Kyoto And Social Engineering

[Craig Read]

Not reported in the Canadian media - and why would it be it is too rational - is news of a $100 million [uS] landmark study by the Bush admin. to understand the role of cloud cover in warming/cooling trends and in particulate pollution.

The Kyoto/Tree hugger/Holier than thou Crowd would do well to follow the study.

The UNO IPCC Kyoto report ignored the following; cloud cover, Solar Flares, Solar radiation, Ocean Currents, non Land based temperature data, Satellite data and upper atmospheric data.

Preposterous. This is akin to creating a product for the market that ignores; consumer demands, ease of use, price points and distribution processes.

Garbage in Garbage out.

"The Bush administration, which opted out of the Kyoto Protocol aimed at curbing global warming, unveiled a $103 million plan to accelerate satellite deployments and other technology to study climate change -- especially the role of clouds.

Clouds can cause warming and cooling effects and combine with soot and other man-made pollutants. The Bush administration contends scientists and policy makers need more information about them before they can make decisions to cope with man-made changes.

"We're going to lead on this issue," Commerce Secretary Don Evans said. The Commerce Department heads the work of 13 federal agencies involved in climate-change research. The White House says the U.S. is the world leader in the field, contributing more than $20 billion to climate-change studies in the past 12 years."

==========

But The Tree hugging Canadians tearfully ask, "does it send the right message?"

[SirRiff]

you are saying they are STARTING a study? so what?

do we need another study on AIDs transmission?

do we need another study on cancer-smoking links?

on obestity-heart disease risks?

on child mosesters re-offence rates?

on greenhouse gas contribution to global warming?

there is no doubt greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming.

it would be stupid to wait while we damage our environement. the cause itself is worthwhile and the technologies and knowledge that comes out of it will pay for itself. we will also clean up our planet at the same time.

Craig answer this question:

if you are on a desery island with limited food and water do you eat it normally and plan to find more later? or do you ration it because it may be all you have to work with?

common sense and science tell us the best prevention is to reduce the waste we put out. simple as that.

SirRiff

[FastNed]

The entire scenario upon which Kyoto is based is derived from computer modeling. Scientist after scientist have shown that the assumptions used in these models did not include data on many things known to effect the climate. It appears that more was left out than was included.

And yet, SirRiff, you state:

there is no doubt greenhouse gasses contribute to global warming

Perhaps, and perhaps not. We simply do not know enough yet to reach that conclusion.

But what we do know is that Kyoto is a deliberate act of economic warfare, directed at the West (North America to be specific) intended to force a massive redistribution of wealth and cripple the economy of North America.

But not to worry, Canada has shown it is a good "European" and signed on to Kyoto. And as Canada throws its wealth down the drain attempting the impossible, and its costs go through the roof, it can just raise the price of everything it sells to America so "feeling good and being European" won't really cost Canada anything. Right, SirRiff ?

[SirRiff]

Perhaps, and perhaps not. We simply do not know enough yet to reach that conclusion.

yes do do know enough to reach that conclusion. we have evidence of warming and evidence of massive environmental release by humans.

thus we should limit the damage to prevent any more changes.

if aliens come down and laugh at us because it was solar flares all along, then yes we will look silly.

but in 50 years if less land is suitable for crops, if erosian and sea levels increase, and if there is generally more disaster, we will be vindated.

it would be ignorant to wait for disaster to before concluding we need to act.

SirRiff

[Craig Read]

There is no Global Warming. Period. I love it when someone says 'of course there is' - okay show me some facts and the answer is 'the UNO said so.' Big deal, the UNO model is a farce and no serious scientist supports it, in fact 18.000 have signed a petition against it.

[never reported in the Cdn media of course].

Scientists on the IPCC panel said in 1995 that global warming does not exist and that we don't know how climate change occurs. The UNO took the 'we don't know anything about climate change' report and turned it into a political document - to force a massive relocation of wealth from North to South. This is why 18.000 scientists came out against Kyoto - it was a rewrite of a scientific paper that bore no ressemblance to the original.

Humans emit 5 % of CO2 and Methane gases. The rest is natural. You wipe out the human race and nothing changes.

Satellite and other data do not support UN and Media hysteria over Global Warming.

It simply does not exist except in the minds of those who want a World Government or the EU which wants to wipe out the energy cost advantage enjoyed by the US.

[Oh really you mean the EU is NOT all about God and morality ???]

Some other facts for the tree hugging/of course there is Global Warming even though i have not read a jot about it crowd. PS. Read some facts before you post.

