Do you think it might be a good time for President Bush to reconsider
signing the Kyoto agreement? He declined to earlier, deciding that
doing so, might adversely affect the economic prosperity of the United
States. Paying out billions of dollars to hurricane victims might also
put a dent in the budget, so while he deals with the effects of global
warming, perhaps he might also consider the cause.

Hurricanes and climate change will have a massive effect on the quality
of life for future generations. Most people seem oblivious to global
warming; we all drive bigger cars, use more fuel, and consume more
energy. Our high consumption habits are responsible for the victims
directly affected by global warming, be they starving Africans,
suffering from famine, or those who are flooded from their homes. The
Kyoto Protocol Partnership (www.kpp.org.uk) campaigns to make people
more aware of their energy consumption and their impact on global
warming. We encourage individuals and companies to reduce CO2 emissions
to meet the targets set by the Kyoto Protocol. No point blaming
politicians or someone else for global warming, we are all responsible
as custodians for the planet, so let's all take care to reduce energy
consumption, reduce waste, so that our children and grandchildren get
left some resources to enjoy.

"KPP" > wrote in message
ps.com...
> Our high consumption habits are responsible for the victims
> directly affected by global warming, be they starving Africans,
> suffering from famine, or those who are flooded from their homes.

This is not proven yet. If we never burned a drop of fuel, we would
probably have global warming. What brought us out of the ice age? It was
not dinosaurs driving SUVs was it?

Sure, reducing emissions is a good thing, but for the right reasons, not the
global warming that has been going on for a million years or so.

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> "KPP" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > Our high consumption habits are responsible for the victims
> > directly affected by global warming, be they starving Africans,
> > suffering from famine, or those who are flooded from their homes.
>
> This is not proven yet. If we never burned a drop of fuel, we would
> probably have global warming. What brought us out of the ice age? It was
> not dinosaurs driving SUVs was it?
>
> Sure, reducing emissions is a good thing, but for the right reasons, not the
> global warming that has been going on for a million years or so.

Theres a lot of intersting information about cyclical sunspot activity
(and hence the increased output of solar radiation)being related to
increases or decreases in earth's land and ocean temperatures. Global
warming because of emissions isn't the only cause of increasing
temperatures but it is one we do have some control over.

Here are a couple on the sunspots

http://www.oar.noaa.gov/spotlite/arc...unclimate.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3869753.stm
http://www.space.com/scienceastronom...ut_030320.html

SD

On 24 Sep 2005 10:16:51 -0700, "KPP"
> wrote:

garbage snipped

You can find thousands of pages on this stuff online by typing junk
science Kyoto.

A good place to start is www.junkscience.com and
http://www.iiap.iastate.edu/gccourse...oclimate/paleo
_lecture_new.html

The Kyoto blatherings were a farce. Countries that should of been
listed (China, India) were excempt and would not have been affected by
it no matter who else signed on to it just to be politicaly correct.

The idea that man causes global warming by using fossile fuel is bunk.
The idea that the US causes global warming(and that was the goal of
Kyoto) has been proven to be junk science. Computers show that less
than 3% of the air pollution in the US is carried past our borders.

Since February 2005, $90 trillion dollars in production has been lost
to achieve a maybe non temperature increase of .000940013 degree C by
2050.
In the US alone, $5 billion dollars a year are being spent global
warming research and alternative energy research.

No country can sustain a low estimated $120 billion dollar a year hit
to their economy to achieve a high estimated .02 degree C temperature
savings by 2050 to fully comply with Kyoto. That would be about a
$5,400 billion dollar hit on their economies.

To achieve a global Kyoto compliance, it is estimated that half the
worlds GDP output would have to end by 2050. What countries do we
sacrifice?

Poleo climate charts show the polar areas were from 3 to 8 degrees C
warmer 125-130 thousand years ago than they are today. Pollution
rates/temperature rise per 100 years were 5 times what they are today
prior to the industrial revolution also.

