# Climate Change: 178 countries vs. the US **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 23, 2001, 12:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-178-countries-vs-the-us/73532 "2001-07-23T12:38:32Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 4
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2001, 12:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-178-countries-vs-the-us/73532/61 "2001-07-29T00:11:06Z")
\*Originally posted by Squink \* \*\* > [@](#): > > In fact, current models show that changes in human activity will not make enough difference. So the specifics of these “current models” are correct, it’s just that flaws make the models meaningless as a whole ? That seems like kind of a picky choosy way to use someone elses data.\*\* **Squink** , I hoped I had been clear. The current models show that Kyoto doesn’t do anywhere near enough to reverse global warming. If those models are correct, then Kyoto won’t do the job. If the models are incorrect, then we don’t even know the magnitude of the problem or wheter there is a problem. These models are not validated. \*\* > [@](#): > > Since control of CO2 will not work, Kyoto isn’t the right path; it’s a dead end. Do you have any proof for this statement of belief, preferably something that doesn’t rely on flawed models ? \*\* My thinking is this: Man-made CO2 has been increasing rapidly for 100 years and \*\*it will continue to do so, \*\*because of growing population and growing prosperity. The world is apparently unwilling to make the kind of massive changes that would be required to even stop the growth of CO2, let alone cause a big reduction. I’m not saying that this situation is good, just that it’s reality. BTW there’s another disturbing possibility, which I consider conceivable. Significant global warming may be occurring for reasons other than human activity. In that case, it might be vital to develop technology to reduce the temperature of the earth, if such is even possible. Or, it might be necessary to figure out how best to survive and maintain civilization on a hotter earth. For these reasons, it seems to me far more important to find realistic ways to deal with glowbal warming (and global cooling), rather than sign onto a treaty that won’t be enforced and wouldn’t solve the (alleged) problem if it were. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2001, 2:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-178-countries-vs-the-us/73532/62 "2001-07-29T14:51:43Z")
> [@](#): > > For these reasons, it seems to me far more important to find realistic ways to deal with glowbal warming (and global cooling), rather than sign onto a treaty that won’t be enforced and wouldn’t solve the (alleged) problem if it were. On the other hand, unless we start to tell governments and industry that warming is a problem that they must find ways to deal with we will find ourselves 50 years down the road with bigger and more immediate concerns. Kyoto alone might only reduce temperatures at the end of the century by ~0.25 degrees, but that 0.25 may be the amount needed to keep something truly irreversible from happening to the ecosphere; and the effort of trying to achieve the treaties goals would direct a lot of bright american minds towards finding solutions to the problem. ---
**Author:** ![Jackmannii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jackmannii/32/311_2.png) [@Jackmannii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jackmannii)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2001, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-178-countries-vs-the-us/73532/63 "2001-07-29T21:07:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Squink \* > **If you’re going claim that no one but Rumania has ratified Kyoto, be sure to also mention the corollary that ALL the other countries are still at least trying to find an effective and fair way to limit greenhouse gas emissions through international cooperative efforts.** “ALL” the other nations? Read this entire thread, discover the fallacy and win a prize. “At least trying” = zero achieved. The four years that have passed after agreement on the first Kyoto pact were ample time for **one** nation to have implemented it. None have. “Well, we thought about doing this great and wonderful thing, so we deserve lots and lots of credit.” Think again. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2001, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-178-countries-vs-the-us/73532/64 "2001-07-29T22:01:15Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Squink \* > \*\*On the other hand, unless we start to tell governments and industry that warming is a problem that they must find ways to deal with we will find ourselves 50 years down the road with bigger and more immediate concerns. Kyoto alone might only reduce temperatures at the end of the century by ~0.25 degrees, but that 0.25 may be the amount needed to keep something truly irreversible from happening to the ecosphere; and the effort of trying to achieve the treaties goals would direct a lot of bright american minds towards finding solutions to the problem. \*\* True, but the words “might” and “may” show that this argument is speculation, not science. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2001, 10:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-178-countries-vs-the-us/73532/65 "2001-07-29T22:11:54Z")
> [@](#): > > “At least trying” = zero achieved. A 178 to 1 decision on how to proceed is actually a pretty big achievement, especially when you consider the diversity of the nations involved. Each of these nations has an economy that will be impacted by warming, or attempts to prevent it. They don’t seem to lack what it takes to at least discuss tough problems; apparently the current US administration does. ---
**Author:** ![Avumede](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/avumede/32/7235_2.png) [@Avumede](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Avumede)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2001, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-178-countries-vs-the-us/73532/66 "2001-07-29T22:13:46Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by december \* > True, but the words “might” and “may” show that this argument is speculation, not science. No. Have you heard about a field of math called statistics? With statistics, “might” and “may” are actually quite scientific. ---
**Author:** ![december](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/838e76/32.png) [@december](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/december)\ **Post date:** [July 29, 2001, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-178-countries-vs-the-us/73532/67 "2001-07-29T22:31:57Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by Avumede \* > \*\* Have you heard about a field of math called statistics? With statistics, “might” and “may” are actually quite scientific. > > \*\* You might be right.🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2001, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-178-countries-vs-the-us/73532/68 "2001-07-30T02:13:36Z")
He may indeed 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Monster104](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c6cbf5/32.png) [@Monster104](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monster104)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2001, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-178-countries-vs-the-us/73532/69 "2001-07-30T02:37:07Z")
> [@](#): > > A 178 to 1 decision on how to proceed is actually a pretty big achievement, especially when you consider the diversity of the nations involved. Each of these nations has an economy that will be impacted by warming, or attempts to prevent it. They don’t seem to lack what it takes to at least discuss tough problems; apparently the current US administration does However, most of the larger nations are trying to get special provisions included into the treaty to benefit THEIR economy specifically. All they agree on is that something should be done to lower pollution. The US government decided that Kyoto wasn’t the way to lower pollution, so we’re not supporting it. ---
**Author:** ![Squink](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Squink](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Squink)\ **Post date:** [July 30, 2001, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-178-countries-vs-the-us/73532/70 "2001-07-30T03:13:53Z")
> [@](#): > > The US government decided that Kyoto wasn’t the way to lower pollution, so we’re not supporting it. It’s remarkable how wise in the science of global warming this administration has become in the few weeks since the national acadamy forced them to concede that it’s not just some left wing conspiracy ! Why just the other day Colin Powell told us that “We are committed to working with all nations of the world to find a consensus in the near future”. “Hopefully, we can present some new ideas,” he said. The rest of the world would love to see some new ideas too, but I don’t think anyone is holding their breath in anticipation. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/climate-change-178-countries-vs-the-us/73532.md?page=3)