Hear hear! Kyoto treaty voodooists take note!

Grendel: the mere way you phrase that last question suggests to me that this is not a “glass half full” or “glass half empty” conversation, it’s “you are not looking at the right glass.”

Global Warming is real. So is aging. The idea that you can control either is naivete at best and lunacy at worst. Kyoto would cost billions and at best cause the slightest of changes in future CO2 output. But if you couldn’t figure that out on your own, you have a long way to go before we can really start this conversation.

The BBC is kidding, right?

Canada dropping from the Protocol ranks is akin to their being next in line to shoot the corpse. Far be it from me, though, to upbraid the BBC for their illusions. After all, why kill reporters that write golden humor?

Snow, I think that Curzon’s opinion is typically biased by popular culture and simple belief – ironically, that’s exactly what he’s criticizing the pro-wing in the debate. Stating that an agreement that plans to decrease pollution were nonsense and using a popular author of trivial literature to back it up would almost be funny if it weren’t sad – since many people are falling for it. I have to admit, I’m astonished how many are prone to listen to people who talk about matters they don’t know much about (like Michael Crichton and climate change or leading Creationists and evolution, etc.). It seems like certain people like to blend out that the scientific debate, which is not surprisingly being manipulated by the US administration (google for James E. Hansen), has already found not only a majority of leading figures supporting the findings, but also back it’s theories by facts and figures. Not anecdotal analogies to unrelated fields.

I’m not saying I know much about climate change, just as you or Curzon or Michael Crichton, for that matter. I can only choose a position in debates that interest me and look for pro and con arguments. I found the reason to back up the Kyoto protocol not too promising, granted, but it’s the only thing the international community could agree on, and the lowest common denominator is still better than nothing. The current US administration has chosen to rather block any proposal than work with constructive criticizm and find solutions. Do you even agree to that approach or just choose to flow with the populist sentiment?

About your first question, snow, I see the Kyoto-protocol not as the solution for climate change, but a step into a direction. Nobody wants pollution, less is better, so, yes, if that’s the effect, why not? Any solution will cost money btw. About your second question… well, as I stated above the US administration at least is not interested in an open debate, but rather shutting scientists up if they can. Where’s your criticizm of that? Whatever happened to the values that made your country as great as it become in the 20th century?

I’m one of the smartest people with which you’ve ever had the priviledge to communicate!

I didn’t mean to insult your intelligence, and I didn’t write a word about it – your posting indeed revealed the tendency to be swayed away by the kind of argumentation I was pointing at. I also don’t think I’m not influenced by popular culture, but when debating serious matters, I try to keep it out most of the time. You could have cited Marburger, i.e., but no, it had to be some author of trivial literature.

If you can’t google it and find it for yourself, I’d be happy to summarize the argument for you at a later date.

Speaking of general lack of manners and insulting tone… I don’t take it personally. You promised before to fabricate an explanation how the war in Iraq was not breaking international law, but I’m not holding my breath, neither in this case. I will further look for con arguments though, but atm, the pro side has definitly the upper hand. Feel free to convince me.

Your stock line that, “it’s better than nothing!”Â? are about the most dangerous lines in human history.

I’m waiting for yet another (historical) anecdotal analogy. And for the record, I didn’t compare Kyoto protocol opponents with Creationists, what I wrote was, how many are prone to listen to people who talk about matters they don’t know much about.

Grendel, I’ve read plenty about global warming and the whole debate. There are lots of commenters, including scientific ones, who believe Kyoto is worse than nothing. Good websites for this are Reason.com and Techcentralstation.com, which often have articles on global warming and environmental issues. If implemented fully, global warming would severely damage the economies of developed countries while giving China, India and other developing countries a free pass to pollute furiously (and both are hideously polluted now and they’re only getting started). So most of the gains from ruining the economies of the engines of the world economy would be nearly wiped out by the huge volume of pollution by the others. You think this is better than nothing?

You say Bush is doing nothing? Unless I’m mistaken, I believe he just spent 15 billion on environmental research. I know that’s a drop in the bucket, but at least it is productive use of money, not throwing it down a black hole. It seems that whatever Bush does he’s readily shouted down by the dogmatic Kyoto boosters. He can’t win. Maybe his administration is restricting debate, but if they are, I think they’re going about it all wrong. Instead of trying to deny global warming, they should freely admit that there is such a thing. They’re just afraid to do that because the enviro-hordes will jump up and down and claim to be right about everything, and there will be greater pressure to buy into the crap Kyoto Accord, since it’s been hyped to the nth degree.

But the fact still remains that the Kyoto Protocol will not solve anything and will cause alot more problems than it will cure. What really needs to be done is to find sensible and practical solutions that are effective! Certainly Bush could be doing more, but at least he in his limited way is doing something instead of riding the coattails of a pile of crap.