[cellmatrix]

I apoplogize for misinterpreting. I respect your opinion.

As for me, I believe scientists generally hunt data however they can, like hungry wolves and if they down an elephant or a donkey, they don't care as long as they can get the killer discovery.

[Insertion]

I apoplogize for misinterpreting. I respect your opinion.

As for me, I believe scientists generally hunt data however they can, like hungry wolves and if they down an elephant or a donkey, they don't care as long as they can get the killer discovery.

No need to apologize. Given that this arguement often involves politics, I completely see how you could interpret my post in that way. I probably should have stressed personal bias, rather than just saying bias. My fault!

Anyway, I hope scientists have an open mind. Not saying it's bad, but I think it's only human nature to have an opinion and then have that opinion guide your research.

[clulup]

To take the doctor analogy a bit further, I wonder what a physician would say when he diagnoses a disease, and his patient replies: "Thank you for your opinion on this. Please tell me how many degrees of fever I will have by Friday next week. If you cannot tell me for sure, how can you expect me to take action?"

I guess the doctor would say something like: "Well, bad luck, I cannot tell you for sure. Please sign this waiver here, stating that I told you my diagnosis and my recommendations, and come back when you find it appropriate".

Of course the analogy has its limits. The man who dismisses the diagnosis of the expert hurts himself (potentially, if the doctor was right about the disease), while in the case of global warming, the people who emit the most CO2 and those who suffer most from the consequences are not necessarily the same.

The big question is, will those who emit greenhouse gasses now and who are not willing to do something about it, pay for damages done by global warming, once the link is proven? Will it be enough for them to say they didn't know?

How much will it cost if the Maldives have to be abandoned, or if Bangladesh is flooded due to the rising sea level?

[clairegrrl]

To take the doctor analogy a bit further, I wonder what a physician would say when he diagnoses a disease, and his patient replies: "Thank you for your opinion on this. Please tell me how many degrees of fever I will have by Friday next week. If you cannot tell me for sure, how can you expect me to take action?"

Bad example clulup. Sometimes people seek 2nd and 3rd opinions from other doctors, and sometimes none of them agree.

[Insertion]

To take the doctor analogy a bit further, I wonder what a physician would say when he diagnoses a disease, and his patient replies: "Thank you for your opinion on this. Please tell me how many degrees of fever I will have by Friday next week. If you cannot tell me for sure, how can you expect me to take action?"

I guess the doctor would say something like: "Well, bad luck, I cannot tell you for sure. Please sign this waiver here, stating that I told you my diagnosis and my recommendations, and come back when you find it appropriate".

In that case, I would get a second opinion. I'll give you a personal example of the doctor analogy, some years ago, I believe my first New Years Eve after being dishcarged from the military, I became extremely ill. Could hardly breathe. In fact I could barely get out of my chair and walk to the bathroom. I finally went to the Emergency Room (on New Years Day), and was given chest x-rays, blood tests etc. Diagnosis? Emphysema. You'll live, but you'll need respitory therapy, over time it may require the use of an O2 tank, etc...
Well, I found a Infectious Disease Specialist who looked at my x-ray, and laughed at the diagnosis. You have a bacterial infection in your lungs. You'll be fine with an extreme dose of antibiotics and steroids.

Ten years later, and still ticking! No emphysema, no oxygen tanks, no therapy. Take that, Doc!!

[clulup]

In that case, I would get a second opinion. I'll give you a personal example of the doctor analogy, some years ago, I believe my first New Years Eve after being dishcarged from the military, I became extremely ill. Could hardly breathe. In fact I could barely get out of my chair and walk to the bathroom. I finally went to the Emergency Room (on New Years Day), and was given chest x-rays, blood tests etc. Diagnosis? Emphysema. You'll live, but you'll need respitory therapy, over time it may require the use of an O2 tank, etc...
Well, I found a Infectious Disease Specialist who looked at my x-ray, and laughed at the diagnosis. You have a bacterial infection in your lungs. You'll be fine with an extreme dose of antibiotics and steroids.

