Conservative War On Science

[Evening Star]

Nope. That isn't true.

Hm, well, FWIW, at least Swedish sources seem to think/claim so:

http://www.thelocal.se/9444/20071218/

http://www.sweden.gov.se/sb/d/574/a/54762

This 2005 BBC article states that France, Sweden, and the UK met their targets:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4269921.stm

Jbg might be right about "1990 levels" being an unfair measure though.

[waldo]

The problem with Kyoto is the "base year". The selection of 1990 for a treaty penned in 1997 was no accident. Most European economies had declined or were at best flat between 1990 and 1997 whereas the U.S. and Canada had come out of a recession and were vigorously expanding during that period. Add to it the fact tha the collapse of the Soviet Union and unification of Germany cratered the newly joined Germany's output levels.

Given that Europe spent the early 00's crawling back to 1990 levels keeping emissions down was a no-brainer. This would have been an impossible task for the U.S. and Canada.

why do you persist in spreading your purposeful disinformation?

Basically yes. The Global Warming acolytes do this with abandon in allowing favorable Kyoto base years other than 1990; in some cases as early as 1984 or 1986, so that countries who can be bribed into supporting the treaty get their peak economic years to work with.

... at least you're not choosing to proliferate the standard denier talking point concerning the choice of 1990 as the base year - we covered that off previously in another MLW thread - here. As for your specific slag, it's baseless, as the handful of countries that were excepted to the 1990 base year within the Kyoto Protocol, were done so based on their economies being 'in transition' (the so-called "EIT" countries)... the one's I'm aware of, the only countries granted exception to the 1990 base year, that I'm aware of, were Bulgaria (1988), Hungary (1985-8), Poland (1988) and Romania (1989).

as much as you seem to thrive on presumptions of devious action/intent, that 1990 base year reference associates to benchmark 1990 emission levels accepted by member parties of UNFCCC... effectively, the values of "global warming potential" calculated for the IPCC SAR Report (as used to convert various GHG emissions into comparable CO2 equivalents).

Well now let me see......Kyoto was actually adopted on December 11th, 1997 and used data from the 1995 SAR. So why would they use a benchmark year 5 years earlier? Why not 1991 or 92 or 93 or 94. Give yourself a shake Waldo....it was clearly because the Soviet Empire collapsed in 1991. Not only did it help the "progressive" EU27 meet their Kyoto targets (mostly) but Russia stood to make out quite nicely thank you because of all of their "reductions" and resulting credits.

no, sorry... you'll need to lower your devious action/intent radar. As I said, within the Kyoto Protocol,

the 1990 base reference was used... was selected... in relation to the "global warming potentials (GWPs)" developed within the SAR report

".

Kyoto Protocol:

The benchmark 1990 emission levels were accepted by the Conference of the Parties of UNFCCC (decision 2/CP.3) [2] were the values of "global warming potential" calculated for the IPCC Second Assessment Report. These figures are used for converting the various greenhouse gas emissions into comparable CO2 equivalents when computing overall sources and sinks.

here's a thought, Simple... why don't you go find the SAR GWPs and prove the above quote wrong - you know, actually substantiate your stated devious action/intent.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Bubber -

You should also point out that at the same time, on December 19, 2009 that Washington, DC and New York were getting 25 - 50 cm snow and the temperature was 0 - -2C Iqaluit on Baffin Island was a toasty (for them) +1C. That is the result of the high-pressure NAO blocking that helps cause the mega-storms in the U.S. Northeast.

I don't believe in AGW. But I'll point out the arguments going both ways.

Should it also be pointed out that 2009 is tied for second warmest year on record?

[bush_cheney2004]

Should it also be pointed out that 2009 is tied for second warmest year on record?

No, as "the record" is but a blink of the eye.

[Guest TrueMetis]

No, as "the record" is but a blink of the eye.

So's human existence what's you point?

Edited November 22, 2010 by TrueMetis

[bush_cheney2004]

So's human existence what's you point?

The earth will be warmer and colder, just as before, and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

[TimG]

why do you persist in spreading your purposeful disinformation?

Why do you quote political documents as if they were credible? The only reason that Kyoto was signed is because the unique historical circumstances made it easy for the EU and Russia to meet their targets. The agreement would have never been signed if the EU had to make the kinds of sacrifices that the expected the US make.

[dre]

Are your talking about measures that actually have a chance of reducing CO2 or are you talking about games designed to fool the public into thinking something is being done?

The liberals and conservatives did nothing to meet the kyoto target because there was no benefit to doing so.

Are your talking about measures that actually have a chance of reducing CO2 or are you talking about games designed to fool the public into thinking something is being done?

NO measures have a chance of reducing CO2 at this point. Energy use is increasing and will continue to increase. Emissions targets are not the end game, but theyre usefull because they can nudge the market in a certain direction.

