Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
BY 2004 AUTUMN WORLD BANK TO CALCULATE POSSIBLE EFFECTS OF RUSSIA'S JOINING KYOTO PROTOCOL
MOSCOW, JULY 23 (RIA Novosti) - By autumn 2004 the World Bank will supply its assessment of the effects of Russia's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol, World Bank director and permanent representative in the Russian Federation Kristalina Georgieva has said on Friday.
"We have a special study group for Russia. The assessment of effects of ratification of the Kyoto Protocol for Russia will be made somewhere in September", Georgieva said.
She specified that the World Bank is not studying the matter to give Russia recommendations to join the protocol.
"Of course, Russia is entitled to decide", she said.
In her opinion, its decision will depend on the calculation of boons and ill effects from joining.
As regards the World Bank's position on the protocol, Georgieva noted that the bank is sure that ozone-destroying emissions do tell on the climate. On the other hand, the World Bank believes that "the Kyoto Protocol is imperfect, though a step in the right direction".
The problem, in her view, is that that countries have failed to agree on an integrated method for assessing the pros and cons of the Kyoto Protocol.
KYOTO PROTOCOL: IN SEARCH OF MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING
July 21, 2004
MOSCOW (Sergei Vasilyev, board chairman of the National Carbon Union, for RIA Novosti)
The National Carbon Union (NCU) partnership was set up a year ago and has more than a dozen collective members. Our initial task was to inform Russian companies responsible for the emission of greenhouse gases about the essence of the Kyoto protocol, the principles of its operation and the ways it can be used to attract investment to the national industries.
The list of our members includes RAO UES, Russian Aluminium, AFK System, and several other companies. The aggregate volume of emissions by our members is about 650 mln tonnes of CO² a year (more than a third of the national total). Vneshtorgbank is co-operating with us as an observer (as the bank does not emit greenhouse gases). By persistently popularising the Kyoto protocol, the NCU has changed the stand of the influential Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs, which unites nearly all major producers (about 30,000), and its leadership now tends to support rather than reject the protocol.
Many economists think that to double GDP by the deadline set by the president (within a decade), Russian companies should improve their energy efficiency by approximately 2.5% a year. They are proceeding somewhat slower now and I am sure that the Kyoto protocol could serve as a good incentive.
Regrettably, this vital international document has a framework structure and hence is too vague. All actions proceeding from its contents narrow rather than expand the possibilities of investment in Russia. If the point at issue is to ratify the protocol and assume certain commitments without getting anything in return, this would be a strange - silly, in the eyes of the business community - act.
We have spent a great deal of time trying to explain our stand to the EU. Russian business wants to know where, how and on what conditions it can receive investment. I would say that this is a reasonable stand devoid of any political considerations. If the Kyoto protocol is a humanitarian programme that will not address the issue of modernisation of individual economies but is designed to encourage each and all to reduce man's effect on climate in the interests of the planet, then it would be reasonable to invest in the projects that promise maximum feedback.
If it costs more than €100 per tonne to reduce emissions in Europe and there are many projects in Russia where the cost is €5 per tonne, then you see where the money should go - and it does not matter who provides it, as it is the future of the whole planet that is at stake.
However, we have not been able to encourage the EU to accept this view, though we have promoted it more than once (the latest time in late May). Take the directive on the sale of greenhouse gases emission quotas, which will create a market government by strict directives instead of a free one. The EU regulates its quota buyers and purchases per territory, suggesting that some should be done in Europe, others in emerging countries, and still others in Ukraine and Russia. But this is not a market; it is a bureaucratic game and a policy of double standards. Naturally, this is a cause for concern.
ACADEMICIAN IZRAEL: KYOTO PROTOCOL ECONOMICALLY HAZARDOUS TO RUSSIA
MOSCOW, July 17 (RIA Novosti) - The Kyoto Protocol is scientifically ungrounded and economically hazardous to Russia, well-known Russian scholar Academician Yuri Izrael opines in the Nezavisimaya Gazeta. He heads the Global Climate and Ecology Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences and conducts the academic seminar Ways to Prevent Climatic Changes and Possible Negative Effects; Problems of the Kyoto Protocol.
Many take the Kyoto Protocol for granted, he writes. However, many climatologists and economists doubt its scientific reasons. After the international climatic conference, which was held on President Vladimir Putin's initiative in Moscow last autumn and gathered over 2,000 specialists, this issue has assumed a greater edge, the Russian academician notes.
Taking the floor, Russian President Vladimir Putin said we would tackle the problem of possible joining the Kyoto Protocol and its ratification but only with reliance on Russia's national interest. The president has instructed a number of ministries and the national Academy of Sciences to inquire into the matter. Since last January, a special council has been at work - the Academy's seminar made up of 26 prominent scientists and specialists from the Academy. Over six months, the council held 12 sessions and heard over 20 scientific reports. On May 14, the seminar drew the following conclusion:
First, the Kyoto Protocol is scientifically ungrounded and does not indicate the road towards the end set. The economically inefficient protocol leads to only an insignificant cutting of the hothouse emissions. Currently, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air is 370 millionths. In the next ten years, it will increase by 20 millionths. Observance of the Kyoto Protocol will contain the increase by only one or two millionth in ten years. Swedish Professor, Chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Bert Bolin has already expressed similar opinion in Kyoto. Therefore, it is our opinion that the Kyoto Protocol is inefficient.
