Re: Dave Keeling: Global warming expert shares 50 years of research

From: SwimJim (jamesacker_at_eudoramail.com)
Date: 08/27/04 

Date: 27 Aug 2004 09:22:25 -0700

"Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message news:<gatXc.22788$_H5.704483@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> SwimJim wrote:
> > "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> > news:<NmOWc.14216$_H5.392270@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> >> SwimJim wrote:
> >>> "Ian St. John" <istjohn@noemail.ca> wrote in message
> >>> news:<OZGVc.31873$ZI1.1207808@news20.bellglobal.com>...
> >>>> SwimJim wrote:
> >>>>> Mike1 <Mitchell-Holman-special-ed-project@usfamily.net> wrote in
> >
> > [deletions]

[deletions]

> > I never said that I thought something better could be negotiated
> > today.
>
> Your words were. "I think something more useful and palatable could have
> been achieved." Ergo you DID think that 'something better could have been
> negotiated'. And you are shown wrong by the fact that something better was
> NOT negotiatied.

Ian, thanks for your comments. I appreciate your position. Note that
I said "today". I'm of the mind that believes a poor treaty is not
better than none at all. I think they should have stayed at the
table, or perhaps waited until there was more international political
will for a better treaty, with more teeth, with better approaches to
the problem.

> > I said that I didn't support the Kyoto Protocol.
>
> Yes. You have said that. You claim that something better could have been
> negotiated despite the evidence of reality. Refusal to recognise reality is
> known as 'delusion'.

See my comments above. Perhaps it would have been better for me to
have said a better treaty _should_ have been negotiated, rather than a
better treaty (protocol) _could_ have been negotiated. Maybe the
Kyoto Protocol is the best that could have been achieved at this point
in time. If so, then I think they could have saved a lot of money and
time and breath and ink not bothering with it.

> > My position
> > is that the Kyoto Protocol is the wrong way to accomplish anything
> > meaningful or significant regarding climate change caused by
> > anthropogenic GHG emissions
>
> Quite probably. Myself, I would go for a universal carbon tax, but the point
> is that you said something better could have been *negotitated* not that
> something better could be found. The fact is that nothing better can or
> could have been negotiated. Most of the people doing the negotiations were
> more concerned with loopholes and exclusions rather than effectiveness.
> However, the deficiencies of politics is not the issue. Kyoto. Love it or
> leave it, you ain't going to replace it. And it is slightly better than
> nothing with a hope that a more intelligent treaty can be negotiated in
> 2012.

Our main point of disagreement is whether or not it is better than
nothing. I don't think it's better than nothing. I think if the IPCC
2008 report is strong enough, then we can start talking about a better
treaty. (Long time to wait, though.)

 
> > -- and you know that I think this is a
> > significant concern. The reason I don't support Kyoto is that I
> > don't think it really addresses the problem it ostensibly addresses!
>
> And yet it does, no matter if it is perfect or not. The MAIN point of Kyoto
> is to show that you are SERIOUS about climate change and willing to make
> policies based on it. This will change the 'why bother' mentality to a 'let

Europe hasn't shown that's serious yet. Wake me up when something
happens.

> us get in on the action' one. THAT is the most important reason for Kyoto.

Ignoring Kyoto for a moment, a bright spot in this is that businesses
are realizing it's probably in their best interest to be ahead of the
curve on climate change issues. I don't think that Kyoto is the main
reason for this, but if you want to argue that it's part of the reason
for this, I wouldn't take issue with that.

[deletions]

> > I think all of Europe is chuckling about the Kyoto shell game -- they
> > can miss their minimal targets and they probably expect to, while at
> > the same time piously bashing the U.S. for being realistic about how
> > the public would choke on it, and not ratifying it.
>
> No. They are legitimately trying to do their part, although with a certain
> lack of energy due to the fact that others are slacking about.

I'll keep watching the news.

[deletions]

> > Most of the time newer technology is adopted only when shown to be
> > significantly better (by some measure) than older technology. The
> > main "better" is usually cost-effectiveness.
>
> Most of the time new technology is adopted because it can drop the price,
> not because it is better. Beta was demonstrably 'better' than VHS and still

Isn't that what I said? ;-) Sure a BMW coupe is better than my
minivan, but I'd need three coupes -- and two more drivers -- to get
my kids to preschool!

> is despite the advances. VHS still won. It was cheaper to produce and thus
> the 'entry cost' was lower. The 'race to the bottom' is driven by sales
> volume and market share. Cost is ALL of the equation, not just the 'main'
> part of it. The quality can go to *** ( or a long way towards that end) as
> long as the price is cheaper.

Disagreements are healthy. And occasionally enlightening. Thanks.

Jim Acker

------------------------------------
SwimJim
(formerly James G. Acker)
jamesacker@eudoramail.com

The great tragedy of science -- the
slaying of a beautiful hypothesis
by an ugly fact. - Thomas Huxley
------------------------------------