"Derek" <emmerson@no-spam> wrote in message
news:v2n762rabrkq10@no-spam
> You can all argue endlessly back and forth about CO2 content.
Not really. The facts are well known.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/sio-mlgr.gif
CO2 in the air has risen from about 280 ppm to 370 ppm due to the burning of
fossil fuels offset by increases in CO2 sinks such as growing plants and the
oceanic 'carbon pump'.
> The fact is that we have witnessed significant
> climatological changes over at least the ten years
> during which there has been an increased severity
> in weather globally i.e. major flooding in many
> untries, extreme drought in places like central Africa
> and Australia, more intense hurricanes and cyclones.
True, yet tying any local climate change or weather phenomenon into GW is a
chancy business. There is some evidence but it is hardly conclusive as yet.
What we DO know is that climate is subject to a nonlinear and unpredictable
response to having it's 'tail twisted' like this from increasing
temperatures.
> Can 2500 scientists be wrong in their opinion that there is strong
evidence
> of human impact on climate and that we could well be heading for a
> divergent trend in climate over which we may have no control.
Yes, but let us be careful here. It is VERY unlikely that they are wrong
about the basis of GW theory which is why it is accepted as scientific fact
and taught in school. They CAN be off on the climate predictions since
either the GCM models or the specific emissions scenarios could fail to
match the reality. Their main predictions could also be excessively
conservative and we could be hit with major problems from unexpected and
uncertain directions. The main risks outlined by the IPCC 2001 report are:
-Observed- <=> Confidence in Observed Changes:
-Projected- <=> Confidence in Projected changes:(a)
1: Higher maximum temperatures and more Very hot days over nearly all land
areas
-Observed-: Likely
-Projected-: Very likely
2: Higher minimum temperatures, fewer Very cold days and frost days over
nearly all land areas
-Observed-: Very likely
-Projected-: Very likely
3: Reduced diurnal temperature range over most land areas
-Observed-: Very likely
-Projected-: Very likely
4: Increase of heat index over land areas.
-Observed-: Likely over many areas
-Projected-: Very likely over most areas
5: More intense precipitation events.(b)
-Observed-: Likely over many N.A. mid-high latitude land areas.
-Projected-: Very likely over many areas.
6: Increased summer continental drying and associated risk of drought.
-Observed-: Likely in a few areas
-Projected-: Likely over most mid-latitude continental interiors. Possible
elsewhere.
7: Increase in tropical cyclone peak wind intensities.(c)
-Observed-: Not observed
-Projected-: Likely over some areas.
8: Increase in tropical cyclone mean and peak precipitation intensities.(c)
-Observed-: N/A
-Projected-: Likely over some areas.
a) For more details see Chapter 2 (observations) and Chapter 9, 10
(projections).
b) For other areas, there are either insufficient data or conflicting
analyses.
c) Past and future changes in tropical cyclone location and frequency are
uncertain.
-------------------
Most of the recent climate weirdness is not directly traceable to the
increase in the greenhouse effect, but some hypothesis do make links. For
example the NAO being locked in a positive phase and cooling the NA east
coast, the changes in equatorial pacific currents that are bringing drought
and delayed monsoons to the far east, even the strength of the ENSO which is
behind drought in the SouthWest. However, these links are NOT proven and may
not be provable in the short run.
> We have a choice; bury our heads in the sand and leave it
> to our offsprings to deal with an untenable situation or start
> making the sacrifices that are required now.
I don't agree that 'sacrifices' are an integral part of the equation.
Lowering CO2 emissions can be done simply by improving efficiency with
consequent benefits to all.
For example, coal plants are one of the largest sources of CO2 emissions as
they are very common for electical energy production. A coal power plant
that produces the typical 30 to 35% thermal efficiency can be replaced by
one with over 50% thermal efficiency for a reduction of something like 30%
of the emissions for the SAME power output. The 'drastic cuts' for Kyoto
are only 6% of 1990 levels and maybe 20% of current levels so making coal
power plants more efficient could make a MAJOR part of that and SAVE money
overall from lower fuel bills, long after the payback period.
> If you want a good perspective on global warming read
> "2030-Confronting Thermaggeddon in our Lifetimes" by
> Robert Hunter. It may give you pause for thought.
You would be better off reading the scientific basis online at
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
> It did for me and I have never been an activist. I believe the
> problem will only be tackled by the collective will of individuals to make
> small changes in their lifestyles.
True to a degree, but it also depends on the political and business climate.
The Montreal Protocol on CFCs is a good example of how NGOs, Government and
Business can get together to make a difference. On the other hand, the
current Luddite mentality of the Dumbya fascists are a serious barrier to a
well thought out plan.
> We cannot rely on the politicians and
> corporations to be pro-active as long as profitability is paramount.
We may need to establish the U.N as a governing body over international
relations instead of just assuming it, with actual powers that are not at
the mercy of the U.S.
As you say, regional business interests are proving to be a barrier to a
global strategy on global problems.
<snip>
"The Voice of Reason" <vreason@no-spam> wrote in message
news:wsOJa.1913$iM4.289938@no-spam
>
> "Derek" <emmerson@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:v2n762rabrkq10@no-spam
> > You can all argue endlessly back and forth about CO2 content.
>
> Not really. The facts are well known.
> http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/sio-mlgr.gif
> CO2 in the air has risen from about 280 ppm to 370 ppm due to the burning
of
> fossil fuels offset by increases in CO2 sinks such as growing plants and
the
> oceanic 'carbon pump'.
How do they know this? -All I see is a silly chart.
What if we had burned no fossil fuels? - Do a quick google search for "coal
fires in china"
Or Any of a number of other areas that affect natural co2 release into the
atmosphere..
> > The fact is that we have witnessed significant
> > climatological changes over at least the ten years
> > during which there has been an increased severity
> > in weather globally i.e. major flooding in many
> > untries, extreme drought in places like central Africa
> > and Australia, more intense hurricanes and cyclones.
>
> True, yet tying any local climate change or weather phenomenon into GW is
a
> chancy business. There is some evidence but it is hardly conclusive as
yet.
> What we DO know is that climate is subject to a nonlinear and
unpredictable
> response to having it's 'tail twisted' like this from increasing
> temperatures.
>
> > Can 2500 scientists be wrong in their opinion that there is strong
> evidence
> > of human impact on climate and that we could well be heading for a
> > divergent trend in climate over which we may have no control.
>
> Yes, but let us be careful here. It is VERY unlikely that they are wrong
> about the basis of GW theory which is why it is accepted as scientific
fact
> and taught in school. They CAN be off on the climate predictions since
> either the GCM models or the specific emissions scenarios could fail to
> match the reality. Their main predictions could also be excessively
> conservative and we could be hit with major problems from unexpected and
> uncertain directions. The main risks outlined by the IPCC 2001 report
are:
> -Observed- <=> Confidence in Observed Changes:
> -Projected- <=> Confidence in Projected changes:(a)
>
> 1: Higher maximum temperatures and more Very hot days over nearly all land
> areas
> -Observed-: Likely
> -Projected-: Very likely
>
> 2: Higher minimum temperatures, fewer Very cold days and frost days over
> nearly all land areas
> -Observed-: Very likely
> -Projected-: Very likely
>
> 3: Reduced diurnal temperature range over most land areas
> -Observed-: Very likely
> -Projected-: Very likely
>
> 4: Increase of heat index over land areas.
