Manmade Global Warming – pushed by the UN, first with Kyoto and most recently with the IPCC - is a vehicle for promoting world socialism.

LOL!

Meanwhile, back in the world of science (as opposed to rightworld politics) the evidence continues to mount as the seas warm even more rapidly than previously thought.

Funny how guys like Gore and Kofi who bellyache the most on this subject sure know how to ride in style on the corporate jets.

Do as I say, not as I do.

If there are GW Environmental War Crimes trials, they'd better watch out.

It ain't socialism, but you are correct to point out that certain unsavory types (Mr. Kofi) might entertain and promote certain foolish notions. Why should all the fools be on the denialist side, the GW people are entitled to at least a few.

China is indeed a problem in this regard.

Kofi Annan's statement says nothing about China and China is not no 1 in emissions. Those emissions that the US and Britain have been putting out for decades have not gone away (they will be up there for decades yet). China will not equal that total for many years. Per capita emissions are also substantially lower.

Now of course the Chinese are not stupid and they like to eat. Their scientists are telling them they won't be able to do that so easily if this continues. US scientists are also giving a similar message to the people of the US. Such warnings can't be ignored forever, as you cannot fool nature.

Maybe even people like Patty will get the message if the US wheat growing region moves north into Canada, which is where it's currently headed.

P.S. Not only is Annan's statement not about China, it isn't even about emission reductions.

What is it with rightworld and (lack of) reading comprehension?

Maybe even people like Patty will get the message if the US wheat growing region moves north into Canada, which is where it's currently headed.

No chance. Have you ever noticed that Patty's frequent posts on this subject NEVER link to a science article on the denialist side, even though there are plenty of them? That's because the science doesn't interest her. It's purely a matter of politics for Patty, as this post shows well.

Frank: "Those emissions that the US and Britain have been putting out for decades have not gone away (they will be up there for decades yet). China will not equal that total for many years."

And, there we have it... The rationale behind excusing China from any emission control plan.

This is not science, Frank.

If global warming is caused by manmade carbon emissions, do you think the planet cares whose made the carbon? Do you think the planet cares about "climate justice?"

Peter

It's purely a matter of politics for Patty

It's a matter of politics for all of us. Both side here continually link to articles about the science and they contradict each other. That's all very interesting I'm sure but I don't recall anybody here claiming as much as a primary degree in actual science.

It is the political proposals that will affect our lives and it to them we must pay attention.

The British people according to polls have figured out that AGW (whatever the science) is seen as a tax raising and power grabbing scam by politicians.

Political propositions have to be judged in political terms.

Tell me, Peter, was it Mark Twain or Disraeli who said:

"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics."

Any science fact I might present (like the fact that the globe hasn't been trending warm since 1998, for example) will be countered by some link to some pro-warming source that counters it. And vice-versa.

It's not a hard game to play, but one which doesn't particularly interest me.

And it won't interest me as long as the entire MMGW theory is based on highly questionnable assumptions, and unproven theories --- and as long as there is the laughable "the debate is over" claim and the epithet "deniers" thrown at that those who don't agree.

-- "Those emissions that the US and Britain have been putting out for decades have not gone away (they will be up there for decades yet). China will not equal that total for many years."--

Are the Chinese actually making arguments like that, or is this just blogging falderol? Arguments like this are a guarantee that there will be no global agreements.

The average Chinese person is poor, but China is not a bullshit country. They make computers and cars and they will soon be making commercial airplanes. They have nuclear reactors, can build 100 story buildings without help if they don't want it. Their scientists are as good as anyone's.

If there is a "climate burden" to be shared, they'd better do their share. Period.

Henry

If AGW is correct we have broadly two choices:

1. Do nothing about it and attempt to live with the consequences by adapting.

2. Do something about it by reducing carbon emissions and switching to a low carbon world as soon as possible.

The cynical view is that our response will be much nearer to option 1 than option 2. In which case the cost will be largely borne by future generations. Unless AGW is baloney...

Frank: "What is it with rightworld and (lack of) reading comprehension?"

It's not "rightworld's" reading comprehension problem. The problem lies with you, he who is sometimes too literal, and cannot see when an article is used as "jumping-off point" to move a discussion to another level.