Second, the economic aspect of the Kyoto Protocol holds no water. We are told: the 1990s economic decline forced Russia to axe hothouse emissions and now it has a reserve. Sell it, earn money until you reach the 1990 level. They promise us to gain $30-40 billion. But, this "reserve" is rapidly dwindling because the Russian industrial growth is underway. Certain calculations show that the 1990 level will be reached in five to six years. Even if Russia sells quotas, it can earn from them about 200 million euros, as estimated by specialists from the European Institute at the Russian Academy of Sciences. Reaching the 1990 level, Russia will have to pay from $160-600 for preventing the emission of one metric ton of carbon dioxide. Today Russia will sell the quotas on carbon dioxide for only $4-5.
The recent seminar, held by the Russian Academy of Sciences with the involvement of foreign specialists, was very useful. It's worth noting that foreign scientists share Russia's doubts, concerning the efficiency of the Kyoto Protocol.
Its realisation contains another vague element. If a country of the European Union produces several extra metric tons of carbon dioxide exceeding the 1990 level, it is to downsize it either by a new technology or buying a quota from somebody. Quotas can be bought from countries, which do not produce the quantity fixed by the protocol. It is nonsense from the point of view of the idea of the protocol: emissions are not cut and, hence, there is no climatic gain.
Incidentally, two crucial questions remain unsolved. Firstly, how grave the harm would be from possible climatic changes. Very much depends on it for taking collective steps. Prevention of climatic changes can be too costly - trillions, dozens of trillions of dollars. Still, it has not yet been determined what harm we expect. It may be less what the Kyoto Protocol intends. Secondly, a limit for global warming which would not affect the climatic system has not yet been set. Without answering these two questions it is hard to talk of the value of the Kyoto Protocol for mankind.
Finally, in his recent article (Nezavisimaya Gazeta of July 8, 2004) David King, chief scientific counsellor for the British government, wrote that Academician Yuri Izrael notes the negative role for the Kyoto Protocol ratification of the G-7 plus China group of countries. "I have not said that," Academician Izrael stresses, "but believe that it would be easier to combat the negative effects of climatic modification by all the possible efforts of various countries."
Biggest-ever smog study involves 500 scientists, 11 aircraft
http://www.canada.com/health/story.html?id=6F65888B-AAEA-4D5D-89CB-D37CB3422A6A
Illarionov Attacks Britain, Vows to Bury Kyoto
http://www.themoscowtimes.com/stories/2004/07/12/041.html
Air pollution kills 1,700 a year in Toronto: Study
http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&call_pageid...
KYOTO PROTOCOL. RUSSIA TO ADVANCE PROVISOS, DEMANDS EXPERT
MOSCOW, July 9 (RIA Novosti) - Russia is not to join the Kyoto protocol unless it makes additional provisos. Anna Kashirina, who leads the Russia & Kyoto Protocol thinktank, is firm on that point.
"We cannot join in on present-day terms-the protocol has a more pronounced economic and political content than environmental," she said to Novosti.
As she sees it, Russia should be entitled to specified hothouse gas exhaust quotas to sell them at an annual 100 to 130 million tonnes for a threshold 40 US dollars a tonne, which promises an approximate forty billion revenue within ten years. If market prices get going in that field, Russia will not gain anything with eight dollars a tonne, at the highest, warns the expert.
Yuri Israel, Full Member of the Russian Academy of Sciences, staff researcher of the Moscow-based Institute of Global Climate and Ecology, earlier came up with calculations. He does not think Russia will make more than a lump $200 million on the Kyoto protocol. It will pay $150 to an exorbitant 600 a tonne as soon as it sells off all stocked-up quotas-as against present-day token four to five dollars a tonne.
Russia has every right to receive forest maintenance compensations, what with its vast woodlands. Money compensations would be preferable to extra quotas, says Miss Kashirina. Meanwhile, the ideas of her research team have not found reflection in the protocol, she sighs.
Illarionov calls Kyoto Protocol undeclared war on Russia
Interfax. Thursday, Jul. 8, 2004, 8:32 PM Moscow Time
MOSCOW. July 8 (Interfax) - Russian presidential economic advisor Andrei Illarionov called the Kyoto Protocol an "undeclared war against Russia" at a Moscow press conference.
"The Kyoto Protocol is an undeclared war against Russia from all sides - the left, the right, from liberals, conservatives and businesses. It uses absolutely all means and its main prize is the ratification by Russian authorities of the Kyoto Protocol, which would mean a complete capitulation to a dangerous ideology imposed via international diplomacy," Illarionov said.
"The nature and content of the Kyoto Protocol is one of the largest, if not the largest, escapade of all times and nations," Illarionov said.
"Not one of the claims contained in the Kyoto Protocol and the "scientific" theory on which they are based have been confirmed by real facts," Illarionov said.
"Extreme natural occurrences are not becoming more frequent, and there has been no increase in infectious diseases either," he said.
Supporters of Russia's ratification of the Kyoto Protocol demonstrate an "approach to Russia similar to that of a 'banana republic,' a country, which, if it hasn't already become a colony, will soon do so, if the document is ratified," Illarionov said.
"If this decision is approved, it won't be on the basis of a substantial analysis, and not for substantial reasons, but for other reasons. We can't completely rule this out," Illarionov said on the possibility of Russia approving this decision
KYOTO PROTOCOL RATIFICATION TO POSITIVELY TELL ON RUSSIA'S GDP GROWTH
MOSCOW, July 7 (RIA Novosti) - The ratification of the Kyoto Protocol will, in a short term, have a negative effect on Russia's economic growth but, later on, will positive tell on the growth rate of its gross domestic product.
Anna Kashirova, in charge of the research group Russia and the Kyoto Protocol, said this to RIA Novosti. She is a participant in the conference Integration of Russian Business in the Global Economy: an Outlook for the Main Participants.
