Ecumenical News International David Fines
Montreal, Canada, 28 November (ENI)–One of the world’s top spiritual leaders has issued a warning about climate change as representatives from more than 180 nations gather for a United Nations’ conference in Montreal on global warming.
“Climate change is more than an issue of environmental preservation,” said Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomeos I who is seen by many as the spiritual leader of the world’s Orthodox Christians. “Insofar as human induced, it is a profoundly moral and spiritual problem.”
The Montreal meeting is the first UN gathering since the coming into force in February of the 1997 Kyoto Protocol which sets international standards for reducing atmospheric gases that many scientists believe cause global warming. The meeting aims to chart future action on climate change when the first phase of the protocol comes to an end in 2012.
“Unless we take radical and immediate measures to reduce emissions stemming from unsustainable – in fact unjustifiable, if not simply unjust – excesses in the demands of our lifestyle, the impact will be both alarming and imminent,” the patriarch said.
The United States has not ratified the treaty and US President George Bush has expressed scepticism about scientific findings on climate change.
“Although the data regarding climate change is sometimes debated, the seriousness of the situation is generally accepted,” noted Patriarch Bartholomeos in a statement released by the
Geneva-based World Council of Churches, which is leading a 80-strong delegation in Montreal.
Bartholomeos added, “To persist in the current path of ecological destruction is not only folly. It is no less than suicidal, jeopardising the diversity of the very earth that we inhabit, enjoy and share.”
The patriarch said faith communities were well-placed to take a long-term view of the world as God’s creation while he also noted the need for them “to put their own houses in order” and for
their adherents to embrace the urgency of the issue.
WCC climate change coordinator David Hallman said: “Daily events remind us of the undeniable seriousness of climate change caused by greenhouse gases.” He was speaking before an interfaith service planned to take place in Montreal on 4 December. “The oil crisis, recurring devastating hurricanes, rising temperatures, the gradual disappearance of the polar ice caps, rising sea levels and global warming affect us all, believers and non-believers alike.”
Note 49. Good motives don’t justify bad ideas.
When motives are used to justify an idea or platform, clear thinking stops. All sorts of untested and even dangerous assumptions that have no real relationship to the primary issue come along for the ride. For example, you wrote:
Look at some of the ideas you’ve expressed in this paragraph alone:
Nothing is wrong with the Kyoto Protocol.
There is a lot wrong with the Kyoto Protocol, one of which is that stifles economic growth in the developed nations while ignoring many of the most aggregious polution violations in less-developed nations.
The Kyoto Protocol should be followed because it is “the environmentally responsible thing to do.”
Says who? The developed nations have managed to reduce polution substantially without Kyoto. Perhaps the less-developed nations should follow a model already tested and proved.
We should not leave it to “the whim of each country to decide what is the acceptable level of pollution.”
Again, says who? What makes you think an international body should exercize such authority? What are the assumptions informing and driving this statement? Radical environmentalism sometimes serves as cover for anti-capitalism and the elimination of the sovereignty of nation-states. Is this what you are suggesting? If not, what do you mean by this statement? It’s unclear, and the unclarity confirms my point that elevating motives over reason muddies the debate.
Note 50.
The Patriarch should align himself with no advocacy group. Rather, he should have outlined environmental ideas in a broader outline, and then introduced it in a speech given to an international political or cultural body.
Father Jacobse (Note 52):
When I said there was nothing wrong with the Kyoto Protocol in and of itself, I meant its essence, to reduce green house gases on a world scale. I should have been more explicit about that, sorry.
I’m genuinely trying to understand your position. So let me get this straight, your primary reason to reject Kyoto is that it puts an unfair burden on the industralized countries because of the historic and prolonged burden they have put on the environment? And that it attempts to provide an international system of accountability to the world, which as a whole is directly penalized by that pollution, and that intefers with the sovereignty of nations?
Developed nations most certainly are penalized by Kyoto. In committing to reducing their green house gas emissions they are essentially required to either invest in new plants/technology or to buy credits on the international market so that they can reach their target levels. Why is this unreasonable? Should a Christian responsible sovereign nation not want to reach a target level of pollution as agreed to at an international level?
Having a discussion about the sovereignty of a nation is a tricky subject with Americans (remember I’m Canadian). The rest of the industrialized world doesn’t seem to have many problems with an International court, and the Geneva convention. So I’m not sure how to discuss this one with you.
