Copenhagen and Canada - it'll Devastate us

[jdobbin]

Posturing on environment matters gets us nowhere.

It amazeds me the bloviating by Tory supporters here about how wrong global warming science is and how they pull back from criticizing their party for the billions they are spending on it.

Is that all you can do but attack everyone else but not your own party which is actually spending money on the issue?

You talk about posturing but what I see here every day is reams of argument, none of which is directed at the decisionmaker in office.

Edited October 16, 2009 by jdobbin

[capricorn]

It amazeds me the bloviating by Tory supporters here about how wrong global warming science is and how they pull back from criticizing their party for the billions they are spending on it.

If you weren't so touchy and read my post properly, you will see that I agreed with Riverwind that both Harper and Ignatieff don't care much about the science behind the global warming issue. Hence, my comment about posturing applied to both men.

Is that all you can do but attack everyone else but not your own party which is actually spending money on the issue?

Do you realize this is an inadvertent compliment to the Conservatives for concrete action on the environment via actually spending to address the issue?

[noahbody]

It amazeds me the bloviating by Tory supporters here about how wrong global warming science is and how they pull back from criticizing their party for the billions they are spending on it.

The only sensible plan tabled so far was the original Clean Air Act. It focused on real environmental problems and had measures of precaution regarding the CO2 theory. I've likened spending since the rejection of that plan to a parent who's cautioned their child about buying a crappy toy with their allowance, to letting them buy it and learn by consequence. I don't support any money going toward carbon capture. I would support Canada spending money on an independent study, because I believe you don't kill your economy for no reason.

I do give Harper credit for stopping the kyoto bus and pointing out that if China, India and the US weren't involved they were going nowhere. I'm amazed people criticize him for this. Pointing out the realities to the world is the role we should continue to fulfill, because the world just isn't getting it. But that's not a surprise. Committees and problem-solving aren't compatible. The first step should be reducing the number of participating countries to about five or eight tops. Maybe they'll come to the conclusion that since it's getting colder maybe the science it's settled. At least, the cold should buy time to debate.

[jdobbin]

If you weren't so touchy and read my post properly, you will see that I agreed with Riverwind that both Harper and Ignatieff don't care much about the science behind the global warming issue. Hence, my comment about posturing applied to both men.

I read your post. You have been mostly deflecting from the Tories who in government and have been spending money on global warming.

If you don't believe in it, criticize them. All I see is the shrug and the hands up and the..."that's politicians for you" and then... back to the usual finger pointing at the Liberals.

Harper is the prime minister and is spending billions on this. I happen to think he is spending it poorly. Some of you probably think he should be spending nothing on it but don't say a peep.

All we see here is that the science is not settled and that people pushing global warming are zealots.

Well, grab some balls and actually go after the people who are spending the cash.

Do you realize this is an inadvertent compliment to the Conservatives for concrete action on the environment via actually spending to address the issue?

Actually, it isn't.

I don't believe in the ethanol program which I don't think is concrete action. I think it is a failure except as a farmer support program.

I think some of the thing the Tories are doing are very poor use in terms of spending on the environment.

Carbon capture may have some potential but it will be many years to know for sure how it is doing as it is still very experimental.

Harper has never been clear on cap and trade. All the experts know is that there will be significant costs, some saying higher than a carbon tax.

Harper has ended up with a programs that costs a lot but is a license to pollute.

[jdobbin]

The only sensible plan tabled so far was the original Clean Air Act.

It failed because it was a water and air legislative measure and not a real emissions program.

[Riverwind]

I read your post. You have been mostly deflecting from the Tories who in government and have been spending money on global warming.

Your constant attempts to turn every issue into a partisan debate is really annoying. From my point of view what Harper does or does not on climate is irrelevant to this discussion. If you want to go start a thread on the merits of the CPCs current position on GHGs then go ahead.

[jdobbin]

Your constant attempts to turn every issue into a partisan debate is really annoying. From my point of view what Harper does or does not on climate is irrelevant to this discussion. If you want to go start a thread on the merits of the CPCs current position on GHGs then go ahead.

Your constant attempt to deflect from who makes the decisions on spending money on global warming is annoying. If you spent half your time pursuing Harper on the subject as you do here with people who support parties who have no chance of power or are not presently writing cheques, you might actually make some progress.

