Waking up to Kyoto "Myth"

[Shawnski]

Certain to spark a debate here I am sure.

A 23-minute video has been prepared by the University of Calgary in co-operation with the non-profit Friends of Science Society that deserves to be seen by all Canadians.

A succession of scientists in Canada, the U.S., Germany, New Zealand, Finland, Russia, Norway, etc., insist there is "absolutely no convincing scientific evidence that human-produced greenhouse gasses, specifically carbon dioxide, is having a significant impact on global climate."

To the contrary, carbon dioxide is essential for life, is not toxic and comprises barely 4% of greenhouse gases.

Since the U.S. rejects Kyoto and the protocol doesn't apply to India or China, Kyoto is already a failure, even if the science were true. Instead, Kyoto is an instrument to redistribute wealth from rich to poor countries in the guise of saving humanity.

Worthington article

Now, here I am thinking this is new news... but nope, upon researching it, two weeks ago, our own Calgary Sun writer Licia Corbella references it.

But the release Wednesday of their highly informative and science-based video received not a peep by the media sheep who continue to parrot ignorant politicians and environmentalists who are preparing to waste billions of dollars on something that is not a risk while real environmental problems get swept aside and human catastrophes, like the AIDS epidemic in Africa, remain ignored and underfunded.

Corbella article

I have found links to the video discussed. It is broken into 5 sections. Worth watching for certain.

Part 1 (9.11 MB)


Part 2 (16.3 MB)


Part 3 (7.82 MB)


Part 4 (12.4 MB)


Part 5 (9.55 MB)

[Flames Draft Watcher]

And yet there are scientists that firmly believe there is a link and evidence.

Which scientists do you believe?

[Shawnski]

Wow, you managed to watch the 23 minute video in three minutes. Good job FDW.

[MrMastodonFarm]

Originally posted by Shawnski@May 3 2005, 10:28 AM
Wow, you managed to watch the 23 minute video in three minutes. Good job FDW.

I'll watch it when I get home from work.

[Agamemnon]

This is found under the What's Known for Certain section of the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.

It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.

A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.

This guy from NASA also seems to think that Greenhouse Gasses/Carbon Dioxide might have a little role to play;

Lead scientist James Hansen, a prominent NASA climatologist, described the findings on the planet's out-of-balance energy exchange as a "smoking gun" that should dispel doubts about forecasts of climate change. A European climate expert called it a valuable contribution to climate research.

Hansen's team, reporting Thursday in the journal Science, said they also determined that global temperatures will rise one degree Fahrenheit (.555 degree Celsius) this century even if greenhouse gases are capped tomorrow.

If carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping emissions continue to grow instead, as expected, things could spin "out of our control," especially as ocean levels rise from melting Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets, the researchers said. International experts predict a 10-degree leap in Fahrenheit readings (5.55 C) in such a worst-case scenario.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/s/cpress/20050.../global_warming

As you can see, there are two schools of thought on the issue, and while each comes out every day with 'definitive' evidence supporting their claims, its still completely up in the air.

It depresses me to watch the Kyoto Protocol die and people dance on its ashes, while providing no alternative solutions. Talk about speeding out of control, we're screwed w/ that kind of attitude. At least do _something_.

[albertGQ]

Originally posted by Shawnski@May 3 2005, 10:28 AM
Wow, you managed to watch the 23 minute video in three minutes. Good job FDW.

He's like all those city workers.

Off at 5, but home by 3

[Bill Bumface]

Also something interesting to consider is that the ammount of particulates we have released into the atmosphere are actually counteracted the warming expected from the green house gases a bit.

"Life always finds a way"

[RougeUnderoos]

Like someone said, I guess it depends on which experts you believe. I saw a show just last Friday on PBS and the experts were decidedly of a different opinion.

As for that Licia Corbella article... gimme a freaking break. Quoting a Michael Crichton novel as proof? Sheesh. I wonder if she's afraid of a resurrected T-Rex like she is this global warming conspiracy.

