Monday, December 26, 2005


Ten of 15 European Union signatories will miss the targets without urgent action, the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) found. The countries include Ireland, Italy and Spain. France, Greece and Germany are given an "amber warning" and will not reach targets unless they put planned policies into action, the IPPR said. ... Under Kyoto commitments, the European signatories are supposed to cut their emissions to 8% below 1990 levels by 2008-2012.
KYOTO is a "full of it" treaty and the signatories are "full of it" hypocrites - for signing, then doing bupkus to meet the targets, and also for berating the USA for NOT signing.

BTW: The AGING AMAZON FOREST - and not SUV's - is the chief cause of the recent increase in CO2 in the atmosphere.


Anonymous said...

Ran across your blog. Had a few laughs. Reminds me that if any idiot can be president, surely any moron can blog. Don't lose heart. You'll write a thoughtful sentence someday, maybe.


Anonymous said...

Like I said before the lack of co2 absorbtion in the Amazon is not enough to explaine the rapid and sharp increase in C02. the increase in C02 due to that would be gradual over hundreds of years not a spike like we've seen since the industrial revolution.

Pastorius said...


How do you explain the fact that most of the spike occurred in the period up to fifty years ago, after which things have leveled off?

khr128 said...

any anonymous moron can be a bandwidth polluting asshole.

If you don't have anything to say, then STFU.

Reliapundit said...

the aging of the amazon directl;y correlates to the era of increasing atmospheric CO2.

sure: correlation is not causation - not for trees and not for suv's, either.

then aghain, even if the earth is warming due to gloabl green houses gases it cannot last long: the melting ice will expose more land and this will yield nore green and this will uptake more C)2.

also more algae in the oceans will bloom.

so you see, the truly hubristic POV is believing tha we puny humans can overpower the Earth - "GAIA".

i believe that any warming we are having now is normal cyclical changes.

we are actually OVERDUE for an ice age, so stop complaining!

- also: thanks for sticking up for my GANG!

Anonymous said...

Pastorius, the last 50 years is when we finally became aware of polution, and because of enviornmental awearness, ruduction of polluting agents in our fuels, etc, we have decreaced the damage we have done.

and reliapundit, If the Ice caps melt then it will be an ecological disaster. there will be a period of mass extintion, as well as a large disrution of the oceanic currents (all that cold water has to go somwhere) and that would result in a massive climate shift, and god knows what else.

Reliapundit said...

change is aprt of anture.

greenie eco-nazis think that climate is constant. WRONG!

and they probably imagine that if they were around 200 million years ago that as a rsult of their laws there'd still be dinosaurs.

but they are wrong. extinction is part of nature.

besides: IF the atmosphere is making us warmer than we might otherwise be, then MAYBE it's SAVING us from going into another ice age - which we are overdue for.

Anonymous said...

Yes but Climate change isn't supposed to happen this fast. It's supposed to be a very gradual process lasting centuries, possibly mellenia. NOT DECADES.

if the Icecaps melt to fast it will greatly devistate the oceanic currents, which would be a disaster for the global economy for 1, and for wildlife as well.

Reliapundit said...

climate change has happened fast AMNy times before.

there were little ice ages withing the historical era in europe, and alos little periods of extreme warming.

recent ice core samplings shoiw over the last 650,000 years there have veen many speedy warmups.

and no suv's then.

Anonymous said...

no, your right there wern't fossil fules in use then, back then it was mass oceanic bursts of greenhouse gasses, needless to say that isn't the case now.

Gandalin2U said...


1) Whether or not "global warming" as imagined by the left is actually occuring or not is far from proven.

2) Even if it were occuring, the evidence that the phenomenon is caused by human activity is very shaky, to say the least.

3) 40 years ago all of the eco-pundits, luddites, and other troglodytes were up in arms about "global cooling," and the impending ice age that would wipe out civilization. Now we have the same emotional hysteria, but with an opposite fear.

4) I think that the truth is, these hysterical hypocrites just hate civilization. They hate the fact, for example, that the Chinese peasanty is being pulled out of millenia of poverty by the economic progress made possible by even a partially free market. They want the world to remain a backward, miserable, starving --but extremely "authentic" and above all picturesque background for their lush vacations.

5) Why do you want to join them?

Anonymous said...

Gandalin2U, read a science book. Or better yet watch the science channel, They have many good porgrams on global warming, each of which quotes the work of many credible scientists That shows Global warming is infact real, hence the 7 degree rise in average temperatures over the corse of 10 years. And the evidennce that mankind has a play in this is obvious, howelse do you explaine the spike in global temperatures during the age we use fossil fuels the most without limit, and the gradual evening out when we start using them less?

and as to global cooling that comes from the fear of weather patterns of "ice ages" as Reliapudit has pointed out. 40 years ago there wasn't nearly as much scientific reasearch going into this subject as there is now, the theory that another ice age is coming was mostly wild speculation.

Reliapundit said...

sparty: your numbers are WAY way off:

you wrote:

" 7 degree rise in average temperatures over the corse of 10 years"

Here's the TRUTH:

"the UK Meteorological Office, underscores the point. Without Kyoto, that model predicts a rise in globally averaged temperature of just about 1 degree Centigrade by the year 2050."



Here's more:

Questions and Answers on Global Warming

1. Is global warming occurring? Have the forecasts of global warming been confirmed by actual measurements?

There is no serious evidence that man-made global warming is taking place. The computer models used in U.N. studies say the first area to heat under the "greenhouse gas effect" should be the lower atmosphere - known as the troposphere.1 Highly accurate, carefully checked satellite data have shown absolutely no such tropospheric warming. There has been surface warming of about half a degree Celsius, but this is far below the customary natural swings in surface temperatures.2

2. Are carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels the primary cause of climate change? Can the Earth's temperature be expected to rise between 2.5 and 10.4 degrees Fahrenheit in this century as has been reported?

There are many indications that carbon dioxide does not play a significant role in global warming. Richard Lindzen, Ph.D., professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and one of the 11 scientists who prepared a 2001 National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report on climate change, estimates that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would produce a temperature increase of only one degree Celsius.3 In fact, clouds and water vapor appear to be far more important factors related to global temperature. According to Dr. Lindzen and NASA scientists, clouds and water vapor may play a significant role in regulating the Earth's temperature to keep it more constant.4

3. Under the Berlin Mandate, developing nations are to be exempt from any emission reduction requirements agreed to in Kyoto. What effect will this have on overall greenhouse gas emissions over the next thirty years?

Undeveloped countries such as China, India and Brazil are included in this exemption. However, they are projected to produce 16 percent more carbon dioxide by the year 2020 than the United States, even if the Kyoto Protocol is not in place.5

4. Would a modest increase in the temperature of the planet necessarily be bad? Are there any potential benefits?

According to the World Bank, one-third of the world's population already suffers from chronic water shortages. The Worldwatch Institute predicts that this situation will be exacerbated further by the addition of an estimated 2.6 billion people to the world's population over the next 30 years. By 2025, the group claims, some three billion people -- or 40% of the world's population -- could be living in countries without sufficient water supplies, leading to crop failures, diminished economic development and even to regional conflicts as nations find it necessary to fight for control over scarce water resources.

While the scientific community is divided over many aspects of the global warming theory, the effect of global warming on precipitation levels is not one of them: Global warming would mean more condensation and more evaporation, producing more and/or heavier rains. Global warming, therefore, could offer the answer to the water scarcity problem that the Worldwatch Institute has been seeking.

If history is any indication, greater precipitation may be only one of many benefits of global warming. For example, between the 10th and 12th Centuries, when the temperature of the planet was roughly 0.5 degrees Celsius warmer than it is today, agriculture in North America and Europe flourished and the southern regions of Greenland were free of ice, allowing cultivation by Norse settlers. Evidence of this was found in 1993 when scientists from the National Science Foundation-sponsored Greenland Ice Sheet Project II extracted an ice core from Greenland's ice sheet that spanned more than 100,000 years of climate history. Samplings from the core suggest that a Little Ice Age began between 1400 and 1420, blanketing the Vikings' farms in ice and forcing them to abandon their farms in search of more hospitable climates. Prior to the onset of this Little Ice Age, temperatures were comparable to the temperatures general circulation models used by the U.N.-sponsored Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) have projected for 2030-2050. Yet, the world's leaders stand poised to take dramatic steps to curb the risks of this kind of climate change.

Global warming could also mean greater agricultural productivity and greater water conservation. CO2 acts as a fertilizer on plant life while reducing plant transpiration (the passage of water from the roots through the plant's vascular system to the atmosphere). Thus, with global warming, agricultural output could be expected to increase while making less demands on the water supply.6

5. What would be the economic impact of reducing U.S. greenhouse gas emissions to meet the standards of the Kyoto Protocol?