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 17:29:29 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"KPP" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>> Our high consumption habits are responsible for the victims
>> directly affected by global warming, be they starving Africans,
>> suffering from famine, or those who are flooded from their homes.
>
>This is not proven yet. If we never burned a drop of fuel, we would
>probably have global warming. What brought us out of the ice age? It was
>not dinosaurs driving SUVs was it?
>
>Sure, reducing emissions is a good thing, but for the right reasons, not the
>global warming that has been going on for a million years or so.
>
So you disagree with this:
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofn..._stronger.html

And you disagree with this:
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html

OBFood: I think I'll have a steak for dinner tonight.


modom

Only superficial people don't judge by appearances.
-- Oscar Wilde

KPP wrote:

> Do you think it might be a good time for President Bush to reconsider
> signing the Kyoto agreement? He declined to earlier, deciding that
> doing so, might adversely affect the economic prosperity of the United
> States.

THere are two major problems there problems there. FIrst of all, his
buddies in the oil business are making record profits these days. Secondly,
he has a bad record of going along with the rest of the world. He likes to
think the US calls the shots and wants to lead the world, even if he is
leading us downhill.

>

"modom" > wrote in message
>>
> So you disagree with this:
> http://www.livescience.com/forcesofn..._stronger.html
>
> And you disagree with this:
> http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html
>
> OBFood: I think I'll have a steak for dinner tonight.

The first site states:
Researchers are using new methods to analyze those storms and others going
back as far as 1851. If early storms turn out to be more powerful than
originally thought, Emmanuel's findings on global warming's influence on
recent tropical storms might not hold up, they said.

"I'm not convinced that it's happening,'' said Christopher W. Landsea,
another research meteorologist with NOAA, who works at a different lab, the
Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory in Miami. Landsea is a
director of the historical hurricane reanalysis.

I don't agree that the earth has warmed, but I'm not convinced it is cause
by burning fossil fuels. As I said earlier, we had an ice age on earth and
it has become more moderate and this all happened before man was alive and
oil and coal were discovered. Volcanoes, solar hot spots, long term weather
patterns are also factors to consider.



We has steak last night. Damned good too. Tonight is hot dogs and beans.

On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 20:01:03 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" >
wrote:

>
>"modom" > wrote in message
>>>
>> So you disagree with this:
>> http://www.livescience.com/forcesofn..._stronger.html
>>
>> And you disagree with this:
>> http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html
>>
>> OBFood: I think I'll have a steak for dinner tonight.
>
>The first site states:
>Researchers are using new methods to analyze those storms and others going
>back as far as 1851. If early storms turn out to be more powerful than
>originally thought, Emmanuel's findings on global warming's influence on
>recent tropical storms might not hold up, they said.
>
>"I'm not convinced that it's happening,'' said Christopher W. Landsea,
>another research meteorologist with NOAA, who works at a different lab, the
>Atlantic Oceanographic & Meteorological Laboratory in Miami. Landsea is a
>director of the historical hurricane reanalysis.
>
>I don't agree that the earth has warmed, but I'm not convinced it is cause
>by burning fossil fuels. As I said earlier, we had an ice age on earth and
>it has become more moderate and this all happened before man was alive and
>oil and coal were discovered. Volcanoes, solar hot spots, long term weather
>patterns are also factors to consider.
>
>
I understand. These are points to consider, of course, and the data
are not absolutely conclusive.

I guess my position is analogous to Pascal's wager. He reasoned that
there may be a God on the model of the Christian belief system and
there may not. But all things considered, it makes sense to live and
believe as a Christian, given the possible payoff in the next life.
If he was wrong and there is no afterlife, then he lost nothing. If
he was right, then he got heaven, not hell.

You may be right, or you may be wrong. Acting as though human
activity were a significant factor in elevated atmospheric and oceanic
temperatures would seem to be a prudent course, given the possibility
that we could be setting ourselves up to a very bad time of it if it
is true. The economic repercussions could turn out to be of minor
importance.

