The main goal of the meeting in Kyoto was signing the amendment to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (the Rio Treaty) in order to require the signatory nations to take the necessary steps to reduce their emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases, as these gases cause an alarm situation with global temperatures. The costs of signing it for the U.S. could be really high, as the county could be made to reduce between 10 and 20 % of greenhouse gas emissions by the year 2020, that would cause reduction of gross domestic products by $260 billion annually, it is equal to $2.700 per household. Certainly it was hard to prove that such costs are justified. Besides as millions of American people could be put at risk, several important questions appeared. The first one was about the possible merits or drawbacks of global warming. The World Bank researches prove that about one-third of the whole population suffers from water shortages. By 2025 they say - around 40 % of the whole population could be living in countries without sufficient water supplies. The crops will also suffer from lack of water. Global warming leads to more condensation and more evaporation, thus producing more rains. So it could be in a way an answer to the problem about lack of water. The second positive point about global warming is possibility of agriculture in North America and Europe, the southern regions of Greenland were not covered with ice when between 10th and 12th centuries the temperature was 0.5 degrees warmer than today, and could be also cultivated. The evidence of this was found when: "scientists from the National Science Foundation sponsored Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 extracted in an ice core from Greenland's ice sheet that spanned more than 100.000 years of climate history. Samplings from the core suggest that a Little Ice Age began between 1400 and 1420, blanketing the Vikings' farms in ice and forcing them to abandon their farms in search of more hospitable climates".( Michael Crichton's State of Fear: Climate Change in the Cineplex, by Amy Ridenour pp.1-5). Thus global warming could mean more agricultural productivity and more water resources. The idea that great storms are connected with global warming is sometimes called a myth. Those who say so find little evidence to support this fact and also to support a conclusion that there is a connection between global warming and increasing number of such pests and mosquitoes that bring malaria, yellow fever and other diseases. The researches of George C. Marshal institute show that most severe are more associated with warm and cold weather, for example in the North Sea the storms occurred between 15th and 16th centuries after the onset of Little Ice Age. The United Health Organization writes that with the grow of international traveling and great number of migrations and refugees people have the chance to communicate more, and thus the diseases are spread more quickly, not just from one person to another, but also from one continent to another.
Another important question concerns the global warming itself. Depending on the time period we are discussing the planet is either warming or not. Our planet has experienced several periods of warming and cooling. In his article in 1994 Richard Kerr offered his point of view about this issue: "In order for a climate model to have credibility, it must first be able to reliably "predict" current climate. ... Some "tune" their models by adjusting the strength of solar radiation; others by adjusting the transfer of energy between the ocean and the atmosphere to get just the desired results. The result is climate models that are largely worthless". (When Science Meets Politics on Global Warming, by Roy W. Spencer, 1998 pp.1-4). Another question concerns economical results of reducing of greenhouse gas emissions. The plan as to reduce them to their 1990 level by 2000 and with further reductions for 2010 and 2020. This would make the taxes for carbon dioxide raise up to $100 $200 pro metric ton. Then by 2010 this could cause about 500.000 - one million job loses in U.S. The situation in Australia would be even worse, as they have a strong mining sector. The economies of developing countries would also be sensitive to these reductions in carbon dioxide emissions. The emissions in Brazil grew by 20%, in India - by 28%, in Indonesia - by 40% between 1990 and 1995.Thus developing nations and oil exporters have fears concerning their economic futures. That is why developing nations were exempted from reduction mandate under the Berlin mandate.