Ten years later, and still ticking! No emphysema, no oxygen tanks, no therapy. Take that, Doc!!

Sure. Now think of going to 100 doctors, of which 95 agree on the diagnosis, and from the five others three say, yes, your are ill, but maybe it is not quite that bad as the other 95 say (OTOH, some of the 95 say it is worse than most think)...

[Insertion]

Sure. Now think of going to 100 doctors, of which 95 % agree on the diagnosis...

But what if those 95% were wrong and diagnosed emphysema?

At any rate, I understand what your saying, its just whenever I hear diagnosis and doctors, I always think of that.

[clulup]

At any rate, I understand what your saying, its just whenever I hear diagnosis and doctors, I always think of that.

So, now that this is settled, what is your answer?

The big question is, will those who emit greenhouse gasses now and who are not willing to do something about it, pay for damages done by global warming, once the link is proven? Will it be enough for them to say they didn't know?

How much will it cost if the Maldives have to be abandoned, or if Bangladesh is flooded due to the rising sea level?

[Insertion]

So, now that this is settled, what is your answer?

Well, let's set the record straight, since it seems cloudy. First, I have no problems with cleaning the environment. I inhabit the planet too, you know. My only arguement is whether or not this is man made. PERIOD. I'm all for cleaner burning cars. If you can knock down a coal firing powerplant, and replace it with say, a Nuke plant, fine. If you can make solar powered homes economically feasible for all, great! One less bill for me to pay.

I take it you think I wouldn't like these things, which is not true. The ONLY thing I am arguing is the cause.

[cellmatrix]

No need to apologize. Given that this arguement often involves politics, I completely see how you could interpret my post in that way. I probably should have stressed personal bias, rather than just saying bias. My fault!

Anyway, I hope scientists have an open mind. Not saying it's bad, but I think it's only human nature to have an opinion and then have that opinion guide your research.

I am a scientist, and objectivity in research, the ability to look at the data and follow the best path, is something which we all strive for. To have someone say that we don't or can't, well maybe you don't realize it, but its like saying a someone cannot do one of the most important parts of their job. Anyway, it is matter of pride for us, that is all.

[Insertion]

I am a scientist, and objectivity in research, the ability to look at the data and follow the best path, is something which we all strive for. To have someone say that we don't or can't, well maybe you don't realize it, but its like saying a someone cannot do one of the most important parts of their job. Anyway, it is matter of pride for us, that is all.

Sorry if I offended you. I would hope they could be objective.

[cellmatrix]

no problem, like you say, you have limited experience with science, I was just trying to let you know our perspective. One thing I do know though, is that good science transcends politics.

[whmurray]

no problem, like you say, you have limited experience with science, I was just trying to let you know our perspective. One thing I do know though, is that good science transcends politics.

Perhaps. However, at least in this case, nothing could be more political than what to do about it and who should pay.

[clulup]

Perhaps. However, at least in this case, nothing could be more political than what to do about it and who should pay.

I think it is quite clear who will pay, once the damage is done, and science proves the cause of the damage. We may be not too far away, the signs are clear.

Of course, those who did the damage will pay, isn't that always so, according to US laws? Presently the US (less than 5% of world population) emit about 25 % of CO2.

The US (and Australia) are also one of the very few nations who did not ratify the Kyoto Protocol. This article is an interesting read in that respect.

"The Kyoto Protocol is a legally binding agreement under which industrialized countries will reduce their collective emissions of greenhouse gases by 5.2% compared to the year 1990"
"As of February 2005, 139 countries ... have ratified the protocol, including Canada, People's Republic of China, India, Japan, New Zealand, Russia and the twenty-five countries of the European Union, as well as Romania and Bulgaria."

"There are six countries that have signed but not yet ratified the protocol. Of those, three are Annex I countries:
* Australia (not intending to ratify)
* Monaco
* United States -- The US, the largest emitter of greenhouse gases, does not intend to ratify the protocol.
The remaining countries that have signed but not yet ratified are: Croatia, Kazakhstan, and Zambia."

"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."

At the first glance, there seems to be some merit in this, but a closer look shows it does not make sense, because

"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)."


