In article <book4t$dmh$14@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> Matt Osborn <msosborn@attglobal.net> wrote:

>>What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
>>jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
>>discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
>>warming'?

> What if we did nothing and then found out it was too late?
>
> Kind of like a forest fire burning up to your property but you refuse to
> evacuate until you're 100% sure it's going to burn your house.

But you don't go around setting your other neighbors' property on
fire to protect your life. And that's what the kyoto treaty 'solution'
does. It moves the CO2 output from the US to other nations. This does
nothing to prevent or lessen a problem that may be caused by CO2 ouput.

 

In article <book4t$dmh$14@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> Matt Osborn <msosborn@attglobal.net> wrote:

>>What if we implemented the Kyoto treaty and many millions lost their
>>jobs and homes in the resulting recession/depression and then
>>discovered that the treaty did nothing to prevent the 'global
>>warming'?

> What if we did nothing and then found out it was too late?
>
> Kind of like a forest fire burning up to your property but you refuse to
> evacuate until you're 100% sure it's going to burn your house.

But you don't go around setting your other neighbors' property on
fire to protect your life. And that's what the kyoto treaty 'solution'
does. It moves the CO2 output from the US to other nations. This does
nothing to prevent or lessen a problem that may be caused by CO2 ouput.

 

In article <book2l$dmh$13@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <221fa157.0311091806.63ccb4ec@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:

<parker still can't be bothered to snip what he has no response to>

>>> So what's an alternative policy? The Australian Government hasn't
>>> been at all keen on Kyoto, either, but I haven't heard anyone propose
>>> an alternative.

>>If CO2 is really a problem, then it should be considered on a per
>>product manufactured, per unit of fuel consumed, etc basis. Not a
>>which-country-emits-it basis.

> Exactly. You should look at the CO2 per person, not per country. Agreed?

CO2 per person is false measure. It favors nations with *HUGE*
populations like China and India that can then ------ the CO2 output of
the goods they make for export over a larger population. If the people
who came up with this per-capita measure don't understand this they are
idiots.

So what we have is a policy that uses per-capitia numbers to drive the
relocation of the means of production, increasing net global CO2
emissions. This is not a policy that solves a problem that is supposedly
due to putting too much CO2 into the air. So, if they aren't idiots, I
am left asking why. Why they want production relocated.

>>>> I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>>>> is about in this regard.

>>> Bugger the left. What's better for everyone?

>>Conservation. But the kyoto treaty doesn't encourage conservation, it
>>encourages relocating manufacturing.

> OK, then, you propose another way for the US to cut its CO2 emissions.

Conservation is how it's done. How does relocating where the crap americans
buy is made help cut global CO2 emissions?

 

In article <book2l$dmh$13@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <221fa157.0311091806.63ccb4ec@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:

<parker still can't be bothered to snip what he has no response to>

>>> So what's an alternative policy? The Australian Government hasn't
>>> been at all keen on Kyoto, either, but I haven't heard anyone propose
>>> an alternative.

>>If CO2 is really a problem, then it should be considered on a per
>>product manufactured, per unit of fuel consumed, etc basis. Not a
>>which-country-emits-it basis.

> Exactly. You should look at the CO2 per person, not per country. Agreed?

CO2 per person is false measure. It favors nations with *HUGE*
populations like China and India that can then ------ the CO2 output of
the goods they make for export over a larger population. If the people
who came up with this per-capita measure don't understand this they are
idiots.

So what we have is a policy that uses per-capitia numbers to drive the
relocation of the means of production, increasing net global CO2
emissions. This is not a policy that solves a problem that is supposedly
due to putting too much CO2 into the air. So, if they aren't idiots, I
am left asking why. Why they want production relocated.

>>>> I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>>>> is about in this regard.

>>> Bugger the left. What's better for everyone?

>>Conservation. But the kyoto treaty doesn't encourage conservation, it
>>encourages relocating manufacturing.

> OK, then, you propose another way for the US to cut its CO2 emissions.