Some excerpts from a book i am engaged in to be published;

===========

IPPC modeling is premised on ‘Mann et al.’s’ climate study. Mann’s data which analyzed temperature change over the past 1000 years is largely based on North American tree ring data. However tree ring data from North America is obviously not hemispheric. It is also limited to land data which means that 70 % of the earth’s surface temperature record is not covered. As well the growth of trees is dependent on many sources and not just on climate conditions.

The only way to properly take the planet's temperature is to use sophisticated space-based sensors mounted aboard Earth-orbiting satellites. Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences at Ottawa's Carleton University, Dr. Pat Michaels, professor of climatology at the University of Virginia, Dr. John Christy, Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, and many others explain that these far more accurate and comprehensive satellite temperature sensors reveal only a very small temperature rise since measurements began in 1979. Dr. Christy says the trend is about 0.07C per decade, right at the edge of statistical significance and certainly far too small to be noticeable.

IPCC modeling does not reveal the fact that weather satellite data, the only truly global data we have, does not show the expected atmospheric warming trend. In fact the existence of satellites is not even mentioned in the IPCC reports.

Furthermore the IPCC and UN have not bothered to prove that CO2 emissions are in fact dangerous and constitute a threat to the environment through field work. Ninety to ninety-five percent of CO2 emissions come from natural sources and the earth releases 210,000 mega tonnes each year of CO2 gas. Only about 5-10 % of this comes from industrial and human activity.

The IPCC nor the UN has bothered to do empirical testing proving that CO2 increases destroy the environment. Nature Magazine in 2001 published a report citing that CO2 levels have often been as high as 5 times what they are today. In a North Carolina experiment 50 % more CO2 was pumped into in a forested area which resulted in faster growth, stronger trees and cones and no damage whatsoever to the ecosystem. In a 2002 survey of the Antarctic, mean temperatures were found to be 22-28 C colder than the Kyoto models had predicted. Kyoto supporters always portray the melting ice caps as proof of global warming but there is no evidence to support such assertions nor as the IPCC bothered to do field work to back up such claims.

..............

And trust me I could go on and on and on and on ............... in fact I do for about 50 pages......

To construct a global treaty, sign it, tax and regulate and hire gov't monkeys to monitor sthg that does not exist, impairs your economy, takes 2 % of your GDP and puts you at a competitive disadvantage with the USA is just simply DUMB.

==========

sources;

Jones et al. 1998, Pollack et al. 2000.

IPCC, 2001, 2.2.2.4

IPCC, 2001, 1.3.1, 7.2.1

J. Christy, “The Global Warming Fiasco”, in Global Warming and other Eco-Myths, edt. R. Bailey, 2002, p. 3

see J. Christy.

CO2 does not cause smog – particulate pollution, and other non Kyoto gases and ozone. [Levant, p. 79].

Nature, 411, May 17th 2001

Science, vol. 292, April 6 2002, p. 36

C. Gardner, Geophysical Research Letters, August 28 2002, www.globalwarming.org

The Alaskan Climate Research Centre states that there has been a mean temperature increase of 2.4 F or .4 C per decade in the 1970-2000 period which occurred in 1 jump during 1976-77, due to a Pacific Ocean current alignment. Since 1979 there has been a slight cooling. www.climate.gi.alaska.edu

[Cameron]

Craig - I heard about a study on cows and their CO2 emission, that they were very high. I don't know the details, just pickup on a conversation.

2. Has anyone heard of the wobble. Where the earth begins to wobble in its axis (not that you would feel it) and this could be the start of another ice-age? Anyone have some info on that?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Cameron,

The 'wobble' actually has a scientific name, I read it this morning in the dictionary at work but cannot recollect it at this time. It is a very slow process, but I believe it is about 35,000 yrs for the earth to traverse the approximately 23 degrees 'off axis' that it is. Oddly enough, there is evidence that the magnetic poles reverse periodically as well.

[SirRiff]

is this the same Bush admin that told the EPA to delete cautions about the air near ground zero after 9/11?

yeah, i would really trust a gov that screws over its OWN people and the EPA which sold thier soul to politics.

SirRiff

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Read,

While I will admit that scientific evidence regarding climate change is sketchy at best, one should not believe scientists from any camp. None of this has been encountered before, so there is no 'looking at previous examples' for anyone.

I would expect, though, that man-made pollution is a factor that cannot be comprehended at this time. If one looks at the present volume of man-made emissions, that factor would not have existed anywhere else in geologic time. Only in the future can we say 'exactly how harmful or not harmful' they were.

If, however, geologic and atmospheric conditions enabled mammals and then man to develop, should we alter it? Would it not be best of all to pursue (Forgive me if this sounds Star Trekkian) a goal of non-interference? Is not 'Zero emissions' that actual target we should seek?