So while Kyoto did NOT result in a reduction of CO emission (obviously) it DID help stimulate the market for technologies meant to reduce co2, and it did raise a shitload of awareness. The landscape has change significantly since then and Kyoto played a usefull part.

The liberals and conservatives did nothing to meet the kyoto target because there was no benefit to doing so.

Thats just not true. Like I said they did more than they would have without it.

[jbg]

the discussion context was temperature trending... specifically, the tendencies of deniers to purposely cherry-pick short-term trending intervals keyed to specific start/end points... of course, this is countered by adherence to proper trending methodologies which rely on legitimate interval periods; intervals that, within a climate change context, typically extend beyond 20-25+ years. We've had innumerable MLW posts that have beat on this, many times over. You can certainly choose to extend your response beyond what was the temperature trending context, to now bring forward an 'out-of-the-blue' reference to Kyoto base years... at least you're not choosing to proliferate the standard denier talking point concerning the choice of 1990 as the base year - we covered that off previously in another MLW thread - here. As for your specific slag, it's baseless, as the handful of countries that were excepted to the 1990 base year within the Kyoto Protocol, were done so based on their economies being 'in transition' (the so-called "EIT" countries)... the one's I'm aware of, the only countries granted exception to the 1990 base year, that I'm aware of, were Bulgaria (1988), Hungary (1985-8), Poland (1988) and Romania (1989). Wow! You reached deep to support your blustering over, as you say, "Global Warming acolytes". Yeesh!

Could this exclusion of "EIT" countries and the overall selection of a 1990 base year been used to gerrymander the voting at the Kyoto Conference so that the largest number of bitsy European countries would vote "yes", in order to disadvantage the economies of the U.S., Canada and Australia?

[Evening Star]

On the provincial level, we have seen major green energy programmes in at least ON and NS and reforestation programmes in ON.

[dre]

Could this exclusion of "EIT" countries and the overall selection of a 1990 base year been used to gerrymander the voting at the Kyoto Conference so that the largest number of bitsy European countries would vote "yes", in order to disadvantage the economies of the U.S., Canada and Australia?

Kyoto cant disadvantage the economies of Canada the US or Australia because in any democracy governments are judged first and formost on the economy and everything else takes a back seat. The point of the treaty was to set ambitious goals with the hope that those goals pressure countries to do as much as possible.

At the end of the day the treaty is just a commitment by a bunch of voluntary parties, and theres no real teeth to it. Like I said... almost all countries will fall short. Still... theyre doing more than they were doing before.

[jbg]

At the end of the day the treaty is just a commitment by a bunch of voluntary parties, and theres no real teeth to it.

I agree that's what treaties have evolved into. If that's the case isn't it dangerous for two truly hostile countries to ever trust a treaty? Maybe the Treaty of Ghent is unreliable?

Like I said... almost all countries will fall short. Still... theyre doing more than they were doing before.

On paper, yes. In real life no.

[waldo]

The problem with Kyoto is the "base year". The selection of 1990 for a treaty penned in 1997 was no accident. Most European economies had declined or were at best flat between 1990 and 1997 whereas the U.S. and Canada had come out of a recession and were vigorously expanding during that period. Add to it the fact tha the collapse of the Soviet Union and unification of Germany cratered the newly joined Germany's output levels.

Given that Europe spent the early 00's crawling back to 1990 levels keeping emissions down was a no-brainer. This would have been an impossible task for the U.S. and Canada.

why do you persist in spreading your purposeful disinformation?

Basically yes. The Global Warming acolytes do this with abandon in allowing favorable Kyoto base years other than 1990; in some cases as early as 1984 or 1986, so that countries who can be bribed into supporting the treaty get their peak economic years to work with.

... at least you're not choosing to proliferate the standard denier talking point concerning the choice of 1990 as the base year - we covered that off previously in another MLW thread - here. As for your specific slag, it's baseless, as the handful of countries that were excepted to the 1990 base year within the Kyoto Protocol, were done so based on their economies being 'in transition' (the so-called "EIT" countries)... the one's I'm aware of, the only countries granted exception to the 1990 base year, that I'm aware of, were Bulgaria (1988), Hungary (1985-8), Poland (1988) and Romania (1989).

as much as you seem to thrive on presumptions of devious action/intent, that 1990 base year reference associates to benchmark 1990 emission levels accepted by member parties of UNFCCC... effectively, the values of "global warming potential" calculated for the IPCC SAR Report (as used to convert various GHG emissions into comparable CO2 equivalents).