Conservation is how it's done. How does relocating where the crap americans
buy is made help cut global CO2 emissions?

 

In article <book2l$dmh$13@puck.cc.emory.edu>, Lloyd Parker wrote:
> tetraethyllead@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote:
>>In article <221fa157.0311091806.63ccb4ec@posting.google.com >, st3ph3nm wrote:

<parker still can't be bothered to snip what he has no response to>

>>> So what's an alternative policy? The Australian Government hasn't
>>> been at all keen on Kyoto, either, but I haven't heard anyone propose
>>> an alternative.

>>If CO2 is really a problem, then it should be considered on a per
>>product manufactured, per unit of fuel consumed, etc basis. Not a
>>which-country-emits-it basis.

> Exactly. You should look at the CO2 per person, not per country. Agreed?

CO2 per person is false measure. It favors nations with *HUGE*
populations like China and India that can then ------ the CO2 output of
the goods they make for export over a larger population. If the people
who came up with this per-capita measure don't understand this they are
idiots.

So what we have is a policy that uses per-capitia numbers to drive the
relocation of the means of production, increasing net global CO2
emissions. This is not a policy that solves a problem that is supposedly
due to putting too much CO2 into the air. So, if they aren't idiots, I
am left asking why. Why they want production relocated.

>>>> I have no problems with conservation, but that's not what the left
>>>> is about in this regard.

>>> Bugger the left. What's better for everyone?

>>Conservation. But the kyoto treaty doesn't encourage conservation, it
>>encourages relocating manufacturing.

> OK, then, you propose another way for the US to cut its CO2 emissions.

Conservation is how it's done. How does relocating where the crap americans
buy is made help cut global CO2 emissions?

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Wrong. The last 120 years have shown warming, and the hottest years on
> record have all occurred in the last decade.

There are a lot of problems with this claim. By biggest concern is the source of
the data. A lot of the old data is being inferred from unreliable sources. The
newer data is better, but it is not always corrected for changes in the micro
environment around the reporting station.

Even if the measurements are correct, the current global average temperature is
not particularly high by historic standards. For instance, the current global
average temperature is lower than during the period around 1200 AD.

> Try reading peer-reviewed scientific journals then.

The problem I see with your constantly making this argument is that "peer reviewed
journals" select the articles they publish. If they don't agree with the author's
idea, they don't publish the article, and the author can't claim the article was
published in a peer reviewed journal. Since the people who control these journals
are usually part of the liberal establishment, they are not predisposed to
publishing articles that don't fall in line with their current biases. I suspect
that if you were on the board picking articles to be published, you would
immediately dismiss any article that challenged the global warming theory. In the
end the articles published are chosen through a political process. Not everything
can be published, so articles that don't agree with the biases of the people doing
the choosing are left out. This is a viscous circle, dissenters from the popular
liberal view are shut out, so the peer reviewed "evidence" piles up in favor of
the "commonly accepted view" and this is used as a reason for continuing to shut
out he articles that don't agree with the "commonly accepted view." In Galileo's
time the Catholic church controlled defined the "commonly accepted view", today it
is liberals and the liberal media. In neither case does this guarantee that the
"commonly accepted view" is correct.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Wrong. The last 120 years have shown warming, and the hottest years on
> record have all occurred in the last decade.

There are a lot of problems with this claim. By biggest concern is the source of
the data. A lot of the old data is being inferred from unreliable sources. The
newer data is better, but it is not always corrected for changes in the micro
environment around the reporting station.

Even if the measurements are correct, the current global average temperature is
not particularly high by historic standards. For instance, the current global
average temperature is lower than during the period around 1200 AD.

> Try reading peer-reviewed scientific journals then.

