The Kyoto Protocol is Dead.

[Overpaid Slacker]

A flawed approach, based on flawed "science" has finally been recognized, even by its participants, to be a sham.

At the COP 10 in Buenos Aires, Italy has announced that it will withdraw from Kyoto when it expires in 2012. It's likely that Canada, Japan and Russia (who joined only to make MILLIONS selling emissions credits that it can't currently use itself) will also withdraw, and Spain is seen as likely pulling out.

Before the "Blame America First, Last and Always" herd gets to bleating that Kyoto's failure is b/c the US wouldn't hop aboard this trainwreck, read this and this (they're not very long).

My favorite quote from the latter (affirming all things ludicrous in the academic and scientific "green" communities):

The proponents of the man-made global warming hypothesis often argue that 'the science is settled' and 'all scientists agree'. This is simply not true. In personal debates between them and climate sceptics, they often challenge the latter to publish their views in peer-reviewed journals. Many sceptics, however, share the experience that they have been denied access to these journals, or that they had to meet scientific standards which by far exceeded those which were applied to papers of their less iconoclastic colleagues. Nevertheless, the body of climate sceptical literature has been growing dramatically over the years. But one can hardly escape the feeling that the pro-Kyoto scientists are ignoring contrary views, perhaps because they labour under a serious form of cognitive dissonance. Timo Hämeranta deserves credit for drawing up a list of hundreds of scientific peer-reviewed papers, other scientific papers, overviews, presentations and books. He also draws some very pertinent conclusions from the overview of the sceptical literature: 'The scientific basis to tackle the climate change allegedly caused by human-induced CO2 emissions has collapsed. The newest scientific findings prove that current or near-future (i.e. in the next 100 yrs) CO2 emissions cause no dangerous anthropogenic interference with or dangerous perturbation in the climate system.'

It looks like the Kyoto disciples are coming around to the US' (and the G77's) way of looking at things...

JP

[lendaddy]

But but but, I heard on Rosie the other day........................

Seriously though, isn't this what we were saying all along?

[cowtown]

Originally posted by Overpaid Slacker
affirming all things ludicrous in the academic and scientific "green" communities):

I wrote one of my senior college theses on the economic impact of global warming back in '93. My professor was, surprisingly, a skeptic of warming, and encouraged me to see if I could convincingly make the academically contrarian argument that it's not only not a human-caused phenomenon, but probably isn't happening at all.

Surprisingly, there is a huge body of research by well-respected organizations out there that questions warming itself, as well as human civilization's impact on warming. There are datasets going all the way back to sea-water temperatures taken by sailing ships in the 17th century.

I'm not going to argue one way or another on warming here, because it's like religion. But, I still wonder how it was that I got through 15 years of school before I even heard that warming is not a scientific certainty, but a theory, with some supporting evidence and some contradictory evidence.

I'm always baffled that the media speaks of it in such absolutes.

[304065]

This thread is useless without pics.

[SIR944]

The blind will see what they want to...

[SIR944]

The Kyoto Protocol becomes international law on February 16, 2005. There are 129 countries which are signed up to the Kyoto protocol. Aussie and the US are the only two major countries yet to sign. Yeah, 129 countries are wrong and the US is right. LOL

I have yet to see any press releases from Japan, Russia or Canada that they WILL remove themselves from the agreement.

[MikeCT]

"Many organisations, often cum websites, provide ample information about the views of the climate sceptics, thus breaking the de facto information monopoly of the pro-Kyoto scientists belonging to the 'established climate science community'."

What's a cum website?

[SteveStromberg]

Greens Concede Kyoto Will Not Impact 'Global Warming'


Buenos Aires, Argentina (CNSNews.com) - After a relentless attack on the United States for opposing the Kyoto Protocol, environmental groups concede the international treaty will have no impact on what they believe to be impending catastrophic global warming.

Despite the fact that green groups at the U.N. climate summit in Buenos Aires called President George Bush "immoral" and "illegitimate" for not supporting the Kyoto Protocol, the groups themselves concede the Protocol will only have "symbolic" effect on climate because they believe it is too weak. Kyoto is an international treaty that seeks to limit greenhouse gases of the developed countries by 2012.


http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archiv e\200412\SPE20041217a.html

[SIR944]

PS Italy has not even said they would, reports have said it is "likely" for Italy... so take all the degrees to which countries have "said" there are out of Kyoto back a step... typical internet logic of reading something and spinning to own agenda.

[beepbeep]

Originally posted by cowtown
I wrote one of my senior college theses on the economic impact of global warming back in '93. My professor was, surprisingly, a skeptic of warming

Mmmkay...was he an economist or climate expert?

[Serge914]

Originally posted by cowtown

I'm not going to argue one way or another on warming here, because it's like religion.

This is so true. Like religion, you can decide to live in accordance to it or not and you wont know if it was true. The difference is that you childrens or grand childrens will probably know.

[cowtown]

Originally posted by beepbeep
Mmmkay...was he an economist or climate expert?

Economist, but my point wasn't about that specific prof so much as that there is good research (by climate experts) pointing both ways.

I don't pretend to be a climate expert, but ideally everyone reads and comprehends, then chooses what they believe, instead of having a specific point of view thrust on them that may or may not be valid.

