Close Topic Options

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? - Page 14

If you want to get the US on board with a global warming initiative, you will need to include India and China. If they are not included, it really wont matter which party is in power, they wont play. Clinton was smart enough to push the decision off onto Bush because he didn't want to be the one to say "no". The US has a few economist of their own and the reality is that for any sitting President, if the economy goes into the tank or stalls, you are responsible and probably out next go around. However, we do have to work with other nations and if you get these 2 countries on board, the US and the other countries that did not ratify Kyoto (including Australia) will have no choice but to play ball.

The current administration has listed 2 things as to their reason for not signing up. They are basically the same as other countries which did not sign the Kyoto agreement. The lack of restraint on India and China plus economic impact.

https://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1223/p01s04-sten.html

Over 700 new coal fired power plants from 3 countries trying to reach or stay on top economically speaking. Now this is just power plants, many homes in China are using coal to heat their homes that have little to no power.

No fooling, we do need to work on polution, but a vote of yes for a pass to 2012 for India and China will result in these plants being built and built with less then efficient and "green" technologies.

I won't even get into the issue about no one wanting a power plant in their back yard, be it nuclear, hydro or coal driven.

Man-made Natural Warming Global

Isn't the US supposed to be a world leader, or is it a follower? Why not lead on the environment? Why lead in commiting acts of war on other people for no reason, but not on the environment? If the US spent just a fraction of its war budget it would make a massive difference to the environment. But instead of cleaning up its own mess, it wants to make a mess everywhere else. And who cares what China and India does, how is that America's concern? Does the US always follow everything these two countries do? The US is by far the biggest polluter in total and per capita. India and China are low per capita polluters because they are developing. Those countries are both over three times bigger than the US and they pollute far less.

Europe is streets ahead when it comes to measures to tackle climate change. Quite frankly, it should be a source of embarrassment that the US doesn't want to lead in this arena. I am embarrassed the Australian Government won't ratify Kyoto. But if you ask most Australians, then they would overwhelmingly say ratify it. It's just the right-wing government which has been in power for over a decade that is against it, but even they are now starting to accept the challenge of climate change. I'm not sure if this is the case in the US but I will bet a lot of Americans care.

This whole notion that ratifying Kyoto hurts the economy is nonsense. There is no proof whatsoever. Anyone can employ "economists" who will tell you what you want to hear, just like anyone can ask intelligence agencies to lie about evidence for war.

Do you honestly believe that countries who have ratified Kyoto are suffering as a result? In fact, if you look at the way the EU Emissions Trading Scheme is currently structured, which is the major Kyoto measure in Europe, most industries involved, except energy production, are benefiting.

I agree that more needs to be done to get China and India involved, but even they have ratified the agreement and are making progress in tackling climate change through Clean Development Mechanisms. These controversial measures, largely pushed by the US, allow developed countries to help developing countries reduce emissions through projects. Rich countries then receive credits that allow them to pollute more. It's a way that rich countries can pass the buck on the environment, but nevertheless, they are a contribution. It is also helps developing countries like India and China to tackle their emissions problem. The market for CDMs is massive in China and India.

CDM : Wikipedia

CDM official

But I have to say, my criticism of the US is very much focused at a federal level and not at a state or local level. There are several states including California who are doing great things for the environment. They are the real leaders of the US on this matter. I also believe a lot of Americans are environmentally savvy and are conscious of climate change. Several of the people on this forum lead me to believe that. It's just at federal level, the White House, where there is a problem. The White House, which is so much more concerned about big business and staying on top at all costs, is the major opponent to the environment in our world. They have the power to do so much but would rather massage their crony mates who run heavy polluting multi-nationals. It's no secret most of the White house are under the thumbs of massive energy companies.

I don't understand this statement. How will passing 2012 make these countries produce less efficient power plants?

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made? History & Civil Business Politics

Its a good morning for those fighting for the planet today. The U.N.'s panel, the largest ever, released its most comprehensive findings ever on climate change. Global warming has enough evidence to call it fact, and now they have collected enough evidence to say with a 90% certainty that it is caused by humans and not natural.

In fact, evidence out right shows that the last hundred years have caused higher carbon dioxide measurements then in the previous 650,000 years of planet history. I really have to quote this part:

The rest of the article is here: https://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=206...mWlM&refer=home

It is worth ready through it. The findings come with a four volume set of books outline the evidence collected over years of research by this panel.

I would like to see a scientist who has had these resources and this much time to do the research come out and speak against the majority of the world now. I want to see someone now claim the global warming isn't happening or that it isn't caused by humans. These findings are conclusive, nearly 100%, by the smartest scientists in the world with nearly unlimited resources. So now the question, what to do when you know you are destroying your own future?

Page 14 Man-made Natural Warming Global

GLOBAL WARMING 'LIKELY MAN-MADE'

The words of warning about global warming from the top panel of international scientists Friday were purposely blunt: "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal," the cause is "very likely" man-made, and "would continue for centuries."
Ref. https://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/02...s.ap/index.html

Man-made Natural Warming Global

An interesting article that challenges the main line of thought today:

https://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1363818.ece

The one thing that bothers me is that he is peddling a book, but the experiment would be interesting to read if you are actually interested in the theories.

Global Warming: Natural Or Man-made?

From Vincenzo's link to the Sunday Times:

I wholeheartedly agree with this statement. Probably the one thing that annoys me most about the whole "global warming political bandwagon" is the arrogant assumption that man can cause and cure the global warming period we may currently be experiencing. There are more factors involved, in my opinion from my personal research, than just CO2 and other "greenhouse gas" emissions.

This article comments on the sun's role and possibly the role of other atmospheric anomalies over which we (mankind) have no control. Why are these things not mentioned in the Summary for Policymakers? Because they can't make any policy on sun activity.

Weather changes, locally and globally, are going to happen no matter what we do (and that is NOT to say we should continue to pollute the earth!).

Prepare, Adjust, and Adapt, I say.

Global Warming Natural Man-made - Page 14

Assuming that what I heard and believe about volcanic ash in the stratosphere reflecting sunlight and cooling the the earth, is it possible that there is an average temperature at which the earth will remain, except when cooled by volcanic ash?
Is it possible that the "normal" temperature is maybe a degree, or two, warmer than we are now and when we reach that temperature the "rise" will level out until another volcano blows its top and cools us back down?

Global Warming Natural Man-made Politics Business Civil & History - Page 14

To add a bit of levity to the discussion, the hearing before the US Congressional Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality titled "Climate Change: Are Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Human Activities Contributing to a Warming of the Planet?" was cancelled today due to a snow and ice storm. Irony at its best!