Nature News
Ban welcomes Bush's call for climate talks
Jun 2, 2007, 13:18 GMT
New York - UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon on Friday welcomed US President George W Bush's call for climate talks among the world's top polluters as an extra component in the battle to reduce global warming.
Ban said he believed the US president now 'realized the urgency and importance of climate change,' in comments to reporters at UN headquarters in New York.
'I hope such an effort by the United States will be mutually reinforcing the international community's efforts, particularly led by the United Nations,' Ban said. 'I hope all such initiatives ... will be discussed within the UN framework.'
US National Security Adviser Stephen Hadley said Friday that Bush's offer was not meant to sideline broader UN talks on cutting greenhouse-gas emissions.
Bush 'made it very clear that this is not a competition to the UN process' and that 'getting some consensus among those countries could ... enable that UN process to succeed,' Hadley said.
Bush on Thursday called for about 15 countries that account for the bulk of greenhouse-gas emissions, including the US, to meet later this year for talks on a 'long-term global goal' for cutting emissions.
The initiative effectively rebuffed European Union calls for a long-term commitment to be reached at next week's G8 summit in Germany. Led by German Chancellor Angela Merkel, the EU hopes the eight rich nations will agree on global greenhouse gas emissions being cut to 50 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.
The US refused to join the 1998 Kyoto Protocol, which set mandatory emissions reductions for developed nations. But Bush said Thursday the US was ready to join international talks on how to combat global warming after the pact expires in 2012.
© 2007 dpa - Deutsche Presse-AgenturCOMMENT
blog comments powered by DisqusLatest Headlines in Nature
- 1. USA California Tsunami Wave Pictures
- 2. Japan Earthquake Tsunami Pictures
- 3. Indonesia Bromo Eruption Pictures
- 4. UN: Bee colonies worldwide under threat from chemicals and pollution
- 5. USA Hawaii Volcano Pictures
Older Talkback
page: 1
It is amazing how folks just keep talking about a false premise/issue of CO2 causing climate change. They are both poorly educated and misled by a party line or economic criminals.
Current incompetent stories regarding CO2 Causing Climate Change are a fraud.
When you base anything on a false premise everything else that follows is false. CO2 causing climate change IS a false premise.
Consensus is NOT science. Educate, inform yourself, take a 9th grade science class.
Additional information InteliOrg.com
Stop listening to folks that have a financial interest in the subject. Unfortunately, many have learned to spin information, thusly have become intellectually and academically dishonest.
Information Vetting: I have no financial interest in this subject.
The last poster, Dr Whatzis, left out how the REAL problem of CO2 generation was the dinosaurs on Noah's Ark.
Seriously, Dr. Doolitle, grow a brain - it's called 'evolution'. Bush occasionally demonstrates just a bit of it. If we wait for 'absolute proof', the few humans left will have to discern it.
Put 'new scientist climate myths' into Google
Re: Put 'new scientist climate myths' into Google
----
Top 4 links from a total of two sources. Put up nearly anything, and Google provides links. Like sorting through the town dump.
If you want to see a lot of links, enter 'Bushisms'. Click on any of them for the reality.
'There's a lot of blowhards in the political process, you know, a lot of hot-air artists, people who have got something fancy to say.'—Washington, D.C., May 17, 2007
(Maybe that's the global warming answer ...)
Other crap with lots of links:
dinosaurs noahs ark
earth is flat
Global warming is real, it is also a natural phenomenon. It is not man made. People have been programmed to think 'pollution' every time they hear 'global warming'. It is a psychological trick that has been played on you. It is a part of an advertising concept called 'Branding'.
You need to ask yourself, what does advertising and branding have to do with science? The obvious answer is NOTHING. There is money to be made off this hysteria by governments (Tax), self appointed governments (The UN, EU, again with Tax) and the scientific community. (Grants for junk science that confirm political goals)
YOU ARE BEING MANIPULATED. YOU ARE BEING CONNED INTO INSISTING THAT YOU GIVE UP YOUR OWN SOVEREIGNTY AND MONEY TO THESE SWINDLERS!
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2332531355859226455
video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3309910462407994295
Please, a little reason here and less hysteria.
At least this topic has given the conspiracy theorists to gather; possibly adding to global warming by their nonsensical spouting.
No one can quantify the damage done, but in the Arctic and other areas particularly vulnerable, it's inescapable. I will bet that the Flat Earth Society is still looking for the world's edge, and there are still people believing that the Earth is the center of the universe.
Greenland is an example of the cross-discussions on warming:
(excerpt)
The effect of the rising temperatures in the 1920s and 1930s was 'visible dozens of years later, and that of the 1990s will be (visible) in 10 or 20 years,' Yde said, adding that he expected Greenland's glaciers to melt even faster in the future. The shrinking of the glaciers since the 19th century is 'the result of the atmosphere's natural warming, following volcanic eruptions for example and greenhouse gases, created by human activities, which have aggravated the situation further,' he said.
---
There are both natural causes for warming, and manmade causes; with human causes upscaling since the 18th century. This is accelerating, as China and other growing economies contribute for the first time, and it will take years to gauge impact. The Arctic ice mass is shrinking, as is Antarctica. Those in ignorance will leave the problem for future generations.
I am a skeptic that humans have had more than a minor role in the minuscule amount of increase in average global temperatures of 0.6 degrees C, 1 degree F, over the past 100 years which is commonly attributed to an increase in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide. This increase itself is about 100 parts-per million, or 0.01% of the content of the atmosphere. To put that amount into perspective, that would be like someone holding 10,000 one hundred dollar bills, then handing you a single $100 bill. That $100 bill represents the entire CO2 increase in the atmosphere in the past 100 years versus the entire atmosphere. Pretty small amount compared to a million bucks, you think? Anyway, the theory is that adding more CO2 to the air by our motor vehicles, power plants and other human activities will increase that 0.6 degree C temperature to an even higher level, thereby supposedly creating a series of disasters worldwide. We we all agree that the Earth has warmed slightly in the past 100 or so years. We all agree that the CO2 content of the atmosphere is higher than in the 1800s. The disagreement is about how and why this small temperature change has occurred. There are many ideas about the mechanisms of global warming, and there is great concern about how higher levels of CO2 might affect future worldwide temperature. In my opinion, it would have little effect. Global warming is a natural planetary process with very little if any of it caused by humankind. I have no concern whatsoever about future global temperature change or any environmental disasters associated therewith. I am an independent chemist with no ties to either side of the issue.
RE: I am a skeptic that humans have had more than a minor role in the minuscule amount of increase in average global temperatures of 0.6 degrees C, 1 degree F, over the past 100 years which is commonly attributed to an increase in the amount of atmospheric carbon dioxide.
---------------------------------------------------------------
You are COMPLETELY missing the point. The amount of 'human activity' creating the CO2 is increasing dramatically, and the future portends worse.
Coal-fired plants are going up all over China. This Administration has been more than friendly with the coal lobby, and Peabody participated in Cheney's 'private meetings' of about 5 years ago. Coal is 'dirty', as fuels go, and the gasification initiatives are getting government funding.
If the emissions level were growing at the same pace as it did historically, that's one thing. But the fact is, it's more 'hockey stick', and that growth shows no sign of abating. China is far less energy-efficient than we are, per unit of production - therefore to make the same 'widget', it costs China 5x the energy.
You need to do an analysis of the past 5 years, past 10 years, past 25 years, and match that to the past 100 years.
Source on Web for following (Center for American Progress)
Global Warming and the Future of Coal
The Path to Carbon Capture and Storage
By Ken Berlin, Robert M. Sussman, May 31, 2007
(excerpt)
Ever-rising industrial and consumer demand for more power in tandem with cheap and abundant coal reserves across the globe are expected to result in the construction of new coal-fired power plants producing 1,400 gigawatts of electricity by 2030, according to the International Energy Agency. In the absence of emission controls, these new plants will increase worldwide annual emissions of carbon dioxide by approximately 7.6 billion metric tons by 2030.
!!!These emissions would equal roughly 50 percent of all fossil fuel emissions over the past 250 years.!!!
In the United States alone, about 145 gigawatts of new power from coal-fired plants are projected to be built by 2030, resulting in CO2 emissions of 790 million metric tons per year in the absence of emission controls. By comparison, annual U.S. emissions of CO2 from all sources in 2005 were about 6 billion metric tons.
I'm not a chemist or a biologist or a scientist of any kind, but come on people, PUMPING CHEMICALS INTO THE SKY IS _NOT_GOOD_. I don't need a doctor to tell me that binge drinking every day isn't good, why are skeptics denying this in light of VOLUMES of evidence and scientific consensus indicating otherwise? This shouldn't even be an issue! Even if they don't know specifically what it might do, I'd rather err on the side of caution than carry an oxygen tank with me to go outside. There's a pattern, and it goes like this: MAN-MADE CHEMICALS + EARTH = BAD. And if you're going to piss and moan about tax increases and government wastefulness, let's talk about the military... If Bush Corp. cared even a tenth for the planet, of what they care for blowing up imaginary threats and establishing market-footholds in oil-rich countries, this problem would be halfway abated already. If anyone in this day and age STILL believes emissions aren't a threat, I encourage you to smoke, drink, do some blow, huff paint, hell, shoot up some heroin. Chemicals won't hurt you, right?
My god, and here people are raising a $#!t-storm about second hand smoke.
These sheep on here believe anything told to them by politicians and the UN or Al Gore...Most climatologists,( not 2000 scientists, not in the climate field, )realize that this is a cycle...It is actually starting to cool down towards the ice age thats coming. We will need all the extra heat we can get...
RE: Most climatologists,( not 2000 scientists, not in the climate field, )realize that this is a cycle ...
---
When was the last cycle of increased industrial activity? Wnen was the last cycle where China's GDP and use of energy was on this scale? This is not the stock market, where the historical mean can be carried forward as a basis of future performance.
Look at the chart on:
www.eia.doe.gov /oiaf /1605 /ggccebro /chapter1.html
(remove spaces in front of '/')
Try reading the post on Page 1, and refute the projected numbers:
' ... These emissions would equal roughly 50 percent of all fossil fuel emissions over the past 250 years. ... '
Use the academy of sciences charts from 1000's instead of the 1680 they use and you see we are in a cooling phase, still warming up from the last ice age. As you begin to read more you will realize we are moving closer to a guranteed reality,the next ice age occurs every 11,000 years...guess what? Yes George Bush is greener than AL Gore, (on the board of occidental petroleum, Apple computor-Makes ipods with slaves in unenviromental china, invented the internet so he claims, got his wife to put warning labels on records, probaly sold snake oil also...
re: Use the academy of sciences charts from 1000's instead of the 1680 they use and you see we are in a cooling phase, still warming up from the last ice age.
--
And, just when were you planning to factor in the effects of the next 30 years due to manmade influences? How about responding to facts presented; rather than long-term events spanning millennia, and assuming that the future will simply mimic the past?
I just heard a presentation from a climate scientist, that is on the UN group that wrote the latest report.
The presentation alternated between talking about climate change, and all the uncertainties involved.
That is how the scientist let everyone know that:
a. they have to make a living, so they have to talk the UN line, and
b. they want everyone to know they are not complete clowns, and the uncertainties dwarf any effects they are trying to measure.
Conformity is a powerful character trait of people. It is so powerful that medical science doesn't accept experiments unless they are 'double-blind', because the scientist's expected outcome can swamp the variables being observed.
People conform, even when they know something is wrong. See the Asch conformity experiments at Wikipedia.
Any scientist that looks into climate change, quickly finds out that the data are very noisy, computer models don't model water vapor, an 'average global temp' to a precision and accuracy of 0.1C going back 1,000 years on proxy data is preposterous, and the climate nazi's are determined to destroy any standard of living above living in a tee-pee, in semi-starvation, and watching your children die at an early age.
And a gradual increase of 2C over 100 years is somehow the end of the world, way more of a threat than total thermonuclear war, tsumanis, meteor strikes, and bird flu.
Climate doomsayers used to focus on another ice age (technically an extensive glaciation, since we are technically IN an ice age), because the evidence is overwhelming, and leads to the end of civilization as we know it. The only problem is, you can't blame anyone for ice ages.
So let the climate hysterics spin up and waste their energies trying save the world. If they focused on another problem, they might cause some real damage.
That story of Don Quixote battling the windmill? Not only does he lose, but the windmill doesn't even know he exists.
I just heard a presentation from a climate scientist, that is on the UN group that wrote the latest report.
The presentation alternated between talking about climate change, and all the uncertainties involved.
That is how the scientist let everyone know that:
a. they have to make a living, so they have to talk the UN line, and
b. they want everyone to know they are not complete clowns, and the uncertainties dwarf any effects they are trying to measure.
Conformity is a powerful character trait of people. It is so powerful that medical science doesn't accept experiments unless they are 'double-blind', because the scientist's expected outcome can swamp the variables being observed.
People conform, even when they know something is wrong. See the Asch conformity experiments at Wikipedia.
Any scientist that looks into climate change, quickly finds out that the data are very noisy, computer models don't model water vapor, an 'average global temp' to a precision and accuracy of 0.1C going back 1,000 years on proxy data is preposterous, and the climate nazi's are determined to destroy any standard of living above living in a tee-pee, in semi-starvation, and watching your children die at an early age.
And a gradual increase of 2C over 100 years is somehow the end of the world, way more of a threat than total thermonuclear war, tsumanis, meteor strikes, and bird flu.
Climate doomsayers used to focus on another ice age (technically an extensive glaciation, since we are technically IN an ice age), because the evidence is overwhelming, and leads to the end of civilization as we know it. The only problem is, you can't blame anyone for ice ages.
So let the climate hysterics spin up and waste their energies trying save the world. If they focused on another problem, they might cause some real damage.
That story of Don Quixote battling the windmill? Not only does he lose, but the windmill doesn't even know he exists.
I just heard a presentation from a climate scientist, that is on the UN group that wrote the latest report.
The presentation alternated between talking about climate change, and all the uncertainties involved.
That is how the scientist let everyone know that:
a. they have to make a living, so they have to talk the UN line, and
b. they want everyone to know they are not complete clowns, and the uncertainties dwarf any effects they are trying to measure.
Conformity is a powerful character trait of people. It is so powerful that medical science doesn't accept experiments unless they are 'double-blind', because the scientist's expected outcome can swamp the variables being observed.
People conform, even when they know something is wrong. See the Asch conformity experiments at Wikipedia.
Any scientist that looks into climate change, quickly finds out that the data are very noisy, computer models don't model water vapor, an 'average global temp' to a precision and accuracy of 0.1C going back 1,000 years on proxy data is preposterous, and the climate nazi's are determined to destroy any standard of living above living in a tee-pee, in semi-starvation, and watching your children die at an early age.
And a gradual increase of 2C over 100 years is somehow the end of the world, way more of a threat than total thermonuclear war, tsumanis, meteor strikes, and bird flu.
Climate doomsayers used to focus on another ice age (technically an extensive glaciation, since we are technically IN an ice age), because the evidence is overwhelming, and leads to the end of civilization as we know it. The only problem is, you can't blame anyone for ice ages.
So let the climate hysterics spin up and waste their energies trying save the world. If they focused on another problem, they might cause some real damage.
That story of Don Quixote battling the windmill? Not only does he lose, but the windmill doesn't even know he exists.
Put 'new scientist climate myths' into Google
I would just like to point out that if we started an intense R&D campaign into alternative energies, we could be exporting these technologies to developing nations to offset any 'economy effects' that may occur.
Really, the only major section of the economy that will hurt is the oil companies, the rest will just need to phase out old transportation methods. I would rather do that over a longer period of time than all at once. Its going to happen, but there is too much pressure from oil companies trying to slow it down.
What I do not understand is why be against curbing carbon emissions? If we work to cut the emissions by using alternative energy sources it would force us to invent new fuels and advance technology.
The United States should get back to being the best in the world in Science and Technology. We should put our money into imaginative, creative solutions to problems instead of reverting back to the 1950's.
The oil and coal companies have had more than enough time to adapt, we should support small businesses and forget about the stubborn energy companies and their lobbyists.
(Just posted on another thread and it updated immediately - this one appears to have a problem)
RE:
What I do not understand is why be against curbing carbon emissions? If we work to cut the emissions by using alternative energy sources it would force us to invent new fuels and advance technology.
(All politics. Cheney held an energy meeting where he refused, under subpoena, to divulge the list of attendees, citing executive privilege. Bush vetoed Kyoto, remember. The Republican position seems to be that big business is good, and carbon caps make doing business more expensive for major contributors. That's changing in the face of evidence that global warming IS something that we should be concerned about - Bush no longer has to raise campaign funds to run, and Cheney is not running for anything, so they can now 'appear' to be energy-conscious, to offset Iraq as a campaign issue for the GOP. What promotes new technology is increased overall demand, and the current high price of conventional fuels. That said, ethanol has a lot of problems, and is too corrosive to ship via pipeline. That means buying new railcars, and expanding the nation's rail system, which is already at capacity, for all intents and purposes. Remember John Snow, ex-CEO of a rail company?)
