Cancun sun speeds decay of global warming charade

[waldo]

Yes... Bush Republicans - ultimately. The U.S. actually signed the Kyoto Protocol... yes, there was bipartisan Senate rejection during the Clinton admin; however, it was the Bush admin that formally rejected the Kyoto Protocol... and turned away from that initial agreement offered by the U.S. Kyoto negotiating team. Just who is it you're claiming are now calling for like exemptions to the initial Kyoto protocol... just who are your supposed "left-wing loonies"?

Bush was just acknowledging the decision made by the senate in 1997.

yes, thank you - I accept your agreement that it was the Bush administration that formally reversed the initial U.S. signing of the Kyoto Protocol.

So what? Bush was the undertaker. It was the senate that killed it. I see this is another tenet of your faith. You are incapable of acknowledging that the US rejection of Kyoto was a bi-partisan affair.

bold colour highlighting added for the seeing/reading impaired

[Michael Hardner]

Don't get dragged into arguing the science. Make it clear that the science and the policy discussion are seperate and agreeing on the science does not necessarily mean agreement on policy. If enough people take that approach then science will stop being the whipping boy in a political fight. People will not agree on policy but at least we stop destroying the credibility of the best tool we have to understand the world around us.

That's what I have been trying to do. These are two separate discussions.

[TimG]

obtuse? Yes, you certainly are... no matter how many times you're corrected, you still persist in labeling the SRES scenarios as "economic models".

They are built on an economic model. Adding physical stuff into a economic model does not mean it is any less an economic model (if anything it is even a less reliable model because of the additional tuneable knobs).

Your cluelessness on this point goes along way to explain why you cannot understand the IPCC claim of "no BAU" is nonsense. There is are BAU scenarios. Everyone knows it. The only people who deny it are people like you who wish to avoid facing the contradictions between the IPCC economic models and the claims of disaster.

Edited December 7, 2010 by TimG

[jbg]

That's what I have been trying to do. These are two separate discussions.

No. I don't agree.

Risk management should be key to any policy decision. Economics and science both must be considered.

[Saipan]

No. I don't agree.

Risk management should be key to any policy decision. Economics and science both must be considered.

What "risk" would that be?

[TimG]

Risk management should be key to any policy decision. Economics and science both must be considered.

Science is one of many inputs into the policy discussion. It is not ignored. What science cannot do is dictate a particular policy response.

[jbg]

What "risk" would that be?

The minimal risk of global warming vs. the certainty of destruction of the economy by taking panicky measures.

[waldo]

obtuse? Yes, you certainly are... no matter how many times you're corrected, you still persist in labeling the SRES scenarios as "economic models". Certainly, as has been stated previously, there are sub-model components that could be labeled as definitional "economic models"; however, in their encompassing makeup, the models that generate the SRES scenarios are not your simplistic defined "economic models"... the IPCC goes to lengths in advising as much. And now you've just compounded your misunderstanding by labeling the SRES family groupings as "models". You really should stop before you injure yourself. Since you persist, the scenarios are generated as a result of model runs... they, in themselves, are not models, economic or otherwise. There are 6 specific models (each with sub-model groupings) involved in generating the assorted 40+ scenarios, notwithstanding the separate distinct GCM and multi-modal climate models that encompass dedicated facets of separate processing.

They are built on an economic model. Adding physical stuff into a economic model does not mean it is any less an economic model (if anything it is even a less reliable model because of the additional tuneable knobs).

is this your backpedaling way of acknowledging the principal/prominent systems-engineering (so-called bottom-up) models? In this your latest spin, just what "economic model" were these 6 modeling 'hierarchies' (each of which are composed of multiple sub models) built upon... just what "economic model' did the 6 widely disparate, independent working and global geographically dispersed modeling groups follow - surely, you should be able to provide something to substantiate such a claim.

good on ya for acknowledging your single-most blatant faux pas... yes, certainly you were most adamant in pushing your misunderstandings over 'business as usual (BAU)' within the SRES scenarios. Of course, when it was finally pointed out to you the absolute and most definitive IPCC statements concerning BAU within SRES (rather, the absence of BAU within SRES) you proceeded to shout "weasel words", "ass covering" (as you've now done again), etc. Quite comical, indeed! But, of course, if you actually had even a minimal understanding of the SRES scenarios you'd recognize why the concept of BAU doesn't fit within them... so, obviously, you make your own shit up again, because, apparently to you, the IPCC doesn't know what it's talking about concerning it's own SRES concept/process/methodologies! Another TimG classic... one for the books.

