NationStates Jolt Archive

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C3858%2C4864237-102275%2C00.html

Much as I believe Bush and his industry buddies focus on bottom line profit to the point of marginalizing environmental impacts, that story reads off as a bit too sensationalist for me.

Much as I believe Bush and his industry buddies focus on bottom line profit to the point of marginalizing environmental impacts, that story reads off as a bit too sensationalist for me.
"A bit too sensationalist" is "a bit of an understatement." Bush has even admitted that he believes climate change is occurring. He just doesn't believe that the Chicken Little Kyoto-types have the answer. (For the record, neither do I -- although I am a BIG proponent of sustainability and alternative energy.)

Ahmed Chalibi told me that in the future the weather will greet us with flowers.

...Bush has even admitted that he believes climate change is occurring. He just doesn't believe that the Chicken Little Kyoto-types have the answer. (For the record, neither do I -- although I am a BIG proponent of sustainability and alternative energy.)

So cutting Carbon Emissions isn't going to help? Setting up a free market where people can trade licenses for emissions, such that the ones that can easily cut their emissions will do so isn't going to help?

I reckon that the Kyoto Protocol is probably one of the most innovative and progressive environmental legislation there is.
But the usual fear of the yellow hordes from China somehow convinces the US to condemn it like that.

sensationalist, yes, but there's truth in there... maybe not in 20 years as it tries to scare you into believing, but sometime in the future this could easily happen if we don't change our ways.

yet another reason for me to think over-rampant consumerism and capitalism is killing the world :rolleyes:
we need a change. a big change.

sensationalist, yes, but there's truth in there... maybe not in 20 years as it tries to scare you into believing, but sometime in the future this could easily happen if we don't change our ways.

yet another reason for me to think over-rampant consumerism and capitalism is killing the world :rolleyes:
we need a change. a big change.

I agree... I've had this thought lately, while in duscussion with Vittos on capitalism/communism etc., and this sprang into mind: the problem with most economic equations is that they don't factor the "cost" of environmental pollution/destruction/disregard. Might there be a way to "objectify" that, and include it as a variable? Or is such an effort doomed to fail due to severe industrial lobbying?

So cutting Carbon Emissions isn't going to help? Setting up a free market where people can trade licenses for emissions, such that the ones that can easily cut their emissions will do so isn't going to help?

I reckon that the Kyoto Protocol is probably one of the most innovative and progressive environmental legislation there is.
But the usual fear of the yellow hordes from China somehow convinces the US to condemn it like that.

READ THE PROTOCOLS!!! It's funny how often people who think they're standing up for the Environment don't actually read these documents all the way through.

The Kyoto Protocols would not have cut Carbon emissions at all-they would have simply shifted the mess (and the money) to third-world nations by creating not only another externality to encourage first-world nations' companies to leave, but further endorsements to speed the departure.

See, Corporations have no soul, they don't care about Nationality, and selling "Licenses" might work if your only furnace is owned by the fed, but that's not the case here. Most industries would simply find it a convenient means to relocate to places that don't have Environmental Standards at all, nor Labour standards. We already have that, we don't need to make it even more attractive to relocate our production to dictatorships, thankyouverymuch.

That's the human-rights angle. On the Economic front, the interim 'need' to buy 'rights' from third-world nations cuts into investment capital needed to cut emissions at home. Anything that does not contribute to production is a Cost. Increased costs reduce available capital for modernisation-this is why France (with a strong bias against lawsuits) has modern, safe, nuclear power, while the U.S. (where Nuclear Power was invented) is stumbling along with forty year old technology in decaying sites (Lawsuit Externality, makes modernisation impossible in the U.S.)

Industrial nations require a LOT of energy. The BEST solar plants are somewhere around 1 to 5 percent as efficient (cost to benefit plus reliability) as a comparable oil, or coal plant, and maybe (at PEAK) as much as 6% as efficient as Hydroelectric (which is now facing the same kind of attacks as Nuclear and other forms in the U.S.)

Further: to run a Continent-spanning nation, requires transport, including transport that is not a GOVERNMENT MONOPOLY to function. Light rail may work fine if you're only covering an area the size of, say, New England... but it's an impossible task to Public-Transport low-density states such as most of the U.S. west of the Appalachians.

Agriculture requires fuels as well-at least, if you want more than absolute subsistence-level peasant agriculture, it requires it. Kyoto would have done its first obvious damage to the farming sector-a sector that is both IC Engine dependent, and already struggling with the consequences of its own success.

When you increase the cost of food, of course, people starve.

Transport of goods requires vehicles, vehicles put out emissions. Inserting further externality to make your pet-project more attractive (rather than refining the technology correctly with an eye to practicality) does not increase funding for your pet-project (Hydrogen, Fuel-Cell Cars, Electrics, rubberband-speeders, Zero Point Energy, or Voodoo Teleportation), it merely punishes the citizens for your own arrogance.

Finally:

Global Warming, yes, it's happening. It's a symptom of living on a planet with a wobbly orbit around a G2 VARIABLE Star, a planet that has an ACTIVE core with tectonic releases. You can be worried about Global Climate Change when Greenland becomes a Grain Producing region (like it was prior to the turn of the 1st Millenium AD), or when Wales becomes good wine-country (similar time period), the Sahara has increased rainfall, and Morocco is as agriculturally productive as it was when it was under Roman Domination.

Most of the Chicken-Little models rely on data from the last 700 years, and ignore the presence of the "Little Ice-Age" period (begun almost a thousand years ago), further, they tend to discount indicators that the climate changes frequently (geological scale) for reasons that have little or nothing to do with human-beings (at a rate that has, in the past, been far quicker than we're seeing today...)