It is most annoying when the only concern some people have is how emission levels affect profit margins over every other concern. I think that the line in the sand is drawn on this one, for that reason.

Mammon would dictate that no amount environmental damage done by man can be compared to losing a dollar.

[nova_satori]

Can you explain the loss of shorelines across the globe?

How about glaciers breaking away at unpredecnt speeds?

Or the overall change of a gain of 1-2 degrees in temperatures consistance around the globe that are recent events and that haven't occured before?

While it might be just normal climate change, one cannot discount the affect of trillions of tons of CO2 and other pollutants that the industralized nations of the world produce.

[Craig Read]

How about the fact that you make claims with no facts ?

How about the fact that any field research repudiates entirely the global warming thesis.

I have destroyed the theory of global warming in other threads on this site.

It is a welfare redistribution from the north to the south.

No satellite data corrobates Kyoto.

Man accounts for 5 % of CO2 and Methane emissions only. If you wiped out man nothing would change.

Go live in a cave somewhere and dream of the stone age.

How about you read more than just CBC UN Tripe ?

Try this on for size as a starter if the words are not too large for you that is:

http://www.canaht.com/Kyoto/bad_science.asp

[nova_satori]

So your saying there hasn't been any loss of shoreline, no glaciers have broken away, and temperatures aren't changing?

[Craig Read]

None at all.

Shorelines retreat and expand, there is no evidence they have declined. Glaciers are not melting. The vaunted NY Times article [a lying liberal newspaper] that Glaciers were melting in Alaska had to be retracted after the Alaskan gov't threaten to sue the NY Times for misinformation. According to the Alaskan gov't website some areas are warmer in Alaska, some cooler. No glaciers have melted anywhere. In fact Antartica was found in 2002 to be 20 C cooler than Kyoto models predicted.

It is crap science and crap politics.

Some essential facts for tree huggers and UN lovers are below. Give me just one instance of any of these being incorrect. You can't, neither can the UN.

Useless Nattering Org.

====================

The science behind Kyoto is so bad that 18.000 Climatologists and Scientists have signed a petition urging its rejection. Politicians tell you that the scientific community is united on global warming. It isn’t. Only 800 environmental activists and government scientists support Kyoto. The scientists who oppose Kyoto make the following points that the United Nations has never bothered to refute: [see Bjorn Lomberg’s ‘The Skeptical Environmentalist’ or Ezra Levant’s ‘Fight Kyoto’]

1.IPCC uses computer models to drive out forecasts. Their models do not include all the variables associated with the climate. About 1 million variables make up the climate. Technically it is impossible to model the interactions of 1 million variables. As such ‘garbage in’ and ‘garbage out’.

2.IPCC models are based on tree ring data from North America for the past 1000 years. There are many problems with this. First the data is land based and geographically limited. Most of the earth is left out. Second tree ring data is not supported by atmospheric data readings. Third, the sample size and number of years is too small to make general statements about temperature swings.

3.The earth was much warmer during the Medieval Warm Period 900-1400 AD. This warm spell ended around 1350-1400 and the temperature decreased precipitating the ‘Little Ice Age’ [1400-1900]. IPCC models can’t explain these temperature swings.

4.Data seems to indicate that there are regular occurrences like the little ice age and the medieval warm period in a rough 1500 year cycle. This cycle has repeated itself endlessly over the past 140.000 years

5.Most of any temperature increase in the 20th century apparently occurred in two phases, during 1910-1945 and from 1975-2000. The first period is impossible to align with greenhouse emissions. The second phase can be aligned with emissions but 25 years does not constitute a meaningful long term trend, especially when between 1945-1975 there were rising emissions but no corresponding increase in temperature.

6.Dr. Tim Patterson, professor of earth sciences at Ottawa's Carleton University, Dr. Pat Michaels, professor of climatology at the University of Virginia, Dr. John Christy, Professor and Director, Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama, and many others explain that these far more accurate and comprehensive satellite temperature sensors reveal only a very small temperature rise since measurements began in 1979. Dr. Christy says the trend is about 0.07C per decade, right at the edge of statistical significance and certainly far too small to be noticeable.

7.IPCC models incredibly do not include Solar Radiation effects or Cloud Cover. Solar Radiation is the most important variable in determining temperature.

8.Ice core records show that at the end of each of the last three major ice ages, temperatures rose several hundred years before CO2 levels increased.

9.At the beginning of the most recent glacial period about 114,000 years ago, CO2 remained relatively high until long after temperatures plummeted.