Like the other day, I decided I no longer believe in turbo boost. J/K Beep

[beepbeep]

Hmm...funny enough I actually had a seminarium regarding this very topic a while ago. (I study international bussines). We agreed that emission credits trade is a best way of "internalizing negative externalities"

To quote Mankiw:

"Negative externalities lead market to produce a larger quantity than is socially desirable. To remedy the problem, the goverment can internlize the externality by taxing goods that hav negative externalities and subsidizing goods that have positive externalities"

Education is typical example of good that yields positive externality.

Or to put it this way: Let's suppose that aluminium factory emit pollution. The use of tax is called internalizing the externality beacuse it gives buyers and sellers in the market an incentive to take account of the external effects of their actions. Aluminium producers would take costs of pollution into account when deciding how much aluminium to supply beacuse the tax would make them pay for these external costs.

As far as I can see it, all this boils down to question: is excessive CO emission an negative externality or not?

I know little about climate and greenhouse effect and when confronted with something I know very little about I tend to turn to the experts.

And if there are different "schools" of belief I tend to believe in one that isn't skewed by religion/industry/politics but is doing it's research in strictly scientific way.


Somehow, I believe Scientific American has more authorithy in this question than some obscure writeup on "Tech Central Station" ("where free markets meet technology" - sic)

There is lot's of missinformation on internet and there are some people that will loose on Kyoto agreement. My observation is that Slacker has certain political agenda that he desperately want's to share with us. This kind of (lobbyist) writeups go hand in hand with his ideology so he's obviously using them as "a proof" that global warming is a lie.

C'mon guys...you can do better that that!

[Serge914]

Tech Central Station is supported by sponsoring corporations that share our faith in technology and free markets. AT&T, Avue Technologies, The Coca-Cola Company, ExxonMobil, General Motors Corporation, Intel, McDonalds, Merck, Microsoft, Nasdaq, PhRMA, and Qualcomm for their support

Can you realy believe that Exxon Mobil is a reliable source of information on anything related to environment ?

[Aurel]

Global warming is happening, it is simply ridiculous to deny it. The debate is whether or not it is man caused. In the doubt, what does it cost to find alternative energy sources, such as peeble bed nuclear reactors ? Certainly less than the war in Iraq. And do not tell me that those are not related: Terrorism has causes, one of which is the US presence in Saudi Arabia. What I am trying to say is that there is a way to kill two birds with one stone, but the vast majority seems too dumb to see it.

Aurel

[JSDSKI]

That's ok - so is the climate.

[bryanthompson]

Wow, I must have missed the part where it was actually proven that global warming is happening. You sound pretty sure, Aurel, care to show your sources?

The way I see it, the burden of proof is on those to prove that global warming is happening without feeding us a bunch of hippy propaganda.

[JSDSKI]

Bryant, I know this isn't going to work for you because the information is from "scientists" and they are "concerned" to boot (The Union of Concerned Scientists) but here goes:

Temperature: Mean annual surface air temperature over the past 50 years has increased 3.6 to 5.4°F in Alaska and Siberia and decreased by 1.8°F over southern Greenland.

Sea ice: Sea ice extent in late summer decreased 15 to 20% over the past 30 years (see above).

Glaciers: Between 1961 and 1998, North American glaciers lost about 108 cubic miles of ice—about equivalent to spreading one foot of water over California, Arizona, Nevada, Utah, and Colorado.

In addition:

Warming in the 20th century is greater than at any time during the past 400-600 years

Over the last 40 years, which is the period with most reliable data, the temperature increased by about 0.5 º F (0.2-0.3°Celsius).

Seven of the ten warmest years in the 20th century occurred in the 1990s. 1998, with global temperatures spiking due to one of the strongest El Niños on record, was the hottest year since reliable instrumental temperature measurements began.

I'm sure we can argue whether this is a naturally occuring phenomenon that cycles through hundreds of years.. maybe so. I just don't think the earth has ever been subjected before to the rapid change and alteration that results from the industrial and information age revolutions. I think we are walkling onto "thin" ice. And it would be best to be cautious. After all, what do the regulations really cost in the long run? Some extra expense or dollars that get rolled back into the economy in the form of wages and products anyway ? Small price to pay - IMHO.

After all, there is no reliable indicator that the expense of meeting enviornmental goals has a net negative effect on an economy. Usually the overall cost is spread over a large population - the users - and also creates new and different jobs and services.

The car manufacturer's had to be dragged kicking and screaming by the scruff of the neck to meet modern safety and emissions requirements. Few went out of business. Most of their clients would agree that cars are better and safer with the regulations currently enforced. I know that smog regs are irritating for enthusiasts and owners. OTOH, we got air bags, crushable structures, fuel injection, and computer controlled ignition and cleaner air. Not a bad deal to me.

[bryanthompson]

So, 50 years of data is enough to base this entire agenda?! I'd call that a ridiculously small sample considering that Earth has been around for millions of years. In the 70's they were screaming about "global cooling" so why is this any different? It's only 30 years since then!

[JSDSKI]

I suspect the real effect of mankind on the planet was not really apparent until the last 50-100 years with the advent of the industrial revolution and the introduction of modern chemistry and manufacturing processes. Had a mostly agrarian economy until then. So, it may be a "small sample" in time for geological change but not necessarily for change caused by man.

What is the terrible negative effect of the "entire agenda"? Do we really believe that by meeting certain manufacturing and recycling standards we are going to lose business to third world countries? Doesn't the free market allow this to happen anyway for reasons of lower cost third world wages and natural resources?

I think we should look at ecological manufacturing and technology as an opportunity to do new R&D and leapfrog the competition. Kind of like the Japanese did with "quality control" methods originally developed in the US.