The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Howard vindicated on Kyoto strategy > Comments

Howard vindicated on Kyoto strategy : Comments

By Alan Oxley, published 31/12/2004

Alan Oxley argues that it is time to look at life after Kyoto.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All
Development of "developed" world has brought us where we are in terms of global warming - therefore there is no point in asking developing world to bear same cost of fixing the problem. That is the main reason why Kyoto is asking more contribution from "developed" world than from "developing" nations. And if Kyoto principles fall apart there will be no "vindication" for Howard, US and others who caused that fall, there will be condemnation for their selfishness, selfcenterdness and shortsightedness. But hey, why should Howard care that some future kids might have problems getting fresh air and clean water?
Posted by Dejan, Friday, 31 December 2004 11:49:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
While Oxley's article is clearly focused on the political situation surrounding Kyoto and global warming, his throwaway contention that, "the science used in the UN studies to justify global warming has been steadily unwinding over the last two years" is simply not true. While US business and government interests have endeavoured to publicise the few dissenting voices in the scientific community, the great majority of scientists appear to have had their conviction regarding global warming strengthened in recent years. While much remains unknown about the exact causes, effects, and significance of the phenomenon, those who would stick their heads in the sand and write off any evidence to "natural changes" lack any credibility.
Posted by chris_b, Friday, 31 December 2004 1:11:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
How strange - Oxley's article seems to celebrate the fact that nothing is being done to deal with what many people now recognise as perhaps the greatest threat to civilisation since we avoided global nuclear war. Is that what 'rational' means now?
Posted by Peter McMahon, Friday, 31 December 2004 2:36:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Unfortunately the dissenting voices in the scientific community are very numerous, and what many fail to realise is that anthropogenic global warming is a theory, not fact, and that all the predictions so far have failed.

The earth is either cooling or warming, but so far measurements indicate a very slight warming in the troposphere, and that is concluded from the fit of a linear trend to the data. A similar trend could be obtained from random data too.
Posted by Louis Hissink, Friday, 31 December 2004 5:41:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KAEP == Kyoto Alternative Energy Protocol

The Second law of Thermodynamics (2LT) insists that given a closed system in a state of chaos, like a Global Warming scenario in the Biosphere , that system will be renewed upon the addition of sufficient energy.

This is because all closed systems tend to a disordered state by the 2LT and dissipate energy as they do.

It stands to reason then that if you incrementally add energy to that system it restarts its decay to disorder and chaos is denied.

In the case of the Biosphere, defined as that volume of space from the bottom of the oceans to 1 Km below the Earth and up to the stratosphere, if the Sun and the Earth's hot interior continue to input energy into the quasi closed system of the Earth's Biosphere, then Global Warming can not occur.

As for our energy input sources, there is no reason to believe that Geothermal or Solar heat inputs to the Biosphere will diminish in the next 50 to 100 thousand years, based on ice core data. Thus we are in NO danger from greenhouse gases causing global warming.

However, REGIONAL CLIMATE CHANGE (RCC) due to human population shifts to coastal and riverine catchment areas is an imminent danger.

How does RCC work?
Urbanisation, sewage, stormwater, agriculture and industry all pollute coastal seas and raise the level of disorder in coastal zones. They even create what the UN has referred to as Dead Zones. These human activities also have a secondary effect of drying out landmasses which increases disorder on land to an extent far exceeding the increase of order in our built up cities and agricultural areas.
The net effect is that huge energy currents from the hot tropics and from deserts in lower latitudes flow towards coastal areas instead of gyrating towards the poles as was their destiny. This tends to occur on a region by region basis across the developing world. Hence the term REGIONAL Climate Change or RCC. In low latitudes this new flow pattern takes all remaining moisture out to sea and causes drought. In the tropics, the momentum of these new flow patterns as it strikes land causes hurricanes, typhoons, cyclones and tornados. These new flow patterns also create sea swells which mimic a global rise in sea level.

The extent of damage and disability caused to human habitation by RCC is proprtional to our dumping wastes into the oceans and rivers of each distinct populational area.