Well now let me see......Kyoto was actually adopted on December 11th, 1997 and used data from the 1995 SAR. So why would they use a benchmark year 5 years earlier? Why not 1991 or 92 or 93 or 94. Give yourself a shake Waldo....it was clearly because the Soviet Empire collapsed in 1991. Not only did it help the "progressive" EU27 meet their Kyoto targets (mostly) but Russia stood to make out quite nicely thank you because of all of their "reductions" and resulting credits.

no, sorry... you'll need to lower your devious action/intent radar. As I said, within the Kyoto Protocol,

the 1990 base reference was used... was selected... in relation to the "global warming potentials (GWPs)" developed within the SAR report

".

Kyoto Protocol:

The benchmark 1990 emission levels were accepted by the Conference of the Parties of UNFCCC (decision 2/CP.3) [2] were the values of "global warming potential" calculated for the IPCC Second Assessment Report. These figures are used for converting the various greenhouse gas emissions into comparable CO2 equivalents when computing overall sources and sinks.

here's a thought, Simple... why don't you go find the SAR GWPs and prove the above quote wrong - you know, actually substantiate your stated devious action/intent.

Could this exclusion of "EIT" countries and the overall selection of a 1990 base year been used to gerrymander the voting at the Kyoto Conference so that the largest number of bitsy European countries would vote "yes", in order to disadvantage the economies of the U.S., Canada and Australia?

read my post again... take the time, make the effort. The 4 EIT countries are named - those that were granted exceptions... the rationale for the 1990 base year was stated. If you choose to dispute either, substantiate... otherwise, I've laid bare your repeated disinformation game.

Why do you quote political documents as if they were credible? The only reason that Kyoto was signed is because the unique historical circumstances made it easy for the EU and Russia to meet their targets. The agreement would have never been signed if the EU had to make the kinds of sacrifices that the expected the US make.

as well - substantiate. Of course, there is no end to the "appease Russia meme"... we could have some fun though; it would be entertaining to see which reference gem you pull forward.

[waldo]

I read the interview. It's not as one-sided as GWPF's introduction makes it sound, based on a quote taken out of context.

He definitely still seems to think climate policy is driven by environmental concerns but he also believes that countries that can afford it and that have benefited the most, historically, from burning fossil fuels should carry the larger share of the burden of change:

Regardless of whether or not one agrees with his perspective, he is not 'admitting' that climate change policy is just a cover for a redistributive economic agenda. He thinks that some level of redistribution is necessary in order to make C02 reductions work without causing too much economic suffering in LDCs.

imagine that... the denier GWPF organization isolating and promulgating an out of context quote - one that went bouncing widely around the denialsphere and... even the Shady one tried to peddle it!

[dre]

On the provincial level, we have seen major green energy programmes in at least ON and NS and reforestation programmes in ON.

Youve seen similar stuff all around the world. People are taking small steps... governments are increasing fuel efficiency standards, regulating industrial waste and investing in emerging technologies.

Baby steps that arent fast enough for some people but will add up over decades to come.

[dre]

I agree that's what treaties have evolved into. If that's the case isn't it dangerous for two truly hostile countries to ever trust a treaty? Maybe the Treaty of Ghent is unreliable?

On paper, yes. In real life no.

On paper, yes. In real life no.

Thats just wrong. And whats more you and I both know that you have really done the research that would be required to make such a claim. Canada has spent and committed billions of dollars towards climate change. Everything from incentives to buying fuel efficient vehicles, to grants that help you increase the energy efficiency of your home. Its also worked on regulation on industrial emissions.

I admit Im not sure how much of this money was wasted. But youre claiming 100% of it was, and thats the kind of claim a guy should provide some backup for.

Look. The fact of the matter is that NOT ONE SINGLE PERSON HERE has read kyoto and fully understands all the different parts of it. Theres a lot more than emissions targets, theres incentives for countries to invest in and share technology, and incentives for western countries to invest in the developing world to make sure theyre at least building modern shit.

Id like to see the thought process behind that conclusion and what evidence supports it.

[jbg]

Thats just wrong. And whats more you and I both know that you have really done the research Id like to see the thought process behind that conclusion and what evidence supports it.

In the minds of some a proof is a proof. Including the one who forced Canada into Kyoto, using control of a majority government.

[waldo]

the party of Lincoln... the rise of Snookiism!

When ignorance becomes a movement: The rise of Snookiism

Be afraid. Be very afraid. Mainstream, rock-ribbed, you-can't-make-me-flinch Republicans are. One former leader of the party I spoke with the other night said, "We've never seen anything like them. The Gingrich 'Contract with America' revolution was mild by comparison."

In just the past couple of weeks since the election we have seen half a dozen examples of this next generation know-nothingism, this translation of a dumbed-down zeitgeist into a new movement that might be called Snookiism.

• The battle for the House Energy and Commerce chairmanship has illustrated well how truly demented this debate has become. In order to promote his own candidacy to be chairman, Texas Representative Joe Barton has circulated a Rush Limbaugh authored commentary on the front runner for the position, Rep. Fred Upton, in which an attempt is made to discredit Upton due to the fact that he actually appears to believe in (at least some of) the science surrounding climate change. The implication: you can't be a true Republican and believe in science. This impression is only amplified in light of the argument from another contender, Rep. John Shimkus who has offered his belief in the literal interpretation of the Bible as his reason for not believing in climate change. (After the flood, God said it wouldn't happen again.) I've got nothing against the Bible, believe me. But do we really want to use it to predict the weather?

Some Republicans take comfort in the fact that the Tea Party isn't really a party and had no real hierarchic organization or unified platform in the last election. They see it more as an emotional spasm, the Perot Party Version 2010, and that it will pass. But the 110 newly elected representatives on Capitol Hill who were elected with some Tea Party affiliation are now starting to coalesce into a driving force. If they can effectively form and maintain the discipline of a caucus then they have a chance at further institutionalizing and preserving their movement.

In some respects this might be seen as democracy at work. The problem is we are taking an affliction of democracy -- ignorance -- and turning it into a political movement. This may be disturbing to all those who have a passing interest in the facts, but it creates a special burden for those who must oppose the movement, because those on the other side are actually immune to rational argument, by definition allergic to it.

It now falls to the mainstream Republican leadership, especially to presumptive Speaker John Boehner, to control this group and limit its worst traits. And all spirited Americans who can read and write ought to be pulling for him. Because if he fails, America will face the threat of the spread of a strain of reckless demagoguery unprecedented in our history, a Snookidemic that threatens to effectively lobotomize the body politic.

[Saipan]

Canada has spent and committed billions of dollars towards climate change.

Imagine that kind of money and we are still freezing. TOTAL WASTE.

This morning -22C!

It's like the $2 billion on registering duck guns, and Jamaican Possies still shooting in the streets of Toronto.

Canada is slowly becoming Gotham.

[waldo]

Harper Conservatives... an abysmal failure - Watchdog blasts Tories on climate change, oil-spill preparedness

The Conservative government has failed to protect Canadians from the effects of climate change, to assess the quality of fresh water and to prepare for the possibility of a massive oil spill from ships sailing off Canada’s coasts, the Ottawa’s environment watchdog said Tuesday

“There is little in our findings to offset a discouraging picture, as most suggest underlying problems in how these federal programs are being managed,” Scott Vaughan, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development, said in releasing his highly critical fall report --- 2010 Fall Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development - Chapter 3—Adapting to Climate Impacts

Conclusions:

3.54 Through our examination of departments’ efforts to manage climate risks and share information on impacts and adaptation, what emerged from both areas of examination is that there is still no federal adaptation policy, strategy, or action plan in place. Departments therefore lack the necessary central direction for prioritizing and coordinating their efforts to develop more effective and efficient ways of managing climate change risks.

3.55 Overall, the departments we examined have not taken concrete actions to adapt to the impacts of a changing climate. With few exceptions, they have yet to adjust or develop policies and practices to better respond to the risks. However, Fisheries and Oceans Canada, Natural Resources Canada, Health Canada, and Environment Canada have taken the first steps of risk management by completing assessments of the risks to their mandate areas from climate change, and they have prioritized the risks. Indian and Northern Affairs Canada has initiated but not yet completed a department-wide assessment of the climate change risks it must manage.

3.56 The four programs we examined have shared information on climate impacts and adaptation in a manner that responds to the needs of their specific clients, stakeholders, and partners. This includes having mechanisms in place to assess user needs, to make information accessible and understandable, and, where relevant, to provide assurance of the quality of the information being shared. However, the programs cannot meet the increasing demand for information. Funding for adaptation programs under the Clean Air Agenda is scheduled to end in March 2011, and there is no plan in place to address ongoing needs after that date.

[Saipan]

The Conservative government has failed to protect Canadians from the effects of climate change, to assess the quality of fresh water and to prepare for the possibility of a massive oil spill from ships sailing off Canada’s coasts, the Ottawa’s environment watchdog said Tuesday

So what exactly did Chretien's government do, except decimating our national defence?

[ToadBrother]

Imagine that kind of money and we are still freezing. TOTAL WASTE.

And once again for the morons at home, weather is not climate.

[jbg]

So what exactly did Chretien's government do, except decimating our national defence?

Proved the proof which was proven.

[Saipan]

And once again for the morons at home, weather is not climate.

Indeed. We need to warm up both. Just to be sure

[Bonam]

The earth will be warmer and colder, just as before, and there is nothing you or anyone else can do about it.

Humans are masters of the Earth and will be able to control the climate in the near future.