I'll post where I want because it is deadly accurate and relevant about the environmental plan you oppose.

I don't think you are serious about it when you can't even confront your inability to address who is footing the bill. Try to take ownership over the fact that your vote for your party ends up supporting something you oppose every single day in these forums.

Edited October 16, 2009 by jdobbin

[waldo]

I believe your U.S. reduction number is too high (-3.2 versus -2.4)... suggesting the Danes, with policy, are approaching a 60% betterment over the U.S., without policy (as you suggest). However, the somewhat 'static' U.S. number over the period is attributed to efficiencies, reduced industry usage... and... now we're getting there... to an offloading to other countries where the energy required to produce the obvious increase in US consumption of manufactured equipment, cars, and other goods has been shifted to other countries that produce and transport those goods to the US. Effectively, a corresponding shift of green house gases and pollution from the U.S. to actual manufacturing countries. Hey now - that's a U.S. policy... isn't it?

You’re the one that first offered the statistics/method you’re now criticizing… the fact remains – by the statistics/method you offered, one can say that Denmark’s results are approximately 60% better than the U.S. results.

Let me put the absurdity of your claim more clearly:

Take two temperatures: 2 degC and 4 degC. You can say that 4 degC is 100% hotter than 2 degC

If you convert the temps to Fahrenheit (35.6F and 39.2F) you will find that the same 4degC measurement is only 10% higher than the 2 degC. You can do the same with degrees Kelvin (275K and 277K) and find that 4degC is only 0.07% hotter than 2 degC.

Think about this: the same physical temperature measurements differ by 100%, 10% or 0.07% depending on what units you use. That should tell that calculating a percentage difference between temperatures is a waste of time because it means nothing. The same logic applies to numbers which are already a percentage.

IOW. your 60% 'better' claim is nonsense and only serves to demonstrate that you don't understand the data you are quoting.

Buddy – they were your numbers from your linked to document… and you were the one that calculated, then offered, the percentages - your numbers, your percentage calculations. There were no number conversions over the time period in question – but thanks for your trivial rudimentary math conversion exercise. Again, you were the one that converted the numbers to a percentage and offered them up… in spite of your apparent inadvertent mistake with the U.S. percentage number calculation. From the numbers you calculated/offered, as percentages, one can simply and easily compare those same percentages as a reflection of each to the 20+ year period in question and data therein… whether my offering it was done flippantly or not.

If you have difficulty with “percentages of percentages” then you have difficulty with a key element in statistical literacy… comparing percentages is a readily – and accepted – understandable ratio-based comparison measure that follows directly from the original data… and can be used to support causal arguments.

Unfortunately you didn’t comment on my suggestions for the somewhat static U.S. consumption numbers… that in spite of the U.S. being the worlds highest consumer of manufactured goods, somehow… somehow… it managed a static energy consumption level over the period in question. You also failed to provide your own suggestions to account for the U.S. consumption numbers… that reflect on a country that offloads it’s energy consumption to other manufacturing countries (along with a corresponding shift in green house gases and pollution).

I have got news for you - the migration of CO2 producing industries has happened in Europe too and there is no chance that the total CO2 produced to support the Danish lifestyle has gone down. All they have done is import the products of CO2 intensive production from elsewhere. If those imports were suddenly slapped with large tarriffs to offset their CO2 emissions the Danes would find that their lifestyle would tank as the prices of imported goods skyrocketed.

Whaa! You were the one that admitted that “Denmark had done better than the others”, but wanted to downplay that betterment in terms of the U.S. results/lack of policy… without offering any comment on those U.S. numbers. You now offer a back-handed acknowledgement that the U.S. consumption number reflects on a migration of CO2 producing industries… and you would sooner suggest the Danes are “better migrators” than accept that, perhaps, they have policies that better reduce their overall CO2 emissions. Some might suggest you're being quite disingenuous

Yes - it does appear that Denmark has done better than the others but the fact that the US did almost as well even though it had no special policy on energy consumption suggests that Denmark's policy decisions had only a small effect on the outcome.