The solution is to place, initially, 10,000 1-2 acre Engineered Wetlands (EWs) at all natural collection or focal points within urban stormwater and sewage, agriculture and industry zones in riverine catchments. Most of these EWs should be surrounded by up to 20 acres of space for recreational and wildlife habitat areas.

It is obvious the this strategy keeps water and thus moisture over landmass and at the same time filters all aqueous egress to rivers, coastal oceans and seas. In one simple move we increase order over land and at coastal margins and deny large global energy flows free passage across our cities and towns. This strategy works because of Gravitational Lensing where all water and most air flows are forced by gravity to flow through key focal points on their way to the world's oceans. This is why only 10,000 such EW's in a region like the Gulf of Mexico and surrounding areas could be initially protected from climate change by as few as 10,000 such EWs.

This is not an inexpensive strategy. EWs cost at least $500,000 each as they are structurally designed and built to maximise both air and water movements through them, with minimal maintenance. Natural wetlands are not capable of this and additionally present health hazards to communities nearby.

Finally, to all those pouting over their notional greenhouse gas, Global Warming hobbyhorse let me say this:
Get over it and learn to understand the Second Law of Thermodynamics.The more sustainable alternative energy we use, the less wastes that will flow to oceans and the stronger our civilisation will become because we will be further from a thermodynamic state of disorder. The best way to achieve a global sustainable energy is by converting the current Kyoto Protocol to KAEP - a Kyoto Alternative Energy Protocol.

I will have more to say on KAEP later.
Posted by KAEP, Friday, 31 December 2004 6:46:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
KOTO RIP

I never could believe in the simplistic greenhouse theory. I do not deny climate change; in the past the world has been through a number of ice ages followed by warm spells. The story that human activity venting CO-2 into the atmosphere has taken over as the major driving force for climate change is in my lay opinion not proven.

Perhaps the Greenhouse proponents can tell us how much of the atmospheric CO-2 is of human origin and how much is natural i.e. from volcanic eruption, or vented from the ground? Why is CO-2 a more potent “greenhouse” gas then water vapour? How much of the suns energy is reflected back into space by cloud cover? What is the role of variation in the sun’s energy output? What is the role of sunspots? And no doubt many other factors which would be best known to the experts in atmospheric physics.

It also appears that energy released by human activity, be it in industry, transport, or even atom bombs is orders of magnitude less in destructive power then energy released in some natural processes. Currently we are witness to the explosive destructive forces released by earthquakes and the subsequent tsunami. The loss of human life and human misery caused by nature is horrendous. Even in the 2nd world war the destruction was spread over years.

My interpretation of the precautionary principle is as follows; why spend billions and billions of dollars on a doomsday scenario, which may never happen? Why not deal with problems as and when they become defined?

Kyoto may well appeal to the Greens because its application must increase the cost of goods and services. This in turn will make capitalism and free market economies appear to be less efficient and less successful. If the social formulae of the Greens and that of their friends in the Socialist Alliance were to gain prominence, it may well be the end for liberal democracy. Even better for the Green dream, the Bush and Howard hatters would be suitable rewarded.