“The developed nations have managed to reduce polution substantially without Kyoto. Perhaps the less-developed nations should follow a model already tested and proved.” The model they currently have (from Europe and the US) is don’t care for about 100 years and then start doing something about it, but only if it doesn’t impact your economic development. Kidding aside, I’m assuming you mean the last couple of decades. The US and Europe have come a long way in a short time, but there is more to be done. How do you offer those developing countries an environmental roadmap when the US does not want to commit to one?
“the whim of each country to decide what is the acceptable level of pollution”. I meant, to have an international consensus on what is an acceptable level of pollution. You probably don’t have a problem with that. You might have a problem when I say that with an international consensus we now need international accountability since this enters us into a sovereignty debate.
I’m not really interested in getting into a detailed discussion about Kyoto. American and Australian rejection of it however, should give the Patriarch pause.
As for national sovereignty, I’ve argued for years that no international body should have jurisdiction over American affairs.
Canada is busy criticizing the US. Meanwhile…
Greenhouse gas emissions up 24% in Canada: study
Thu. Dec. 15 2005 9:32 AM ET
Air quality deteriorated in Canada during the past 10 years, while greenhouse gas emissions rose 24 per cent, a new report said Wednesday.
The study, prepared by Environment Canada, Statistics Canada and Health Canada, revealed that by 2003, emissions of greenhouse gases were 32 per cent above the targets set out by the Kyoto Protocol for 2008 to 2012.
Pollution levels in lakes and rivers also remained a concern, the report said.
The findings come just days after Prime Minister Paul Martin criticized the United States for its policy on climate change, saying it had failed to yield to a “global conscience” in its refusal to sign the Kyoto Protocol.
…more
Note 54. I guess we will just agree to disagree.
Note 55. Pretty sad eh? One of the many reasons Paul Martin doesn’t have my vote come this Jan.
Fr. Hans writes: “Air quality deteriorated in Canada during the past 10 years, while greenhouse gas emissions rose 24 per cent, a new report said Wednesday.
——————————–
During the same time Canada’s gross domestic product rose by 43 percent. In other words the rise in greenhouse gases was less than what one would have expected based on economic activity.
Fr. Hans: “The study, prepared by Environment Canada, Statistics Canada and Health Canada, revealed that by 2003, emissions of greenhouse gases were 32 per cent above the targets set out by the Kyoto Protocol for 2008 to 2012.”
——————————–
Well it’s not 2012 yet. At least the Canadians think it’s a problem that has to be addressed.
Fr. Hans: “As for national sovereignty, I’ve argued for years that no international body should have jurisdiction over American affairs.”
———————————
It’s kind of a problem when we all live on the same planet, isn’t it? This is why we have international agreements. It’s that old problem of having just one planet.
I think the solution is for the administration to fund research into the issue of whether the U.S. is really on the same planet as other countries. I mean, their strategy is to sew doubt about matters scientific, so why not on this issue too? We can even include that in the science curriculum of Kansas: “While some scientists believe that the U.S. is on the same planet as other countries, we think that the other side of the question should be presented as well, and then let students make up their own minds.” The other thing the Bush administration could do is to pay journalists to promote that point of view. Again, they’ve done that before, and it’s a good way to get the message out. Then the right-wing commentators and talk show hosts will pick up on it, and we’ll have Rush, Sean, and Bill saying “Of course these ‘scientists’ say that the U.S. is on the same planet as all other countries. They’re LIBERALS! That’s just how liberals think.” The real capper will be when Ann Coulter gets interviewed on Fox News and proclaims “All of these stupid liberal scientists who think that the U.S. and other countries are on the same planet should be taken out and shot.”
This is how it works, right?
Note 56. George, given Canada’s failure to live up to the Kyoto accord, what sanctions should be imposed on Canada, and what international body should enforce them?
Voting the guys out of office is certainly the democratic way and the practice I recommend, but you have been calling for an international response. Care to give us an example of how this should work?
Note 57. Jim, there is a difference between international agreements (treaties), and international bodies claiming jurisdictional authority over sovereign nations. No one is arguing that treaties should not be made, only that the United States should never cede sovereignty to an international body.
#57 Jim what’s your point?
Note 58. Father Jacobse, interesting question. It seems the UN has already established a Compliance committee to investigate and enforce Kyoto. More info here. Since the signatories are given one year after the enactment of the Protocol (which happened in Feb 2005), I’d imagine we won’t see any action until next year. Action will probably start with an audit and if a country is found in violation, then a penalty will be levied against that country.
George are you going to answer the question? There are two months to go if there hasn’t been any change now I don’t see them making the deadline.
What sanctions should then be applied to Canada for their failure?
Jerry writes: “Jim what’s your point?”
With only one planet available, pollution in one part of the world affects other parts of the world.
Jerry: “What sanctions should then be applied to Canada for their failure?”
