State of the Union

Not sure if anyone here set aside time to watch President Bush's State of the Union address tonight. I know some of you are not American citizens but may have watched nonetheless. I feel this was an important speech to listen to since it follows Bush's second inauguration and the recently held Iraqi elections. Interestingly, it focused on more of America's domestic issues rather than global issues. Satisfying for U.S. citizens like me, but possibly disappointing for internationals who may have wanted some direct insight into future plans for America's policy in the Middle East after the Iraqi elections.

Bush covered a wide array of issues:

1. "I will send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent, and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009"--Bush

2. "Under the No Child Left Behind Act, standards are higher, test scores are on the rise, and we are closing the achievement gap for minority students. [...] We will help an additional 200,000 workers to get training for a better career, by reforming our job training system and strengthening America's community colleges. [...] we will make it easier [...] by increasing the size of Pell Grants"--Bush

3. "[...] we must make health care more affordable, and give families greater access to good coverage, and more control over their health decisions. I ask Congress to move forward on a comprehensive health care agenda: with tax credits to help low-income workers buy insurance, a community health center in every poor country, improved information technology to prevent medical errors and needless costs, association health plans for small businesses and their employees, expanded health savings accounts, and medical liability reform that will reduce health care costs [...]"

4. "My Clear Skies legislation will cut power plant pollution and improve the health of our citizens. [...] And my budget provides strong funding for leading-edge technology: from hydrogen-fueled cars, to clean coal, to renewable sources such as ethanol."

5. "[...] Americans are burdened by an archaic, incoherent federal tax code. [...] you and I will work together to give this Nation a tax code that is pro-growth, easy to understand, and fair to all."

6. "America's immigration system is also outdated [...] It is time for an immigration policy that permits temporary guest workers to fill jobs Americans will not take, that rejects amnesty, that tells us who is entering and leaving our country, and that closes the border to drug dealers and terrorists."--Bush

7. SOCIAL SECURITY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's all I'll put for that.............this was the MAIN domestic issue that Bush discussed and that everyone, who was interested, was hyped to hear about.

8. Gay Marriage: If anyone had doubts about whether Bush would support a constitutional amendment, well......doubt no longer. This issue was only one paragraph of his speech made up of two sentences.
"Because marriage is a sacred institution and the foundation of society, it should not be re-defined by activist judges. For the good of families, children, and society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect the institution of marriage." There it is..............clear as day, finally.

9. "[...] we must strive to build a culture of life." In the next two paragraphs, Bush vaguely reinforces his stance against abortion and stem cell research without actually using the words, "abortion" and "stem cell". Hmmm.

10. ........then he gives one paragraph about the role Laura Bush, the First Lady will have with supporting faith-based and community groups to help at-risk youths, etc.............

11. "[...] America will stand with the allies of freedom to support democratic movements in the Middle East and beyond, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world." "The United States has no right, no desire, and no intention to impose our form of government on anyone else. That is one of the main differences between us and our enemies."

12. "[...] I will ask Congress for 350 million dollars to support Palestinian political, economic, and security reforms. The goal of two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace is within reach--and America will help them achieve that goal."

13. "[...] we are applying the Syrian Accountability Act and we expect the Syrian government to end all support for terror and open the door to freedom. Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror: pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve. [...] And to Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you."

The remainder of the speech was reserved for justifying Iraq. Seated next to Laura Bush was an Iraqi citizen, a woman, Safia Taleb al-Suhail who took part in the elections after living under Hussein's rule for 30 years. Seated behind them were parents of an American Sergeant killed in action while fighting in Iraq. Emotional and nostalgic moments followed as Bush went on about how the successes in Iraq will spill over to the rest of the region and then took time to give props to the U.S. service men and women before closing with a quote from Franklin Roosevelt, "each age is a dream that is dying, or one that is coming to birth." Bush ended with, "The road of Providence is uneven and unpredictable, yet we know where it leads: It lead to freedom."

Bush has improved as a speaker over the years and I can tell that his confidence his high. Domestically, he had some big talk and I can only hope he will back it up. With a Republican Congress, he should be able to otherwise he will become a legacy of ultimate failure. Internationally, I am still keeping my third eye on his administration. It was only a matter of time before Syria and Iran came into the cross-hairs. He was still very vague about a lot of things. Overall, I give him an 8 out of 10 for his address.

He definetly impressed me more with this speech than many of the speeches he has given in the past. I just hope in this term he focuses more on domestic issues rather than the rest of the world.

It was a great speech, but it doesnt matter. Congress is going to block most of what he talked about. for the past twenty years people on both sides have been getting re-elected by running on the same platform each time. If they actually fix anything they will have to find something new to run on and convince their voters that its a good idea.

It was a great speech, but it doesnt matter. Congress is going to block most of what he talked about. for the past twenty years people on both sides have been getting re-elected by running on the same platform each time. If they actually fix anything they will have to find something new to run on and convince their voters that its a good idea.

You don't think he will get anything done with a Republican dominated Congress? The Democrats don't even have enough Senators to filibuster everything. Bush has strong alliances in key positions.

He will get some stuff done, but nothing of importance, none of the issues that you hear about over and over again in the news. Bush doesnt have nearly enough votes right now to pass SS reform. Or welfare reform. Or imigration reform. Or illegal alien reform. None of his major issues are close to passing. The debate over any of these bills will take months. There will be concessions. And if one of them ever does manage to pass it will be so altered from its current state that it will no longer be what Bush had wanted and will fix exactly nothing.

He will get some stuff done, but nothing of importance, none of the issues that you hear about over and over again in the news. Bush doesnt have nearly enough votes right now to pass SS reform. Or welfare reform. Or imigration reform. Or illegal alien reform. None of his major issues are close to passing. The debate over any of these bills will take months. There will be concessions. And if one of them ever does manage to pass it will be so altered from its current state that it will no longer be what Bush had wanted and will fix exactly nothing.

Also because he does not have enough time in four years to rebuild his tarnished reputation and get some people to agree with him.