Put another way, we're conducting an experiment with our atmosphere
with no control sample. It's the only atmosphere we've got.
>
>We has steak last night. Damned good too. Tonight is hot dogs and beans.
>
The corny dog I had for lunch left me peckish soon after. So I
scarfed up some leftover 3-bean salad while I watched the storm.


modom

Only superficial people don't judge by appearances.
-- Oscar Wilde

We had hurricanes 100 years ago, and 1000 years ago, and ten thousand
years ago; were they do to Global Warming?

They're saying now that Mars is showing signs of Global Warming due to
the sun; can we blame that on the Kyoto Accord also?

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "KPP" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
>> Our high consumption habits are responsible for the victims
>> directly affected by global warming, be they starving Africans,
>> suffering from famine, or those who are flooded from their homes.
>
> This is not proven yet. If we never burned a drop of fuel, we would
> probably have global warming. What brought us out of the ice age? It was
> not dinosaurs driving SUVs was it?
>
> Sure, reducing emissions is a good thing, but for the right reasons, not
> the global warming that has been going on for a million years or so.
>

Horseshit. You are buying the propaganda of the oil and coal companies.
Essentially every climate scientist in the world agrees that human
activities are causing the climate to warm. And your assertion that "global
warming that has been going on for a million years or so" is so astoundingly
ignorant that I do not know how to respond. It's on the same level as "moon
made of green cheese" and "earth flat." Maybe you should learn something
about a topic before proclaiming.

Peter Aitken

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

> "KPP" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > Our high consumption habits are responsible for the victims
> > directly affected by global warming, be they starving Africans,
> > suffering from famine, or those who are flooded from their homes.
>
> This is not proven yet. If we never burned a drop of fuel, we would
> probably have global warming. What brought us out of the ice age? It was
> not dinosaurs driving SUVs was it?
>
> Sure, reducing emissions is a good thing, but for the right reasons, not
the
> global warming that has been going on for a million years or so.
>

Yep, the "global warming" and "Kyoto Protocol" claptrappery was simply
cooked up by the anti - US Chicken Little Claque...do a little investigation
of your own and you'll quickly find the *extremely* shaky scientific biases
that led to the "Kyoto Protocol"...it is PHONY "science". Even the rabid
supporters of this travesty of a "treaty" admit it really won't have much of
an impact on the Big Scale Of Things climatologically...

The "Kyoto Protocol" would have forced the US to cut back on energy
consumption by approximately ONE - THIRD over roughly a TEN - YEAR period -
all this for a fraction of a percentage point reduction in emissions.. Can
we say "economic devastation"? *Sure* we can...

Sorry, I don't want to see my country plunged into a bleak Depression so as
to massage the do - gooder egos of a bunch of UN/Third World/European
Socialist/Tree Hugger meddling a - holes...

The world has been warming and the sea levels have been rising since the end
of the last Ice Age 15, 000 years ago and this will continue for the next
few thousand years - or until another Ice Age begins. Nothing we can do
about it, Old Mudder Nature is a FAR stronger force than us puny human
****ants. The most logical thing to do is to eventually relocate human
habitations away from endangered coastal areas, e.g. New Orleans and the
Miississippi Delta (although the Delta's problems are also a result of
reduction of silt deposits because of the damming of the entire length of
the Mississippi).

And a parting thought: you might consider why global warming must may be a
*good* thing...

--
Best
Greg

"Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
>
> "KPP" > wrote in message
> ps.com...
> > Our high consumption habits are responsible for the victims
> > directly affected by global warming, be they starving Africans,
> > suffering from famine, or those who are flooded from their homes.
>
> This is not proven yet. If we never burned a drop of fuel, we would
> probably have global warming. What brought us out of the ice age? It was
> not dinosaurs driving SUVs was it?

Fish. It was the fish that were driving.

> Sure, reducing emissions is a good thing, but for the right reasons, not
the
> global warming that has been going on for a million years or so.

Indeed - some recent studies are claiming that solar output has been higher
this past millennium than it has for quite some time before.

If I find the link I'll post it.



Shaun aRe

"modom" > wrote in message
...