Further, the Mann "Hockeystick" graph used as the base-model that the Protocols were based on, has been discredited quite rightly as voodoo science. when you input RANDOM values into it, you get a Hockeystick, if you input Baseball batting Averages in, you get a hockeystick. it's bad science, and you want to make Global Policy on bad science reviewed only by those that already agree with it?

heads up. Science, the Scientific Process, is Adversarial when it's done correctly. That is, your peer-review is trying to Disprove the experiment. Most politicians are ignorant about Science. That's why we have the position of "National Science Advisor".
When someone with letters next to their name says "I've Proven 'X'!!!", you should look damn-carefully at his methods, because if the experiment or analysis is slanted to support a given conclusion, it will omit evidence not in line with that conclusion. There's plentiful evidence not in line with the conclusion that human beings are having any effect whatsoever on the mean global temperature, and a few hypotheses that get lots of media play claiming that they are having a Catastrophic effect.

KYOTO was nothing but a wealth-transfer for a combination of third-world nations, and those who would sign-ratify-then-violate it with impunity.
Its statement is based on shoddy work, and its content is based on what amounts to "Loot the productive" economic ideas.

I agree... I've had this thought lately, while in duscussion with Vittos on capitalism/communism etc., and this sprang into mind: the problem with most economic equations is that they don't factor the "cost" of environmental pollution/destruction/disregard. Might there be a way to "objectify" that, and include it as a variable? Or is such an effort doomed to fail due to severe industrial lobbying?
thats what the carbon trading idea (in the Kyoto agreement i think) tries to do - firms essentially buy pollution permits from the government, at cost, and can trade them between one another. hence firms that produce a lot of pollution will have to buy in a lot of permits, making polluting expensive.
but as you say carbon trading effort is most likely to never get off the ground with the major polluting nations of the USA and China ignoring there is a problem, and of course industry will fight it like hell

however i don't think this goes far enough, both in terms of reducing pollution and more... i think we need to look at the cause for all this mega-pollution - why it is there. the answer is the consumerism-gone-mad of the modern capitalist economy. this is the problem that needs to be addressed - tackle the cause, solve the effect.
http://www.altruists.org/ideas/society/consumerism/

READ THE PROTOCOLS!!! It's funny how often people who think they're standing up for the Environment don't actually read these documents all the way through.
-snip-
KYOTO was nothing but a wealth-transfer for a combination of third-world nations, and those who would sign-ratify-then-violate it with impunity.
Its statement is based on shoddy work, and its content is based on what amounts to "Loot the productive" economic ideas.
I did read most of it, did you?
Your argument is exactly what I was saying: That the people against it oppose it for nationalistic reasons.
The relative cost of reducing pollution is higher in the 3rd world than in the first world, yes?
Simplest microeconomics suggests therefore to start where the cost is the lowest.
I personally would have liked a more speedy inclusion of 3rd world countries into the regulation.
As for your point on that global warming isn't caused by people, you are a product of a media that feels the need to present the two viewpoints equally, despite the fact that there are close to zero scientists actually supporting the denial of global warming as a result of human industry.

And I can't help you when your ideology stands in the way of actually looking at the facts, the economic models and the environmental data.

By the way, if Greenhouse gasses are being emitted, but they don't cause global warming, then where do they go, according to your theory?

I, personally, dislike the Anti-Nuclear Power Source International Envrioment. It not only curs the use of nuclear power (which is one of the better power sources) and developing places to put waste, but stimies research on improved nuclear reactors.

the problem with nuclear power is, besides the risk of a fallout, the radioactive garbage
if you have big deserts on your territory like in the US maybe you can stuff it there, but for example in Europe the population density is too high

the problem with nuclear power is, besides the risk of a fallout, the radioactive garbage
if you have big deserts on your territory like in the US maybe you can stuff it there, but for example in Europe the population density is too high

There are things called internment sites, to store nuclear waste for a certain amount of time. And how are we going to fix the waste problem if we don't make more efficent reactors and improve the current ones?

I agree... I've had this thought lately, while in duscussion with Vittos on capitalism/communism etc., and this sprang into mind: the problem with most economic equations is that they don't factor the "cost" of environmental pollution/destruction/disregard. Might there be a way to "objectify" that, and include it as a variable? Or is such an effort doomed to fail due to severe industrial lobbying?

Were you an econ major too? ;) Objectify that cost... umm... widgets? :p (x amount of pollution=1 widget, plus x amount of damage to wildlife=1 widget, etc., then add up all the widgets... There would be a hell of a lot of variables going into that widget :rolleyes: )

When it comes down to it, all countries should reduce emissions to reduce pollution, therefore reducing illness, disease, destruction of habitats, etc. I can't even eat my favorite fish, because it's so loaded with mercury! Everything emitted ends up on the earth, and our food, and us. I am 100% sure this is a huge factor in many illnesses and diseases.

My point about global warming is that it's inevitable, but we shouldn't rush it along. The earth has stages of heating and cooling. (There will be another ice age.) At this point, melting is ruining polar bear habitat, and then there was that huge chunk of antarctica that broke off, floated toward S. America and heated up. The earth goes in cycles, and emissions may have very little effect on global warming, etc., however, they DO have a huge impact on the environment, and all living things, including humans. Everything should be done to clean up the fallout of garbage from industry. If only for our own health.

There are things called internment sites, to store nuclear waste for a certain amount of time. And how are we going to fix the waste problem if we don't make more efficent reactors and improve the current ones?