Also because he does not have enough time in four years to rebuild his tarnished reputation and get some people to agree with him.

Are you really foolish enough to believe that it matters if they like or agree with him?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they do not agree with his policies or proposals, they don't vote for it. Did I miss something?

Obviously. How many people in the house and senate do you think agreed with the amount of money Bush wanted for the war? Put they passed it anyway. How many agreed with some of his cabinet choices? But they approved them anyway. Making laws is all about making deals.

It was a great speech, but it doesnt matter. Congress is going to block most of what he talked about.

It was complete ideological crap, backed with no substance! It's not that congress are going to 'block most of what he talked about'...Most of what he talked about is simply that - talk!

Anything he says about the environment can be responded to with one word - 'WhyHaven'tYouSignedTheKyotoAgreementLikeTheRestOfTheDevelpedWorld?'.

As for gay marriage, rights for women, the culture of diplomacy, respect for international law, sovereignty and nuclear proliferation...all the rest of the World can do is laugh...ha! - See, it's not even that funny.

Canadian researchers have put a large question mark next to the Kyoto Treaty and whether it will actually help. Although that in no way justifies the US backing out of it, I do no longer see it as a valid argument.

As for gay marriage, rights for women, the culture of diplomacy, respect for international law, sovereignty and nuclear proliferation...all the rest of the World can do is laugh...ha! - See, it's not even that funny.

Sucks to be us, aye?

Mr U

Canadian researchers have put a large question mark next to the Kyoto Treaty and whether it will actually help. Although that in no way justifies the US backing out of it, I do no longer see it as a valid argument.

It's called 'a step in the right direction'....An attitude rather than an relative action.

'WhyHaven'tYouSignedTheKyotoAgreementLikeTheRestOf TheDevelpedWorld?'.

Do even know anything about Kyoto? The effect of the Kyoto Protocol would be to reduce warming by .04 degrees Celsius in the year 2100. Effectively, it accomplishes nothing.

I am not going to bother debating this issue. Anybody who would state that they believe global warming is a threat or real is nothing more than ill-informed. The simple fact that they would make such a statement only shows that they know nothing of which they speak and are not worthy of the time that it would take for me to make such a post. Instead, I will post something that they won’t. Instead of simple rhetoric I will post actual scientific references, from actual scientists, found in actual scientific journals. These fear mongers can then go there and do their own fucking research pertaining to this topic, like they should have done in the first fucking place. What follows is a list of references with the relative information listed.

2002 “Antarctic climate cooling and terrestrial ecosystem response,” Nature 415: 517-20
From 1986 to 2000 central Antarctic valleys cooled .7 degrees Celsius per decade with serious ecosystem damage from cold.

2000 “Variability and trends in Antarctic surface temperatures from in situ and satellite infrared measurements,” Journal of Climate 13: 1674-96
Both satellite data and ground stations show slight cooling over the last 20 years.

2002 “Positive mass balance of the Ross Ice Streams, West Antarctica,” Science 295: 476-80
Side-looking radar measurements show West Antarctica ice is increasing at 26.8 gigatons/yr. Reversing the melting trend of the last 6,000 years.

2002 “Interpretation of recent Southern Hemisphere climate change,” Science 296: 895-99
Antarctic peninsula has warmed several degrees while interior has cooled somewhat. Ice shelves have retreated but sea ice has increased.

1999 “Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok ice core, Antarctica,” Nature 399: 429-36
During the last four interglacials, going back 420,000 years, the Earth was warmer than it is today.

2004 “Interpretation of recent Antarctic sea ice variability,” Geophysical Research Letters 31: 10.1029/2003 GL018732
Antarctic sea ice has increased since 1979.

2002 “Africans go back to the land as plants reclaim desert,” New Scientist 175: 4-5
Analysis of satellite images reveals that vegetation is ousting sand across a swathe of land stretching 6,000 kilometers.

2003 “African ice under wraps,” Nature
Although it’s tempting to blame the ice loss on global warming, researchers think that deforestation of the mountains foothills is the more likely culprit.

1997 “Tropical Cyclones and Global Climate Change: a post-IPCC assessment,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 79:9-38
Downward trend in the Frequency of Intense Atlantic Hurricanes during the past five decades.

2002 “Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability: Energy for a Greenhouse Planet,” Science 298: 981-87
Energy sources that can produce 100 to 300% of present world power consumption without greenhouse emissions do not exist.

And now a few quick facts:

There are 160,000 glaciers in the world. About 67,000 have been inventoried, but only a few have been studied with any care. There is a mass balance data extending five years or more for only 79 glaciers in the entire world.

The Kilimanjaro glacier has been rapidly melting since the 1800’s, long before any thought of global warming.

El Nino occurs roughly every four years-23 times in the last century. It has been occurring for thousands of years, long preceding any claim of global warming.

The net economic effect of the last El Nino was a gain of 15 billion dollars because of a longer growing season and less use of winter heating oil. That is after deducting the 1.5 billion dollars for flooding.

Of all the energy consumed in the US only 6 percent is from a renewable source. Japan is five percent renewable. Germany is five percent. England is two percent. Denmark is eight percent.

Although I agree with everything you have posted, TheDon, I would like to point out something that could be misinterpreted.

The percentages of renewable sources are from the total power consumption of that nation. Although I have no information of knowledge of power consumption, whatsoever, I presume the 8 percent, to be, in 'volts', less than the US.
What it does mean, however, that the US is more 'enviroment-minded', if I may say so. Whether the actual consumer or the industry is using renewable sources is unknown to me.

Anyway, thanks for this comprehensive list, TheDon. Is there any way we can link the Greenpeace site and the WWF site to your post? :P

Mr U

Do even know anything about Kyoto? The effect of the Kyoto Protocol would be to reduce warming by .04 degrees Celsius in the year 2100. Effectively, it accomplishes nothing.