Just curious, to what do you refer here? To what language in the treaty are you referencing?
#62 So your solution is draconian measures and bad science?
and the other half is in reference to previous comments in this thread.
Jerry writes: “So your solution is draconian measures and bad science?”
I don’t recall having offered a solution.
Jerry: “and the other half is in reference to previous comments in this thread.”
I looked through the text of the Kyoto agreement on-line, and did not find any reference to sanctions. So I’m not trying to pick an argument, just wondering what you’re looking at.
Note 61. Jerry, all the information is available on the internet if you are really interested.
“In the case of compliance with emission targets, Annex I Parties are granted 100 days after the expert review of their final annual emissions inventory has finished to make up any shortfall in compliance (e.g. by acquiring AAUs, CERs, ERUs or RMUs through emissions trading). If, at the end of this period, a Party’s emissions are still greater than its assigned amount, it must make up the difference in the second commitment period, plus a penalty of 30%. It will also be barred from “selling” under emissions trading and, within three months, it must develop a compliance action plan detailing the action it will take to make sure that its target is met in the next commitment period.” From here.
Canada has 3 options which can be used in varying combinations to satisfy non-compliance: 1. Plant new forests to act as carbon sinks to offset carbon emmissions [RMU]. 2. Purchase carbon credits from other nations who have surpassed their targets and are signatories to Kyoto (e.g. Russia) [AAU/ERU]. 3. Purchase carbon credits from other nations that are not signatories to Kyoto through environmental technology transfer [CER].
Jim your support of Kyoto is your solution.
George,
I’ve been involved with air bases and the issue of carbon credits. Even at the domestic government level this is a huge issue that have caused huge debates that have resulted in court fights between state and local governments when air bases have closed.
Do you really think countries will be willing to sell their carbon credits at the international level?
If there are, what will develop will be a few governments willing to sell these credits at huge prices. And like many international activities the money won’t get beyond the lining of the pockets of the country’s elite.
I have to ask then who will pay for the cost of the new forest?
Note 66. Hi Jerry,
I’m sure Russia is more than willing to sell its carbon credits since they have already met their Kyoto targets, and as you point out, they will probably be available at a hefty price (either monetarily or politically). Developing nations would also be more than happy to receive technology and environmental project funding from anyone which I suspect will be a more popular solution.
As for where the money will go, that is a sovereignty issue. You can’t have it both ways. If you want to defend the sovereignty of nations, you can’t also dictate where the money for carbon credits ends up.
Initially, the cost of any non-compliance will be on the taxpayer. The cost for conformance will be on industry. Any country that has ratified Kyoto would be smart to enact laws to force industry to conform as to avoid non-compliance. Otherwise the added tax burden on the taxpayer will cause them to exercise their democratic right and get somebody in who will make the laws necessary to force industry to conform.
Since you have some experience with carbon credits, maybe you can tell us some of the issues that were involved in your experience? Specifically why an air base was closed.
BTW, if Jim’s support for Kyoto is the solution, why would that be considered “draconian measures and bad science”. While I agree that the jury is still out on whether our greenhouse gas emissions are actually affecting global warming, it is still scientifically accurate and demonstratable (also morally upright) to say that reducing our emissions would be a good thing for the environment. And if draconian measures equate to global accountability, then I would call the opposite a selfish measure. I think you have valid discussion material, but please try to keep venomous language from infecting the debate.
George,
You’re comfortable with paying even more taxes?
As far as bad science Dr. Seitz sums up some of the problems with Kyoto:
Here is the website http://www.oism.org/pproject/ that lists signatures to the letter and other information.
Something else to consider
full article
Note 68 + 69. Jerry,
Thank you for the very good article. It has swayed me somewhat, but you must remember that all through my comments I am trying not to advocate nor debunk the CO2 to climate change link, merely environmental responsibility. Actually it started with the link between environmental commitments and selfish lifestyles.
The article by Robinson et al. states “To be sure, CO2 levels have increased substantially since the Industrial Revolution, and are expected to continue doing so. It is reasonable to believe that humans have been responsible for much of this increase. But the effect on the environment is likely to be benign.” ‘Likely to be benign’ is not the same as ‘benign’. The article also has some compelling evidence, but even it acknowledges that “At present, science does not have comprehensive quantitative knowledge about the Earth’s atmosphere. Very few of the relevant parameters are known with enough rigor to permit reliable theoretical calculations.” This is why I hesitate to conclude one way or the other.
No one likes paying more taxes. I found this on a goverment website. Looks like a contingency fund, so maybe I don’t have to pay more taxes, at least for now.
