Bush and Europe: moving apart?

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Wed Jun 05, 2002 6:22 pm

When I read back in this thread, I'm amazed people believe they have such a good grasp of the issue of global warming, when at the same time it's so obvious that the very same people don't follow the research in the area.

I don't wish to single out Quark, the above comment is directed to many posts in this thread, but since this was very obvious, I wish to comment - if you wish links to scientific reports, I can post many, including the ones from the committee of American scientists the Bush administration put together because they didn't like the international committee.

Originally posted by Quark
As it stands, temperature increases/decreases have been well aligned with the sun's activity.

You are obviously not very updated with the global warming and climate research, Quark. No models for "natural causes" like sun activity, volcanoes etc fit the climatic data we have for the last decade. Instead, various models that take greenhouse gases and sulphate aerosols, are consistent with data.

Don't you read the scientific reports?

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Wed Jun 05, 2002 6:39 pm

Of course, models from 15 or so years ago proved that industry was the only cause for temperature rises.

I am sorry if I'm off, but I get 90% of my information 2nd hand.

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Wed Jun 05, 2002 7:27 pm

Originally posted by fable

The protocol itself seems to have taken on the shadow of a much greater issue. I suspect it has become the flash point representing a group of international treaties and agreements which the Bush administration has withdrawn from during its short tenure in office.

As usual, I have to agree.

C Elegans · Post by **C Elegans** » Thu Jun 06, 2002 3:06 am

Originally posted by Quark
Of course, models from 15 or so years ago proved that industry was the only cause for temperature rises.

I am sorry if I'm off, but I get 90% of my information 2nd hand.

No, those 15 year old models are outdated, both measurements and simulation models have improved greatly since. Besides, a model can never prove anything, it can just offer more or less likely explanations of phenomenon. It is however highly unlikely that the global warming is not influenced by human activities, according to the new models, and the reports from the last 2-3 years. In the scientific press, there are new reports almost every week in both American and European journals. Then you have the reports by Bush's own scientific committee, that came to the same conclusion as the international report by 2500 scientists.

Whatever one might think of the Kyoto protocol, it's content and the politics around it, global warming as an effect of human intervention, is a separate issue regardless of the Kyoto protocol. There is a lot of highly selected and biased information around regarding global warming, that's why I ask people who don't believe global warming is connected to human activities, to read scientific reports rather than information provided by organisations who have already taken stance pro and against.

Here is a post with some American links, you'll find them in a post by me somewhere in the middle of page 1. And hereis to IPCC, the international panel. And this is and a nice and easy to read FAQ by the American organisation Union of concerned scientists.

Lazarus · Post by **Lazarus** » Thu Jun 06, 2002 6:45 am

Wow. This global warming debate pops up in the strangest places!

@fable: considering that I have seen you repeatedly jump on Eminem for making even the most slightly off-topic comments, I assume you will be in shortly to remind the people in this thread that this is a discussion of Bush vis-a-vis the Europeans, and that debating the merits of the global warming debate may best be done elsewhere - ?

Ode to a Grasshopper · Thu Jun 06, 2002 6:51 am

The topic of global warming is related to the Kyoto protocol, which is in turn related to the topic at hand. Discussion of it is not really off-topic, as it relates to the discussion at hand.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:04 am

Global warming seems at the moment very appropriate to the subject, @Lazarus. Bush's EPA just acknowledged in a report that human activities are mostly responsible for recent trends in global warming. Whereupon Bush, who always claimed he lacked any scientific evidence from "credible sources" to support such a contention, withheld his backing of the report--despite this EPA being run by his handpicked people. This wil certainly fuel (no pun intended) overseas cynicism, rightly or wrongly, that Bush and his administration iun the country in the name of the fossil fuel industry.

CM · Post by CM » Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:15 am

Sadly this is just one of the many things the US has pulled out of. The world has made it a habit of putting off whatever the US doesn't agree with. ICC (which was held up for nearly 3 years because the US did not agree) Kyoto (which again was held up for 2 years) and a number of more interntaional treaties. However the present situation is better. If the US is not involved leave them out. I am happy that the ICC got the 60 votes it needed, plus that countries are thinking of moving forward with the Kyoto protocol.

I myself am very ignorant on global issues, but heck i know that pollution (which is it carbon mon or di-oxide) is eating up the ozone layer.

Also that the rays of the sun usually hit the earth (as in our land) and bounce back up leaving the earth. However due to the heavy concentration of population, most of the heat and light from the sun does not dissipate. Instead it bounces around between the upper atmosphere and the land masses, increasing the temperature.

Come on some one tell me the last time they heard of a 30 degree plus summer in Switzerland? It happened for a week last year across the county. If that is not aside affect of global warming what is?

Brink · Post by **Brink** » Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:20 am

Originally posted by CM
I myself am very ignorant on global issues, but heck i know that pollution (which is it carbon mon or di-oxide) is eating up the ozone layer.

Neither, it's the CFC's that are the ones responsible for the depletion of the ozone layer(although carbon dioxides are responsible for the greenhouse effect and carbon monoxides are bad for everyone's health)

Speaking of which, you are right that that is one hell of a hot summer(that's almost matching the temperatures we get over here, and we're smack in the middle of the Equatorial line

)

CM · Post by CM » Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:34 am

I new it was some chemical!