I am not going to bother debating this issue. Anybody who would state that they believe global warming is a threat or real is nothing more than ill-informed. The simple fact that they would make such a statement only shows that they know nothing of which they speak and are not worthy of the time that it would take for me to make such a post. Instead, I will post something that they won’t. Instead of simple rhetoric I will post actual scientific references, from actual scientists, found in actual scientific journals. These fear mongers can then go there and do their own fucking research pertaining to this topic, like they should have done in the first fucking place. What follows is a list of references with the relative information listed.

Jesus! Where do I start to correct you!?!?!?!

If you had done what you should have done in the 'first fucking place' you would have noticed that I refered to the Kyoto Agreement as 'An attitude rather than an relative action'...As Lao Tzu would say 'A journey of a thousand miles starts with one step'.

The threat of global warming is real. Anyone who would state otherwise is nothing more than ill-informed and eats up the guff that their president spews over them. As you have no wish to enlighten your ignorance, I won't suffocate you with a list of scientific references, from actual scientists(!) for you to seek, find and understand...They're there, but a cart-horse with blinkers on can only look in one direction.

...the Kyoto Agreement as 'An attitude rather than an relative action'...

So the attitude they want to establish is one of spending a bunch of time and money doing something that will have zero impact? Stellar.

...eats up the guff that their president spews over them.

I dont listen to any speeches from any world leader, so I have no idea what guff he is spewing.

...cart-horse with blinkers on can only look...

I am going to guess that was supposed to be blinders...

Amazing. Just like I stated, you have posted nothing but insults and rhetoric. Thanks for emphasising my point for me.

HU - Thats correct.

Position of the United States

The United States, although a signatory to the protocol, has neither ratified nor withdrawn from the protocol. The protocol is non-binding over the United States unless ratified.

On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". Disregarding the Senate Resolution, on November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.

The current President, George W. Bush, has indicated that he does not intend to submit the treaty for ratification, not because he does not support the general idea, but because he is not happy with the details of the treaty. For example, he does not support the split between Annex I countries and others. Bush said of the treaty:

The world's second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases is China. Yet, China was entirely exempted from the requirements of the Kyoto Protocol. This is a challenge that requires a 100 percent effort; ours, and the rest of the world's. America's unwillingness to embrace a flawed treaty should not be read by our friends and allies as any abdication of responsibility. To the contrary, my administration is committed to a leadership role on the issue of climate change. Our approach must be consistent with the long-term goal of stabilizing greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere.

China emits 2,893 million metric tons of CO2 per year (2.3 tons per capita). This compares to 5,410 million from the USA (20.1 tons per capita), and 3,171 million from the EU (8.5 tons per capita). China, currently exempted from the requirements of the protocol has since ratified the Kyoto Protocol, and is expected to become an Annex I country within the next decade (at which time it would no longer be exempted). The US Natural Resources Defense Council, stated in June 2001 that: "By switching from coal to cleaner energy sources, initiating energy efficiency programs, and restructuring its economy, China has reduced its carbon dioxide emissions 17 percent since 1997".

In June 2002, the American Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) released the "Climate Action Report 2002". Some observers have interpreted this report as being supportive of the protocol, although the report itself does not explicitly endorse the protocol.

The prospect of the US staying outside the agreement influenced a number of other countries including Australia, Japan, and Canada to discuss whether they should ratify the agreement, putting themselves at a competitive disadvantage with the USA. While Japan and Canada ultimately decided to ratify the protocol, Australia's current government has said it will not ratify. Although the major opposition parties have committed to ratification if in a position to do so, the Government retained power in the 2004 election so it seems unlikely that Australia will support the treaty in the near future.

Every nation has priorities for their spending. Kyoto may work for some nations but not for others. As it stands, it does not work to the best interests of the United States therefore it cannot be a priorative measure for emissions reduction. The money we would spend towards Kyoto which does not really seem to be an aggressive enough measure could best be spent towards other programs and initiatives to reduce emissions that are specific to the United States' economic, environmental, and social characteristics. Ou Be wants to talk about steps in the right direction. We signed the treaty but we did not ratify it. We showed our commitment to the idea but we are not going to commit to an action that is mediocre at best. It is not the quality of one's intentions that makes a difference. It is the quality of one's actions and the Kyoto Agreement is merely a circlejerk. The challenge is to draft an agreement that leaves no one out. The U.N. cannot create a measure that is ideal for some, o.k. for some, disastrous for others, and then expect full support across the board. It is unfair to criticize a nation for not blindly hopping on the bandwagon just because "bleeding hearts" cry out for every environmental initiative that comes out. Environmental laws can be flawed just like any other kind of law. Good sense has to be used. But you know........we Americans get blamed for everything.........we are damned if we do and damned if we don't despite what makes sense or not.......... :rolleyes:

So the attitude they want to establish is one of spending a bunch of time and money doing something that will have zero impact? Stellar.

The attitude that needs to be established is one of compassion for the world's environment and it's resources. An attitude that is promoted by the Kyoto Accord.


I dont listen to any speeches from any world leader, so I have no idea what guff he is spewing.

Then I guess you must get your 'facts' from another source of propaganda...


I am going to guess that was supposed to be blinders...

I am going to guess that this ^ is another example of your singular comprehension of the world.


Amazing. Just like I stated, you have posted nothing but insults and rhetoric. Thanks for emphasising my point for me.

I don't remember you stating that I would respond with insults...Perhaps you are confusing my post with your angry, initial one? Hmm, me thinks so...

As for rhetoric, I respect people who are able to formulate a cohesive response - based on facts - rather than a dull, subjective regurgitation of 'information'.

You're welcome.

Ou Be wants to talk about steps in the right direction. We signed the treaty but we did not ratify it. We showed our commitment to the idea but we are not going to commit to an action that is mediocre at best. It is not the quality of one's intentions that makes a difference. It is the quality of one's actions and the Kyoto Agreement is merely a circlejerk.

Clinton showed a commitment to the idea, Bush showed nothing but disdain for it. The main reason for this? The fact that China would not be held culpable to it's restrictions. The emergence of China as a super-power is a threat to US' globalism as it would act as an equal counter-balance to the US' demonstrative actions. Therefore, anything that can be seen as giving an impetus to China's growth is rejected.

