Canadian Media still whining about Kyoto

[Argus]

There was a time, long ago, when the Globe and Mail was considered a conservative - one of the few conservative members - of the major media in Canada. Sadly, that reputation faded away with new ownership. The Globe is now almost as much of a Liberal rag as the Toronto Star.

Like much of the liberal media, they have become obsessed with pilloring the Conservatives for not meeting the Liberal government's Kyoto promises. Today, in a headline which is being rebroadcast throughout the major media, they claim that "europe" is mad at Harper for failing to meet our Kyoto targets, and that Harper is skipping an EU meeting for fear of being criticised openly.

This story, like much else in the Globe, is fiction, of course, coming from the imagination of the Globe's trendy, leftist writers.

Those nagging about Kyoto are disingenuous at best, more than likely ignorant, and in many cases, such as that of the Liberals, BQ and NDP, dishonest and hypocrtical.

Most European countries won't meet their Kyoto goals either.

According to a new report by the Copenhagen agency, 'Greenhouse-gas emission trends and projections in Europe 2006', existing policies will have slashed greenhouse-gas emissions in the EU-15 by only 0.6% in 2010 - a far cry from the 8% it committed to achieve by 2012.

Europe off-track for Kyoto Targets

The Liberals made our goal one of the more ambitious; a six per cent reduction, and then basked in the limelight of our shallow, sycophantic media, and the approval of the environmental lobby - much of which the Liberals funded.

And then they did nothing.

Thirteen years along and we had not only made no progress towards that 6% cut, but had risen by 30%

Still, such was Martin's confidence in the art of style over substance, and his confidence on his alliance with the environmental lobby he paid off, and a liberal media, that he actually crowed about signing Kyoto during the election in an effort to make the Tories look bad. Not only that, he attacked the Americans for not signing on, trying a little anti-americanism to gain votes from the left, and to link the Americans' "horrible" environmental record to the Conservatives.

Of course, the fact the Americans had done twice as good as his government was beside the point. And while the Tories pointed this out, and the media reluctantly mentioned it, there was no great crusade to punish him for his poor Kyoto performance. The environmentalists stayed largely silent, and the media barely mentioned what a piss poor job the Liberals had done. They certainly didn't surround him and demand to know why our performance had been so poor, or what his plans were to meet Kyoto. The fact they had signed it was seemingly enough. Style over substance, as it were.

So now it's 14 years later. Most European countries have put some effort into meeting their goals under Kyoto, and most have managed to cut emissions by a few percentage points. Some will make their goals, some will not.

What the Liberals - of all people - are demanding, is that, we, starting from 14 years later, should somehow try to catch up and pass the rest, and meet our 6% emissions reduction target.

Why 6%? It seems to have been calculated with nothing in mind but sounding good. Certainly there were few, if any consultations with industry. Or statisticians. In fourteen years Canada's population, and thus our need for energy, has grown by about 12%. Cutting emissions by 6% while growing in population by 12% is no mean feat. The Europeans aren't growing in size like we are, making their comparatively lower targets even easier to maintain. Even so, many in the European Union, will not meat their goals without buying carbon credits. The EU has set aside something like $3 billion to do this (buying carbon credits involves paying off third world countries to "buy" credits that these nations aren't using, and applly them to their targets. It might be, for example, that if the Liberals had stayed in power they would have planned to "meet our Kyoto goals" by simply buying credits for hundreds of millions of dollars (or billions). This, of course, does absolutely nothing to lower global emissions, but it does serve to transfer wealth from Canada to other countries. More importantly, while it might be bad for Canada, it would allow the Liberals to continue their crowing about "meeting our Kyoto goals". More style over substance.

The fact the Liberals even have the bald faced audacity to lecture the Tories - and even the NDP - about abandoning our Kyoto goals shows not only the depths of hypocracy and deceit of that party, but that they are still reliant on a continuing sycophantic media to not ridicule them and set the public straight. And, of course, it continues to work. Most Canadians still want us to meet our Kyoto goals, though they have no clue what that would entail, or even if it's possible. The national media members surely know, but aren't bothering to enlighten anyone on it, continuing to collude in hectoring Harper for "abandoning Kyoto". And the Globe article is another indication of this.

[cybercoma]

Allow me to break the record before someone else does...

"Man-made global warming is real and if we don't do something about it immediatly catastrophe will ensue!"

[jdobbin]

There are a few solutions to this problem.

Don't read the Globe & Mail.

Criticize the Liberals.

Criticize the NDP.

Deny there is global warming.

[B. Max]

Deny there is global warming.