"I wouldn't directly link the dynamics of industrial growth to the fulfillment of requirements in the Kyoto Protocol," Kashirova said.
"Of course, at the first stage (after the ratification) the rate of growth will stand still, or even go down," she believes. "But we believe that, if some of the Russian terms are observed, the document can be ratified," Kashirova said.
In her opinion, Russia could have advanced this condition to participants in the protocol: they annually and securely buy out quotas for 100 to 130 million tons of carbon dioxide emission at a fixed rate of $40 per ton.
Presently, the quota tariff does not exceed $8 per ton, she said.
The additional agreement should take into consideration that Russia is a major oxygen donor for our planet, the expert noted.
"The sum received should be managed by the government and channeled into environmental protection, as well as the development and introduction of environmentally-safe industrial technologies," Anna Kashirova said.
"Then, in a long term, Russia may with confidence hope for a high rate of economic growth because new technologies will make it more competitive," Kashirova believes.
She hopes this will prompt Russia's integration in the world economy.
KYOTO PROTOCOL WON'T WORK IF RUSSIA DOESN'T JOIN IN, WARNS EUROPEAN COMMISSION
MADRID, July 5 (RIA Novosti) - Will Russia ratify the Kyoto protocol? The European Commission is apprehensive on the point.
The protocol, which limits air pollution with carbon dioxide, will not enter into force unless Russia ratifies it, warned Loyola de Palacio, European Commission Vice-President and Commissioner for Transport and Energy. She was addressing a Madrid conference on, "The 21st Century: New Technological Opportunities for Air Transport and Its Users".
If Russia fails to ratify the protocol, "the European Union will face a bad problem-it will have to urgently work out other arrangements to limit air pollution by the many countries. Otherwise, we shall have to recur to fining and transfer production to countries which least pollute the air."
Summary pollution by signatory countries is to make 55 per cent of the global total-or the Kyoto protocol will not be confirmed. Meanwhile, such summary pollution makes a mere 44 per cent.
The USA, which accounts for 36 per cent of the global total pollution, flatly refused to ratify the Kyoto protocol. Russia's exhaust made 17 per cent of global in 1990, so its ratification may get the protocol going.
The European Commission Vice-President called all countries to step up R&D for pioneer clean and renewable energy sources.
Cigarettes are good for good for you, trees cause acid rain
and lets resume atmospheric nuclear testing ! A Hummer in every American driveway !
Let the Russians and OPEC states invest in energy efficiency and alternate energy. The American motorist can foot the bill at the pump.
I think I will invest in energy efficient light bulb plants in places like Poland but don't worry .. I have Canadian oil and gas income trusts.
Former Greenpeace Academic Slams Radical Greens
by James M. Taylor
It is not unusual for scientists and public-policy experts to present evidence contesting the doom-and-gloom proclamations of environmental activists.
What is unusual, and highly damaging, is for a prominent environmental activist to turn the tables on the Greens themselves.
Danish professor and prominent former Greenpeace member Bjorn Lomborg has done such damage to the radical environmentalist movement with the publication of his scathing book, The Skeptical Environmentalist.
Lomborg, a political scientist, professor of statistics at the University of Aarhus in Denmark, and prominent former Greenpeace member, began his journey from environmental activist to green-scare skeptic after reading an interview of preeminent free-market scholar Julian Simon in "Wired" magazine.
Convinced Simon was dead wrong on a number of environment issues, Lomborg and some of his colleagues set out to expose the "errors" in Simon's analyses.
A funny thing happened as the environmentalists sought to prove Simon and the skeptics wrong. States Lomborg, "Three months into the project, we were convinced that we were being debunked instead. Not everything he said is right. He has a definite right-wing slant. But most of the important things were actually correct."
"A Litany" of political ideas
From those beginnings, Lomborg eventually compiled his similar findings in The "Skeptical Environmentalist."
The book itself, while quite comprehensive and well documented (it includes almost 3,000 supporting footnotes), is not the first of its kind to use objective scientific analysis to debunk environmentalist myths. Indeed, the substance of Lomborg's arguments and even the structure of the book itself closely tracks "Eco-Sanity: A Common-Sense Guide to Environmentalism," authored by Joseph L. Bast, Peter J. Hill, and Richard C. Rue, published by Madison Books and The Heartland Institute.
What makes "The Skeptical Environmentalist" so noteworthy – and especially to the mainstream media – is that the book is authored by one of the Green movement's most prominent members.
With a unique insight into the behind-the-scenes workings of environmental activism, Lomborg takes special aim at public statements made by such activist groups as the Worldwatch Institute, World Wildlife Fund, and Greenpeace itself.
Lomborg identifies "A Litany" of political ideas frequently espoused by the groups that have no basis in scientific fact but have nevertheless been swallowed hook, line, and sinker by the mainstream media. "The Litany has pervaded the debate so deeply and so long," writes Lomborg, "that blatantly false claims can be made again and again, without any references, and yet still be believed." By contrast, one thing Lomborg certainly does provide in his book is scientific references.
Receiving substantial attention in "The Skeptical Environmentalist" is global-warming theory. Lomborg observes there are several "wild cards" that come into play when assessing the effects of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases on the Earth's atmosphere. Those wild cards include the effects of clouds, aerosols, and the sunspot cycle, as well as the multiplier effect of carbon dioxide. Lomborg notes the warming effects of greenhouse gases are mitigated by a corresponding increase in solar-reflecting clouds. As the air begins to warm, it can hold more water, resulting in an increase in cloud cover. Those clouds then reflect more sunlight back into space, resulting in a balance – restoring cooling. Satellite readings confirm that global temperatures have not risen in recent decades, while the Earth has seen a slight increase in cloud cover.