Indeed, it is not 'the quality of one's intentions that makes a difference', it 'is the quality of one's actions'...The fact that the US shows neither an intention towards a reduction in global warming or any action to this cause, betrays their real attitude to it - do nothing, make money.

It's sad, but it's true.

One more thing...You say this:

I dont listen to any speeches from any world leader, so I have no idea what guff he is spewing.

But you previously stated this:

It was a great speech

Are you confused or do you suffer from amnesia? What am I saying? Huh? Mama?

Classic.

Clinton showed a commitment to the idea, Bush showed nothing but disdain for it. The main reason for this? The fact that China would not be held culpable to it's restrictions. The emergence of China as a super-power is a threat to US' globalism as it would act as an equal counter-balance to the US' demonstrative actions. Therefore, anything that can be seen as giving an impetus to China's growth is rejected.

Indeed, it is not 'the quality of one's intentions that makes a difference', it 'is the quality of one's actions'...The fact that the US shows neither an intention towards a reduction in global warming or any action to this cause, betrays their real attitude to it - do nothing, make money.

It's sad, but it's true.

I don't know about the globalism thing..........China is already a super-power that balances our actions internationally within the eastern hemisphere. I think the U.S. focus on China is simply to demonstrate the inherent weaknesses within Kyoto. The purpose is for a global effort to reduce emissions. This implies ACTION by every country. To exempt one country and not another for ANY reason reveals what, as I said earlier, a political circlejerk Kyoto really is. The U.S. has initiatives created within its own government to curtail our treatment of the environment. We commit billions to these efforts. We won't commit money to something that is just a gesture:

The Kyoto Protocol can also be evaluated by comparing costs and gains. Several economic analyses were made that show that the Kyoto Protocol is more expensive than the global warming that it avoids. Defenders of the Kyoto Protocol argue however that while the initial greenhouse gas cuts may have little effect, they set the political precedent for bigger (and more effective) cuts in the future. Also, they demonstrate commitment to the precautionary principle.

POLITICAL PRECEDENT FOR BIGGER (AND MORE EFFECTIVE) CUTS IN THE FUTURE............

Why do we need to set a precedent? Many First World countries like the U.S. have environmental services with decades of experience in environmental work. Why not actively join forces and enACT a solution? What's with the political gesturing that may or may not produce a result?

The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change is a statement signed by 80 academics and 25 meteorologists, repudiating the oft-repeated claim that there is a scientific consensus on the global warming issue. [1] (http://www.sepp.org/leipzig.html)

The declaration, which opposes the global warming hypothesis and the Kyoto Protocol, has appeared in two versions, both penned by Fred Singer of the Science and Environmental Policy Project (SEPP).

Global warming skeptics have hailed the declarations as a critical scientific turning point. Critics claim they were fraudulent publicity stunts and have questioned both the authenticity of the signatures and the credentials of the verifiable signers.

The first declaration was based on a November 9-10 1995 conference, in Leipzig, Germany. The second declaration was additionally based on a successor conference in Bonn, Germany on November 10-11, 1997. The conferences were cosponsored by the SEPP and the European Academy for Environmental Affairs and titled International Symposium on the Greenhouse Controversy.

The 1995 Declaration
The 1995 declaration asserts: "There does not exist today a general scientific consensus about the importance of greenhouse warming from rising levels of carbon dioxide. On the contrary, most scientists now accept the fact that actual observations from earth satellites show no climate warming whatsoever."

It also criticised the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, saying: "Energy is essential for all economic growth, and fossil fuels provide today's principal global energy source. In a world in which poverty is the greatest social pollutant, any restriction on energy use that inhibits economic growth should be viewed with caution. For this reason, we consider 'carbon taxes' and other drastic control policies ... to be ill-advised, premature, wrought with economic danger, and likely to be counterproductive."

[edit]
Signatures
According to the SEPP website, there were 79 signatures to the 1995 declaration, including Frederick Seitz: the current SEPP chair. The signature list was last updated on July 16, 1996. Of these 79, 33 failed to respond when the SEPP asked them to sign the 1997 declaration. The SEPP calls the signatories "nearly 100 climate experts".

The signatures to the 1995 declaration were disputed by David Olinger of the St. Petersburg Times. In an article on July 29, 1996, he revealed that many signers, including Chauncey Starr, Robert Balling, and Patrick Michaels, have received funding from the oil industry, while others had no scientific training or could not be identified.

The 1995 declarations begins: "As scientists, we are intensely interested in the possibility that human activities may affect the global climate". However, those identified as scientists and climate experts include at least ten weather presenters, including Dick Groeber of Dick's Weather Service in Springfield, Ohio. Groeber, who had not completed a university degree, labelled himself a scientist by virtue of his thirty to forty years of self-study.

In any case, it is difficult to accurately evaluate the list of signatures of the 1995 declaration, as the SEPP website provides no additional details about them except for their university, if they are professors.

[edit]
The 1997 Declaration
The 1997 declaration updated the 1995 declaration in a number of ways. The most obvious difference was its focus on the Kyoto Protocol, as the Kyoto conference was in the process of being finalised. The declaration says:

"We believe the Kyoto Protocol -- to curtail carbon dioxide emissions from only part of the world community -- is dangerously simplistic, quite ineffective, and economically destructive to jobs and standards-of-living. ... We consider the drastic emission control policies deriving from the Kyoto conference -- lacking credible support from the underlying science -- to be ill-advised and premature."
The 1997 declaration also updated its citations of evidence that runs contrary to the consensus on global warming. For example, the 1995 declaration cites "observations from earth satellites," where the 1997 declaration cites "observations from both weather satellites and balloon-borne radiosondes."

[edit]
Signatures
The declaration begins: "As independent scientists concerned with atmospheric and climate problems, we...". As with the 1995 declaration, questions have been raised about the scientific background of the signers, and others have questioned the degree to which they can be deemed to be independent. Because many of those who signed the 1997 declaration also signed the 1995 declaration, the concerns raised by David Olinger and others after the 1995 declaration are still relevant.