Thanks brink, yeah it has been a hot summer. Heck in Pakistan and India it has gone up to 45 plus for the summers now. I remember back in 1997 when i was last there for summer, it was between 35 and 40 degrees. Now my cousins say that it never goes below 40 in June and July in all the major cities. Atleast the monsoon rains haven't stopped in August and September.

Brink · Post by **Brink** » Thu Jun 06, 2002 7:39 am

@Fas-35-40 degrees?Man, I feel your discomfort

Quark · Post by **Quark** » Thu Jun 06, 2002 9:23 am

Ahh, I see one link has something I'm much more worried about ... Biodiversity.

Frankly, I think this is much more troublesome simply because humans totally ignore it. Humans seem to think they can choose for themselves the 'strongest' and kill the rest. Deer populations in my state show otherwise ...

This also ties in with the forest fire issue "It's good; no, it's bad!" because the fires allow for a more diverse ecosystem.

I could go on for hours about biodiversity (hey, my Environmental History class spent about 10 times the effort on that compared to Global Warming, which we only nicked).

Nightmare · Post by **Nightmare** » Thu Jun 06, 2002 3:37 pm

Well, I'll probably be blasted for this, but what the heck...

I personally think its a little arrogent to believe that we (as humans) can really influence something as big and old as the planet. Sure, we could go somethings that would really affect the planet (like nuclear holocost), but... I just don't think we are doing much with pollution. As I said before, it would be great to reduce pollution, cause smog is pretty disgusting to look at, but not really to "save the planet".

Question: Why is global warming such a big issue? Who cares?

(Note: this isn't ment as an insult towards C E, or any other member.)

Weasel · Post by **Weasel** » Thu Jun 06, 2002 3:52 pm

Originally posted by Gaxx_Firkraag

Question: Why is global warming such a big issue? Who cares?

(Note: this isn't ment as an insult towards C E, or any other member.)

I believe this is a good question.

Now I can only state why I believe it is/should be a big issue.

1. Higher tempertures mean..higher cost to keep cool. (easy one there)
2.Rising water means...less land. (this could be good or bad...depending on where your land is)
3.Ozone layer means...skin cancer. (Something no one should ever have to get)

Robnark · Post by **Robnark** » Thu Jun 06, 2002 3:58 pm

Why is global warming such a big issue? Who cares?

For a start, warmer temperatures mean earlier development of insect larvae, meaning pests that eat crops come into being at the tie when the crops are just germinating. to combat this, a greater amount of pesticides will have to be used earlier in the year to keep the yields the same (never mind the possibility of drought). in the third world, that course of action is not viable, especially when it comes to subsistance farmers who don't have a large crop surplus to sell on. result: greater food shortages. that's just one scenario that global warming could bring about, however, this isn't a global warming debate thread. suffice to say it is not a good thing

Obsidian · Post by **Obsidian** » Thu Jun 06, 2002 9:33 pm

Not to mention the complete destruction of hundreds if not thousands of species and eco regions. The impact of which we have absolutely no idea.
Thats the scary thing. We can predict some results, but we really don't have a clue as to what will happen. It just won't be good.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Jun 06, 2002 9:36 pm

Now we *are* drifting afield from the subject, which isn't global warming, but Bush and Europe. Yes, global warming is a part of this discussion, but not a definition of global warming.

Unless, of course, someone cares to explain what the Bush administration believes global warming is due to, and why?

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Jun 07, 2002 6:02 am

Dubya doesn't believe in global warming. Despite all of the evidence presented by the worldwide scientific community and his own scientific team commissioned specifically to look at that issue. I don't know whether or not he actually believes in global warming, but he says it's not real. Personally, I think he's repeating the official Republican Party line that is dictated by their big business supporters who don't want to make any changes in thier environmental policies for fear (actual or imagined) of losing money.

Whether or not global warming is a real issue should probably be address on another thread (I think it has), but suffice it to say that the global scientific community believes global warming to be a real and they believe it to be related to human causes. However, real or perceived, global warming and the Kyoto Accords are a bone of contention between the US and Europe. Kyoto has become emblamatic of Dubya's unilateral policy-making process and his disregard for the opinions of the US's allies.

Mr Sleep · Post by **Mr Sleep** » Fri Jun 07, 2002 6:21 am

Originally posted by HighLordDave
Kyoto has become emblamatic of Dubya's unilateral policy-making process and his disregard for the opinions of the US's allies.

It is quite impressive to have a leader who is willing to stand by his comments and convictions (perhaps motivated by internal party polotics as well). In many other countries the leaders are pushed around by Germany or whoever has the seat of financial power. The UK is slowly being moved over to the Euro, purely because Europe has told them to, i don't think it is Britain making a concious decision as a whole, i think Labour are being bullied into it. This is just my opinion but i don't think Bush would be coerced by another country to alter his entire infrastructure. It is a certain arrogance but he seems to think of America first and everything else second, i have no problem with this, that is his job after all, i do however question how far that is taken.

On the subject of projections and models by scientists, i recall that in old 1970/80's chemistry text books they said that crude oil was going to run out in 1988-95....not exactly accurate

I am sure things have changed, i just find this quite amusing

HighLordDave · Post by **HighLordDave** » Fri Jun 07, 2002 6:43 am

It's not Dubya sticking to his convictions that I have a problem with, but that I believe his convictions in this case are being dictated by business interests, not scientists. Dubya is also an a different position than Blair vis-a-vis the EU because the US has the economic and political means to do the bullying and not be bullied.