Sadly on that other show I saw recently a Senator from Oklahoma held that same book up in, umm, the Senate I guess and said something like "this book has lots of footnotes and it details this global warming hoax".

[Bingo]

I think regardless of what side you sit on when it comes to man's affect, and global warming I think we can all agree that a country shouldn't just rush into ratifying an accord with questionable data driving it.

That was the issue with Chretien. I'm all for protecting the environment even if it does effect industry but you had better make sure ..

a) the data is correct - the study that formed the basis of Kyoto has since been proven to be in error a fact admitted by the authors
b) the giant just south is on board (a great deal of Canadian air pollution is coming across the border)
c) your implemention will result in more than just buying credits from countries that don't need them.

Very messy attempt at "legacy" by our former Prime Minister, especially since Adscam has pretty much wiped out any other memories most will have of the man.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by fotze+May 3 2005, 05:30 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (fotze @ May 3 2005, 05:30 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@May 3 2005, 11:05 AM
Like someone said, I guess it depends on which experts you believe. I saw a show just last Friday on PBS and the experts were decidedly of a different opinion.

As for that Licia Corbella article... gimme a freaking break. Quoting a Michael Crichton novel as proof? Sheesh. I wonder if she's afraid of a resurrected T-Rex like she is this global warming conspiracy.

Sadly on that other show I saw recently a Senator from Oklahoma held that same book up in, umm, the Senate I guess and said something like "this book has lots of footnotes and it details this global warming hoax".

I'm probably at the end of the day against the Kyoto accord because things dreamt up by mainly university academics are usually complete #####e.

But having Licia Corbella defend something is a definite knock against that side immediately. I have twice corrected some brutal math in her columns and have been nice to her about it, but her response is generally fotzelike and who cares if my numbers are wrong. [/b][/quote]
Well, the anti-Kyoto video that started this thread was produced by the U of C, a bunch of academic types who are 'complete #####e', so I assume they're equally debunked, in your eyes.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Bingo@May 3 2005, 05:35 PM
I think regardless of what side you sit on when it comes to man's affect, and global warming I think we can all agree that a country shouldn't just rush into ratifying an accord with questionable data driving it.

That was the issue with Chretien. I'm all for protecting the environment even if it does effect industry but you had better make sure ..

a) the data is correct - the study that formed the basis of Kyoto has since been proven to be in error a fact admitted by the authors
b) the giant just south is on board (a great deal of Canadian air pollution is coming across the border)
c) your implemention will result in more than just buying credits from countries that don't need them.

Very messy attempt at "legacy" by our former Prime Minister, especially since Adscam has pretty much wiped out any other memories most will have of the man.

Fair enough.

But you've got to understand that the 'side' that needs action taken on this issue is probably becoming pretty exasperated, and throwing their weight behind Kyoto for no other reason than 'its something'.

Its got to be gosh darn difficult to get most of the countries in the world on the same page for a plan, and when one comes along, inconsistencies kaibosh it (or might). Kyoto may not be the absolute best way to solve the problem, but I've got a hunch its better than if we did nothing at all.

I'm all for those who believe Kyoto is an economic death-knell to come out with a better, effective resolution (it would help if it was also ratified by a few dozen important countries) to solve this problem. Seeing how hard it was to get Kyoto approved (and, again, it seems its not nearly comprehensively approved), I'm not sure if there will be a better treaty in the next 2-3 years. I haven't heard of any grand summits planned...

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Shawnski@May 3 2005, 04:28 PM
Wow, you managed to watch the 23 minute video in three minutes. Good job FDW.

Somehow I don't think I needed to watch the video to know that there are scientists who disagree. And that's all I stated.

I will watch it.

[Winsor_Pilates]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos@May 3 2005, 10:05 AM
As for that Licia Corbella article... gimme a freaking break. Quoting a Michael Crichton novel as proof? Sheesh. I wonder if she's afraid of a resurrected T-Rex like she is this global warming conspiracy.

Dennis Miller was saying the same thing on his show. Since when did the "fiction" writer Crichton become the world expert on global warming.