Prove there is man made global warming.

[jdobbin]

Prove there is man made global warming.

Prove there isn't. And show some actual science rather than some discredited journalist.

[Canuck E Stan]

Prove there isn't. And show some actual science rather than some discredited journalist.

In a time long ago, before that advent of man, dinosaurs ruled the earth in their tropical paradise located in the northern hemisphere of earth, life before the astroid hit the earth.....

[B. Max]

Prove there is man made global warming.

Prove there isn't. And show some actual science rather than some discredited journalist.

No you make the claim you must provide the proof. In fact there is no proof. No scientific justification means no proof.

http://greenspin.blogspot.com/

The greenhouse effect must play some role. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork." [Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, joint author of the new research, as quoted in The Copenhagen Post (October 4)]

The greenhouse effect must play some role. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork." [Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, joint author of the new research, as quoted in The Copenhagen Post (October 4)]

[jdobbin]

The greenhouse effect must play some role. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork." [Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, joint author of the new research, as quoted in The Copenhagen Post (October 4)]

The greenhouse effect must play some role. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork." [Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, Danish National Space Center, joint author of the new research, as quoted in The Copenhagen Post (October 4)]

Svensmark's work has been around for about a decade.

His theory on cosmic dust having a warming effect is still being researched. He hasn't actually not done any work on carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.

[cybercoma]

Why are we arguing about whether or not man-made global warming exists?

B.Max, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The activities of man is increasing its concentration in the atmosphere.

Put two and two together.

There may be things going on in the environment that is counteracting the warming effect we're having, but we most certainly are affecting the concentration of CO2 in the ozone...which subsequently traps more heat.

[Canuck E Stan]

In a time long ago, before that advent of man, dinosaurs ruled the earth in their tropical paradise located in the northern hemisphere of earth, life before the astroid hit the earth.....

No man- made responses?

[B. Max]

Why are we arguing about whether or not man-made global warming exists?

B.Max, CO2 is a greenhouse gas. The activities of man is increasing its concentration in the atmosphere.

Put two and two together.

There may be things going on in the environment that is counteracting the warming effect we're having, but we most certainly are affecting the concentration of CO2 in the ozone...which subsequently traps more heat.

Where is the evidence CO2 is causing global warming. It's a simply question. With all the fear mongering and scare tactics going on, this board should be full of the proof. Yet not one shred of it has made it's way here. That's because it doesn't exist. What does exist are temperature records that show the temperature actually cooling while CO2 was going up.

[jdobbin]

Where is the evidence CO2 is causing global warming. It's a simply question. With all the fear mongering and scare tactics going on, this board should be full of the proof. Yet not one shred of it has made it's way here. That's because it doesn't exist. What does exist are temperature records that show the temperature actually cooling while CO2 was going up.

There is the warming chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrum...ture_Record.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate...Attribution.png

[B. Max]

There is the warming chart.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Instrum...ture_Record.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate...Attribution.png

I have posted that graph before and it is disputed. This is the US temperature record for the same period and it differs. As you can see there is actually a cooling since about 1940 and since 1980 no increase just a leveling.

http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

Then this one which shows no correlation between co2 and temperature.

http://www.john-daly.com/soi-msu2.gif

[jdobbin]

I have posted that graph before and it is disputed. This is the US temperature record for the same period and it differs. As you can see there is actually a cooling since about 1940 and since 1980 no increase just a leveling.

http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

Then this one which shows no correlation between co2 and temperature.

http://www.john-daly.com/soi-msu2.gif

It is the accepted chart. Might not be accepted by you it is the one the majority of scientists believe is correct.

[B. Max]

I have posted that graph before and it is disputed. This is the US temperature record for the same period and it differs. As you can see there is actually a cooling since about 1940 and since 1980 no increase just a leveling.

http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif

Then this one which shows no correlation between co2 and temperature.

http://www.john-daly.com/soi-msu2.gif

It is the accepted chart. Might not be accepted by you it is the one the majority of scientists believe is correct.

Funny they never mention it. All they talk about are their models. Those who are not of the doom and gloom industry us the US temperature records because they know they are reliable, and because since 79 the satellite data show a closer match to the US records.

[jdobbin]

Funny they never mention it. All they talk about are their models. Those who are not of the doom and gloom industry us the US temperature records because they know they are reliable, and because since 79 the satellite data show a closer match to the US records.

That data was incorrect.

[B. Max]

Funny they never mention it. All they talk about are their models. Those who are not of the doom and gloom industry us the US temperature records because they know they are reliable, and because since 79 the satellite data show a closer match to the US records.