Long may Kyoto rest in peace?
KOTO RIP
Posted by anti-green, Friday, 31 December 2004 8:58:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
According to anti-green, if we adopt the precautionary principle by taking collective action to forestall the worst effects of global warming in the hope of leaving our grandchildren a better and safer world, we will undermine capitalism, free trade and liberal democracy. All you generous souls who have contributed to the tsunami appeals, and all those medicos, engineers and others who are freely donating their skills in the trouble-spots overseas, you know not what you do. By acting collectively to forestall the onset of disease and further deaths, which are only "theoretical" possibilites after all, you are undermining civilisation as we know it, and playing right into the hands of the Howard/Bush hatters. Best to let it all alone, until we are really absolutely sure that more people actually will die. Let's just wait and watch. By the way, it snowed in Thredbo last week....
Posted by grace pettigrew, Saturday, 1 January 2005 9:22:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry Grace, you miss the point. The so-called threats from global warning are just theory (climate models with "fudge factors"). The tsunami damage is in the real world. The possibility of major epidemic disease is founded on the base of solid empirical evidence.
Posted by anti-green, Saturday, 1 January 2005 1:33:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No anti-green, you have. Here's a few theories: the sun will rise tomorrow morning, a giant asteroid will crash into Western Australia, nuclear warfare will blow us all up, global climate patterns will change catastrophically, a baby will die in Aceh next week because of the tsunami. You can order these statements according to how possible and probable you think they are, on the basis of empirical evidence derived from past experience, but they are all still only theories about the future.
Posted by grace pettigrew, Sunday, 2 January 2005 6:08:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan Oxley’s argument that PM Howard’s policies on global warming have been vindicated contains some unsubstantiated and extraordinary assertions. Oxley is well known as a critic of Kyoto and an advocate of “free trade”. The website RealClimate (http://www.realclimate.org) promotes itself as “a commentary site on climate science by working climate scientists for the interested public and journalists. We aim to provide a quick response to developing stories and provide the context sometimes missing in mainstream commentary.” The site contains substantial refutation of nonsensical assertions of persons seeking to discredit the arguments of climate scientists. Did Mr Oxley consult this site?

Oxley claims that "The science used in the UN studies to justify global warming has been steadily unwinding over the last two years". What is the evidence for that? Which scientists who once supported the proposition that CO2 and other gases resulting from human activity were significantly affecting the environment have changed their mind or been shown to be wrong? What reports have dealt with this? The US Environment Protection Agency doesn’t refer to them. Is Oxley aware that huge numbers of the most reputable scientists in the US have signed petitions complaining about the misuse of science by the Bush administration?

Michael Crichton, whose book is given great weight in Oxley's article, is a techno-thriller writer and movie-maker. (And yes, he is a qualified anthropologist and medico and yes he graduated from Harvard and has held positions at the Jonas Salk Institute and Cambridge, etc, etc but that doesn’t make him a qualified atmospheric scientist.) To quote "The Day After Tomorrow" and its use by some people debating global warming and the Kyoto protocol and to compare that with Crichton’s book is to wholly trivialize the issues involved. It’s like a Creation Science blog!

And the assertion that the US at the Buenos Aires conference made the EU and others look foolish and reset the agenda through "the Bush administration [and its] artful multilateral diplomacy" is simply ridiculous! Any observer of current affairs knows full well that the US under Bush has systematically rejected every multilateral treaty and agreement that does not strictly benefit its own global business interests and foolish ideological beliefs. These range from nuclear disarmament to small arms control, from population control to human rights. And if existing treaties get in the way they are ignored unless they suit the US! Consider the Convention intended to protect cultural material in times of war. That the phrase “artful multilateral diplomacy” should be used to describe any international policy of the present US administration is an absolute outrage! It goes beyond global warming and the Kyoto protocol and represents no more than disinformation. Can we use that phrase to describe US relations with Iran and Syria, with Spain and France? To involvement with oil rich countries in Africa? To countries through which oil pipelines will run in northwestern Asia?

Mr Oxley is well known for his advocacy of world trade and globalization. His arguments seem to ignore a very large amount of what is going on locally and internationally. At the local level there are more equitable improvements than are delivered by so-called "free trade": assistance to people as in the Grameen Bank situation and agricultural developments in Africa reported recently in the Guardian Weekly. Globalization has not contributed to the improvement of the former colonial economies of Africa and the agricultural policies which are part of globalization and free trade do no more than continue to emphasize monoculture and dependency on multinational chemical companies and seed providers. Internationally we see the driving into poverty of South American farmers by giant retailers such as Walmart who also pay most of their own employees in the USA wages below the poverty level. If free trade is of benefit, why are farmers in Canada finding their earnings decreasing rapidly as reported in personal interviews on "The National Interest" (ABC RN) a couple of months ago? If free trade is to be of such benefit why are Pharmaceutical companies with their rampaging false assertions about their need for high prices for their medicines so they can conduct the much needed R&D so much in favour of it? (Most of the R&D is funded by government!)