Lomborg presents similar scientific evidence regarding aerosols, the sunspot cycle, and the multiplier effect of carbon dioxide. He observes that greenhouse computer programmers fail to properly account for these factors in their climate models. By failing to account for these wild cards, Lomberg points out, the models conclude we should already be toasting under a greatly enhanced greenhouse effect. And yet satellite temperature measurements show no such warming has occurred.
Debunking deforestation
Lomborg also takes environmental activists to task for spreading false propaganda about global deforestation.
In its 1998 "State of the World" report, for example, the Worldwatch Institute claims "The world's forest estate has declined significantly in both area and quality in recent decades." Lomborg documents, however, that U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization figures show global forest cover has actually increased from 30.04 percent in 1950 to 30.89 percent in 1994.
Lomborg further notes Worldwatch claimed "Canada is losing some 200,000 hectares of forest a year" due to soaring demand for paper. In fact, Lomborg shows, "Canada grew 174,600 more hectares of forest each year."
The Worldwatch Institute's inaccurate claims do not end with deforestation, notes Lomborg. In its 2000 report, Worldwatch warned of "record rates of population growth, soaring oil prices, debilitating levels of international debt and extensive damage to forests from … acid rain."
Lomborg cites figures from the Census Bureau, International Monetary Fund, World Bank, and European Environment Agency to show that world population growth has sharply slowed since 1964; international debt has declined since 1984; the inflation-adjusted price of oil is half what it was 20 years ago; and sulfur emissions and resulting acid rain are down substantially since 1984.
In short, "The Skeptical Environmentalist" affirms and adds weight to the scientific refutation of contemporary environmental activist claims. In the past, such activists could at least plausibly refute the evidence by attacking the messengers as having a right-wing axe to grind. Such cannot be said about "The Skeptical Environmentalist."
"I'm a left-wing guy," says Lomborg, "and a vegetarian because I don't want to kill animals – you can't play the "He's right-wing so he's wrong argument" with me.
From Environment & Climate News (December 2001)
A publication of the The Heartland Institute
19 South LaSalle, Ste 903, Chicago, Illinois 60603
think@heartland.org
The Skeptical Environmentalist, published by Cambridge University Press in September 2001, is available through Laissez Faire Books.
Topic: GLOBAL WARMING
THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING
http://www.americanpolicy.org/plate.main/FeaturedArticles/StrikeLtr.html
publication date unknown Tom DeWeese
THERE IS NO GLOBAL WARMING
There is no global warming. Period.
You can't find a real scientist anywhere in the world who can look you in the eye and, without hesitation, without clarification, without saying, kinda, mighta, sorta, if, and or but...say "yes, global warming is with us."
There is no evidence whatsoever to support such claims. Anyone who tells you that scientific research shows warming trends - be they teachers, news casters, Congressmen, Senators, Vice Presidents or Presidents - is wrong. There is no global warming.
Scientific research through U.S. Government satellite and balloon measurements shows that the temperature is actually cooling - very slightly - .037 degrees Celsius.
A little research into modern-day temperature trends bares this out. For example, in 1936 the Midwest of the United States experienced 49 consecutive days of temperatures over 90 degrees. There were another 49 consecutive days in 1955. But in 1992 there was only one day over 90 degrees and in 1997 only 5 days.
Because of modern science and improved equipment, this "cooling" trend has been most accurately documented over the past 18 years. Ironically, that's the same period of time the hysteria has grown over dire warnings of "warming."
Changes in global temperatures are natural. There is no proof that temperature is affected by anything that man has done.
In fact, recent severe weather has been directly attributed to a natural phenomenon that occurs every so often called El Nino. It causes ocean temperatures to rise as tropical trade winds actually reverse for a time.
The resulting temperature changes cause severe storms, flooding and even draught on every continent on earth.
It's completely natural. El Nino has been wreaking its havoc across the globe since long before man appeared.
How about the reports that the polar ice cap is melting?
Well, yes it is. In fact, it has been for about a million years or so. We are at the end of the ice age in which ice covered most of North American and Northern Europe.
There's at least one environmentalist, named Al Gore, who is panicking over the possibility that we may soon lose Glacier National Park in Montana because the ice is melting.
One hates to tell him that we've already lost the glacier that used to cover the whole country.
Perhaps he'll want to start working for new regulations from the Interior Department to begin immediately restoring this lost historical environmental treasure. Re-establishing a sheet of ice covering the entire continent would certainly serve to stop mining, timber cutting and urban sprawl.
The truth is, someday humans may be able to take tropical vacations at the North Pole - and it will be perfectly natural.
Yet our world is being flooded with the dire predictions of Global Warming.
We are being warned of killer heat waves, vast flooding and the spread of tropical diseases. Ocean levels are rising, they say. America's coast lines are doomed, they tell us. Hurricanes and tornadoes have already become more violent, we are warned. Floods and droughts have begun to ravage the nation, they cry.
Any change in temperatures, or an excessive storm or extended flooding is looked upon as a sure sign that environmental Armageddon is upon us. Diabolical environmentalists are using the natural El Nino phenomenon to whip people into a Global Warming hysteria.
TWO KINDS OF SCIENTISTS
We are assured by the White House that scientists everywhere are sounding these warmings and that we may only have one chance to stop it.
Well, as the debate rages, we find that there really are two kinds of "scientists."
There are those who look at facts and make their judgements based on what they know.