So basically, Bush says he is only willing to ratify the protocol if also China is asked to reduce greeenhouse gas emissions ALTHOUGH China emits only one tenth of the US emsissions on a per capita basis (the same is true for other nations like India)... strange, no?

[Advance The Man]

clulup, You bring up logical points, why cloud the issue on a per capita basis? If the estimates are correct, China simply emits half what the US does. They are industrializing at a similar pace that the US was in the latter half of the 19th Century. They have over 300 percent the population the US does. China has an unbelievable potential for pollution potential, much more than the US.

[clulup]

clulup, You bring up logical points, why cloud the issue on a per capita basis? If the estimates are correct, China simply emits half what the US does. They are industrializing at a similar pace that the US was in the latter half of the 19th Century. They have over 300 percent the population the US does. China has an unbelievable potential for pollution potential, much more than the US.

Why should an individual Chinese person have a smaller right to emit CO2 than an individual US person? On average, a Chinese causes only 10 % of the CO2 emission an average US citizen causes.

Does it seem fair to you to say "OK, you Chinese person, I am willing to start thinking about reducing my CO2 emissions, but only if you start reducing yours", if that person only emits 10 % of what you do?

Besides, the share of total CO2 emission the Chinese have caused in the last 150 years is negligible when compared to that caused by the developed countries so far (where the US have the greatest share both on a per capita and on a total basis). However, they will participate in the damages just as the developed world does...

[Advance The Man]

Because a great share is produced by factories, not individuals.

[clulup]

Because a great share is produced by factories, not individuals.

Sorry, but I start getting the impression that you are following Bush's example in looking for excuses. Factories produce goods for individuals, they are run by individuals who get their individual salary from working there, just like in the US.

The fact remains that it is highly unfair by somebody to ask a Chinese to reduce the CO2 emissions if that somebody emits 10 times more than the Chinese. The per capita approach makes PERFECT sense in this comparison.

Besides, I am not saying China (and India, etc.) should not do anything about their greenhouse gas emissions. I am just saying we have no right to ask the developing countries to reduce them as long as ours are far greater than their's.

The Kyoto Protocol plans to stop exemption of China and India and other countries when they start reaching our levels.

[whmurray]

.......
Of course, those who did the damage will pay, isn't that always so, according to US laws? ........

Certainly not. Anyone who believes that confuses the letter of our law with its application. In practice, under our law, he with the deepest pockets pays. I leave it to you to figure out who that is.

[clulup]

The very latest news, from the capitalistic reinsurcance industry, this time from the biggest reinsurer world-wide, Munich Re:

Economic losses totalled US$ 145bn, including insured losses of US$ 44bn, no less than US$ 40bn of which was generated by the destructive hurricanes in the Caribbean and the United States and the typhoons in Japan.

Exceptional events in areas seldom affected / Accumulation of intense cyclones

In terms of the number of natural catastrophes and the losses they generated, 2004 was again dominated by extreme weather events. In addition to the exceptional accumulation of hurricanes and typhoons, there were also cyclones in parts of the Atlantic where they are not typical:

* In March, a hurricane formed off the Brazilian coast for the first time since observations began. This part of the South Atlantic had hitherto been classified as hurricane–free because of the low water temperatures there.
* Another unusual event was Hurricane Alex in August, which on its path northwards gained in intensity far from the Tropics and maintained hurricane force up to a latitude of 42°N (roughly at the latitude of Boston).
* Florida was hit by four hurricanes within just a few weeks. With losses of US$ 30bn in this region alone, 2004 was the most expensive hurricane season ever for the insurance industry.
* Japan was hit by ten tropical cyclones, a record number that was unequalled throughout the previous century.


Regarding those losses, one has to keep in mind that they only reflect insured property. Damages in third world countries are usually not insured, so even if there are additional damages, they would not be mentioned here.

If I was Brazilian, I might think: "We never had hurricanes so far, but because you guys have emitted so much CO2, it has started here, too. How about compensating our losses?" I wonder when we will have the first lawsuits of that kind. American courts could be well worth addressing, I guess.