One must look at the Kyoto Protocol, with its favorable treatment of "third world developing economies" and unfavorable treatment of "developed polluting economies", under the light of Globalism.My definition of Globalism - The movement of manufacturing facilities and jobs from high cost, highly regulated labor markets, generally located in the West, to less expensive, poorly regulated, easily manipulated labor markets generally located in the third world. The movement appears to be designed to circumvent and avoid environmental, labor and financial regulations that exist in the West. Some in the movement may be working to redistribute wealth globally, while others are simply working to enhance their own wealth and power.
The Kyoto Accord favors the movement of manufacturing from the U.S. and other Western nations to the so-called third world. Was the Kyoto Accord a real attempt to stem global warming or only another tactic in the strategy to move manufacturing from expensive Western labor markets to lower cost, less regulated locations in "third world countries"? Regardless, the effect over time will be to weaken the U.S. and the West. The fact is that world climate has always varied and will likely continue to change and go through cycles. Based on scientific studies, the world climate would have been warming now whether or not human influence was present. Global Warming is real, but the human contribution is only serving to amplify the peak.
More on centralization of power is at bcast.htm.
Here are a few references:
http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm
Papers on sudden climate changes during the past few million years or so.
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/transit.html
and
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1996/ph123/l13i.html
Go to the following URL to find information on the Maunder Minimum and its relationship to the "Little Ice Age":
http://www.eso.org/gen-fac/libraries/lisa3/beckmanj.html
Maunder Minimum (also called "the little ice age". Climate can be severely effected by changes in solar output.)
Ice core evidence for past interglacial warm periods:
http://zebu.uoregon.edu/1996/ph123/vostok.gif
The affects of orbital shape:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/milankovitch.html
and
http://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=earth's+orbit+and+climate&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
Another that had a link to a paper which discussed past interglacial periods.
http://www.kie.berkeley.edu/ned/data/E01-970504-001/E01-970504-001.html
The potentially embarrassing information on past warm periods appears to have been removed. However, this site provides details of the UN commission on Global Warming.
Another site with an excellent set of links:
http://www.esd.ornl.gov/projects/qen/nerc.html
More sites:
http://www.gns.cri.nz/what/earthhist/ancient_env/index.html
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=interglacial.periods&fr=fp-pull-web-t&n=20&fl=0&x=wrt
Information on Globalism and Internationalism
And one last site that rests firmly in the realm of pseudoscience.
http://www.thule.org/iceages.html
I hope you find this information to be at least interesting, if not enlightening. But don't let my opinions influence you. Research Global Warming, Globalism, the Kyoto Accord and Centralization of Power with a large dose of skepticism for the positions on both sides. Try to go beyond the headlines, hype and political rhetoric! Consider who may gain from the politics involved. Think about your own well being and your lively hood. And, think about the long term consequences as they may affect your life.
Excerpts follow from past thoughts on climate and Global Warming. My basis for believing that the current Global Warming debate is a political red herring was derived from the little unbiased information that one can gain from the media, publications such as Scientific American (SA) and NASA bulletins.
One basis for my opinion is an SA article published during the 80s that included a graph of estimated atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) levels during the last five or so interglacial periods. I don't remember exactly how the authors came up with the data, but it seems data for the more "recent" past was obtained from gas bubbles trapped within core samples of Antarctic ice, and tree ring growth data from fossils. The graph indicated that each interglacial period was accompanied by a corresponding peak in CO2 levels. The maximum CO2 levels varied somewhat from one period to the next, but were similar in amplitude to the current period and were actually higher during at least one previous interglacial period! According to this article, we should be near the peak expected for the current interglacial period.
The timing of glaciations and interglacial warm periods appears to be primarily determined by variations in the shape of the Earth's orbit, changes in the tilt of the Earth's axis of rotation and variations in the solar output. Circulations in the oceans, which are cited by some as ice age triggers, are apparently byproducts of the aforementioned primary processes.
As far as "self-correction" is concerned - yes, I am talking about the "Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse". Since the U.S. represents only a small percentage of the world's population (~10% or so), I don't expect our goals to be adopted by the rest of the world. Therefore, the "four horsemen" will likely be the only solution, regardless of what we in the U.S. or Western Europe would wish.
