France Tells U.S. to Sign Climate Pacts or Face Tax

[nobody_special]

Somebody who is smart or an apostrophisicist or something can probably tell me..........Where did all this carbon come from that is making up all this extra CO2?

Like when the dinosaurs were wading around in the primevil muck and eating those giant ferns that got trodden down into the tar pits and smashed and crushed and turned into petroleum and diamonds and coal and all like that.

Where did the extra carbon come from? At one time all this evil CO2 that is making the sea levels go up and penguins (they don't taste that good anyway) lose their habitat was floating around some where.

Did we have like a giant pure carbon meteroite smack into the earth?

No, the carbon has always been here... but not always in the form of CO2. There is a huge amount of carbon locked up in the lithosphere. For example, volcanoes can spew a lot of CO2 into the atmosphere, as magma often has high concentrations of gas in solution. (This CO2 emission mechanism is balanced by another CO2-removing mechanism though.)

See this.

Limestone has a huge carbon content; a substantial portion of that carbon was probably once atmospheric CO2.

Perhaps ~2-3 billion years ago, before there was much (or any) life on the planet, it is believed that a large fraction of the atmosphere was CO2 and the planet was much hotter than it is now. The CO2 was transformed into carbonates (limestone), and gaseous oxygen (O2) was produced by cyanobacteria (and later by plants).

Read more here.

It is the height of vanity, hubris to think that us dumb a$$ed humans are so all powerful that we can change the climate of the earth.

Not at all. Indeed, I'd be surprised if nearly 7 billion humans did not have a significant impact on the climate.

 

[agricola]

Um.

This is an empty letter; Chirac will be out of office soon and is doing what other lame ducks do - coming out with increasingly outlandish statements (US-bashing over there is of course as popular as French-bashing is in the rest of the world) in order to make himself look important.

He isnt just doing that of course - he is also actively campaigning for the Socialist candidate for President Sengolene Royal, largely because he hates his own party's man Sarkozy - which is all very French.

As for carbon emissions and the veracity of the science, I tend to agree with Nobody_special on this. You have on the one hand the vast majority of climate scientists saying one thing, with numerous studies and a whole wealth of real-world evidence to back it up. On the other, you have cod-scientists and a handful of climate scientists, most of whom are in the pay of polluting organizations, saying another, with much less evidence and even less sense. Qui bono?

 

[Tommygunn]

... as an astrophysicist, I find it extremely unlikely that the recent warming trend is due to any change in solar flux.

So how do you explain the observation certain other scientists have made that Mars' icecaps are melting, too? Coincidence?

I'd be surprised if nearly 7 billion humans did not have a significant impact on the climate.

One report I heard, although it certainly gave humans some credit for affecting earth's climate, put the affect of trillions of insects higher on the scale.
I suspect everything effects earth's atmosphere ... one way or another.

We produce greenhouse gasses which effect our atmosphere .... but natural sources of greenhouse gasses produce about twenty five times more than humans. Our effect is minimal, at most.

 

[pacodelahoya]

To keep this gun related:

Every time I shoot my M44, it gets a little warmer in antarctica.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Hmmm...

The next container ship that comes in with a load of French wine needs to have a good-old-fashioned "tea" party. 'Cept we'll need to call it a "Wine Party".

Woody

 

[thexrayboy]

They want to "carbon tax" us? Fine, as long as they carbon tax Japan, China, Russia, India etc etc. Single the US out for special tax treatment? Two can play that game. Oh by the way. Can't we just give France back to the Germans. We took it away from the Germans so in theory we should be able to give it back to them. Cheese eating surrender monkeys is a compliment.

 

[Milkmaster]

tax Nissan's!

Nissan Motors is 44 percent owned by Renault. Put a vehicle tax on each one of those and see how long it lasts

 

[nobody_special]

:banghead:

So how do you explain the observation certain other scientists have made that Mars' icecaps are melting, too? Coincidence?

Mars has seasonal CO2 ice caps, as well as a "permanent" water ice cap on the north pole (last I heard, it's not known if there is water ice at the south pole). The southern ice cap has receded recently. However, there is no long-term historical record of the amount of ice in the caps. While it is interesting that the southern ice cap seems to be receding, there isn't nearly enough documented history to form a conclusion that there is any climate change occurring on Mars. It may be that the southern ice cap is mostly CO2 and thus sublimates more easily than the northern cap. It may be that the southern ice cap had been unusually large for the past few years and is now going back to normal. We just don't know.

We DO know that the earth's climate is shifting drastically out of equilibrium. The atmospheric CO2 level hasn't been this high for the past 40 million years.

We produce greenhouse gasses which effect our atmosphere .... but natural sources of greenhouse gasses produce about twenty five times more than humans. Our effect is minimal, at most.

A 4% annual change in a cycle which is otherwise in equilibrium can be very significant over several decades.

 

[The Cavalry]

Chirac is just providing air cover for the latest UN offshoot of it's old "Innovative Sources of Funding" scheme to tax Americans and other wealthy nations.