Your cluelessness on this point goes along way to explain why you cannot understand the IPCC claim of "no BAU" is nonsense. There is are BAU scenarios. Everyone knows it. The only people who deny it are people like you who wish to avoid facing the contradictions between the IPCC economic models and the claims of disaster.

yes, that's right... TimG will counter the numerous IPCC statements advising against the premise/concept of BAU within the SRES scenarios. I mean, after all, the IPCC only designed, developed and implemented them! Naturally, when TimG is confronted with several examples of actual verbiage from the IPCC reports advising against the premise/concept of BAU, TimG will hold fast to his personal interpretations (his "everybody knows") and shout that the IPCC is using "weasel words" and is engaged in "ass covering"... of course, TimG is the authority over the IPCC in ascertaining how the IPCC intended the SRES scenarios to be used/interpreted. Of course TimG is!

Describing potential future developments involves inherent ambiguities and uncertainties.

One and only one possible development path (as alluded to, for instance, in concepts such as "business-as-usual scenario") simply does not exist alone.

And even for each alternative development path described by any given scenario, there are numerous combinations of driving forces and numeric values that can be consistent with a particular scenario description. The numeric precision of any model result should not distract from the basic fact that uncertainty abounds. However, the multi-model approach increases the value of the SRES scenario set, since uncertainties in the choice of model input assumptions can be separated more explicitly from the specific model behavior and related modeling uncertainties.

[TimG]

is this your backpedaling way of acknowledging the principal/prominent systems-engineering

Not in the least. I never said there were no physical aspects to the projections. I only said, that the projections are completely dependent on their economic modelling assumptions and that they as reliable as any other economic model that tries to predict the economy in 100 years (a.k.a. completely useless).

[Saipan]

The minimal risk of global warming vs. the certainty of destruction of the economy by taking panicky measures.

Makes sense. Would be hard to argue that point.

[waldo]

is this your backpedaling way of acknowledging the principal/prominent systems-engineering (so-called bottom-up) models? In this your latest spin, just what "economic model" were these 6 modeling 'hierarchies' (each of which are composed of multiple sub models) built upon... just what "economic model' did the 6 widely disparate, independent working and global geographically dispersed modeling groups follow - surely, you should be able to provide something to substantiate such a claim.

Not in the least. I never said there were no physical aspects to the projections. I only said, that the projections are completely dependent on their economic modelling assumptions and that they as reliable as any other economic model that tries to predict the economy in 100 years (a.k.a. completely useless).

that's quite the selective response - hey? Quite the departure from your ongoing labeling of the SRES scenarios as "IPCC economic models"... notwithstanding, of course, that the SRES scenarios are actually the output, the generation of the stated models. Please... continue on... there is much in the above quote you're choosing to ignore. Don't hesitate to advise upon the nature/aspects of the, as you stated, "built upon economic model".

[bush_cheney2004]

So what? Bush was the undertaker. It was the senate that killed it. I see this is another tenet of your faith. You are incapable of acknowledging that the US rejection of Kyoto was a bi-partisan affair.

It was more than bi-partisan...it was a NO FRICKIN' WAY slam dunk:

On June 25, 1997, before the Kyoto Protocol was to be negotiated, the U.S. Senate passed by a 95-0 vote the Byrd-Hagel Resolution (S. Res. 98), which stated the sense of the Senate was that the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol that that did not include binding targets and timetables for developing as well as industrialized nations or "would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States". Disregarding the Senate Resolution, on November 12, 1998, Vice President Al Gore symbolically signed the protocol. Aware of the Senate's view of the protocol, the Clinton Administration never submitted the protocol for ratification.

[waldo]

Don't get dragged into arguing the science. Make it clear that the science and the policy discussion are seperate and agreeing on the science does not necessarily mean agreement on policy. If enough people take that approach then science will stop being the whipping boy in a political fight. People will not agree on policy but at least we stop destroying the credibility of the best tool we have to understand the world around us.

That's what I have been trying to do. These are two separate discussions.