The Australian Government under Howard has blindly followed along word for word, step for step, every policy move by the Bush administration, even down to agreeing to jointly sponsor a resolution in the UN General Assembly proposing a worldwide ban on therapeutic cloning (TC). TC, according to Professor Irv Weissman of Stanford University, would allow diseases to be studied in ways never possible before: yet ideology and fundamentalism – of the same kind that has been used to oppose abortion and prohibit funding of population programs in other countries - will allow hundreds of thousands of people to die who would have otherwise lived. (ABC RN “Health Report” of 29 November 2004.) The Australian Government doesn’t have a policy on global warming and energy and the environment. It has Bush’s policy. Next to nothing on renewable energy unlike European countries. Instead we are being fed sequestration advocated by a science adviser mostly employed by a mining firm.

A few scientists like a few historians like a few economists, can get a few things wrong. But how about whole national scientific academies and international committees of scientists? Or should we prefer to believe skeptical environmentalists and techno thriller writers? By the way, quite a large number of economists, including Nobel Prize winners, find serious fault with globalization and object to the basis of economic rationalism and its propositions on which free trade rest. What is the difference between this stuff and creation science?
Posted by Des Griffin, Tuesday, 4 January 2005 2:31:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It doesn't matter who said what or which reports or what cadre of scientists or which Nobelians dictate what. At the end of the day we have to stop prolonged droughts and increasingly violent weather. We are going to have to deal with 'in your face' climate changes. It will not take long to realise that abating greenhouse emissions is only a minor part of the picture.

There is only one way to stop climate change. STOP POLLUTING COASTAL SEAS.The thermodynamic inertia throughout the Biosphere is in the oceans and NOT the air.
By polluting coastal oceans we are drying out landmasses faster than anything nature has ever known. We are creating thermodynamic SINKS off our coasts that are
1. attracting every last bit of moist air from deserts to coasts in low latitudes, causing prolonged droughts.
2. attracting tropical storm cells to urban centres rather than directly to the poles in warmer latitudes, causing cyclones, hurricanes and typhoons.

Do we have to wait 10 years of economic retardation to find out that abating greenhouse gases will do 'jack' while polluted seas continue to destroy marine life and possibly our very civilisation.

And to all the pro-greenhouse gas scientists and Nobels out there:
since when do you propose dynamic solutions (greenhouse warming) to global problems without looking at the total energy heirachies involved? That climb on the bandwagon science will be the end of us all. As scientists we have an obligation to rigor and that rigor must commence with a detailed understanding of ENERGY flows and storage, according to the second law of thermodynamics, on this planet.
Posted by KAEP, Tuesday, 4 January 2005 7:05:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Contrary to the assertions of climate alarmists, present day atmospheric carbon dioxide levels are NOT significantly above pre-industrial levels. According to testimony by Prof Zbigniew Jaworowski before a US Senate committee hearing last year, the average for the 19th century was 335ppm by direct measurement, not the widely quoted 280ppm derived from ice core measurements, which are prone to gross experimental errors. The picture gets worse for the alarmists .

Current CO2 levels are low by historical standards. Only the Upper Carboniferous/Lower Permian geological periods and the Quaternary, including the present day, show CO2 levels below 400ppm over the last 550 million years. Ironically, to the chagrin of the alarmists, the Late Ordovician saw extensive glaciation, when CO2 levels were nearly 12 times higher than today's at 4400ppm. According to greenhouse theory, this period should have been a hothouse! It wasn't. Average temperatures were no higher than they are today.

The major greenhouse gas is water vapour, not CO2 as the alarmists would have us believe, and accounts for approximately 95% of the total greenhouse effect. The contribution of anthropogenic CO2 is a trifling 0.12%.

To ignore evidence from the earth's long history, and to be mesmerised by computer generated fantasies, is to be deliberately obtuse.
Posted by A is A, Monday, 24 January 2005 2:10:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy