Re: Hot Topic
- From: "Ray" <rayblee@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 12 Dec 2005 12:27:17 -0800
Carlisle wrote:
> * Good morning, Ray.
Hi Carrie.
> > Hey look, another WSJ editorial page blast-fax from Carrie - how nice.
>
> People copy and paste articles from various sources here all the time.
> It doesn't seem to be a problem unless it goes against the conventional
> wisdom of rmgd.
The issue I have with you copying and pasting that WSJ editorial has
nothing to do with the fact that it goes against "conventional wisdom'
-- and FTM the fact that it goes simply wisdom. This issue I have with
you copying and pasting that WSJ editorial is instead this:
> > Carrie, you do realize that it takes a *lot* more effort for someone to
> > point out the disinformation in these rag editorials than it does for
> > you to post them, right? Which would be ok if you actually absorbed
> > what was written in response. But you don't - you just keep posting
> > more editorials.
> >
> > I have already gone around on the global warming issue with you twice
> > now, and twice now I've already addressed and debunk many of the
> > "points" made by you and in this WSJ editorial. And yet you posted
> > these misleading and debunked points here yet again anyway. And that's
> > not arguing in good faith.
> Btw, this is the first editorial from the Review & Outlook section of
> the WSJ that I've posted.
It's an editorial written by the WSJ editorial staff. And many of the
topics that it purportedly addresses you and I have already been
through twice.
> It was in response to the
> simplistic::Republicans are evil scum for rejecting the Montreal
> agenda, etc...
When he became president one of Bush's first major acts was to reject
Kyoto. At that time he ditched Kyoto he also promised, however, that
he would produce a climate change policy of his own:
"I am today committing the United States of America to work within the
United Nations framework and elsewhere to develop, with our friends and
allies and nations throughout the world, an effective and science-based
response to the issue of global warming."
- George W. Bush, June 10, 2001
#Surprise# however - Bush never followed through on his 'committment.'
> > Again: The *paper* is respected. The WSJ *editorial page*, however, is
> > taken seriously as a source of reliable information by no one except
> > the far too credulous.
>
> Ray, do you respect CNBC?
I think that some of their stuff is of value, and that some of it is
not.
> Why would they give the editoral board its
> own program if they were on par with the National Enquirer, News Max,
> Drudge, Daily Kos or The Nation?!
> http://www.opinionjournal.com/cnbc/
Because it sells.
In any event, that doesn't change the fact editorials authored by the
WSJ and published in their paper and on their website are quite often
misleading crap. Including this one.
> > > On the other hand, even those who support radical cuts in
> > > carbon-dioxide emissions are realizing that the Kyoto Protocol is a
> > > failed instrument for achieving their goals. "The blunt truth about the
> > > politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice
> > > its economy in order to meet this challenge," says British Prime
> > > Minister Tony Blair.
> >
> > What the WSJ doesn't point out is that this doesn't mean that Blair
> > doesn't support the Kyoto Protocol. In fact, Blair does support Kyoto.
>
> Blair also supported the Iraqi War--maybe he's a bit misguided and
> naive?
If Blair is misguided and naive, then why did this WSJ editoral quote
him to support their position?
The WSJ editorial quoted Blair in such a way that could give one the
impression that Blair doesn't support Kyoto. He does.
> > On the other hand, the yearly emission of greenhouse gases by the
> > developing countries is expected to catch up to that of the advanced
> > countries around 2030. By about the year 2100, the cumulative
> > contribution of the developing countries is expected to reach 50
> > percent of the total. So the developing countries will have to control
> > their emissions eventually; unrestrained greenhouse gas growth in these
> > countries could result in ecological disaster. From this perspective,
> > their arguments for significant delays in implementing binding controls
> > appear less compelling. This is not a scientific issue, but one of
> > ethics and equity.
>
> It is not based on common sense--this would result in economic
> stagnation.
And you know this... how?
> And STILL we don't know if warming/cooling trends are not a
> cyclical part of nature.
As I've told you several times over now, the scientific consensus is
that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is
attributable to human activities". This is not an opinion - it's a
fact.
> In fact, they area part of nature. The question is: to what extent is
> the current warming trend albeit miniscule, caused in part by natural
> phenomenon?
So what part of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's
declaration that "most of the warming observed over the last 50 years
is attributable to human activities" do you not understand, Carrie?