Their findings can be matched by any other scientist, using the same data and set of circumstances to reach the same conclusions. It's a age-old practice called peer reviewing. It's the only true science.
And then there are those who yearn for a certain outcome and set about creating the needed data to make it so. Usually you will find this group of scientists greatly dependent on grants supplied by those with a specific political agenda who demand desired outcomes for their money.
Let's just take NASA, for example - the most trusted name in American science.
A lot of NASA scientists have fallen into this trap. Environmental science has become the life-blood of the space program as the nation has lost interest in space travel. To keep the bucks coming, NASA has justified shuttle trips through the use of earth-directed environmental research. And the budgets keep coming.
At the same time, many of NASA's scientists come with a political agenda in great harmony with those who advocate the green agenda. And they're not above using their position to aid that agenda whenever the chance is available.
This was never more clearly demonstrated than in 1992 when a team of three NASA scientists were monitoring conditions over North America to determine if the Ozone layer was in danger.
Inconclusive data indicated that conditions might be right for ozone damage over North America, if certain things happened.
True scientists are a careful lot. They study, they wait and, many times they test again before drawing conclusions.
Not so, the green zealot. Of this three-member NASA team, two could not be sure of what they had found and wanted to do more research.
But one took the data and rushed to the microphones, with all of the drama of a Hollywood movie, announced in hushed tones that NASA had discovered an Ozone hole over North America.
Then Senator Al Gore rushed to the floor of the Senate with the news and drove a stampede to immediately ban freon - five years before Congress had intended - and without a suitable substitute. He then bullied President George Bush to sign the legislation by saying the Ozone hole was over Kennebunkport - Bush's vacation home.
Two months later NASA announced, on the back pages of the newspapers, that further research had shown that there was no such damage. But it was too late. Remember that when you have to buy a new air conditioner or refrigerator for no reason other than your freon has run out of the old one.
FLAWED COMPUTER MODELS
Then there are those computer models. Night after night Americans watch the local news as the weatherman predicts what kind of a day tomorrow will be. These meteorologists, using the most up-to-date equipment available, boldly give you the five-day forecast.
But it's well known that, even with all of their research and expensive equipment, it really is just a "best guess." There are just too many variables. If the wind picks up here it could blow in a storm, if the temperature drops here it could start to snow. The earth is a vast and wondrous place. Weather does what it wants.
Yet those who are promoting the global-warming theory have the audacity to tell you they can forecast changes in the global climate decades into the future.
The truth is computer models are able to include only two out of 14 components that make up the climate system. To include the third component would take a computer a thousand times faster than we now have. To go beyond the third component requires an increase in computer power that is so large only mathematicians can comprehend the numbers.
Moreover, even if the computer power existed, scientists do not understand all the factors and the relationships between them that determine the global climate.
So it's an outrage for Al Gore, Bill Clinton and the Sierra Club to tell you that Global Warming is a fact and that we Americans must now suffer dire changes in our lifestyle to stop it.
SCIENTISTS ARE NOT ON AL'S BAND WAGON
And so too is it an outrage for Al Gore to tell you that most true scientists now agree that global warming is a fact.
What he doesn't tell you is that almost 500 scientists from around the world signed the Heidleburg Appeal in 1992 just prior to the Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro, expressing their doubts and begging the delegates not to bind the world to any dire treaties based on global warming. Today that figure has grown to over 4000.
He also doesn't tell you that recently a Gallop Poll of eminent North American climatologists showed that 83 percent of them debunked the global warming theory.
And the deceit knows no bounds. The United Nations released a report at the end of 1996 saying Global Warming was a fact, yet before releasing the report two key paragraphs were deleted from the final draft.
Those two paragraphs, written by the scientists who did the actual scientific analysis said:
1. "none of the studies cited above has shown clear evidence that we can attribute the observed climate changes to increases in greenhouse gases."
2. "no study to date has positively attributed all or part of the climate change to ...man-made causes."
Global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the people of the world - bar none.
THE CLIMATE CHANGE PROTOCOL
Those who have been fighting against the green agenda have been warning that modern-day environmentalism has nothing whatsoever to do with protecting the environment.
Rather it is a political movement led by those who seek to control the world economies, dictate development and redistribute the world's wealth.
They use the philosophical base of Karl Marx, the tactics of Adolph Hitler and the rhetoric of the Sierra Club.
The American people have been assaulted from all directions by rabid environmentalists.
School children have been told that recycling is a matter of life and death.
Businesses have been shut down. Valuable products like freon have been removed from the market. Chemicals and pesticides that helped to make this nation the safest and healthiest in the world are targeted for extinction.
Our entire nation is being restructured to fit the proper green mold. All of it for a lie about something that doesn't exist.
But the lie is about to grow to massive proportions --- and the game is about to get very serious indeed.
In December of this year Bill Clinton will travel to Kyoto, Japan to sign a legally-binding United Nations treaty called the Climate Change Protocol.
The sole argument for this treaty is that Global Warming is a fact and we must take severe action to stop it.
Right now the Clinton Administration is bombarding the airwaves with the sales pitch. Conferences are being held in cities across the country. Special reports, magazine articles and documentaries are all being used to pound home the message - global warming is here - we must stop it.
But the most offensive assault on the expression of free thought by the American people, as the Administration drives to sell you this snake oil, was committed by Interior Secretary Bruce Babbitt. Babbitt said that anyone opposed to the fight to stop Global Warming was "unAmerican."
He accused those opposed to the Climate Change Treaty of engaging in a "conspiracy to hire pseudo scientists to deny the facts." So now, according to Babbitt, to disagree with the Clinton Administration is tantamount to treason.