The Phantom: I think CO2 emissions are probably last on the list of China's priorities.

But, no worries. Do you really think in 200 years, man could change the climate of the planet that's been around - what? 4 billion years? The "global warming" thing is hooey.

Patty

Count me as a skeptic, but not as one who rejects Global Warming theories. And I've always said that I agree with large portions of what the Global Warming guys would want as a solution for what they see as the issue.

--Do you really think in 200 years, man could change the climate of the planet that's been around - what? 4 billion years?--

Sure, I think its possible Through deforestation, we've turned some rain forests into deserts, turned parts of the sea into biological deserts..we've through water diversion, made most of entire seas go out of existence ( Aral Sea ) .we've done many bad things of an immense magnitude,and I could see this as something that is plausible. Yes I do.

As respects pollution of every kind, the Chinese govt and many of its people just don't care. They'll clean up Beijing a little for the Olympics, but after that they'll be happy to destroy what remains of their environment if it means they get a little richer.

Patty,

"It's not "rightworld's" reading comprehension problem. The problem lies with you, he who is sometimes too literal, and cannot see when an article is used as "jumping-off point" to move a discussion to another level."

Ah I see. So your post was a call for a nuclear war on China. I mean, you didn't actually say that, or anything like it, I'm just reading between the lines.

Meanwhile what Annan was talking about was the cost of adaptation, not mitigation. He was saying that polluters should pay for those costs, which would include China since it is a polluter.

Henry,

"Political propositions have to be judged in political terms."

And the political solution of "do nothing, just party like it's 1899" will be so judged.

It's becoming clearer that conservatives have no solution to this problem, and libertarians even less so. It's also obvious that if CO2 emissions have a cost - and all the evidence is that it does - the market is not taking proper account of it.

Peter

The cynical view is that our response will be much nearer to option 1 than option 2. In which case the cost will be largely borne by future generations.

Of Muslims :-)

More likely the usual suspects will be up at the front of the queue shouting about armageddon and blaming it on liberals and the gays.

Frank: "which would include China since it is a polluter."

Color me skeptical. You do know that China is a "free market" police state, don't you?

"that conservatives have no solution to this problem"

Bingo! No MMGW. No problem. Hence, no solution.

Patty

Think we can't destroy an entire sea?

The Aral Sea had existed for a long time too and it did not take the Soviets long to kill it dead.

Anything that lives can be killed

Patty,

""that conservatives have no solution to this problem"

Bingo!"

Pretending there isn't a problem isn't a solution.

The fact is that you have no ideas other than prayer.

Frank: "Pretending there isn't a problem"

Pretending? I honestly think that MMGW is a fad, a fraud. I don't think that it is grounded in science. It is grounded in alarmism, political expediency, and hucksterism. I honestly think that, Frank.I'm not pretending.

Don't get me wrong. I do think that pollution is an issue, just not MMGW.

For example, I live in LA - because of regulations on car exhaust, and manufacturing, the air here is so much cleaner than it was even a few years ago. I applaud this. I voted for it, and I pay for it. Money well spent.

But MMGW is environmental nonsense. Expensive, and possibly damaging nonsense.

The Phantom: I don't think we can warm the planet. I'm not that arrogant.

Patty,

"Frank: "Pretending there isn't a problem"

Pretending?"

Yes - that is what you ask others to do.

The fact is that many people are convinced it is a problem. Unsurprisingly, since that is the message that most reasonable people would take away from all the research, evidence, and expert opinion.

Again, given it is a problem you have no solution. Your ideology simply has no answers for this kind of issue.

Frank: "The fact is that many people are convinced it is a problem"

I know!

Why some people even say that Global Warming advocates are cult-like... and that Global Warming advocates believe in Global Warming as one might believe in a religion!

And it hasn't helped that Global Warming advocates announced "Debate Over!" some time ago, lobbing the epithet "Denier" at anyone who mistakenly thought scientific analysis actually meant analizing and questionning data and assumptions. Threatening those who chose to critically assess the science, rather than blindly accept the science, by equating them to holocaust deniers.

