How will Canada keep warm now?!?

[DanS]

The fact remains that you, and likeminded people are willing to bet the future of many coastal areas on your fears of losing lifestyle and money.

I don't know how you could say that's a bad bet, considering that your characterization of the risk is pretty much non-existant.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Oerdin


I agree that action should be taken but excessaive damage to the economy isn't necissary or helpful. Instead the best possible thing the US could do is raise the gasoline tax by $0.50 and spend the money on mass transite. Switching from coal to cleaner natural gas power plant, or best of all Nuclear, would help as well. Better housing codes requiring more insulation will lower energy usage and large scale tree planting will suck up excess CO2.

Those things wll help and costs are moderate while Kyoto won't help on a global scale and the costs are not moderate. That's why I am against Kyoto but for the alternative.

these are good ideas

However given the many ways the federal politicians found to spend the money generated by the 1980's hike in payroll taxes which was designed to keep SS solvent when the baby boomers retire, do you realy think they'd be any better at using gas tax revenue to improve mass transit?

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by DanS


I don't know how you could characterize that as a bad bet, considering that your characterization of the risk is pretty much non-existant.

at the very least it should help substantially drive up the value of my inland property. Sounds like a good bet from my pov

[DanS]

Yeh, if you can get an envirofanatic appraiser to account for this "risk."

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Asmodean
The fact remains that you, and likeminded people are willing to bet the future of many coastal areas on your fears of losing lifestyle and money.

No, I'm not. I, and people like me, have offered a valid alternative with a graduated response instead of a knee jerk go for broke response Kyoto calls for. This is all about making our response being proportional to the threat. We have so little in the way of reliable data that it is only prodent to have a graduated response and adjust our tactics as more data becomes available.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by DanS
Yeh, if you can get an envirofanatic appraiser to account for this "risk."

actually I meant when the coastlands are all drowned as Kyoto advocates predict

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Geronimo


heh, seriously what source do you use?


(erm I sure hope you knew you cited a humor page just now )

Opps, OK. My sources were based upon University lectures where as that page I just typed in "Green House Gas Sources" into google. Let me try again.

[Odin]

Dan, I am sick of you comparing the Eco-nuts with the scientists who are doing the research.

[DanS]

Geronimo: Well, then you should be rewarded for your foresight my good man!

[DanS]

Dan, I am sick of you comparing the Eco-nuts with the scientists who are doing the research.

Many of the scientists who make it into the newspaper are polticians as opposed to scientists. You can spot them by their use of colorful language and models of unknown validity.

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by Oerdin


No, I'm not. I, and people like me, have offered a valid alternative with a graduated response instead of a knee jerk go for broke response Kyoto calls for. This is all about making our response being proportional to the threat. We have so little in the way of reliable data that it is only prodent to have a graduated response and adjust our tactics as more data becomes available.

Then my point wasn't directed at you. You at least seem to acknowledge the threat, if not just ready to accept the consequences.

Look...I am no scientist, but many of those that are, are warning against this. You, Oerdin, may disagree with their findings, but grant me this: There are so many unknowns in this, that it at least warrants close scrutiny. Many (especially US) politicians seem to write the whole thing of to ramblings from eco-nuts and tree-huggers. That!! is the mistake here. Kyoto aside, what I want is for the problem to be taken seriously. At present, that is not happening.

Asmodean

[Dinner]

I did find his which is interesting.from Ecology.com

This graph shows US production of CO2, EU production of CO2, and everyone elses production of CO2. Notice how the US and Europe are pretty much flat where as the 3rd world is rapidly expanding its production of CO2. You can cap the 1st world all you want but that's not where the big problem is; the big problem is with the 3rd world which Kyoto doesn't even touch. That's why Kyoto won't solve ay problems but will harm 1st world economies.

[Geronimo]

All the scientists definitively say if you read carefully is that:

1. atmospheric CO2 levels have trended higher in direct relation to anthropic CO2 emissions.

2. Temperatures have been trending higher at a rate consistent to predictions based upon the expected greenhouse effect from anthropic emissions.

That's it really. The predictions of the results of this temperature increase are far more uncertain.

scientists agree that global warming appears to be occuring as a result of human activity but they do not agree on what the outcome will look like.

[Asmodean]

Originally posted by Oerdin
I did find his which is interesting.from Ecology.com

This graph shows US production of CO2, EU production of CO2, and everyone elses production of CO2. Notice how the US and Europe are pretty much flat where as the 3rd world is rapidly expanding its production of CO2. You can cap the 1st world all you want but that's not where the big problem is; the big problem is with the 3rd world which Kyoto doesn't even touch. That's why Kyoto won't solve ay problems but will harm 1st world economies.

[DanS]
These predictions are based on models of unknown validity
[/DanS]

I never said that Kyoto was good. I want the Bush administration to acknowledge that there is a potential problem, and then to work on a solution. As of now, they are doing neither.

Asmodean

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Asmodean You, Oerdin, may disagree with their findings, but grant me this: There are so many unknowns in this, that it at least warrants close scrutiny. Many (especially US) politicians seem to write the whole thing of to ramblings from eco-nuts and tree-huggers. That!! is the mistake here. Kyoto aside, what I want is for the problem to be taken seriously. At present, that is not happening.

The whole thing certainly needs more research funding. I'm not certain what you mean by take this seriously unless you mean jump on the Kyptp bandwagon. I'd be all for a Kyoto that doesn't let 3/4 of the world off the hook and sticks the minority with all the costs.