Jerry writes: “As far as bad science Dr. Seitz sums up some of the problems with Kyoto:”
Jerry, see my note 4. Seitz is affiliated with a fringe group working out of a sheet metal shed seven miles from Cave Junction, Oregon. They appear to be some flavor of survivalist group, publishing material on how to survive a nuclear war. They also make money through the sale of home schooling materials. Neither Seitz nor any of his companions are climatologists. The petition was bogus but is frequently used as a right-wing propaganda piece. My take is that if you want to make the case against global warming or Kyoto, other sources might be more credible.
Note 67. George, I don’t understand how Russia has met it’s Kyoto targets but Canada has not. Russian industrial development has to be decades behind Canada, not in output necessarily, but certainly in the sophistication of its equipment. Communist governments were/are the world’s worst polluters, far greater than Democratic societies, and it doesn’t make sense that Russia could have caught up in pollution control in just a few decades.
Are the Kyoto standards for Russia different than the standards for Canada?
Note 70. Here my point about the Patriarch’s misstep is confirmed. You hold back on jumping on the global warming bandwagon because of the inconclusiveness of scientific data. A prudent move, IMO. Too bad the Patriarch did not exercize the same prudence.
Jerry quotes: “With more and more scientists questioning the real cause of recent global warming, rushing to ratify the Kyoto accord is ridiculous in the extreme.”
This quotation is from an article by the Science and Environmental Policy Project. SEPP has received $20,000 from Exxon/Mobile over the last 7 years. S. Fred Singer, President, has been around all the right-wing organizations including Heritage, Cato, Hoover, etc. The previously mentioned Fred Steitz is with that survivalist/home schooling group in Cave Junction, Oregon.
http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=65
In addition to funding from Exxon, SEPP receives money from a number of other interesting organizations:
“… S. Fred Singer, acknowledged during a 1994 appearance on the television program Nightline that he had received funding from Exxon, Shell, Unocal and ARCO. He did not deny receiving funding on a number of occasions from the Rev. Sun Myung Moon.”
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?
title=Science_and_Environmental_Policy_Project
I have to wonder why it is that the opinions of the mainstream scientific organizations on global warming are dismissed, but opinions from people funded by business groups, or opinions of a survivalist living in Cave Junction, Oregon, are accepted.
Not 72. Father Jacobse, I also find it equally bizarre that Russia has met its Kyoto targets, but the Kyoto targets are with respect to 1990 levels and apparently Russia’s emissions were far greater in 1990 then they are now. There are a lot of countries committed to Kyoto that actually are allowed to increase their emissions as well. Kyoto Targets
You are right Father Jacobse. Sorry to have generated so much discussion only to come to the same point of view. I guess my arguments were more for the people who have jumped on the anti global warming bandwagon instead of staying in the middle as you rightly suggest the Patriarch should do.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an agency of the US government, and a comeptent and respected source on this subject, affirms that man-made gases are the trigger for global warming.
“… the concern is not with the fact that we have a greenhouse effect, but whether human activities are leading to an enhancement of the greenhouse effect.
Human activity has been increasing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (mostly carbon dioxide from combustion of coal, oil, and gas; plus a few other trace gases). There is no scientific debate on this point. Pre-industrial levels of carbon dioxide (prior to the start of the Industrial Revolution) were about 280 parts per million by volume (ppmv), and current levels are about 370 ppmv. The concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere today, has not been exceeded in the last 420,000 years, and likely not in the last 20 million years. According to the IPCC Special Report on Emission Scenarios (SRES), by the end of the 21st century, we could expect to see carbon dioxide concentrations of anywhere from 490 to 1260 ppm (75-350% above the pre-industrial concentration).”
Global Warming” Frequently Asked Questions
http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/globalwarming.html#Q2
The Environmental Protection Agency, an department of the US government, and a competent and authoritative source on this subject, affirms that man-made gases contribte to the Greenhouse Effect and are the trigger for global warming.
“Emissions Of Greenhouse Gases
Since the beginning of the industrial revolution, human activities have been adding measurably to natural background levels of greenhouse gases. The burning of fossil fuels â?? coal, oil, and natural gas â?? for energy is the primary source of emissions. Energy burned to run cars and trucks, heat homes and businesses,
and power factories is responsible for about 80% of global carbon dioxide emissions, about 25% of U.S. methane emissions, and about 20% of global nitrous oxide emissions. Increased agriculture and deforestation, landfills, and industrial production and mining also contribute a significant share of emissions. In 1994, the United States emitted about one-fifth of total global
greenhouse gases. Concentrations Of Greenhouse Gases Since the pre-industrial era, atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide have increased nearly 30%, methane concentrations have more than doubled, and nitrous oxide concentrations have risen by about 15%. These increases have enhanced the heat-trapping capability of the earthâ??s atmosphere. Sulfate aerosols, a common air pollutant, cool the atmosphere by reflecting incoming solar radiation. However, sulfates are short-lived and vary regionally, so they do not offset greenhouse gas warming.