Frank: "Again, given it is a problem you have no solution. Your ideology simply has no answers for this kind of issue."

I thought you were the logic expert.

Why would I have a solution to a non-problem?

Patty, I said given that it is a problem, you would (still) have no solution. Hence your denial, which extends even to denying the logical possibility that there is a problem.

This is easily shown: assuming that AGW is true, how would you tackle it?

By the way do you also deny the basic chemistry that says CO2 acidifies the oceans? Do you think rapidly altering the PH of the ocean might have negative consequences? Note that this is completely independent of any warming effect.

Patty posted:

Threatening those who chose to critically assess the science, rather than blindly accept the science, by equating them to holocaust deniers.

But you never debate the science, only the politics. If you're so sure that AGW is scientifically illiterate, why not lob in a few inconvenient facts to support your assertion, instead of constantly banging on about commie conspiracies?

Patty,

"Why some people even say that Global Warming advocates are cult-like... and that Global Warming advocates believe in Global Warming as one might believe in a religion!"

Some people say that about those who think HIV causes AIDS.

That's the kind of thing people say when they've lost the argument.

"those who chose to critically assess the science, rather than blindly accept the science,"

Denialists are totally innocent of that charge.

" by equating them to holocaust deniers."

Just like Destiny's child and Gloria Gaynor claimed to be holocaust survivors.

ahh the cult is out in full force....

Peter

What would disprove AGM for you? If a scientific concensus emerged that it was mistaken would you accept it? Or do you have some criteria of your own to go by?

Henry

If the consensus changed I would accept it.

I take issue with your claim that this is beyond the non-scientist to understand. I have read widely on it and am aware of the basic science and the main arguments on both sides of the debate.

I've posted this link before. It posts links every day to articles on both sides of the argument and is a great resource for anyone interested in the scientific debate. It also links to political arguments on both sides.

Peter

If the consensus changed I would accept it.

So why bother reading the science? The guy who makes the discovery that overturns the consensus will obviously start off outside the consensus. Therefore you won't accept his point.

That's the way it is with science and the layperson. We take a lot on trust. But in politics we have the responsibility of deciding. If science tells us we should cut carbon emissions or the planet may become a horrible place to live in 100 years we have to make a non-scientific judgement call.

We have to allow for alarmism, exaggeration and hype which are all present in abundance. We need to decide if surrendering more power and money to the state makes sense in any circumstances and we have to remember the lessons of previous attempts to mess with the market.

The market has, by the way, delivered what no politician ever could have which is a massive increase in the price of oil. A government consisting of a triumvirate Frank and Al Gore could never have done it. But I don't see anyone learning any lessons from that.

The result has been to establish, again, that oil is not very price sensitive. We still need to get to work and school. That proves as a fact that the planned increases in tax were merely revenue raising devices and nothing at all to do with the environment.

I generally trust scientists but not politicians. When the politicians are appointing the scientists then I suspect the result is going to be more like politics than science.

The fact that the loudest advocates for "doing something" are also the most starry-eyed believers in the ability of the state to deliver is a huge problem.

So why bother reading the science?

Because I'm interested in it. I read stuff on both sides of the debate and am well aware of the arguments. One of the fascinating things is that the debate moves rapidly as new research is published. Most (but not all) of this tends to support AGW.

In my view, any reasonably well educated person is quite capable of reading on this subject and coming to their own informed conclusion on the science.

Too many (especially on the right, but some on the left are also guilty) ignore the science completely and concentrate solely on the politics. Patty is a good example.

The diversion of agriculture into "green" biomass fuels has already had a catastrophic effect on world food prices. That's government intervention via subsidy at work. A disaster

It has contributed to the gathering economic storm which is the real crisis facing the world in 2008.

Henry

I've always been sceptical about bio-fuels. They will tend to replace food crops and / or lead to yet more rainforest being destroyed. They have worked for Brazil, but that experience cannot be exported worldwide because of vast differences in land usage and availability.

Peter

Lots of people were sceptical but farmers wanted subsidies and politicians delivered. The poor of the world will pay with their lives. People wanted to know who will be killed by global warming? Well that's who and that's how.