> -Observed-: Likely over many areas
> -Projected-: Very likely over most areas
>
> 5: More intense precipitation events.(b)
> -Observed-: Likely over many N.A. mid-high latitude land areas.
> -Projected-: Very likely over many areas.
>
> 6: Increased summer continental drying and associated risk of drought.
> -Observed-: Likely in a few areas
> -Projected-: Likely over most mid-latitude continental interiors.
Possible
> elsewhere.
>
> 7: Increase in tropical cyclone peak wind intensities.(c)
> -Observed-: Not observed
> -Projected-: Likely over some areas.
>
> 8: Increase in tropical cyclone mean and peak precipitation
intensities.(c)
> -Observed-: N/A
> -Projected-: Likely over some areas.
>
> a) For more details see Chapter 2 (observations) and Chapter 9, 10
> (projections).
>
> b) For other areas, there are either insufficient data or conflicting
> analyses.
>
> c) Past and future changes in tropical cyclone location and frequency are
> uncertain.
>
> -------------------
> Most of the recent climate weirdness is not directly traceable to the
> increase in the greenhouse effect, but some hypothesis do make links. For
> example the NAO being locked in a positive phase and cooling the NA east
> coast, the changes in equatorial pacific currents that are bringing
drought
> and delayed monsoons to the far east, even the strength of the ENSO which
is
> behind drought in the SouthWest. However, these links are NOT proven and
may
> not be provable in the short run.
>
>
> > We have a choice; bury our heads in the sand and leave it
> > to our offsprings to deal with an untenable situation or start
> > making the sacrifices that are required now.
>
> I don't agree that 'sacrifices' are an integral part of the equation.
> Lowering CO2 emissions can be done simply by improving efficiency with
> consequent benefits to all.
>
> For example, coal plants are one of the largest sources of CO2 emissions
as
> they are very common for electical energy production. A coal power plant
> that produces the typical 30 to 35% thermal efficiency can be replaced by
> one with over 50% thermal efficiency for a reduction of something like 30%
> of the emissions for the SAME power output. The 'drastic cuts' for Kyoto
> are only 6% of 1990 levels and maybe 20% of current levels so making coal
> power plants more efficient could make a MAJOR part of that and SAVE money
> overall from lower fuel bills, long after the payback period.
>
> > If you want a good perspective on global warming read
> > "2030-Confronting Thermaggeddon in our Lifetimes" by
> > Robert Hunter. It may give you pause for thought.
>
> You would be better off reading the scientific basis online at
> http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
>
> > It did for me and I have never been an activist. I believe the
> > problem will only be tackled by the collective will of individuals to
make
> > small changes in their lifestyles.
>
> True to a degree, but it also depends on the political and business
climate.
> The Montreal Protocol on CFCs is a good example of how NGOs, Government
and
> Business can get together to make a difference. On the other hand, the
> current Luddite mentality of the Dumbya fascists are a serious barrier to
a
> well thought out plan.
>
> > We cannot rely on the politicians and
> > corporations to be pro-active as long as profitability is paramount.
>
> We may need to establish the U.N as a governing body over international
> relations instead of just assuming it, with actual powers that are not at
> the mercy of the U.S.
>
> As you say, regional business interests are proving to be a barrier to a
> global strategy on global problems.
>
> <snip>
>
>
>
"Mage" <mage@no-spam> wrote in message
news:Y0PJa.267743$3C2.7746120@no-spam
>
> "The Voice of Reason" <vreason@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:wsOJa.1913$iM4.289938@no-spam
> >
> > "Derek" <emmerson@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:v2n762rabrkq10@no-spam
> > > You can all argue endlessly back and forth about CO2 content.
> >
> > Not really. The facts are well known.
> > http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/sio-mlgr.gif
> > CO2 in the air has risen from about 280 ppm to 370 ppm due to the
burning
> > of fossil fuels offset by increases in CO2 sinks such as growing plants
and
> > the oceanic 'carbon pump'.
>
> How do they know this?
1: Measurements of the atmospheric CO2 levels. Mauna Loa is one of the
spots. Alaska is another.
2: Studies of the ocean and land vegetation.
3: Business statistics on fuel usages.
4: Studies bringing it all together.
We KNOW how much we release ( rather well by records of fuel use which is
recorded in business transactions.
We KNOW how much is staying in the atmosphere from the instruments.
We DEDUCE the levels of CO2 that are being sequestered by comparing the two.
We estimate the levels of sequestration in different sinks based on carbon
input/output studies of the sinks.
> -All I see is a silly chart.
Silly people see silly things. The fault, Horatio, lies not in the stars,
but in ourselves...
>
> What if we had burned no fossil fuels? - Do a quick google search for
"coal
> fires in china"
We would have less CO2 in the atmosphere.
>
> Or Any of a number of other areas that affect natural co2 release into the
> atmosphere..
CO2 levels are a balance of input and output that has not wavered much over
a millenia. The current rise, like the temperature, is way out of whack. It
is taking the balance of inputs and outputs and suddenly adding to the input
twice as much more than the output. The rest accumulates. It doesn't take
much to accumulate since the normal levels are so small to start with.
Parts per MILLION, of a GAS.
nshinede@no-spam wrote:
> A question. Given the hugh current and continuing expansion of the human
> race,
> how much energy must be produced just to keep us alive and functioning?
>
> Without burning fossil fuels, as example, if we were to go back to wood as
> a source of heating, we would probably burn up all the remaining forests
> very quickly.
>
> Solar energy? Nuclear?
Burning wood? Nuclear? I think those are on the "not good" list of energy
resources. The future of energy is a combination of wind power, water
power, and solar power.
> Has anyone done a study on requirements vs. available sources, which
> predicts at least the anticipated energy requirements, vs. the alleged
> capacities of "alternative" sources, to see what is really practicle?
There are many wind power initiatives going on right now.
For Canada, see www.canwea.ca
"Reason" <peterJ@no-spam> wrote in message
news:bN_Ja.271895$3C2.7893225@no-spam
> Kyoto has never been about fixing a problem, it's always been about: "Lets
> throw gobs of money at the problem, just so we look good, even though it
> won't change a thing."
Nope. Kyoto was an international agreement to set goals for emissions
reductions and monitoring of the GHGs. It said NOTHING about how to
accomplish the feat, or how much money to 'throw at it'. In fact, that would
be stupid and effectively a 'sabotage' of the agreement.
>
> The Clinton administration found that ratifying Kyoto would throw millions
> of Americans out of work, cripple the economy, and mitigate greenhouse
gases
> in the atmosphere by a tiny fraction of one percent in the long term,
which
> amounts to nothing at all in a practical sense.
No. They didn't. The Dumbya administration makes those claims but that is
because they are pig ignorant and want to hide the science like good
Luddites should.
It is easy to show that by improving the efficiency of a coal power plant
from the current 35% to a state of the art 45%-58%, much of the required
reductions could be made with a subsequent benefit in lower fuel costs
offsetting the capital costs, with long term improvements to other pollutant
control as a separate benefit. Insulating your house more will make
reductions in heating bills that pay for the insulation over 7 years or so
and there is another large potential to make CO2 reductions for no cost or
even with a payback.
>
> By the same logic, you would spend a large portion of your income to
install
> a giant air filter in your front yard to try to clean up the air in your
> neighborhood. Quite daft, and it would likely get you a visit from mental
> health authorities.
I imagine you are very familiar with them by now.