I'm all for nuclear power as well. As a matter of fact, I don't live far from a nuclear power plant myself. (If something happened there, I'd be a gonner.)

One thing that bothers me is the storage of nuclear waste. It's the half life of the degredation of the waste that is an issue to me. It takes FOREVER! Come to think of it, I wonder where our local nuke plant stores its used fuel rods?! :eek:

I did read most of it, did you?
Your argument is exactly what I was saying: That the people against it oppose it for nationalistic reasons.
The relative cost of reducing pollution is higher in the 3rd world than in the first world, yes?
Simplest microeconomics suggests therefore to start where the cost is the lowest.
I personally would have liked a more speedy inclusion of 3rd world countries into the regulation.
As for your point on that global warming isn't caused by people, you are a product of a media that feels the need to present the two viewpoints equally, despite the fact that there are close to zero scientists actually supporting the denial of global warming as a result of human industry.

And I can't help you when your ideology stands in the way of actually looking at the facts, the economic models and the environmental data.

By the way, if Greenhouse gasses are being emitted, but they don't cause global warming, then where do they go, according to your theory?

Have you heard of something called "The Carbon Cycle"? go out to a quarry where they cut limestone. That's the long-term result of it.
Now, remember that Mt. Pinatoubo released more greenhouse gasses and CFC's than the entire Industrial Age from the late renaissance onward.
One eruption.
Get a copy of your local paper's sunday edition, if it's a decent paper, it'll have this neat little graphic somewhere in the "World" section showing currently-erupting volcanoes, earth movements, etc. etc.

Note also that undersea volcanism goes on almost constantly, releasing those same 'Green house Gasses" at rates we can't even approach if we set fire to every coal bed in N. America, left all the cars running until the oil gave out, and lit the damn forests on fire.

All at one time.

As for "Nationalism"... guess what? YOU live in a Nation. If your nation stands to benefit from screwing someone else, it will do it. Just like mine. Neither of our nations are as predatory or opportunistic, as your average Multinational Corporation-and a Multinational can't match the Amorality of your typical Politician, and Politicians are the "Moral" side of Lawyers.

The forces available to human beings (even nuclear weapons) are miniscule compared to the forces at work every single day (and most hours of every day) around us. The time-scale to discover a REAL trend exceeds the human lifespan (on worldwide geophysical matters) by a number of exponents-tens of thousands of years, not a few measly hundered.
The entire history of the human race is an eyeblink, and the "long term" effects are incredibly miniscule-in what is geologically no time at all, all traces of human civilization could be broken down into dust, with no trace left but a few peculiar fossils.

Your perspective is like that of a man who, after hearing a single note played, declares he knows all about music, or a man looking at a single feather (with no other examples available) declaring himself an expert on all birds.

On the "Nationalism" thing: Guess what? I see no reason to equalize negatively to match the lifestyle of a North Korean rice-paddy worker so that your chicken-little fantasy can be assauged. the Climate will change with, or without human intervention, at the rate it will change. People with resources can adapt, people without, will perish. That simple, I have no intention of being one of the people 'without' so that someone who screwed up their chance to advance (most of the third world are older nations than Europe, much less the U.S.) can continue screwing up.
It makes as much sense as giving up your food so that a Bulimic can puke his or her throat-lining out binging and purging.

Some nations chose the route of Rationalism and had Industrial Revolutions while others chose...differently. The Rational ones are currently on top, and will stay there as long as they remain Rational, and base their decisions on solid information, rather than the latest scare from the ranks of the Romantics.

Further, your "ZERO" Scientists excludes thousands of scientists who don't work for universities. It's a human trait that after you're called a "pawn" or "Liar" that you shut up. Scientists are humans too. Every scientist that spoke up about ti being bullshit has been effectively marginalized to the point where going against the popular orthodoxy (regardless of actual data) is career-suicide.

I suggest (mind, it's only a suggestion) you pick up JP Hogan's book "Kicking the Sacred Cow".

It's enlightening.

Have you heard of something called "The Carbon Cycle"? go out to a quarry where they cut limestone. That's the long-term result of it.
Now, remember that Mt. Pinatoubo released more greenhouse gasses and CFC's than the entire Industrial Age from the late renaissance onward.
One eruption.
Get a copy of your local paper's sunday edition, if it's a decent paper, it'll have this neat little graphic somewhere in the "World" section showing currently-erupting volcanoes, earth movements, etc. etc.

Note also that undersea volcanism goes on almost constantly, releasing those same 'Green house Gasses" at rates we can't even approach if we set fire to every coal bed in N. America, left all the cars running until the oil gave out, and lit the damn forests on fire.

All at one time.

As for "Nationalism"... guess what? YOU live in a Nation. If your nation stands to benefit from screwing someone else, it will do it. Just like mine. Neither of our nations are as predatory or opportunistic, as your average Multinational Corporation-and a Multinational can't match the Amorality of your typical Politician, and Politicians are the "Moral" side of Lawyers.

The forces available to human beings (even nuclear weapons) are miniscule compared to the forces at work every single day (and most hours of every day) around us. The time-scale to discover a REAL trend exceeds the human lifespan (on worldwide geophysical matters) by a number of exponents-tens of thousands of years, not a few measly hundered.
The entire history of the human race is an eyeblink, and the "long term" effects are incredibly miniscule-in what is geologically no time at all, all traces of human civilization could be broken down into dust, with no trace left but a few peculiar fossils.

Your perspective is like that of a man who, after hearing a single note played, declares he knows all about music, or a man looking at a single feather (with no other examples available) declaring himself an expert on all birds.