Although many greenhouse gases already are present in the atmosphere, oceans, and vegetation, their concentrations in the future will depend in part on present and future emissions. Estimating future emissions is difficult, because they will depend on demographic, economic, technological, policy, and institutional developments. Several emissions scenarios have been developed based on differing projections of these underlying factors. For example, by 2100, in the absence of emissions control policies, carbon dioxide concentrations are projected to be 30-150% higher than todayâ??s levels.”
Climate Change and California
http://yosemite.epa.gov/oar/globalwarming.nsf/UniqueKeyLookup/SHSU5BNNKT/$File/ca_impct.pdf
Dean writes: “David Lawrence, a climate scientist with the US National Centre for Atmospheric Research in Boulder, Colorado, said . . . The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, an agency of the US government, and a comeptent and respected source on this subject, affirms . . . The Environmental Protection Agency, an department of the US government, and a competent and authoritative source on this subject, affirms . . . ”
Sorry Dean, if it doesn’t come from the Cato Institute, the Heritage Foundation, a popular novelist, or a survivalist living seven miles east of Cave Junction, Oregon, it doesn’t count.
I suppose next you’re going to tell us that cigarette smoking is unhealthy.
Thank You Jim, I stand corrected.
You may want to add this trusted science source for conservatives to your list as well: http://www.alaska.net/~clund/e_djublonskopf/Flatearthsociety.htm
Another liberal science myth debunked!
I’d slow it down a bit guys. Remember “The Population Bomb?” It was Malthus warmed over. Remember the ozone layer? It healed itself, but not until the prophets of doom buried us under endless cries that the end of the earth was imminent.
I’d follow this rule of thumb: approach secular apocalypticism with a healthy dose of scepticism.
Jim wrote:
I find it humorous that you discredited Seitz, but quote the Union of Concerned Scientists as being more authoritative (as though this group’s intentions are as pure as the driven snow and they’ve never had a political agenda). The issue with Seitz is not who sponsors him, but are his statement reliable. I would argue that as a past president of The National Academy of Sciences that he would have an understanding into what are bad scientific principles; which is what he questions about the Kyoto process.
If publishing info on how to survive a nuclear war discredits an individual then you should include the Federal Government in your list of unreliable sources.
It’s disingenuous that you demand that those in opposition to your views present some kind of moderate example as support, but then you offer a radicalized scientific group as the complete source of information that should be accepted without question.
The issue is not whether there is global warming or not. There is to some degree. But, the question is what is causing it and to what degree? My issue with Kyoto is that it is governmental policy based upon at best incomplete and at worst bad (or even junk) science. There have been incidents in the recent past where extreme measures were taken because of bad science that have resulted in the death of thousands. Is Kyoto another example of this? And will it in the end become another boondoggle of over-reaction?
To clarify: Kyoto and like treaties are theories guided by a desired result, not theories backed by controlled experiments. In essence, Kyoto and like, are a form of Lysenkoism.
Jerry writes: “The issue with Seitz is not who sponsors him, but are his statement reliable. I would argue that as a past president of The National Academy of Sciences that he would have an understanding into what are bad scientific principles; which is what he questions about the Kyoto process.”
I have no problem if Seitz personally questions global warming, Kyoto, etc. My problem is with citing him as an authoritative source. He’s not a climatologist. The organization with which he is affiliated is little more than a web site and a large metal shed, located seven miles from a town without even a hospital, much less a university or even a community college. He sent out a bogus “petition” designed to look like something based on a paper from the NAS. Both Seitz and his petition have been repudiated by the NAS. There is a point at which a person is not a credible source, and Seitz is at that point, in my opinion.
Jerry: “If publishing info on how to survive a nuclear war discredits an individual then you should include the Federal Government in your list of unreliable sources.”
My gut feeling is that this dude is a survivalist. Cave Junction is located between North Nowhere and South Nowhere, and he lives seven miles from Cave Junction. He worries about surviving nuclear war, which probably explains where he lives. He had some relationship with Gary North during the Y2K deal, but I have been unable to determine what that relationship was.
Jerry: “It’s disingenuous that you demand that those in opposition to your views present some kind of moderate example as support, but then you offer a radicalized scientific group as the complete source of information that should be accepted without question.”
