Kirk
--- Keith Addison <keith at journeytoforever.org> wrote:
> Hello Rick
>
> >Dear DB,
> >
> >I liked your response. Partly, I suppose, because
> it accords with
> >my own thoughts. There is no doubt at this point
> that global
> >warming is occurring even among some republicans.
>
> There's no doubt even among some republicans or it's
> occurring even
> among some republicans? The first, cause to rejoice
> (though that's
> been the case for awhile I think), if the second,
> depending who they
> are, if they're becoming prone to spontaneous
> combustion should we
> shed tears or consider them as an alternative energy
> source? (Sorry!)
>
> >What drives it it the question. There are no
> shortage of non man
> >made effects that could raise the global
> temperature. Methane
> >produced by termite colonies world wide is more
> abundant than any
> >man made green house gas.
>
> And it plays an important and complex role in the
> climate andd the
> upper atmosphere.
>
> The main problem with this sort of argument though,
> apart from the
> now-massive body of science that debunks it, is that
> the termites
> have not been working more and more overtime for the
> last 200 years
> to account for the rising temperatures. The lead
> contender for that,
> by a whole bunch of lengths, is CO2 produced by us.
>
> >It seems apparent to me that what ever the cause
> the effect is not
> >stoppable at this point. There is just no time
> left to turn the
> >battleship before it hits the pier.
>
> How do you know that? A very premature conclusion,
> with little to
> support it that I know of. Again, at the Kyoto
> Protocol celebrations
> in Kyoto on Wednesday the speakers were talking of
> the need for
> 60-80% CO2 cuts, and these people were mostly being
> placatory, not
> provocative. Such figures have been making it into
> print more and
> more in the last couple of years. It was common
> parlance at the
> Climate Change conference in Nairobi in 1992, among
> those people I'd
> guess that 60-80% would now be seen as very
> conservative.
>
> So we (or some of us at least) blew it on precaution
> in favour of
> sheer greed, so now let's just accept that and give
> up trying to curb
> the damage we've done when we've hardly even begun?
> Is that what
> you're saying? Sod that. (Pardon me.) We're able to
> expend much
> greater efforts, resources and expertise on
> mitigation than anything
> that's been done so far. Mitigation is a major plank
> of the Kyoto
> Protocol which now comes into force. I really don't
> mean to be
> insulting, but I have to say that you sound a bit
> like former
> Commissioner of the US Patent Office Charles H.
> Duell, who said in
> 1899 that "Everything that can be invented has been
> invented." This
> is perhaps the greatest challenge humanity has
> faced, we're ingenious
> little monkeys, I don't think you should gong us out
> before we're
> even in the ring.
>
> >Would we not be better off at this point figuring
> out how to live in
> >a warmer world than trying to stop a flood with a
> tea cup?
>
> Say you were already there so there wasn't a
> transport problem, how
> would you go about living on Venus? You and six
> billion others, plus
> the whole biosphere? Do you think that would less of
> a technological
> challenge than mitigating global warming at this
> stage on Earth?
>
> >The Kyoto protocol has considerable economic
> consequences.
>
> Global warming has even more considerable economic
> consequences. The
> insurance industry calculated that global warming
> cost US$60 billion
> in 2003, going up fast.
>
> >Is this the best use of the worlds resources to
> solve the problem?
>
> Do you know of a better one? Nobody closely involved
> with the Kyoto
> Protocol sees it as a final document, nor as
> perfect, just as a first
> step - it enables further steps. That's absolutely
> true - things are
> possible this week that were not possible last week.
> You'd need to
> assess all this very closely, and for some time to
> come, before you
> could safely draw conclusions as to whether or not
> it's the best use
> of the world's resources to solve the problem. The
> point is that it's
> the ONLY such use of the world's resources, it has
> international
> acceptance and force and it is happening now. What
> would you prefer?
> Another 13 years of talking about it? As it is, if
> better uses of
> resources emerge than are now envisaged, as no doubt
> they will, it's
> within the framework of the Kyoto Protocol that
> they'll be
> implemented.
>
> >Would it not be better to determine the likely
> consequences of
> >warming and figure out how best to deal with them?
>
> That's included in the Kyoto Protocol. Maybe you
> should go and study it.
>
> http://i-newswire.com/pr6144.html
> i-Newswire.com - Press Release And News Distribution
> - WORLDWIDE
> CELEBRATIONS TO MARK KYOTO PROTOCOL'S ENTRY INTO
> FORCE 16 FEBRUARY
>
> "The Kyoto Protocol's entry into force means that
> from 16 February
> 2005... the Protocol's Adaptation Fund, established
> in 2001, can
> become operational to assist developing countries to
> cope with the
> negative effects of climate change."
> [more]
>
> The industrialised nations are expected to "take the
> lead" in these
> efforts (rather than leaving the 3rd World countries
> to it). No
> country will be immune, but it's already apparent
> that the 3rd World
> countries, who've contributed to it the least, will
> be the hardest
> hit and the least equipped to cope with it.
>
> http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html
> Kyoto Protocol
> KYOTO PROTOCOL TO THE UNITED NATIONS FRAMEWORK
> CONVENTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE
>
> Best wishes
>
> Keith
>
>
> >Rick
> >
> >
> >
> >DB wrote:
> >
> >>Just thought I'd throw in my two cents worth on
> this subject. After
> >>careful study of the evidence, any non-Republican
> would conclude
> >>that global warming is real. It matters not
> whether it is man made
> >>or a natural occurence. Just as when the house is
> burning down you
> >>must first put out the fire. Then you can figure
> out
=== message truncated ===