10.Global average CO2 levels have been found to lag behind changes in tropical sea surface temperature by six to eight months. As the ocean warms, it is unable to hold as much CO2 in solution and consequently releases the gas into the atmosphere contributing to the observed CO2 level rise.

11.Climatologists Marcel Fligge and Sami Solanki demonstrated in the respected journal, Geophysical Research Letters, that the warming or cooling of the Earth during the past four centuries closely matches variations in the Sun's brightness.

12.Publications in journals, "Science" and "Paleoceanography" show that CO2 levels were higher at the end of the last ice age than during the much warmer Eocene period, 43 million years earlier. These studies also found that CO2 levels are far higher today than they were during the relatively hot Miocene period, 17 million years ago. There is little correlation therefore between warmth and CO2 levels.

13.Furthermore the IPCC and UN have not bothered to prove that CO2 emissions are in fact dangerous and constitute a threat to the environment through field work. Nature Magazine in 2001 published a report citing that CO2 levels have often been as high as 5 times what they are today. In a North Carolina experiment 50 % more CO2 was pumped into in a forested area which resulted in faster growth, stronger trees and cones and no damage whatsoever to the ecosystem.

14.During the 1970s the UN was warning us about Global Cooling in the same apocalyptic tones. In fact it said that we had until 1980 to fix the global cooling problem. How much faith should we have in an agency that was so wrong about global cooling ?

15.How does one explain that the winter of 2003 was the coldest on record for dozens of areas around the earth ?

16.Most importantly -- Ninety five percent of CO2 emissions come from natural sources and the earth releases 210,000 mega tonnes each year of CO2 gas. Only about 5 % of this comes from industrial and human activity.

Even if you wiped out the human race the effect on CO2 emissions would be only 5 % of the total released yearly. Why then worry about it ?

[Hugo]

Shorelines retreat and expand, there is no evidence they have declined.

I'm curious about this myself. Archaelogical evidence shows that the water level was by no means constant even before humankind arrived on the scene. For instance, the Mediterranean Sea was once dry land, the Sphinx of Egypt shows signs that it was weathered by water and not by wind and sand, and Aleutia was once a land bridge - that's how American aborigines got there from Asia.

Bearing in mind how little we still know about these phenomena and our inability to know exact dates (even within a few centuries), or even the causes of them, isn't it a little rash to be declaring that the fault of changing coastlines is man-made, and that we must take action?

[Craig Read]

Exactly. I listed a dozen of objections to Kyoto based on inadequate scientific data. I could list a dozen more.

The great Biblical flood was caused by rising waters in the Atlantic about 12.000 years ago. This gave rise to every religion's obsession with the cleansing waters of an irascible God. The land bridge near Gibraltar was destroyed, killing thousands of neo-lithic dwellers in the Med sea area, and the Black Sea domain, once a small shallow lake was inundated with rushing water as the Med Sea for a time cascaded over the shallow land barrier in the Dardanelles.

Such a rise in water would necessitate in today's world calls for regulation, industrial destruction, mandated emissions controls and the eradication of the auto.

Nitwits abound one does suppose. Nitwits opposed to reality, common sense and the base fact that we DO NOT understand a tithe about climate and climate change.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Mr. Read,

Global warming is a misnomer, for it was meant to refer to a greater degree of fluctuation of weather patterns, not exactly a 'warming'. The scientists who propound the theory expect greater extremes, but that would inherently mean that averages would obviously not change.

[FastNed]

SirRiff, Nova & Others:

Assuming everything you say is correct, North America is still the target of a Ponzi Scheme - a con job.

First, the base year of 1990 was very carefully chosen to target North America. Asia & Africa & So. America are exempt from Kyoto (for all intents and purposes); Russia & Germany have Billions in "credits" to sell as the USSR & East Germany no longer produce their old level of polution; and, Europe has minimal exposure because of their current level of economic activity and this can be easily covered with nominal purchase or trade for Russian Credits.

The burden, financial and otherwise, for Kyoto falls only on North America. The irony of it all is that were America to reach full compliance, the Kyoto target would not be achieved as the major poluting Nations are exempt.

There are only two ways America could comply with Kyoto - presuming a great depression is excluded - first, we could pay billions to Russia for pollution credits and bankrupt the American economy. But to what end? Or, we could go to complete generation of power by nuclear means. I suggest to you that 20 or 30 million newly unemployed Americans would have sufficient political power to silence the Environmental Lobbies and there would be nuclear generation in spite of any group's opposition.

