Active Community: Message List - Global Warming Report? Level of validity?

Global Warming Report? Level of validity?

guest — Sat, 29 Oct 2011 04:18:20 GMT

That was a great video! And the logic is inescable.

Re: Global Warming Report? Level of validity?

guest — Fri, 19 Nov 2010 04:33:34 GMT

The worlds problems are so big and complex that no government or government policy in consultation with the other can solve them. The only thing that gives the means and the solution of the human race to survive beyond this century, Oregon-STEM complex and its associated global satellite Incubator Centers. In fact, if the leading scientific minds of the world, the concert can not do it, no politician or others can. It is so simple. The problem is, of course, that politicians do not listen to the independent mind and voice.

Those who have followed the debate on Global Warming of manmade are very aware that every time the Intergovernmental Panel on United Nations Climate Change issues another statement is, the media report the bad news to each hour on the hour. But what if a scientific study concluded that new data from the IPCC chosen in CO2 levels in the past to make it appear that current levels are extraordinary. What the report of the media?

Re: Global Warming Report? Level of validity?

guest — Sat, 22 Dec 2007 01:35:14 GMT

What I see is a gross manipulation of statistics which does not take in to account the nature of that growth or a breakdown by country. If you consider 138 of the signatories are developing countries who were unable to stop developing overnight. The fact that there world's biggest fly-tipper is still increasing the amount of crap in puts in our shared atmosphere is a teriible indictment of the US who's President has admitted to the impact of his country's actions on climate change.

It took 200 years to turn the environment in to an ashtray and its not going to stop overnight.

Compared to 1990:

US greenhouse gas emissions were up 16%.

EU emissions were down 5% (EU targets are more ambitious than their obligations under the Kyoto protocol).

China was up 47% and India up 55%.

The 36 developed countries who have targets under the agreement are on target to reduce their emission by 5% by 2012. That's 15% less than the 1990 forecast if nothing had been done.

Re: Global Warming Report? Level of validity?

guest — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:55:47 GMT

If you researched what "in force" meant in the text of the agreement you would realize your comment is nonsensical. Signatories of the treaty certainly weren't waiting for the in force provisions to kick in before they began the task at hand. The failure of the signatories to live up to the treaty exposes it for what it really was. Further more, even if the reductions outlined in Kyoto are met (which they won't) the impact on the actual temperature of the earth over the next century would be so negligible as to make it one of the most ineffective and wasteful treaties from a cost standpoint ever conceived. It's just another example of bad government in action. The fact that non signers out performed those who did sign must give even you cause for reflection.

Re: Global Warming Report? Level of validity?

guest — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:38:39 GMT

offended by everything wrote:
The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following:

Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/kyoto_schmyoto.html

We may not have grown our emissions as fast but we're still the largest producer. China is catching up...

We should have just signed it and gone through the motions like everyone else...

hmm, George Bush - global warming hero...

Offended, you seem to have forgotten to mention that the Kyoto Protocol did not come in to force until the year following the one for which those statistics were produced.

I'm assuming that was an oversight on your part.

Re: Global Warming Report? Level of validity?

guest — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:09:30 GMT

That's cold - the guy lives in a house any tree hugger would be proud to call home, the US outperforms 75% of the Kyoto signers, and still he gets no enviromental love...tragic...

Re: Global Warming Report? Level of validity?

guest — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:00:02 GMT

offended by everything wrote:
hmm, George Bush - global warming hero...

Indeed...

As posted in that other forum

This time - I'm voting for Bush!

That's right. This guy is money. Everything he touches turns to gold - oil company, Texas Rangers, the US environment, world peace. The guy is a true winner and he is, once again, leading the poll!

George W. Bush	160 votes - 68 %
Pete Domenici	8 votes - 3 %
Stephen Johnson	18 votes - 7 %
Julie MacDonald	17 votes - 7 %
Robert Murray	8 votes - 3 %
Harlan Watson	9 votes - 3 %
ABEC	10 votes - 4 %
UNGREEN	3 votes - 1 %

233 Total Votes

Re: Global Warming Report? Level of validity?

guest — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:51:26 GMT

The Kyoto treaty was agreed upon in late 1997 and countries started signing and ratifying it in 1998. If we look at that data and compare 2004 (latest year for which data is available) to 1997 (last year before the Kyoto treaty was signed), we find the following:

Emissions worldwide increased 18.0%.
Emissions from countries that signed the treaty increased 21.1%.
Emissions from non-signers increased 10.0%.
Emissions from the U.S. increased 6.6%.

In fact, emissions from the U.S. grew slower than those of over 75% of the countries that signed Kyoto.

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2007/12/kyoto_schmyoto.html

We may not have grown our emissions as fast but we're still the largest producer. China is catching up...

We should have just signed it and gone through the motions like everyone else...

hmm, George Bush - global warming hero...

Re: Global Warming Report? Level of validity?

guest — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:49:01 GMT

Hey Brett, is this the same Inhofe that called global warming a hoax and then invited Michael Crichton to testify in support? Whoa! Talk about credibility!

And hey, if God's still up there then he sure wouldn't let global warming happen now, would he?

San Francisco -- Oklahoma Senator James Inhofe once again has demonstrated that his kind of rightwing ideologue really doesn't believe in learning from experience -- because that would mean acknowledging reality. Inhofe, of course, is the ranking Republican on the Senate's Environment and Public Works Committee (although that may change soon). His latest proclamation on global warming is that we shouldn't worry; it can't be anything other than natural because "God's still up there." (Do listen to this link -- it's funny.) The theology behind Inhofe's position is a little murky -- it would be more consistent if Inhofe argued that global warming was happening because God wanted it to -- after all, in Genesis, God promised that the next time he destroyed the earth it would not be with a flood but with fire. (Some of Inhofe's supporters do take this view -- global warming is the end of the world, and it's about time too.)

Re: Global Warming Report? Level of validity?

guest — Fri, 21 Dec 2007 21:40:25 GMT

Of course the report is valid. Given enough money I could find the .0001% of the earth's scientists who will dispute that the earth is round. But unlike the Senator whose huge personal stake in the oil industry consumes his entire political agenda, I have no personal stake in the earth being flat. Hence, my report would be more meaningful.