"Ian St. John" <istjohn@no-spam> wrote in message
news:r8%Ja.2446$iM4.382638@no-spam
>
> "Reason" <peterJ@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:bN_Ja.271895$3C2.7893225@no-spam
> > Kyoto has never been about fixing a problem, it's always been about:
"Lets
> > throw gobs of money at the problem, just so we look good, even though it
> > won't change a thing."
>
> Nope. Kyoto was an international agreement to set goals for emissions
> reductions and monitoring of the GHGs. It said NOTHING about how to
> accomplish the feat, or how much money to 'throw at it'. In fact, that
would
> be stupid and effectively a 'sabotage' of the agreement.
>
> >
> > The Clinton administration found that ratifying Kyoto would throw
millions
> > of Americans out of work, cripple the economy, and mitigate greenhouse
> gases
> > in the atmosphere by a tiny fraction of one percent in the long term,
> which
> > amounts to nothing at all in a practical sense.
>
> No. They didn't. The Dumbya administration makes those claims but that is
> because they are pig ignorant and want to hide the science like good
> Luddites should.
>
> It is easy to show that by improving the efficiency of a coal power plant
> from the current 35% to a state of the art 45%-58%, much of the required
> reductions could be made with a subsequent benefit in lower fuel costs
> offsetting the capital costs, with long term improvements to other
pollutant
> control as a separate benefit. Insulating your house more will make
> reductions in heating bills that pay for the insulation over 7 years or so
> and there is another large potential to make CO2 reductions for no cost or
> even with a payback.
>
> >
> > By the same logic, you would spend a large portion of your income to
> install
> > a giant air filter in your front yard to try to clean up the air in your
> > neighborhood. Quite daft, and it would likely get you a visit from
mental
> > health authorities.
>
> I imagine you are very familiar with them by now.
I am familiar with the fact that you shouldn't cut off your arm to scratch
an itch.
"Mage" <mage@no-spam> wrote in message
news:ur%Ja.300030$Vi5.7979442@no-spam
<snip>
> >
> I am certainly not saying that we do'nt contribute, I simply believe we
> don't quite have all the info yet..
Why not read the science. "Belief" based on ignorance is not useful.
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/095.htm
Reason wrote:
>
> The Clinton administration found that ratifying Kyoto would throw millions
> of Americans out of work, cripple the economy, and mitigate greenhouse gases
> in the atmosphere by a tiny fraction of one percent in the long term, which
> amounts to nothing at all in a practical sense.
Presidents do not ratify treaties. The Senate does.
Bob Kolker
>
Reason wrote:
>
> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:%80Ka.2939$iM4.391127@no-spam
>>
>> "Reason" <peterJ@no-spam> wrote in message
>> news:9Y%Ja.272217$3C2.7900925@no-spam
>> >
>> > "Ian St. John" <istjohn@no-spam> wrote in message
>> > news:r8%Ja.2446$iM4.382638@no-spam
>> <snip>
>> > > > By the same logic, you would spend a large portion of your income
>> > > > to install a giant air filter in your front yard to try to clean up
>> > > > the
>> air in
>> > > > your neighborhood. Quite daft, and it would likely get you a visit
>> > > > from mental health authorities.
>> > >
>> > > I imagine you are very familiar with them by now.
>> >
>> > I am familiar with the fact that you shouldn't cut off your arm to
> scratch
>> > an itch.
>>
>> Warning: Warning: "Too much information" alert.
>>
>> We really don't want to know the details, ok?
>>
>> Just go with the nice men in the white suits.
>>
>
> Very strange reply.
Reason is "simple".
Kyoto is a farce. Man made CO2 has LITTLE to do with the perceived
erratic climate behaviour. One volcanic explosion such as Krakatoa
dumps more CO2, sulfur, and rock dust into the atmosphere than anything
egotistical man can dream up of. Our 'efforts' are minuscule compared
to those of mother nature.
The Kyoto crowd are to myopic. They have looked at a too short of a
period of time. Geological cycles repeat at much greater intervals than
just 50 years. Try 500 Million years plus or minus a few 10 million
years. This history can be read in the rocks!
There is another explanation to the climate changes. Read about it at:
ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/GSAToday/gt0307.pdf
Then throw Kyoto in the trash can where it belongs.
john
Ian St. John wrote:
> "JD" <_antipodean_@no-spam> wrote in message news:6189a6f9.0301110514.419d5abb@no-spam
>
>>"Ian St. John" <istjohn@no-spam> wrote in message news:<3e1fb498@no-spam>...
>>
>>>"JD" <_antipodean_@no-spam> wrote in message news:6189a6f9.0301101715.7cef1a28@no-spam
>>>
>>>>degoos@no-spam (Dennis G.) wrote in message news:<3e1d0d7e.73458@no-spam>...
>>>>
>>>>>_antipodean_@no-spam (JD) wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>(...)
>>>>>
>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>From http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=1051-121202C
>>>>>
>>>>>>The Kyoto Protocol assumes human activities - such as burning fossil
>>>>>>fuels to power automobiles or electricity generators - cause global
>>>>>>warming. Here are the facts.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Statement is false. The Kyoto Protocol recognizes the science that
>>>>>shows humanactivities are forcing the climate.
>>>>
>>>>And the science hasn't been *proven*.
>>>
>>>Certainly it has. The IPCC report ( www.ipcc.ch ) has been accepted and validates that human activitiies are attributable to
>>
> most of
>
>>>the warming. This report has been confirmed and supported by the majority of all climate scientists ( current publications on
>>
> global
>
>>>temperature change cite the global warming facts in essentially every article ), and endorsed as valid and credible by all major
>>>science academies. You missed it only because you had your head stuck firmly up your ass.
>>
>>Your head is as empty as a eunuch's underpants. If there is anything
>>there, it would resemble a baby's soiled nappy.
>>
>>From the IPCC;
>>A few areas of the globe have not warmed in recent decades, mainly
>>over some parts of the Southern Hemisphere oceans and parts of
>>Antarctica.
>
>
> Sure. The theory of global warming does not require the heat to be distributed evenly over the earth. The heat may ( as it has )
> slow down ocean currents such as the THC and thus reduce the heat delivered to some areas ( Like Eastern Canada ) and thus have a
> cooling of the climate in that region. This is why whines about local or regional climate are meaningless when talking about global
> warming. The term means that the *GLOBAL* average temperature is rising.
>
>
>>- Which makes a mockery of 'global warming'.
>
>
> The only mockery is of the school system you went to.
>
>
>>No significant trends in Antarctic sea-ice extent are apparent over
>>the period of systematic satellite measurements (since 1978).
>
>
> Actually, there is a trend towards an increase. If you would have paid attention you would have noticed that.
>
>
>>- Which contradicts the reported trend in the Northern Hemisphere,
>>which makes a mockery of 'global warming'.
>
>
> Regional climates are not global climate. Their will always be areas that counter the main trend. In the case of Antarctica, there
> is a huge mass of both deep ocean and ice sheets that dominate the climate. Move them up here and maybe you will have a case.
> Second, the climate of Antarctica is dominated by the polar vortex which keeps heat from the equator away by providing an 'air
> barrier' while the katabatic winds provide the main climate determination. As well, the long periods of dark and the ozone depletion
> has been the dominant factor cooling the stratosphere in the region and countering any warming of the surface.
>
>
>>Based on limited data, the observed variations in the intensity and
>>frequency of tropical and extra-tropical cyclones and severe local
>>storms show no clear trends in the last half of the 20th century,
>>although multi-decadal fluctuations are sometimes apparent.
