Global climate change: World's poor, become poorer

[jay gw]

The greenhouse effect could wreck attempts to lift the world's poorest people out of poverty and reverse human progress, campaigners say.

A report by a coalition of environment and aid agencies calls for urgent action to avert the threat.

The Working Group on Climate Change and Development says industrialised countries must cut carbon emissions massively by mid-century.

They must also help developing nations adapt to climate change, it argues.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3756642.stm

[Jude]

This just in: Global Warming causes genital herpes.

[Anders]

Originally posted by jay gw
The greenhouse effect could wreck attempts to lift the world's poorest people out of poverty and reverse human progress, campaigners say.

A report by a coalition of environment and aid agencies calls for urgent action to avert the threat.

The Working Group on Climate Change and Development says industrialised countries must cut carbon emissions massively by mid-century.

They must also help developing nations adapt to climate change, it argues.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3756642.stm
Yes, and the Bush adminstration is the only main contributor to the green house effect that has not signed the Kyoto-treaty!

I guess that some people here going to say something in line with: there is no evidence for globla warming/green house effect, etc, and most of those are going to be americans

[garys_2k]

Note the simple sentence:

The Working Group on Climate Change and Development says industrialised countries must cut carbon emissions massively by mid-century.

That means massive unemployment, poverty and social as well as technological backsliding.

No thanks. The "evidence" for human-caused global warming is still too thin for me to live in a hovel and expect my family to "just get by."

[Carn]

Originally posted by Anders

I guess that some people here going to say something in line with: there is no evidence for globla warming/green house effect, etc, and most of those are going to be americans

While i personally believe there is a green house effect caused by human beings, i would not condem those who think otherwise, as long as the think seriously about it, because its rather uncertain what exactly the effects will be.

E.g. the head of a german climate reasearch facility answered the question "how much will the average temerature on earth increase due to human caused green house effect?" with "at the moment we can only be certain that it will be between 0.5 and 4.5 C" and he is proposing to do something about the green house effect.

Now 4.5 C is a lot and should be avoided, even if the costs are high.

But 0.5 C is not that much, it should be only avoided if the costs are not too high.

So at the moment from a scientific point of view, human kind has to decide how much to invest in preventing green house effect, without exeacly knowing how much the revenue(=increase in temperature prevented) will be.

A bit like gambling, whichever way you decide.

Carn

[Anders]

Well, was I right or was I right!

I thing were be through this debate once or twice before.

Pseronally, I-m not that worried, not for me, not for my children. Oil is going to run out sometime before the next century and than we have to adapt, whether we want or not.

The costs for a transition are not that great. The gasoline economy can be replaced by another economy, for instance natural gas or ethanol, or even Hydrogen gas. By doing that we can lower the emission of carbondioxide enormously. The US want to do that, in order to be less dependet on midle east oil. Cars that run on ethanol can today be purchased at the ordinary car dealer. Fuel-cell busses are commerical avialible, and cars will be in perhaps 5-8 years. Yes the oil companies has to adapt, but they are not stupid, they know that their business mission is to deliever, not oil, but energy to their customers.

I think that in 10 years, about half of all cars will no run on gasoline. My next car won't anyway, and I can afford the extra cost for that.

[jay gw]

The costs for a transition are not that great. The gasoline economy can be replaced by another economy, for instance natural gas or ethanol, or even Hydrogen gas.

Oh, it's all so simple!

The costs of transforming everything to accomodate hydrogen will be TRILLIONS of dollars!

Who's going to pay for that?

[Badger]

Originally posted by Anders
Yes, and the Bush adminstration is the only main contributor to the green house effect that has not signed the Kyoto-treaty!

I guess that some people here going to say something in line with: there is no evidence for globla warming/green house effect, etc, and most of those are going to be americans

At first, I thought you were joking when you wrote this, but upon reading further, I see that you're not.

Google "Kyoto Accord" to see what other countries have not signed it. There are plenty. To be sure, there are many 3rd world countries at which Kyoto is not targeted. Why are they not included? This is a huge failing of the accord.

The science it is based on was bad, with erroneous computer simulations. Since that time, no consensus has been reached amongst those studying climate change.

Warming is ocurring. No one can say for sure why.

[Zombified]

Originally posted by jay gw
Who's going to pay for that? Same people that would pay for your plan to reduce global warming, I expect. Who was that again?

