. Anyone knows that industrial chemicals make water unsuitable for drinking, fishing or swimming. Attacking "global warming", a cyclical phenomena, with radical economic restrictions is pure waste.

The Republicans believed in the 1980s that acid rain came from ducks.

They had no interest in smog or water pollution controls. Mulroney kept pushing for an acid rain agreement and it was his relationship with Reagan that got it.

As far as Kyoto goes, I still haven't seen your science on it despite whatever links you've put up. I often don't even see someone bothering to attach their names to the "research."

In any event, Bush is being pushed by fellow Republicans on the environment and they doing a better job than Canada on the subject.

[Leafless]

All environmental laws should be eliminated to stimulate the economy.

Actually Canada is promoting that concept by importing millions of immigrants from warm countries.

In their own country these people use little natural resources to maintain their existence.

Coming to Canada this all changes and now these immigrants represent an additional problem concerning utilizing and using resources responsible for global warming.

Sometimes I think our politicians are just plain nuts and are totally uncaring about Canada's future.

[Guthrie]

...global warming is not an output of computer models; it is a conclusion based on observations of a great MANY global indicators. By far the most straight forward evidence is the actual surface temperature record. While there are places -- in England, for example -- that have records going backe several centuries, the two major global temperature analyses can only go back around 150 years due to their requirements for both quantity and distribution of temperature recording stations.

These are the two most reputable globally and seasonally averaged temperature trend analyses: NASA GISS direct surface temperature analysis and CRU direct surface temperature analysis.

Both trends are definitely and significantly up. In addition to direct measurements of surface temperature, there are many other measurements and indicators that support the general direction and magnitude of the change the earth is currently undergoing. The following diverse imperical observations lead to the same unequivocal conclusion that the earth is warming:Satellite Data, Radiosondes, Borehole analysis, Glacial melt observations, Sea ice melt, Sea level rise, Proxy reconstructions, Permafrost melt.

There is simply no room for doubt: the Earth is undergoing a rapid and large warming trend.

...

Link

[Guthrie]

...

Jonathan Overpeck, director of the UA's Institute for the Study of Planet Earth and one of the key authors of the report, called it a "slam dunk."

Strom said, "Humans are responsible 100 percent, not just greater than 90 percent" (the panel's shocking finding).

There's no argument, the way Strom sees it. That train has left the station — and it's burning coal.

Strom lines up dozens of data sets suspected of having a connection to climate change; all show dramatic positive correlations with industrialization and population growth.

Even the anomalies point to man, Strom said, noting dips during economic downturns such as the Great Depression, when greenhouse-gas production tapered off briefly.

"Whenever you have a world recession," Strom said, "the greenhouse-gas emissions go down. They start going down first, even before you know you have a recession. When it starts going down, sell your stock."

Another disturbing statistical burp — a decrease in temperatures followed by a dramatic spike — lines up with the Clean Air Act and its controls on exhaust stack emissions.

"The one thing uncertain is long-term consequences," he said.

But that, Strom said, is just a matter of how bad the situation will be. Without a massive turnaround in production of greenhouse-gas emissions within 20 years — a 60 percent cut in greenhouse gases or a 70 percent reduction in carbon dioxide alone — reversal of the trend may be impossible, he said.

"When the CO2 abundance reaches 440 parts per million, the temperature will eventually reach a minimum of 3.6 degrees F (higher than average) no matter what we do," Strom said.

The CO2 level today is 381 parts per million. And even if we were able to maintain today's levels, Strom said, that could produce temperatures 1 to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit higher worldwide in 50 years — "enough to produce serious consequences." ...

Link

the only doubts about GW are coming from morons who put money above all else and the morons they can dupe

[imatitlover]

Maybe you missed it.

I know its been 6 years and maybe you havnt been watching the news.

But Bush resisted Kyoto 6 years ago when he tore up the agreement

[imatitlover]

The Republicans believed in the 1980s that acid rain came from ducks.

Jack Barker says the reason the south side of Blind Bay is so murky is because of the geese.

The fact their are hundreds of un regulated and not properly maintained septic tanks in his subdivision all draining into the south side of blind bay has nothing to do with it according to Jack

[geoffrey]

But Bush resisted Kyoto 6 years ago when he tore up the agreement

And his emissions increased less than the Liberals with their piece of paper.

[jbg]

Maybe you missed it. I know its been 6 years and maybe you havnt been watching the news. But Bush resisted Kyoto 6 years ago when he tore up the agreement

Maybe you missed the US Senate's advisory 97-0 vote, in 1997, to suggest that President Clinton not submit Kyoto for ratification.

[Guthrie]

Maybe you missed it. I know its been 6 years and maybe you havnt been watching the news. But Bush resisted Kyoto 6 years ago when he tore up the agreement

Maybe you missed the US Senate's advisory 97-0 vote, in 1997, to suggest that President Clinton not submit Kyoto for ratification.

No, there was no such vote. There was a vote but it was before Kyoto had been finalized and your characterization of it's intent is way off base.

[jbg]

No, there was no such vote. There was a vote but it was before Kyoto had been finalized and your characterization of it's intent is way off base.

I give up. How would you characterize that vote? As a bad joke?

[Guthrie]

as a Senate wanting to make sure the treaty has everybody lifting their own weight

[jbg]

as a Senate wanting to make sure the treaty has everybody lifting their own weight

The Byrd-Hagel Resolution of the U.S. Senate (link) read, in relevant part, as follows:

RESOLUTION

Expressing the sense of the Senate regarding the conditions for the United States becoming a signatory to any international agreement on greenhouse gas emissions under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

Whereas the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (in this resolution referred to as the `Convention'), adopted in May 1992, entered into force in 1994 and is not yet fully implemented;

Whereas the Convention, intended to address climate change on a global basis, identifies the former Soviet Union and the countries of Eastern Europe and the Organization For Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), including the United States, as `Annex I Parties', and the remaining 129 countries, including China, Mexico, India, Brazil, and South Korea, as `Developing Country Parties';

*snip*

Whereas the `Berlin Mandate' specifically exempts all Developing Country Parties from any new commitments in such negotiation process for the post-2000 period;

*snip*

Whereas the Senate strongly believes that the proposals under negotiation, because of the disparity of treatment between Annex I Parties and Developing Countries and the level of required emission reductions, could result in serious harm to the United States economy, including significant job loss, trade disadvantages, increased energy and consumer costs, or any combination thereof; and

Whereas it is desirable that a bipartisan group of Senators be appointed by the Majority and Minority Leaders of the Senate for the purpose of monitoring the status of negotiations on Global Climate Change and reporting periodically to the Senate on those negotiations: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved, That it is the sense of the Senate that--

(1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

(A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

( would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

(2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

This resolution, voted 95-0, seems like a pretty decisive, bi-partisan view. I suspect the Protocal and Treaty is pretty much dead.

[Guthrie]

except the treaty doesn't contradict the resolution

[jbg]

except the treaty doesn't contradict the resolution

Sure it does. It binds only "Annex 'A'", i.e. developed countries, and it would have a measurable negative economic impact on the US.