The "planet" will deal with excessive CO2, one way or the other. If it is primarily a result of natural processes, with a little extra help from mankind this time around, then we will pass the peak and plunge into the next ice age on schedule, with a corresponding decrease in both CO2 levels and human population, regardless of human action or inaction .
If we do push the maximum CO2 levels in the atmosphere to an excessively high level, then it will be interesting to watch the flooding of coastal cities around the globe, if or when the remaining Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets melt. This could happen either in our
life times or the life times of our children. NASA reported during January 2002 that the Antarctic Ice Shelf is actually getting thicker in some areas while it thins in other aresa. NASA also states that judging the overall net changes is difficult due to a lack of data.
If the planetary scientists are correct, then the Earth should abruptly transition into the next ice age during the next 100 to 500 years. When that happens, populations will change, power will shift, natural selection will work
and the world will be a different place.
That's why I can't get too excited about "Global Warming", except when it is used as a reason to push a dubious political agenda.
A recent article in Scientific American magazine (June 1998 p. 14) reported that "methane, another potent greenhouse gas, appears to be accumulating in the atmosphere more slowly than anticipated. If this trend continues, the concentration of methane might soon stabilize, miraculously stemming some 20 percent of the burgeoning greenhouse problem." The article echoed the results of a study by NOAA's Edward J. Dlugokencky and his colleagues delivered at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union last year.
The article went on to say that "Researchers had known that the growth of atmospheric methane had been ebbing since comprehensive measurements began in the early 1980s. And they were aware of the abrupt decrease in the rising tide of methane and several other gases that occurred in 1992. But, many, including members of the influential Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), regarded that sudden downturn as a short-term "anomaly." After all, the main sources of methane - wetlands, rice paddies and livestock - had not gone away. According to their best guesses, the 1992 decline was caused, perhaps, by the drop in natural gas production (and, presumably, methane leakage from pipes) in the former Soviet Union. Or it came from the eruption of Mount Pinatubo the previous year, which reduced stratospheric ozone and allowed more ultraviolet light to reach the lower atmosphere, where it breaks up methane."
"... the IPCC had predicted that atmospheric methane would continue to rise, roughly doubling (in one typical forecast) by 2100. Thus, many of the scenarios for global warming provided in their last assessment may have been overly gloomy."
The same issue reports that the land area covered by wetlands in the U.S. is on the decline. More wetlands equals more methane, but less wetlands is a catastrophe too because migratory fowl need them to survive.
See:
http://www.gcrio.org/OnLnDoc/pdf/methane031117.pdf
and
http://www.antarcticconnection.com/antarctic/news/2005-2/091305methane.shtml
and
http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/
and
http://www.epa.gov/methane/scientific.html
Another issue of Scientific American reported that the Antarctic Ozone Hole is shrinking. That's supposed to be a good thing, until you consider that ultraviolet light is needed to break down methane in the lower layers of the atmosphere. Ultraviolet light is greatly attenuated if the ozone layer is at "normal" strength.
Then there are the planetary scientists who insist that the major long term climate cycles are controlled by the shape of the Earth's orbit, the tilt of the Earth's axis and solar output, all of which change with time. They say we are at the peak of an interglacial warm cycle and soon the slide down the temperature curve toward another period of glaciation will begin. The human induced greenhouse effect may only serve to slightly modulate and lengthen the peak.
Since the beginning of all the political hub-bub about the greenhouse effect, I've wondered how so much could be concluded in such a short period of data collection, which only started in the early 1980s.
What is even more interesting is that neither the politicians nor the television media has reported these changes with the same zeal that they reported global warming. Actually, it doesn't seem that ex-VP Gore has even made mention of these changes. I wonder why.
More on centralization of power is at bcast.htm
If you want to learn more about Storm Spotting or experience the thrill of Storm Chasing, visit The Storm Shop - your source for excellent SKYWARN training and Storm Chase adventure videos.
Last revised: February 10, 2007