There are a very large number of governmental agencies, international agencies, scientific organizations, and prominent scientists who have published papers in peer-reviewed journals who all endorse the basic thinking behind global warming. Dean has posted a number of such references here. It is difficult to dismiss all of this as liberal tree-hugging. When I look at the opposite point of view, it tends to come from Heritage, Cato, WSJ, and other right-wing political and economic advocates.
Jerry: “The issue is not whether there is global warming or not. There is to some degree. But, the question is what is causing it and to what degree?”
In my reading, the scientific concensus by far supports the idea that human activities have become a primary factor.
Fr. Hans: “Remember the ozone layer? It healed itself, but not until the prophets of doom buried us under endless cries that the end of the earth was imminent.”
And we also greatly eliminated the use of CFCs and their discharge into the environment.
Fr. Hans: “I’d follow this rule of thumb: approach secular apocalypticism with a healthy dose of scepticism.”
Sure, but when you have a convergence of environmental data, atmospheric data, human activities, the chemistry and physics that links it all together, and the concensus of the scientific community, we need to pay attention to that.
Note 82. What is Lysenkoism?
For the benefit of others who don’t know what Lysenkoism is (I didn’t know either), this is from a Wiki on the topic:
From: From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Just to add T.D. Lysenko (a geneticist and I use the term loosly) was partially responsible for the mass starvation in the Soviet Union during the 30s. He claimed that he had genetically improved wheat so that it could be grown in snow. He eventually conviced Stalin of this so that eventually because of bad science the wheat harvest was rotting in the snow. But because he was a Soviet ideaologue (that he would manipulate science for the service of the government) Stalin never had him removed (an amazing feat during the Stalin era). What’s interesting about Lysenko was that it took physicists (one of them being Adrei Sakharov )to denounce him as a quack scientist. But according to Jim this isn’t acceptable when it’s done against environmental causes.
Going back to the thread the main problem is that much of science today has been politicized. We’re seeing incident after incident where papers are having to be retracted because evidence being falsified. The most recent being the South Korean stem-cell research. There are many in the environmental field also such continued politicized/falsified scientific “research”. Such as the falsified studies on pesticides done at Tulane, that were contiually cited by EPA chief Carol Browner as evidence that pesticides were responsible for a number cancers. Even Rachel Carson’s work Silent Spring has questionable research.
Bad science has wasted billions of dollars and in the case of ddt the loss of its use has resulted in more deaths, than if it were used — if their claims are to be believed.
And here now is Jim reciting politicized science groups on the dangers of (fill in the blank with you favorite environmental cause). And if you don’t follow their solution then the world will end tomorrow. And you have to wonder how many people are going to die because their government is following the advice of modern day Malthusians.
Some interesting comments:
And other comments he made:
A copy of his full speech and the press conference afterward can be found here:
http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=15556
Jerry writes: “And here now is Jim reciting politicized science groups on the dangers of (fill in the blank with you favorite environmental cause).”
I guess “politicized” is your new dismissal word. Call a group “politicized” and you can simply reject what they say. Unfortunately, many of the organizations that have agreed with the global warming thesis are governmental agencies. Even the Defense Department looked into the national security implications of global warming.
But the real problem I have with your approach is your selective use of sources and authorities. You try to validate Seitz through his affiliation with the National Academy of Sciences:
“I would argue that as a past president of The National Academy of Sciences that he would have an understanding into what are bad scientific principles; which is what he questions about the Kyoto process.”
But the NAS itself repudiates his position and in fact endorses the opposite position:
“June 7, 2005: The U.S. National Academy of Sciences joined 10 other national science academies today in calling on world leaders, particularly those of the G8 countries meeting next month in Scotland, to acknowledge that the threat of climate change is clear and increasing, to address its causes, and to prepare for its consequences. Sufficient scientific understanding of climate change exists for all nations to identify cost-effective steps that can be taken now to contribute to substantial and long-term reductions in net global greenhouse gas emissions that cause global warming.”
http://www.nasonline.org/site/PageServer?pagename=NEWS_Main
There is a point at which one cannot simply dismiss all of these organizations as “politicized.” While it is true that the human element involved in global warming has to be addressed at the political level, that does not mean that organizations advocating political change are “politicized.” But the main point is that you cannot just pick and choose the things that support your case and reject those that don’t, especially when the organizations you invoke in defense of your view in fact take the opposition position. If the NAS is such a politicized organization, then how does being the president of such an organization lend credence to his position?
Jerry: “And if you don’t follow their solution then the world will end tomorrow.”
