Keith Hudson replied:
> I don't normally make false claims. It depends on what you mean by
> "ratification". I'm using it in the sense that it is normally understood --
> that is, that governments have signed on for it with the backing of their
> electorates. They haven't. They have little backing.
Invalid cop-out. The 30 governments that have ratified it DO have the
backing of their electorates. (developing countries!)
Talking about backing by the electorate: Dubya wasn't elected. Gore won
the public vote (uncontested) and if it wasn't for the election fraud by
Dubya's brother in Florida, Gore would also have won the states' vote.
Gore's pro-Kyoto stance is well-known...
> I am merely saying that we cannot yet differentiate between man-made
> changes and what would have happened anyway from larger natural causes.
We can. The atmospheric destabilization that's typical for GHGs is
different from effects of solar spots. Volcanoes see below.
> >With CO2 reductions, it isn't so easy -- they require *major* changes.
>
> Yes, "major" in an economic sense. You're quite right. I was meaning the
> word in a technical sense.
In a technical sense they also require major changes. Or don't you
consider the replacement of most traffic vehicles, powerplants, and
installation of house insulations (and the development of new
large-scale technologies) as major technical changes ?
> Well, I don't know what Bush's real motivation is. I wouldn't deny that he
> has close connections with oil producers, but everybody who knows the
> polticial scene in Washington agrees that Bush could not have obtained the
> agreement of the Senate at the present time.
Republicans...
> I'm not saying:
> "The voters are too dumb to make smart decisions, so let's abolish democracy."
> I am saying:
> "On some subjects the voters are too uninformed to make sensible decisions."
>
> It's precisely because "politicians are *closer* to the vested interests
> than the electorate is" that I advocate more democratic procedures -- but
> only among those who bother to make themselves informed.
The problem is rather on the providing side than on the receiving side
of information: The mass media are biased and omit many important things.
In your model of "special interest groups [sic!] -democracy" outlined above,
who will decide who can become member of a deciding group ? Self-selection?
This opens the door to vested interests. Who decides about qualifications?
I think it would be a better idea to improve public education (as opposed
to misinformation and monopolization of knowledge) and public discussion
(as opposed to one-way media), so that the whole electorate can make
informed decisions.
> We need more information yet --
> particularly on the take-up of CO2 by the oceans. When this is known more
> accurately, then you can be pretty certain that all the experts will come
> to 99.99% agreement pretty quickly.
This is an excuse to delay action forever. Btw, the short/medium-term
CO2 take-up by the oceans is negligible. Oceans count in millenniums,
not years.
> Whatever we do,
> catastrophic climatic change due to deeper effects may be as unavoidable as
> the certainty of a super volcano (such as the one that is building up in
> Yosemite National Park) that will one day wipe out vast tracts of life on
> the surface of the planet.
Another lame excuse. A single volcano can't do much. Btw, the CO2
emissions from _all_ volcanoes worldwide are about __1/150__ (0.67%)
of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions. Even if a "super" volcano will erupt,
it cannot possibly compete with billions of cars and trucks, coal
powerplants etc. which 'erupt' 24h/7d ! (and which emit in a few decades
what has been accumulated over millions of years -- no volcano has "access"
to nearly comparable carbon stores).
> Until we know more about all the CO2 equilibria
> and become totally convinced, the Kyoto Protocol has no chance of being
> universally acceptable.
The big polluters are in the minority, so the chance of global (majority)
acceptance isn't really that small. It only takes a bit of solidarity
against a couple of CO2 rogue states who think they can go on using SUVs
that guzzle 3-6 gallons per 100km while there are much more ecological
cars already on the market (e.g. VW Lupo: 0.75 gallons/100km, Twike:
0.025 "gallons"/100km !! (Twike is a Swiss battery-assisted HPVehicle)).
Chris