> So you disagree with this:
>
http://www.livescience.com/forcesofn..._stronger.html
>
> And you disagree with this:
> http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~tk/glob_warm_hurr.html

Disagree with which part of those? Both clearly label the findings they
present as tentative, and the first also shows that there is no agreement
within the scientific community regarding the proposal in question.

For that matter, the question here is not really whether or not global
warming is occurring, but rather to what degree controllable human
activity is responsible for it and to what degree it could be reversed
by controls on those actions.

Bob M.

"modom" > wrote in message
...
> I guess my position is analogous to Pascal's wager. He reasoned that
> there may be a God on the model of the Christian belief system and
> there may not. But all things considered, it makes sense to live and
> believe as a Christian, given the possible payoff in the next life.
> If he was wrong and there is no afterlife, then he lost nothing. If
> he was right, then he got heaven, not hell.

Perhaps, but then Pascal's wager is also known to be logically
fallacious. It assumes that there are only two options - being a
Christian or not being a Christian - which would affect the "afterlife"
question. Since there are clearly other religions which claim that
their adherents (and only their adherents) enjoy the "heaven" sort of
afterlife, Pascal's wager is useless - it may suggest that it is preferable
to believe SOMETHING (although "preferable" would also depend
on exactly what you give up in order to hold the belief in question),
but then it cannot really tell you what you ought to be believing from
among multiple options.

> You may be right, or you may be wrong. Acting as though human
> activity were a significant factor in elevated atmospheric and oceanic
> temperatures would seem to be a prudent course, given the possibility
> that we could be setting ourselves up to a very bad time of it if it
> is true. The economic repercussions could turn out to be of minor
> importance.

But they also might not. They might turn out to be of major
importance, relative to what might turn out to be a lot of concern
over nothing. Please note that I am NOT claiming that global
warming is not a valid concern - I am simply pointing out that such
an argument is on no firmer ground, logically, than Pascal's.


> Put another way, we're conducting an experiment with our atmosphere
> with no control sample. It's the only atmosphere we've got.

All of life is an experiment with only one chance to run it, and no control
sample.

Bob M.

<day > wrote in message
...
> On 24 Sep 2005 10:16:51 -0700, "KPP"
> > wrote:
>
> garbage snipped
>
> You can find thousands of pages on this stuff online by typing junk
> science Kyoto.
>
> A good place to start is www.junkscience.com and
> http://www.iiap.iastate.edu/gccourse...oclimate/paleo
> _lecture_new.html
>
> The Kyoto blatherings were a farce. Countries that should of been
> listed (China, India) were excempt and would not have been affected by
> it no matter who else signed on to it just to be politicaly correct.
>
> The idea that man causes global warming by using fossile fuel is bunk.
> The idea that the US causes global warming(and that was the goal of
> Kyoto) has been proven to be junk science. Computers show that less
> than 3% of the air pollution in the US is carried past our borders.
>
> Since February 2005, $90 trillion dollars in production has been lost
> to achieve a maybe non temperature increase of .000940013 degree C by
> 2050.
> In the US alone, $5 billion dollars a year are being spent global
> warming research and alternative energy research.
>
> No country can sustain a low estimated $120 billion dollar a year hit
> to their economy to achieve a high estimated .02 degree C temperature
> savings by 2050 to fully comply with Kyoto. That would be about a
> $5,400 billion dollar hit on their economies.
>
> To achieve a global Kyoto compliance, it is estimated that half the
> worlds GDP output would have to end by 2050. What countries do we
> sacrifice?
>
> Poleo climate charts show the polar areas were from 3 to 8 degrees C
> warmer 125-130 thousand years ago than they are today. Pollution
> rates/temperature rise per 100 years were 5 times what they are today
> prior to the industrial revolution also.

I don't see g/warming as the problem, what is, is the (majority of the)
world's VAST dependence on non-renewable resources, that we are almost out
of stock of. BRING BACK HEMP CROPS WORLDWIDE AND SOLVE ALL OUR ENERGY
PROBLEMS AND KILL 50+% OF BOREDOM AT THE SAME TIME! Ahem...


Shaun aRe