>
>
> Yup. Actually they think they have found such a trend though smaller and the other way from the "irfrared iris' mechanism that was
> invoked by Lindzen to try to establish a negative feedback. The intensity and frequency of tropical and extratropical cyclones is
> primarily tied to El-Nino and equatorial sea surface temperatures. Did you think climate oscillations dissappeares? You have to find
> the trends, not the oscillations.
>
>
--
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas.
Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@no-spam
http://shopnow.netscape.com/
"John Scott" <rockknocker@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F1B315E.1070905@no-spam
> Kyoto is a farce.
Lie.
> Man made CO2 has LITTLE to do with the perceived erratic climate
behaviour.
Unsupported ignorance.
> One volcanic explosion such as Krakatoa
> dumps more CO2, sulfur, and rock dust into the atmosphere than anything
> egotistical man can dream up of.
Lie. Volcanoes are no more than 1% or so relative to the anthropogenic
emissons.
> Our 'efforts' are minuscule compared
> to those of mother nature.
Sure. Just as the blasting cap in nothing compared to the dynamite
explosion. The 'effort' to release CO2 is almost negligeable compared to the
effect of the solar constant from the resulting greenhouse effect. Like a
butterfly flapping it's wings in china and triggering a hurricane in the
carribean the effect is massive compared to the trigger.
>
> The Kyoto crowd are to myopic.
Pure crap spew.
> They have looked at a too short of a period of time.
Not an issue. The CO2 release has been over the last 100years and the effect
is sufficiently prompt to be detected already.
> Geological cycles repeat at much greater intervals than
> just 50 years.
It isn't a geological cycle, whatever that might be. You are probably
confusing climate oscillations or cycles with the geological history
arguments.
> Try 500 Million years plus or minus a few 10 million
> years. This history can be read in the rocks!
The rocks seem to be in your head. Even 55 My are enough to totally change
the climate. The single continent with a shallow internal sea, sea levels
hundreds of meters higher, no antarctic ice sheets, etc etc. Totally
difference ocean currents, dryer continents, just to name a few. The
comparison of these conditions with the present is meaningless. Too many
differences.
>
> There is another explanation to the climate changes. Read about it at:
>
> ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/GSAToday/gt0307.pdf
>
> Then throw Kyoto in the trash can where it belongs.
>
> john
>
>
> Ian St. John wrote:
> > "JD" <_antipodean_@no-spam> wrote in message
news:6189a6f9.0301110514.419d5abb@no-spam
> >
> >>"Ian St. John" <istjohn@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<3e1fb498@no-spam>...
> >>
> >>>"JD" <_antipodean_@no-spam> wrote in message
news:6189a6f9.0301101715.7cef1a28@no-spam
> >>>
> >>>>degoos@no-spam (Dennis G.) wrote in message
news:<3e1d0d7e.73458@no-spam>...
> >>>>
> >>>>>_antipodean_@no-spam (JD) wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>(...)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>[snip]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>From
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=10
51-121202C
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>The Kyoto Protocol assumes human activities - such as burning fossil
> >>>>>>fuels to power automobiles or electricity generators - cause global
> >>>>>>warming. Here are the facts.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Statement is false. The Kyoto Protocol recognizes the science that
> >>>>>shows humanactivities are forcing the climate.
> >>>>
> >>>>And the science hasn't been *proven*.
> >>>
> >>>Certainly it has. The IPCC report ( www.ipcc.ch ) has been accepted and
validates that human activitiies are attributable to
> >>
> > most of
> >
> >>>the warming. This report has been confirmed and supported by the
majority of all climate scientists ( current publications on
> >>
> > global
> >
> >>>temperature change cite the global warming facts in essentially every
article ), and endorsed as valid and credible by all major
> >>>science academies. You missed it only because you had your head stuck
firmly up your ass.
> >>
> >>Your head is as empty as a eunuch's underpants. If there is anything
> >>there, it would resemble a baby's soiled nappy.
> >>
> >>From the IPCC;
> >>A few areas of the globe have not warmed in recent decades, mainly
> >>over some parts of the Southern Hemisphere oceans and parts of
> >>Antarctica.
> >
> >
> > Sure. The theory of global warming does not require the heat to be
distributed evenly over the earth. The heat may ( as it has )
> > slow down ocean currents such as the THC and thus reduce the heat
delivered to some areas ( Like Eastern Canada ) and thus have a
> > cooling of the climate in that region. This is why whines about local or
regional climate are meaningless when talking about global
> > warming. The term means that the *GLOBAL* average temperature is rising.
> >
> >
> >>- Which makes a mockery of 'global warming'.
> >
> >
> > The only mockery is of the school system you went to.
> >
> >
> >>No significant trends in Antarctic sea-ice extent are apparent over
> >>the period of systematic satellite measurements (since 1978).
> >
> >
> > Actually, there is a trend towards an increase. If you would have paid
attention you would have noticed that.
> >
> >
> >>- Which contradicts the reported trend in the Northern Hemisphere,
> >>which makes a mockery of 'global warming'.
> >
> >
> > Regional climates are not global climate. Their will always be areas
that counter the main trend. In the case of Antarctica, there
> > is a huge mass of both deep ocean and ice sheets that dominate the
climate. Move them up here and maybe you will have a case.
> > Second, the climate of Antarctica is dominated by the polar vortex which
keeps heat from the equator away by providing an 'air
> > barrier' while the katabatic winds provide the main climate
determination. As well, the long periods of dark and the ozone depletion
> > has been the dominant factor cooling the stratosphere in the region and
countering any warming of the surface.
> >
> >
> >>Based on limited data, the observed variations in the intensity and
> >>frequency of tropical and extra-tropical cyclones and severe local
> >>storms show no clear trends in the last half of the 20th century,
> >>although multi-decadal fluctuations are sometimes apparent.
> >
> >
> > Yup. Actually they think they have found such a trend though smaller and
the other way from the "irfrared iris' mechanism that was
> > invoked by Lindzen to try to establish a negative feedback. The
intensity and frequency of tropical and extratropical cyclones is
> > primarily tied to El-Nino and equatorial sea surface temperatures. Did
you think climate oscillations dissappeares? You have to find
> > the trends, not the oscillations.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas.
> Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@no-spam
> http://shopnow.netscape.com/
>
Seems like all that Ian ST.John can say in a rebuttal?? is "Lie",
"Unsupported ignorance", "lie", "pure crap spew", and makes a remark
about "rocks in my head".
Seems like if that is all that he can offer, then he has made himself
redundant.
The only and best record we have of climate change on earth has been
preserved in the rocks. Just because St. John does not want to
recognize that, does not make him right. In fact he has disqualified
himself from any rational debate on the subject.
Kind of reminds me of the Bishop Usher crowd who claim the world is only
6000 years old...
I do have some question for St John: how were all the limestone
deposits on this earth formed? Where did the CO2 that helped produce
the limestone come from? I suggest there was at one time a LOT more CO2
in the atmosphere than there is at present time....afterall, limestone
is calcium carbonate..CaCO2...
J
Ian St. John wrote:
> "John Scott" <rockknocker@no-spam> wrote in message
> news:3F1B315E.1070905@no-spam
>
>> Kyoto is a farce.
>
>
> Lie.
>
>
>>Man made CO2 has LITTLE to do with the perceived erratic climate
>
> behaviour.
>
> Unsupported ignorance.
>
>
>>One volcanic explosion such as Krakatoa
>>dumps more CO2, sulfur, and rock dust into the atmosphere than anything
>>egotistical man can dream up of.