In fact the Climate Change Protocol is a legally binding international treaty through which signing nations agree to cut back their energy emissions to 15 percent below 1990 levels. And the treaty says this goal is to be accomplished by as early as the year 2010.
That means that all of the energy growth since 1990 would be rolled back, plus 15 percent more in just twelve years.
Yes, there are negotiations, debates and arguments taking place over the exact terms of the treaty as we speak. Perhaps the final version won't be so severe.
But it doesn't matter. Such a massive disruption in the American economy, particularly since it has nothing to do with protecting the environment, will devastate this nation.
To meet such drastically-reduced energy standards will, in the short run, cost the United States over one million jobs. Some estimate it will cost over seven million jobs in 14 years. If the treaty sends the economy into a tailspin, as many predict, it will cost even more jobs.
It will cost the average family $1,000 to $4,000 dollars per year in increased energy costs. The cost of food will skyrocket.
It has been estimated that in order for the United States to meet such a goal the U.S. gross domestic product will be reduced by $200 billion - annually.
To force down energy use the Federal government will have to enforce a massive energy tax that will drive up the cost of heating your home by as much as 30 to 40 percent.
In all likelihood there will be a tax on gasoline - as high as 60 cents per gallon.
There will be consumption taxes and carbon taxes.
The purpose of these punitive costs is to drive up the cost of modern living in order to force you to drastically change your lifestyle. That is the diabolical plan behind this restructuring scheme. Every single product that is produced with the use of energy will increase in price. Including items like aspirin, contact lenses and tooth paste.
Yet just recently Bill Clinton said that compliance with the treaty would not hurt the economy. He said he can "grow the economy and do right by the environment."
The truth is, to date, the Clinton administration has refused to release an economic impact analysis of the effects of the treaty.
But a leaked study by the Department of Energy's Argonne Laboratory finds that the treaty will cripple six U.S. industries including paper, steel, petroleum refining, chemical manufacturing, aluminum and cement. That about sums up the economy.
When Clinton is through complying with the treaty you may find yourself sitting in a dark house after lights have been ordered off early in the evening, unable to drive your car because of gas shortages, unable to walk to the shopping mall because stores will be ordered closed after dark, even if you have a job and money to spend.
GLOBAL RAID ON AMERICAN WEALTH
But perhaps you still are not convinced. Maybe you still cling to the idea that such drastic action is necessary - that our president and the UN delegates are really in a panic over global warming and are trying to find a solution.
Then ask yourselves why the treaty will only bind developed nations to its draconian emission levels.
You see, only developed industrial nations will be bound by the treaty.
Undeveloped Third-World nations will be free to produce whatever they want. These will include China, India, Brazil and Mexico. And guess what? 82% of the projected emissions growth in coming years is from these countries.
Now ask yourself, if the Climate Change Protocol is all about protecting the environment - then how come it doesn't cover everybody? The truth, of course, is that the treaty is really about redistribution of the wealth.
The wealth of the United States is and has always been the target. The new scheme to grab the loot is through environmental scare tactics.
If, today, you were to attend a UN session on the Climate Change Protocol you would find yourself in a discussion with excited delegates from Third-World countries. They would make comments to you like, "when the technology transfer takes place my country will begin producing this or that item."
Translation - when the United States is stupid enough to fall for this scheme, the third world will take up the slack and get rich.
And international corporations, who owe allegiance to no nation, will bolt America and move their factories, lock, stock and computer chip, to those Third-World countries where they will be free to carry on production.
But that means the same emissions will be coming out of the jungles of South America instead of Chicago.
So where is the protection of the environment? You see it's not about that - is it?
Still not convinced? One more thing. Hidden in the small print of the treaty is a provision that calls for the "harmonizing of patent laws."
Now, robbing a nation of its patent protection is an interesting tactic for protecting the environment, don't you think?
CAN IT BE STOPPED?
Bill Clinton, pushed by Al Gore and the massive green lobby, is determined to sign that treaty. The war has been engaged.
Industry is finally beginning to wake up to the terrifying threat of the green monster that it helped to create. For the past three decades industry has given into every outrageous green demand. And it has fueled the monster by filling green coffers with massive tax-deductible donations. Now industry finds itself trapped.
But more frightening is the fact that many prominent proponents of property rights and limited government still fail to see the danger in the treaty. Many say the Senate will never ratify such a treaty.
They point out that, in a vote of 95-0, the U.S. Senate rejected in a "non-binding" resolution the Climate Change Protocol. That overwhelming vote, they say, will stop Clinton in his tracks.
That resolution was presented by Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia. He, along with Congressman John Dingle of Michigan have led the opposition against the treaty. Republican leadership, so far, has been silent.
It is, of course, commendable that Senator Byrd and Congressman Dingle have taken the lead to do "something" to protect American interests. But both of them are established liberal Democrats, who have based their opposition solely on the fact that only industrial nations are tied to the treaty.
That's not fair, they say, and so they oppose the treaty - "as now written." Apparently they are taking the stand that if America must be enslaved, then it's only fair that the rest of the world share our misery.
Not once have they said the whole concept is wrong. Not once have they challenged the validity of the science that is based on the supposed fact of global warming.
Is this then the wall of defense that we are to hide behind? Are we now to entrust the very future of our Republic onto the shoulders of Senator Byrd and Congressman Dingle? That appears to be the current wisdom of our leaders on Capitol Hill.
Wary Americans, of course, know what will happen next. The story is all too familiar. Very soon Clinton will summon Byrd and Dingle to the White House and offer them a compromise. Then everyone will smile for the cameras and the Republicans, in the spirit of bipartisanship, will give away the store. In fact, that process has already begun.