Or the the US National Academy of Sciences' declaration that "The
changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to
human activities"? What part of these statements do you not
understand?
The scientific consensus is that "most of the warming observed over the
last 50 years is attributable to human activities". This is not an
opinion - it's a fact.
> You must be more credulous than me to think China, et al. would ever
> comply with that which would result in economic reversals.
If it's in their overall best interests to do so -- and it is -- then
they will. Consider for example this plausible scenario (per the
Pentagon) for China that I've brought to your attention repeatedly now:
________________________
China, with its high need for food supply given its vast population, is
hit hard by a decreased reliability of the monsoon rains. Occasional
monsoons during the summer season are welcomed for their precipitation,
but have devastating effects as they flood generally denuded land.
Longer, colder winters and hotter summers caused by decreased
evaporative cooling because of reduced precipitation stress already
tight energy and water supplies. Widespread famine causes chaos and
internal struggles as a cold and hungry China peers jealously across
the Russian and western borders at energy resources.
__________________________
http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html
> > As president, Clinton supported Kyoto. The only reason Clinton never
> > submitted it to the Senate is because, as the WSJ alludes to above, the
> > Senate already had made it clear that they wouldn't ratify it.
>
> So Clinton didn't champion it.
Yes, Clinton did. You do understand pragmatic politics, right?
> Here are the stats: "the US Senate
> adopted the Byrd-Hagel Resolution by 95-0, urging the Clinton
> Administration not to sign any climate change protocol that 'would
> result in serious harm to the economy'" You know, Paul Wellstone was in
> the Senate at this time. If this was such a serious imperative, why
> didn't even he champion it?? 95-0
There were several clauses in the Byrd-Hagel Resolution in addition to
the 'would result in serious harm to the economy' clause, including,
notably: 'the exemption for Developing Country Parties is inconsistent
with the need for global action on climate change.' That's a valid
position. I disagree with it for reasons I stated in my previous post,
but it's a valid position.
> > > And then there is the performance of Kyoto's signatories in meeting
> > > their own targets. Kyoto requires developed nations to bring their
> > > total greenhouse-gas emissions to 5% below their 1990 levels by 2012.
> > > Yet in 2003, emissions were above the 1990 baseline by more than 10% in
> > > Italy and Japan, more than 20% in Ireland and Canada, and more than 40%
> > > in Spain.
> >
> > What the WSJ misleadingly fails to mention here is that the Kyoto
> > Protocol wasn't in effect in 2003. That's the whole point of Kyoto --
> > which didn't come into effect until this year -- to reverse those
> > trends.
>
> Trends that are relatively insignificant and/or in part caused by
> nature herself!!
The fact that "in 2003, [greenhouse-gas] emissions were above the 1990
baseline by more than 10% in Italy and Japan, more than 20% in Ireland
and Canada, and more than 40% in Spain" is not "relatively
insignificant" and it's not "in part caused by nature herself."
Again: The WSJ misleadingly failed to mention here is that the Kyoto
Protocol wasn't in effect in 2003. Their rhetoric gave the
misimpression that Kyoto wasn't working.
> > > Nor should it. For even as the Montreal crowd treats man-made global
> > > warming as established fact
> >
> > Not just the "Montreal Crowd" - far from it
> >
> > Carrie, as I've pointed out to you twice before:
> >
> > The scientific consensus on global warming is that the Earth has been
> > warming over the past 100 years, and that humanity's greenhouse gas
> > emissions are making a significant contribution. This consensus is
> > summarized by the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
> > Change's the Third Assessment Report, which that "most of the warming
> > observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".
>
> An increase of one degree (give or take). Human activites---they just
> do not know this for sure. The *experts* do not know that this whole
> trend has been caused by human activites or not. They don't.
Whether the "whole trend" is due attributable to human activities or
not is irrelevant. Again: the scientific consensus is that "MOST of
the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human
activities". THAT'S what's important here.
> > Here's the US National Academy of Sciences, from their '2001 report
> > "Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions": "The
> > changes observed over the last several decades are likely mostly due to
> > human activities."
> >
> > And here's atmospheric scientist Ralph J. Cicerone, current President
> > of the National Academy of Sciences (U.S. Senate testimony, July 21,
> > 2005)
> >
> > "Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's
> > current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of
> > greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil
> > fuels."
> Again, you know as well as I that this is contested.