Michael, surely you recognize TimG's concern-troll mode. After his history of claiming conspiracy by scientists and scientific organizations, after his repeated and ongoing pattern of denigrating climate science as "cargo cult", of calling into question the integrity and honesty of climate scientists, of his absolute denial of the science in favour of a no-holds bared approach to adaptation only... TimG now presumes to come forward and speak in a hushed reverent tone, "at least we stop destroying the credibility of the best tool we have to understand the world around us"! Hypocrite.

[TimG]

pattern of denigrating climate science as "cargo cult", of calling into question the integrity and honesty of climate scientists

It is not my fault that you interpret any complaint about the way climate science is conducted as an 'attack on the integrity of scientists'. I have explained many times that people with a lot of integrity can find themselves trapped by group think and are no longer able to see flaws in their own beliefs. The obession with createing a phoney "consensus" in order to push a political agenda has greatly harmed science.

People like you who reject all criticism of scientists are part of the problem. You are are an enabler the for the 'consensus' drug addict because it serves your political agenda. In the long term, refusing to acknowledge the obvious problems within the climate science field harms the reputation of science in general. This is something I care about.

Edited December 7, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

Michael, surely you recognize TimG's concern-troll mode. After his history of claiming conspiracy by scientists and scientific organizations, after his repeated and ongoing pattern of denigrating climate science as "cargo cult", of calling into question the integrity and honesty of climate scientists, of his absolute denial of the science in favour of a no-holds bared approach to adaptation only... TimG now presumes to come forward and speak in a hushed reverent tone, "at least we stop destroying the credibility of the best tool we have to understand the world around us"! Hypocrite.

It is not my fault that you interpret any complaint about the way climate science is conducted as an 'attack on the integrity of scientists'. I have explained many times that people with a lot of integrity can find themselves trapped by group think and are no longer able to see flaws in their own beliefs. The obession with createing a phoney "consensus" in order to push a political agenda has greatly harmed science.

People like you who reject all criticism of scientists are part of the problem. You are are an enabler the for the 'consensus' drug addict because it serves your political agenda. In the long term, refusing to acknowledge the obvious problems within the climate science field harms the reputation of science in general. This is something I care about.

yes, of course, you pull the 'group think' tag repeatedly from your denial quiver... "ideological driven group thinkers... squawk!" Ya, ya... TimG says, "that overwhelming scientific consensus is simply a fallacy perpetuated by scientists caught up in... group think!".

again, legitimate scientific criticism/skepticism is one of the cornerstones of science... your agenda driven purpose is to denigrate climate scientists, at large, by presuming to trump-up hysterical nothingness over bullshit "imaginary gates" of failure... because you can. Your hypocrisy abounds when you live-breathe the "message that is McIntyre" - no group think thingee there, hey? Your ongoing lapping at the "Never-ending McIntyre audit" is certainly an expression of your great concern for the reputation of science!!! Bloody hell!

[jbg]

Michael, surely you recognize TimG's concern-troll mode.

Can you find a day where you don't engage in personal attacks?

[Shady]

both India & China are signatories to the Copenhagen Accord... why spout off non-truths?

You mean the same China that's building coal power plants at a rate of one per week? And a total of 500 coal power plants over the next 10 years?

But yep, they signed the meaningless piece of paper!

[waldo]

Can you find a day where you don't engage in personal attacks?

there was no personal attack made... the term is quite legitimate and benign - you did read the link content, right? Hey now, weren't you the same guy sniveling over the overt displays of profanity, drawing attention to use of the word, "bullshit".

Usage: This word was formerly considered to be taboo, and it was labelled as such in previous editions of Collins English Dictionary. However, it has now become acceptable in speech, although some older or more conservative people may object to its use

... I do believe you ignored the question asking if your objections stemmed from the dictionary reference to "older and/or more conservative" people, objecting to it's use.

btw, is there a day where you don't engage in attempts to label someone anti-Jewish? (see... others can also play your game).

[waldo]

You mean the same China that's building coal power plants at a rate of one per week? And a total of 500 coal power plants over the next 10 years?

But yep, they signed the meaningless piece of paper!

already covered... China is building new more efficient coal power plants... and actively engaged in replacing old, less efficient coal power plants. This, along with major, world leading, sustainable initiatives by China have been posted in significant detail - perhaps do a search on MLW to save yourself additional embarrassment.

[Saipan]

China is building new more efficient coal power plants...

