Toronto Sun looks at flawed Kyoto science

[CaptainCrunch]

Look Ag, I know where your coming from on the whole alternative thing, but if Kyoto is mainly there to work the nations that already have some kind of pollution standards in place, while developing nations without any are getting an easy hand then its really not going to work.

The only way that its going to work if the major pollutors like India, china, Pakistan and the Russian Republics are measured up to the same standards as the rest.

It also dosen't work if you can't get the entire planet on board.

Bingo is right, the only way that any environmental cleanup is going to take place is if the first world countries use thier money internally to create a higher standard before we even start to preach to the idias, etc.

Canada has enough internal pollution problems, without taking money that could be spend cleaning that up and sending it to a company that is just going to build more factories to take away the jobs and products from the nations that are cleaning up thier act.

Unfortunately at this time I just can't see a way to do a gobal cleanup. But if Canada and the U.S. and others can create thier own better environments then they can go to these other nations and assist them without killing thier economies in the process.

And like some of the others I really bristle when somebody says to me that because i don't support Kyoto, I must not support environmental cleanup.

I'm all for it, but everyone has to be onboard, and everyone has to live to the same standards.

I'm all for a global environmental agency that takes money into a common pool and spends it where its needed, the money shouldn't go into the hands of individual governments.

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Bingo@May 11 2005, 12:23 PM
including allegations of a program that specifically sought out hockey stick shaped data, amongst other issues....

Splitered Hockey Stick

Thought I'd actually go to the source and evaluate this article's claims.

As you can see in the United Nations' International Panel on Climate Change report, Mann's study was used and relied on, but it was far from the only source of data:

"Taking into account these substantial uncertainties, Mann et al. (1999) concluded that the 1990s were likely to have been the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, of the past millennium for at least the Northern Hemisphere. Jones et al. (1998) came to a similar conclusion from largely independent data and an entirely independent methodology. Crowley and Lowery (2000) reached the similar conclusion that medieval temperatures were no warmer than mid-20th century temperatures. Borehole data (Pollack et al., 1998) independently support this conclusion for the past 500 years..."

From that I'd say that the questions about Mann's work don't blow up the support for climate change the way the article implies.

[Flames89]

Originally posted by Mike F@May 12 2005, 03:54 PM

From that I'd say that the questions about Mann's work don't blow up the support for climate change the way the article implies.

That is what I was trying to say.

This journalist, who is obviously anti-Kyoto, is using the one study's lack of verification to discount the whole global warming theory all together.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Flames89+May 12 2005, 01:17 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Flames89 @ May 12 2005, 01:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Mike F@May 12 2005, 03:54 PM

From that I'd say that the questions about Mann's work don't blow up the support for climate change the way the article implies.

That is what I was trying to say.

This journalist, who is obviously anti-Kyoto, is using the one study's lack of verification to discount the whole global warming theory all together. [/b][/quote]
I think one assume's the writer is anti-Kyoto because he's saying something you may not want to hear.

As a stand alone it certainly holds water as a news story in my mind. And even more so given the Canadian roots to some of the scientists. The hockey stick graph from Mann is certainly the center point of a lot of Kyoto talk, regardless of how many sources they actually have.

If that data is wrong, it's certainly worth looking at, don't you think?

[Mike F]

Originally posted by Bingo+May 12 2005, 01:46 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Bingo @ May 12 2005, 01:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

That is what I was trying to say.

This journalist, who is obviously anti-Kyoto, is using the one study's lack of verification to discount the whole global warming theory all together.

I think one assume's the writer is anti-Kyoto because he's saying something you may not want to hear.

As a stand alone it certainly holds water as a news story in my mind. And even more so given the Canadian roots to some of the scientists. The hockey stick graph from Mann is certainly the center point of a lot of Kyoto talk, regardless of how many sources they actually have.

If that data is wrong, it's certainly worth looking at, don't you think? [/b][/quote]
It may be a news story, but the reporter's conclusion that the hockey stick was splintered, which is what most people are focusing on, is questionable at best.

Even if there are questions about Mann's data, there appear to be other independent studies which found the same thing. The fact that the reporter ignored that indicates that either he/she is anti-Kyoto and had an agenda, or didn't bother to do any research. Neither options lends much credibility to the article.

[RougeUnderoos]

That guy doesn't sound anti-Kyoto to you Bingo? He does to me.

Anyhow...

Previously, scientists and environmental groups touted one scientific theory to justify their claim of global warming -- the so-called "hockey stick" theory developed in 1998 by Prof. Michael Mann of the University of Virginia

This is just nonsense.

[Bingo]

I think it's pretty standard since the article is wrapped around the person he's intereviewed.

The premise of the article is the discovery of issues with Kyoto based on findings from Canadian scientists.

Could have have followed up with the other side? Sure, but how often do we see that kind of balance in any articles for or against any issue these days?

My overall point stands, in my mind, if it's POSSIBLE that there issues. Stop, pull Canada out of it and have a good hard look. I can flush the contents of my wallet down the toilet without Ottawa, I don't need any help.

[HOZ]

Originally posted by Agamemnon+May 12 2005, 03:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Agamemnon @ May 12 2005, 03:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>

What a very closed minded statement!

If a guy needs his leg amputated due to gangrene and a person offers up the solution of using a doublebarrelled shotgun to perform the operation. It hardly takes a rocket scientist to figure out that that is a bad idea and everyone should try and come up with a different idea...even if one is not readily available at the time.

The money that will be thrown away on Kyoto can be put into R&D while we think of a better idea. With maglev technology and such we can already travel faster and cleaner. What we need is to make it economically viable.

I hear you.

A guy has a gangrenous leg, and I'm suggesting a double-barrelled shotgun. Fair enough, I'll accept that analogy. It should be noted that there are no saws, amputation devices, or even other guns around. There's the one shotgun, and the one leg. That's it.