The problem I see with your constantly making this argument is that "peer reviewed
journals" select the articles they publish. If they don't agree with the author's
idea, they don't publish the article, and the author can't claim the article was
published in a peer reviewed journal. Since the people who control these journals
are usually part of the liberal establishment, they are not predisposed to
publishing articles that don't fall in line with their current biases. I suspect
that if you were on the board picking articles to be published, you would
immediately dismiss any article that challenged the global warming theory. In the
end the articles published are chosen through a political process. Not everything
can be published, so articles that don't agree with the biases of the people doing
the choosing are left out. This is a viscous circle, dissenters from the popular
liberal view are shut out, so the peer reviewed "evidence" piles up in favor of
the "commonly accepted view" and this is used as a reason for continuing to shut
out he articles that don't agree with the "commonly accepted view." In Galileo's
time the Catholic church controlled defined the "commonly accepted view", today it
is liberals and the liberal media. In neither case does this guarantee that the
"commonly accepted view" is correct.

Ed

 

Lloyd Parker wrote:

> Wrong. The last 120 years have shown warming, and the hottest years on
> record have all occurred in the last decade.

There are a lot of problems with this claim. By biggest concern is the source of
the data. A lot of the old data is being inferred from unreliable sources. The
newer data is better, but it is not always corrected for changes in the micro
environment around the reporting station.

Even if the measurements are correct, the current global average temperature is
not particularly high by historic standards. For instance, the current global
average temperature is lower than during the period around 1200 AD.

> Try reading peer-reviewed scientific journals then.

The problem I see with your constantly making this argument is that "peer reviewed
journals" select the articles they publish. If they don't agree with the author's
idea, they don't publish the article, and the author can't claim the article was
published in a peer reviewed journal. Since the people who control these journals
are usually part of the liberal establishment, they are not predisposed to
publishing articles that don't fall in line with their current biases. I suspect
that if you were on the board picking articles to be published, you would
immediately dismiss any article that challenged the global warming theory. In the
end the articles published are chosen through a political process. Not everything
can be published, so articles that don't agree with the biases of the people doing
the choosing are left out. This is a viscous circle, dissenters from the popular
liberal view are shut out, so the peer reviewed "evidence" piles up in favor of
the "commonly accepted view" and this is used as a reason for continuing to shut
out he articles that don't agree with the "commonly accepted view." In Galileo's
time the Catholic church controlled defined the "commonly accepted view", today it
is liberals and the liberal media. In neither case does this guarantee that the
"commonly accepted view" is correct.

Ed

 

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Brent P wrote:

> Why is it better to make a widget in china with no environmental
> controls for sale in the USA than say in georgia with environmental
> protections for sale in the USA?

It isn't, of course. Quite the opposite, in fact, as even the slowest
third-grader would readily be able to tell if asked. Kyoto won't reduce
global CO2 emissions any more than little Timmy hiding his brussels
sprouts under a mountain of mashed potatos makes the sprouts no longer
exist.

If absolute reductions in CO2 emissions are desireable, then reasonable
and proper standards must be applied to processes, not locations. Spacely
Sprockets' sprocket saponification process must emit no more than "n"
amount of CO2 per saponified sprocket, whether they're saponifying
sprockets in Shangai or Sarnia or St. Louis. And Ming Tsian Xiao's
thiotimolene resublimation process must emit no more than Amalgamated
Bizcorp Companyco's thiotimolene resublimation process, and both
companies' processes must be below "x" amount of CO2 per cubic metre of
resublimated thiotimolene if they are to be permitted to manufacture *or*
sell it in any country that is a party to the agreement.

This argument gets rejected by Kyoto proponents, however, on the grounds
that it would be unfair or impossible for "developing" countries to live
up to the same emission standards as developed countries. There are all
kinds of ways of dealing with this -- all it takes is a little creativity
and realism. (One particular form of realism that's badly needed is
independent verification of self-reporting of emissions by countries known
for lying their way out of pesky regulations. Witness UL's special
requirements for UL safety approval labels on products from China, enacted
because of pervasive counterfeiting...)

