Pledging to “move toward a low-carbon society,” leaders of the world’s richest nations on Tuesday endorsed the idea of cutting greenhouse gas emissions in half by 2050, but failed to set a short-term goal for reducing the toxic heat-trapping gases that scientists say are warming the planet.
The declaration of the so-called Group of Eight ”” the United States, Japan, Britain, France, Italy, Canada and Russia ”” called on developing nations like China and India to follow suit.
It drew immediate criticism from environmentalists, who said it did not go far enough.
But the leaders themselves cast the announcement as an important step forward in setting the groundwork for a binding international treaty on climate change, which is being negotiated under the auspices of the United Nations with the goal of an agreement by 2009.
“The G-8 nations came to a mutual recognition that this target ”” cutting global emissions by at least 50 percent by 2050 ”” should be a global target,” Prime Minister Yasuo Fukuda of Japan said in announcing the agreement.
toxic heat-trapping gases that scientists say are warming the planet.
What gases are these? CO2? CO2 is toxic? Someone please tell the trees that.
Stupid idiots.
Great. Let’s ban the production of water. Stop the desalinization plants and the digging of wells! There’s too much water on the planet! Don’t you people know that water vapor is the single largest greenhouse gas? Oh! I can feel it getting hotter already!
On with the fools parade!!
Matt,
Welcome back.
You should be aware by now of the multitude of scientists in all fields who are coming out STRONGLY contesting the so-called consensus of Anthropogenic Gorbal Warming. Until there is vigorous debate on the topic allowed, there can be no true consensus or even anything close to an answer.
Up until now debate has been stifled:
*Al Gore refuses to meet or debate with those with alternate views (and in fact tells them they need to ‘shut up — There is no debate, the debate is OVER’ on CNN);
*Meterologists have been threatened with loss of AMA credentials if they don’t ‘toe the party line’ on AGW;
*Professors of Environmental Science are threatened with loss of funding and tenure for speaking out against AGW;
*Confrences refuse to allow those with alternate views from addressing those confrences;
*State Climatologists have lost their position for stating they disagree with AGW;
and the list goes on.
So, until there is firm footing, and the theory is allowed public hearing and refutation from other scientists and climatologists, any legislative action based on AGW should be opposed. Especially the ‘smoke in the wind’ of ‘carbon credits’ (modern indulgences) which only make others richer at the expense of the poor.
I know you think (from past posts) that all who disagree are in the pay of ‘Big Oil’, but with the sheer numbers of opposing voices from the Scientific Community, that argument is now put to rest, thankfully!
Peace to you!
Jim Elliott <>< (PS, as you also know from my past posts, I am NOT against conservation measures and reducing pollution. Just against basing it on a highly contested, unproven THEORY. Let's base it on Christian Stewardship and Love of Neighbor instead).
Climate change is a natural occurrance. It has taken place throughout the history of the planet and it will continue to take place no matter what we puny humans do to try to alter that fact.
I’m not losing any sleep over it.
Neither am I! Climate change is a natural process, and it happens every 10 to 12 thousand years or so. The earth has been through this cycle for millions of years, and it’s going to continue. Nothing science can do will stop it.
Matt, AGW is nothing more than rhetorical sophistry. “We’re destroying the planet!”. Blah, blah, blah
When “journalists” use the term “toxic” do you really think they are not trying to build up the idea of CO2 as a pollutant? Oxygen is toxic by your definition. Is there too much of it in the atmosphere? There’s a lot more O2 than CO2? This so-called debate presumes a God-like level of understanding of the earth to know how much of a natural and NECESSARY compound is too much.
Don’t you guys ever learn the hazzard of playing God?
[i]Thus, I look forward to the day when even YOU have to give in on AGW. And I mean that!
[/i]
And I look forward to the day when pro AGW’ers give in and allow a critical examination and debate of the theory. That’s the only way the science surrounding both sides of the debate (and there is a debate, regardless of what AlGore says) will get a fair hearing and a genuine conclusion reached.
Right now, the evidence is on the natural cause side, the “underdog” in this controversy.
JE
(And “ditto” what evan, Chris, and Cennydd said in their posts.)
Actually Matt, I can multitask, for a bear of very little brain as I am. And I do blaim journalists for following the lead of the governmnet. Shouldn’t they be thinking for themselves? What a concept.
As for our “knowledge” of the climate: let’s test that knowledge by actually predicting things and see if they happen. A science that only predicts and refuses to wait for confirmation is not much of a science. But it makes a great religion. Well, not great so much as awful and stupid. Your AGW is about as sophisticated as the joke of a man waving his arms “to keep the elephants away”. When he is told that there are no elephants around he replies, “It’s working”.
[i]AGW is about as sophisticated as the joke of a man waving his arms “to keep the elephants awayâ€. When he is told that there are no elephants around he replies, “It’s workingâ€. [/i]
🙂 I love it!
+KJS thinks she knows where the emissions are coming from. 😉
Here’s a good one from [url=http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/mg19926634.800-cleaner-skies-explain-surprise-rate-of-warming.html?feedId=online-news_rss20]New Scientist[/url] magazine:
[blockquote]GOODBYE air pollution and smoky chimneys, hello brighter days. That’s been the trend in Europe for the past three decades – but unfortunately cleaning up the skies has allowed more of the sun’s rays to pierce the atmosphere, contributing to at least half the warming that has occurred.
Since 1980, average air temperatures in Europe have risen 1 °C: much more than expected from greenhouse-gas warming alone. Christian Ruckstuhl of the Institute for Atmospheric and Climate Science in Switzerland and colleagues took aerosol concentrations from six locations in northern Europe, measured between 1986 and 2005, and compared them with solar-radiation measurements over the same period. Aerosol concentrations dropped by up to 60 per cent over the 29-year period, while solar radiation rose by around 1 watt per square metre ([i]Geophysical Research Letters[/i]).
“The decrease in aerosols probably accounts for at least half of the warming over Europe in the last 30 years,” says Rolf Philipona, a co-author of the study at MeteoSwiss, Switzerland’s national weather service.
The latest climate models are built on the assumption that aerosols have their biggest influence by seeding natural clouds, which reflect sunlight. However, the team found that radiation dropped only slightly on cloudy days, suggesting that the main impact of aerosols is to block sunlight directly.[/blockquote]
So it’s not emissions that are causing Global Warming, but LACK of emissions. The beat goes on!
Oh, bother, forgot to give the citation, even though the link is there:
New Scientist Magazine, [i]Cleaner skies explain surprise rate of warming[/i], issue 2663, 09 July 2008, page 16, accessed online.
Matt,
i didn’t expect [i]YOU[/i] to agree. After all it’s only ONE ARTICLE AMONG MANY others that question the theory you hold, and that in and of itself makes it suspect. I posted it because I thought it an interesting article, and because since it is ONE ARTICLE AMONG MANY OTHERS, these all add up to — there is NO consensus.
😉
Jim
yeah, right, ok.
Can’t argue with that. Uh-huh.
You haven’t changed a bit. Still unwilling to look at any alternatives. They exist, Matt, and given a fair hearing they will drive the nail into the coffin of AGW. Which is why the pro-AGW side refuses to give that fair hearing.
The reality:
Climate change is a natural phenom. repeated many times over the eons, sometimes at a faster rate than we are experiencing now. That’s what the studies show conclusively.
Have a great weekend.
🙂
I’m not going to be checking back on this thread.