Anyways, even though there are split theories on the issue, it seems that they're about 10 to 1 saying that global warming is happening.
Its always possible to find 1 person who will argue something and use that person as you backup.
Personally, I think the environmental experts and people at NASA are probobly more qualified to make these calls than Crichton or anyone from the Calgary Sun.

Another thing that should be considered is the financial aspect of the argument.
I wonder if there would be opposition to Kyoto, if it didn't have a large financial impact. I doubt it.
The fact that many Conservative minded people seem to be the ones dismissing global warming, indicates that most people don't look at it from an objective point of view. They believe the sources that best suit there political and financial agenda.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates@May 3 2005, 10:52 AM
Anyways, even though there are split theories on the issue, it seems that they're about 10 to 1 saying that global warming is happening.
Its always possible to find 1 person who will argue something and use that person as you backup.
Personally, I think the environmental experts and people at NASA are probobly more qualified to make these calls than Crichton or anyone from the Calgary Sun.

Another thing that should be considered is the financial aspect of the argument.
I wonder if there would be opposition to Kyoto, if it didn't have a large financial impact. I doubt it.
The fact that many Conservative minded people seem to be the ones dismissing global warming, indicates that most people don't look at it from an objective point of view. They believe the sources that best suit there political and financial agenda.

10 to 1?

That's somewhat of a stab isn't it? From what I understand the majority may actually be against the global warming theory as it stands though I've seen sources claiming both sides have the numbers.

Bottom line ... it isn't ten to one.

Then you move on to lump those that have some issues with the current science as being conservative, and therefore not objective, and therefore selfish?

Man everything in that paragraph is loaded.

Don't you think that some liberal politicians and voters may have a somewhat subjective view on the environment as well?

Like I said earlier ... I'm not about to claim I know the answer, since I honestly don't (though I doubt you do either). However, shouldn't large nations that plan on spending billions of tax dollars chase down the facts and be sure of these things before taking sides and then stubbornly staying there regardless of new studies that come out?

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Bingo@May 3 2005, 01:21 PM


Like I said earlier ... I'm not about to claim I know the answer, since I honestly don't (though I doubt you do either). However, shouldn't large nations that plan on spending billions of tax dollars chase down the facts and be sure of these things before taking sides and then stubbornly staying there regardless of new studies that come out?

New studies come out all the time that support the theory though so maybe they aren't just picking a position and sticking with it regardless. Could be that they picked a position and it continues to be backed up.

A couple questions I have and that probably shape my judgement are...

What is the motivation for all those people that espouse the global warming theory?

What's in it for them to have cooked up this whole thing?

Every sane person in the world wants the theory to be wrong but it seems to me that the evidence says it's not. Obviously I don't know the truth either and I want the deniers to be right. I'm just worried that they aren't.

global warming is true and we are in for trouble vs. it's false and we'll look back and say "boy we were sure dumb"

I'm a worrier I guess.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Strange double-post Fotze. I've never seen one separated by posts before.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by RougeUnderoos+May 3 2005, 12:41 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (RougeUnderoos @ May 3 2005, 12:41 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Bingo@May 3 2005, 01:21 PM


Like I said earlier ... I'm not about to claim I know the answer, since I honestly don't (though I doubt you do either). However, shouldn't large nations that plan on spending billions of tax dollars chase down the facts and be sure of these things before taking sides and then stubbornly staying there regardless of new studies that come out?

New studies come out all the time that support the theory though so maybe they aren't just picking a position and sticking with it regardless. Could be that they picked a position and it continues to be backed up.

A couple questions I have and that probably shape my judgement are...

What is the motivation for all those people that espouse the global warming theory?

What's in it for them to have cooked up this whole thing?

Every sane person in the world wants the theory to be wrong but it seems to me that the evidence says it's not. Obviously I don't know the truth either and I want the deniers to be right. I'm just worried that they aren't.

global warming is true and we are in for trouble vs. it's false and we'll look back and say "boy we were sure dumb"

I'm a worrier I guess. [/b][/quote]
Ahhh ... but that's my point. New studies come out both ways all the time, so why invest your money in only one side?