Suppose the rest of the world refuses to play along, saying "It's Kyoto as
written, no ifs ands or buts". Some might say that would tie the US' hands
and force the country to do nothing. Not so - it would serve nicely as a
defensible basis for Local Content laws of the type with which Australia
had excellent success starting in the 1960s. There would be differences,
of course; the primary goal of the Australian regulations was to protect
Australian industry, while the protection of American industry would be a
mere byproduct of regulations preventing sidestepping of US antipollution
laws in the production of goods for the US market. As under Kyoto,
consumers would very likely wind up paying more for their goods. But
with Local Content laws instead of Kyoto, they wouldn't be paying to
eliminate American jobs -- they'd be paying to create them.

Ironically, first-world environmentalists rail against what they see as a
tendency for Americans in particular to think the waste products of human
activity -- garbage, exhaust, industrial waste, sewage and so forth -- go
to a magical place called "away" when we're done with them, never to
bother anyone again. Of course this isn't so, but it is exactly the sort
of head-in-the-sand behaviour Kyoto seeks to codify. Cut down on CO2
emissions in Georgia, and we'll just pretend the reduction isn't reversed
by the resultant increase in Guangdong. That they claim this is the
enlightened position only redoubles their arrogance and lack of
perspective.

We may not like brussels sprouts, but if the rule is we have to eat 'em or
no dessert, then no fair running to China instead of eating 'em.

DS

 

On Mon, 10 Nov 2003, Brent P wrote:

> Why is it better to make a widget in china with no environmental
> controls for sale in the USA than say in georgia with environmental
> protections for sale in the USA?

It isn't, of course. Quite the opposite, in fact, as even the slowest
third-grader would readily be able to tell if asked. Kyoto won't reduce
global CO2 emissions any more than little Timmy hiding his brussels
sprouts under a mountain of mashed potatos makes the sprouts no longer
exist.

If absolute reductions in CO2 emissions are desireable, then reasonable
and proper standards must be applied to processes, not locations. Spacely
Sprockets' sprocket saponification process must emit no more than "n"
amount of CO2 per saponified sprocket, whether they're saponifying
sprockets in Shangai or Sarnia or St. Louis. And Ming Tsian Xiao's
thiotimolene resublimation process must emit no more than Amalgamated
Bizcorp Companyco's thiotimolene resublimation process, and both
companies' processes must be below "x" amount of CO2 per cubic metre of
resublimated thiotimolene if they are to be permitted to manufacture *or*
sell it in any country that is a party to the agreement.

This argument gets rejected by Kyoto proponents, however, on the grounds
that it would be unfair or impossible for "developing" countries to live
up to the same emission standards as developed countries. There are all
kinds of ways of dealing with this -- all it takes is a little creativity
and realism. (One particular form of realism that's badly needed is
independent verification of self-reporting of emissions by countries known
for lying their way out of pesky regulations. Witness UL's special
requirements for UL safety approval labels on products from China, enacted
because of pervasive counterfeiting...)

Suppose the rest of the world refuses to play along, saying "It's Kyoto as
written, no ifs ands or buts". Some might say that would tie the US' hands
and force the country to do nothing. Not so - it would serve nicely as a
defensible basis for Local Content laws of the type with which Australia
had excellent success starting in the 1960s. There would be differences,
of course; the primary goal of the Australian regulations was to protect
Australian industry, while the protection of American industry would be a
mere byproduct of regulations preventing sidestepping of US antipollution
laws in the production of goods for the US market. As under Kyoto,
consumers would very likely wind up paying more for their goods. But
with Local Content laws instead of Kyoto, they wouldn't be paying to
eliminate American jobs -- they'd be paying to create them.

Ironically, first-world environmentalists rail against what they see as a
tendency for Americans in particular to think the waste products of human
activity -- garbage, exhaust, industrial waste, sewage and so forth -- go
to a magical place called "away" when we're done with them, never to
bother anyone again. Of course this isn't so, but it is exactly the sort
of head-in-the-sand behaviour Kyoto seeks to codify. Cut down on CO2
emissions in Georgia, and we'll just pretend the reduction isn't reversed
by the resultant increase in Guangdong. That they claim this is the
enlightened position only redoubles their arrogance and lack of
perspective.

We may not like brussels sprouts, but if the rule is we have to eat 'em or
no dessert, then no fair running to China instead of eating 'em.

DS