>
>
> Lie. Volcanoes are no more than 1% or so relative to the anthropogenic
> emissons.
>
>
>> Our 'efforts' are minuscule compared
>>to those of mother nature.
>
>
> Sure. Just as the blasting cap in nothing compared to the dynamite
> explosion. The 'effort' to release CO2 is almost negligeable compared to the
> effect of the solar constant from the resulting greenhouse effect. Like a
> butterfly flapping it's wings in china and triggering a hurricane in the
> carribean the effect is massive compared to the trigger.
>
>
>
>>The Kyoto crowd are to myopic.
>
>
> Pure crap spew.
>
>
>> They have looked at a too short of a period of time.
>
>
> Not an issue. The CO2 release has been over the last 100years and the effect
> is sufficiently prompt to be detected already.
>
>
>>Geological cycles repeat at much greater intervals than
>>just 50 years.
>
>
> It isn't a geological cycle, whatever that might be. You are probably
> confusing climate oscillations or cycles with the geological history
> arguments.
>
>
>>Try 500 Million years plus or minus a few 10 million
>>years. This history can be read in the rocks!
>
>
> The rocks seem to be in your head. Even 55 My are enough to totally change
> the climate. The single continent with a shallow internal sea, sea levels
> hundreds of meters higher, no antarctic ice sheets, etc etc. Totally
> difference ocean currents, dryer continents, just to name a few. The
> comparison of these conditions with the present is meaningless. Too many
> differences.
>
>
>>There is another explanation to the climate changes. Read about it at:
>>
>>ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/GSAToday/gt0307.pdf
>>
>>Then throw Kyoto in the trash can where it belongs.
>>
>>john
>>
>>
>>Ian St. John wrote:
>>
>>>"JD" <_antipodean_@no-spam> wrote in message
>>
> news:6189a6f9.0301110514.419d5abb@no-spam
>
>>>>"Ian St. John" <istjohn@no-spam> wrote in message
>>>
> news:<3e1fb498@no-spam>...
>
>>>>>"JD" <_antipodean_@no-spam> wrote in message
>>>>
> news:6189a6f9.0301101715.7cef1a28@no-spam
>
>>>>>>degoos@no-spam (Dennis G.) wrote in message
>>>>>
> news:<3e1d0d7e.73458@no-spam>...
>
>>>>>>>_antipodean_@no-spam (JD) wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>(...)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>[snip]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>From
>>>>>>>
> http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=10
> 51-121202C
>
>>>>>>>>The Kyoto Protocol assumes human activities - such as burning fossil
>>>>>>>>fuels to power automobiles or electricity generators - cause global
>>>>>>>>warming. Here are the facts.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Statement is false. The Kyoto Protocol recognizes the science that
>>>>>>>shows humanactivities are forcing the climate.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>And the science hasn't been *proven*.
>>>>>
>>>>>Certainly it has. The IPCC report ( www.ipcc.ch ) has been accepted and
>>>>
> validates that human activitiies are attributable to
>
>>>most of
>>>
>>>
>>>>>the warming. This report has been confirmed and supported by the
>>>>
> majority of all climate scientists ( current publications on
>
>>>global
>>>
>>>
>>>>>temperature change cite the global warming facts in essentially every
>>>>
> article ), and endorsed as valid and credible by all major
>
>>>>>science academies. You missed it only because you had your head stuck
>>>>
> firmly up your ass.
>
>>>>Your head is as empty as a eunuch's underpants. If there is anything
>>>>there, it would resemble a baby's soiled nappy.
>>>>
>>>
>>>>From the IPCC;
>>>
>>>>A few areas of the globe have not warmed in recent decades, mainly
>>>>over some parts of the Southern Hemisphere oceans and parts of
>>>>Antarctica.
>>>
>>>
>>>Sure. The theory of global warming does not require the heat to be
>>
> distributed evenly over the earth. The heat may ( as it has )
>
>>>slow down ocean currents such as the THC and thus reduce the heat
>>
> delivered to some areas ( Like Eastern Canada ) and thus have a
>
>>>cooling of the climate in that region. This is why whines about local or
>>
> regional climate are meaningless when talking about global
>
>>>warming. The term means that the *GLOBAL* average temperature is rising.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>- Which makes a mockery of 'global warming'.
>>>
>>>
>>>The only mockery is of the school system you went to.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>No significant trends in Antarctic sea-ice extent are apparent over
>>>>the period of systematic satellite measurements (since 1978).
>>>
>>>
>>>Actually, there is a trend towards an increase. If you would have paid
>>
> attention you would have noticed that.
>
>>>
>>>>- Which contradicts the reported trend in the Northern Hemisphere,
>>>>which makes a mockery of 'global warming'.
>>>
>>>
>>>Regional climates are not global climate. Their will always be areas
>>
> that counter the main trend. In the case of Antarctica, there
>
>>>is a huge mass of both deep ocean and ice sheets that dominate the
>>
> climate. Move them up here and maybe you will have a case.
>
>>>Second, the climate of Antarctica is dominated by the polar vortex which
>>
> keeps heat from the equator away by providing an 'air
>
>>>barrier' while the katabatic winds provide the main climate
>>
> determination. As well, the long periods of dark and the ozone depletion
>
>>>has been the dominant factor cooling the stratosphere in the region and
>>
> countering any warming of the surface.
>
>>>
>>>>Based on limited data, the observed variations in the intensity and
>>>>frequency of tropical and extra-tropical cyclones and severe local
>>>>storms show no clear trends in the last half of the 20th century,
>>>>although multi-decadal fluctuations are sometimes apparent.
>>>
>>>
>>>Yup. Actually they think they have found such a trend though smaller and
>>
> the other way from the "irfrared iris' mechanism that was
>
>>>invoked by Lindzen to try to establish a negative feedback. The
>>
> intensity and frequency of tropical and extratropical cyclones is
>
>>>primarily tied to El-Nino and equatorial sea surface temperatures. Did
>>
> you think climate oscillations dissappeares? You have to find
>
>>>the trends, not the oscillations.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>--
>>Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas.
>>Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@no-spam
>>http://shopnow.netscape.com/
>>
>
>
>
John Scott wrote:
> Kind of reminds me of the Bishop Usher crowd who claim the world is only
> 6000 years old...
t.in.C.> It's actually 6002.5 now. ;-)
You are absolutely correct! Time does fly when we are having fun. I am
used to geological time spans of plus or minus a few million years...
But who is counting....?
J
ga wrote:
> John Scott wrote:
>
>
>>Kind of reminds me of the Bishop Usher crowd who claim the world is only
>>6000 years old...
>
>
> t.in.C.> It's actually 6002.5 now. ;-)
--
Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas.
Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@no-spam
http://shopnow.netscape.com/
"John Scott" <jfsyqt@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F1B42B5.9080506@no-spam
> Seems like all that Ian ST.John can say in a rebuttal?? is "Lie",
> "Unsupported ignorance", "lie", "pure crap spew", and makes a remark
> about "rocks in my head".
One cannot 'rebut' a lie so all one can do is point to it being a lie.
>
> Seems like if that is all that he can offer, then he has made himself
> redundant.
Your post is redundant. Mine was responsive.
>
> The only and best record we have of climate change on earth has been
> preserved in the rocks.
False. As I pointed out the planet in the Jurassic is NOT the same as in the
Holoscene so the record is irrrelevant and if you REALLY want to know the
only and best record of climate change, it is the meteorology network that
has developed since the nineteenth century. There is no questions that such
instruments are miles ahead of the proxy data we rely on for
paleoclimatology.