So Bill Clinton is moving full-speed-ahead with his plan to travel to Kyoto, Japan this December to sign the Climate Change Protocol. When he does, and after the Senate has ratified it, the final blow will have been struck.
The United States of America will begin a long, agonizing decent - strangled by its own hand.
The question now is; can it be stopped? And more importantly, will we even try.$ e target. The new scheme to grab the loot is through environmental scare tactics.
American Policy Online
Copyright © 1997 American Policy Center
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
i think josef stalin would be quite proud of the treasonous gang that stole the last election with illegal money and now seeks to turn US sovereignty over to enviro-nazi controllers. sheeesh!
Global Warming/Hurricane Link Debunked; New Evidence Shows Abrupt Global Climate Change
Cooler Heads Coalition
October 20, 1998
Global Warming/Hurricane Link Debunked
The Cooler Heads coalition sponsored a science briefing for media and congressional staff on October 9, featuring Dr. William Gray, professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University. Gray, the foremost expert on hurricanes in the U.S., spoke about the link between global warming and hurricanes.
According to Gray, hurricane activity follows a natural 20 to 40 year cycle that is correlated to changes in ocean currents. The 1940s and 1950s, for example saw many land-falling tropical storms. From 1947-1960 there were 14 land-falling storms, but from 1960-1988 there were only 2. We are now in a period of heightened hurricane activity.
The mechanism that controls the Earth’s most important and largest ocean current, known as the thermohaline circulation, is salinity. The Atlantic Ocean is much saltier than other oceans because there is more evaporation than rain. This salty (and warmer) water travels north where it sinks due to its higher density, cools and returns to the south. There it warms and becomes saltier, beginning the process once again.
When salt content is high the ocean current is strong, pushing the salt particles through the system rapidly, preventing the build up of salt. This weakens the ocean current leading to greater salinity which in turn strengthens the current again. This occurs in 20 to 40 year cycles, according to Dr. Gray, is entirely natural, and has been occurring for thousands of years. When salinity is high and the thermohaline circulation is strong this warms up the North Atlantic and hurricanes become more frequent and more intense. When the circulation is weak the opposite is true.
Dr. Gray also addressed the problems of climate modeling. He said that numerical modeling has been a great success for forecasting the weather for five to ten days into the future. This is because forecasters can measure the wind patterns that are there in the present and ride those out for a few days. After a while, however, the current energy fields no longer hold and predictive power plummets. Another problem is the "butterfly effect" where small modeling errors either in the measurements or in the physics grow over time becoming nonlinear and the whole thing "blows up on you."
The greatest problem with the models, however, is the failure to correctly model water vapor feedback, Gray said. Water vapor feedback accounts for 85-90 percent of the warming in the models, according to Dr. Gray. James Hansen a well-known climate modeler assumes that upper level humidity goes up 50 to 60 percent in his model. Dr. Gray believes that as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increases there is a slight reduction in water vapor to balance the carbon dioxide pick up.
Finally, Dr. Gray made some predictions. He believes that we are entering a period of weakened thermohaline circulation which means that we will see fewer land-falling hurricanes and a slight decrease in global temperatures over the next 2 to 4 decades. He also predicted that there will be fewer El Niño events over the next 20 to 30 years.
New Evidence Shows Abrupt Global Climate Change
The global warming debate has several facets. One of the most important is the detection of the human signal amongst the surrounding natural variation. The problem is that the variation is much larger than the predicted human-induced warming. Paleoclimatic research, for example has found very large and rapid temperature changes over the last 100,00 years, providing a puzzle for climatologists. So far, however, the evidence has pointed to a seesaw effect where the Earth’s polar regions experience temperature change at different times, shifting back and forth.
New research published in Science (October 2, 1998) has found evidence that the abrupt warming that occurred in the North Atlantic about 12,500 years ago, also occurred in Antartica. Ice core samples from Taylor Dome, in the western Ross Sea sector of Antarctica show that the temperature there warmed by 20 degrees Fahrenheit in a very short time. This corresponds with a 59 degrees warming that occurred over 50 years in the Arctic, suggesting that the temperature change was global.
According to James White, a climatologist at the University of Colorado, Boulder and a co-author of the study, "We used to suspect that some of these big changes that occurred naturally in the past were only local. Since we see the same thing at opposite ends of the Earth, it does imply that the warming was a global phenomenon." These findings "throw a monkey wrench into paleo-climate research and rearrange our thinking about climate change at that time," White said (Chicago Tribune, October 4, 1998).
The Association of British Drivers
Green Myths On Global Warming — Debunked
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1 MYTH Planet earth is currently undergoing global warming
FACT Accurate and representative temperature measurements from satellites and balloons show that the planet has cooled significantly in the last two or three years, losing in only 18 months 15% of the claimed warming which took over 100 years to appear — that warming was only one degree fahrenheit (half of one degree Celsius) anyway, and part of this is a systematic error from groundstation readings which are inflated due to the 'urban heat island effect' i.e. local heat retention due to urban sprawl, not global warming...and it is these, 'false high' ground readings which are then programmed into the disreputable climate models, which live up to the GIGO acronym — garbage in, garbage out.
2 MYTH Even slight temperature rises are disastrous, ice caps will melt, people will die
FACT In the UK, every mild winter saves 20,000 cold-related deaths, and scaled up over northern Europe mild winters save hundreds of thousands of lives each year, also parts of ice caps are melting yet other parts are thickening but this isn't reported as much (home experiment: put some water in a jug or bowl, add a layer of ice cubes and mark the level — wait until the ice has melted and look again, the level will have fallen). Data from ice core samples shows that in the past, temperatures have risen by ten times the current rise, and fallen again, in the space of a human lifetime.