They didn't get our guns last time, so now they've focused on our paychecks.

Dated Jan 30th, here's the most recent attempt to "unlock" our wallets so they can give money to "pariah nations" which will somehow fix global warming.

An exerpt:

UN unveils plan to release untapped wealth of...$7 trillion (and solve the world's problems at a stroke)
By Philip Thornton, Economics Correspondent
Published: 30 January 2006
The most potent threats to life on earth - global warming, health pandemics, poverty and armed conflict - could be ended by moves that would unlock $7 trillion - $7,000,000,000,000 (£3.9trn) - of previously untapped wealth, the United Nations claims today.

The price? An admission that the nation-state is an old-fashioned concept that has no role to play in a modern globalised world where financial markets have to be harnessed rather than simply condemned.


In a groundbreaking move, the UN Development Programme (UNDP) has drawn up a visionary proposal that has been endorsed by a range of figures including Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel Laureate.

It says an unprecedented outbreak of co-operation between countries, applied through six specific financial tools, would slice through the Gordian knot of problems that have bedevilled the world for most of the last century.

If its recommendations are accepted - and the authors acknowledge this could take years or even decades - it could finally force countries to face up to the fact that their public finance and growth figures conceal the vast damage their economies do to the environment.

Read the full article here:
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/article341967.ece

 

[Selfdfenz]

In the 70's when I was an undergrad the hot prediction of the day pointed to exhausted oil reserves by the turn of the century. I'm sure the feeling at the time was the science was solid and the "good scientists" were making the right call. I remember later still the impending ice age that was so much a news item in the 80's and early 90's. Probably backed up by good science and "good scientists".

Neither of these scenarios seemed to grab the public attention to the extent GW has but then again the rank and file have been bombarded with a distressing scenario to the extent they have been with GW that I can recollect. I know I certainly feel manipulated when it comes to GW.

The "end of crude" and the "next ice age" never became political footballs. The swine flu terror also keeps coming back as a coffin nail that never materialized as a political issue. SF was supposed to wipe us out IIRC but it was not politicized. GW has become a political football here and abroad. I’ve yet to decide which side of GW argument is right but I feel strongly that there is something deeply embedded in the mental circuitry on many people that makes them want to have something to worry about and the media is always prepared to deliver. In this case it was GW. No one buys the news paper to read good news.

Hot buttons that haven't made their mark yet IMO...the Yellowstone caldera, the fatal rock from outer space and, so far, bird flu. We are apparently lacking the critical mass of good science and “good scientists” on those topics.

Best,

S-

 

[3rdpig]

A good client of mine is a climate researcher. Not sure what his title is but he's got a Masters Degree and works for a big research firm that studies the weather and such. I asked him about the whole GW thing a few months ago. He said the research is compelling, but there's NOTHING that DEFINITELY ties man in as a major contributor. He says blaming it on man is a popular theory, but there's absolutely no solid evidence.

He also told me it could cost him his job if he stated that officially.

I don't know squat about it personally, but I do know these two things.

1. There's no real consensus among the experts and one side is being warned to "shut up or lose your jobs".

2. I know that the earth has warmed (and cooled) long before man had SUV's or industry of any kind.

Those two facts are causing me to be very skeptical about GW'ing and the forces that drive it. They've got an agenda, and it's not science and it's not for the good of mankind or America.

 

[MechAg94]

The usual anti-GW arguments, which if those proposing them were honest enough to read about they'd never put forward in the simple black and white manner that they do.

Yes, and the same pro-GW arguments; arrogantly assuming that all skeptics are ignorant and know nothing of the science, yet never actually posting any actual proof. Just more articles with people saying there "might" be a connection. Also, no real discussion of time-line for the increase and just how long it actually would be.

The Earth has been warmer before and it will be again. It has been warmer in the last thousand years. The fact that the Earth's temperature and weather are not stable makes the burden of proof for artificial global warming much higher.

 

[mike101]

Quote- "Can't we just give France back to the Germans."

Ya beat me to it, Xray.

 

[TCB in TN]

I too am one of the youth from the 70's who remember the coming Ice Age. Although I am not an astro anything, have read quite a bit on the subject and have seen several studies showing estimates of the % of Carbon Mono, and Dioxide in the atmosphere from both "natural" and "manmade" sources and "Manmade" is certainly a very small %. Also if you factor in that at least in most of the industrial word the amount of polution being emitted is smaller today than it was in the 70's then I have to wonder a bit about the conclusion that mankind is mostly responsible to Global Warming. I too have seen the studies about an increase in the output from the sun, and would have to question the opinion of anyone who would say that an increased solar output wouldn't have an effect of global temps. It may not be solely responsible but it certainly has to have a significant impact.

 

[tbtrout]

And one more reason to boycott France. For a country that has never won a war, not just been on the winning side, they have a lot to say.