On the "Nationalism" thing: Guess what? I see no reason to equalize negatively to match the lifestyle of a North Korean rice-paddy worker so that your chicken-little fantasy can be assauged. the Climate will change with, or without human intervention, at the rate it will change. People with resources can adapt, people without, will perish. That simple, I have no intention of being one of the people 'without' so that someone who screwed up their chance to advance (most of the third world are older nations than Europe, much less the U.S.) can continue screwing up.
It makes as much sense as giving up your food so that a Bulimic can puke his or her throat-lining out binging and purging.

Some nations chose the route of Rationalism and had Industrial Revolutions while others chose...differently. The Rational ones are currently on top, and will stay there as long as they remain Rational, and base their decisions on solid information, rather than the latest scare from the ranks of the Romantics.

Further, your "ZERO" Scientists excludes thousands of scientists who don't work for universities. It's a human trait that after you're called a "pawn" or "Liar" that you shut up. Scientists are humans too. Every scientist that spoke up about ti being bullshit has been effectively marginalized to the point where going against the popular orthodoxy (regardless of actual data) is career-suicide.

I suggest (mind, it's only a suggestion) you pick up JP Hogan's book "Kicking the Sacred Cow".

It's enlightening.

Very very well said! :)

So cutting Carbon Emissions isn't going to help? Setting up a free market where people can trade licenses for emissions, such that the ones that can easily cut their emissions will do so isn't going to help?
No, it won't help, especially when some of the world's biggest developing polluters, such as Brazil and China, are exempt from any regulation.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0%2C3858%2C4864237-102275%2C00.html
The Pentagon has been saying things like this for many years now.

Why doesn't Bush confront global warming like he confronts Saddam Hussein? Aggressively!

But no, it's all about the corporate interests. Bush's energy plans are more like oil marketing plans.

No, it won't help, especially when some of the world's biggest developing polluters, such as Brazil and China, are exempt from any regulation.

And the fact that one volcanic eruption produces more CO2 and other pollutants than industry has in a century. Global warming is a natural part of the planet's ecological cycles, and humans can do little to avert it.

Instead, we should focus on eliminating the things we can control, like reducing mercury contamination and cleaning up Superfund sites with real funding (in the US).

For all you Kyoto-ites out there, do a little googling. It's been proven that the research and scientific models that Kyoto legislation is based on are fatally flawed. The computer models were a complete mess.

Also, for those who worry about nuclear waste from current reactors and such, do some research on "pebble bed reactors". THAT is the direction we need to go with nuclear power.

And the fact that one volcanic eruption produces more CO2 and other pollutants than industry has in a century. Global warming is a natural part of the planet's ecological cycles, and humans can do little to avert it.
Exactly.

And the fact that one volcanic eruption produces more CO2 and other pollutants than industry has in a century. Global warming is a natural part of the planet's ecological cycles, and humans can do little to avert it.

Instead, we should focus on eliminating the things we can control, like reducing mercury contamination and cleaning up Superfund sites with real funding (in the US).

Agreed. "Superfund" as it's been administered since the '80s is mainly a fund for hiring and paying lawyers to litigate, rather than doing the cleanup work it was supposed to do.

For all you Kyoto-ites out there, do a little googling. It's been proven that the research and scientific models that Kyoto legislation is based on are fatally flawed. The computer models were a complete mess.

Also, for those who worry about nuclear waste from current reactors and such, do some research on "pebble bed reactors". THAT is the direction we need to go with nuclear power.

Actually, I think a mix of Pebble-bed and Argonne-style EBR's to close the fuel-cycle would do a hell of a lot not only for the waste problem, but also to reduce the demand for fresh material. Uranium mining is pretty hardcore nasty to the ecology, the more efficiently you use the existing material, the less fresh material you have to dig up and process for each Kilowatt Hour.

"A bit too sensationalist" is "a bit of an understatement." Bush has even admitted that he believes climate change is occurring. He just doesn't believe that the Chicken Little Kyoto-types have the answer. (For the record, neither do I -- although I am a BIG proponent of sustainability and alternative energy.)
It's a good thing he believes the people he appoints (LOTS OF EXAMPLES BUT NOT GOING THERE) ....

Bush aide 'edited climate papers'
A White House official edited government reports in ways that played down links between global warming and emissions, the New York Times reported.
Philip Cooney removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, the newspaper said.
The White House denied Mr Cooney, a former oil industry advocate, watered down the reports.
It said the changes were part of a normal inter-agency review process.
The reports were "based on the best available science", spokesman Scott McClellan said.
Mr Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, which helps devise and promote the administration's policies on environmental issues.
The administration of President George W Bush has consistently questioned the need for quick action on climate change, and the US has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol aimed at cutting down greenhouse gas emissions.
'Uncertainties'
Before working at the White House, Mr Cooney was a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest oil industry trade group.
He is a lawyer by training, with no scientific background.
The New York Times said he made dozens of changes to reports issued in 2002 and 2003, and many appeared in final versions of major administration climate reports.
They included the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties", and tended to produce an air of doubt about findings most climate experts say are robust, the paper reported.
In another instance, the paper said Mr Cooney added the word "extremely" to the sentence, "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."
The newspaper obtained the documents from the Government Accountability Project, a non-profit group that provides legal assistance to whistle-blowers.
The project is representing Rick Piltz, who resigned in March from the office that co-ordinates government climate research and which issued the documents that Mr Cooney edited.
-
White House sexed-down climate change reports
By Lucy Sherriff
Published Thursday 9th June 2005 10:36 GMT