Only one North American Nation has signed Kyoto and that is Canada. Should Russia ratify the Kyoto Treaty and make it in force, Canada will go bankrupt attemting to reach compliance. Why am I not surprised that the economic effect was not considered by the politically correct Canadian Government which signed it? Well, any group of politicians which could turn a "million dollar" Gun Registration program into a billion dollar fiasco makes it obvious that they do not care how much of YOUR money they spend.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear FastNed,

Amen, especially with your last sentence. Pollution reduction is very important but Kyoto is not the way to do it.

I suggest tax breaks for companies that implement emission reduction innovations, to foster R&D in that field.

[Craig Read]

I suggest Kyoto be repealed.

Ned, if Kyoto goes into force - count on Canada to renege.

Kyoto will cost us $4.000 net per family in taxes and regulations. Only an utter moron like Chretien would implement it - Martin who has more common sense i do hope, will not. But Martin's best friend is Strong, Mr Kyoto himself, so who knows....Maybe Canadians just are stupid and won't care...

This is not certain, but self immolation is not a smart political or economic strategy.

The Russians are trying to negotiate more money out of Europe for Kyoto. If they do, they will sign it. This is the travesty of the accord - it is paying poor countries who have destroyed their environments.

The US and Canada on a per capita GDP basis and economic/geographic size basis, have 2 of the cleanest countries in the world. Only Germany and Japan, who use more nuclear power, are better off.

But after all it is about saving the world isn't it, not money ??????

[Boydfish]

I think that the bulk of my questions around the Kyoto treaty results from it's supporters refusing to stick to a position point for the entire arguement.

For example, the idea that reducing CO2 emissions will stave off global warming is, at best, unproven. In fairness, the position that heavy and even medium industry has an environmental effect globally is a supportable position. Thus, the arguement of "It can't hurt" can be supported to a degree.

The problem is that the big offenders, those being third world countries followed closely by developing countries, are given massive exemptions from the provisions of the treaty.

My personal solution would be to take a leadership position on environmental standards: Scrap Kyoto, then have nations adopt sliding scale tarriffs on products and goods produced in countries that are not taking due care in protecting the global environment. In other words, if China wants to supply cheap manufactured goods for North America, they need to do so without releasing that giant brown cloud like they did last year.

[FastNed]

Oddly, enough Craig, South Korea may need to be added to your list based upon their nuclear power generation. I had thought our best option for supression of North Korea was hard ball - pull out of South Korea and let the North take over but the number on nuclear facilities they would gain and thus the seed stock for nuclear weapons makes this a very poor option.

The main deterent to Russia signing Kyoto is America's continuing refusal to get on board. Without American participation, there is no one to buy those pollution credits and Canada certainly can not afford to do so.

Canada will be forced to renege or it will cease to exist as a Country. There is no serious market for Canadian goods other than America - blunt but factual. There is no Canadian product which does not have an American competitor. The cost of Kyoto added to Canadian products (even oil & gas) will price them out of the market. As businesses begin to go bankrupt and unemployment climbs, and then when Provincial revenues disappear, the Country will begin to disintegrate. It will be Kyoto or Canada - not too hard a choice, is it?

Your knowledge in this area is far superior to mine - what do you think are the critical industries and Provinces? Auto parts, Hydro Quebec or something from the Western Provinces?

[FastNed]

Hello Boydfish, welcome to the Forum. We crossed-posted so I did not see your entry until I ended mine.

You mention:

In fairness, the position that heavy and even medium industry has an environmental effect globally is a supportable position. Thus, the arguement of "It can't hurt" can be supported to a degree.

The problem with this viewpoint is that Kyoto does not target "industrial polution", it is much more narrow and applies to CO2 production. It is not cost effective from either a production point of view or an environmental one. The sole objective of Kyoto is to destroy North America as a world-class source of market competition.

[nova_satori]

alright, scrap it. Unless Kyoto targets China, Russia and parts of Africa and South Africa, i'm not supporting it.

However, just because we do not support Kyoto doesn't mean we should pollute like there is no tomorrow. What we do today, will screw us later. The world needs to cut the trillions of tons of airborne pollutants released annually.

We got one planet. Let's not screw it up. It's a long way before we can colonize Mars, and Alpha Centauri is not even on the time table yet.

[Hugo]

Sure, Nova, but the culprits are not the US and other Western nations, they are over-industrialised dinosaurs like Russia and China. The USSR didn't give a damn about pollution (they built their nuclear subs without a scrap of reactor shielding, for heaven's sake), and neither did Mao, and now their descendants are inheriting that.

That's why Kyoto is so useless - it targets the countries that aren't really posing a problem and ignores the ones that are.

[nova_satori]

But just because he does it doesn't mean we have to do it as well. The pursuit of wealth without responsibility will ultamitely see us all dead.