If the Kyoto Protocol had been ratified by the U.S., the U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates gasoline prices would rise 14 to 66 cents per gallon by the year 2010, electricity prices would go up 20 to 86 percent7 and compliance with the treaty would cost the United States economy $400 billion per year.8

6. If the United States can meet the targets for reducing greenhouse gas emissions with little or no costs, why haven't corporations done so on their own?

This question is irrelevant, since abiding by the Kyoto Protocol would be devastating to our economy. However, supposing it was economically responsible to adopt it, we still must never base environmental actions on anything but sound science. We have ample experience of doing more harm than good with environmental regulations based on unsure science. For example, the Clean Air Act mandated oxygenates in gasoline and we ended up with no improvement in air quality but now have the oxygenate MTBE polluting wells in 31 states.9,10,11

We should not take actions that may not be necessary but will certainly increase the level of poverty in this. As economist Walter Williams of George Mason University has observed, "As you look around the world, it is poverty, as opposed to dirty air, that has implications for health."12

7. Are the burdens of meeting the demands of the Kyoto Protocol are distributed fairly?

No, the burdens of meeting the demands of the Kyoto Protocol would fall most heavily on minorities. A study commissioned by six African-American and Hispanic organizations found that the increased costs forced by the treaty would cut minority income in the United States by 10 percent (in contrast, white incomes would go down only 4.5 percent) and 864,000 black Americans and 511,000 Hispanics would lose their jobs.13

8. Is there scientific consensus that global warming is underway? If so, how was this consensus determined?

Dr. Lindzen has said there were a wide variety of scientific views presented in the NAS report and "that the full report did, [express a wide variety of views] making clear that there is no consensus, unanimous or otherwise, about long-term climate trends and what causes them."14 The same is true of the all of the U.N.'s International Panel on Climate Change's studies on which the notion of global warming is based.

Claims that scientific opinion is nearly unanimous on the subject of global warming are wrong. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine received signatures from over 17,100 basic and applied American scientists, two-thirds with advanced degrees, to a document saying, "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate."15


1 James K. Glassman and Sallie Baliunas, The Weekly Standard, June 25, 2001.
2 Ibid.
3 Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences, "Scientists' Report Doesn't Support The Kyoto Treaty," The Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2001.
4 Glassman and Baliunas.
5 Heritage Foundation calculations, based on data from U.S. Department of Energy, Energy Information Agency Administration, International Energy Outlook 2001, Table A10.
6 David Ridenour, "Cure to Global Warming Could Be Worse Than the Disease," National Policy Analysis #165, The National Center for Public Policy Research, February 2001, available on the Internet at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA165.html.
7 Jay E. Hakes, Administrator, Energy Information Administration, Testimony before the Committee on Science, U.S. House of Representatives, October 9, 1998.
8 John Carlisle, "President Bush must kill the Kyoto Global Warming Treaty and Oppose Efforts to Regulate Carbon Dioxide," National Policy Analysis #328, The National Center for Public Policy Research, February 2001, available on the Internet at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA328.html.
9 1990 Clean Air Act, as amended.
10 Ozone-Forming Potential of Reformulated Gasoline, the National Research Council, May 11, 1999.
11 MTBE, "The Biggest Environmental Crisis of the Next Decade," Chicago Life Magazine, Summer 2000.
12 Interview with Walter Williams, Ph.D., Environment and Climate News, The Heartland Institute, February 2000.
13 "Study Says Global Warming Treaty Will Hurt U.S. Minorities," Associated Press, July 6, 2000, cited by John Carlisle, "Treaty to Combat Unproven Global Warming Threat Would Hurt Americans' Standard of Living," National Policy Analysis #309, The National Center for Public Policy Research, September 2000, available on the Internet at http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA309.html.
14 Richard Lindzen, "Scientists' Report Doesn't Support The Kyoto Treaty," The Wall Street Journal, June 11, 2001.
15 The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine, "Petition Project," available on the Internet at http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p357.htm.

from: http://www.nationalcenter.org/KyotoQuestionsAnswers.html


"Tom Wigley, a highly respected senior scientist at the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research (and a scientist, moreover, usually thought of as in the alarmist camp), recently calculated that the Kyoto Protocol would only reduce temperatures by 0.13 degrees by 2050 if we accept the IPCC's 1995 estimate of warming under a business-as-usual scenario."



Reliapundit said...



Paul Adams said...

Congratulations Friend for your excellent blog on wynwood computer armoire!Keep up the good work!
If you have a moment, please visit my site:
wynwood computer armoire
I send you my warm regards and wish you continued success.
Have a nice day! :-)

Anonymous said...

good post