Official White House policy documents on climate change were altered by a former oil-industry lobbyist to play down the link between greenhouse gases and global warming, it emerged yesterday.
Philip Cooney, the chief of staff for the White House council on environmental quality, altered several draft reports in 2002 and 2003, after they had been approved by government scientists, despite having no scientific background himself. Much of his editing made it into final versions of reports.
Many of the changes were very simple. For instance, in one case he added the words "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties. In another, he added the word "extremely" to the sentence: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."
Others were more blatant. According to the New York Times, Cooney deleted an entire paragraph dealing with the impact of global warming on glaciers and the polar ice cap from a 2002 report that discussed the effect global warming might have on flooding and water availability. Cooney noted in the margins that the paragraph was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."
In all cases, the amendments cast doubt on scientific results that are increasingly accepted as robust by the scientific community, and by the general populace.
Cooney is a lawyer by training, with a degree in economics. Before going to work at the White House, Cooney was the climate team leader at the American Petroleum Institute, a trade body that represents the oil industry's interests.
The documents came to light via a non-profit organisation that provides legal assistance to government whistle blowers. The Government Accountability Project is representing Rick Piltz, formerly a senior associate in the office that issued the reports. Piltz resigned from his position in March.
"Each administration has a policy position on climate change," he wrote in a document reported by The New York Times. "But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program."
White House officials deny that they are politicising science.
At a press conference this week, President Bush told reporters he believed America is at the forefront of research into climate change. Asked whether he thought climate change was caused by man, he replied: "I've always said it's a serious long-term issue that needs to be dealt with. My administration isn't waiting around to deal with it; we're acting. We want to know more about it. Easier to solve a problem when you know a lot about it."
Meanwhile, academics from 11 countries, including the US and Britain, distributed an open letter saying: "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has been in the US trying to persuade Bush to commit the US to reducing its greenhouse emissions. The president has called for voluntary measures, but has made no firm promises.

-
The italicized slightly differs with your assessment, btw.

It's a good thing he believes the people he appoints (LOTS OF EXAMPLES BUT NOT GOING THERE) ....

Bush aide 'edited climate papers'
A White House official edited government reports in ways that played down links between global warming and emissions, the New York Times reported.
Philip Cooney removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that had already been approved by government scientists, the newspaper said.
The White House denied Mr Cooney, a former oil industry advocate, watered down the reports.
It said the changes were part of a normal inter-agency review process.
The reports were "based on the best available science", spokesman Scott McClellan said.
Mr Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, which helps devise and promote the administration's policies on environmental issues.
The administration of President George W Bush has consistently questioned the need for quick action on climate change, and the US has refused to ratify the Kyoto Protocol aimed at cutting down greenhouse gas emissions.
'Uncertainties'
Before working at the White House, Mr Cooney was a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest oil industry trade group.
He is a lawyer by training, with no scientific background.
The New York Times said he made dozens of changes to reports issued in 2002 and 2003, and many appeared in final versions of major administration climate reports.
They included the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties", and tended to produce an air of doubt about findings most climate experts say are robust, the paper reported.
In another instance, the paper said Mr Cooney added the word "extremely" to the sentence, "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."
The newspaper obtained the documents from the Government Accountability Project, a non-profit group that provides legal assistance to whistle-blowers.
The project is representing Rick Piltz, who resigned in March from the office that co-ordinates government climate research and which issued the documents that Mr Cooney edited.
-
White House sexed-down climate change reports
By Lucy Sherriff
Published Thursday 9th June 2005 10:36 GMT

Official White House policy documents on climate change were altered by a former oil-industry lobbyist to play down the link between greenhouse gases and global warming, it emerged yesterday.
Philip Cooney, the chief of staff for the White House council on environmental quality, altered several draft reports in 2002 and 2003, after they had been approved by government scientists, despite having no scientific background himself. Much of his editing made it into final versions of reports.
Many of the changes were very simple. For instance, in one case he added the words "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties. In another, he added the word "extremely" to the sentence: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."
Others were more blatant. According to the New York Times, Cooney deleted an entire paragraph dealing with the impact of global warming on glaciers and the polar ice cap from a 2002 report that discussed the effect global warming might have on flooding and water availability. Cooney noted in the margins that the paragraph was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."
In all cases, the amendments cast doubt on scientific results that are increasingly accepted as robust by the scientific community, and by the general populace.
Cooney is a lawyer by training, with a degree in economics. Before going to work at the White House, Cooney was the climate team leader at the American Petroleum Institute, a trade body that represents the oil industry's interests.
The documents came to light via a non-profit organisation that provides legal assistance to government whistle blowers. The Government Accountability Project is representing Rick Piltz, formerly a senior associate in the office that issued the reports. Piltz resigned from his position in March.
"Each administration has a policy position on climate change," he wrote in a document reported by The New York Times. "But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program."
White House officials deny that they are politicising science.
At a press conference this week, President Bush told reporters he believed America is at the forefront of research into climate change. Asked whether he thought climate change was caused by man, he replied: "I've always said it's a serious long-term issue that needs to be dealt with. My administration isn't waiting around to deal with it; we're acting. We want to know more about it. Easier to solve a problem when you know a lot about it."
Meanwhile, academics from 11 countries, including the US and Britain, distributed an open letter saying: "The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."
UK Prime Minister Tony Blair has been in the US trying to persuade Bush to commit the US to reducing its greenhouse emissions. The president has called for voluntary measures, but has made no firm promises.

-
The italicized slightly differs with your assessment, btw.

