warming "very likely"

[hnumpah]

BTW, there were tornadoes in Florida today.

I was making my deliveries to Deland about the time they started coming through. I got National Weather Service warnings about tornado activity in Korona and Favoretta while I was passing through Favoretta on the way to Deland. I hit a calm spot in Deland - those were the only stops where the damned rain quit long enough for me to make my deliveries. On the way back, the radio was blaring warnings about every five minutes. I got a warning about one headed for Bunnell that would have gotten there about the same time I did, so I pulled over at a truck stop and got some coffee, wasted some time to give it time to pass. There was a big wreck on I-4 between Deland and I-95 that shut down about 12 miles of interstate, but that happened after I got through there.

I heard there was quite a bit of damage in Deland, but most of it was further west.

It's Florida.

[Lyndon]

The scientific community is split with some saying global warming is cyclical and that the average mans contribution to it is negligible.

You want someone to lose weight you don't deride them, you show how a healthy diet is better for them all the way around.

I suspect global warming is more a power issue than some end of the earth crisis. I also believe that mandatory compliance is the surest way to resistance vs the more effective method of gentle persuasion.

Besides why should China and India be exempt for Kyoto anyway?

Is the scientific community really that split on this issue? The IPCC report seems to reflect mainstream scientific opinion. The main argument seems to revolve round humans contribution and this report has strong views on this. Sure, some scientists will dissent. The main question is: what is in our long term interests? Is it better to err on the side of caution, accept that inaction MAY result in greater economic, social and political costs down the line, and take firm action now? Or is it better to carry on as we are, act in our short term economic interests and take no action and hope our scientific knowledge increases exponentially to one day know with 100% certainty whether or not human activity is tipping global warming (as opposed to our 90% certainty today) and to trust that the same exponentially increased knowledge will allow us to halt or reverse the damage inflicted if our assumptions prove wrong? With that 10% differential I am inclined to go with the former option. I do not see it as a power issue. How does that benefit anybody except for those holding the balance of power right now?


Ultimately India and China should not be exempt from Kyoto or it's successor treaty. Fact is and I will not bother rehashing the figures, but you know what I am saying, USA is in a unique position today energy consumption wise and from an economic standpoint. To use an expression 'You have yours'. Now 'they want theirs'. Fair enough. Let us, by that I mean not just the USA but Europe, Australasia etc. seek to gently persuade these developing countries. Gentle persuasion is always a good starting point in any argument as you pointed out.  What is the best way to do that? By example. Some are calling the IPCC report a tipping point, the alarm bell for the world. Who knows? What we do know is there is a problem of some sort. Do we act on it, do we deny it, do we accept it but argue that if not every nation will act then we will do nothing either, or do we do something pragmatic? 

[Brassmask]

Right on, Lyndon.

[BT]

Ultimately India and China should not be exempt from Kyoto

Talk to me when they are no longer exempt.

meantime why wait for government to tell you what to so. Start saving the earth today, yourself. One grenhouse emiision at a a time.

[sirs]

Ultimately India and China should not be exempt from Kyoto

Talk to me when they are no longer exempt.

Ditto

[Lyndon]

Ultimately India and China should not be exempt from Kyoto

Talk to me when they are no longer exempt.

meantime why wait for government to tell you what to so. Start saving the earth today, yourself. One grenhouse emiision at a a time.

What steps should the primary emission emitters be taking to bring India and China on board? Seems to me talks are stalled on that point. In the meantime it seems some people are certainly doing what they can in their own way, as are individual states, provinces, regional and state national governments. More power to them. I hope we do not lose sight of the fact that without global governmental cooperation individual efforts, while good and well meaning, are sabotaged if the global will does not exist to act in harmony to combat what is a global problem.

[BT]

Looks like you think the solution is a top down one. Seems to me all long lasting sea changes in attitudes come from the bottom up.

You want to change the world. Do it in chunks you can digest.

[Plane]

   It isn't government policy that determines how much an American burns fossil fuel , even in China this is more a matter of individual striveing than government policy.

    If there were a better choice for heating ones home that didn't burn fossil fuel there would be no need for governments to start fighting their populations to restrict their use of energy.


     Solar cells are constantly getting cheaper , as oil grows gradually more expensive , how much gap is left in between the cheapness of oil and coal and the expense of installing silicon shingles that can harvest sunlight?


      I hope to build a new house in a few years , I am looking for the best stuff to install.

Lots of insulation , a trombe wall , tankless water heater, solar heat collector etc.

Whatever I find practical I will install whatever is not practical will not become practical by government fiat.

[Michael Tee]

<<Looks like you think the solution is a top down one. Seems to me all long lasting sea changes in attitudes come from the bottom up.

<<You want to change the world. Do it in chunks you can digest. >>

That's nuts.  AND totally irresponsible.  By the time common sense percolates up from the bottom in sufficient numbers to make a difference, the earth will be FUBAR.  We need legislation and we need it now.

[BT]

Then pass your stupid legislation. Make meaningless treaties were they trade carbon credits like food stamps. Who are you kidding?

You make my point about how you elites know best.

[Lyndon]

Looks like you think the solution is a top down one. Seems to me all long lasting sea changes in attitudes come from the bottom up.

You want to change the world. Do it in chunks you can digest.

The point is this is a global issue. The IPCC report recognises this. Many individuals, regional, state and national governments and some international bodies recognise this. Those same individuals, regional, state and national governments are doing their little chunks in a digestible manner. Much of that is coming from the bottom up. But, at what point do we recognise that if our individual, local efforts are not supported on a global, intergovernmental level, then our efforts will be subsumed and overwhelmed by global inertia? Why not combine the bottom up approach with a top down approach? Does it have to be one or the other? Bottom up alone is not going to cut it, laudable and necessary as it is without a recognition of the problem from the top down.

[sirs]

[Plane]

The US already pollutes less and its increase in greenhoe gasses is decelerateing.

The first world is no longer the worst part of the problem.

The latecomers to the industrial revolution are the growing part of the problem .

Can we bring their standard of liveing up to first word norms( or near enough )through our efforts and theirs without causeing as much percapata pollution as we did ?

If we can't can we reimpose communism on them so that their standard of liveing won't matter?

[Lanya]

http://extras.sltrib.com/bagley/

[BT]

Lyndon says:The point is this is a global issue.

Then why on earth would you exempt close to 1/3 of the earths population from Kyoto?

Doesn't make sense.