Utterly false. They’re not saying that the world will end tomorrow. Here’s an excerpt from an NAS report:
“The projected changes in climate will have both beneficial and adverse effects at the regional level, for example on water resources, agriculture, natural ecosystems and human health. The larger and faster the changes in climate, the more likely it is that adverse effects will dominate.”
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
That’s not anything like a prediction of apocalypse.
Having rejected scientific opinion you posit your own apocalypse:
“And you have to wonder how many people are going to die because their government is following the advice of modern day Malthusians.”
How exactly are people going to die? Not driving an SUV is fatal? Not having a poorly insulated 3,000 square foot house is fatal? Emission controls are fatal? Forests are fatal? Lack of urban sprawl is fatal?
Jerry: “Andre Illarionov, reaffirmed his personal opposition and the opposition of Russian scientists to the Kyoto Protocol.”
So having dispensed with the opinions of a batallion of actual scientists as “politicized,” you invoke the authority of a (non-scientist) economist and adviser to the Russian government, and a favorite of the Cato Institute, and expect us to think that his opinions are not politicized.
Illarionov supposedly spoke for “the opposition of Russian scientists to the Kyoto Protocol.” But the report I mentioned above was approved, among many others, by the Russian Academy of Sciences!
http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf
Look, I’m not trying to rip into you here, but there are some serious defects in your methodology and sources.
Jim why don’t you do some reading on politics and science. What I’ve been doing is showing the failure of the research and the problems associated with enviromentalism. The more you post the more you prove my point about lysenkoism.
Avoiding a Fate like Mars for Earth: Life on Planet in Imminent Danger
by Raymond Samuels
University of Toronto
Ignoring Global Warming risks precipitating a Global Pan-Famine/Starvation from Africa, right into Europe, the United States, and Canada, unless in can be stopped and reversed in a very timely manner. Such a milieu would occur with soaring temperatures, destoying the oceans, with corresponding record drought conditions in agricultural lands, threatening the food supply internationally.
There are apparently some people who think that the current “Greenhouse Effect” will simply lead to an “evolutionary” change in the global climate, so that climatic areas in the northern hemisphere like Canada, Scandinavia, Russia, Alaska in the U.S., and Antarctica in the southern hemisphere will become like one big tropical resort area like Tahiti, Cuba, or Jamaica. Soon everyone will be enjoying glorious sunshine, and sipping exotic tropical drinks in Nova Scotia, Baffin Island in the Canadian Arctic, or around the Arctic waters of Siberia, according to people with this apparent view. These people profess a dislike for the cold, and they therefore welcome any change that might eventually get rid of their abhored winter blaaaaahs.
Unfortunately for these people, such a view is not supported by critical scientific evidence, beyond “scientific infomercials” and propaganda pieces that have been sponsored by various well-financed Big Business interests. Indeed, it has been the job of the largely corporate owned mass-media in Canada, and elsewhere, to channel viewers, readers, and listeners into responses which will complement the elite pursuit of insatiable commercial profit. This corporate owned mass-media does not want to draw public attention to the dire fate which awaits the public, if ‘the Economy’ is not rejuvenated in a manner that minimizes social and environmental costs.
The large scale ‘owners of capital’ have structured the prevailing capitalistic economy to principally serve their interests in the pursuit of money, status, and power for themselves. Like heroine or “crack” cocaine drug addicts, ‘capitalistocrats’ have become so addicted to the pursuit of a self-absorbing materialistic lifestyle predicted on money, status, and power, they would much rather apparently destroy our planet, and all life along with it, than to change their ways of drug-like abuse. Indeed, the mass-media in the prevailing capitalistocratic systems of Canada, the United States, United Kingdom, continental Europe, and elsewhere, are no less corrupt than the politicians which they are supposedly “holding accountable”.
The mass-media has apparently covered-up the fate that awaits humanity, and the rest of our planet, if there is not an immediate substantive response to the Global Warming threat beyond the relatively superficial responses associated with the extremely slow responses to fulfilling the relatively superficial Kyoto Protocol. Indeed, failure to redress Global Warming with great alacrity, will not mythically result in northern hemispheres being turned into extensions of “tropical paradises”.
The cold air masses that hover over the Arctic and Antarctic climatic areas of the planet are absolutely vital to moderating the temperatures of planet Earth. Global Warming by the irresponsible activities of greed driven private enterprises under American led “global capitalism”, are destroying these vital climatic areas at an alarming rates. As a human species, we have already witnessed deadly heat waves and humidity. The accompanying worsening cancer causing ultra violet (UV) rays due to rapid accompanying ozone depletion is already creating experiences which almost feel like a form of radiation poisoning. Further accompanying weather cataclysms including more devastating hurricanes like Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans in late Summer 2005, and other such ”weather events” are only a relatively small tip of the iceberg so-to-speak.