The signers are generally described by Fred Singer and his supporters as climate scientists, although the current signers also include 25 weather presenters. One key report opposing the scientific credentials of the signers was a Danish Broadcasting Company TV special by Øjvind Hesselager. Hesselager attempted to contact the declaration's 33 European signers and found that four of them could not be located, twelve denied ever having signed, and some had not even heard of the Leipzig Declaration. Those who verified signing included a medical doctor, a nuclear scientist, and an entomologist. After discounting the signers whose credentials were inflated, irrelevant, false, or unverifiable, Hesselager claimed that only 20 of the names on the list had any scientific connection with the study of climate change, and some of those names were known to have obtained grants from the oil and fuel industry, including the German coal industry and the government of Kuwait (a major oil exporter). As a result of Hesselager's report, Singer removed some, but not all, of the discredited signatures. The number of signatures on the document, according to the SEPP's own press releases, has declined from 140 (according to a December 1997 press release) to 105 (as of February 2003).

The SEPP's position is that "a few of the original signers did not have the 'proper' academic credentials - even though they understand the scientific climate issues quite well. To avoid this kind of smear, we want to restrict the Leipzig Declaration to signers with impeccable qualifications." To address the signer credibility issue, the SEPP has provided considerably more information about each signer on their website and lists the weather presenters separately from the other signers.

Beyond other arguments some theorists predict that even if the world's leading industrial nations agree to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions as mandated by the Kyoto Protocol, it is likely that there would be no net change in emissions worldwide. If the industrialized countries cut their demand for fossil fuels to meet the emission reduction responsibilties, the law of supply and demand would tend to cause the world prices of coal, oil and gas go down, making fuel use more affordable for poorer nations. These theorists predict increased fuel use (primarily coal) in the "non-Annex I" countries, tending to offset the reductions of the "Annex I" countries.

Although not enough research has been done to say there is no global warming threat, it is clear that many of the world's leading scientists are not in agreement. Also, pushing initiatives like Kyoto based on hasty claims that global warming is a threat on the forefront is just non-sensical. The Leipzig example I gave is not as credible as those who signed it would like it to be; however, even if you filter out the unqualified signatories, one can see that science is still in disagreement over this issue. Personally, I believe global warming has to be paid attention to. I do not think the Kyoto Agreement is the best tool to forge a path in the right direction. Each nation should be committed to environmental protection, whether Kyoto exists or not.

DO NOTHING, MAKE MONEY...........well it is sad but true. But the reasons why nations do this is not as simple as the statement projects. AND, the U.S. is not the only nation that has to wrestle with "necessary evils".

One more thing...You say this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDon
I dont listen to any speeches from any world leader, so I have no idea what guff he is spewing.


But you previously stated this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDon
It was a great speech


Are you confused or do you suffer from amnesia? What am I saying? Huh? Mama?

Classic.

Yes, it is classic. As I clearly stated, and you clearly quoted, I dont listen to any of the speeches. The speech is contained in the first post of this thread.

Then I guess you must get your 'facts' from another source of propaganda...

Nature Journal
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
Science Magazine
Journal of Climate
Geophysical Research Letters

Amazingly all of these references were listed in one of my previous posts. Interesting that you would call them propaganda.

Use the edit button, its there for a reason.

Yes, it is classic. As I clearly stated, and you clearly quoted, I dont listen to any of the speeches. The speech is contained in the first post of this thread.

I didn't think you would be one to allow yourself to be bogged down in semantics, but I guess the proof is in the pudding...


I dont listen to any speeches from any world leader, so I have no idea what guff he is spewing.

Obviously this is incorrect, as you clearly comment on his speech:


It was a great speech

No need to apologise, I'm just here to help.

As for the sources of your facts, well my dear boy, I could just as easily give you a list of scientists who do believe global-warming is a threat, so that is not the point here. The point is that a majority of the countries of the world acknowledge that a problem exists and are willing to begin to reduce it's impact, but the US refuses to combat it as it would affect their $$$.

Use some self-control to think before you post next time. Ta-ta...

This semi-flaming will stop now. Whether or not TheDon contradicted himself is not relevant to this thread, and any further comments on this will be deleted. Please deal with this through PM.

On the regard of you giving a list, I call.

Mr U

...I could just as easily give you a list of scientists who do believe global-warming is a threat...

Why should I listen to scientists who would discard the very data they cried to get funding for?

Temp Trends (http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=894)

Satellite Data (http://globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=888)

The attitude that needs to be established is one of compassion for the world's environment and it's resources. An attitude that is promoted by the Kyoto Accord.

This one really bothers me. If anything the Kyoto Accord is an attitude of not caring. All of these nations are going to be spending a huge amount of money on something that will have no impact. If it was about caring then they should be spending that money on something that will accomplish something. Kyoto just pisses away resources that should used for other enviromental issues.

“The Kyoto Protocol has been sold as a first step in addressing climate change, but it is a step in the wrong direction. The costs of the policies required by Kyoto will far outweigh any potential benefits,” said Director of Global Warming and International Environmental Policy Myron Ebell. “In the European Union, Japan, and Canada, the reality that Kyoto is a dead end and cannot possibly work is already beginning to set in. We can only hope that they will be able to jump off the Kyoto bandwagon before too much economic damage has been done,” Ebell continued. “India, China, and other major developing nations have come to agree with the Bush Administration that even if global warming does turn out to be a problem, then the only workable solution will be long-term technological transformation of the global energy sector. Now we need to work on expanding that consensus to include the EU and Japan,” Ebell concluded.

Kyoto Effect (http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm)

The point is that a majority of the countries of the world acknowledge that a problem exists and are willing to begin to reduce it's impact, but the US refuses to combat it as it would affect their $$$.