That's very bad judgement with that large a sum of money.

What's in it for them to have cooked up this whole thing?

The two that I've heard mentioned ...

1. Grants ... no money in the opposite view. Best way to keep the money coming in is to stay firmly on the global warming side.
2. The look ... how many scientists want to step out and be pro-pollution, a possible spin to someone that questions the current global warming science. Heck even in this string we've seen someone accuse them of being conservatives in pursuit of their own interests.

and a possible third ...

3. tough to admit your wrong. Some pretty big think tanks have made some pretty splashy claims. Tough to go back now.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Bingo@May 3 2005, 08:22 PM
The two that I've heard mentioned ...

1. Grants ... no money in the opposite view. Best way to keep the money coming in is to stay firmly on the global warming side.
2. The look ... how many scientists want to step out and be pro-pollution, a possible spin to someone that questions the current global warming science. Heck even in this string we've seen someone accuse them of being conservatives in pursuit of their own interests.

I find that reasoning more than a little suspect.

There should be a lot of money available from heavily polluting businesses for scientists who can prove that global warming is a myth.

I find it far easier to believe that somebody paid some scientists to try and prove global warming is a myth than the notion that a bunch of scientists are scared to be on the global warming is a myth bandwagon or that there is no funding for it.

And based on what I've heard over the years, the "global warming is a myth" camp is much smaller than the opposite.

Obviously we don't know for sure but I'm far more suspect of the myth group and I think it's only natural to be based on who benefits from the each viewpoint.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by Bingo@May 3 2005, 02:22 PM

[Q]Ahhh ... but that's my point. New studies come out both ways all the time, so why invest your money in only one side?[/Q]

Good point.

[Q]

The two that I've heard mentioned ...

1. Grants ... no money in the opposite view. Best way to keep the money coming in is to stay firmly on the global warming side.
2. The look ... how many scientists want to step out and be pro-pollution, a possible spin to someone that questions the current global warming science. Heck even in this string we've seen someone accuse them of being conservatives in pursuit of their own interests.

and a possible third ...

3. tough to admit your wrong. Some pretty big think tanks have made some pretty splashy claims. Tough to go back now.

[/Q]

The first one only makes sense if the oil business is a flop, which it's not. They've got more money than anyone.

The second one -- fair enough I guess.

As for it being tough to admit you are wrong, gawd I hope that's not a reason. Pretty pathetic if it is. Everybody should want the theory to be wrong. It's much better than the alternative.

[dustygoon]

Originally posted by Winsor_Pilates+May 3 2005, 05:52 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Winsor_Pilates @ May 3 2005, 05:52 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-RougeUnderoos@May 3 2005, 10:05 AM
As for that Licia Corbella article... gimme a freaking break. Quoting a Michael Crichton novel as proof? Sheesh. I wonder if she's afraid of a resurrected T-Rex like she is this global warming conspiracy.

Dennis Miller was saying the same thing on his show. Since when did the "fiction" writer Crichton become the world expert on global warming.

Anyways, even though there are split theories on the issue, it seems that they're about 10 to 1 saying that global warming is happening.
Its always possible to find 1 person who will argue something and use that person as you backup.
Personally, I think the environmental experts and people at NASA are probobly more qualified to make these calls than Crichton or anyone from the Calgary Sun.

Another thing that should be considered is the financial aspect of the argument.
I wonder if there would be opposition to Kyoto, if it didn't have a large financial impact. I doubt it.
The fact that many Conservative minded people seem to be the ones dismissing global warming, indicates that most people don't look at it from an objective point of view. They believe the sources that best suit there political and financial agenda. [/b][/quote]
Of course there is a financial impact. If there wasn't, then everybody would be in favour of Kyoto. What clown doesn't want to improve the environment? The debate on the existance of global warming aside: the distribution of financial burden under this treaty is shinguard. The arguments for allowing India and China to be exempt ignore their rates of growth in polution. Members of Kyoto essentially will be partly financing this fast paced polution growth in emerging economies.