Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gases takes Effect

[pt40fathoms]

Mark Twain once wrote “There are liars, damn liars, and statistics”.

We are all being taken for complete fools. The very same people who were crowing “coming ice age”, are now spouting the complete opposite “global warming”. Heck if they thing we have such short memories, as to completely forget that they are the same players in this little play, but wait, based on how popular the anti-global warming gurus and proponents are, popping out of the woodwork everywhere now a days. I think it is safe to say that many people indeed have short memories. Well I don’t, and I have looked closely and carefully at the data, and so have a host of scientists who have more degrees than a thermometer, and the conclusion is simple. The global warming hysteria is based on junk science, flawed data, and unsubstantiated claims that lead to wrong conclusions.

One common phrase they use in an attempt to brow beat their point is “on a per capita the USA is the worst polluter in the world”. Well if a country existed that had only 10 people in it, and they started a car for only 30 seconds a year, THEY would then be the worst polluters in the world on a per capita basis. You can refigure numbers till you get just about anything you want. You can even convince people that what you are saying is right, just as long as those very same people don’t take the time to look closely at what you are saying.

It’s simple, the same crowd that wants you to wear sandals, eat only veggies, and live in a commune are some of the loudest supporters of the global warming scare. Not all of them by any means, but a disproportionate amount is clearly evident when you step back and take a look. Well this meat eater who wears boots and likes his privacy in his own home is not buying any. I didn’t buy it when the scare-dujour was the coming ice age, and I’m not buying into today’s newspeak either.

 

[Kim]

One common phrase they use in an attempt to brow beat their point is “on a per capita the USA is the worst polluter in the world”. Well if a country existed that had only 10 people in it, and they started a car for only 30 seconds a year, THEY would then be the worst polluters in the world on a per capita basis. You can refigure numbers till you get just about anything you want.

As you seem to be attempting to do right here with this example. Another fact that is a little more difficult to rationalize like the above is the the US produces 23% of the worlds greenhouse gases. That's a little more than a country with 10 people in it.
People who still refuse to believe that the effect is happening are increasingly in the minority. Even the White House now accepts that global warming is happening and that it's probably mainly due to man made processes. They just disagree with what to do about it. No serious people are still saying that it doesn't exist so do nothing.

 

[doole]

Even the White House now accepts that global warming is happening and that it's probably mainly due to man made processes.

Respectfully, that doesn't make it true.

Noone has proven that current climactic conditions are outside natural parameters.

Industrially produced greenhouse gases are not a good thing and this is not arguable. However, sensationalism is an even worse thing. It makes people skeptical about real problems.

What people believe and whether it puts them in the minority is not science.

 

[Kim]

I agree that the complete proof is not completely there yet, however most of the already researched data is leaning heavily in the that direction. That's why I used the word 'probably' !
It's a bit like hearing a car approaching while you are crossing the road. If it's still behind the corner and you can't see it yet do you presume it's not really there and therefore has nothing to do with you? Or do you prudently decide that you'd better not be in the middle of the road when it arrives?
Actually, I heard on the BBC World service a couple of days ago that there is a new piece of American research that claims to have completely proved the fact now. It still hasn't been published as it is at the stage of peer review. I have looked around a bit but can't find any links to it yet - it had something to do with ocean current and temperature changes. We'll see.
Meanwhile life goes on. Oil went to $51.48 a barrel this morning. The US is still short of steel because their suppliers switched to China because of the American import tariffs.
It seems to me that there are a lot of reasons to use less energy and become more efficient - and not all of them have to do with global warming anyway.

 

[dlndavid]

I'm glad you use the word probably, but you are "drawing straws" when you state that a fact is proven.
It is either a fact or it is not, it doesn't need to be proven.
There are NO Facts here, only speculation and emotions.
I find it very funny that anyone can think that we, humans are destroying this earth, but on the other hand evolution has free rein.
What about those poor one cell 'animals' that were placed out by us?

 

[Kim]

I think it's semantics but in my experience it is scientific theory until proven, when it becomes scientific fact - or at least that's what my old science teacher used to tell us!

 

[doole]

It seems to me that there are a lot of reasons to use less energy and become more efficient - and not all of them have to do with global warming anyway.

I don't really think it's like a car approaching while you are crossing the road because we can't see or hear the car yet, but on this last point you're talking my language.

 

[Kim]

Actually there is something else that I find hard to understand in this discussion whenever it involves divers.
Divers by the very nature of what they do are always concerned with preparing for what 'might' happen. Nobody (except the Darwin candidates) simply presumes that it will always be alright even though there is no proof that it won't. Just the possibility that something might/could go wrong is enough to let most of us spend large amounts of money and effort investing in backup and redundancy for that maybe never to be experienced one time that you might need it.
So how come the concept seems so alien to many people as soon as they apply it to a larger (but comparable) situation? Personally I really don't mind paying a bit more and making some effort to reduce greenhouse emmissions given even a small possibility that otherwise they could seriously affect me and the world I live in - and that of my children. Just like diving, you probably won't find out wether the danger is real or not until it actually happens. Then, just like diving, we'll either have the equipment we need with us, and the preparations will have already been made - or we won't.

 

[Kim]

I don't really think it's like a car approaching while you are crossing the road because we can't see or hear the car yet, but on this last point you're talking my language.

I think you misread my illustration. We can hear it.......that's for sure. We are just standing in the middle of the road arguing about wether it's REALLY a car because we still haven't actually seen it.
You can't deny that certain changes are happening - they are. Mean sea temperatures are rising, polar ice caps are melting etc. The argument is only about what is causing that - is it man made, or natural?
For me, the fact that we might be is more than enough (see last post for reasons why! )

 

[doole]

I don't think I misunderstood you but to continue the analogy, I think the car might be on an altogether different road.

Responding to theory instead of fact can be damaging.

Let's try a different anaology: as a diver, I wouldn't carry shark repellent on a dive in the lake.