> Just because St. John does not want to
> recognize that, does not make him right. In fact he has disqualified
> himself from any rational debate on the subject.
Your attacks are not much of a rational discussion. Perhaps you should
withdraw until you can present at least a simple discussion on topic.
>
> Kind of reminds me of the Bishop Usher crowd who claim the world is only
> 6000 years old...
Gee. You are older than you look. Isn't the good Bishop dead yet?
>
> I do have some question for St John: how were all the limestone
> deposits on this earth formed?
Many are coral marine deposits. Others are the remains of calcareous
unicellular organisms. Some are the result of evaporation of shallow seas.
Some are really weird.
http://gsa.confex.com/gsa/2003CD/finalprogram/abstract_51589.htm
> Where did the CO2 that helped produce the limestone come from?
It didn't 'come from' anywhere loon. It was part of the planet, mostly moved
to the surface by volcanic activity. We are continually changing the
sources, sinks and movements of various components of the planet. For
example, mankind is industriously converting huge geological deposits of
simple alkanes and aromatics into water and CO2.
> I suggest there was at one time a LOT more CO2
> in the atmosphere than there is at present time....afterall, limestone
> is calcium carbonate..CaCO2...
At one time the whole planet was a lava pit and at others it had an
ammonia/methane/hydrogen reducing atmosphere. What the fuck does that have
to do with the last century??? Breath deep. See. No ammonia! Now get a clue
and stop your incessant and irrrational babbling.
Ian St Jihad has the inside scope from the highest
form of intelligence on the CBC
That Being David Suzuki. It's part of Canada's
leftist cult
--
Terry Pearson
The philosophy of socialism equates to
poverty thinking. The rich get rich and
the poor get poor. They both planned it
that way.
http://rtpt_2000.tripod.com
The Daily Blog
http://rtpt_2000.tripod.com/blog.html
"John Scott" <jfsyqt@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F1B42B5.9080506@no-spam
> Seems like all that Ian ST.John can say in a rebuttal?? is "Lie",
> "Unsupported ignorance", "lie", "pure crap spew", and makes a remark
> about "rocks in my head".
>
> Seems like if that is all that he can offer, then he has made himself
> redundant.
>
> The only and best record we have of climate change on earth has been
> preserved in the rocks. Just because St. John does not want to
> recognize that, does not make him right. In fact he has disqualified
> himself from any rational debate on the subject.
>
> Kind of reminds me of the Bishop Usher crowd who claim the world is only
> 6000 years old...
>
> I do have some question for St John: how were all the limestone
> deposits on this earth formed? Where did the CO2 that helped produce
> the limestone come from? I suggest there was at one time a LOT more CO2
> in the atmosphere than there is at present time....afterall, limestone
> is calcium carbonate..CaCO2...
>
> J
>
> Ian St. John wrote:
> > "John Scott" <rockknocker@no-spam> wrote in message
> > news:3F1B315E.1070905@no-spam
> >
> >> Kyoto is a farce.
> >
> >
> > Lie.
> >
> >
> >>Man made CO2 has LITTLE to do with the perceived erratic climate
> >
> > behaviour.
> >
> > Unsupported ignorance.
> >
> >
> >>One volcanic explosion such as Krakatoa
> >>dumps more CO2, sulfur, and rock dust into the atmosphere than anything
> >>egotistical man can dream up of.
> >
> >
> > Lie. Volcanoes are no more than 1% or so relative to the anthropogenic
> > emissons.
> >
> >
> >> Our 'efforts' are minuscule compared
> >>to those of mother nature.
> >
> >
> > Sure. Just as the blasting cap in nothing compared to the dynamite
> > explosion. The 'effort' to release CO2 is almost negligeable compared to
the
> > effect of the solar constant from the resulting greenhouse effect. Like
a
> > butterfly flapping it's wings in china and triggering a hurricane in the
> > carribean the effect is massive compared to the trigger.
> >
> >
> >
> >>The Kyoto crowd are to myopic.
> >
> >
> > Pure crap spew.
> >
> >
> >> They have looked at a too short of a period of time.
> >
> >
> > Not an issue. The CO2 release has been over the last 100years and the
effect
> > is sufficiently prompt to be detected already.
> >
> >
> >>Geological cycles repeat at much greater intervals than
> >>just 50 years.
> >
> >
> > It isn't a geological cycle, whatever that might be. You are probably
> > confusing climate oscillations or cycles with the geological history
> > arguments.
> >
> >
> >>Try 500 Million years plus or minus a few 10 million
> >>years. This history can be read in the rocks!
> >
> >
> > The rocks seem to be in your head. Even 55 My are enough to totally
change
> > the climate. The single continent with a shallow internal sea, sea
levels
> > hundreds of meters higher, no antarctic ice sheets, etc etc. Totally
> > difference ocean currents, dryer continents, just to name a few. The
> > comparison of these conditions with the present is meaningless. Too many
> > differences.
> >
> >
> >>There is another explanation to the climate changes. Read about it at:
> >>
> >>ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/GSAToday/gt0307.pdf
> >>
> >>Then throw Kyoto in the trash can where it belongs.
> >>
> >>john
> >>
> >>
> >>Ian St. John wrote:
> >>
> >>>"JD" <_antipodean_@no-spam> wrote in message
> >>
> > news:6189a6f9.0301110514.419d5abb@no-spam
> >
> >>>>"Ian St. John" <istjohn@no-spam> wrote in message
> >>>
> > news:<3e1fb498@no-spam>...
> >
> >>>>>"JD" <_antipodean_@no-spam> wrote in message
> >>>>
> > news:6189a6f9.0301101715.7cef1a28@no-spam
> >
> >>>>>>degoos@no-spam (Dennis G.) wrote in message
> >>>>>
> > news:<3e1d0d7e.73458@no-spam>...
> >
> >>>>>>>_antipodean_@no-spam (JD) wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>(...)
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>[snip]
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>From
> >>>>>>>
> >
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=10
> > 51-121202C
> >
> >>>>>>>>The Kyoto Protocol assumes human activities - such as burning
fossil
> >>>>>>>>fuels to power automobiles or electricity generators - cause
global
> >>>>>>>>warming. Here are the facts.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>Statement is false. The Kyoto Protocol recognizes the science that
> >>>>>>>shows humanactivities are forcing the climate.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>And the science hasn't been *proven*.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Certainly it has. The IPCC report ( www.ipcc.ch ) has been accepted
and
> >>>>
> > validates that human activitiies are attributable to
> >
> >>>most of
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>the warming. This report has been confirmed and supported by the
> >>>>
> > majority of all climate scientists ( current publications on
> >
> >>>global
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>>temperature change cite the global warming facts in essentially every
> >>>>
> > article ), and endorsed as valid and credible by all major
> >
> >>>>>science academies. You missed it only because you had your head stuck
> >>>>
> > firmly up your ass.
> >
> >>>>Your head is as empty as a eunuch's underpants. If there is anything
> >>>>there, it would resemble a baby's soiled nappy.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>>From the IPCC;
> >>>
> >>>>A few areas of the globe have not warmed in recent decades, mainly
> >>>>over some parts of the Southern Hemisphere oceans and parts of
> >>>>Antarctica.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Sure. The theory of global warming does not require the heat to be
> >>
> > distributed evenly over the earth. The heat may ( as it has )
> >
> >>>slow down ocean currents such as the THC and thus reduce the heat
> >>
> > delivered to some areas ( Like Eastern Canada ) and thus have a
> >
> >>>cooling of the climate in that region. This is why whines about local
or
> >>
> > regional climate are meaningless when talking about global
> >
> >>>warming. The term means that the *GLOBAL* average temperature is
rising.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>- Which makes a mockery of 'global warming'.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>The only mockery is of the school system you went to.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>No significant trends in Antarctic sea-ice extent are apparent over
> >>>>the period of systematic satellite measurements (since 1978).