"Bush Aide turns out to be Corrupt Lobbyist" isn't news. We saw this with the Clinton Administration too-though from the other side. Considering that the eleven academics cited in the article (nice cut&paste by the way) were pushing Global Warming as a Human-caused phenomena for years before claiming that enough information is 'in', I find I do not believe them. I am skeptical. Doesn't surprise, does it?

All through the late 1980s we were being told in Public School how pollution would render the earth a desert by 2004. As each deadline passed, they extended it, but in the meantime, selfsame snake-oil-salesmen were and are drawing grants from the Federal Government based on the "Grave Seriousness" of their claims.
Most of that money could have gone to conducting real alternative energy research, rather than financing the scare-stories of 'scientists' who haven't done science since I was a little kid.

Incidentally, Kyoto wouldn't have supplied any more funding for alternative energy research than is already being provided-it would have sumped it away to buy "Carbon rights". Why? Because the first things cut, right ahead of cutting jobs, is RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT. R&D is cut right before you lay people off.
There are a number of technologies that are in their infancy, that need a stable and growing economy to be able to be developed-this won't happen under a Kyoto situation, and barely happens under the current Legislative/Regulatory/Tort environment (Lawsuits Eat funds that should go to R&D to no purpose save the enrichment of Lawyers and the employment of Court staff.)

And the fact that one volcanic eruption produces more CO2 and other pollutants than industry has in a century. Global warming is a natural part of the planet's ecological cycles, and humans can do little to avert it.


How about I put it this way:

If we all assume that global warming is a major threat to our existence, and it turns out we're wrong, what have we lost? Maybe a few years of economic growth, but if the world isn't ending tomorrow so there's no real rush. Not much of a loss.

If, on the other hand, we all assume global warming is no problem and then we turn out to be wrong on that one, what have we lost? Everything. Industrial growth is pretty much meaningless when the entire environment around you is hostile to human life.

Continuing to deny the possibility of climate change is a gamble that we don't even need to take. Thus I'm deeply perplexed by why someone would prefer to come up with disparate excuses for why entire peninsulas of ice have disappeared, Glacier National Park doesn't have any glaciers left in it, global temperatures are the warmest ever since being measured with modern equipment, etc. What are you trying to prove, and what happens if you're wrong?

There are things called internment sites, to store nuclear waste for a certain amount of time. And how are we going to fix the waste problem if we don't make more efficent reactors and improve the current ones?

Here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3993339.stm)

And the fact that one volcanic eruption produces more CO2 and other pollutants than industry has in a century. Global warming is a natural part of the planet's ecological cycles, and humans can do little to avert it.

Yes, and the extinction of species is an entierly natural phenomena that has been going on long before humans even existed. If some species of worm, or millipede, or talking hairless ape is going to go extinct because of changing global conditions, then why should we do anything to stop it?

Yes, and the extinction of species is an entierly natural phenomena that has been going on long before humans even existed. If some species of worm, or millipede, or talking hairless ape is going to go extinct because of changing global conditions, then why should we do anything to stop it?

That interferes with natural selection, which interferes with evolution and will make things worse in the long run by making the ecosystem increasingly vulnerable to changes.

Funny how right-wingers tend to oppose the Kyoto agreement and often refuse to acknowledge any human involvement in global warming, while left-wingers think the opposite. Does each side have access to facts that the other doesn't? I think that right-wingers' real reason for opposition is that they think there is something wrong with regulating business. That would be an interesting discussion!

The Pentagon, shortly after this came out over a year ago, came out and said the report was purely speculative and based off a very unlikely series of events.

Funny how right-wingers tend to oppose the Kyoto agreement and often refuse to acknowledge any human involvement in global warming, while left-wingers think the opposite. Does each side have access to facts that the other doesn't? I think that right-wingers' real reason for opposition is that they think there is something wrong with regulating business. That would be an interesting discussion!

That is certainly one reason.
Another is nationalism. Despite what Mr Cadillac-Cage will tell me, my nation, Germany, has long since abandoned chauvinism as a political motive, has agreed to pretty much any environmental solution put forward, and is cutting emissions already at a greater rate than Kyoto requires.
Screwing over poor countries bcause you can is not a normal, nor a beneficial practise, but that won't convince you. Afterall, the US rented the exclusive right to morality for the foreseeable future.
I agree that Vulcanic activity is a contributor, but as far as I have seen, projections of natural global warming through greenhouse emissions go into thousands or millions of years, while now we have maybe a hundred or so before we are in deep shit (and water...)
Suggesting that a politician is more amoral than a multinational corporation is however a big stretch, knowing that it is right-wingers who promote the idea of self-regulation, leading to things like the Enron scandal.
But the president had his dick sucked! :eek:

Truly offensive however is the assurance that 3rd world countries are in the situation they are in by choice. Things like colonialism, the opium wars and the like are the primary reason why the 3rd world is poor.
Your theory is based on some races being superior to others, naturally (or by god's will, maybe?), and that exploiting them in such a way is somehow a good idea.

Maybe this all comes down to Americans not wanting to follow simply because the rest of the world said so. Afterall, what has humanity to say to you? You ARE humanity!
Right?

Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years

That's going to hurt Tony Blair's "red hot" housing market.