So the main point of political leaders is that the high costs for reducing greenhouse gas emissions are not worth the climate benefits they could bring. There is a point of view that even if such steps are necessary for improving our climate, we should not hurry and should at first improve our knowledge about causes and consequences of global warming, we should develop technology that could reduce the greenhouse emissions per unit of output, increase the reflectivity of atmosphere. The supporters of this position state that there are a lot of other important economical, scientific and political issues that need to be solved and there is no reason to rush to conclusions about global warming, as scientists themselves are a kind of swept up in the moment. Even after the Kyoto was coming into force constant debates between climate skeptics and global warming "supporters" continued. For example when Kevin Trenberth, being a head of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change suggested that there was a connection between climate changes and wave of hurricanes, Christopher Landsea, hurricane expert at America's national Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration wrote in his public letter that: "because of Dr. Trenberth's pronouncements. The IPCC process has been subverted and compromised, its neutrality lost" (When Science Meets Politics on Global Warming, by Roy W. Spencer, 1998 pp.1-4). The concepts of "nature" and "environment" were reconstructed. Actually the human-made phenomenon - global warming- is somehow considered environmental. Some people believe that this framing is political, not just conceptual problem. When the term environment is used it means something that is "out there" and needs fixing, but in reality the problem can not be considered external, as it is within people and not out. And it was and will be the humans' problem. Overall, the warming of the Earth has become a serious problem concerning, scientists, citizens and of course policy-makers. It is certainly hard to give one-sided characteristics to all effects, results and reasons of the global warming described above, there are certainly possibilities that not all recent researches and conclusions of scientists are true to life 100%, and the statement that in several decades we will know much more about climate changing and global warming has also some rational points. But on the other hand it is hard to deny the fact that the human beings do influence the climate and the nature greatly. These issues touch every single person on the planet and the whole mankind. They should bother the policy making people as well. They have to care for the wealth of the country but to simply deny all the negative facts about global warming is hardly the best way out. But unfortunately it usually happens so that the politics are more interested in real facts concerning finance and industrial developments than in vague future of the whole planet. As the whole industrial process and thus the economy of almost any country depends on its usage of natural resources, the climate seems a low "price" for spoiling them. When they start to think about problems caused by climate change, they think first of all about refugees, loss of job places, food shortages because of bad development of agriculture and so on. Are you a believer of Global warming or not? Or are you one of the cynics yet to be convinced? Well both have a part to play in the Global Warming arena debate. The whole issue is surrounded by facts and figures but when these facts and figures are looked at it is very difficult to prove them with science, so you end up with hearsay.
Global warming from our point of view is the increase in the average temperature of the Earth's near-surface air and oceans.
When you observe all the different global warming myths that are published in various publications, online, TV, and radio you will understand the issue with conflicting information. Because of these global warming myths come in many forms it is essential to understand the causes of global warming, and the facts attached to those myths.
MYTH: Water vapour is the most important, abundant greenhouse gas. So if we're going to control a why don't we control it instead of carbon dioxide?
FACT: Water vapour does trap more heat than (CO2), but as CO2 levels increase in the atmosphere, they lead to warmer conditions, which lead to more water vapour in the air, which leads to even warmer conditions, thus a never ending cycle. Because of this relationship between CO2, water vapour and, to fight global warming nations must focus on controlling CO2.
MYTH: Global warming reduces as the ozone hole shrinks.
FACT: Global warming and the ozone hole are two separate issues.
MYTH: Global warming is not occurring due to some glaciers and ice sheets are expanding and not shrinking.
FACT: In most parts of the world, the shrinking of glaciers and ice caps have been dramatic. The best available indicate that Greenland's massive ice sheet is shrinking.
MYTH: So what if global warming is a problem, trying to fix it will affect American industry and workers.
FACT: A well thought out trading program will harness American ingenuity to decrease heat-trapping pollution cost-effectively, jumpstarting a new carbon economy.
MYTH: The cold winters and cool summers that have been happening of late are not the effects of global warming, and are infrequent events.
FACT: While it is true that different areas of country's have experienced some colder winters here and there, between them the average temperature has ben on the up.
MYTH: We can adapt to climate change. Civilizations have survived droughts and temperature shifts in the past.
FACT: Although it is true that the human race has survived an onslaught of drought and prolonged warmth along with the bitter cold and more, entire societies have collapsed from dramatic climatic shifts. مسلسلات
رمضان 2010 مشاهدة
MYTH: Global warming along with extra CO2 will be beneficial, they reduce cold related deaths and stimulate crop growth.
FACT: Any beneficial effects will be far outweighed by damage and disruption.
MYTH: Global warming is just part of the worlds natural cycle. The Arctic has warmed up in the past as it is doing now.
FACT: The global warming we are experiencing is not natural. People are causing it.
While the global warming myth story is interesting, it does reduce the impact of the facts. But as they say "Truth is stranger than fiction." The many myths on global warming doing the rounds are based on global warming statistics, just with a different view point.