from significant to uncertainties (warning clima report!)

[Gh0stFT]

from significant to uncertainties

teh clima is OK!  lol

[Seagoon]

Just wondering about the following...

Given that the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo Erruption spewed more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans have yet been able to produce and caused the most marked increase in the "ozone hole" in the arctic region to date; what exactly is the point of further crippling the economy of first world nations like the USA by signing onto protocols whose effects on the climate will be negligible (especially when compared to their effects on industry), which exempts major polluters such as China, and whose beneficial influence can be wiped out by single Volcanic erruption?

Is it to:

1) Give the 3rd world nations an even better chance to catch up to the industrialized nations?
2) Make us all feel better about ourselves because we are willing to sacrifice jobs and our standard of living in order to "save the planet"?
3) Accelerate our economic collapse and add to the pool of the unemployed so that we can finally add backwards nations like the USA to the worldwide socialist fraternity?
4) Show our committment to "Green" and "earth friendly" policies in the developed nations while simultaneously allowing African, Asian, and South American countries to systematically destroy their own sections of the "earth"?
5) All of the above?

Or is it really all to see if we can shrink the Ozone Hole a mm or two and convince us we really are in command of our own destiny?

- SEAGOON

[Gh0stFT]

Originally posted by Seagoon
4) Show our committment to "Green" and "earth friendly" policies in the developed nations while simultaneously allowing African, Asian, and South American countries to systematically destroy their own sections of the "earth"?

no way, dont let them destroy alone!
togheter we should continue with the destruction.

[Seagoon]

Originally posted by Gh0stFT
no way, dont let them destroy alone!
togheter we should continue with the destruction.

Ghost,

Here in the USA and in Western Europe we already have a host of Environmental laws and regulatory agencies designed to minimize the impact of industry on the environment. Admittedly, they don't wipe out all pollution (especially considering the majority of pollution in most major cities is created by you and me as we toodle around in our cars) but they do make the grievous kind of slash and burn pollution that occurs in the third world virtually impossible. All of these laws, while giving us a cleaner environment, dramatically increase the cost of production, to the point where it becomes impossible to produce say steel for the world market in competition with countries like Poland or South Korea.

Therefore we are faced with a very real choice, we can commit ourselves to responding to every scientific trend and discovery with a larger and larger body of local and international environmental legislation, and in so doing also commit ourselves to struggling to function in the global economy as  purely service, government, and high-end manufactured goods producers, or we can say "Sorry, at some point reducing Co2 has to take a back seat to jobs, the massive body of environmental laws we already have to follow is enough for the moment."

Personally, I understand and endorse the principle of good stewardship of the resources that God has given us. But the biblical worldview is that those resources were given to us to be used, not worshipped. Their only value is as they aid us to go about doing what we were commissioned to do, which includes "Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it; have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over every living thing that moves on the earth." so yes, I do put jobs and families significantly ahead of Snail Darters, I am commanded to do so. Of course I understand that this also entails a belief that our affairs are Providentially ordered and that redemptive history will reach its appointed conclusion, but we all ultimately act in accordance with what we believe, do we not?

- SEAGOON

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Seagoon
Just wondering about the following...

Given that the 1991 Mt. Pinatubo Erruption spewed more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans have yet been able to produce and caused the most marked increase in the "ozone hole" in the arctic region to date; what exactly is the point of further crippling the economy of first world nations like the USA by signing onto protocols whose effects on the climate will be negligible (especially when compared to their effects on industry), which exempts major polluters such as China, and whose beneficial influence can be wiped out by single Volcanic erruption?

The site you linked to didn't have any numbers for the amount of CO2 released.

"Carbon Dioxide

Yearly averages of global temperatures have steadily increased since the industrial revolution, mid-1700's to mid-1800's in England, addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere from industrial processes and the internal combustion engine. Carbon dioxide is abundant in volcanic gases, but not enough to significantly contribute to the greenhouse effect. Volcanoes contribute about 110 million tons of carbon dioxide per year while man's activities contribute about 10 billion tons per year."

http://volcanology.geol.ucsb.edu/gas.htm

[Holden McGroin]

A few quotes from The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 2001 report.  The IPCC is a panel set up by the World Meteorological Organization and the United Nations Environment Program, and is apparently not affiliated with or controlled by the Bush administration or the Republican Party.

Even though the report is circa 2001, the edits mentioned in the news article are 2002 and 2003, so these documents are relatively contemporary to each other.  

Further work is required to improve the ability to detect, attribute, and understand climate change, to reduce uncertainties, and to project future climate changes. In particular, there is a need for additional systematic observations, modelling and process studies. A serious concern is the decline of observational networks. Further work is needed in eight broad areas:

The challenges to understanding the Earth system, including the human component, are daunting, but these challenges simply must be met.

These excerpts seem hauntingly similar to the edits of the White House staffer.