Would it be messy? Sure. It would also save the patient's life. Letting the leg rot and rot until the guy dies, while claiming to be 'looking for other solutions' is bogus.

Where's your solution? What do you have that's better than my 'double-barrelled shotgun'? I think you've got one dead man, of gangrene, because you can't stomach the only current, available option.

Instead of shouting at me to put down the gun, why don't you go get a saw? Maybe you're too close-minded... [/b][/quote]
Simply the choices are

A: the man eventually dies from gangrene while we look for a better solution

B: blow the mans leg off with the shotgun and hope he immediately doesn't die of shock/blood loss

C: Someone comes up with a far better idea before he dies

Since the Earth's situation is nowhere near as dire as our gangrene patient then A and C can be combined.


Kyoto is a shotgun to the body of any economy. The country implementing it will be bled dry. Either paying billions or cutting industry (ie jobs) to meet their "quota"

If Canada was really serious about it, there wouldn't be any Ontario loopholes. And really, if Canada was willing to put in loopholes how many other countries would put in loopholes to give themselves a boost?

Especially when the biggest and soon-to-be biggest economies are not involved!

[shoestring]

Kyoto is so seriously flawed it is unjust to everybody,even your job.

[Coolsurfer79]

Does anyone here have any economic training? I would like to explain this from an economic standpoint but I only have a minor in economics and am a little rusty. If anyone knows better feel free to correct me.

Basically anyone who belives in economics should believe in Kyoto. That is if you believe in standard principles such as supply and demand you should pretty much see Kyoto as the best solution to the ommisions problems. Right now as it stands the costs associated with airborne emmisions are largely borne not by the companies that produce pollution but by society. They gain the benefit of being able to pollute which costs society in the form of a reduced well being. Kyoto isn't a beurocratic attempt to lower emiisions but rather an attempt to put emissions into a free market system. In the creation of the pollution credit system a certain ammount of pollution will be tolerated. Then supply and demand should set an equilibrium price for these credits. A company will then make a cost-benefit analysis to determine whether it is cheaper to buy credits or reduce emmisions.

This is not exactly how Kyoto works but it is a simplified explanation of ideology behind it. As it stands now corporations are pretty much getting a free ride. They are using a resource(the environment), and not paying close to the benefit they recive from that resource. They are free riders.

While I don't claim Kyoto is perfect I would like to add that it was very difficult to achieve and we can be a long way off from any alternative plan. I also think the ideology is pretty sound. Sorry the explantion isn't any better, but this was from a 300 level economics course and I haven't looked at it in a while.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

I think you've described emissions trading well enough - but I wouldn't agree that it's the driver behind Kyoto. In fact I seem to rememeber there was a lot of resistence to including emissions trading in Kyoto for the reasons Rouge pointed out earlier.

You don't need Kyoto to have emissions trading, anymore than you need Kyoto to have emissions reductions.

I don't buy the idea that corporations get a free ride either. That's just deferring responsibility for the environment to nameless faceless corporations rather than taking it for oursleves. Ultimately, we consume what corporations produce.

[Shawnski]

CICERO (Center for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo), founded by the Norwegian government in 1990, is an independent research center associated with the University of Oslo. They published a paper yesterday regarding the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol.

Conclusion
Ever since the climate issue appeared seriously on the political agenda toward the end of the 1980s, focus has been directed at national emissions targets. We fear that this has been a dead end. In any case, we can now state that the Kyoto Protocol will not result in any noteworthy emissions reductions, and it seems unlikely that we will succeed in negotiating a follow-up agreement from 2013.

The Kyoto Protocol - a step in the wrong direction?

Good read.

[Tiger]

I would like to hear everyones opinion on this.

Personally I don't view CO2 as a problem. I believe that the idea behind kyoto is to get people to use less fossil fuel. Most CO2 in the atmosphere is not from us.

In Denmark they increase amounts of CO2 in there greenhouses because plants grow quicker. In the earth's history there have been periods with a lot higher CO2 (and live existed just fine).

My question is why target CO2 and not mention anything about NOX or SOX (whcih lead to acid rain) which causes more environment problems than CO2.

Also since there is always the complant about no other options beside kyoto lets here other people ideas.
There are alot of things that can and should be done
- scrubbers on all factories (can reduce acid rain causing chemicals and CO2 by significant amounts, but lobby groups always prevent this)
- Decrease waste going into the dump (I don't know how, more incentives for recycling, more fees for dumping too much)

what are there some other ideas?

[Resolute 14]

On your last comment about decreasing what goes to the dump, the city of Airdrie has a two bag maximum for garbage pickup. If you want the garbage man to pickup more than two bags a week, you have to go to city hall, buy a permit/sticker and attach it to every bag over the limit. Certantly led to a lot of people in Airdrie recycling more or composting more.

As for the purpose behind Kyoto, I'm pretty sure I've made my opinion on that rather clear. I cannot say that I am at all surprised that people are catching on that Kyoto is worthless on an environmental front.

[Bingo]

Originally posted by Shawnski@May 13 2005, 07:56 AM
CICERO (Center for International Climate and Environmental Research - Oslo), founded by the Norwegian government in 1990, is an independent research center associated with the University of Oslo. They published a paper yesterday regarding the effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol.

Conclusion
Ever since the climate issue appeared seriously on the political agenda toward the end of the 1980s, focus has been directed at national emissions targets. We fear that this has been a dead end. In any case, we can now state that the Kyoto Protocol will not result in any noteworthy emissions reductions, and it seems unlikely that we will succeed in negotiating a follow-up agreement from 2013.

The Kyoto Protocol - a step in the wrong direction?

Good read.

Another group of pro pollutionists hiding behind a fancy science name! :P