3 MYTH Carbon Dioxide levels in our atmosphere at the moment are unprecedented (high).
FACT Atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, currently only 350 parts per million have been over 18 times higher in the past at a time when cars, factories and power stations did not exist — levels rise and fall without mankind's help.
4 MYTH Mankind is pumping out carbon dioxide at a prodigious rate.
FACT 96.5% of all carbon dioxide emissions are from natural sources, mankind is responsible for only 3.5%, with 0.6% coming from fuel to move vehicles, and about 1% from fuel to heat buildings. Yet vehicle fuel (petrol) is taxed at 300% while fuel to heat buildings is taxed at 5% even though buildings emit nearly twice as much carbon dioxide!
5 MYTH Carbon dioxide changes in the atmosphere cause temperature changes on the earth.
FACT A report in the journal 'Science' in January of this year showed using information from ice cores with high time resolution that since the last ice age, every time when the temperature and carbon dioxide levels have shifted, the carbon dioxide change happened AFTER the temperature change, so that man-made global warming theory has put effect before cause — this shows that reducing carbon dioxide emissions is a futile King Canute exercise! What's more, both water vapour and methane are far more powerful greenhouse gases than carbon dioxide but they are ignored.
6 MYTH Reducing car use will cut carbon dioxide levels and save the planet
FACT The planet does not need saving, but taking this on anyway, removing every car from every road in every country overnight would NOT produce any change in the carbon dioxide level of the atmosphere, as can be seen using the numbers from Fact 4, and in any case it is pointless trying to alter climate by changing carbon dioxide levels as the cause and effect is the other way round — it is changes in the activity of the Sun that cause temperature changes on earth, with any temperature rise causing carbon dioxide to de-gas from the oceans.
7 MYTH The recent wet weather and flooding was caused by mankind through 'global warming'
FACT Extreme weather correlates with the cycle of solar activity, not carbon dioxide emissions or political elections, the recent heavy rainfall in winter and spring is a perfect example of this — it occurred at solar maximum at a time when solar maxima are very intense — this pattern may well repeat every 11 years until about 2045.
8 MYTH The climate change levy, petrol duty, CO2 car tax and workplace parking charges are justifiable environmental taxes.
FACT As carbon dioxide emissions from cars and factories does not have any measurable impact on climate, these taxes are 'just another tax' on enterprise and mobility, and have no real green credentials.
9 MYTH Scientists on the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) issue reports that say 'global warming' is real and that we must do something now.
FACT Scientists draft reports for the IPCC, but the IPCC are bureaucrats appointed by governments, in fact many scientists who contribute to the reports disagree with the 'spin' that the IPCC and media put on their findings.
The latest report suggests that the next 100 years might see a temperature change of 6 Celsius yet a Lead Author for the IPCC (Dr John Christy UAH/NASA) has pointed out that the scenarios with the fastest warming rates were added to the report at a late stage, at the request of a few governments — in other words the scientists were told what to do by politicians.
10 MYTH There are only a tiny handful of maverick scientists who dispute that man-made global warming theory is true.
FACT There are nearly 18,000 signatures from scientists worldwide on a petition called The Oregon Petition which says that there is no evidence for man-made global warming theory nor for any impact from mankind's activities on climate.
Many scientists believe that the Kyoto agreement is a total waste of time and one of the biggest political scams ever perpetrated on the public ... as H L Mencken said "the fundamental aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed, and hence clamorous to be led to safety, by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary" ... the desire to save the world usually fronts a desire to rule it.
PUTIN CONGRATULATES CANADA GOVERNOR GENERAL AND PRIME MINISTER
MOSCOW, July 1 (RIA Novosti) - Russian President Vladimir Putin has sent congratulatory messages to Canadian Governor General Andrienne Clarkson and Prime Minister Paul Martin on the national holiday - Canada Day, the Kremlin press service reports.
In his message, the Russian president was pleased to point out that Russia highly valued good-neighborly, friendly relations between the two countries. He particularly noted that Russian-Canadian relations were developing consistently on the basis of partnership and mutual understanding.
"This is a firm basis for our close cooperation in such essential areas as the fight against international terrorism and WMD proliferation, development of trade and investment ties, and exploration of the Arctic," stressed the Russian leader.
Putin expressed confidence that multifaceted Russo-Canadian cooperation would gradually advance in the interests of both peoples, security and progress in the world.
I was just kidding. I've been hearing too many conservatives whining about the election results lately.
No, actually I am a rather conservative type. I even like clean coal and nuclear power.
Did you vote green? (g)
Russia May Soon Ratify Kyoto Protocol
— Security Council Chief
http://www.mosnews.com/news/2004/06/25/kyoto.shtml
MosNews
25.06.2004
Russia may soon ratify Kyoto protocol on climate change, Russian Security Council chief Igor Ivanov said Friday.
Visiting Japanese Foreign Minister Yoriko Kawaguchi, he said that he expected that Russia could give a positive answer in a not too distant future, Reuters reported citing Kyodo news agency.
In May, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Moscow would move to ratify the protocol after an agreement with the European Union on entry to the World Trade Organisation.
Earlier this month, the head of the U.N. Environment Programme, Klaus Toepfer, quoted by Reuters said he expected Russia to ratify by the next meeting of Kyoto signatories, scheduled for December in Buenos Aires.
Followers
|
1
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
21
|
Created
|
06/27/04
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |