MaxedOutMama
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
The Kyoto Pup Is Already Dead
The global warming fanatics have been trying to collect mandatory contributions in order to save a puppy with large agonized eyes, portrayed as simultanously cooking to death, freezing to death, being drowned by rising sea levels and crushed by new glaciers. It's taken quite a bit of photoshopping to generate that picture; No Oil For Pacifists does a wonderful job of reviewing the political shenanigans surrounding GHG hysterics.
Senator James Inhofe brings the real-world implications into focus:
The last thing we need to do is institute draconian measures that will be expensive and, even according to the global warming crowd, do effectively nothing. And that's exactly what the Kyoto Protocol will do to alleviate global warming - nothing measurable. See JunkScience.com, which has calculated that the potential cooling effect of Kyoto so far by 2050 is 0.000508678 °C. The effect of following the Protocol is projected to add up to less than a degree in a century, which happens to be less than recent natural variability conceded by the IPCC.
Logically speaking, this serves to invalidate the treaty entirely. Either global warming due to man will be considerably more than a degree in a century, in which case Kyoto does not and can not solve the problem, or global warming due to man will be much less, in which case we are spending a great deal to address a problem that doesn't exist while ignoring problems that do exist. It has been clear for years that the Kyoto treaty was a lunatic measure, the triumph of ignorance over science, of innumeracy over numerical literacy, a superstitious virgin sacrifice to a volcano that has not yet even been observed rumbling.
Furthermore, now it's abundantly clear that Europe isn't going to meet its Kyoto CO2 emissions targets, and neither is Canada. China has indicated that it will wait and see how other countries behave before signing up, so we can confidently predict that Kyoto is DOA anyway. I say we in the US should laugh loudly and publicly about this richly deserved demise and proceed to debate measures that might have some actual result.
We could invest heavily in nuclear power, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address several other problems. That would be reasonable. Planting trees will take carbon dioxide out of the air. Some types of pollutants seem to cool the earth, such as the sulfates spewed into the atmosphere by volcanoes. We could work on a contingency plan to alter the earth's atmosphere to cool the world if necessary.
We can and should continue funding scientific research into climate, because we know from the past that the earth's climate is extremely variable. If if doesn't get significantly warmere, sooner or later it's going to get considerably cooler, as it was a few centuries ago - so the entire world has a stake in figuring out how all this works. Let's spend our money to do something rather than spending a great deal of money to do nothing. That's one expensive little photoshopped doggie, and that faked picture has been used to hide the sad eyes of real people dying real deaths right now. See the Copenhagen Consensus.
Senator James Inhofe brings the real-world implications into focus:
...some still seek to solve a problem even before it has been established one exists. Two Senate bills would, like the Kyoto Protocol, cap carbon dioxide emissions. Wharton Econometrics Forecasting Associates estimates that the costs of implementing Kyoto would cost an American family of four $2,700 annually. Two international leaders once described Kyoto's intent. Margot Wallstrom, the European Union's commissioner on the environment, said Kyoto is "about leveling the playing field for big businesses worldwide," and French President Jacques Chirac called it "the first component of an authentic global governance."Two people who have shown themselves to be incompentent and ineffective world leaders are Margot Wallstrom and Jacques Chirac. They are even worse scientists than economists, and even worse politicians than scientists. Why would anyone try to board the Titanic after it was clearly sinking?
MIT professor Dr. Richard Lindzen sums up the current state of affairs best: "Science, in the public arena, is commonly used as a source of authority with which to bludgeon political opponents and propagandize uninformed citizens. ... A fairer view of the science will show that there is still a vast amount of uncertainty — far more than advocates of Kyoto would like to acknowledge."
The last thing we need to do is institute draconian measures that will be expensive and, even according to the global warming crowd, do effectively nothing. And that's exactly what the Kyoto Protocol will do to alleviate global warming - nothing measurable. See JunkScience.com, which has calculated that the potential cooling effect of Kyoto so far by 2050 is 0.000508678 °C. The effect of following the Protocol is projected to add up to less than a degree in a century, which happens to be less than recent natural variability conceded by the IPCC.
Logically speaking, this serves to invalidate the treaty entirely. Either global warming due to man will be considerably more than a degree in a century, in which case Kyoto does not and can not solve the problem, or global warming due to man will be much less, in which case we are spending a great deal to address a problem that doesn't exist while ignoring problems that do exist. It has been clear for years that the Kyoto treaty was a lunatic measure, the triumph of ignorance over science, of innumeracy over numerical literacy, a superstitious virgin sacrifice to a volcano that has not yet even been observed rumbling.
Furthermore, now it's abundantly clear that Europe isn't going to meet its Kyoto CO2 emissions targets, and neither is Canada. China has indicated that it will wait and see how other countries behave before signing up, so we can confidently predict that Kyoto is DOA anyway. I say we in the US should laugh loudly and publicly about this richly deserved demise and proceed to debate measures that might have some actual result.
We could invest heavily in nuclear power, which would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address several other problems. That would be reasonable. Planting trees will take carbon dioxide out of the air. Some types of pollutants seem to cool the earth, such as the sulfates spewed into the atmosphere by volcanoes. We could work on a contingency plan to alter the earth's atmosphere to cool the world if necessary.
We can and should continue funding scientific research into climate, because we know from the past that the earth's climate is extremely variable. If if doesn't get significantly warmere, sooner or later it's going to get considerably cooler, as it was a few centuries ago - so the entire world has a stake in figuring out how all this works. Let's spend our money to do something rather than spending a great deal of money to do nothing. That's one expensive little photoshopped doggie, and that faked picture has been used to hide the sad eyes of real people dying real deaths right now. See the Copenhagen Consensus.
Comments:
<< Home
You have a helluva nerve, insisting that science be accurate and not serve an agenda.
Besides, imagine how you made the city of Kyoto FEEL, now that the accords are seen for what they are- a sham.
Besides, imagine how you made the city of Kyoto FEEL, now that the accords are seen for what they are- a sham.
"American family of four $2,700 annually..."
You don't believe this, do you? Remember how catalytic converters where going to add $1000 to the cost of a car. Remember when raising CAFE standards was going to bankrupt Detroit? Remember what almost actually did bankrupt Detroit - the fact that we fought it and the Japanese beat us on technology?
Remember how the Clean Air Act amendments were going to cost the average American family thousands of dollars per year and push us into an unrecoverable recession? Remember how we actually entered the longest economic expansion in the nations history?
Yes, there is plenty of uncertainty, but for nothing other than the ability to get our asses off of foreign oil, improve our trade imbalance, and improve our national security, we should be reducing our CO2 emissions. Have you ever thought about the costs of not reducing emissions? Just being on the back end of technology costs this country billions (as shown by Detroit). America is being very short sighted on this issue.
You don't believe this, do you? Remember how catalytic converters where going to add $1000 to the cost of a car. Remember when raising CAFE standards was going to bankrupt Detroit? Remember what almost actually did bankrupt Detroit - the fact that we fought it and the Japanese beat us on technology?
Remember how the Clean Air Act amendments were going to cost the average American family thousands of dollars per year and push us into an unrecoverable recession? Remember how we actually entered the longest economic expansion in the nations history?
Yes, there is plenty of uncertainty, but for nothing other than the ability to get our asses off of foreign oil, improve our trade imbalance, and improve our national security, we should be reducing our CO2 emissions. Have you ever thought about the costs of not reducing emissions? Just being on the back end of technology costs this country billions (as shown by Detroit). America is being very short sighted on this issue.
Undoubtedly I am on Al Gore's back-burn-drown-freeze list.
What irks me so is that the proposed solution acts only to draw attention away from realistically addressing the very real problem of climate variability.
Think Toba.