That is certainly one reason.
Another is nationalism. Despite what Mr Cadillac-Cage will tell me, my nation, Germany, has long since abandoned chauvinism as a political motive, has agreed to pretty much any environmental solution put forward, and is cutting emissions already at a greater rate than Kyoto requires.
Screwing over poor countries bcause you can is not a normal, nor a beneficial practise, but that won't convince you. Afterall, the US rented the exclusive right to morality for the foreseeable future.
I agree that Vulcanic activity is a contributor, but as far as I have seen, projections of natural global warming through greenhouse emissions go into thousands or millions of years, while now we have maybe a hundred or so before we are in deep shit (and water...)
Suggesting that a politician is more amoral than a multinational corporation is however a big stretch, knowing that it is right-wingers who promote the idea of self-regulation, leading to things like the Enron scandal.
But the president had his dick sucked! :eek:

Truly offensive however is the assurance that 3rd world countries are in the situation they are in by choice. Things like colonialism, the opium wars and the like are the primary reason why the 3rd world is poor.
Your theory is based on some races being superior to others, naturally (or by god's will, maybe?), and that exploiting them in such a way is somehow a good idea.

Maybe this all comes down to Americans not wanting to follow simply because the rest of the world said so. Afterall, what has humanity to say to you? You ARE humanity!
Right?

You also have to factor in people like me when you are talking about the enviroment. Most of this stuff -if it happens, when it happens - happens after I am dead. Owing to my inevitable demise, and the fact that it all happens after said demise, I really don't care. It has absolutely nothing to do with me.

Let future generations deal with it, they are the ones with the problem after all.

And the fact that one volcanic eruption produces more CO2 and other pollutants than industry has in a century.

i call bullshit. go ahead and source that claim. i dare you.

Here are some sources that might put the climate change/global warming debate into focus:

McIntyre, Stephen, and McKitrick, Ross. "The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications." Energy & Environment. Vol. 16, No. 1. 2005
(the MB98 study <Mann, Michael E., Bradley, Raymond S. and Hughes, Malcolm K. "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries." Nature. Vol. 392. 23 April 1998.> was used in the

Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., etc."Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis." Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. <http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm>.

and

National Academy of Sciences. “Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties.” 2005. <http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/1.html> reports

The next two look at the role of solar output on the climate (there are a whol e series of papers on the subject).

Van Gell, B., Raspopov, O.M., Renssen, H., Van der Plicht, J. Dergachev, V.A. and Meijer, H.A.J. "The role of solar forcing upon climate change." Quaternary Science Reviews 18, 331-338 (1999).

Solanki, S.K., and Krivova, N.A. "Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?" Journal of Geophysical Research. Vol. 108. N. A5. 21 May 2003

This following paper shows how climate change could occur with CO2 as a non-factor, and discusses many climate change issues:

Lindzen, Richard S. "Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?" Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Vol. 94. Pages 8335-8342. August 1997. <http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/16/8335>.

This following paper looks at another anthropogenic source for climate change, land usage, and concludes that is where the major forcing on the climate is coming from:

Stohlgren, Thomas J., Chase, Thomas N., Pielke, Roger A., Kittel, Timothy G. F. and Baron, Jill S. "Evidence that local land use practices influence regional climate, vegitation, and stream flow partterns in adjacent natural areas." Global Change Biology. Vol. 4 Issue 5. Pages 495-504. June 1998. <http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046%2Fj.1365-2486.1998.t01-1-00182.x?cookieSet=1>.

Hopefully the above links ill work even if you are not affliated with a university. I recently compleated a reserach paper on the subject, and the above documents were representative of what I found.

I will reserach the Mt. Pinatubo eruptions.

The Pentagon has been saying things like this for many years now.

Or at least since last year. That's when this report came out.

Here are some sources that might put the climate change/global warming debate into focus:

McIntyre, Stephen, and McKitrick, Ross. "The M&M Critique of the MBH98 Northern Hemisphere Climate Index: Update and Implications." Energy & Environment. Vol. 16, No. 1. 2005
(the MB98 study <Mann, Michael E., Bradley, Raymond S. and Hughes, Malcolm K. "Global-scale temperature patterns and climate forcing over the past six centuries." Nature. Vol. 392. 23 April 1998.> was used in the

Houghton, J.T., Ding, Y., etc."Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis." Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm.

and

National Academy of Sciences. “Radiative Forcing of Climate Change: Expanding the Concept and Addressing Uncertainties.” 2005. http://www.nap.edu/openbook/0309095069/html/1.html reports

The next two look at the role of solar output on the climate (there are a whol e series of papers on the subject).

Van Gell, B., Raspopov, O.M., Renssen, H., Van der Plicht, J. Dergachev, V.A. and Meijer, H.A.J. "The role of solar forcing upon climate change." Quaternary Science Reviews 18, 331-338 (1999).

Solanki, S.K., and Krivova, N.A. "Can solar variability explain global warming since 1970?" Journal of Geophysical Research. Vol. 108. N. A5. 21 May 2003

This following paper shows how climate change could occur with CO2 as a non-factor, and discusses many climate change issues:

Lindzen, Richard S. "Can increasing carbon dioxide cause climate change?" Procedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Vol. 94. Pages 8335-8342. August 1997. http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/16/8335.

This following paper looks at another anthropogenic source for climate change, land usage, and concludes that is where the major forcing on the climate is coming from:

Stohlgren, Thomas J., Chase, Thomas N., Pielke, Roger A., Kittel, Timothy G. F. and Baron, Jill S. "Evidence that local land use practices influence regional climate, vegitation, and stream flow partterns in adjacent natural areas." Global Change Biology. Vol. 4 Issue 5. Pages 495-504. June 1998. http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/links/doi/10.1046%2Fj.1365-2486.1998.t01-1-00182.x?cookieSet=1.

Hopefully the above links ill work even if you are not affliated with a university. I recently completed a reserach paper on the subject, and the above documents were representative of what I found.

I will reserach the Mt. Pinatubo eruptions.

Links edited. They might even work now...

Funny how right-wingers tend to oppose the Kyoto agreement and often refuse to acknowledge any human involvement in global warming, while left-wingers think the opposite. Does each side have access to facts that the other doesn't? I think that right-wingers' real reason for opposition is that they think there is something wrong with regulating business. That would be an interesting discussion!

If the Regulation is uniform, it's not a problem. Kyoto includes basic exemptions that make it a candy-stick to ditch out of what compliance can be obtained by going somewhere where you can own the government for less than a single executive's salary. This is simple Carrot-and-stick, when the regs become too restrictive at location "A", it becomes economically viable to go to location "B", rather than staying with "A".
Add in payments by the same regulatory body, to move to "b" where they have no power to influence your behaviours in the first place, and it becomes irresistable. Most businesses of a certain size don't have much holding them to a place beyond sentiment-and sentiment takes a backseat to profit-motive.

What Leonstein seems to fail to understand, is that the new factories being built in the third world don't include the environmental safeguards, worker safety regs, or human-rights guarantees for union members, that exist in the First World. All Kyoto really does, is shift the major polluters from a point where they are observed and (to a degree) controlled, to one where they may do as they wish with no consequences-and, with GATT and WTO, it's a lot easier to do that, than to remain where they are.
In an environment where there is no "Protectionist" structures, and where "Free Trade" does not require reciprocity of Regulation, this simply turns out uglier and more destructive. It solves, in short, Nothing, but it makes the signatories feel "good about themselves" for a short time, and reinforces their paternal attitude towards developing nations-most of whom will gladly take that economic development and growth without much concern for what it's doing to their own people (since the major beneficiaries are NOT the workers...)

It's not "Nationalism", it's "Reality". Corporations have little interest in following the rules in the first place (see: Enron, Silverado Savings and Loan, etc. etc.). Kyoto would not prevent CO emissions, it would simply move the location of hte pollution to people who are already in bad shape, and add incentives for their leaders to further ignore human rights as a concept, while damaging Nations that have developed to the point where Human Rights and the Environment are treated as serious concerns, rather than a means to scare up charity money or an embarassment to conceal from visiting UN delegates.

This following paper looks at another anthropogenic source for climate change, land usage, and concludes that is where the major forcing on the climate is coming from:

... http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/li...2.x?cookieSet=1.

"Anthropogenic" sources of climate change, particularly land usage, are the result of overpopulation.

To save the world we need to massively reduce the number of humans on it.

Would it help to depopulate Africa, South/Central America, Southern Asia and Northern Australasia and preserve them as human-free nature reserves? And how might we best achieve this?

"Anthropogenic" sources of climate change, particularly land usage, are the result of overpopulation.

To save the world we need to massively reduce the number of humans on it.

Would it help to depopulate Africa, South/Central America, Southern Asia and Northern Australasia and preserve them as human-free nature reserves? And how might we best achieve this?

Hmmmm well, China's "One Child" policy has been in place now for close to thirty years, and they're still expanding. I suspect the only way to curb population growth, would be to kill billions of innocent people.

So... Who wants to be the next Heinrich Himmler, choosing who gets the gas chamber? Or do you want to do it via Bio-Warfare, say, release one of those science-fiction superbugs that spreads like wildfire and kills over, and over. and over again??

Let's see, a more humanitarian method... Spay and Neuter your children? No grandbabies to worry about dumping CO2 into the atmosphere...
of course, to be effective, it can't be voluntary, I guess those pesky Human Rights have just got to go, don't they? You're sving the world, right???

The problem with merely laying blame, is that once you've laid the blame, you still have to figure out how to fix the problem. If Overpopulation is really the problem, you're going to have to decide which of your moral and ethical principles gets sacrificed, and just how much blood you want on your hands-because on a Global Scale, it's not going to be purely voluntary if you want it to work. This, of course, assumes you assigned guilt correctly-either way, to do what you want, you become a monster.

What the papers I cited before suggest (at least to me) is that CO2's impact on the envrioment may be relatively insignificant (diffent than the IPCC report (http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm) says will occur in the next hundred years). Since Kyoto deals with CO2 almost exclusively (I haven't read it, I am going by hearsay) it may be an inneffective and expenseive option.

There are still many elements of the climatic system which we do not understand fully, and what constitutes a "normal" climate depends on how far back in history you look. The paper dealing with solar activity (http://www.gg.rhbnc.ac.uk/elias/teaching/VanGeel.pdf) provides evidence for the affect of the sun on climate over large scales of time in the past, including pervious climate shifts (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7036/abs/nature03421.html), while the other solar paper (http://www.maths.leeds.ac.uk/~livermor/papers/Solanki_Krivova_2003.pdf) looks at more recent activity.

All of that being said, climate change, anthropegenic or not, still affects us. Even if it turns out that anthropogenic activies do not cause climate change (not all anthropogenic activies are postive forcings, some are negative like aerosals (http://www.jstor.org/view/00368075/di002509/00p0027r/0?currentResult=00368075%2Bdi002509%2B00p0027r%2B0%2C06&searchUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jstor.org%2Fsearch%2FResults%3Fhp%3D25%26si%3D1%26Query%3Dradiative%2Bfor cing%26mo%3Dbs) , which can be caused by air traffic (http://ams.allenpress.com/amsonline/?request=get-document&issn=1520-0442&volume=017&issue=05&page=1123) ) we can still decide if we like it or not. If we decide that we don't like it, then can take steps to stop it, despite it being "natural" or "unnatural."

(sorry about the previous posting... long time viewer, first time poster)

Here. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3993339.stm)

Excellent