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Actually, there is a trend towards an increase. If you would have paid
> >>
> > attention you would have noticed that.
> >
> >>>
> >>>>- Which contradicts the reported trend in the Northern Hemisphere,
> >>>>which makes a mockery of 'global warming'.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Regional climates are not global climate. Their will always be areas
> >>
> > that counter the main trend. In the case of Antarctica, there
> >
> >>>is a huge mass of both deep ocean and ice sheets that dominate the
> >>
> > climate. Move them up here and maybe you will have a case.
> >
> >>>Second, the climate of Antarctica is dominated by the polar vortex
which
> >>
> > keeps heat from the equator away by providing an 'air
> >
> >>>barrier' while the katabatic winds provide the main climate
> >>
> > determination. As well, the long periods of dark and the ozone depletion
> >
> >>>has been the dominant factor cooling the stratosphere in the region and
> >>
> > countering any warming of the surface.
> >
> >>>
> >>>>Based on limited data, the observed variations in the intensity and
> >>>>frequency of tropical and extra-tropical cyclones and severe local
> >>>>storms show no clear trends in the last half of the 20th century,
> >>>>although multi-decadal fluctuations are sometimes apparent.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Yup. Actually they think they have found such a trend though smaller
and
> >>
> > the other way from the "irfrared iris' mechanism that was
> >
> >>>invoked by Lindzen to try to establish a negative feedback. The
> >>
> > intensity and frequency of tropical and extratropical cyclones is
> >
> >>>primarily tied to El-Nino and equatorial sea surface temperatures. Did
> >>
> > you think climate oscillations dissappeares? You have to find
> >
> >>>the trends, not the oscillations.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas.
> >>Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@no-spam
> >>http://shopnow.netscape.com/
> >>
> >
> >
> >
>
I would think the Medieval Optimum, when Greenland
gots its name from Scandanavian settlers, presents a better
case of natural global warming. Still, I think one is right
to be concerned about the effects of industry on the
environment. However, not one person in a thousand
is aware of the deeper causes of environmental problems,
which lie within the financial system.
excerpt
Historically, many communities have continued to exist, often in what their
inhabitants considered relative prosperity, in conditions of economic
stability over long periods. However, since the development of money
economies based on financial credit, the option of stability no longer
exists. Nowadays the economic options are, categorically, two: either growth
or collapse.
The position is hard to rationalise as being inherently necessary. A
community ought to be able to increase, stabilise, or decrease its
productivity, as it deems appropriate. Nor should it be particularly
surprising that it might want to choose the latter option: after all, it
would make no sense for a community that has been able in a two-year
production run to provide every household with a washing-machine with a life
expectancy of 20 years to keep producing more and more washing-machines.
Moreover, people have been known to discover that there are worthwhile
activities in life other than the constant acquisition of material goods,
and a widespread conversion to this belief could conceivably divert enough
interest from economic production to cause it to diminish.
Why, then, have we lost the option of stepping off the treadmill of economic
production. The answer is simple: because if we do not outrun the vast wave
of unextinguishable debt and unpayable financial costs constantly arching
over us we will be swamped, and, in the short term, superfluous resource
conversion is one of the principal means we presently have of racing against
the flood of debt.
The picture that emerges from this understanding of the impact of the
financial system is of an economy driven largely by financial imperatives
rather than by consumer demand for tangible products of the economy, and
consequently proliferating unwanted production. The financial pressures
tending to make production a goal in itself constitute a powerful incentive
to overuse and waste resources. Merely for the sake of distributing income,
we must compulsively churn over the resources of the earth.
The effects of this compulsive economic activity on the environment are
tremendous. Thousands of deleterious intrusions on nature are justified on
the grounds that they put income in people's pockets. Shoddy quality and
built-in obsolescence are winked at because they guarantee rapid replacement
of goods and sustained economic busy-ness. Financial strictures encourage
companies to cut corners and employ inferior, polluting technology rather
than up-to-date, clean productive methods. Production is tallied favourably
in government statistics without regard to whether it degrades or
debilitates people or is functional or ever actually fills a consumer need.
Endemic misdirection of effort subverts ecological morality; the sense of
humanity's place in nature is weakened.
To put the position somewhat differently, instances of environmental
degradation are largely symptoms of the deeper problem of a persistent
shortage of consumer buying power. Environmentalists routinely denounce
exponential economic growth as folly. Unfortunately, without precise
understanding of what makes such growth imperative, they cannot suggest
anything very practical in the way of alternatives.
http://www.socialcredit.com/subpages_resources/environment.htm
Regards
Dan Parker
"John Scott" <rockknocker@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F1B315E.1070905@no-spam
> Kyoto is a farce. Man made CO2 has LITTLE to do with the perceived
> erratic climate behaviour. One volcanic explosion such as Krakatoa
> dumps more CO2, sulfur, and rock dust into the atmosphere than anything
> egotistical man can dream up of. Our 'efforts' are minuscule compared
> to those of mother nature.
>
> The Kyoto crowd are to myopic. They have looked at a too short of a
> period of time. Geological cycles repeat at much greater intervals than
> just 50 years. Try 500 Million years plus or minus a few 10 million
> years. This history can be read in the rocks!
>
> There is another explanation to the climate changes. Read about it at:
>
> ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/GSAToday/gt0307.pdf
>
> Then throw Kyoto in the trash can where it belongs.
>
> john
>
>
> Ian St. John wrote:
> > "JD" <_antipodean_@no-spam> wrote in message
news:6189a6f9.0301110514.419d5abb@no-spam
> >
> >>"Ian St. John" <istjohn@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<3e1fb498@no-spam>...
> >>
> >>>"JD" <_antipodean_@no-spam> wrote in message
news:6189a6f9.0301101715.7cef1a28@no-spam
> >>>
> >>>>degoos@no-spam (Dennis G.) wrote in message
news:<3e1d0d7e.73458@no-spam>...
> >>>>
> >>>>>_antipodean_@no-spam (JD) wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>(...)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>[snip]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>From
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=10
51-121202C
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>The Kyoto Protocol assumes human activities - such as burning fossil
> >>>>>>fuels to power automobiles or electricity generators - cause global
> >>>>>>warming. Here are the facts.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Statement is false. The Kyoto Protocol recognizes the science that
> >>>>>shows humanactivities are forcing the climate.
> >>>>
> >>>>And the science hasn't been *proven*.
> >>>
> >>>Certainly it has. The IPCC report ( www.ipcc.ch ) has been accepted and
validates that human activitiies are attributable to
> >>
> > most of
> >
> >>>the warming. This report has been confirmed and supported by the
majority of all climate scientists ( current publications on
> >>
> > global
> >
> >>>temperature change cite the global warming facts in essentially every
article ), and endorsed as valid and credible by all major
> >>>science academies. You missed it only because you had your head stuck
firmly up your ass.
> >>
> >>Your head is as empty as a eunuch's underpants. If there is anything
> >>there, it would resemble a baby's soiled nappy.
> >>
> >>From the IPCC;
> >>A few areas of the globe have not warmed in recent decades, mainly
> >>over some parts of the Southern Hemisphere oceans and parts of
> >>Antarctica.