What irks me so is that the proposed solution acts only to draw attention away from realistically addressing the very real problem of climate variability.
Think Toba.
I would say Detroit's problems have nothing to do with Kyoto and everything to do with the price of gas. Which has nothing to do with short supply, but everything to do with the short supply of refineries. Which comes back again to short-sighted environmentalist policy.
I do, as I have told you before, personally think that we are foolish not to attempt to cut CO2 emissions (although I am not arrogant enough to try to support my personal hunch with data that does not exist) through pursuing an intense nuclear power program.
If the American public ever figures this one out, the lower class will swing en masse against the environmentalist lobby. It has done more to suppress the earning power of the lower classes in the US than two world wars.
No, getting on the Kyoto bandwagon would be the worst possible public policy for the world and for the US.
I do, as I have told you before, personally think that we are foolish not to attempt to cut CO2 emissions (although I am not arrogant enough to try to support my personal hunch with data that does not exist) through pursuing an intense nuclear power program.
If the American public ever figures this one out, the lower class will swing en masse against the environmentalist lobby. It has done more to suppress the earning power of the lower classes in the US than two world wars.
No, getting on the Kyoto bandwagon would be the worst possible public policy for the world and for the US.
Dingo - sorry. My personal low-bound guesstimate is somewhere around $3,400 for a family of four in the lower 1/3 socio-economic tier within ten years. No lie.
"somewhere around $3,400 for a family of four in the lower 1/3 socio-economic tier within ten years."
How do you arrive at this?
"I would say Detroit's problems have nothing to do with Kyoto and everything to do with the price of gas."
I was talking about the 70's 80's fall behind Japanese imports. The Japanese took the expense of investing in technology that paid off 1000 fold in the end.
The difference between cars and power production is this. While Detroit may be forced to play catch up (and loose a lot of money in the process) they are still forced to play in the global market against foreign competition. Power production does not have the same incentive. There is no cheaper imported electrons. There needs to be other inducements for our own innovation to produce alternative power at a cheaper price. Necessity is the mother of all invention. Being behind on a paten race on alternative technology will cost us billions.
Additionally, we will have to switch over sooner or later. This is not an if, but a when. We are only delaying costs, not averting them. As oil demands rise, so will the price (obviously). This costs the American family tremendously (everything from gas to electricity to plastic bottles). I don't think people think about the costs of inaction.
"It has done more to suppress the earning power of the lower classes in the US than two world wars."
please provide data on this. Do your models take into consideration the costs of health and environmental degradation? I always find it isnteresting to see what people include and exclude from economic assesment.
How do you arrive at this?
"I would say Detroit's problems have nothing to do with Kyoto and everything to do with the price of gas."
I was talking about the 70's 80's fall behind Japanese imports. The Japanese took the expense of investing in technology that paid off 1000 fold in the end.
The difference between cars and power production is this. While Detroit may be forced to play catch up (and loose a lot of money in the process) they are still forced to play in the global market against foreign competition. Power production does not have the same incentive. There is no cheaper imported electrons. There needs to be other inducements for our own innovation to produce alternative power at a cheaper price. Necessity is the mother of all invention. Being behind on a paten race on alternative technology will cost us billions.
Additionally, we will have to switch over sooner or later. This is not an if, but a when. We are only delaying costs, not averting them. As oil demands rise, so will the price (obviously). This costs the American family tremendously (everything from gas to electricity to plastic bottles). I don't think people think about the costs of inaction.
"It has done more to suppress the earning power of the lower classes in the US than two world wars."
please provide data on this. Do your models take into consideration the costs of health and environmental degradation? I always find it isnteresting to see what people include and exclude from economic assesment.
and, since you got me, here is your pay back.
http://barkingdingo.blogspot.com/2005/06/glad-hes-my-dad.html
Post a Comment
http://barkingdingo.blogspot.com/2005/06/glad-hes-my-dad.html
<< Home