A few budget numbers:

$555 million in clean energy tax incentives, as the first part of a $4.6 billion commitment over the next five years ($7.1 billion over the next 10 years). These tax credits will spur investments in renewable energy (solar, wind, and biomass), hybrid and fuel cell vehicles, cogeneration, and landfill gas conversion.

$3 billion - a $1 billion increase above the baseline – as the first part of a ten year (2002-2011) commitment to implement and improve the conservation title of the Farm Bill, which will significantly enhance the natural storage of carbon.

$25 Million in Climate Observation Systems in Developing Countries.

$178 million for the Global Environmental Facility (GEF) including a substantial $70 million payment for arrears incurred during the prior administration. The GEF is the primary international institution for transferring energy and sequestration technologies to the developing world under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change.

$155 million in funding for United States Agency for International Development (USAID) for climate change programs.

$4.5 billion in total climate spending.

Some of this spending will achieve 100 million metric tons of reduced emissions in 2012 alone, with more than 500 million metric tons in cumulative savings over the entire decade. This exceeds Kyoto.

263 power plants regulated in the first phase of the program in 1999 with those in 1990, the North Central, Southeast and Mid-Atlantic regions achieved 49 percent, 48 percent and 43 percent reductions in SO2 respectively.

Over the last 30 years, the US has made great progress in providing for a better environment and improving public health. In that time, the economy grew 164 percent, population grew 39 percent, and energy consumption increased 42 percent, yet air pollution from the six major pollutants decreased by 48 percent. In 2002, state data reported to EPA showed that approximately 251 million people (or 94 percent of the total population) were served by community water systems that met all health-based standards. This number is up from 79 percent in 1993.

Damn, guess the US isnt doing anything at all. Thanks for coming, please drive through.

EDIT> Sorry HU.

Re. Kyoto:

"It is also a sign that the rest of the world can move multilaterally, even with the hegemony of the United States," said Agus P. Sari, executive director of Pelangi, an environmental policy research institute.

Agus said the treaty was not only about emissions reductions but also about coping with the impact of climate change, as well as the transfer of clean technology and capacity building.

WWF Indonesia climate and energy program coordinator Eka Melisa said the treaty was a step toward containing the climate change threat at a manageable level.

As a result of this progress, she said companies from developed countries that had or would have investment in developing countries such as Indonesia, would have to calculate the total emission they would produce and, ultimately, would have to choose more clean energy sources and/or sustainable technology for every new investment.

However, controversy over the protocol, as well as climate change issues, still exist. But Agus said the number of scientists who agreed that climate change was already occurring and would continue to worsen in the future was much greater than those who took the opposite view.

"I have seen the science and I agree that the risk we are facing is great, clear and serious," said Agus, a lead author of the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's most authoritative scientific body on climate change.
"Risks are, by definition, a statistical inference. But risks work both ways -- they can get better, or worse. And the research shows that the likelihood of being worse is much greater than being better.

"It also shows that we don't know everything, but what we already know is enough to warrant action," he said.

In 1995 the IPCC assessment concluded that "the balance of evidence suggests that there is a discernible human influence on global climate". Since then the evidence has become much stronger ... Thus the headline in IPCC (2001) is "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities"... While some changes arising from global warming are benign or even beneficial, the economic effects of the weather extremes are substantial and clearly warrant attention in policy debates... Consequently, there is a strong case for slowing down the projected rates of climate change from human influences.

http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/GLOB_CHANGE/ipcc2001.html

I could go on and on and on and on and on, but that would just make me as boring as you, so I'll stop.

Good to see you heeded HU's warning...So, I guess I'll have to follow suit...

'Dazed And Confused' and 'Still Ignorant' are really pertinent in light of your vacuous posts...You don't even know what you're saying half of the time! 'Most Knowledgeable Poster' couldn't be any more ironic if it was tied to a tree...

Put that in your drive-through, and smoke it.

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the world's most authoritative scientific body on climate change.

I am so glad you decided to mention them.

Dr. Patrick Michaels writes: Here's what the United Nations wrote in 1995: "Warmer temperatures will lead to . . . prospects for more severe droughts and/or floods in some places and less severe droughts and/or floods in others." What the IPCC is saying is that global warming will cause in "some places" and/or "others":
- More intense wet periods.
- More intense dry periods.
- More intense wet and dry periods.
- Less intense wet periods.
- Less intense dry periods.
- And less intense wet and dry periods.
Precisely how this is different than a world without human-enhanced global warming is unclear. From year to year, some areas of the world have always experienced more severe droughts and floods than others. Likewise, some areas of the world have always experienced less severe droughts and floods than others. With or without global warming, this process will continue in the future.

"In sum, a strategy must recognize what is possible. In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the prediction of a specific future climate state is not possible." -- Final chapter, Draft TAR 2000 (Third Assessment Report), IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).

According to the IPCC, "Global Sea level is projected to rise by about 3.5 to 34.6 inches between 1990 and 2100." So they are guessing that over a span of 110 years the global sea level will rise somewhere between 3.5 to 34.6 inches, a difference of 31.1 inches. Thats a big fucking margin of error for the worlds most authoritative scientific body. But as stated in their own report, it is not possible to predict the future of climate state.

Lets look a little closer at this. 34.6 inches is equal to 876.30 millimeters. This predicts an average rise of .31 inches per year over the 110 year span.

Center for Operational Oceanographic Products and Services (CO-OPS) data shows that over the last 50 years there has been an average rise in global sea level of 0.62 inches, equal to 15.653 millimeters.

This shows an average rise of .01 inches per year over the 50 year span. Even if you multiply this shown rate by 10, you are looking at a total rise of 10 inches by 2100. This, of course, does not take into account the recent cooling trend (Peak recorded: +0.746 °C April 1998. Current change relative to peak recorded: -0.595 °C from Global Hydrology and Climate Center) or the increase in Antarctic ice mass.

NASA's TIROs series of weather satellite as well as weather balloons have both confirmed that the planet has been cooling since 1979.

