And those nutty Europeans, those pro-Kyoto screamers -- eleven of the fifteen old member states had increases in emissions since 1990 with "huge increases seen in Spain (41.7%), Portugal (36.7%), Greece (25.8%), Ireland (25.6%), Finland (21.5%) and Austria (16.5%)." (Link.)
Still, the EU as a whole saw a 1.4% overall drop in that timeframe, but that's significantly less than their own target. And, the industrialized world as a whole had dropped 5.9% in greenhouse gasses since 1990.
Hey aren't we in the industrialized world?
Hmm, very interesting, thank you. I'll freely admit that you're more read on this subject than I am, but I would like to point out that your sources are an anthropologist (Fagan), an economist (Bate), and a mechanical engineer/lawyer (person with a law degree) (Huber). While all deserve great respect within their particular fields (I’d like to read Fagan’s book sometime), I question the "science" they bring to the argument.
Also, I find the chart from the "World Climate Report" no less alarming than the others - the 0.0 line is the average temp from 1961-1990, a period in which, according to the other graph, significant warming had already occurred and was occurring, presumably as a result of the industrialization of the decades and century before. Thus the base line is biased high, making the other earlier periods seem abnormally low. Even if that were not the case (as in even if I were reading the graph wrong), the sudden spike in the last two decades is still very significant and worrisome, and could easily be attributed to the rise of China, India, etc. as economic industrial powers.
Of course, I realize Kyoto did not address these developing nations, which is why I felt even in 2001 that the measure was not the best possible solution for this problem, aside from the fact that it wasn't good for the US at the time, as we were already heading into (or actually were in the middle of) a recession.
No matter the cause, I think we still need to work within our abilities to maintain a stable climate; even if we are not the sole cause as some environmentalist claim, even if it is not warming as quickly as some believe, ultimately our coastal cities are still at stake. And being from an area of Delaware that is 6 feet above sea level at its highest point, that concerns me a bit. Global warming is a world concern, arguably caused by world action – thus it requires a worldwide solution, not excluding the United States. I'd rather see us error on the side of caution with this issue, though I hope (but doubt) market incentives can be designed to achieve our objectives.
Well Mike, I'll refer you to this article on ocean level/ice melt:
http://www.techcentralstation.co...om/
110405D.html
"Meanwhile, Antarctica grows. Computer models, while still shaky, are now encountering reality, and every one of them now says that Antarctica contributes negatively to sea level rise in the next century, while almost every model now has Greenland's contribution as a few inches, at best.
It is inevitable that one of tomorrow's headlines will be that scientists have dramatically scaled back their projections of sea level rise associated with global warming. Had they paid attention to data (and snow) that began accumulating as long as fifteen years ago, they would have never made such outlandish forecasts to begin with."
You know, some of this reminds me of economic data, where both sides take the information they have and spin it to their advantage. While I still wouldn't call climate change a "doctrine of faith" like intelligent design, I think it is an area where there should be more free debate among scientist until some sort of consensus can be reached. While that is happening, I'd hope we can still work to reduce emissions of harmful pollutants, as there is little doubt they have other negative externalities.
and a mechanical engineer/lawyer (person with a law degree) (Huber)
Um, this wasn't referring to me by chance, was it?
Not unless your first name is Peter and you wrote the book "Hard Green" - if so, I'm rather impressed, and if not, but you have the same qualifications, its a hell of a coincidence. 
I thought as much. I had checked Ryan's links and saw no other Huber, but again, I'd no idea how one could think I had those qualifications.
Some of the history of global warming: It's global warming, so get our your earmuffs.
A more likely theory than anything to do with SUVS: Global warming astronomical?
I would like to point out that your sources are an anthropologist (Fagan), an economist (Bate), and a mechanical engineer/lawyer (person with a law degree)...
All the more reason to look at what they have to say from standing outside of the paradigm, don't you know some of the typical to the history of scientific discovery? It's especially prevalent when it comes to technology, often an outsider brings a different perspective and new insight to the data generated by those inside the paradigm.
Commenting by HaloScan