 

[nobody_special]

Also if you factor in that at least in most of the industrial word the amount of polution being emitted is smaller today than it was in the 70's

While that's true, it's only true because CO2 is not considered a pollutant.

I too have seen the studies about an increase in the output from the sun, and would have to question the opinion of anyone who would say that an increased solar output wouldn't have an effect of global temps. It may not be solely responsible but it certainly has to have a significant impact.

It seems to be something like 10% of the effect... not huge.

 

[Zedicus]

France, the EU & UN can all go pound sand, see how long they last without the US's Money & Resources.

http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=473
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1045327.stm

My Truck/SUV/camp fire/bbq is not the cause, It may add a minuscule/insignificant amount to it, but the cause is far more powerful and not even on the planet.

 

[brerrabbit]

Nobody_special

The martian icecaps have been continuosly photographed for around the past 150 years or so. Before that they were drawn out by hand and compared to other images of mars.

The fact that they are receding past historical levels might be saying something.

The great red spot on jupiter effectively faded and reformed over the past few years. It has been under observation for the past few hundred years and has never done that.

Something is happening with the amount of thermal energy that all of the planets are recieving, and I do not believe it is caused by man.

It does not take a very large or very high quality telescope to see the martian icecaps. I have done it at home many times.

 

[nobody_special]

http://www.cato.org/homepage_item.php?id=473

Ah yes... an article which is slightly critical of global warming, from someone who was paid at least $100,000 by an energy company. How typical.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/1045327.stm

That's interesting, but if you read the article, you'll see that the scientist in question does not conclude that global warming is primarily due to a change in solar irradiance. Furthermore, that article is from November 2000; the general scientific consensus since then is that solar output is not the dominant factor involved in global climate change.

The martian icecaps have been continuosly photographed for around the past 150 years or so. Before that they were drawn out by hand and compared to other images of mars.

The fact that they are receding past historical levels might be saying something.

But we dont know that they're receding past historical levels. We can't. The measurements that show the south polar cap receding are from laser or radar measurements of the cap by one of the orbiting probes. You can't reliably or precisely determine the ice cap mass from photographs. (Have you ever seen a pre-Hubble photograph of Mars? They aren't particularly clear.)

What I see in this thread is a lot of people who really don't understand the science, and so they gather anecdotes or read a few headlines which vaguely describe some thin study which might go against an unpopular theory which has a tremendous amount of supporting evidence... and then leap to the conclusion that it's all wrong.

That's not science; it's wishful thinking.

 

[Limeyfellow]

Note that the countries that produce the most CO2 (India, China, etc.) are not going to be taxed.

The US account for 23.4% of CO2 pollution.

India accounts for 5.06%

China accounts for 16.49%

So your information seems to be weird since the US produce more CO2 than India and China put together. We also have to take into account these are second world countries and have a population of over a billion each, so 3-4 times of that of the US, but still put out less carbon dioxide.

 

[nobody_special]

Oops, I missed these...

And your PhD relates to climatology in what way?

Astrophysics is one of the major factors in forming the earth's climate. Also, my father is a professor who studies ecology and has studied the field.

I too am one of the youth from the 70's who remember the coming Ice Age.

Uh-huh... now, find me a single peer-reviewed article published in a professional scientific journal from the 70's about this. Here's a hint (to save you some time and frustration)... you won't.

 

[Kankujoe]

It is sad to say but I believe France is no friend of the US... and increasingly most of Europe's policies are negative toward the US... Sure they love our money and our tourist dollars but every chance they get they blame us for the world's problems...

I for one would like for the US to act more boldly when it comes to our nations interests... and to stop giving away so much foreign aid to people who neither appreciate it or deserve it...

If they (most of Europe) don't wake up quickly they will soon be swallowed up by Islamic interests and racialism...

 

[gunsmith]

it is gun related!

the same people who want to tax and spend, who want a green socialist utopia, are the same ones going after our guns.
The same screechers who for years told me that all AR15 and AK owners are bloodthirsty murderers, the same people who predict blood in the streets (when ccw is introduced)are the same ones who want the US to sign Kyoto but not China.:banghead:

I do not know enough to make an educated guess about man kinds "carbon footprint"

but I do know I have a right to keep and bear arms, it is provable to anyone who can comprehend 10th grade English.

The same people who hate my pick up truck hate my guns...the liberal greenies could have kept me on their side, I was a tree hugger in my youth, but they want all power out of the hands of the people and in the hands of gov't , army , and police.

It's all about guns and global warming, they are the same people. the global warming freaks are the gun control freaks

 

[DirksterG30]

So all scientists who don't believe there is GW, or that it is not caused by man are all in the pocket of the oil industry, but pro-GW scientists are all altruistic, follow-the evidence where it leads types? What a great way to stifle dissent!

For a rational look at the other side: http://www.sepp.org/

 

[agricola]

Good link Dirkster - except SEPP, and Fred Singer, have been paid by Exxon in the past:

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1