[Anders]

Originally posted by Badger
At first, I thought you were joking when you wrote this, but upon reading further, I see that you're not.

Google "Kyoto Accord" to see what other countries have not signed it. There are plenty. To be sure, there are many 3rd world countries at which Kyoto is not targeted. Why are they not included? This is a huge failing of the accord.

The science it is based on was bad, with erroneous computer simulations. Since that time, no consensus has been reached amongst those studying climate change.

Warming is ocurring. No one can say for sure why.
I'm sorry to say, but you have unfortunately failed to understand the Kyoto accord. The Kyoto accord could only be ratified if countries that have cumulative emission of CO2 of more then 50% of world gross emission.

What I wrote was that the US is the only MAIN CO2 contributor that hasn't signed. That’s stil true.

And, I am not joking about those things.

[Anders]

Originally posted by jay gw
Oh, it's all so simple!

The costs of transforming everything to accomodate hydrogen will be TRILLIONS of dollars!

Who's going to pay for that?
Soooo you think that the gas stations, the refineries , the oil tankers, was and are free?

You don't think that a gradual transition would be possible?

Do you really think that oil is keep coming up from the deep, more then 75 years from now, for the same low price we have today? Do you think that all Chinese not want buy a car? Do you think that the Indians don’t want to buy a car? Do think that all Africans don't want to buy a car?

[Badger]

Originally posted by Anders
I'm sorry to say, but you have unfortunately failed to understand the Kyoto accord. The Kyoto accord could only be ratified if countries that have cumulative emission of CO2 of more then 50% of world gross emission.

What I wrote was that the US is the only MAIN CO2 contributor that hasn't signed. That’s stil true.

And, I am not joking about those things.

This is precicely my point.

It's a flawed document. It doesn't apply to everybody, and it's based on bad science.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Badger
This is precicely my point.

It's a flawed document. It doesn't apply to everybody, and it's based on bad science.
Can you please point out the bad science in the accord?

[Badger]

Originally posted by Anders
Can you please point out the bad science in the accord?

From http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html

"The atmospheric data simply do not support the elaborate computer-driven climate models that are being cited by the United Nations and other promoters of the Accord as "proof" of a major future warming."

Yes, it's an old article, but the fact that the basis of Kyoto was discovered to be erroneous is enough.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Badger
From http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html

"The atmospheric data simply do not support the elaborate computer-driven climate models that are being cited by the United Nations and other promoters of the Accord as "proof" of a major future warming."

Yes, it's an old article, but the fact that the basis of Kyoto was discovered to be erroneous is enough.
Many of those claims, Singer's, has been debunked. I'm going to do a short summary of those and post it here. Will take a while though.

[Badger]

Originally posted by Anders
Many of those claims, Singer's, has been debunked. I'm going to do a short summary of those and post it here. Will take a while though.

Unless you can debunk the quote cited, what's the point?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Anders
Yes, and the Bush adminstration is the only main contributor to the green house effect that has not signed the Kyoto-treaty!

I guess that some people here going to say something in line with: there is no evidence for globla warming/green house effect, etc, and most of those are going to be americans

Forget the evidence for global warming. Consider that a given if you like.

What is the evidence that full implimentation of Kyoto will have a significant impact on that warming?

That's the question that needs answering.

Please provide references from UN if possible.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Rob Lister


Please provide references from UN if possible.
Much better than that: The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, and also, I think, Stockholm University.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Badger
Unless you can debunk the quote cited, what's the point?
Of course I can!

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by Anders
Much better than that: The Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden, and also, I think, Stockholm University.

So...

Provide references which show the degree to which the Kyoto treaty, if implemented fully, will mitigate the warming.

This is really key to your argument.

[patnray]

Originally posted by garys_2k
That means massive unemployment, poverty and social as well as technological backsliding.

While the nature and scope of global warming, if any, are still open questions, I find the above statement demonstrates extreme pessimism and lack of faith in human adaptability. The Kyoto treaty affords enormous economic opportunities for businesses and nations with the vision and ingenuity to continue to raise living standards while reducing environmental impact. Despite the naysayers, only those businesses which depend on profligate and wasteful consumption will be long term losers.

Optimists see it not as doing without, but of doing more with less. We can bury our heads in the sand and be left behind, or we can profit form innovative solutions and be leaders...