So what? It was "contested" in some circles until quite recently that
smoking causes cancer. The scientific consensus for decades, however,
was that it did.
Again: the scientific consensus is that "MOST of the warming observed
over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities".
> > And then there's the Pentagon:
> >
> > "There is substantial evidence to indicate that significant global
> > warming will occur during the 21st century... because of the
> > potentially dire consequences, the risk of abrupt climate change,
> > although uncertain and quite possibly small, should be elevated beyond
> > a scientific debate to a U.S. national security concern."
> >
> > http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html
> >
> > >, the science behind the long-term forecasts
> > > remains ambiguous and sketchy, while the benefits of "doing something
> > > about it" are by no means clear.
> >
> > Carrie, as I've written to you before: The benefits of NOT "doing
> > something about it" are by no means clear either. As I've written to
> > you twice previously:
>
> The End-Is-Nigh.
Says an "Kyoto Protocol is economic gloom-and-doom" person.
> May I recommend a book real quick?--"A Friend of the
> Earth", by TC Boyle. It's a fun novel but the premise of the book is
> mirrored often on this newsgroup.
What is the book's premise that you think is relevant here?
May I recommend a book real quick? Seinfeld & Pandis' "Atmospheric
Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change" - as
anyone with an atmospheric science background will tell you, it's the
bible on the subject. Here's an excerpt from the introduction:
"Evidence is mounting [that] 'greenhouse gases' [have] the potential to
lead to an increase in the earth's temperature by several degrees
Celsius... [which] could create dramatic changes in climatic extremes."
> > 1) Even without taking into account the worst-case scenario, as noted
> > above the adverse consequences of unchecked global warming will with
> > much higher likelihood nonetheless still be massively devastating and
> > astrononically expensive.
>
> No this IS taking the worst-case scenario into account!!
No. The Pentagon's worst case scenario includes even larger scale
massive global disruption and destablization, and would be even more
astrononically expensive.
http://www.ems.org/climate/pentagon_climate_change.html
> > 2) Consider the current terrorist threat, which this Adminstration has
> > focused on with, well, blinders: with that threat, too, we are only
> > "speculating" that there will be another attack - we don't know "with
> > certainty" that such an attack will happen either. But does that mean
> > that we shouldn't prepare for such that possibility? Of course not -
> > providing safety and security in large degree about anticipating and
> > doing what one can to thwart reasonably *possible* serious threats. And
> > the threat of global warming certainly qualifies in that regard. Which
> > is why the Pentagon report concluded that global warming "should be
> > elevated beyond a scientific debate to a U.S. national security
> > concern."
>
> Yes I did look at the linked Pentagon report...It explains is the
> Pentagon's *worst-case scenario*. What about the DoD's predictions on
> WMD?!
What about them?
> The US government certainly overreacted to the terror scare (DHS, Iraqi
> War, ludicrous airport security changes lacking common sense, etc.)
> However, what happened 9/11/01 was real is not contested!!
And your point is... ?
> > > Scientists have also noted weakenings in Atlantic currents
> > > that move cold waters south and warm waters north, leading to
> > > predictions that Britain may experience Siberia-like temperatures in
> > > the coming decades. Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."
> >
> > As Effy put it:
> >
> > + This paragraph is total crap.
> > +
> > + The melting of polar ice has and is causing a measurable effect on
> > the
> > + salinity of the North Atlantic. The less saline water does not sink
> > + (and therefore circulate) as it once did. THAT'S the weakening of
> > + Atlantic currents, and it IS an effect of global warming.
> >
> > He's right, you know.
>
> Oh of course. I dare I question conventional environmentalist wisdom!!
No - he is right. Factually. Except that he left out the qualifier
that this is an unproven global warming scenario - it needs more
research. The WSJ took that stuff out of context to make the
misleading assertion that 'Whatever else that is, it isn't "warming."'
That's a lie: it is indeed global warming.
Need proof? Here:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/11/1130_051130_ice_age.html
> > > The lesson we draw from all of this is that the uncertainties in
> > > climate forecasting remain huge.
> >
> > As I've pointed out to you before, Carrie: So do the uncertainties in
> > terrorism forecasting. Does that mean we shouldn't seriously address
> > terrorism? Of course not.
>
> Thank you, Ray for having the patience and the fortitude to try and set
> me straight. Not that you don't throughly enjoy it!
