QUOTE(Minute Man @ Mar 30 2003, 05:36 AM)
Koyoto is a flawed document that unfairly penalizes industrialized countries by mandating reductions in CO2 production while allowing a greater growth of CO2 production in third world countries. It does NOTHING to reduce the TOTAL carbon dioxide production.
Global warming hypothesis is patently flawed in assuming the earth will get hotter than it ever was from releasing anthropogenically less than 1/100th of the carbon sinked in fossil fuels. This assumption hinges on the premise the earth climate is a metastable system that is on the brink of disaster when in fact, it is an intrinsically stable system...you know those things called seasons?
The basis for this poor science is a overall lack of total scientific disclipline approach to modeling. Thermodynamics of the hydrologic cycle are poorly accounted for...I wish I had the data in front of me but it has been debated on the Junkscience forum much more extensively that it ever will here.
Whenever an already complex issue is clouded with periphery it can be difficult for laypeople to muddle through the disinformation and seize hold of the truth. In so far as global warming is concerned: The politicization of environmental issues, coupled with the lack of a holistic understanding of climatology has made the right path even more difficult to discern. Anyone professing to KNOW the way is either misled or deliberately dealing in subterfuge.
The Heidelberg Appeal (4,000+ signatories, including 72 Nobel Prize winners, from 106 countries) states: ' (We are) worried at the dawn of the twenty-first century, at the emergence of an irrational ideology which is opposed to scientific and industrial progress and impedes economic and social development.
'(We) forewarn the authorities in charge of our planet's destiny against decisions which are supported by pseudoscientific arguments or false and nonrelevant data.
'The greatest evils which stalk our Earth are ignorance and oppression, and not Science, Technology, and Industry whose instruments, when adequately managed, are indispensable tools of a future shape by Humanity, by itself and for itself, overcoming major problems like overpopulation, starvation and worldwide diseases.'
It is no secret that portions of the 'Green' movement has been hi-jacked by leftists motivated by a hatred for capitalism, not a love of nature. Environmentalism is not dependant on any particular political ideology; and those that would use 'Mother Earth' as a pawn to further their agendas do a disservice to true adherents.
And scientists, on both sides, are not immune to allowing prejudice and external motivations to color their findings. Scientific misconduct is an unfortunate byproduct of the relentless quest for money. Research is dependant on funding - and funding is dependant on results. An industry of competing global models has sprung up where 'accuracy' for some is in the production of a dire prediction guaranteed to create headlines. On an issue such as this, with socio-economic implications of global proportions, is it not paramount to maintain impartiality?
That there is no scientific consensus of a global-warming threat is indicated by surveys of active scientists. A November 1991 Gallup poll of 400 members of the American Meteorological Society and the American Geophysical Union found that only 19 percent of those polled believed that human-induced global warming has occurred. That same year, Greenpeace International surveyed 400 scientists who had worked on the 1990 report of the influential U.N. Intergovernment Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) or had published related articles. Asked whether current policies might instigate a runaway greenhouse effect, only 13 percent of the 113 respondents said it was 'probable' and 32 percent 'possible.' But 47 percent said 'probably not'-far from a consensus.
In recent years, research on global climate change has led even more scientists to doubt that global warming is upon us or that it would soon bring disaster (Science, May 16, 1997). Yet these doubts are characteristically downplayed in IPCC reports. While the body of the IPCC's 800-page, 1996 report, The Science of Climate Change, mentioned some doubts (albeit cryptically), the report's much-publicized, politically approved Summary for Policymakers did not. This gave the false impression that all 2000-plus scientists who contributed to (or had their work cited in) the report also supported the view that man-made global warming was occurring or posed a credible threat. The IPCC report even indicated that the scientists who reviewed and commented on earlier drafts endorsed the report-whether their comments on the drafts were positive or negative.
Given our incomplete understanding of how the atmosphere works how is it possible to accurately forecast conditions decades in the future? A telling indicator of this 'pseudoscience' is the fact that current modeling does not correlate with observed temperature changes. The IPCC's 1995 estimate of average global warming at the surface until the year 2100 is +0.18 deg. C/decade. Climate models suggest that the deep layer measured by the satellite and weather balloons should be warming about 30% faster than the surface (+0.23 deg. C/decade). When surface temperatures are adjusted for heat island effect they fall in line with weather satellites and balloon instruments - which show that the Earth is actually cooling. 'The temperatures we measure from space are actually on a very slight downward trend since 1979 in the lower troposphere. We see major excursions due to volcanic eruptions like Pinatubo, and ocean current phenomena like El Nino, but overall the trend is about 0.05 degrees Celsius per decade cooling.' Hardly convincing evidence to base proposed draconian regulation of the energy and oil industry upon. http://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/hl_temp_ud.html http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/hea...sd13aug98_1.htmhttp://www.ghcc.msfc.nasa.gov/MSU/msusci.html
Why the fixation on CO2? Water vapor absorbs fully 90-95 percent of all infrared radiation, while carbon dioxide accounts for around only 5 percent. Couple this with the fact that most (between 70 and 90 percent depending upon the source) carbon dioxide is produced naturally by biomass decomposition, forest fires, and volcanoes and it becomes very difficult to see just how man made CO2 is having any significant impact on the global temperature.
Recently a review of more than 240 scientific studies has shown that today's temperatures are neither the warmest over the past millennium, nor are they producing the most extreme weather. The review, carried out by a team from Harvard University, examined the findings of studies of so-called "temperature proxies" such as tree rings, ice cores and historical accounts which allow scientists to estimate temperatures prevailing at sites around the world.
The findings prove that the world experienced a Medieval Warm Period between the ninth and 14th centuries with global temperatures significantly higher even than today. They also confirm claims that a Little Ice Age set in around 1300, during which the world cooled dramatically. Since 1900, the world has begun to warm up again - but has still to reach the balmy temperatures of the Middle Ages.
The timing of the end of the Little Ice Age is especially significant, as it implies that the records used by climate scientists date from a time when the Earth was relatively cold, thereby exaggerating the significance of today's temperature rise - if it does exist. According to the researchers, the evidence confirms suspicions that today's "unprecedented" temperatures are simply the result of examining temperature change over too short a period of time.
The IPCC has conceded the possibility that today's "record-breaking" temperatures may be at least partly caused by the Earth recovering from a relatively cold period in recent history. While the evidence for entirely natural changes in the Earth's temperature continues to grow, its causes still remain mysterious.
The Kyoto Protocol would have required the United States to cut its greenhouse gas emissions to 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2012, which would have amounted to a real reduction of 30 percent when taking into account growth in the nation's economy and population.
Harvard economist Robert Stavins took a hard look at the Kyoto mandates. For the United States to comply by the specified deadline, the government would have been forced to increase the cost of energy to the point that it drove down demand by as much as 40 percent. That would have entailed a doubling of the cost of petroleum and natural gas. It would have required a quadrupling of the cost of coal - which generates two-thirds of the nation's electricity. All told, Stavins estimated, implementation of the Kyoto Protocol would have cost the U.S. economy $200 billion a year.
I put forth that everyone that has contributed to this thread is genuinely concerned about the state of the environment. No one can deny the interconnectedness of all living things: and as the de-facto stewards of the planet we are entrusted with maintaining the diversity of life. As we share a common fate, it behooves us to be united in purpose. But our concern for the future can not give way to irrational actions, prompted by hurried and questionable science, at times pushed forth by ulterior motivations. Sweeping changes in socio-economic structures in a rash effort to forestall a predicted future is simply not the answer at this time.