A few sound bites:

"Because there is considerable uncertainty in current understanding of how the climate system varies naturally and reacts to emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols, current estimates of the magnitude of future warming should be regarded as tentative and subject to future adjustments (either upward or downward)." -- Climate Change Science - An Analysis Of Some Key Questions, p1 (Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council) ISBN 0-309-07574-2.

"Because climate is uncontrollable . . . the models are the only available experimental laboratory for climate. . . . However, climate models are imperfect. Their simulation skill is limited by uncertainties in their formulation, the limited size of their calculations, and the difficulty of interpreting their answers that exhibit almost as much complexity as in nature." -- Climate Change Science - An Analysis Of Some Key Questions, p15 (Committee on the Science of Climate Change, National Research Council) ISBN 0-309-07574-2.

"At this point in the debate, it is intellectually dishonest and borders on fraudulent to continue to maintain that there is any reasonable basis to fear a coming climate apocalypse. Yet the scientific establishment continues to grind out tortured "studies" to prove black is white. Those involved in this charade are doing lasting damage to science and the reputations of scientists. Hell, you are no different than the worst lawyers - you will say whatever people want you to say so long as you are paid." -- Fred Palmer, president of the Greening Earth Society.

And the reason for all this fear mongering:

"Isn't the only hope for the planet that the industrialised civilizations collapse? Isn't it our responsibility to bring that about?" -- Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.

…the economic effects of the weather extremes are substantial and clearly warrant attention in policy debates...

The average number of acres burned have fallen from 12.4 million per year during the 1920s, to 3.9 million in the 1930s, 2.6 million acres in the 1960s and just 2 million acres during the 1980s

The most severe droughts this century occurred during 1907-1908, 1932-1933, 1963-1964, and 1980-81, not the strong El Niño years 1904-1905, 1917-1918, 1940-1941, 1957-1958, 1965-1966, 1972-1973, 1982-1983 and 1991-1992.

Robert Mann, writing in Geophysical Research Letters, recently provided a powerful demonstration of this phenomenon. Using long-term records from tree rings and ice cores, he concluded that the planet was on a 900-year cooling streak between 1000 and 1900. Then we warmed up almost twice as much as we had cooled, but at least half of that warming was caused by our inconsistent sun. Two NASA scientists recently demonstrated that the sun has been warming throughout the last 400 years. As a result, if the last decade weren't among the warmest in the last millennium, something would have been wrong with the basic theory of climate: The sun warms the Earth.

There was no significant change in the frequency of hurricanes and tropical storms in the Atlantic basin between 1944 and 1995.

There were no hurricanes in the Caribbean Sea between 1990 and 1994, the longest period of such calm weather for the region since 1899.

There was a moderate decrease in the per season maximum intensity reached by all storms between 1944 and 1995.

In a 1990 study, Drs. Robert Balling, Sherwood Idso and Randall Cerveny found that warmer global temperatures actually lead to fewer hurricanes, not more. Their analysis - which assessed data for 1947 through 1987 - found that the warmest years over the 41-year period produced the fewest number of hurricane days, on average. Conversely, the coldest years, on average, produced a greater number of hurricane days.

And a happy little graph:

http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/CET1659-2003.GIF

"Risks are, by definition, a statistical inference. But risks work both ways -- they can get better, or worse. And the research shows that the likelihood of being worse is much greater than being better.

"It also shows that we don't know everything, but what we already know is enough to warrant action," he said.

^ A quote I have already used to refute your previous post can be used again to refute this more recent one.

This next lot is from the Union Of Concerned Scientists' website...

Global warming is real and underway

Climate Stewardship Act (CSA) has been reintroduced. Tell your members of Congress to support this crucial measure for the health of our environment.

The mainstream scientific consensus on global warming is becoming clearer every day: changes in our climate are real and they are underway. Now. But we can do something about it.

The evidence that human-induced global warming is real is increasingly clear and compelling.
Since the beginning of the 20th century, the mean surface temperature of the earth has increased by about 1.1º F (0.6°Celsius).

- Over the last 40 years, which is the period with most reliable data, the temperature increased by about 0.5 º F (0.2-0.3°Celsius).

- Warming in the 20th century is greater than at any time during the past 400-600 years.

- Seven of the ten warmest years in the 20th century occurred in the 1990s. 1998, with global temperatures spiking due to one of the strongest El Niños on record, was the hottest year since reliable instrumental temperature measurements began.

In addition, changes in the natural environment support the evidence from temperature records:

- mountain glaciers the world over are receding;

- the Arctic ice pack has lost about 40% of its thickness over the past four decades;

- the global sea level is rising about three times faster over the past 100 years compared to the previous 3,000 years; and

- there are a growing number of studies that show plants and animals changing their range and behavior in response to shifts in climate.

Causing serious disruptions to our environment and lives . . .

As the Earth continues to warm, there is a growing risk that the climate will change in ways that will seriously disrupt our lives. While on average the globe will get warmer and receive more precipitation, individual regions will experience different climatic changes and environmental impacts. Among the most severe consequences of global warming are:

- a faster rise in sea level,

- more heat waves and droughts, resulting in more and more conflicts for water resources;

- more extreme weather events, producing floods and property destruction; and

- a greater potential for heat-related illnesses and deaths as well as the wider spread of infectious diseases carried by insects and rodents into areas previously free from them.

If climatic trends continue unabated, global warming will threaten our health, our cities, our farms and forests, beaches and wetlands, and other natural habitats.

On a more personal note, have you not witnessed the recent (past year...) weather activities? All over the world, the weather is getting fucked-up and crazy. Here in Taiwan, we had Typhoons in November! If this kind of occurance was simply restricted to one part of the world, then it could be passed-off as a coincidence. However, strange, out-of-season weather and extreme weather has been occuring world-wide.

I liked the graph. It looked pretty.

This is boring. The only reason I got into this thread was to spark some discussion on the forum, but the only member replying is Ou Be. I could spend a few minutes picking apart that last post, but there really isnt a point to it. And people wonder why activity is dropping.

Maybe because nobody except Ou Be feels like arguing with the most knowledgable poster about technicalities.

