Kyoto lives! 16 February 05

Very odd looking at the papers this morning: Kyoto comes into effect. Helen and Dave win landmark court case. Countryside Alliance sent packing. Ken Livingstone unbowed. It’s like the 90s again, but all topsy turvy.

I think that those who so glibly say that we can reduce our carbon emissions will soon discover that a reduction of 10% off 1990 emissions is nearly impossible. In addition, they will discover that the reduction of 70% to 80% off 1990 emissions that is required to placate the IPCC models is not even possible in dreams. Louis G. Carroll could not write about it (IPCC in Wonderland?).

Within 4 years, the part of the world that actually believes in this fairy tale will have learned what the skeptics already know. The sooner that happens the sooner we can begin to plan a response to the small amount of warming that has occurred.

I also believe that future generations will look at the performance of the current leadership of the USA with respect. They will understand how difficult it must have been to decline to participate in a politically correct folly in the face of tremendous peer pressure. They also will know that refusing to participate was the correct decision.

China and India are exempt. Eastern European countries do well because ‘co-incidentally’ the base year of 1990 coincides with the fall of communism which led to the death of their highly polluting industries.

The losers are western european nations who were getting their acts together long before 1990.

If you ever have been to a third world city you would realize that they are far more polluting than any large city in western europe or the US.

Makes no sense to me what-so-ever

interesting slant, but you might want to represent the facts correctly: a 60% reduction is required from 1990m levels.

Your pessimism on the likelyhood of achieving reductions may sound realistic, but a look at history will show how new inventions, such as electricity, the car, and even the internet, can catch on and leave their predecessors, (candles, horse and carriages and snail mail) relatively redundant. Those changes occured due to market forces, and under no political or envirnmental pressure.

Renewable energy can make rapid inroads too. What is required is for the fossil-power oligarchs and their stooges (Bush etc) to be forced into releasing their stranglehold on US energy supply.

Finally, I’m not sure what “tremendous peer pressure” you are referring too. It was only the EU and a couple of small island states which pushed for Kyoto. Russia dithered, Australia strongly supported, a long with just about every arab and african nation. Thats more of a coalition than Bush got for the Iraq war!

Bushs inaction is not dignified, it is to protect financial interests; history will not judge that kindly.

Brendon,

In addition to what you said, there was a recent conversation I had with Colin Keyse from Wales about taking carbon out of the air. I read a paper on it and it seems feasible that we could develop this at some level to take carbon directly out of the air and sequester it or even create fuel from the carbon utilizing solar energy. There are people motivated to try and make this work. So, there is ample ingenuity out there waiting to be tapped.

My belief is that we may have to go there. The additional reductions that may be necessary to prevent climate change may come from developing stations to take carbon directly out of the air.

So, I do think that Norbert is correct in articulating that the challenge of restructuring our infrastructures is a difficult objective. However, there is no valid reason why we cannot do this.

On the political focus, I believe that Bush will go down as one of or worst Presidents. We are headed for financial disaster because of this Administration.

Only an idiot would cut taxes and wage war at the same time further escalating our financial troubles. So, using this simple logic, what does that make Bush?

The Iraq conflict is encouraging more terrorists. Iran and North Korea have moved forward and accelerated their nuclear programs based solely in response to the Bush Administration’s foreign policy.

So, Bush is a threat to our national security and world security in my opinion. He is inviting disaster more than preventing it and at great cost to us.

[Sorry to confuse you with the facts Norbert if you are reading this. I realize how difficult it is for you to think objectively.]

I will concede that the Democratic Party offers no counter vision and is weak. It seems to me that we have a Democracy mostly represented by millionaires and special interests in both parties.

So we have one weak Party without a visionary focus with little to offer but criticism of the other Party and one highly focused Party with an obsolete world-view guiding it’s neo-con supporters.

Oh, and then there are these climate change issues.

Norbert, for the sake of all of us, I hope I am wrong and you are right.

However, I do not believe Bush will be remembered kindly if we become bankrupt, and if climate change may make Bush become the infamous person in history who worked to block efforts by the world community to engage in corrective measures to prevent climate change.

For my UK friends, I thought about our last election and wondered why Bush won. Many reasons have been cited; however, there were intelligent people who were undecided and ended up voting for Bush. The question is why?

My contention is that our Democratic Party appeared too weak and unfocused. The reason is that they authorized Bush to be able to go to war in Iraq to begin with and Kerry voted for that as well. When it came to the current situation in Iraq, Kerry offered basically the same solution that the Bush Administration was articulating.

For some Americans, it seemed that given the current Administration’s experience, then it would be prudent for them to continue to follow their own strategy instead of giving it to another group who was articulating the same strategy. Bush effectively painted Kerry as an indecisive person and indecision is not a good character trait to have in the middle of a conflict.

This insight I am providing is not the reason for every American who voted for Bush. Iraq was the number one issue over here. It was an emotional one and still is. We have more amputees now than we had in Vietnam.

There are many ways of looking at that election. This is my view as to why the concerned undecided swing voters in the end went with Bush. These voters, in my opinion, made their decision from an emotional gut feeling based on perceptions of their own personal security.

Now, with all that said, I try not to get into political issues outside of the climate debate on Mark’s site.

However, since Bush has taken a lead role in not addressing climate issues, I thought others might benefit from my thoughts which are not necessarily main stream here since I am not happy with either of our political parties.

Best, Dan

Estimates of the required reduction in carbon dioxide emissions vary from 60% to 80%. I picked the middle of the range. I suspect that there is no “correct” number; there are only estimates.

I wonder if 300 million Americans purchase fewer candles today than 4 million Americans purchased in 1790 did. Do you have any data that substantiate your claim?

I have always believed the term “snail mail” to be pejorative and elitist.

The changes occurred because entrepreneurs developed new technology that provided better performance at reduced cost. At present, the only renewable energy source that competes with fossil fuel generation is hydro electric. Wind and solar power are too expensive and unreliable. Neither would exist without massive tax incentives. I do not believe that tax breaks enabled Henry Ford to compete with horse-drawn carriages.

Stooges? Do you have information to support that libel, or is it merely part of an irrational tirade, borne of impotence, that makes you feel as if you have communicated something of value?

Look up peer in a dictionary and then let me know if you believe that African and Arab states qualify as peers of the USA.

President Bush has never tried to disguise the fact that he rejected participation in Kyoto in order to protect the financial interests of the USA. I applaud him for having the courage to do so. Participation in the Kyoto accord would have added a massive burden to the US economy and returned no benefit. The original Kyoto Accord would have reduced the IPCC model predictions of 2100 temperatures by just 0.07 Celsius degrees. The heavily negotiated present agreement is but a ghost of its former self.

As I said, reductions of carbon dioxide by 60% (or 70% or 80%, pick one) off 1990 is not compatible with maintenance of a modern technological economy. Are you willing to forego modern medical treatments, air conditioning, effective transportation and all of the other accruements of our modern societies? I am not.

Stooges? Did Brendon call you that Norbert? Too bad!

Norbert, you are someone who is so incompetent that you cannot even read a line graph in its proper context and you cherry pick data to support conclusions not even using deductive reasoning or even simple logic.

You claim the Artic is not warming. Give me a break. Tell that to the Polar Bears. The Polar Bears know more than you do. They have to learn how to tread water better because they lack less ice to roam on. I guess ice naturally melts without a temperature increase. How can you believe that? Do you understand physics at all? Ice melts when we warm it! Take an ice cube out of your freezer and see what happens. We need to start with the basics before we can go to more complex issues such as GW/CC. OK!

Welcome back Norbert!

How can you worship Bush? He is so inept. Only an idiot would cut taxes and wage a war at the same time. His policies are going to bankrupt the country with an irreversible debt just like your logic cannot conceive of irreversible climate change. Iran and North Korea are worse not better. They are accelerating their programs for nukes. Before Bush, we had inspectors in there. Oh my God, I hope I do not confuse your brain with these facts. Iraq is a training ground for terrorists. They are learning how to do it better everyday and they may export it later back to us here. Oh, I guess you feel so protected by your neo-president.

Tell that to the troops in Iraq. I bet they feel protected by Bush as they worry about where the next bomb will come from. We have more amputees than Vietnam from Iraq already and your VP Cheney said it would be a cake walk. And this is the guy that tells Bush what to do!

Bush is even cutting funds to the climate measuring stations. Even if you are correct, we will have less data to prove your one-sided climate points courtesy of your wonderful President. I guess you like that so we have sufficient uncertainty so you can say scientists are wrong about our effects on climate because we lack the data.

Stick to Climate Science anyway! As inept as you are at that, I concede that you are smarter in that than Political Science or predicting who will win the Super Bowl.

Your turn! Dan ;-)

perhaps Steve McIntyre or Ross McKitrick (semiretired mining executives) of the anti-hockey stick fame?

Stephen McIntyre is an engineer, statistician, data analyst who is retired from the mining industry.

Ross McKitrick is not retired, he is a professor of economics at the University of Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada.

Norbert Zangox is neither of the above. He is from Waycross, Georgia.

Brendon accused President Bush of being a stooge of the oil industry. Perhaps you should re-read the exchange.

The population of polar bears appears to be increasing. They have become so troublesome that wildlife agencies have increased the number that the Inuit can kill this year. See http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/01/10/polar-bear-hunt050110.html.

I do not worship President Bush, though I admire his honesty and courage. Most economists say that the tax cut that you call a debacle helped revive the US economy.

Tens of thousands of the terrorists are now trained in how to push up daisies.

Can you provide a link that confirms what you said about the cuts to the climate-monitoring program, or is that just another error?

To save you time in searching for this, I repost this bolg uneditied by Mark Lynas below:

US government cuts climate research funding by Mark Lynas on 24th January, 2005

Despite the Bush Administration’s frequent claims that “more research” is needed before any serious action can be taken to bring down greenhouse gas emissions, the US government has made drastic cuts in climate research programmes. In particular, funding for the Climate Reference Network – a fledgling network of 110 observation stations intended to provide a definitive climate record for the United States – has been eliminated. Congressional legislators have also cut funding for a network of monitoring stations which measure changes in atmospheric carbon dioxide levels – including the famous station at Mauna Loa, Hawaii, where staff may have to be fired. According to Kevin Trenberth, head of the climate analysis section of the National Center for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado (already in hot water for his remarks on hurricanes – see below): “It’s as if some people don’t want to know how the climate is changing. Maybe they prefer uncertainty, so they can avoid taking action.”

Hi Norbert,

OK, I did reread the exchange and you are correct that this comment did not apply to you but to Bush being a stooge of the oil industry.

The notion that Bush favors the oil industry is correct. Bush was an oil man himself and he was very unsuccessful at that. Bush’s business ventures were funded by Saudia Arabia so that country could gain influence over his father who was President.

It is no wonder that we would be benevolent to the Saudia Arabia by protecting them in the first Gulf War and also ignoring the fact that almost all who participated in the 911 attack were from that country.

It is no wonder that Bush made sure the Bin Laden’s family was escorted out of the country when all other flights were grounded rather than face any questioning by our authorities.

Saudia Arabia is more important to Bush than America is and the connections to the oil industry are many. Bush surrounded himself with others from the oil industry. Condoleezza Rice worked as an executive for Chevron and an oil tanker was named after her. See proof below (Oh my God, Proof!, ... can your brain handle this overload):

http://aztlan.net/oiltanker.htm

So, the fact that Bush favors the oil interests in a bias way is correct to suggest.

Anything to the contrary would be a misrepresentation of the facts and something I am sure you would never do. Ha!

Later, I will comment on your other points as I have something else to do at the moment.

Dan

Norbert, do you know what the word bias means?

According to another more informative site, the increase in polar bears has been explained below:

“The estimated worldwide polar bear population has actually increased in recent decades to around 25,000 to 30,000. But those gains are attributed mainly to a 1973 pact among the United States, Canada, Norway, Denmark and the Soviet Union that restricted hunting of the animals.”

The above quote is from the site below:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-polar17feb17,0,5705416.story?coll=la-home-nation

Now, everytime you make a point, it becomes a biased point meaning that you search for only facts to support your claim and exclude every other fact that would suggest otherwise.

Now, you are correct that the Polar Bear population increased but this has nothing to do with what I shared or refuted it in any way. You use information to support a case even when it is false. You do this consistently so much that just about everything you post is being shown as misleading simply because you only wish to prove a case instead of clarify the truth.

What is wrong with the truth Norbert? Why do we so often have to help you provide all the details? Why can’t you be more objective in your posts? Your reputation as a biased person who cherry picks data to make a false case appear real is further being exposed in just about everything you post.

Go on and keep trying to make a false case appear real and dig your hole ever deeper since every time you do this, you end up being exposed by others here!

Dan