> >
> >
> > Sure. The theory of global warming does not require the heat to be
distributed evenly over the earth. The heat may ( as it has )
> > slow down ocean currents such as the THC and thus reduce the heat
delivered to some areas ( Like Eastern Canada ) and thus have a
> > cooling of the climate in that region. This is why whines about local or
regional climate are meaningless when talking about global
> > warming. The term means that the *GLOBAL* average temperature is rising.
> >
> >
> >>- Which makes a mockery of 'global warming'.
> >
> >
> > The only mockery is of the school system you went to.
> >
> >
> >>No significant trends in Antarctic sea-ice extent are apparent over
> >>the period of systematic satellite measurements (since 1978).
> >
> >
> > Actually, there is a trend towards an increase. If you would have paid
attention you would have noticed that.
> >
> >
> >>- Which contradicts the reported trend in the Northern Hemisphere,
> >>which makes a mockery of 'global warming'.
> >
> >
> > Regional climates are not global climate. Their will always be areas
that counter the main trend. In the case of Antarctica, there
> > is a huge mass of both deep ocean and ice sheets that dominate the
climate. Move them up here and maybe you will have a case.
> > Second, the climate of Antarctica is dominated by the polar vortex which
keeps heat from the equator away by providing an 'air
> > barrier' while the katabatic winds provide the main climate
determination. As well, the long periods of dark and the ozone depletion
> > has been the dominant factor cooling the stratosphere in the region and
countering any warming of the surface.
> >
> >
> >>Based on limited data, the observed variations in the intensity and
> >>frequency of tropical and extra-tropical cyclones and severe local
> >>storms show no clear trends in the last half of the 20th century,
> >>although multi-decadal fluctuations are sometimes apparent.
> >
> >
> > Yup. Actually they think they have found such a trend though smaller and
the other way from the "irfrared iris' mechanism that was
> > invoked by Lindzen to try to establish a negative feedback. The
intensity and frequency of tropical and extratropical cyclones is
> > primarily tied to El-Nino and equatorial sea surface temperatures. Did
you think climate oscillations dissappeares? You have to find
> > the trends, not the oscillations.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas.
> Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@no-spam
> http://shopnow.netscape.com/
>
Give me a break!
What is a guy like Al Gore going to write a book about, scare hell out of
all the liberals, when you tell the TRUTH?
"John Scott" <rockknocker@no-spam> wrote in message
news:3F1B315E.1070905@no-spam
> Kyoto is a farce. Man made CO2 has LITTLE to do with the perceived
> erratic climate behaviour. One volcanic explosion such as Krakatoa
> dumps more CO2, sulfur, and rock dust into the atmosphere than anything
> egotistical man can dream up of. Our 'efforts' are minuscule compared
> to those of mother nature.
>
> The Kyoto crowd are to myopic. They have looked at a too short of a
> period of time. Geological cycles repeat at much greater intervals than
> just 50 years. Try 500 Million years plus or minus a few 10 million
> years. This history can be read in the rocks!
>
> There is another explanation to the climate changes. Read about it at:
>
> ftp://rock.geosociety.org/pub/GSAToday/gt0307.pdf
>
> Then throw Kyoto in the trash can where it belongs.
>
> john
>
>
> Ian St. John wrote:
> > "JD" <_antipodean_@no-spam> wrote in message
news:6189a6f9.0301110514.419d5abb@no-spam
> >
> >>"Ian St. John" <istjohn@no-spam> wrote in message
news:<3e1fb498@no-spam>...
> >>
> >>>"JD" <_antipodean_@no-spam> wrote in message
news:6189a6f9.0301101715.7cef1a28@no-spam
> >>>
> >>>>degoos@no-spam (Dennis G.) wrote in message
news:<3e1d0d7e.73458@no-spam>...
> >>>>
> >>>>>_antipodean_@no-spam (JD) wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>(...)
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>[snip]
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>From
http://www.techcentralstation.com/1051/envirowrapper.jsp?PID=1051-450&CID=10
51-121202C
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>The Kyoto Protocol assumes human activities - such as burning fossil
> >>>>>>fuels to power automobiles or electricity generators - cause global
> >>>>>>warming. Here are the facts.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Statement is false. The Kyoto Protocol recognizes the science that
> >>>>>shows humanactivities are forcing the climate.
> >>>>
> >>>>And the science hasn't been *proven*.
> >>>
> >>>Certainly it has. The IPCC report ( www.ipcc.ch ) has been accepted and
validates that human activitiies are attributable to
> >>
> > most of
> >
> >>>the warming. This report has been confirmed and supported by the
majority of all climate scientists ( current publications on
> >>
> > global
> >
> >>>temperature change cite the global warming facts in essentially every
article ), and endorsed as valid and credible by all major
> >>>science academies. You missed it only because you had your head stuck
firmly up your ass.
> >>
> >>Your head is as empty as a eunuch's underpants. If there is anything
> >>there, it would resemble a baby's soiled nappy.
> >>
> >>From the IPCC;
> >>A few areas of the globe have not warmed in recent decades, mainly
> >>over some parts of the Southern Hemisphere oceans and parts of
> >>Antarctica.
> >
> >
> > Sure. The theory of global warming does not require the heat to be
distributed evenly over the earth. The heat may ( as it has )
> > slow down ocean currents such as the THC and thus reduce the heat
delivered to some areas ( Like Eastern Canada ) and thus have a
> > cooling of the climate in that region. This is why whines about local or
regional climate are meaningless when talking about global
> > warming. The term means that the *GLOBAL* average temperature is rising.
> >
> >
> >>- Which makes a mockery of 'global warming'.
> >
> >
> > The only mockery is of the school system you went to.
> >
> >
> >>No significant trends in Antarctic sea-ice extent are apparent over
> >>the period of systematic satellite measurements (since 1978).
> >
> >
> > Actually, there is a trend towards an increase. If you would have paid
attention you would have noticed that.
> >
> >
> >>- Which contradicts the reported trend in the Northern Hemisphere,
> >>which makes a mockery of 'global warming'.
> >
> >
> > Regional climates are not global climate. Their will always be areas
that counter the main trend. In the case of Antarctica, there
> > is a huge mass of both deep ocean and ice sheets that dominate the
climate. Move them up here and maybe you will have a case.
> > Second, the climate of Antarctica is dominated by the polar vortex which
keeps heat from the equator away by providing an 'air
> > barrier' while the katabatic winds provide the main climate
determination. As well, the long periods of dark and the ozone depletion
> > has been the dominant factor cooling the stratosphere in the region and
countering any warming of the surface.
> >
> >
> >>Based on limited data, the observed variations in the intensity and
> >>frequency of tropical and extra-tropical cyclones and severe local
> >>storms show no clear trends in the last half of the 20th century,
> >>although multi-decadal fluctuations are sometimes apparent.
> >
> >
> > Yup. Actually they think they have found such a trend though smaller and
the other way from the "irfrared iris' mechanism that was
> > invoked by Lindzen to try to establish a negative feedback. The
intensity and frequency of tropical and extratropical cyclones is
> > primarily tied to El-Nino and equatorial sea surface temperatures. Did
you think climate oscillations dissappeares? You have to find
> > the trends, not the oscillations.
> >
> >
>
>
> --
> Your favorite stores, helpful shopping tools and great gift ideas.
> Experience the convenience of buying online with Shop@no-spam
> http://shopnow.netscape.com/
>