Bush Says Yes To Global Warming

[KrazyHorse]

The US (and the rest of the Western world) is already outputting more than its fair share of greenhouse gasses. Unless you're willing to hand over the positive benefits of additional production, don't try to use it as an excuse to piss in the common pool.

[DarthVeda]

Do something about it

[KrazyHorse]

[CyberGnu]

DarthVeda, if China wants to pollute their own land with SOx gasses, that is their business, and possibly their neighbours. SOx aren't greenhouse gasses, they come down with first rainfall and acidify the local environment.

Not ratifying the Kyoto because it gives more leeway to China is a lame excuse. Getting China to agree to ANY quotas is an accomplishment, as it is widely percieved that emission quotas are just another way to make sure that China never catches up to the west in economic terms. Even with the current Kyoto thi is partially right, projecting current western living standards on Chinas population would require them to produce with energy efficiencies far and above even the best western countries to be iwthing the current treaty limits.

[aaglo]

So, what's the new on this article?

Everybody has known from the beginning (before the election) what Bush is about...

IMO Bush has flown over the cucoo's nest...

[DanS]

"Look, most people are morons. We all know this is true."

I don't know this to be true. In fact, a democratic society rests on the assumption that its citizens are reasonably assertive in promoting their interests.

"Wraith, the worlds experts in environmental sciences agree whtat global warming is real and man-made."

I'd just as soon they be triple-sure about it before we go doing anything drastic. Even scientists make mistakes, and the prevailing theories can prove to be incorrect.

[Roland]

"I'd just as soon they be triple-sure about it before we go doing anything drastic."

Who suggests anything drastic ? And how sure do you want to be ?

[Wraith]

--"Wraith, the worlds experts in environmental sciences agree whtat global warming is real and man-made."

The politicians do. The world's environmental science experts are hardly arguing as one on this issue, which you would know if you researched it. While there are those who support the human-caused global warming theory, there are plenty who disagree with it. Heck, even the IPCC report says their results are highly uncertain guesses.

In any case, whether or not it is real is not the point I was after. The point is that the Kyoto protocol is, accepting its supporters own numbers, totally worthless.

--"Who suggests anything drastic ? And how sure do you want to be ?"

Well, the economic cost predictions I've seen are pretty high, so it would appear to be a fairly drastic change. As far as sureness goes, I'd just like something more sure than computer models that can't even accurately model that last century, much less the next one. The already-observed margin of error here is larger than the worst-case warming claim coming out of the IPCC.

Wraith
"Insisting on perfect safety is for people who don't have the balls to live in the real world."
-- Mary Shafer, NASA Ames Dryden

[Roland]

"Well, the economic cost predictions I've seen are pretty high, so it would appear to be a fairly drastic change."

Well, the economic high cost predictions I've seen are pretty crappy.

"As far as sureness goes, I'd just like something more sure than computer models that can't even accurately model that last century, much less the next one."

I'd see this a bit more flexible. Even if we are not too sure, we can do a little.
And I do not like the idea of pumping loads of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere per se. It's a whacky experiment at best.

[DanS]

"And how sure do you want to be ?"

Pretty sure. For my own account, it appears to be more of a political conversation than scientific conversation, so I don't mind it settling for quite a while.

[Roland]

"more of a political conversation than scientific conversation"

Like "darwinism" - creationism ?

[DanS]

Well, wouldn't you agree that "darwinism" is more settled scientifically than global warming? But, alas, even something as settled as darwinism can prove to be incorrect in the end.

[Roland]

Not the point. I can create a political debate about anything, and overshadow the scientific debate. And find a few dissenters to blow out of proportion. That is what the most rabid US lobbying groups do for a living.

What do you know about the scientific debate ? I know very little. I only see that whenever someone links a "dissenting" source that has legal or economic points, those are bull****.

[Vesayen]

Bush: Hi, we know about this huge threat which will kill the next generation, but were gonna ignore it and hope it goes away.....

[DanS]

" What do you know about the scientific debate ? I know very little. I only see that whenever someone links a "dissenting" source that has legal or economic points, those are bull****."

I know very little as well--about as much as Scientific American can encapsulate. But the "pro" arguments I hear are pretty vacuous--Wraith does a pretty good job of pointing out these limitations. Given this, I have a choice to assume that there isn't much scientific evidence to support the panoply of global warming "effects" or that the political discourse from the "pro" side is largely detached from the science.

In either case, it seems prudent to let it settle for a while. Y2K was a big waste of time, for instance, so mass delusion is not an unknown phenomenon. And the extent of that problem was much, much more discrete and knowable.