Re: Kyoto, Driving our car (composite reply)
Tue, 9 Dec 1997 11:27:25 -0800 (PST)

Arjen Kamphuis [] wrote:

>5.During the latter half of this century there has been a solid
> correlation between economic growth and increased consumption of
> fossile fuels, were increase in fuel usage is tyically 1-3% greater
> that economy growth in that year.

Yet the EPA claimed no warming trend since 1979, even though that's been
a period of strong economic growth in the West. Cause and effect, and
all that.

>Currently the known supplies of oil/gas are only
> sufficient for 25-50 years (depending on your growth scenario) at
> the current consumtion level.

Oil supplies have been "sufficient for 25-50 years" for as long as
I can remember. Odds are they always will be.

>AFAIKT almost every glacier on this planet has been retreating during this

AFAIK every glacier in New Zealand has been increasing in length this
century. Can't comment on anywhere else.

>The statistics are difficult, but if you superimpose temperature data
>concerning the last 150 years from Vinnikov, Groveman and sources like CRU
>and GISS the similaritiest are striking to say the least (and so is the

These wouldn't happen to all be computer models based on the same
assumptions, by any chance? Interesting that you quoted data for the
last 150 years; thereby leaving out the very warm period at the beginning
of the 19th century, where temperatures weren't much lower than today. Is
this your idea of certainty?

>X-cuse me? The relation between increased CO2 matches the start of the
>industrial revolution and the relative decreasing C14 concentration
>correlated with statistical data on global usage of fossile carbon.

I don't think anyone's questioning that we've dumped a lot of CO2 into
the atmosphere. We're questioning the doomsaying about it causing
massive global catastrophe.

>the consequences for the global food production (amongst many other things)
>could be a big problem.

You mean it will grow better with more CO2?

>Exacly, if the current trend does not change we'll have burned 300 million
>years of solar energy in about three centuries. It's been a nice kickstart
>for out technical civilisation but we have to find better alternatives

So you agree that we need to keep the government from restricting our
technological progress with unneccesary limits on fossil fuel use then?