The key point that can’t be disputed is that Denmark has been able to sustain economic growth while its energy consumption has remained almost unchanged and CO2 emissions have dropped. Again… without qualifying it, you reference a “flat U.S. consumption level”, and presume to add further comparison rationale in favour of that unqualified level. As you state, it’s painfully obvious… that your comparison is without merit/foundation.

Of course they had economic growth - they did nothing more than other countries like the US did once you factor out population increases. Only thing the Danes have done is stop reproducing and to put up a bunch of uneconomic windmills which makes the darling of climate groupies.

You are also evading the most damning statistic wihch shows that Danish per capita energy consumption increased by 15.5% from 1992 which is the period when the 'enlightened' policies of the Danish govenment would have had supposedly an effect which, ironically is a much larger increase than in Canada or US over the same period (aside: if I use your creative math I could say that Danish increase in consumption was an "infinity"% higher than the US).

Again, your numbers from your linked to document... perhaps you could further elaborate on how you arrive at that increase from 1992 - even if you'd like to use your own creative math... although, if you simply go back a year to 2005 one could easily state Denmark shows a decrease in per capita consumption since the 1992 year you keep harping on.

E.1c  World Per Capita Total Primary Energy Consumption, 1980-2006 (Million Btu)						
Region/Country	1992	 1993	 1994	 2004	 2005	 2006
United States	334.6	336.6	338.8	342.5	339.9	334.6
Denmark		  153.5	162.0	168.4	159.5	153.0	161.3

I am curious if you can come up with any justification for using 1980 as a start date for these comparisons other that 'it happens to the one that makes Danish policies look more effective than they actually were'. Can you?

Hey... your data/your link/your justification. Or are you suggesting the EIA (Energy Information Administration), has a motive/agenda to make Denmark policy look more effective? Really?

The mission of the Energy Information Administration (EIA) is to provide policy-neutral data, forecasts, and analyses to promote sound policy making, efficient markets, and public understanding regarding energy and its interaction with the economy and the environment. Created by the Congress in 1977, EIA is the statistical agency of the U.S. Department of Energy and as such is the Nation’s premier source of unbiased energy data, analysis and forecasting. By law, EIA’s products are prepared independently of Administration policy considerations. EIA neither formulates nor advocates any policy conclusions.

[Riverwind]

If you have difficulty with “percentages of percentages” then you have difficulty with a key element in statistical literacy

I will make it really simple for you:

From 1992-2006 the US per capital consumption when from 334.6 to 334.6 which is a 0% increase.

From 1992-2006 Denmark per capital consumption when from 153.5 to 161.3 which is a 5% increase.

Now lets calculate the percentage of percentages which you seem to think is so interesting.

(5%-0%)/0% = infinity which means the US did an inifinitly better job of reducing consumption when compared to denmark.

If you can't understand why such a calculation is bogus the you really do not have a clue what you are talking about.

Hey... your data/your link/your justification. Or are you suggesting the EIA (Energy Information Administration), has a motive/agenda to make Denmark policy look more effective? Really?

Not at all. The EIA simply reports all of the data it has. It was the G&M article that then took that data and used it in a misleading way.

Now we can fiddle with the start and end dates and make the numbers go up or down but all that proves is that there is no material difference between the US and Denmark when it comes to reducing per capita energy consumption.

BTW: your attempt 'explain' the US performance as a consequence of closing down energy intensive industries is bogus because that is exactly what Denmark did too. Danes are now completely dependent on German coal fired plants and Swedish nuclear plants despite their attempt to outlaw such plants within their borders.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

Buddy – they were your numbers from your linked to document… and you were the one that calculated, then offered, the percentages - your numbers, your percentage calculations. There were no number conversions over the time period in question – but thanks for your trivial rudimentary math conversion exercise. Again, you were the one that converted the numbers to a percentage and offered them up… in spite of your apparent inadvertent mistake with the U.S. percentage number calculation. From the numbers you calculated/offered, as percentages, one can simply and easily compare those same percentages as a reflection of each to the 20+ year period in question and data therein… whether my offering it was done flippantly or not.

If you have difficulty with “percentages of percentages” then you have difficulty with a key element in statistical literacy… comparing percentages is a readily – and accepted – understandable ratio-based comparison measure that follows directly from the original data… and can be used to support causal arguments.

I will make it really simple for you:

From 1992-2006 the US per capital consumption when from 334.6 to 334.6 which is a 0% increase.

From 1992-2006 Denmark per capital consumption when from 153.5 to 161.3 which is a 5% increase.

Now lets calculate the percentage of percentages which you seem to think is so interesting.

(5%-0%)/0% = infinity which means the US did an inifinitly better job of reducing consumption when compared to denmark.

If you can't understand why such a calculation is bogus the you really do not have a clue what you are talking about.

notwithstanding your miscalculation for the U.S. percentage (-3.2 versus -2.4), you apparently don't have a problem with offering a narrative comparison of your calculated percentages... that "Denmark has done better", based on your calculated percentages. How much better? A teensy-weensy bit better? You established the baseline - it's only as arbitrary as the data you offered... you're prepared to state "Denmark has done better"... c'mon, continue on... I know you can - just qualify how much better Denmark has done. Use your own creative/fuzzy math if you'd like. I also note you seem to have interestingly skipped over my challenge to your 1992 increase reference... wonder why?

From the chart:

Per Capita (Per Person) Total Primary Energy Consumption (Million Btu per Person)

US: -3.2%

Denmark: -4.2%

Yes - it does appear that Denmark has done better than the others but the fact that the US did almost as well even though it had no special policy on energy consumption suggests that Denmark's policy decisions had only a small effect on the outcome.

I am curious if you can come up with any justification for using 1980 as a start date for these comparisons other that 'it happens to the one that makes Danish policies look mor effective than they actually were'. Can you?

Hey... your data/your link/your justification. Or are you suggesting the EIA (Energy Information Administration), has a motive/agenda to make Denmark policy look more effective? Really?

Not at all. The EIA simply reports all of the data it has. It was the G&M article that then took that data and used it in a misleading way.

Now we can fiddle with the start and end dates and make the numbers go up or down but all that proves is that there is no material difference between the US and Denmark when it comes to reducing per capita energy consumption.

BTW: your attempt 'explain' the US performance as a consequence of closing down energy intensive industries is bogus because that is exactly what Denmark did too. Danes are now completely dependent on German coal fired plants and Swedish nuclear plants despite their attempt to outlaw such plants within their borders.

C'mon, buddy... the source of that data start date... whether to support your own personal comparisons or the G&M article reference... appears to originate from the same source - the EIA. That 1980 EIA start date isn't particular to Denmark... right? It's the same 1980 start date for all countries. Because you don't agree with the G&M article you're of a mind to question the start date of the data... although it's the same 1980 start date for all countries. My accounting for the U.S. static consumption number, if you'll recall... was threefold - to which you have not offered a single reason to account for the same static U.S. consumption number, while highlighting with an almost reverence that the U.S. has "no energy policies". Perhaps you could (finally) offer comment to suggest why the world's single most consuming country of products, manages to maintain a somewhat 'static' energy consumption level? Inquiring minds need to hear the Riverwind rationale!

However, the somewhat 'static' U.S. number over the period is attributed to efficiencies, reduced industry usage... and... now we're getting there... to an offloading to other countries where the energy required to produce the obvious increase in US consumption of manufactured equipment, cars, and other goods has been shifted to other countries that produce and transport those goods to the US. Effectively, a corresponding shift of green house gases and pollution from the U.S. to actual manufacturing countries. Hey now - that's a U.S. policy... isn't it?

[Riverwind]

you apparently don't have a problem with offering a narrative comparison of your calculated percentages... that "Denmark has done better", based on your calculated percentages.

You compare percentages using ABSOLUTE values - not percentages. i.e. Denmark did 2% better than the US over the whole period. If you compare Denmark and US to another country like China (219%) you see pretty quickly that the 2% difference is insignificant. The fact that the relative performance of the Denmark and US jumps around depending on the start and end date further supports my claim the 2% difference is insignificant and provides no support for the claim that Danish policies accomplished something remarkable.

That 1980 EIA start date isn't particular to Denmark... right? It's the same 1980 start date for all countries.

EIA is just data! They don't draw conclusions or make claims. It is the people making claims that need to make sure they use the data appropriately. Edited October 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

You compare percentages using ABSOLUTE values - not percentages. i.e. Denmark did 2% better than the US over the whole period. If you compare Denmark and US to another country like China (219%) you see pretty quickly that the 2% difference is insignificant. The fact that the relative performance of the Denmark and US jumps around depending on the start and end date further supports my claim the 2% difference is insignificant and provides no support for the claim that Danish policies accomplished something remarkable.

EIA is just data! They don't draw conclusions or make claims. It is the people making claims that need to make sure they use the data appropriately.

the only reason a (further) comparison was offered... in the first place... was because you grudgingly acknowledged that Denmark performed better while negating that betterment with a qualification that the U.S. performed "as well" without the benefit of defined energy policies. And... you still won't offer comment on why the U.S. has been able to maintain a somewhat 'static' consumption number. Really, c'mon... it's to the heart of the OP's premise against the Copenhagen Agreement/wealth transfer, where industrialized countries might be expected to offer a degree of compensation that reflects upon the offloading of energy requirements with its corresponding shift of green house gases and pollution.

[Riverwind]

the only reason a (further) comparison was offered.

The entire point of getting the original data because I suspected the G&M claims were BS. It took a couple go arounds to figure out the most appropriate way to look at the data but in end the data confirmed my suspicions: denmark did nothing particularily special.

Perhaps you could (finally) offer comment to suggest why the world's single most consuming country of products, manages to maintain a somewhat 'static' energy consumption level?

The US did the same thing that denmark did: increase costs for businesses and give them a big incentive to relocate to another country where the energy consumption is now off their books. The only difference is denmark did it with energy taxes and the US did it with healthcare costs and payroll taxes. Edited October 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[waldo]

The entire point of getting the original data because I suspected the G&M claims were BS. It took a couple go arounds to figure out the most appropriate way to look at the data but in end the data confirmed my suspicions: denmark did nothing particularily special.

your interpretation... is your interpretation

Perhaps you could (finally) offer comment to suggest why the world's single most consuming country of products, manages to maintain a somewhat 'static' energy consumption level?

The US did the same thing that denmark did: increase costs for businesses and give them a big incentive to relocate to another country. Like I said, denmark did nothing special and it is basically a freeloader in the GHG game because it simply sub-contracted its emissions to other countries.

by extension to your acknowledgment on why the U.S. energy consumption numbers are somewhat 'static', might we expect some degree of compensation by those countries that, as you state, "sub-contract their emissions to other countries"... in particular those sub-contractors that choose to have no defined energy policies that might presume to attempt to reduce emissions of their own. (notwithstanding you haven't substantiated your claims to Denmark being, as you state, a "GHG freeloader").

[Riverwind]

might we expect some degree of compensation by those countries that, as you state, "sub-contract their emissions to other countries"

So you want to add insult to injury? I am sure all of the people laid off when the businesses moved would happy to pay "compensation" to the countries that took their jobs. Your thinking so completely twisted it is scary.

If GHGs are a problem then all countries must pay the same price for carbon emissions just like they pay the same price for oil. Any attempt to give freebies to some will only increase total global emissions as the market shuffles production to place where they can pollute the most. Anyone who insists on a plan that does not involve an equal price for everyone has an agenda other than reducing GHGs.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Riverwind

[Argus]

It amazeds me the bloviating by Tory supporters here about how wrong global warming science is and how they pull back from criticizing their party for the billions they are spending on it.

Is that all you can do but attack everyone else but not your own party which is actually spending money on the issue?

The Conservatives have obviously made a political decision which I find it difficult to argue with. I don't think they believe that CO2 emissions are responsible in any large way for global warming any more than I do (or that we can do much if they are) but what are they going to do when the scientific community has caved completely to this theory, and the public and media are entirely on-side - and they have a minority?

They can stand on principle, say it's all shoddy junk science, and let your party, the NDP and BQ hammer them on it, and it will damage them. It may even be enough to deny them a possible majority. And what will they get out of it? I mean, realistically? Since when did the electorate ever respect honesty or punish dishonesty?

I'm reminded of Joe Clark, who sternly admonished Canadians that we had to get the debt under control, and insisted on a seven cent gas tax. The Liberals portrayed it as the destruction of the economy, took the country into an election over it, and won back power - then impimented it anyway. Did the electorate punish them for their dishonesty? Nope. Wage and price controls - same thing. No punishment. Hell, even Kyoto. You guys ignored it for eleven years, then had the balls to actually run on the environment when Dion took office, and did the public laugh him out of his chair? No, they took him seriously. They didn't trust or understand his massive tax reorg crap, and they didn't like or trust him, but that he had the absolute gall to run as though his party gave a damn about the electorate showed that the Liberals also know full well just how short the public's memory is - and how stupid it is, collectively.

So what am I supposed to do, tell the Tories to do nothing about it, ignore it, and have the opposition gang up on them with their hysterical fearmongering? That will only benefit the Liberals and NDP. So why should I do that?

[Argus]

You know, your insistence on adding those laugh out loud emoticons with everything you say does nothing to convince anyone you are mature enough to even understand what you're talking about, much less what anyone else says. In fact, the tone of your posting is that of a loud mouthed bufoon.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Argus

[jdobbin]

So what am I supposed to do, tell the Tories to do nothing about it, ignore it, and have the opposition gang up on them with their hysterical fearmongering? That will only benefit the Liberals and NDP. So why should I do that?

If the Tories have their doubts, put money in research. The victimization that the Tories play with this idea that scientists, judiciary, media doesn't address the problem. Nor am I convinced that Harper suddenly drops global warming policies if he gets a massive majority. It won't solve the problem of international moves on things like cap and trade.

Seriously. If Harper doesn't believe in the science, get some solid research to back up the government policy of not doing anything.

Instead what we see is these constant threads on global warming where a few on the right criticize the science but not the politics of the people in power who fund the response. And what do we get from it? The ethanol policy which doesn't do anything meaningful except act as a farm support.

[Argus]

It's the same 1980 start date for all countries. Because you don't agree with the G&M article you're of a mind to question the start date of the data... although it's the same 1980 start date for all countries.

And why was that, do you think? I mean, the agreement wasn't adopted until 1997. Isn't it odd that they chose 1980 - 17 years earlier, as the start date for measurements? Can you, perhaps, guess why?

The Europeans wanted to take advantage of the fact that they were closing down all those old industries and retooling. They'd get credit now for having less CO2 emissions than they did in 1980 without having done a single thing (on purpose) to reduce CO2 emissions! Meanwhile, the US (and Canada) were in a really bad recession which had depressed industry, and thus CO2 emissions. Not only would we not get credit, but would be punished because our emissions were higher than our temporarily, recession reduced emissions. So they started out way ahead, and we started out way behind.

Niiiiiice.

[jbg]

And why was that, do you think? I mean, the agreement wasn't adopted until 1997. Isn't it odd that they chose 1980 - 17 years earlier, as the start date for measurements? Can you, perhaps, guess why?

You mean 1990, not 1980. Right reasoning wrong year.

[waldo]

I am curious if you can come up with any justification for using 1980 as a start date for these comparisons other that 'it happens to the one that makes Danish policies look mor effective than they actually were'. Can you?

Hey... your data/your link/your justification. Or are you suggesting the EIA (Energy Information Administration), has a motive/agenda to make Denmark policy look more effective? Really?

And why was that, do you think? I mean, the agreement wasn't adopted until 1997. Isn't it odd that they chose 1980 - 17 years earlier, as the start date for measurements? Can you, perhaps, guess why?

The Europeans wanted to take advantage of the fact that they were closing down all those old industries and retooling. They'd get credit now for having less CO2 emissions than they did in 1980 without having done a single thing (on purpose) to reduce CO2 emissions! Meanwhile, the US (and Canada) were in a really bad recession which had depressed industry, and thus CO2 emissions. Not only would we not get credit, but would be punished because our emissions were higher than our temporarily, recession reduced emissions. So they started out way ahead, and we started out way behind.

Niiiiiice.

Niiiiiice... just imagine those crafty Europeans playing off the timing of their "old industry shutdowns and retooling" against U.S./Canadian recession intervals. Really? That's what you're going with? Really?

Or perhaps... it just might have something to do with models/data that directly (or indirectly) factor considerations of solar variability on climate change and that prior to 1979 there are no precise measurements for solar output. One could either attempt a juvenile labeling, calling it a crafty European play, as you've done, or... one might consider that starting in 1979, scientists have been able to record variations in the sun's output via space-borne instrumentation.

[waldo]

You know, your insistence on adding those laugh out loud emoticons with everything you say does nothing to convince anyone you are mature enough to even understand what you're talking about, much less what anyone else says. In fact, the tone of your posting is that of a loud mouthed bufoon.

I am quite happy to indulge you in your concerns... not sure why it needed an edit on your part though. You've taken posting liberty in presenting, count them, 5 LOL emoticons within your quote reference - there were actually 3 active LOL emoticons within that post and 2 carried-forward LOL emoticons as a part of previous post quotes. Your quote doesn't properly present the quotes within quotes

Care to suggest what the tone of your posting is? I don't mean just this post I'm replying to... rather, overall... what tone do you present... other than a spiteful, ranting, foaming at the mouth right-winger, one prone to personalization attacks.

[Argus]

You mean 1990, not 1980. Right reasoning wrong year.

Yes, typo. The wall didn't even fall till 1989 - though the savings and loan disaster preceded it by 2 years.

[Argus]

Niiiiiice... just imagine those crafty Europeans playing off the timing of their "old industry shutdowns and retooling" against U.S./Canadian recession intervals. Really? That's what you're going with? Really?

It was certainly the major factor in choosing that date.

Or perhaps... it just might have something to do with models/data that directly (or indirectly) factor considerations of solar variability on climate change and that prior to 1979 there are no precise measurements for solar output.

The lack of precise measurements hasn't stopped them with regard to anything else.

One could either attempt a juvenile labeling, calling it a crafty European play,

That's your designation. I'm merely recognizing the inherent self-interest involved here.

As you did.

HAW HAW HAW. I'm so smart! Guffaw! Snort! Belch! Yer so stoooppiidd!

Yes, I so admire an intellectual. I'm enthralled by your learned words.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Argus

[waldo]

It's the same 1980 start date for all countries. Because you don't agree with the G&M article you're of a mind to question the start date of the data... although it's the same 1980 start date for all countries.

And why was that, do you think? I mean, the agreement wasn't adopted until 1997. Isn't it odd that they chose 1980 - 17 years earlier, as the start date for measurements? Can you, perhaps, guess why?

The Europeans wanted to take advantage of the fact that they were closing down all those old industries and retooling. They'd get credit now for having less CO2 emissions than they did in 1980 without having done a single thing (on purpose) to reduce CO2 emissions! Meanwhile, the US (and Canada) were in a really bad recession which had depressed industry, and thus CO2 emissions. Not only would we not get credit, but would be punished because our emissions were higher than our temporarily, recession reduced emissions. So they started out way ahead, and we started out way behind.

Niiiiiice.

Niiiiiice... just imagine those crafty Europeans playing off the timing of their "old industry shutdowns and retooling" against U.S./Canadian recession intervals. Really? That's what you're going with? Really?

It was certainly the major factor in choosing that date.

Are you stating the 80-83 recession wasn't a global recession? Do you have a new definition for a global recession... one other than that used by the IMF... one that would suggest the 80-83 recession wasn't global impacting?

Or perhaps... it just might have something to do with models/data that directly (or indirectly) factor considerations of solar variability on climate change and that prior to 1979 there are no precise measurements for solar output. One could either attempt a juvenile labeling, calling it a crafty European play, as you've done, or... one might consider that starting in 1979, scientists have been able to record variations in the sun's output via space-borne instrumentation.

The lack of precise measurements hasn't stopped them with regard to anything else.

That's your designation. I'm merely recognizing the inherent self-interest involved here.

Feel free to identify the lack of precise measurements and related claims... while at the same time showing accompanying rebuttals and the basis therein. Your "European industry shutdown/retooling" claim will remain labeled as juvenile until such time as you bring forward something established and recognized to corroborate it... something other than just your statement.

HAW HAW HAW. I'm so smart! Guffaw! Snort! Belch! Yer so stoooppiidd!

Yes, I so admire an intellectual. I'm enthralled by your learned words.

Don't take it to heart - if you choose to jump into the meaty thread discussions and get shown up for your lack of understanding, just try harder - next time.