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by patnray
While the nature and scope of global warming, if any, are still open questions, I find the above statement demonstrates extreme pessimism and lack of faith in human adaptability. The Kyoto treaty affords enormous economic opportunities for businesses and nations with the vision and ingenuity to continue to raise living standards while reducing environmental impact. Despite the naysayers, only those businesses which depend on profligate and wasteful consumption will be long term losers.

Optimists see it not as doing without, but of doing more with less. We can bury our heads in the sand and be left behind, or we can profit form innovative solutions and be leaders...

That was all very pretty. Now, what impact will Kyoto, if fully implemented, have on the warming?

[patnray]

Originally posted by Rob Lister
That was all very pretty. Now, what impact will Kyoto, if fully implemented, have on the warming?
No one can say, of course. In what way would we be worse off if we learned to do more with less? How would we be hurt if we reduced our impact on the environment?

Does the sand scratch your eyes?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by patnray
No one can say, of course. In what way would we be worse off if we learned to do more with less? How would we be hurt if we reduced our impact on the environment?

Are you saying that you don't know or or you saying that the IPCC doesn't know? (it's okay, we already know)

If it won't have any impact on warming then it does not accomplish the goal for which it was developed.

If you want it for another goal, publish that as your goal and don't hide behind a global warming scare tactic.

[patnray]

As I said, the nature and scope of global warming is still an open question. I am not hiding behind anything. I was merely countering the scare tactic of stating that the Kyoto treaty will lead to massive unemployment and poverty.

In what way will be be worse off if we learn to do more with less and reduce our impact on the environment?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by patnray
As I said, the nature and scope of global warming is still an open question. I am not hiding behind anything. I was merely countering the scare tactic of stating that the Kyoto treaty will lead to massive unemployment and poverty.

Kyoto is worthless for the (stated!) goal.

Kyoto requires vast resources.

Resources are finite.

Resources expended on Kyoto will not be available for other goals which are not worthless.

No thank you.

[patnray]

In what way will be be worse off if we learn to do more with less and reduce our impact on the environment?

[Rob Lister]

Originally posted by patnray
In what way will be be worse off if we learn to do more with less and reduce our impact on the environment?

Resources expended on Kyoto will not be available for other goals which are not worthless.

[Anders]

Originally posted by Badger
From http://www.sepp.org/pressrel/petition.html

"The atmospheric data simply do not support the elaborate computer-driven climate models that are being cited by the United Nations and other promoters of the Accord as "proof" of a major future warming."

Yes, it's an old article, but the fact that the basis of Kyoto was discovered to be erroneous is enough.
The argument is:

“The atmospheric data simply do not support the elaborate computer-driven climate models that are being cited by the United Nations and other promoters of the Accord as "proof" of a major future warming.�

What Singer says is that the IPCC model should show a correlation between greenhouse effect and troposphere: “The IPCC climate models very specifically call for the atmosphere to warm faster than the surface as a result of the greenhouse effect.�

However, Singer point to something that has never been that important in the models. The correlation between troposphere and ground level temperature are not that important, not to extent that Singer thinks anyway.

Till this day or troposphere measurements show an increase in temperature. How this increase is transferred to ground level is an even more complicated process that we don’t seem to understand yet. Also, if the increase in the troposphere is faster or slower are much dependent on which datasets you are using.

So the IPCC models holds, and Singer are wrong in that “The IPCC climate models very specifically call for the atmosphere to warm faster than the surface as a result of the greenhouse effect�, because the IPCC model don’t necessary call for that.

This is a very common error, to take a model and emphasise weak points, or look for something that the model wasn’t intended for. Is seems to be the melody of PSI researchers as well. They look for a set of effects, doesn’t find them, but after elaborate statistical analysis they find a correlation. This correlation had nothing to do with the original search for a certain set of effects though. And when the found effect is tested it disappears.

I’m not going to use any argument involving politics or attacks on the person Singer, nor SEPP. and I hope that you guys are doing the same, i.e. no attacks on persons or organisations, just hard science arguments, right?

[Anders]

Originally posted by Badger
Unless you can debunk the quote cited, what's the point?
So I have done....

[Badger]

Originally posted by Anders
So I have done....

Not really.

The below is also old:

http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=207

but addressed your argument at that time.