'The former Treasury secretary, Snow, who is 67, is one of the latest politicians hired by private equity for the connections and skills that are honed while working in the upper echelons of government. And as private equity expands, attracting more attention with headline-grabbing deals like that for Chrysler, buyout firms may find that known quantities like Snow, who was also chief executive of the railroad company CSX, are invaluable assets. The executive representing Cerberus in its most prominent deal to date (buying Chrysler) was not its founder and chief executive, Stephen Feinberg, who was intimately involved in the negotiations. Instead, sitting between Daimler's chairman, Dieter Zetsche, and Chrysler's chief executive, Thomas LaSorda, was John Snow, who had joined the firm just seven months ago.'
RE:
I would just like to point out that if we started an intense R&D campaign into alternative energies, we could be exporting these technologies to developing nations to offset any 'economy effects' that may occur.
(The problem is that the total world energy requirement is ramping up so quickly, it's difficult for any one alternative energy methodology to make a measurable dent. Coal gasification is expensive; but on the other hand, there's a LOT of coal to gasify, which is why anyone bothers with it. Let's say alternative energy was 5 percent of the total - throwing out a number. If the total energy requirement in a multi-year period rose 10 percent, it would take more than a 10 percent gain in alternative energy just to increase on that 5 percent share. You can see it in digital DSLR's, where the top three brands hold 86 percent of the market. A small player has a hard time raising investment funds in order to grow it's miniscule share).
The above is all excellent - but there are some very short term measures which could also be invaluable in curtailing the growth of the CO2 led Global Warming
For instance, if every household in america replaced 3 incandescent bulbs with energy saving equivalents, and assuming an average use of 5 hours a day, the savings would be the equivalent of 11 coal fired power stations, 23 million tons of CO2 and a money saving of $1.8 billion - for an outlay of around $450 million
RE: andy Jun 3rd, 2007 - 14:41:24
The above is all excellent - but there are some very short term measures which could also be invaluable in curtailing the growth of the CO2 led Global Warming
---
Incrementalism is great, but the rate of growth of energy usage is the major problem. If everyone switched to energy-saving bulbs and appliances, we might buy off a couple of years, but the worldwide increase in usage, plus energy consumptions inefficiencies in the Far East, are longer-term problems. We need ALL the energy sources, and ALL of the energy-savings initiatives.
What we lack is a President who acknowledges the scope of the problem, while the world does. This is a sign of the decline of U.S. leadership, amongst other nations.
Today's news:
Blair Joins Merkel Urging U.S. to Change Climate Stance at G-8
June 3 (Bloomberg) -- U.K. Prime Minister Tony Blair today joined Germany in urging the U.S. to alter its stance on climate control, saying that a Group of Eight meeting next week offers a ``time to act'' to set up a global plan to cut greenhouse gas.
With the U.S. and Germany, hosts of the G-8 summit, still far apart on how to combat global warming, Blair said he supported Chancellor Angela Merkel's bid to win over the group to agree targets for reducing carbon dioxide emissions. President George W. Bush has so far given no sign he will accede to her aim at the June 6-8 G-8 meeting in Heiligendamm on the Baltic coast.
Speaking to reporters in Berlin before talks with Merkel, Blair said the U.K.'s support for a ``proper global framework'' to cut CO2 presupposes a global agreement. ``I hope that other colleagues from G-8 states realize that now is the time to act.''
Look folks it's not rocket science, sunlight lands on Earth and when it hits the atmosphere any Co2 in the mix absorbes the infrared and then begins to emit it as infrared heat.
The more Co2 in the atmosphere the more it will absorb, the more heat it will emit.
Venus, horrible place, has no natural heat sources but it does have an atmosphere made up largely of Co2, this is constantly absorbing the energy from the Sun and the temperature on Venus is similar to molten lead.
Co2, love it can't do without it because without it Earths temperature would be too cold for life to survive. But lets not have too much of it folks.
page: 1
Robert ChapmanJun 2nd, 2007 - 14:40:17
US President George W. Bush's calls for a Climate Conference should be viewed with a certain scepticism.
The grounding for this scepticism would stem from the divergence between Bush's actions and his rhetoric.
The US military emits a larger proportion of the green house gasses than any other single entity. The US military is entirely within Bush's control.
President Bush's continued reliance on military means to advance US foreign policy demonstrates his duplicity in environmental matters.
Report this comment