That data was incorrect.

What data, the satellite data. How so?

[jdobbin]

What data, the satellite data. How so?

Shown you that many a time. The satellite data was corrected after it was found to be inaccurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernme..._Climate_Change

[Argus]

Not to interupt you two, but I'm not really talking about global warming, as odd as that might seem. I'm talking about the continuing criticism of the government for "abandoning" out Kyoto targets.

Regardless of whether there is or is not Global Warming, regardless of whether it is or is not caused by man, regardless of whether the Kyoto agreement will even make the slightest difference either way - our targets are absolutely impossible to meet. It would have taken an all-out, and very expensive effort from the first year to have a hope of meeting them. To start from now, 14 years later, and meet them is not possible.

Does anyone actually dispute this? And if so, what is your specific plan on how to meet the Kyoto targets? Note that I do not regard buying carbon credits as an acceptable response.

[B. Max]

Not to interupt you two, but I'm not really talking about global warming, as odd as that might seem. I'm talking about the continuing criticism of the government for "abandoning" out Kyoto targets.

Regardless of whether there is or is not Global Warming, regardless of whether it is or is not caused by man, regardless of whether the Kyoto agreement will even make the slightest difference either way - our targets are absolutely impossible to meet. It would have taken an all-out, and very expensive effort from the first year to have a hope of meeting them. To start from now, 14 years later, and meet them is not possible.

Does anyone actually dispute this? And if so, what is your specific plan on how to meet the Kyoto targets? Note that I do not regard buying carbon credits as an acceptable response.

We couldn't do it at the time, never mind now. Without destroying the economy then or now.

[B. Max]

What data, the satellite data. How so?

Shown you that many a time. The satellite data was corrected after it was found to be inaccurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intergovernme..._Climate_Change

Actually the lastest satellite data shows no atmospheric warming that match any observed ground warming.

The stated aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to:

human-induced climate change,

the impacts of human-induced climate change,

options for adaptation and mitigation.

The stated aim should read to prove man made global warming where no evidence exists.

[jdobbin]

Not to interupt you two, but I'm not really talking about global warming, as odd as that might seem. I'm talking about the continuing criticism of the government for "abandoning" out Kyoto targets.

Regardless of whether there is or is not Global Warming, regardless of whether it is or is not caused by man, regardless of whether the Kyoto agreement will even make the slightest difference either way - our targets are absolutely impossible to meet. It would have taken an all-out, and very expensive effort from the first year to have a hope of meeting them. To start from now, 14 years later, and meet them is not possible.

Does anyone actually dispute this? And if so, what is your specific plan on how to meet the Kyoto targets? Note that I do not regard buying carbon credits as an acceptable response.

I thought the Liberal plan totally sucked when they initiated it. I think what the government should have been doing was to help build the east-west power grid to enable hydro to come from Newfoundland and Quebec and Manitoba to power hungry Ontario. It would go a long way to reducing emissions. I think that all new neighborhoods be set up with geo-thermal heating and cooling. Done at the start of a new housing development it saves costs. And for homeowners, they would save energy costs in perpetuity (so long as the earth core remains warm).

I think that setting California emission standards would go a long way to meeting the commitment of Kyoto.

A lot of the key to the success of Kyoto is to try and tie it current development so that is a job creator as well.

[jdobbin]

Actually the lastest satellite data shows no atmospheric warming that match any observed ground warming.

The stated aims of the IPCC are to assess scientific information relevant to:

human-induced climate change,

the impacts of human-induced climate change,

options for adaptation and mitigation.

The stated aim should read to prove man made global warming where no evidence exists.

I doubt that we'll ever have agreement over the issue.

Perhaps you can convince Harper global warming isn't happening. Despite his weak response to the issue, it would seem he agrees that there is something to global warming and has allowed Layton to have some say in the legislation.

[shoggoth]

Actually the lastest satellite data shows no atmospheric warming that match any observed ground warming.

Technically that is correct:

These two satellite records reflect two different ways of interpreting the same set of microwave sounder measurements and are not independent records. Each record is plotted as the monthly average and straight lines are fit through each data set from January 1982 to December 2004. The slope of these lines are 0.187°C/decade, 0.163°C/decade, and 0.239°C/decade for the surface, UAH, and RSS respectively.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Satelli...emperatures.png

But it looks like nitpicking to me:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7...emperatures.png

The stated aim should read to prove man made global warming where no evidence exists.

No evidence...right..

[B. Max]

No evidence...right..

Evidence of what?