Actually, for the most part I don't. I enjoy setting the record
straight the first time around, but going around and around on the
exact same points and getting nowhere on it gets tiresome.
> With that said: The
> United States, Canada, the UK, and Western Europeshould very well
> address terror and the environment in sensible, concrete and realistic
> ways that would not put our economic and security interests risk.
In the real world most things are a risk - it's all a matter of degree,
and also risk trade-offs.
> > Here's a classic example of how wild exaggeration by *some*
> > environmentalists and their allies can hurt their cause -- note for the
> > example here the GMO food referrence, a reference to exaggerated claims
> > that GMO foods kill people -- the WSJ editorial page is using that to
> > discredit another environmental issue that is completely unrelated.
> > Which is to say, it's nothing but an unfair ad hominem attack. And
> > unfortunately, it works to obfuscate the issue here.
>
> Not that "the left" would ever do that!! <jk>
Of course some on "the left" do that. That doesn't make what the WSJ
editorial page did here any more honorable or any more honest.
> > > So many politicians and activists have committed so much to their faith
> > > in man-made global warming that events like Montreal will continue
> > > regardless of the evidence.
> >
> > Man what disgusting irony - these people really have no shame. As the
> > scientific consensus demonstrates, the evidence is unquestionably in
> > favor of man-made global warming.
> >
> > Did I mention that the WSJ editorial page is a rag?
>
> Did I mention that it should be taken seriously?
The only reason I take it seriously is because too many far too
credulous people take it seriously, and therefore it has a serious
impact on how things like global warming are (mis)perceived. The WSJ
editorial page is a rag.
Carrie: Do you agree that this WSJ editorial gives the impression that
the theory that global warming is mostly man-made is not the scientific
consensus?
> > "Nearly all climate scientists today believe that much of Earth's
> > current warming has been caused by increases in the amount of
> > greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, mostly from the burning of fossil
> > fuels."
> >
> > - Ralph J. Cicerone, President of the National Academy of Sciences,
> > U.S. Senate testimony, July 21, 2005
>
> "The benefits of dealing with with climate change are far into the
> future and the substantial costs are up front and immediate...Given the
> uncertainties associated with both the projections and the
> consequences, climate change cannot compete with other urgent issues we
> confront."
> -Douglass North, Nobel prize winner in economics, from a conference of
> leading economists meeting in Copenhagen in 2004 to prioritize the
> world's environmental needs.
Economics is not science.
Also, and per the Pew Center for Climate Change:
_______________________________________
Any effort to significantly limit greenhouse gas emissions will require
changes in behavior and investments in technology - in short, changes
in economic activity that could impose costs on society. The costs of
climate change mitigation reflect the magnitude of the emissions
reduction, the timing of these reductions, and the means of
implementation. Of course, left unaddressed, climate change will
impose costs on society as well - and so, the benefits of undertaking
climate change mitigation must also be considered.
The Pew Center's economics program has analyzed several commonly used
models to determine how they work, what inputs and assumptions
influence their results, and what important elements are missing.
Differences among economic modeling results can often be explained by
the way the following factors are represented in each model:
* the economy's and environment's assumed baselines (i.e., how the
economy will perform in the absence of climate policies);
* the precise climate policies employed (e.g., emissions trading,
inclusion of non-CO2 gases, etc.);
* whether estimates of damage resulting from climate change are
included;
* the economy's flexibility when subject to sudden price shocks or
government regulation; and
* how technological change is characterized.
If models adequately address all five of these 'drivers' - and few
currently do - the projected costs of climate policies would likely be
lower than they are now.
_______________________________________
http://www.pewclimate.org/global-warming-in-depth/economics/
Ray
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Hot Topic
- From: Carlisle
- Re: Hot Topic
- From: leftie
- Re: Hot Topic
- References:
- Republicans = Scum of the Earth
- From: Joe
- Re: Republicans = Scum of the Earth
- From: Effty
- Re: Republicans = Scum of the Earth
- From: Joe
- Hot Topic
- From: Carlisle
- Re: Hot Topic
- From: Ray
- Re: Hot Topic
- From: Carlisle
- Republicans = Scum of the Earth
- Prev by Date: Re: No bitching. Something positive.
- Next by Date: Re: SBD/MSR GD shows now "streaming" only on archive.org
- Previous by thread: Re: Hot Topic
- Next by thread: Re: Hot Topic
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