The “hellish” summer of 2005 internationally has poignantly showed relative to the comparatively milder Summer 2004, that changes due to the abusive activities by human beings on the planet can be sudden, and extremely drastic. The current quantuum advancing devastating destructive impacts of American-led “global capitalism” are threatening to precipitate a catastrophic global drought in vital agricultural areas internationally that the world has never ever seen; due to unending rising temperatures, that will make the traditional temperature characteristics of the tropics today (that have benefited from Arctic and Antarctic moderation) seem like comparative ice boxes. Worsening “hellish” summers will lead into hellish other parts of the year also, with the prospective disappearance of the Arctic and Antarctic climatic areas. The inevitable result of such allowed phenomenon will be an ensuing Global Famine that so far, the world has also never seen spreading from the United States and Canada, into Europe and the rest of the World.
The rising temperatures of the oceans would eventually completely destroy all vital air (oxygen) producing plankton. A global crisis in agricultural production would be further accompanied by the cascading rapid dying out of all species in the ocean. The oceans would become dead polluted waters (the Gulf of Mexico has already been basically destroyed, with other parts of the ocean following pursuit).
In such a milieu of Global Famine, the world would be taken over by various warring military camps threatening each other with nuclear annihilation, and privately-run “terrorist” organizations trying to forcibly acquire what little of the Earth is left, for the exclusive use of elites, criminal syndicates, and gangs, leaving “masses” to perish in a milieu of spiralling global starvation, and poverty in a climate of socio-economic chaos and societal upheaval. Indeed, the mass-media has hypocritically ignored the extent to which ‘capitalism’ is actually the root cause of growing apparent “terrorism” as more and more people are turning to violent political extremism, in the face of environmental destruction, related oppression, and overall declines in quality-of-living.
Having destroyed the air-producing ocean life, and rainforests under a greed driven ethos of capitalism, soon even the Global Air Supply would become threatened with the overall rapid decay of vital ecosystems. Global Warming promises the convert the whole Earth not into a tropical paradise, but rather into a giant coffin, where all life on the planet will miserably perish. The Earth will eventually become very similar to Mars sooner than you think, unless the whole economic system can rejuvenated from its self-destructive path of Global Warming and accompanying pollution including ozone depletion. The human race will simply become a footnote for other possible space exploring advanced species in the universe to study in their future scientific missions of archaeological discovery, unless humanity changes from its current overall destructive ways.
People in their communities can either choose to play Ninetendo games, and worry about various other materialistic lifestyle considerations in “blissful ignorance”, in the image of the elites who prevail over self-destructive capitalistocracies, or alternatively, people can choose to rally their governments for vitally needed social change. ‘Sober’ members of the diverse public must either become actively engaged in redressing the shortcomings of the prevailing economic system, or face the dire consequences of their jaded attitudes. Members of the diverse public who are concerned about their immediate quality-of-survival cannot afford to be complacent. These members of the diverse public must use what little that remains of destroyed democratic systems (that have been taken-over by the substantive operation of ‘capitalistocracy’) to challenge corrupted government leaders.
Government leaders have allowed themselves to be seduced and “bought-out” by self-serving greed-driven interests, that operate against the vital affirmation of the quality-of-living interests of the diverse public that these leaders were supposedly elected to serve; and against the interests of quality-of-living seeking human beings internationally. So far, these government leaders have chosen to substantively ignore capitalistocractic activities that precipitate Global Warming, and accompanying pollution and worsening poverty which are being executed by “generous donors” to their political campaigns, that prop-up their political power. People must either turn away en masse, from the norms of the prevailing capitalism that has corrupted the integrity of democratic systems, or face certain Mars-like global self-destruction.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR:
Raymond Samuels has a professional background as an academic lectuer, and is the author/co-author/editor of diverse books.
Recommended Books:
Capitalism is Not Democracy, Part I, ISBN: 1894934636
The Kyoto Protocol Is Not Enough!, Part I:
Replace Capitalistocracy including the GDP Index
Toward a New Political Economy of
Social Justice and Environmental Protection
by Raymond Samuels II, ed.. ISBN: 1894839978, 2005
The Kyoto Protocol Is Not Enough!, Part II:
Replace Capitalistocracy including the GDP Index
Toward a New Political Economy of
Social Justice and Environmental Protection
by Raymond Samuels II, ed., ISBN: 1894934342, 2005
internet site references:
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com
http://www.jesustians.com