We havent even gotten too technical yet. I just really thought there would have been at least one or two other members that would have had something to say. HU posted a couple of quips, but that was more directed at us then the topic. I dont know, guess I figured that other members could get into this. Guess I figured wrong. meh.

Don........Ou Be........I think we will have to "agree to disagree" with this debate as there is no clear adavantage either way. You both presented terrific research and examples and in doing so have proved the point about the issue of global warming: WE DON'T KNOW ENOUGH YET! Both sides of this issue can argue all these amazing facts; however, an undeniable connection between the two can never be made. The reason global warming is such a divided issue is because an insufficient amount of data has been collected thus far. Instead of either side thinking THEY have the correct answer, their attiutde should reflect more of an intimate understanding that NONE OF THEM HAVE THE CORRECT ANSWER, especially if they took the time to halt the fighting and realize how divided they are for no good reason. If there was sufficient scientifical work done to prove the issue either way, then there would not be such division as it would be unmistakable what the CORRECT assessment is: global warming effect by humans, or global warming effect not by humans! With no concrete proof or solution, it simply boils down to politics!!! And, this is exactly what Kyoto is: a political circlejerk............hey don't forget the complementary reach-around for the BIG contributors cupcake............one compelling piece of evidence that Don showed was the amount of money the U.S. puts towards its domestic environmental agenda. It's unmistakeable! We do not benefit from or need an arrangement like Kyoto. We will only commit to something that is "set to work" for everyone.
Besides, there no use in you two arguing Kyoto when you don't agree on whether global warming exists. I don't think it is safe to decide whether it does or not right now. There is not enough information even for the experts let alone regular enthusiasts like you and me. More importantly, the current focus should have priority. What international environmental initiative would help our world TODAY? How can we best curtail emissions and global climate effects with the purest intentions? Let's write legislation that immediately translates to committment and action instead of political positioning and deal making.............

This thread is about the State of the Union which has many other political issues mentioned in it...........let's move the debate on to another topic:

Don, do you have a position on Social Security Reform? OR bring up another topic..........I don't care.

Very well then...

Considering the fact that Social Security was never ment to be a perminent solution, only a temp fix to help deal with the collapse of the economy, I certainly feel that it should be reformed at the very least. The reason that it was never done before as was originally intended is the same reason it probably wont get done now, polloticians are scared as hell of taking money away from voters. But the simple fact remains, in its current state the system will fail. If the decision is made to keep the system then a massie reform must take place. I like the idea of being able to invest the money. If done wisely you will make a decent amount to retire on, most likely much more than SS would pay. The added effect to this is a massive influx of money into the market, driving shares up on most mutual funds. Of course, you will have the share of idiots out there that manage to go broke. Personaly I would rather just not pay the money at all. I feel that every adult should be able to plan their own retirement. They are supposed to be adults after all. A slow decrease in the amount of tax taken out each year as the system is phased out would be the best in my opinion. that just gives me more money to start my own planning now.

Consider this the final warning. Any more comments that might be in any way considered by me to be flaming will be deleted, and the thread locked.

This thread is not about Ou Be Low hoo or TheDon, it's about the State of Union.

Mr U

Very well. I will refrain from posting anything containing a thought and just try to quadruple post nothingness, since that is the conduct that seems to be accepted here.

Very well then...

Considering the fact that Social Security was never ment to be a perminent solution, only a temp fix to help deal with the collapse of the economy, I certainly feel that it should be reformed at the very least. The reason that it was never done before as was originally intended is the same reason it probably wont get done now, polloticians are scared as hell of taking money away from voters. But the simple fact remains, in its current state the system will fail. If the decision is made to keep the system then a massie reform must take place. I like the idea of being able to invest the money. If done wisely you will make a decent amount to retire on, most likely much more than SS would pay. The added effect to this is a massive influx of money into the market, driving shares up on most mutual funds. Of course, you will have the share of idiots out there that manage to go broke. Personaly I would rather just not pay the money at all. I feel that every adult should be able to plan their own retirement. They are supposed to be adults after all. A slow decrease in the amount of tax taken out each year as the system is phased out would be the best in my opinion. that just gives me more money to start my own planning now.

Interestingly enough, I have heard many people talk about the fact that the government should simply phase the program out. I don't know how I feel about that yet; however, I do not care for some of the proposals that are out there right now. Initially, I was excited about the personal accounts idea, but the more I heard about what it would take to implement personal accounts coupled with the opposition's data illustrating the minimal effects these changes have with what S.S. pays out, the more I have been turned off by what now seems to me: a band-aid over a knife wound. Social Security needs FUNDAMENTAL restructuring if it is going to be a permanent part of our government's workings. Hell, we should even change the name of it...........S.S. isn't really enough to live on anyway. Most Americans have to plan their retirements anyway, social security is just bonus money for many retirees. As social conditions have changed over the decades, so too should the social security program change. The political climate just doesn't seem right for the changes Bush is trying to accomplish. I still see Bush as a "lame duck" thus far.

Very well. I will refrain from posting anything containing a thought and just try to quadruple post nothingness, since that is the conduct that seems to be accepted here.

I second that!

Not at all, you are all free to debate these issues. I can not however, and will not tolerate excessive flaming, and for that I am sorry.

Good job on continuing to post like a fucking NUG too.

Messages like these do not contribute to the thread, and I clearly stated that I did not want further flammatory posts. I understand that an argument may become... heated when we are talking about these kinds of issues, but I urge you all to try and restrain yourselves.

Now, please, continue your debate :).

Mr U

I wish that we could have. The only debates this forum has seen since are luke warm discussions on god....which have been done to death. If somebody else would like to revive the global warming issue, from any point of view, then perhaps some good banter could be returned to the forum and the only thing to see wont be post-whoring.

I still find it amazing that anyone could refute the existence of global warming and the current pollution of our planet...

I view the beliefe in global warming to be much like a beliefe in god. Both are motivated by fear and ignorance. But none of this really furthers the discussion, does it?