New are always more efficient. Here too and more so.

The point is China uses increasingly more coal power that here, while we are reducing it.

China's military Golem wanted to hog even our oil sands.

[Shady]

already covered... China is building new more efficient coal power plants

And how much C02 will be emitted from these 500+ coal power plants?

[Shady]

The point is China uses increasingly more coal power that here, while we are reducing it.

Exactly. It's ok for China to build new coal plants, but for whatever reason, these same people forbid us to do the same. China's also out making deals world wide for new sources of oil. But for whatever reason, these people forbid us to do the same. It's almost as though they're closet communists, working for the Chinese, purposely handcuffing us economically. It's pretty bizarre.

[waldo]

perhaps someone could actually bother to read... paying particular attention to the last link provided below... the one concerning the outsourcing of emissions by developed countries. The idiocy to suggest "someone" is forbidding "us" the development of new coal plants or engagements in procuring new sources of oil... just who are these go-to "someone's" doing the forbidding. I guess advocates for sustainable alternatives must be the "forbidders"... any such person advocating for sustainable alternatives is a "forbidder". Oh my!

...U.S.A. - Old Time Coal

Since 2008, 16 large coal plants have been completed in the United States, and 16 more are under construction, according to AP's Matthew Brown. "Combined they will produce an estimated 17,900 megawatts of electricity, sufficient to power up to 15.6 million homes--roughly the number of homes in California and Arizona," writes Brown. "They also will generate about 125 million tons of greenhouse gases annually."

there is more than enough criticism that can be leveled... at most any country; however, the days of singling out China needs a perspective - notwithstanding we've been over this 'China bashing' theme in other MLW threads:

Certain members of the U.S. Congress believe that America shouldn't do anything about climate change until China does. Putting aside the moral illogic of that position, let's focus on

something China is doing: shutting down old, dirty coal plants.....

at the rate of roughly 2 a month

.

Xue Jing, director of statistics and information at the China Electricity Council (CEC), said at an earlier conference that China will invest more in the power grid and clean energy, and gradually decrease the proportion of power plants that are coal-fired.

Statistics from the CEC report show that in 2008, China’s investment in nuclear power and wind power increased 72 percent and 88 percent year on year, respectively. At the same time, investment in coal-fired plants declined 22 percent

China Outpaces U.S. in Cleaner Coal-Fired Plants

China has emerged in the past two years as the world’s leading builder of more efficient, less polluting coal power plants, mastering the technology and driving down the cost.

While the United States is still debating whether to build a more efficient kind of coal-fired power plant that uses extremely hot steam, China has begun building such plants at a rate of one a month.

China is also leading the way investing $1 Billion in building a 250-megawatt, utility-scale and more efficient IGCC coal generating plant in Tianjin that will use CCS technology to control its emissions... to be completed in 2011 through a partnership that includes a U.S. coal company, a consortium of Chinese utilities and coal companies, and the Chinese government.

... Notwithstanding, of course, the most significant outsourcing of emissions by developed countries today.

Developed countries are "outsourcing" more than a third of their carbon emissions associated with products and services to other countries, researchers say.

A study of trade data found that some countries in Western Europe have more than half of their total carbon dioxide emissions occurring elsewhere, especially in developing countries such as China.

[TimG]

Your ongoing lapping at the "Never-ending McIntyre audit" is certainly an expression of your great concern for the reputation of science!!! Bloody hell!

Thank you you for proving my point. Many people within the scientific community are are starting to realize that it was a mistake to demonize McIntyre because it just makes them look like frothing at the mouth idiots. In fact, Canada's alarmist-in-chief Andrew Weaver recently praised SteveMc's contribution to science: http://climateaudit.org/2010/12/06/andrew-weaver-praises-odonnell-et-al-2010/

This is a helpful change and people like you only prolong the damage.

Edited December 7, 2010 by TimG

[waldo]

Thank you you for proving my point. Many people within the scientific community are are starting to realize that it was a mistake to demonize McIntyre...

hey... when is the never-ending audit over? Oh right... it's never! Of course we could have some real fun over the recent Wegman revelations and the ties between McIntyre/Wegman/Barton - hey? McIntyre has been wildly spinning to post anything and everything to shift any discussion away from his direct ties to the sham that is Wegman! Of course... the best is yet to come - right?