Henry,

"The result has been to establish, again, that oil is not very price sensitive. We still need to get to work and school. That proves as a fact that the planned increases in tax were merely revenue raising devices and nothing at all to do with the environment."

Americans drove around 4.5 billion fewer miles in April compared with the same month last year, marking the lowest mileage clocked on US roads for the month since 2003, a report showed Thursday.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHA) said in its monthly report that the number of vehicle miles driven in the United States fell by 1.8 percent, to 245.9 billion, based on preliminary data from the state highway authorities across the United States.

[...]

Most years from 1983 to 2004, with the exception of April 1990 and 1991, when the United States was engaged in the Gulf War, the number of miles Americans drove rose by several billion miles.

But beginning in 2004, the number of miles Americans put in on the roads annually began falling between 100 and 300 million miles.

And this year, the fall accelerated sharply on a yearly comparison to 4.4 billion miles.

Observers surmise a possible link between the declining number of miles driven and rising US gasoline prices.

According to a report released in April 2004 by the Congressional Research Service, the average price for petrol in the United States during the summer of 2003 was 1.74 dollars per gallon (around 3.5 liters).

Today, gasoline prices across the United States are around 3.5 times higher, averaging more than four dollars per gallon.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=080619165426.g1xpji51&show_article=1

Frank

You make my point for me

Today, gasoline prices across the United States are around 3.5 times higher, averaging more than four dollars per gallon.

that the number of vehicle miles driven in the United States fell by 1.8 percent,

If you make the price 350% higher and get a 1.8% reduction in miles driven then that is as inelastic a demand as you are going to see for anything.

You can tell a good that has inelastic demand. They are usually very severely taxed.

If the state taxed cinema tickets the way it taxes beer we'd stop going to the cinema. But they know people will keep drinking. So they tax it like bandits.

Henry,

Yes it is inelastic, however there is plenty of waste and the proof of that is that pretty much everywhere else in the world manages to consume less than the average american. This 1.8% drop was in a single month.

Incidentally it is also a good example of market failure...e.g. it is a well known fact that businesses waste large sums on energy (take a look at the lights left on in any office block). These are things we could do to reduce emissions that do not cost but pay for themselves.

Incidentally, re the science:

We have to allow for alarmism, exaggeration and hype which are all present in abundance.

A fairer assessment would also allow for complacency, downplaying, greed, and vested interests which are present in abundance and have the opposite effect. Also there is far more evidence for this kind influence on the science than vice versa (e.g. the fact that the IPCC reports reflect the most conservative positions in the room). There is no evidence of anybody overegging anything in the science. The media and politics is another matter.

And this:

The guy who makes the discovery that overturns the consensus will obviously start off outside the consensus.

It is very common for such discoveries to be made more than once and independently....many examples of that in history. More usually the guy who is outside the consensus is simply wrong.

It is very common for such discoveries to be made more than once and independently....many examples of that in history.

Yes - think of Newton and Leibniz on calculus or Darwin and Wallace on evolution.

Frank

This 1.8% drop was in a single month.

No, it was compared to the same month last year. It doesn't imply you could see a drop like that every month. You may see a reasonable drop during the summer months as petrol prices push up the cost of holidays and pleasure trips for which demand is elastic. but nothing like what you would get with normal elastic goods.

take a look at the lights left on in any office block

Anybody still doing that deserves to be fired or to go to the wall. Is it really still a problem anywhere? From a cost and PR point of view it makes little sense. A name and shame site would be an appropriate response from Green activists.

I think CO2 emissions are probably last on the list of China's priorities.

Not true patty. The current edition of The Economist has an excellent special on the whole wider debate. china are well aware of what they need to do. though the main driver for all of it is energy supplies. the environment will indirectly benefit from the move away from fossil fuels, but it is not the primary driver. Easy access to lots of sweet light crude oil is all but a thing of the past. Such a major threat to the global economy is, i would speculate, the greater factor behind the international energy to move away from a carbon economy.

If there is any "hidden agenda" behind global warming politics then that is surely it.

none of this is to say that i believe global warming to be a hoax. its quite obviously not. i think its a convergence of two major issues that are closely related.